00 000
2000
106 th Congress 2nd Session
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Report
106 616
FLOYD D. SPENCE
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 4205
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
May 12, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
64 304
2000
106 th Congress 2nd Session
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Report
106 616
FLOYD D. SPENCE
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
R E P O R T
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON
H.R. 4205
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
May 12, 2000.--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 Carolina
HERBERT H. BATEMAN, Virginia SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah OWEN PICKETT, Virginia
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania LANE EVANS, Illinois
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
STEVE BUYER, Indiana MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts
TILLIE K. FOWLER, Florida ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island
JAMES TALENT, Missouri ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland TOM ALLEN, Maine
HOWARD ``BUCK'' McKEON, California VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma JIM TURNER, Texas
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas ADAM SMITH, Washington
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas
WALTER B. JONES, Jr., North Carolina CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
JIM RYUN, Kansas ROBERT BRADY, Pennsylvania
BOB RILEY, Alabama ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada BARON P. HILL, Indiana
MARY BONO, California MIKE THOMPSON, California
JOSEPH PITTS, Pennsylvania JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
STEVEN KUYKENDALL, California
DONALD SHERWOOD, Pennsylvania
Robert S. Rangel, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
Purpose
2
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations
2
Summary of Authorization in the Bill
2
Summary Table of Authorizations
3
Rationale for the Committee Bill
10
Hearings
17
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
19
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
19
OVERVIEW
19
Aircraft Procurement, Army
22
Overview
22
Items of Special Interest
26
AH 64 modifications
26
Airborne reconnaissance low (ARL)
26
Airborne communications
26
Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)
27
Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) modifications
27
CH 47 Chinook/UH 60 Blackhawk crashworthy fuel tanks
28
Helicopter crashworthy seats
28
TH 67 Creek
28
UH 60 Blackhawk
29
Missile Procurement, Army
29
Overview
29
Items of Special Interest
32
Army tactical missile system (ATACMS) system summary
32
Multipurpose individual munition (MPIM) advance procurement
32
Patriot advanced capability-2 (PAC 2)
32
Patriot anti-cruise missile (PACM)
32
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
33
Overview
33
Items of Special Interest
37
Armored vehicle launch bridge (AVLB) service life extension program
(SLEP)
37
Bradley base sustainment
37
Bradley fighting vehicle system (BFVS) series (modifications)
37
Heavy assault bridge (HAB) system
38
Improved recovery vehicle (IRV)
38
Industrial preparedness
38
M1 Abrams tank modifications
39
M113 carrier modifications
39
M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW)
39
MK19 3 grenade launcher
40
Small arms production industrial base
40
Ammunition Procurement, Army
40
Overview
40
Items of Special Interest
44
Army ammunition procurement
44
Other Procurement, Army
44
Overview
44
Items of Special Interest
54
Army data distribution system (ADDS)
54
Automated data processing equipment (ADPE)
54
Army training modernization
54
Combat support medical
55
Combat training centers instrumentation support
55
Communications equipment system upgrades
56
Construction equipment service life extension program (SLEP)
56
Cranes
57
Deployable universal combat earthmovers (DEUCE)
57
Family of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV)
57
Family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV)
58
High mobility multipurpose-wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)
58
Hydraulic excavator (HYEX)
58
Information system security program (ISSP)
59
Integrated family of test equipment (IFTE)
59
Laundries, showers, and latrines
59
Lightweight maintenance enclosure (LME)
60
M56 smoke generator system
60
M915/M916 line haul truck tractor
60
Night vision devices
60
Nonsystem training devices
61
Reserve component automation system (RCAS)
61
Ribbon bridge
62
Single channel ground and airborne radio systems (SINCGARS) family
62
Small tug
63
Standard integrated command post system (SICPS)
63
Standard teleoperating kit
63
Vibratory self-propelled roller
64
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army
64
Overview
64
Items of Special Interest
66
Chemical agents and munitions destruction
66
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
66
Overview
66
Items of Special Interest
71
Advanced helicopter emergency egress lighting system (ADHEELS)
71
AN/AVR 2A laser detecting set
71
AV 8B
71
C 40A
72
CH 60S
72
2 modifications
72
EA 6B modifications
73
73
F/A 18C/D tactical aircraft moving map capability (TAMMAC)
74
F/A 18E/F
75
HH/UH 1N reclamation and conversion program
75
H 46 modifications
76
H 53 modifications
76
KC 130J
76
T 45 training system (TS)
77
Tactical air reconnaissance pod system (TARPS)-completely digital (CD)
77
UC 35
78
Weapons Procurement, Navy
78
Overview
78
Items of Special Interest
82
Hellfire II missile
82
Improved tactical air-launched decoy (ITALD)
82
Joint standoff weapon (JSOW)
82
Standoff land attack missile-expanded response (SLAM ER)
82
Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps
83
Overview
83
Items of Special Interest
84
Navy ammunition procurement
84
Marine Corps ammunition procurement
84
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
84
Overview
84
Items of Special Interest
89
LHD 8 amphibious assault ship
89
Auxiliary dry cargo ship
89
Submarine force level
89
Submarine refueling overhauls
90
Other Procurement, Navy
91
Overview
91
Items of Special Interest
101
AN/SPS 73 (V) surface search radar
101
Aviation life support
101
Education support equipment
101
High-pressure cleaner
101
Joint tactical terminal
102
Mobile remote emitter simulator (MRES)
102
Nuclear attack submarine (SSN) acoustics
102
Operating forces industrial plant equipment
103
Other training equipment
103
Sonobuoys
103
Undersea warfare support equipment
103
WSN 7B ring laser gyro (RLG)
104
Procurement, Marine Corps
104
Overview
104
Items of Special Interest
109
Command post systems
109
High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)
109
Improved recovery vehicle (IRV)
109
Material handling equipment
110
Modification kits (intelligence)
110
Radio systems
111
Small unit riverine craft (SURC)
111
Training devices
111
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
112
Overview
112
Items of Special Interest
119
A 10 modifications
119
Aircraft navigational and passenger safety equipment
119
C 130 modifications
120
Compass call block 30/35 mission crew simulator (MCS)
120
C 135 modifications
121
C 17
121
C 17 reverse-affiliate units
122
Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP), line 56
122
Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP), line 80
124
124
125
125
126
127
8C joint surveillance and target attack radar system (STARS)
128
Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly (LESPA)
128
Predator
128
T 3A modifications
129
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force
129
Overview
129
Missile Procurement, Air Force
132
Overview
132
Items of Special Interest
136
AGM 65 modifications
136
Medium launch vehicle (MLV)
136
Titan
136
Other Procurement, Air Force
136
Overview
136
Items of Special Interest
142
Automatic data processing equipment (ADPE)
142
AN/FPS 117 radar beacon replacement
142
Eagle vision
142
Rivet joint mission trainer (RJMT)
142
Senior scout
143
Situation awareness data link (SADL) gateway for the theater air
control system (TACS)
143
Supply asset tracking system (SATS)
143
Procurement, Defense-Wide
144
Overview
144
Items of Special Interest
149
Automated document conversion system (ADCS)
149
Counternarcotics discreet operations radio (CONDOR)
149
Patriot advanced capability 3 (PAC 3)
149
Portable intelligence collection and relay capability (PICRC)
149
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense
150
Overview
150
Items of Special Interest
152
Chemical agents and munitions destruction
152
Chemical stockpile disposal project
152
Chemical stockpile emergency preparedness project (CSEPP)
153
Alternative technologies and approaches project
153
Non-stockpile chemical materiel project
153
Chemical agent identification sets
154
Assembled chemical weapons assessment (ACWA)
154
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
155
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
155
Sections 101 107--Authorization of Appropriations
155
Subtitle B--Army Programs
155
Section 111--Multiyear Procurement Authority
155
Section 112--Increase in Limitation on Number of Bunker Defeat
Munitions that May be Acquired
155
Section 113--Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support Initiative
156
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
156
Section 121--Submarine Force Structure
156
Section 122--Virginia Class Submarine Program
156
Section 123--Retention of Configuration of Certain Naval Reserve
Frigates
156
Section 124--Extension of Multiyear Procurement Authority for
Arleigh Burke Class Destroyers
156
Subtitle D--Air Force Programs
157
Section 131--Annual Report on Operational Status of B 2 Bomber
157
Subtitle E--Joint Programs
157
Section 141--Study of Production Alternatives for the Joint Strike
Fighter Program
157
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
158
OVERVIEW
158
Army RDT&E
161
Overview
161
Items of Special Interest
170
Advanced artillery systems
170
Advanced battery technology
170
Aircrew coordination training
171
Apache Longbow focused modernization program
171
Army tactical unmanned aerial vehicles
171
Breacher system
171
Chinook helicopter modification and improvement
172
Comanche
172
Combat identification dismounted soldier (CIDDS)
173
Combustion-driven eye-safe self-powered laser
173
Common ground station
173
Communications and networking technologies
174
Defense manufacturing technology
174
Emergency preparedness training
175
Future combat system
175
Future rotorcraft technologies
176
Guardrail common sensor
177
Helmet mounted infrared sensor development
177
High-energy laser test facility
177
Hypersonic wind tunnels
177
Integrated inertial measurement unit-geo-positioning system
178
Land information warfare activity
178
Medical errors reduction research
178
Mobile tactical high energy laser
179
National automotive center-university innovative research
179
Passive millimeter wave camera
179
Real-time heart rate variability
179
Semi-automated imagery processor
180
Starstreak
180
Surveillance control data link (SCDL)
180
Thermal fluid based combat feeding system
181
Trajectory correctable munitions
181
Volumetrically controlled manufacturing technology
181
Navy RDT&E
182
Overview
182
Items of Special Interest
193
Advanced amphibious assault vehicle
193
Advanced anti-radiation guided missile
193
Advanced deployable system
194
Advanced technology demonstrations and fleet battle experiments
194
Advanced waterjet propulsor
195
Aircraft survivability study
195
Aviation depot maintenance technology
196
Aviation modernization plan
196
Battle force tactical trainer (BFTT)
197
Beartrap
197
C 2 eight-blade composite propeller system
198
Common command and decision system
198
Common towed array
199
Composite advanced sail development
199
CVNX aircraft carrier design product modeling
200
Distributed engineering plant
200
Distributed marine environment forecast system
201
DP 2 thrust vectoring system proof-of-concept demonstration
201
Dry chemical fire suppressant
202
E2 C2 rotordome and control surface improvements
202
Extended range guided munition
202
203
Fielded system obsolescence, technology insertion and technology
refreshment
204
Fleet health technology and occupational lung disease
205
Flight worthy transparent armor system
205
High mobility artillery rocket system (HIMARS)
206
High performance sigma-delta waveform generator
206
Hybrid fiberoptic/wireless communication technology
206
Hybrid light detection and ranging (LIDAR)/radar technology
207
Hyperspectral research
207
Insensitive munitions
207
Integrated aviation life support systems
208
Integrated semiconductor bridge based fuze
208
Intermediate modulus carbon fiber and ultra-high thermal
conductivity graphite fibers
208
Joint forces command operational testbed
209
Joint helmet mounted cueing system
209
Joint tactical combat training system
210
Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly (LESPA)
210
Littoral support fast patrol craft
210
Location of global positioning systems (GPS) jammers
211
Malaria deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) vaccine
211
Manned reconnaissance systems
211
Marine Corps dragon warrior UAV
211
Marine mammal research
212
Maritime technology (MARITECH) program
212
Mobile electronic warfare support system
213
Mobile integrated diagnostic and data analysis system (MIDDAS)
213
Multi-function radar/volume search radar and the Navy's radar roadmap
213
Multipurpose processor
214
Naval space surveillance
215
Navy mine countermeasures program
215
Advanced sensors for mine countermeasures and oceanography
215
AN/AQS 20/X mine hunting sonar
216
Synthetic aperture sonar development for long-term mine
reconnaissance system
216
Naval modeling and simulation
217
New composite materials for aircraft canopies
217
Optical correlation technology for automatic target recognition
218
Optically multiplexed wideband radar beam-forming array
218
P 3 modernization program
218
P 3 special mission squadron sensor upgrade
219
Parametric airborne dipping sonar
219
Power node control centers
220
Project M
220
Radio frequency integration and testing environment
221
Remote precision gun
221
S 3B surveillance system upgrade program
222
Ship service fuel cell program
222
Silicon carbide and gallium nitride semiconductor substrates
222
Single flux quantum electronics
223
SSGN Conversion
223
Submarine sonar dome window
225
Supply chain management and development best practices
225
Surface ship torpedo defense
226
Tactical unmanned aerial vehicles
226
Vacuum electronics
226
Vectored thrust ducted propeller compound helicopter demonstration
227
Virtual test bed for advanced electrical ship systems
228
Air Force RDT&E
228
Overview
228
Items of Special Interest
239
21st century affordable aircraft thrust demonstration project
239
Aging landing gear life extension
239
Airborne laser
239
Airborne reconnaissance systems
240
Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) partnership
241
Air Force science and technology
241
Aerospace propulsion
242
Aircrew laser eye protection
242
Ballistic missile technology
243
Combat identification
243
Composite affordability initiative
243
Low cost launch technology
244
Miniature satellite threat reporting system
244
Specialty aerospace metals
244
Upper atmospheric and astronomical research
245
Advanced message-oriented data security module (AMODSM)
245
B 1B link 16 data link
246
B 2 upgrades
246
B 52 modified miniature receive terminals configuration
247
Defense reconnaissance support program
247
Discoverer II
247
Eagle vision
248
Electronic warfare development
248
Extended range cruise missile (ERCM)
249
Global hawk unmanned aerial vehicle
249
Hyperspectral imagery system
250
Integrated broadcast service
250
Joint ejection seat program
251
Joint strike fighter
252
Military strategic and tactical relay (MILSTAR)
253
Mobile approach control system
254
Multi-link antenna system
254
Satellite control network
255
Small smart munitions
255
Space-based infrared system-high (SBIRS-High)
256
Space-based infrared system-low (SBIRS-Low)
256
Spacelift range system
257
U 2 senior year electro-optic system polarimetry
258
Defense Wide RDT&E
259
Overview
259
Items of Special Interest
268
Advanced sensor applications program
268
Ballistic missile defense (BMD)
268
Advanced technology development
269
Liquid surrogate target
269
National missile defense (NMD)
270
Navy theater wide
271
Russian-American cooperative national missile defense
272
Support technology
272
Wide bandwidth information infrastructure
272
Chemical-biological defense program
273
Chemical and biological defense program initiatives
273
Optical computing device materials for chemical sensors
274
Commercial off-the-shelf-receiver development
274
Competitive sustainment demonstration
275
Complex systems design
275
Computational fluid dynamics and finite element analysis
275
Computer network security
276
CV 22 Osprey radar improvements
276
Defense agency science and technology funding
276
Biological warfare defense
277
Computing systems and communications technology
277
Extensible information systems
278
Nuclear sustainment and counter-proliferation technologies
278
Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive research
278
Facial recognition technology
278
High definition displays for military applications
278
High energy laser research and development
279
Defense-wide high energy laser development
279
Free electron laser
280
Solid state laser
280
Information technology, superiority and assurance
281
Interference with global positioning system
282
MC 130 autonomous landing guidance system
282
Medical free electron laser
283
Microelectromechanical systems sensor development
283
National imagery and mapping agency
283
Requirement for ``designated laboratory''
284
Science and technology affordability initiative
284
Special operations tactical video system
285
Tactical and support aircraft noise reduction
285
Texas regional institute for environmental studies
286
Thermionics for space power systems
286
TRICARE encounter data system
286
Ultra-wideband radar
286
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
287
Overview
287
Items of Special Interest
289
Central test and evaluation investment program
289
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
290
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
290
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations
290
Section 202--Amount for Basic and Applied Research
290
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
290
Section 211--High Energy Laser Programs
290
Section 212--Management of Space-Based Infrared System-Low
291
Section 213--Joint Strike Fighter
291
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense
291
Section 231--Funding for Fiscal Year 2001
291
Section 232--Sense of Congress Concerning Commitment to Deploy
National Missile Defense
291
Section 233--Reports on Ballistic Missile Threat Posed By North Korea
292
Section 234--Plan to Modify Ballistic Missile Defense Architecture
to Cover Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missile Threats
292
Section 235--Designation of Airborne Laser Program as a Program
Element of Ballistic Missile Defense Program
293
Subtitle D--Other Matters
293
Section 241--Recognition of Those Individuals Instrumental to Naval
Research Efforts During the Period from Before World War II Through the
End of the Cold War
293
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
294
OVERVIEW
294
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
324
Budget Request Increases
324
Critical Readiness Accounts
324
Depot maintenance
324
Real property maintenance
324
Miscellaneous unfunded requirements
324
Mobility enhancement funding
325
Training accounts
325
Army Cold Weather Clothing
325
Budget Request Reductions
326
Civilian Personnel Reductions
326
Excess Foreign Currencies Reductions
326
Headquarters Reductions
326
Joint Chiefs of Staff Training Exercises
327
Other Items of Special Interest
327
Accountability of Operation and Maintenance Funding
327
Environmental Issues
327
Fines and Penalties
327
Navy Environmental Leadership Program
328
Intelligence Issues
328
Cryptologic Skills Training
328
Defense Foreign Language Program
328
Distributed Common Ground System
329
Eagle Vision Commercial Imagery
329
Integrated Broadcast Service
330
RC 135 and U 2 Operations and Maintenance
330
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues
330
Armed Forces Recreation Centers
330
Lodging Programs
331
Nonappropriated Fund Support of Official Activities
331
Other Issues
332
Army Apprenticeship Program
332
Army Workload and Performance System
332
Automatic Identification Technology
333
Civilian Air Traffic Controllers
333
Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities
334
Container Freight Station Operations
334
Core Logistics Capabilities
334
Defense Joint Accounting System
335
Defense Personnel Records Imaging System-Electronics Military
Personnel Records System
336
Department of Defense Civilian Personnel
336
Personnel safety
336
Recruiting and retention
337
Financial Policy
337
Local School Renovation and Repair
338
Logistics Support Planning
338
Military Affiliate Radio System
339
National Maintenance Program
340
Naval Audit Service
341
Reserve Component Automation System (RCAS)
341
Spare and Repair Parts
341
Urban Warfare Training
342
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
342
Subtitle A--Authorization Of Appropriations
342
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding
342
Section 302--Working Capital Funds
342
Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home
343
Section 304--Transfer From National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund
343
Subtitle B--Environmental Provisions
343
Section 311--Payment of Fines and Penalties Imposed for
Environmental Violations
343
Section 312--Necessity of Military Low-Level Flight Training to
Protect National Security and Enhance Military Readiness
343
Section 313--Use of Environmental Restoration Accounts to Relocate
Activities from Defense Environmental Restoration Sites
343
Subtitle C--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities
343
Section 321--Use of Appropriated Funds to Cover Operating Expenses
of Commissary Stores
343
Section 322--Adjustment of Sales Prices of Commissary Store Goods
and Services to Cover Certain Expenses
344
Section 323--Use of Surcharges for Construction and Improvement of
Commissary Stores
344
Section 324--Inclusion of Magazines and Other Periodicals as an
Authorized Commissary Merchandise Category
344
Section 325--Use of Most Economical Distribution Method for
Distilled Spirits
345
Section 326--Report on Effects of Availability of Slot Machines on
United States Military Installations Overseas
345
Subtitle D--Performance of Functions by Private-Sector Sources
345
Section 331--Inclusion of Additional Information in Reports to
Congress Required before Conversion of Commercial or Industrial Type
Functions to Contractor Performance
345
Section 332--Limitation Regarding Navy Marine Corps Intranet Contract
345
Subtitle E--Defense Dependents Education
346
Section 341--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that Benefit
Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense
Civilian Employees
346
Section 342--Eligibility Requirements for Attendance at Department
of Defense Domestic Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools
346
Subtitle F--Military Readiness Issues
347
Section 351--Additional Capabilities of, and Reporting Requirements
for, the Readiness Reporting System
347
Section 352--Reporting Requirements Regarding Transfers from
High-Priority Readiness Appropriations
347
Section 353--Department of Defense Strategic Plan to Reduce Backlog
in Maintance and Repair of Defense Facilities
347
Subtitle G--Other Matters
348
Section 361--Authority to Ensure Demilitarization of Significant
Military Equipment Formerly Owned by the Department of Defense
348
Section 362--Annual Report on Public Sale of Certain Military
Equipment Identified on United States Munitions List
348
Section 363--Registration of Certain Information Technology Systems
with Chief Information Officer
349
Section 364--Studies and Reports Required as Precondition to Certain
Manpower Reductions
349
Section 365--National Guard Assistance for Certain Youth and
Chartable Organizations
349
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
352
Subtitle A--Active Forces
352
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces
352
Section 402--Revision in Permanent End Strength Minimum Levels
352
Section 403--Adjustment to End Strength Flexibility Authority
353
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
353
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve
353
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of
the Reserves
353
Section 413--End Strength for Military Technicians (Dual Status)
354
Section 414--Increase in Number of Members in Certain Grades
Authorized to Be on Active Duty in Support of the Reserves
354
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
355
Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations for Military Personnel
355
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
358
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
358
Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Office
358
Department of Defense International Student Program at the Military
Colleges
358
Funding for Recruiting and Retention
359
Homosexual Conduct Briefings
360
Incentives for Overseas Assignments
360
National Guard Military Technician Overtime Pay
361
Uniformed Services Former Spouse Protection Act
361
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
361
Subtitle A--General Personnel Management Authorities
361
Section 501--Authority for Secretary of Defense to Suspend Certain
Personnel Strength Limitations During War or National Emergency
361
Section 502--Authority to Issue Posthumous Commissions in the Case
of Members Dying Before Official Recommendation for Appointment or
Promotion is Approved by Secretary Concerned
362
Section 503--Technical Correction to Retired Grade Rule for Army and
Air Force Officers
362
Section 504--Extension to End of Calendar Year of Expiration Date
for Certain Force Drawdown Transition Authorities
362
Section 505--Clarification of Requirements for Composition of
Active-Duty List Selection Boards When Reserve Officers are Under
Consideration
363
Section 506--Voluntary Separation Incentive
363
Section 507--Congressional Review Period for Assignment of Women to
Duty on Submarines and for Any Proposed Reconfiguration or Design of
Submarines to Accommodate Female Crew Members
363
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Personnel Policy
363
Section 511--Exemption from Active-Duty List for Reserve Officers on
Active Duty for a Period of Three Years or Less
363
Section 512--Exemption of Reserve Component Medical and Dental
Officers from Counting in Grade Strengths
363
Section 513--Continuation of Officers on the Reserve Active Status
List Without Requirement for Application
364
Section 514--Authority to Retain Reserve Component Chaplains and
Officers in Medical Specialties Until Specified Age
364
Section 515--Authority for Temporary Increase in Number of Reserve
Component Personnel Serving on Active Duty or Full-Time National Guard
Duty in Certain Grades
364
Section 516--Authority for Provision of Legal Services to Reserve
Component Members Following Release from Active Duty
364
Section 517--Entitlement to Separation Pay for Reserve Officers
Released from Active Duty Upon Declining Selective Continuation on
Active Duty After Second Failure of Selection for Promotion
364
Section 518--Extension of Involuntary Civil Service Retirement Date
for Certain Reserve Technicians
365
Subtitle C--Education and Training
365
Section 521--College Tuition Assistance Program for Pursuit of
Degrees by Members of the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class Program
365
Section 522--Review of Allocation of Junior Reserve Officers
Training Corps Units Among the Services
365
Section 523--Authority for Naval Postgraduate School to Enroll
Certain Defense Industry Civilians in Specified Programs Relating to
Defense Product Development
366
Subtitle D--Decorations, Awards, and Commendations
366
Section 531--Authority for Award of the Medal of Honor to Andrew J.
Smith for Valor during the Civil War
366
Section 532--Authority for Award of the Medal of Honor to Ed W.
Freeman for Valor during the Vietnam Conflict
366
Section 533--Consideration of Proposals for Posthumous or Honorary
Promotions or Appointments of Members or Former Members of the Armed
Forces and Other Qualified Persons
366
Section 534--Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of Navy
Distinguished Flying Cross to Certain Persons
367
Section 535--Addition of Certain Information to Markers on Graves
Containing Remains of Certain Unknowns from the U.S.S. ARIZONA Who Died
in the Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941
367
Section 536--Sense of Congress Regarding Final Crew of U.S.S.
INDIANAPOLIS
367
Section 537--Posthumous Advancement of Rear Admiral (Retired)
Husband E. Kimmel and Major General (Retired) Walter C. Short on Retired
Lists
367
Section 538--Commendation of Citizens of Remy, France, for World War
II Actions
367
Subtitle E--Military Justice Matters
368
Section 541--Recognition by States of Military Testamentary Instruments
368
Section 542--Probable Cause Required for Entry of Names of Subjects
into Official Criminal Investigative Reports
368
Section 543--Collection and Use of DNA Identification Information
from Violent and Sexual Offenders in the Armed Forces
368
Section 544--Limitation on Secretarial Authority to Grant Clemency
for Military Prisoners Serving Sentence of Confinement for Life Without
Eligibility for Parole
368
Section 545--Authority for Civilian Special Agents of Military
Department Criminal Investigative Organizations to Execute Warrants and
Make Arrests
369
Subtitle F--Other Matters
369
Section 551--Funeral Honors Duty Compensation
369
Section 552--Test of Ability of Reserve Component Intelligence Units
and Personnel to Meet Current and Emerging Defense Intelligence Needs
369
Section 553--National Guard Challenge Program
369
Section 554--Study of Use of Civilian Contractor Pilots for
Operational Support Missions
370
Section 555--Pilot Program to Enhance Military Recruiting by
Improving Military Awareness of School Counselors and Educators
370
Section 556--Reimbursement for Expenses Incurred by Members in
Connection with Cancellation of Leave on Short Notice
370
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
371
OVERVIEW
371
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
372
Briefings on Benefits of Military Service
372
Extension of Time Limitation on Use of Reserve Education Benefits
373
Improved Basic Allowance for Housing
373
Military Pay Day Every 14 Days
373
Pay Table Reform for Mid-Grade Enlisted Members
374
Reimbursement for Reservists' Travel Expenses
374
Reimbursement of Permanent Change of Station Expenses
374
Retired Pay Following Reduction in Grade
375
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
375
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
375
Section 601--Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2001
375
Section 602--Revised Method for Calculation of Basic Allowance for
Subsistence
375
Section 603--Family Subsistence Supplemental Allowance for
Low-Income Members of the Armed Forces
375
Section 604--Calculation of Basic Allowance for Housing for Inside
the United States
376
Section 605--Equitable Treatment of Junior Enlisted Members in
Computation of Basic Allowance for Housing
376
Section 606--Basic Allowance for Housing Authorized for Additional
Members Without Dependents Who Are on Sea Duty
376
Section 607--Personal Money Allowance for Senior Enlisted Members of
the Armed Forces
376
Section 608--Allowance for Officers for Purchase of Required
Uniforms and Equipment
377
Section 609--Increase in Monthly Subsistence Allowance for Members
of Precommissioning Programs
377
Section 610--Additional Amount Available for Fiscal Year 2001
Increase in Basic Allowance for Housing Inside the United States
377
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
377
Section 611--Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay
Authorities for Reserve Forces
377
Section 612--Extension of Certain Bonuses and Special Pay
Authorities for Nurse Officer Candidates, Registered Nurses and Nurse
Anesthetists
378
Section 613--Extension of Authorities Relating to Payment of Other
Bonuses and Special Pays
378
Section 614--Consistency of Authorities for Special Pay for Reserve
Medical and Dental Officers
378
Section 615--Special Pay for Coast Guard Physician Assistants
378
Section 616--Special Duty Assignment Pay for Enlisted Members
378
Section 617--Revision of Career Sea Pay
378
Section 618--Revision of Enlistment Bonus Authority
379
Section 619--Authorization of Retention Bonus for Members of the
Armed Forces Qualified in a Critical Military Skill
379
Section 620--Elimination of Required Congressional Notification
before Implementation of Certain Special Pay Authority
379
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances
379
Section 631--Advance Payments for Temporary Lodging of Members and
Dependents
379
Section 632--Additional Transportation Allowance Regarding Baggage
and Household Effects
379
Section 633--Equitable Dislocation Allowances for Junior Enlisted
Members
379
Section 634--Authority to Reimburse Military Recruiters, Senior ROTC
Cadre, and Military Entrance Processing Personnel for Certain Parking
Expenses
379
Section 635--Expansion of Funded Student Travel for Dependents
380
Subtitle D--Retirement and Survivor Benefit Matters
380
Section 641--Increase in Maximum Number of Reserve Retirement Points
That May be Credited in Any Year
380
Section 642--Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan Spousal Consent
Requirement
380
Subtitle E--Other Matters
380
Section 651--Participation in Thrift Savings Plan
380
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
381
OVERVIEW
381
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
382
Funding for the Defense Health Program
382
Preventive Health Care Services
383
Report on Computer-Based Patient Record and Medical Records Tracking
System
383
Report on Mandatory Enrollment Program for TRICARE Beneficaries
384
Subtitle A--Health Care Services
384
Section 701--Two-Year Extension of Authority for Use of Contract
Physicians at Military Entrance Processing Stations and Elsewhere
Outside Medical Treatment Facilities
384
Section 702--Medical and Dental Care for Medal of Honor Recipients
384
Section 703--Provision of Domiciliary and Custodial Care for CHAMPUS
Beneficiaries and Certain Former CHAMPUS Beneficiaries
385
Section 704--Demonstration Project for Expanded Access to Mental
Health Counselors
385
Section 705--Teleradiology Demonstration Project
385
Subtitle B--TRICARE Program
386
Section 711--Additional Beneficiaries Under TRICARE Prime Remote
Program in the Continental United States
386
Section 712--Elimination of Copayments for Immediate Family
386
Section 713--Modernization of TRICARE Business Practices and
Increased Use of Military Treatment Facilities
386
Section 714--Claims Processing Improvements
387
Section 715--Prohibition Against Requirement for Prior Authorization
for Certain Referrals; Report on Nonavailability-of-Health-Care
Statements
388
Section 716--Authority to Establish Special Locality-Based
Reimbursement Rates; Reports
388
Section 717--Reimbursement for Certain Travel Expenses
388
Section 718--Reduction of Catastrophic Cap
388
Section 719--Report on Protections Against Health Care Providers
Seeking Direct Reimbursement from Members of the Uniformed Services
389
Section 720--Disenrollment Process for TRICARE Retiree Dental Program
389
Subtitle C--Health Care Programs for Medicare-Eligible Department of
Defense Beneficiaries
389
Section 721--Implementation of TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program
389
Section 722--Study on Health Care Options for Medicare-Eligible
Military Retirees
390
Section 723--Extended Coverage Under Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program
390
Section 724--Extension of TRICARE Senior Supplement Program
391
Section 725--Extension of TRICARE Senior Prime Demonstration Project
391
Subtitle D--Other Matters
391
Section 731--Training in Health Care Management and Administration
391
Section 732--Study of Accrual Financing for Health Care for Military
Retirees
391
Section 733--Tracking Patient Safety in Military Medical Treatment
Facilities
391
Section 734--Pharmaceutical Identification Technology
392
Section 735--Management of Vaccine Immunization Program
392
Section 736--Study on Feasibility of Sharing Biomedical Research
Facility
392
Section 738--VA/DOD Sharing Agreements for Health Services
393
TITLE VIII--ACQUISTION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
394
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
394
Procurement of Military Clothing and Clothing-Related Items by
Military Installations in the United States
394
Compliance with Applicable Labor Laws in Procurement of Military
Clothing
394
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
394
Section 801--Extension of Authority for Department of Defense
Acquisition Pilot Programs; Reports Required
394
Section 802--Technical Data Rights for Items Developed Exclusively
at Private Expense
395
Section 803--Management of Acquisition of Mission-Essential Software
for Major Defense Acquisition Programs
395
Section 804--Extension of Waiver Period for Live-Fire Survivability
Testing for MH 47E and MH 60K Helicopter Modification Programs
395
Section 805--Three-Year Extension of Authority of Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency to Carry Out Certain Prototype Projects
395
Section 806--Certification of Major Automated Information Systems as
to Compliance with Clinger-Cohen Act
396
Section 807--Limitations on Procurement of Certain Items
396
Section 808--Multiyear Services Contracts
396
Section 809--Study on Impact of Foreign Sourcing of Systems on
Long-Term Military Readiness and Related Industrial Infrastructure
396
Section 810--Prohibition Against Use of Department of Defense Funds
to Give or Withhold a Preference to a Marketer or Vendor of Firearms or
Ammunition
397
Section 811--Study and Report on Practice of Contract Bundling in
Military Construction Contracts
397
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANGEMENT
398
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
398
Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs
398
Management Headquarters
399
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
399
Section 901--Change of Title of Certain Positions in the
Headquarters, Marine Corps
399
Section 902--Further Reductions in Defense Acquisition and Support
Workforce
399
Section 903--Clarification of Scope of Inspector General Authorities
under Military Whistleblower Law
400
Section 904--Report on Number of Personnel Assigned to Legislative
Liaison Functions
400
Section 905--Joint Report on Establishment of National Collaborative
Information Analysis Capability
400
Section 906--Organization and Management of Civil Air Patrol
401
Section 907--Report on Network Centric Warfare
401
Section 908--Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation
402
Section 909--Department of Defense Regional Centers for Security Studies
403
Section 910--Change in Name of Armed Forces Staff College to Joint
Forces Staff College
403
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
404
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
404
Counter-Drug Activities
404
Overview
404
Funding
405
Items of Special Interest
405
Air National Guard fighter operations
405
Coastal Patrol equipment procurement
406
Operation Caper Focus
406
Puerto Rico ROTHR security
406
Southwest border fence
406
OTHER MATTERS
406
Quadrennial Defense Review
406
Department of Defense Personnel Security Investigation Requirements
Priorities
407
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
408
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
408
Section 1001--Transfer Authority
408
Section 1002--Incorporation of Classified Annex
408
Section 1003--Authorization of Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
for Fiscal Year 2000
408
Department of Defense
408
Department of Energy
409
Section 1004--Contingent Repeal of Certain Provisions Shifting
Certain Outlays from One Fiscal Year to Another
409
Section 1005--Limitation on Funds for Bosnia and Kosovo Peacekeeping
Operations for Fiscal Year 2001
409
Subtitle B--Naval Vessels and Shipyards
410
Section 1011--National Defense Features Program
410
Subtitle C--Counter-Drug Activities
410
Section 1021--Report on Department of Defense Expenditures to
Support Foreign Counter-Drug Activities
410
Section 1022--Report on Tethered Aerostat Radar System
410
Subtitle D--Other Matters
411
Section 1031--Funds for Administrative Expenses Under Defense Export
Loan Guarantee Program
411
Section 1032--Technical and Clerical Amendments
411
Section 1033--Transfer of Vietnam Era TA 4 Aircraft to Nonprofit
Foundation
411
Section 1034--Transfer of 19th Century Cannon to Museum
411
Section 1035--Expenditures for Declassification Activities
411
Section 1036--Authority to Provide Loan Guarantees to Improve
Domestic Preparedness to Combat Cyberterrorism
412
Section 1037--V 22 Cockpit Aircraft Voice and Flight Data Recorders
413
TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
414
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
414
Section 1101--Employment and Compensation Provisions for Employees
of Temporary Organizations Established by Law or Executive Order
414
Section 1102--Restructuring the Restriction on Degree Training
414
Section 1103--Continuation of Tuition Reimbursement and Training for
Certain Acquisition Personnel
414
Section 1104--Extension of Authority for Civilian Employees of the
Department of Defense to Participate Voluntarily in Reductions in Force
414
Section 1105--Expansion of Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel
System Positions
415
Section 1106--Pilot Program for Reengineering the Equal Employment
Opportunity Complaint Process
415
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS
416
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
416
Arms Control Implementation
416
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
416
Section 1201--Support of United Nations-Sponsored Efforts to Inspect
and Monitor Iraqi Weapons Activities
416
Section 1202--Annual Report Assessing Effect of Continued Operations
in the Balkans Region on Readiness to Execute the National Military
Strategy
417
Section 1203--Situation in the Balkans
417
Section 1204--Limitation on Number of Military Personnel in Colombia
419
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER
SOVIET UNION
420
OVERVIEW
420
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
421
Arms Elimination Projects in Russia
421
Arms Elimination Projects in Ukraine
422
Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention in Russia
422
Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia
424
Defense and Military Contacts
426
Elimination of Plutonium Production in Russia
426
Fissile Material Processing and Packaging
427
Fissile Material Storage Facility
427
Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia
428
Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security
428
Other Assessments and Administrative Support
429
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
429
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs
and Funds
429
Section 1302--Funding Allocations
430
Section 1303--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Elimination of
Conventional Weapons
430
Section 1304--Limitations on Use of Funds for Fissile Material
Storage Facility
430
Section 1305--Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission of
Multiyear Plan
430
Section 1306--Russian Nonstrategic Nuclear Arms
430
Section 1307--Limitation on Use of Funds to Support Warhead
Dismantlement Processing
430
Section 1308--Agreement on Nuclear Weapons Storage Sites
430
Section 1309--Prohibition on Use of Funds for Construction of Fossil
Fuel Energy Plants
430
Section 1310--Audits of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs
430
Section 1311--Limitation on Use of Funds for Prevention of
Biological Weapons Proliferation in Russia
431
TITLE XIV--COMMISSION TO ASSESS THE THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES FROM
ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (EMP) ATTACK
432
OVERVIEW
432
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
433
Section 1401--Establishment of Commission
433
Section 1402--Duties of Commission
433
Section 1403--Report
433
Section 1404--Powers
433
Section 1405--Commission Procedures
433
Section 1406--Personnel Members
433
Section 1407--Miscellaneous Administrative Provisions
433
Section 1408--Funding
433
Section 1409--Termination of the Commission
433
TITLE XV--PROVISIONS REGARDING VIEQUES ISLAND, PUERTO RICO
434
OVERVIEW
434
Section 1501--Conditions on Disposal of Naval Ammunition Support
Detachment, Vieques Island
435
Section 1502--Retention of Eastern Portion of Vieques Island
436
Section 1503--Limitations on Military Use of Vieques Island
436
Section 1504--Economic Assistance for Residents of Vieques Island
436
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
437
PURPOSE
437
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW
437
TITLE XXI--ARMY
455
SUMMARY
455
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
455
Condition of Barracks to Support Basic Training
455
Improvements to Military Family Housing
455
Planning and Design
456
Unspecified Minor Construction
456
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
456
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition Projects
456
Section 2102--Family Housing
456
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
456
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army
456
Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 1999 Project
456
TITLE XXII--NAVY
457
SUMMARY
457
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
457
Acquisition of Prepositioned Equipment Maintenance Facilities,
Blount Island, Jacksonville, Florida
457
Improvements to Military Family Housing
457
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
457
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition Projects
457
Section 2202--Family Housing
458
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
458
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy
458
Section 2205--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Fiscal Year
1997 Project at Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico,
Virginia
458
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE
459
SUMMARY
459
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
459
Rome Research Site, New York
459
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
459
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
459
Section 2302--Family Housing
459
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
460
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force
460
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
461
SUMMARY
461
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
461
Forward Operating Locations in Support of Counter-Drug and Drug
Interdiction Activities
461
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
461
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
461
Section 2402--Authorization Of Appropriations, Defense Agencies
461
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE
462
SUMMARY
462
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
462
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition Projects
462
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO
462
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
463
SUMMARY
463
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
463
Planning and Design, Army National Guard
463
Planning and Design, Army Reserve
463
Unspecified Minor Construction, Army Reserve
463
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
463
Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
463
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS
464
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
464
Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to
be Specified by Law
464
Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year
1998 Projects
464
Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year
1997 Projects
464
Section 2704--Effective Date
464
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
465
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
465
Military Housing Privatization Initiative
465
Water Quality Issues Affecting Military Installations in the Area of
Kaiserslautern, Germany
465
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
465
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes
465
Section 2801--Revision of Limitations on Space by Pay Grade
465
Section 2802--Leasing of Military Family Housing, United States
Southern Command, Miami, Florida
466
Section 2803--Alternative Authority for Acquisition and Improvement
of Military Housing
466
Section 2804--Expansion of Definition of Armory to Include Readiness
Centers
466
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
466
Section 2811--Increase in Threshold for Notice and Wait Requirements
for Real Property Transactions
466
Section 2812--Enhancement of Authority of Military Departments to
Lease Non-Excess Property
466
Section 2813--Conveyance Authority Regarding Utility Systems of
Military Departments
466
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances Generally
467
Part I--Army Conveyances
467
Section 2831--Transfer of Jurisdiction, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois
467
Section 2832--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Galesburg, Illinois
467
Section 2833--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Center, Winona, Minnesota
467
Section 2834--Land Conveyance, Fort Polk, Louisiana
467
Section 2835--Land Conveyance, Fort Pickett, Virginia
467
Section 2836--Land Conveyance, Fort Dix, New Jersey
467
Section 2837--Land Conveyance, Nike Site 43, Elrama, Pennsylvania
468
Section 2838--Land Exchange, Fort Hood, Texas
468
Section 2839--Land Conveyance, Charles Melvin Price Support Center,
Illinois
468
Section 2840--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Local Training Center,
Chattanooga, Tennessee
468
Part II--Navy Conveyances
468
Section 2851--Modification of Authority for Oxnard Harbor District,
Port Hueneme, California, to Use Certain Navy Property
468
Section 2852--Modification of Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air
Station, El Toro, California
469
Section 2853--Transfer of Jurisdiction, Marine Corps Air Station,
Miramar, California
469
Section 2854--Lease of Property, Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar,
California
469
Section 2855--Lease of Property, Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida
469
Section 2856--Land Exchange, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego,
California
470
Section 2857--Land Exchange, Naval Air Reserve Center, Columbus, Ohio
470
Section 2858--Land Conveyance, Naval Reserve Center, Tampa, Florida
470
Part III--Air Force Conveyances
470
Section 2861--Land Conveyance, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio
470
Section 2862--Land Conveyance, Point Arena Air Force Station, California
471
Section 2863--Land Conveyance, Los Angeles Air Force Base, California
471
Part IV--Other Conveyances
471
Section 2871--Conveyance of Army and Air Force Exchange Service
Property, Farmers Branch, Texas
471
Subtitle D--Other Matters
471
Section 2881--Retention of Easement Authority to Leased Parkland,
Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California
471
Section 2882--Extension of Demonstration Project for Purchase of
Fire, Security, Police, Public Works, and Utility Services from Local
Government Agencies
472
Section 2883--Establishment of World War II Memorial on Guam
472
Section 2884--Naming of the Army Missile Testing Range at Kwajalein
Atoll as the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Defense Test Site at Kwajalein
Atoll
472
Section 2885--Designation of Building at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, in
Honor of Andrew T. McNamara
472
Section 2886--Redesignation of the Balboa Naval Hospital, San Diego,
California, in Honor of Bob Wilson, a Former Member of the House of
Representatives
472
Section 2887--Sense of Congress Regarding Importance of Expansion of
National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California
472
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATION AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
473
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
473
OVERVIEW
473
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
492
Overview
492
Items of Special Interest
492
Acceleration of the 94 1 program and restoration of infrastructure
at the Savannah River Site
492
Energy Employees Compensation Initiative
492
Hanford tank waste remediation system privatization, phase I
494
Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility
494
Nonproliferation and national security
495
Worker and community transition
495
National Nuclear Security Administration
496
Items of Special Interest
496
Budget Structure of the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) Campaigns
496
Advanced Design and Production Technology (ADAPT)
497
Advanced radiography
497
Defense computing and modeling
498
Laser development
500
Pit manufacturing readiness
501
Tritium readiness
502
Construction projects
502
Defense programs requirements process
502
Department of Energy Reorganization Issues
503
Directed stockpile work
505
Stockpile evaluation
505
Stockpile maintenance
505
Program direction for defense programs
506
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)
506
Operations of facilities
507
Special projects
507
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
508
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations
508
Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration
508
Section 3102--Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management
508
Section 3103--Other Defense Activities
508
Section 3104--Defense Facilities Closure Projects
508
Section 3105--Defense Environmental Management Privatization
508
Section 3106--Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal
508
Subtitle B--Recurring General Provisions
508
Section 3121--Reprogramming
508
Section 3122--Limits on General Plant Projects
508
Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects
508
Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority
509
Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction Design
509
Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design and
Construction Activities
509
Section 3127--Availability of Funds
509
Section 3128--Authority Relating to Transfer of Defense
Environmental Management Funds
509
Section 3131--Funding for Termination Costs for Tank Waste
Remediation System Environmental Project, Richland, Washington
509
Section 3132--Enhanced Cooperation Between National Nuclear Security
Administration and Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
510
Section 3133--Required Contents of Future-Years Nuclear Security
Program to be Submitted with Fiscal Year 2002 Budget and Limitation on
Obligation of Certain Funds Pending Submission of that Program
510
Section 3134--Limitation on Obligation of Certain Funds
510
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
511
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
511
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
511
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
511
Section 3201--Authorization
511
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
512
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
512
Section 3301--Authorized Uses of Stockpile Funds
512
Section 3302--Use of Excess Titanium Sponge in the National Defense
Stockpile to Manufacture Department of Defense Equipment
512
TITLE XXXIV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
513
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
513
Merchant Marine Academy
513
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
513
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2001
513
Section 3402--Extension of Period For Disposal of Obsolete Vessels
From the National Reserve Fleet
513
Section 3403--Authority to Convey National Defense Reserve Fleet
Vessel, GLACIER
513
Departmental Data
514
Department of Defense Authorization Request
514
Military Construction Authorization Request
515
Committee Position
515
Communications From Other Committees
515
Fiscal Data
521
Congressional Budget Office Estimate
521
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
521
Committee Cost Estimate
542
Oversight Findings
542
Constitutional Authority Statement
542
Statement of Federal Mandates
542
Roll Call Votes
542
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
551
Additional Views
690
Additional views of John M. Spratt, Jr
690
Additional views of Steven T. Kuykendall
694
Additional views of Baron P. Hill
695
Additional views of Joseph R. Pitts, John M. Spratt, Jr
697
Additional views of Robert A. Underwood, Neil Abercrombie, Solomon P.
Ortiz, Thomas H. Allen, Silvestre Reyes
698
Additional views of Loretta Sanchez, Lane Evans, Neil Abercrombie,
Patrick J. Kennedy, Thomas H. Allen, Adam Smith, Ellen O. Tauscher,
Robert E. Andrews, Mike Thompson
700
Additional views of Loretta Sanchez, Neil Abercrombie, Ike Skelton,
Robert A. Underwood, Patrick J. Kennedy, Robert A. Brady
701
106 th Congress
Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session
106 616
FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
May 12, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. Spence , from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
REPORT
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4205]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.
4205) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military
activities of the Department of Defense and for military construction,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2001, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
The MDBUamendment strikes out all after the enacting clause of the
bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the reported
bill.
The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text
of the bill.
EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute
during the consideration of H.R. 4205. The title of the bill is amended
to reflect the amendment to the text of the bill. The remainder of the
report discusses the bill, as amended.
PURPOSE
The bill would--(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for
procurement and for research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E);
(2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for operation and
maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3) Authorize for
fiscal year 2001: (a) the personnel strength for each active duty
component of the military departments; (b) the personnel strength for
the Selected Reserve for each reserve component of the armed forces; (c)
the military training student loads for each of the active and reserve
components of the military departments; (4) Modify various elements of
compensation for military personnel and impose certain requirements and
limitations on personnel actions in the defense establishment; (5)
Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for military construction
and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001
for the Department of Energy national security programs; (7) Modify
provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (8) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for the Maritime Administration.
RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS
The bill does not generally provide budget authority. The bill
authorizes appropriations. Subsequent appropriation acts provide budget
authority. The bill addresses the following categories in the Department
of Defense budget: procurement; research, development, test and
evaluation; operation and maintenance; working capital funds, military
personnel; and military construction and family housing. The bill also
addresses Department of Energy National Security Programs and the
Maritime Administration.
Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in this bill
and legislation affecting compensation for military personnel determine
the remaining appropriation requirements of the Department of Defense.
However, this bill does not provide authorization of specific dollar
amounts for personnel.
SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL
The President requested budget authority of $305.3 billion for the
national defense budget function for fiscal year 2001. Of this amount,
the President requested $291.0 billion for the Department of Defense
(including $8.0 billion for military construction and family housing)
and $13.1 billion for Department of Energy national security programs
and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
The committee recommends an overall level of $309.9 billion in budget
authority. This amount is consistent with the discretionary defense
spending limitations imposed by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and it
represents an increase of approximately $21.1 billion from the amount
authorized for appropriation by the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106 65). Overall, the committee's
recommendation is consistent with the amounts established in the
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2001 for the
national defense budget function.
SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS
The following table provides a summary of the amounts requested and
that would be authorized for appropriation in the bill (in the column
labeled ``Budget Authority Implication of Committee Recommendation'')
and the committee's estimate of how the committee's recommendations
relate to the budget totals for the national defense function. For
purposes of estimating the budget authority implications of committee
action, the table reflects the numbers contained in the President's
budget for proposals not in the committee's legislative jurisdiction.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 is the
first defense authorization bill prepared for the new millennium. It
reflects the committee's view of, and commitment to, the policies,
programs, and priorities required to maintain U.S. military preeminence
in the 21st century.
The committee bill authorizes $309.9 billion for defense during
fiscal year 2001--an addition of $4.5 billion to the Administration's
defense budget request. Although this bill continues the trend of adding
to the Administration's defense budget request, the committee remains
troubled by the mismatch between requirements, forces, and resources
that continues to exist and will remain, even with the increases
contained in this bill.
In the committee's view, the public debate over the adequacy of U.S.
defense funding has turned an important corner. In recent years, efforts
to increase defense have encountered skepticism and outright opposition
by an Administration that came into office believing that defense could
be reduced substantially without risk to the national security. The end
of the Cold War was accompanied by annual real decreases in defense
spending, as the ``peace dividend'' was applied to other priorities.
There now appears to be a general consensus that U.S. defense spending
has fallen too far too fast. These real decreases have resulted in
significant problems in readiness, equipment modernization, and quality
of life for U.S. service personnel, and a significant overall decline in
U.S. military capability. This year, the committee has again sought to
address the most critical shortfalls in these areas by increasing
funding above the Administration's budget request.
MDBU U.S. STRATEGY FOR THE NEW MILLENNIUM
U.S. military strategy continues to be guided by the tenets outlined
in the 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). The QDR, building upon its
predecessor, the 1993 Bottom-Up Review, postulated that the sizing and
composition of U.S. military forces should be based on the requirement
to fight two nearly simultaneous major theater wars. While the committee
believes that the two major theater war standard has been a realistic
and useful planning tool, the QDR was a budget-driven exercise, rather
than a strategy-driven one. Even so, the defense resources historically
requested by the Administration have never been adequate to execute the
strategy without accepting a greater than prudent level of risk.
Testifying before the committee on October 21, 1999, the Air Force,
Navy, and Marine Corps service chiefs each stated that they lacked the
capabilities required of a true ``two major theater war'' military
force. Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki declared that the Army
could execute the two major theater war strategy only with ``high
risk.'' In subsequent testimony on February 10, 2000, General Shinseki
stated, ``You measure that risk in national treasure, lives, and
expended dollars.'' Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger told
the committee on February 8, 2000, ``The simple reality today is that we
cannot fight two MRCs [major regional contingencies] more or less
simultaneously.'' Even former Secretary of Defense William Perry, who
oversaw the Clinton Administration's early defense efforts, testified
before the committee, ``We do not have a capability of fighting two
[major theater wars] at the same time. For one thing, we do not have
enough airlift and sealift to go to two places at once.''
The next Administration will have an ability, through the QDR
process, to place its imprint on the strategy that will guide the level
and composition of U.S. military forces in the new millennium. The
committee expects that the next QDR, due out in September 2001, will be
strategy-based and not budget constrained. The committee has long
believed that the level of resources necessary for defense must flow
from an assessment of U.S. strategy, existing and emerging threats, and
the force levels required to deal with those threats. Under this
Administration, the reverse has been true. Anticipated budget levels
have driven the sizing and composition of U.S. forces and the strategy
that can be implemented with those force levels. This approach stands
sound national security planning on its head.
The committee's approach again this year has been guided by an effort
to develop a defense budget that is more responsive to the post-Cold War
threats faced by the United States and commensurate with America's
global responsibilities--and, in so doing, to ensure that U.S. forces
can successfully execute their missions at the lowest possible level of
risk.
MDBU MAINTAINING AMERICA'S MILITARY PREEMINENCE
In its Phase I report last fall on the emerging global security
environment, the United States Commission on National Security/21st
Century reported that the United States can expect to confront a variety
of new and asymmetric threats in the next several decades that will pose
significant challenges to U.S. security. These threats include the
spread of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction,
information warfare, terrorism, and the use by other states of space for
military purposes. According to the commission, ``threats to American
security will be more diffuse, harder to anticipate, and more difficult
to neutralize than ever before. Deterrence will not work as it once did;
in many cases it may not work at all.''
In its Phase II report, issued in April 2000, the commission
concluded, ``The maintenance of America's strength is a long-term
commitment and cannot be assured without conscious, dedicated effort.''
This places a premium on ensuring that America's armed forces are
sufficiently resourced, manned, and equipped, to successfully confront
emerging threats. This fundamental principle has guided the committee's
approach to the defense budget for the past six years. The committee
agrees with the commission's conclusion that without a sustained defense
effort, the United States ``will find its power reduced, its interests
challenged even more than they are today, and its influence eroded.''
Secretary Schlesinger echoed this point in testimony before the
committee on February 8, 2000, when he stated, ``The United States
simply cannot continue to play the global leadership role envisioned by
the current national security strategy without a substantial increase in
defense spending.MDBU . . . We are resting on our laurels as the sole
superpower,'' he stated, and warned that without sustained increases in
defense, ``we are likely to see a train wreck.''
Unfortunately, in the past year, additional strains have been imposed
on the U.S. military, as the armed forces continue to be asked to do
more with less. This reality has again called into question the armed
forces' ability to carry out the national military strategy postulated
in the QDR. One year ago, U.S. forces led NATO's Operation Allied Force
campaign against Yugoslavia. For the Air Force, this operation was the
equivalent of a major theater war. The 78MDBU-day military campaign
exposed serious strains within the U.S. military, illuminating problems
that have resulted from underfunding and over-extending the military. It
also led to the second major peacekeeping operation involving U.S.
forces in the Balkans in five years. Like the peacekeeping mission in
Bosnia, the NATO-led Kosovo peacekeeping operation is of indefinite
duration and threatens to involve the United States in an ever-deepening
quagmire. The requirements of peacekeeping pose significant burdens on
U.S. forces that detract from their primary warfighting mission. As a
result, readiness has declined, equipment has been severely strained,
and quality of life has suffered.
The committee recognizes that the United States has global interests
and responsibilities. However, the increasing use of the armed forces
for humanitarian and civil support missions abroad diminishes the
military's capacity to respond to a significant conflict or crisis. The
U.S. armed forces were employed overseas more times in the past decade
than in the previous 45 years. Since 1989, the Army has participated in
35 major deployments, including a significant number of peacekeeping
missions. During the same period, the Army, including its Reserve
Components, reduced its force structure by more than 34 percent.
Continued high operating tempos risk bending the force to the breaking
point. The employment of U.S. military forces should be selective and
based on a pragmatic calculation of the risks and benefits to U.S.
national security. In establishing the funding priorities in this year's
bill, the committee is again guided by this fundamental principle.
MDBU THE ADMINISTRATION'S DEFENSE BUDGET REQUEST
The President's defense budget request for fiscal year 2001 reflects
the first significant real increase in defense funding in a decade and,
unlike in previous years, does not appear to be premised on questionable
economic assumptions, assumed savings, and outlay gimmicks. In
submitting its proposed budget, the Administration appears to recognize
that quality of life, readiness, and modernization shortfalls are real,
that they have real-world implications, and that increased defense
spending is necessary. However, as Secretary of Defense William Cohen
testified before the committee on February 9, 2000, ``One budgetary
year, one submission or two submissions of real growth increase does not
a military make. It's going to take sustained commitment over the
years.''
Unfortunately, despite the increases proposed by the President this
year, serious mismatches between strategy, forces, and resources
continue to exist. Over the past eight years, the Administration's
cumulative defense budget requests have fallen more than $300 billion
short of even covering the costs of inflation relative to the fiscal
year 1993 defense spending levels it inherited--spending levels that
already reflected significant cutbacks resulting from President Bush's
post-Cold War downsizing of the U.S. military.
Although U.S. military strategy remains essentially unchanged from
that articulated in the QDR, the committee believes that the
Administration's current and planned levels of defense funding are
insufficient to carry out that strategy. The committee believes that the
United States will need to invest significantly more resources in order
to maintain even current military capabilities. As Secretary Schlesinger
testified before the committee on February 8, 2000, ``We cannot maintain
the present force structure and reequip the forces on the present budget
levels or the prospective budget levels. . . . The simple reality is
that we cannot sustain those forces. This is not a matter of opinion. It
is a matter of simple arithmetic. . . .'' The committee has sought
repeatedly to provide additional resources for defense that would
address the most serious deficiencies that exist.
Despite significant congressional increases to the defense budget
last year, the service chiefs testified before the committee in October
1999 to having at least $9 billion in critical unfunded requirements in
fiscal year 2000, excluding the unbudgeted costs of Kosovo operations.
Few, if any, of these shortfalls were addressed in the fiscal year 2000
supplemental submitted with the budget request. This led the House to
support a significant increase to the Administration's supplemental
request. In testimony before the committee earlier this year, the
service chiefs identified nearly $16 billion in unfunded military
requirements. Since last year, their five-year estimate of shortfalls
has increased from $38 billion to $84 billion. As General Eric Shinseki,
Army Chief of Staff, testified, ``there is still a mismatch between the
resources we have and the requirements we may face.''
In a recent report, the Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS) concluded, ``A substantial defense strategy-resources
mismatch MDBU. MDBU. MDBU. already exists. It is profound. It has been
ongoing for some time and will take years to overcome. It is reaching
crisis proportions and requires immediate attention.'' With this in
mind, the committee has sought to address in this year's budget the most
serious aspects of this mismatch as they relate to readiness,
modernization, and quality of life.
MDBU RESTORING READINESS
Restoring military readiness is a key priority for the committee, as
U.S. military readiness is essential to securing America's future as the
world's sole superpower. In recent years, readiness has suffered as a
result of high operations tempo resulting from the high pace of
unscheduled contingency deployments around the world.
Historically, the Administration has sought to pay for these
deployments by raiding critical readiness accounts. In addition,
near-term readiness has been purchased at the expense of future
modernization. Admiral Jay Johnson, Chief of Navy Operations, told the
committee in October 1999 that ``fiscal constraints force us too often
to choose between near-term readiness and future modernization and
recapitalization.'' General James Jones, Commandant of the Marine Corps,
stated, ``We have sacrificed our procurement accounts to assist in
meeting the growing costs of keeping our aging equipment and weapons
MDBU`ready.'''
Unfortunately, the Administration's fiscal year 2001 defense budget
request contains few if any increases to readiness accounts and falls
well short of addressing the serious readiness problems that exist.
Moreover, current budget projections indicate that funding for critical
readiness needs will decline next year. Existing readiness problems
include a shortage of spare parts, aging equipment, decaying
infrastructure, growing equipment and facilities' backlogs, insufficient
training, and personnel shortages. According to Air Force Chief of Staff
General Michael Ryan, the overall combat readiness of the Air Force has
declined by 26 percent since 1996.
The committee finds this situation troubling, particularly in light
of the fact that the Administration has at long last acknowledged that
serious readiness shortfalls exist. In testifying on the fiscal year
2001 budget request on February 9, 2000, General Henry Shelton, Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, acknowledged that even recent funding
increases ``will not guarantee the levels of readiness needed to
significantly reduce risk in executing the National Military Strategy.''
Over the past five years, the Congress has added more than $7 billion
to the Administration's budget requests to fund day-to-day operations,
training, equipment and facility maintenance, and spare parts. The
committee bill continues this trend by adding significant additional
resources for critical readiness priorities.
MDBU EQUIPPING THE FORCE
For the United States to remain the world's preeminent military
power, additional investment in the development and procurement of
modern technology and equipment is essential. Our men and women in
uniform cannot be expected to fight and win the nation's wars in the
21st century solely with equipment developed and acquired in the 20th
century.
Although this year's budget request increases funding for research,
development, testing, and evaluation for the first time in five years,
important shortfalls remain in these critical accounts. In particular,
additional efforts are required in the area of national and theater
missile defenses. The committee budget reflects the committee's
historically strong support for the development of technologies that
could be deployed to protect the American homeland from the real and
growing threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles and the
weapons of mass destruction they carry.
The Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2001 meets, for
the first time, the Administration's own target of providing $60 billion
for the procurement of equipment essential to a modern military.
However, this goal was attained through the use of innovative
accounting, such as including submarine overhaul funds in the
procurement accounts for the first time.
Despite meeting this milestone, the committee is troubled by the fact
that the $60.3 billion request is $1.5 billion below what the
Administration projected the request would be one year ago. This is
difficult to comprehend in an overall defense budget characterized by
real spending growth.
The committee notes that the military of 2000 is continuing to live
off the equipment investment decisions made almost two decades earlier.
The defense build-up that occurred under President Reagan has served the
nation well. However, the force that resulted from this build-up is
precisely the one being worn out as a result of extensive operational
deployments and inadequate resourcing. As Secretary Schlesinger told the
committee, the U.S. military continues to live off and wear out the
``capital'' of the late Cold War.
During its examination of the Administration's budget request, the
committee heard testimony from a variety of witnesses, including former
Department of Defense officials, who testified that the Administration's
procurement budget was insufficient to modernize and equip the current
QDR force well into the 21st century. The CSIS report estimated that
``DOD procurement budgets will need to average $164 billion annually''
over the next 10 years ``to provide for steady and continued
modernization and replacement of the QDR force.MDBU . . .'' Other
estimates have suggested that the current procurement budget is
underfunded by $25 billion to $50 billion. Former Deputy Secretary of
Defense John Hamre, in Senate testimony, stated, ``Even though we got to
$60 billion in our modernization budget, we're still not really making
up for the hole that we dug for ourselves during . . . the second half
of the '80s and the MDBU'90s.'' Even Secretary Perry testified before
the committee that procurement is underfunded. ``My own judgment is it
probably needs to be perhaps $70 to $80 billion,'' he declared.
Over the past five years, the committee has added nearly $18 billion
to the Administration's procurement budget requests and this bill adds
another $2.0 billion to the procurement accounts largely to meet the
most critical unfunded modernization requirements identified by the
service chiefs.
MDBU KEEPING FAITH MDBUWITH OUR MILITARY PERSONNEL
Ensuring a decent quality of life for military personnel and their
families remains central to the committee's efforts to revitalize the
all-volunteer U.S. armed forces. America's military is only as good as
the people who serve in it. Recruiting and retaining top-notch personnel
remains a key committee priority in this year's bill.
In recent years, each of the military services has encountered
difficulty in recruiting and retaining qualified personnel. With this in
mind, the committee bill makes a series of improvements to the pay,
allowances, benefits, and living conditions of American military
personnel that significantly enhance the quality of life for them and
their families. The committee's actions follow up on last year's
initiatives taken by the Congress with respect to pay raises, pay table
reform, military retirement benefits, basic allowance for housing,
special pay and retention bonuses, and the military Thrift Savings Plan.
In particular, the committee bill removes the barriers to an
effective military healthcare system by restoring access to prescription
drug benefits for Medicare-eligible retirees, reduces out-of-pocket
costs for service personnel participating in the TRICARE Prime and
TRICARE Prime Remote programs, and expands the coverage provided under
this program to family members. Moreover, the bill allows TRICARE
reimbursements to be tailored to local area costs and allows
reimbursement for travel expenses incurred resulting from long-distance
referrals for medical care. The committee bill also makes a number of
management initiatives that are expected to save the Defense Health
Program over $500 million, which can be reinvested in benefits, instead
of being squandered on administration. The committee's actions will
result in improved access, portability of benefit, and increased savings
to U.S. service personnel for medical care.
In short, the committee bill fulfills the promise to make continued
improvements in compensation and health care programs begun in last
year's National Defense Authorization Act. In addition, the committee
bill includes a provision to eliminate the statutory requirement that
service members pay for 15 percent of housing costs from their own
pockets, and to authorize the Secretary of Defense to increase the basic
allowance for housing rates while reducing out-of-pocket housing
expenses for military members to zero by fiscal year 2005.
Military healthcare, morale, welfare, and recreation programs, as
well as the quality of facilities in which military personnel live and
work, also have a tangible effect on service members, their families,
and career decisions. Unfortunately, the Administration's budget request
significantly underfunds military construction and healthcare
improvements. The committee bill goes a long way toward improving the
quality of life for U.S. military personnel and their families.
MDBU THE COMMITTEE BILL: INVESTING FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Over the past five years, the Congress has added nearly $50 billion
to the Administration's proposed defense budgets. These increases were
necessary, but not sufficient. They have helped stop the hemorrhaging of
America's defenses, but restoring U.S. military capability to that
required by U.S. commitments and national interests requires more. While
the committee recognizes that additional defense investments are
required, there is no question that U.S. national security would be
worse off had the committee and the Congress not acted in a responsible
manner to address the military's most pressing problems.
Modernizing and maintaining today's military forces, following on the
heels of a decade of real decline in defense budgets, will require the
kind of sustained commitment and investment in the years ahead that took
place in the early 1980s. Some may argue that the nation cannot afford
such an investment. In the committee's view, what the nation cannot
afford is another decade, like the last, of declining defense budgets
and shrinking military forces if the United States is to remain a
superpower able to promote and protect its global interests.
It is with this reality in mind that the committee has crafted a
defense budget designed to provide our service personnel with the best
tools our country can produce to enable them to defend our nation's
people, interests, and values. The committee bill represents the minimum
funding necessary to accomplish that goal. Although a greater level of
investment in America's security will be necessary over the coming years
if the nation is to be secure from the range of threats it will likely
confront, this bill is a necessary first step toward ensuring that
America's military can meet the challenges that lie ahead, and ensure
the safety and security of all Americans, well into the new millennium.
HEARINGS
Committee consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 results from extensive hearings that began on February
9, 2000 and that were completed on March 23, 2000. The full committee
conducted 6 sessions. In addition, a total of 27 sessions were conducted
by five different subcommittees and two panels of the committee on
various titles of the bill. MDBU
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
MDBU TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
MDBU OVERVIEW
In October 1995, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff first
advised the Secretary of Defense that in order to recapitalize the U.S.
armed forces after a decade of ever-decreasing defense procurement
budgets, $60 billion would be required annually and should be achieved
by fiscal year 1998. Over four years after this pronouncement and three
years after its subsequent endorsement by the 1997 Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR), the fiscal year 2001 budget request finally reached that
level, although it is $1.5 billion below what was forecast at the time
the fiscal year 2000 budget was submitted to the Congress one year
agoMDBU--the sixth consecutive year in which this situation has
occurred. Consequently, it is not surprising that the service chiefs
continue to lament that many of their modernization needs are going
unmet. What is surprising is the fact that, notwithstanding these unmet
needs, the future years defense program similarly forecasts reductions
to the procurement budgets in fiscal years 2004 and 2005 from those made
a year ago while, at the same time, prominent former Department of
Defense (DOD) leaders in the current Administration advocate large
increases to these budgets.
For example, former Secretary of Defense, William Perry, testified
before the committee earlier this year that, ``Procurement proposed to
you in this budget is $60 billion in round figures. My own judgment is
it probably needs to be perhaps $70 to $80 billion MDBU. MDBU. MDBU.''
Also, in testimony before the Defense Subcommittee of the Senate
Appropriations Committee just prior to his resignation in March, former
Deputy Secretary of Defense, John Hamre, noted, ``Even though we got to
$60 billion in our modernization budget, we're still not really making
up for the hole that we dug for ourselves during the '90s. . . .
actually the second half of the '80s and the '90s. And we're going to
have to do a better job later on. This is where people said, MDBU`Well
what will it cost to do that?' I don't believe it's $100 billion a year
to do that, but I think it's in the $10 billion to $15 billion more a
year for procurement in order to start getting out of that hole.''
Having added nearly $18 billion to the procurement budget requests of
the past five years, the committee obviously shares the views of the two
former senior DOD officials. However, during most of this period the
committee has found itself to be seriously hampered in advocating a
dramatically larger modernization budget by a lack of support from the
DOD civilian leadership--including those individuals who now have
testified that, indeed, increased procurement funding is required.
Consequently, it has been unable to sustain the healthy $5 to $6 billion
adds to the procurement accounts that it made in fiscal years 1996 and
1997. Nevertheless, fiscal year 2001 marks the sixth consecutive year
the committee has increased the President's procurement budget, and the
$2.6 billion added has again been largely devoted to funding equipment
for which, according to the service chiefs, requirements have not been
met.
The committee continues to strongly believe that the resources
provided to the Department to carry out its national security strategy
of preparing to win two nearly simultaneous major theater wars is
inadequate. If this strategy remains intact following the fiscal year
2001 QDR, then it is imperative that the next Administration provide
adequate resources to modernize our armed forces from the outset and
sustain these resources for as long as required. As stated by former
Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger in his testimony to the committee
this year, ``The United States simply cannot continue to play the global
leadership role envisioned by the current national security strategy
without a substantial increase in defense spending.MDBU .MDBU .MDBU
.MDBU We cannot maintain the present force structure and reequip the
forces on the present budget levels or the prospective budget levels.''
[Graphic Image Not Available]
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $1,323.3 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Army for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,542.8 million for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for those
programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified,
adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability
considerations.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
AH 64 modifications
The budget request contained $18.5 million for AH 64 modifications
but included no funds to continue procurement of the oil debris
detection system (ODDS) or the vibration management enhancement program
(VMEP).
The ODDS is an on-board detection system that alerts aircrews to the
presence of metal chips in engines and propeller gear boxes, which
allows flights to be terminated prior to catastrophic failure of
critical components. The system also permits the clearing of smaller
particles that routinely accumulate in engine oil and cause false
impending engine failure alarms resulting in unnecessary termination of
aircraft missions and costly engine diagnostics.
The VMEP is an Army National Guard (ARNG) effort currently directed
toward resolving vibration management problems on the ARNG's AH 64
Apache fleet, but the committee understands the technology is also
applicable to the UH 60 Blackhawk. The committee continues to support
the VMEP because of its belief that such on-board diagnostic
capabilities contribute significantly to both aircrew safety and
improved aircraft reliability.
Since the ODDS, which has been successfully integrated into other
Department of Defense aircraft, both reduces aircraft maintenance costs
and enhances aircrew safety, the committee recommends an increase of
$5.0 million to incorporate the ODDS on AH 64 Apaches. The committee
also recommends an increase of $7.0 million to continue procurement of
VMEP systems for the ARNG Apache fleet and to transition this technology
to the Blackhawk.
In total, the committee recommends $30.5 million for AH 64
modifications, an increase of $12.0 million.
Airborne reconnaissance low (ARL)
The budget request contained no funds to procure ARL aircraft. The
ARL supports intelligence collection requirements for forward-deployed
force projection, operations other-than-war, and mid-intensity
conflicts.
The committee understands that the final ARL aircraft validated by
the Joint Requirements Oversight Council remains unfunded and is
required to replace the less capable ARL-imagery intelligence (I)
aircraft lost in South America in 1999. The ARL M possesses integrated
imagery intelligence, communications intelligence, a moving target
indicator and synthetic aperture radar; consequently, it offers a
broader intelligence collection capability than the ARL I aircraft.
The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has identified a
$31.0 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 for this
replacement aircraft. In support of this requirement, the committee
recommends $31.0 million for one ARL M replacement aircraft.
Airborne communications
The budget request contained no funds to continue procurement of the
AN/ARC 220 aviation high frequency radios, which provide secure voice
and data communications capability between Army helicopters flying
nap-of-the-earth missions and beyond-line-of-sight aviation tactical
operations centers.
The committee notes that the Task Force Hawk after action report
identified the lack of such capability in AH 64 Apache attack
helicopters as a major deficiency for conducting long-range strike
missions. The committee understands that the budget request will result
in a break in the production line. The committee further notes that the
Army Chief of Staff has identified a $31.8 million unfunded requirement
in fiscal year 2001 for AH 64 Apache and OH 58D Kiowa Warrior helicopter
radios.
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $31.8 million
to ensure the fielding of radios for both AH 64 Apache attack
helicopters and OH 58D Kiowa Warriors and to prevent a production line
break.
Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)
The budget request contained no funds for the procurement of ASE.
The Aircraft Survivability Equipment Trainer (ASET) IV is a
ground-based, mobile aviation threat emitter simulation and training
system which enables both fixed and rotary wing aviators to recognize
surface-to-air-missile (SAM) and anti-aircraft artillery threats in
order to employ the correct aircraft evasive maneuvers. ASET IV systems
are currently fielded at major training centers throughout the United
States and Germany and require that an aircraft have a fully operational
ASE suite of sensors on board for training.
Congress added $7.4 million in fiscal year 1998, $6.4 million in
fiscal year 1999, and $12.5 million in fiscal year 2000 for ASET IV
upgrades and notes that the necessity of this training device was a
subject of discussion in the Task Force Hawk After Action Report.
However, additional validated requirements exist and several systems in
their present configuration still lack the capability to simulate the
most current infrared (IR) and SAM threats, thereby limiting aircrew
training. The committee believes this situation is inconsistent with the
Army's ``train as you fight'' concept.MDBU
Consistent with its past actions, and based on the Army's requirement
for forces to train in realistic threat environments, the committee
recommends an increase of $8.0 million for upgrading ASET IV systems
with current IR SAM threat simulators.
Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) modifications
The budget request contained $4.5 million to procure ASE
modifications but included no funds for AN/AVR 2A laser detecting sets
(LDS). The LDS is the only device in the Army capable of providing
warning to helicopter crews when they have been illuminated by a
laser-targeted weapon. It detects, identifies, and characterizes threats
360-degrees-around and plus-or-minus 45 degrees above-and-below an
aircraft.
The committee continues to be concerned with the growing laser threat
to helicopter aircrews and notes the limited fielding of this system to
force package one
aircraft only. The committee also notes the identification by
the Army Chief of Staff of an unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001
to complete LDS ``A'' kit installation on AH 64A Apaches, AH 64D Apache
Longbows, and MH 47D/E and MH 60K/L Special Operations Aircraft as well
as to prevent a production line break.
Based on a growing laser threat to Army attack and special operations
aircraft and its desire to extend fielding of this system beyond force
package one units, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million
for procurement of AN/AVR 2A LDS A kits.
CH 47 Chinook/UH 60 Blackhawk crashworthy fuel tanks
The budget request contained $117.1 million for modifications to CH
47 Chinooks and $3.0 million for modifications to UH 60 Blackhawks but
included no funds for the procurement of CH 47 internal crashworthy fuel
tanks or UH 60 external crashworthy fuel tanks for Army National Guard
(ARNG) units.
The committee understands that both the UH 60's external fuel tanks
and the CH 47's internal fuel tanks are subject to rupture in the event
of a crash, posing a safety risk to flight crews and passengers. Since
current battlefield flight scenarios require these helicopters to fly
long-range missions into hostile environments, the committee believes
that extended range, crashworthy fuel tanks are critical to the safety
and survivability of these aircraft.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to
continue upgrading ARNG CH 47s with internal crashworthy fuel tanks and
$9.0 million to begin procurement of external crashworthy fuel tanks for
ARNG UH 60s.
Helicopter crashworthy seats
The committee is concerned about improving the safety performance of
Army helicopter seats. While existing pilot and the co-pilot seats offer
some protection in the event of a hard impact in a crash, passenger and
troop seats offer minimal or no protection from the acceleration forces
created by such a crash, resulting in fatalities and serious injury of
soldiers.
Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the Department of the
Army to include funds in its fiscal year 2002 budget request for the UH
60 Blackhawk and CH 47 Chinook helicopters to begin procurement of
passenger and troop compartment crashworthy seats, which can provide
protection for a majority of expected survivable crashes.
TH 67 Creek
The budget request contained no funds to procure TH 67 Creek training
helicopters.
The committee notes that a shortfall in visual flight, instrument
flight, and basic combat skills training helicopters will occur with the
anticipated retirement of Vietnam-era UH 1 and OH 58 A/C aircraft as
outlined in the draft fiscal year 2000 Army Aviation Modernization Plan.
The committee understands that the Army does not intend to replace these
retiring aircraft due to affordability concerns. However, the committee
also notes that the Army Chief of Staff has identified a $35.0 million
unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 for 27 TH 67s.
Based on the need to replace the aging Huey and OH 58 A/C fleet as
soon as possible and the need to provide quality training for Army
aviators, the committee recommends an increase of $24.0 million for 19
TH 67 helicopters.
UH 60 Blackhawk
The budget request contained $64.7 million for the procurement of six
UH 60L Blackhawk utility helicopters for the Army National Guard (ARNG)
but included no funds for UH 60Q enhanced medical evacuation (MEDEVAC)
helicopters or Firehawk conversion kits for the ARNG. The Blackhawk is
the Army's primary utility helicopter for air assault, general support
and aero medical evacuation missions.
The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has identified a
$196.0 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 for the
procurement of 20 additional Blackhawks for the ARNG in recognition of a
shortfall that has persisted for a number of years in ARNG units. The
committee also notes that the UH 60Q MEDEVAC helicopter is the number
one near-term medical modernization program for the Army and provides
enhanced medical evacuation and treatment of six litter or seven
ambulatory patients in a state-of-the-art medical treatment cabin
interior. Finally, the committee notes that the Firehawk conversion kit,
which enables a UH 60 to carry up to 1000 gallons of water in the under
fuselage tank and fully refill via a snorkel system in approximately one
minute after dropping its payload on a fire, greatly enhances the ARNG's
ability to support forest firefighting requirements.
Consistent with its actions in prior fiscal years, the committee
recommends an increase of $27.9 million to procure three additional UH
60L Blackhawks and $40.2 million to procure three UH 60Q MEDEVAC
variants. The committee also recommends $3.0 million to procure two
Firehawk conversion kits for the ARNG.
In total, the committee recommends $135.8 million for the UH 60
helicopter, an increase of $71.1 million.
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $1,295.7 million for Missile
Procurement, Army for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,367.7 million for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for those
programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified,
adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability
considerations.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Army tactical missile system (ATACMS) system summary
The budget request contained $15.0 million for ATAMCS Block IA
missile production support costs, but included no funds to procure
ATACMS Block IV missiles. The ATACMS is a surface-to-surface, global
positioning system-guided missile for deep-strike attacks against
tactical surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missile sites, logistics
elements, and command, control, communications complexes.
The committee is aware of the ATACMS Block IV upgrade that will
incorporate Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response warheads into
51 ATACMS Block IA missiles. This warhead upgrade is designed to limit
collateral damage when used against targets in urban environments and is
a direct outgrowth of the Army's inability to conduct deep strike
missions against such targets with its existing ATACMS missile inventory
during Operation Allied Force.
The committee believes that the Army should have the capability to
provide joint force commanders with a surface-to-surface deep strike
option, which produces limited collateral damage in urban environments.
Therefore, the committee recommends $10.0 million to upgrade 51 ATACMS
Block IA missiles to Block IV configuration.
Multipurpose individual munition (MPIM) advance procurement
The budget request contained $3.5 million for advance procurement of
the MPIM. Subsequent to the submission of the budget request to
Congress, Army program officials identified additional alternate warhead
research, development, test and evaluation work required to develop
further the lethality of the MPIM and reduce its weight. Accordingly,
the committee recommends a transfer of the $3.5 million requested for
MPIM advance procurement to PE 64802A for this purpose.
Patriot advanced capability-2 (PAC 2)
The budget request contained $22.9 million for Patriot missile
modifications.
The committee is aware that certain variants of the PAC 2 missile
have recently experienced unexpectedly high rates of failure in certain
components. Although reductions in unit readiness have not yet occured,
the committee believes that repair and upgrade of these missiles is
needed to assure that PAC 2 inventories remain sufficiently robust to
meet validated requirements. The committee understands that acceleration
of this process by one year will help meet this objective, provide for
earlier fielding of a guidance-enhanced missile with improved ballistic
and cruise missile defense capabilities, and generate significant cost
savings.
Therefore, the committee recommends $88.4 million for Patriot
modifications, and increase of $65.5 million.
Patriot anti-cruise missile (PACM)
The budget request contained no funds for PACM procurement.
The PACM program has developed a new seeker that would provide older
Patriot missiles with anti-cruise missile capabilities. The statement of
managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 1401 (H.
Rept.106-162) required the Secretary of Defense to use the Defense
Science Board (DSB) to assess PACM capabilities and the opportunity
costs of PACM acquisition. The committee notes that the final DSB report
indicates that between $100 and $125 million of research and development
funding are needed to complete PACM design, resolve parts obsolescence,
prepare facilities for production, integrate PACM with Patriot ground
elements, and complete ground and flight testing. The DSB also indicated
that the cost to upgrade PAC 2 airframes to the PACM configuration is
about $1.0 million per missile. The committee believes that, even if
ground- and flight-testing needed to make an informed judgment on the
technical merits of the missile were complete, the costs identified by
the DSB would still be prohibitive. For these reasons, the committee
recommends no funds for PACM procurement, as requested.
WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $1,874.6 million for procurement of Army
weapons and tracked combat vehicles for fiscal year 2001. The committee
recommends authorization of $2,167.9 million for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for those
programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified,
adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability
considerations.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Armored vehicle launch bridge (AVLB) service life extension
program (SLEP)
The budget request contained $15.3 million to conduct a SLEP of AVLB
vehicles. As a result of the cancellation of the Wolverine Heavy Assault
Bridge (HAB), a SLEP for the 36-year old, 60-ton military load class
(MLC) AVLB is now a priority for the Army. The SLEP will upgrade the
AVLB to a 70-ton MLC bridge, which will enable both the Abrams tank and
Hercules Improved Recovery Vehicles to safely cross expanses at full
span.
The committee notes the importance of this system and recognizes that
a number of these vehicles will remain in the Army inventory after the
fielding of the Wolverine HAB. The committee further notes its continued
support for the Wolverine HAB, which is discussed elsewhere in this
report. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.3 million
for the AVLB SLEP.
Bradley base sustainment
The budget request contained $359.4 million for the procurement of
Bradley A3 fighting vehicle upgrades, of which $6.1 million was included
for fielding Army National Guard (ARNG) A2 Operation Desert Storm (ODS)
variants.
The Bradley A2ODS is derived from upgrading the first-generation
Bradley A0's lethality, survivability, and mobility, as well as the
situational awareness of its crew. Modifications include installation of
a laser range finder, Global Positioning System navigation capability, a
combat identification system, a driver's thermal viewer, and a missile
countermeasure device.
When the Army completes all of its planned upgrades to the Bradley,
the active fleet will include a mix of the most advanced A3 variant,
along with A2 and A2ODS versions. The majority of the ARNG's Bradley
fleet, however, will remain unmodified and comprised mainly of
first-generation A0 vehicles, which were not mobilized during the
Persian Gulf War because of major survivability deficiencies. However,
as part of the new ARNG enhanced brigades, the committee notes that some
of these A0 vehicles will be required to deploy with active Army forces.
Because ARNG enhanced brigades will comprise an increasing percentage
of the Army's warfighting capability as a result of active force
reductions, the committee recommends $440.7 million, an increase of
$81.3 million, for upgrading an additional 65 Bradley A0 vehicles to the
A2ODS variant for the ARNG.
Bradley fighting vehicle system (BFVS) series (modifications)
The budget request contained $37.1 million to procure modification
kits for the BFVS but included no funds to procure AN/VVR 1 laser
warning receivers (LWR). The AN/VVR 1 LWR provides warning to armored
vehicle crews when a threat laser used to direct a laser-guided weapon
to its target has illuminated them.
Because the committee is aware of the proliferation of laser-guided
weapons and the increasing threat they pose to armored vehicles, it
recommends an increase of $20.0 million to procure additional AN/VVR-1
LWRs for the protection of high value warfighting assets.
Heavy assault bridge (HAB) system
The budget request contained no funds to continue procurement of the
HAB.
The HAB is a 70-ton military load-class bridge transported on a
modified M1A2 Abrams system enhancement program (SEP) tank chassis. The
system is capable of spanning gaps up to 79 feet, can be deployed in 5
minutes, and can be retrieved from either end in less than 10 minutes.
The committee is concerned by the Secretary of the Army's termination
of this program, especially after having provided a $14.0 million
increase for HAB advance procurement in fiscal year 2000, as well as
having authorized a combined M1A2 SEP/HAB multiyear procurement
contract. The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has
identified the HAB as the Army's top unfunded modernization requirement
in fiscal year 2001.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $59.2 million
for 12 vehicles and $13.1 million in advance procurement for fiscal year
2002 to maintain HAB production.
Improved recovery vehicle (IRV)
The budget request contained $68.4 million to procure IRVs but
included no funds for the procurement of IRVs for the Army Reserve.
The 56-ton M88A1 is capable of towing only vehicles weighing less
than 60 tons. Consequently, two M88A1s are required to safely tow an
Abrams tank if it is rendered immobile due to combat damage or
mechanical failure. The M88A2 IRV upgrade includes increased engine
horsepower, as well as braking, steering, winch, lift, and suspension
capabilities required to safely recover Abrams tanks and other heavy
combat systems. MDBU
The committee understands that the Army Reserve has a shortfall of
three companies of IRVs in force package one reserve units. Accordingly,
the committee recommends $76.7 million, an increase of $8.3 million, for
additional M88A2 IRV upgrades for the Army Reserve.
Industrial preparedness
The budget request contained $3.6 million for storage and maintenance
of laid away equipment and facilities at Hawthorne Army Depot and Rock
Island and Watervliet Arsenals, but included no funds for expanding the
Armament Retooling and Support (ARMS) Initiative to include the
manufacturing arsenals.
The committee recommends a provision (sec. 113) that would expand the
ARMS Initiative to attract commercial tenants to these arsenals. The
committee believes that collocating such tenants with existing
ammunition plants has helped maintain both facilities and perishable
industrial skills of the ammunition production workforce with minimal
expenditure of public funds and that a similar effort to offset the
underutilization of the manufacturing arsenals would be equally
beneficial.
Therefore, the committee recommends $15.6 million, an increase of
$12.0 million to expand the ARMS initiative to include the manufacturing
arsenals.
M1 Abrams tank modifications
The budget request contained $36.1 million for M1 Abrams tank
modifications but included no funds for the procurement of M1A2 Abrams
System Enhancement Program (SEP) tank under armor auxiliary power units
(UAAPU).
The UAAPU is designed to power tank weapon systems in lieu of an
idling M1A2 Abrams SEP tank's gas turbine engine, which will reduce
engine wear, fuel consumption, fuel storage and transportation
requirements while increasing the operating life of the tank's
batteries. The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has
identified an $18.9 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001MDBU
for 80 UAAPUs for M1A2 SEP tanks.
The committee believes that the savings realized by using an UAAPU
will be considerable and, therefore, recommends $55.0 million, an
increase of $18.9 million, for 80 UAAPUs.
M113 carrier modifications
The budget request contained $45.1 million for M113 carrier
modifications, of which $43.2 million was for M113 MDBU``A3MDBU''
upgrades. The M113A3 upgrade program, which is expected to add an
additional 20 years of service life to the vehicle, includes
installation of a new engine, transmission, external armored fuel tanks,
driver controls, and internal Kevlar spall liners.
The committee notes that M113A3 upgrades are among the highest
unfunded requirements identified by the Army Chief of Staff in fiscal
year 2001. The committee further notes that additional funds would
accelerate the fielding of A3 upgrades for force package two from fiscal
year 2004 into fiscal year 2002.
Therefore, consistent with its actions taken in prior fiscal years,
the committee recommends $95.1 million, an increase of $50.0 million for
additional M113A3 upgrade kits.
M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW)
The budget request contained no funds for the procurement of the M249
SAW.
The M249 SAW is a lightweight machine gun capable of delivering a
sustained volume of automatic, accurate, and highly lethal fire up to
ranges of 800 meters. It is fielded throughout the Army in airborne,
light and mechanized infantry, and air cavalry units. The committee is
concerned that the Army has eliminated funds for this weapon in the
future years defense program but notes that the Army Chief of Staff has
identified an $18.3 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 for
the 4,280 remaining SAWs to complete the Army's procurement objective of
these weapons. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of
$18.3 million for this purpose to complete the procurement objective of
M249 SAWs.
MK19-3 grenade launcher
The budget request contained $11.8 million to procure MK19 3 grenade
launchers. The MK19 3 40 millimeter automatic grenade launcher can
engage point targets up to 1,500 meters in range and provide suppressive
fire up to 2,200 meters. The MK19 3 can also be used as a crew-served
weapon mounted on armored vehicles and High Mobility Multipurpose
Wheeled Vehicles.
The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff hasMDBU identified
an $8.1 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 for MK19 3s for
Army National Guard (ARNG) units. The committee also notes this weapon's
increased importance in military operations in urban terrain and the
increasing deployment of ARNG units into contingency operations of this
type.
Based on these factors, and consistent with prior year actions to add
funds for MK19s, the committee recommends $14.3 million, an increase of
$2.5 million to procure additional MK19 3 grenade launchers.
Small arms production industrial base
The committee understands that there is reluctance within the
Department of the Army to forward requests for waivers to expand the
competition on particular small arms critical repair parts contracts to
the Secretary of Defense, pursuant to the authority provided in section
2473 of title 10, United States Code. The committee is concerned that
such waivers requested by the Army from the Secretary of Defense have
been denied. To ensure that competition is available, when necessary,
the committee reiterates that waivers on small arms critical repair
parts contracts should be forwarded to, and granted by, the Secretary of
Defense when he believes it is not necessary to preserve the small arms
production industrial base.
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $1,131.3 million for Ammunition
Procurement, Army for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,199.3 million for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for those
programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified,
adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability
considerations.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Army ammunition procurement
The budget request contained $1,131.3 million for procurement of
ammunition and production base support. The committee recommends
$1,199.3 million, an increase of $68.0 million for the following types
of ammunition programs, which include top unfunded requirements
identified by the Chief of Staff of the Army in fiscal year 2001:
[Dollars in millions]
Small/Medium Cal Ammunition:
CTG .50 cal, SLAPT M 903 (M 962)
$6.0
CTG .50 cal, Mk 211
2.0
Mortar Ammunition:
CTG mortar 60mm Illum M721/M767
8.0
CTG 120mm HE M934 w/MO Fuze
5.4
CTG 120mm Illum XM930 w/MTSQ Fuze
6.6
Artillery Ammunition:
Modular Artillery Charge System
20.0
Rockets:
Bunker Defeating Munition
10.0
Demolition Munitions:
APOBS
2.0
Production Base Support:
ARMS Initiative
8.0
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $3,795.9 million for Other Procurement,
Army for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends authorization of
$4,095.3 million for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for those
programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified,
adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability
considerations.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Army data distribution system (ADDS)
The budget request contained $32.7 million to procure Enhanced
Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS) radios but included no funds
to procure EPLRS for the Army National Guard (ARNG).
The EPLRS radio is the Army's primary position location reporting
system, providing combat commanders information on the position of their
forces, in addition to supporting the majority of the data
communications requirements for brigade and below command and control.
The system provides secure, jam-resistant, near-real-time communications
and is essential to battlefield operations.
The committee notes that procurement and fielding of additional EPLRS
is a high priority for the ARNG since many of its units are in
deployment rotations to the Balkans and, as a result, must have the
necessary data communications capabilities to operate alongside active
Army units.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $51.2 million for ADDS, an
increase of $18.5 million to procure EPLRS for an ARNG enhanced brigade.
Automated data processing equipment (ADPE)
The budget request contained $172.1 million for procurement of ADPE,
of which $485,000 was included for automatic identification technology
(AIT).
AIT devices, which consist of various radio frequency, bar code
scanning, and data carrier devices, are components of automated
logistics systems that expedite receiving, storage, distribution, and
inventory management of new and repairable items. These devices are also
used to automate manufacturing process controls for aircraft repair
parts and to track ground support equipment at various military depots.
The committee believes that substantial savings can continue to be
achieved from further implementation of these devices in automated
inventory and repair processes. Therefore, the committee recommends
$178.1 million, an increase of $6.0 million, for maintenance AIT
implementation.
Army training modernization
The budget request contained $36.0 million to procure digital
training facilities and supporting infrastructure for The Army Distance
Learning Program (TADLP), of which $10.9 million was included for Army
National Guard (ARNG) distributed training technology.
TADLP provides automation and supporting infrastructure to improve
the training of service members and civilian workers in both the active
and reserve components to a single standard, particularly in military
occupational skill qualifications. Additionally, it provides a highly
effective means of delivering training and education to deployed troops
while reducing training delivery time and support costs.
The committee is aware of prior year increases in ARNG funding for
online courseware and training to enhance its role in support of ``first
responders'' to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) incidents. The
committee understands that the ARNG has identified over 120 training
courses as essential for online WMD-related training and believes it is
important to support the ARNG's WMD first-response training requirement.
Therefore, the committee recommends $44.0 million for TADLP, an
increase of $8.0 million, for ARNG distributive training technology to
continue online courseware development and procure
commercial-off-the-shelf management system hardware and software for WMD
first-response training requirements.
Combat support medical
The budget request contained $31.6 million to procure deployable
medical systems and field medical equipment but included no funds for
rapid intravenous (IV) infusion pumps or for Life Support for Trauma and
Transport (LSTAT) units. The budget request also contained $6.3 million
in PE 64807A, but included funds for LSTAT.
The Rapid IV infusion pump is a miniature, portable, lightweight pump
specifically designed for life-saving intravenous fluid resuscitation by
a medic in the field to restore blood pressure and prevent shock and
death of victims with severe blood loss or dehydration. This system was
developed in conjunction with the Walter Reed Army Medical Institute of
Research and has received Food and Drug Administration approval. The
committee understands that it is estimated that up to 15 percent of the
soldiers that died in Vietnam who were not immediate battlefield
casualties would have survived their wounds if rapid infusion of fluids
had been a possibility during that conflict.
The LSTAT integrates a set of commercially available, Food and Drug
Administration-approved medical devices in a self-contained
mini-intensive care, medical evacuation platform, which provides
advanced life-support, on-board ventilation, suction, environmental
control, oxygen generation, and patient monitoring to stabilize wounded
soldiers near the battlefront as they are evacuated. LSTAT is configured
on a NATO-standard litter, is broadly interoperable with other medical
systems and compatible with most evacuation platforms including UH 60s,
UH 1s, C 130s, and High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles.
The committee is impressed with the potential life saving capability
that these devices offer, and, therefore, recommends $45.6 million, an
increase of $8.0 million to procure rapid IV infusion pumps and $6.0
million to begin procurement of LSTAT units. The committee also
recommends $10.3 million in PE64807A, an increase of $4.0 million for
development of expanded LSTAT capabilities.
Combat training centers instrumentation support
The budget request contained $81.8 million for combat training
centers support but included no funds for either the Army National Guard
(ARNG) deployable force-on-force instrumented range system (DFIRST) or
the multi-purpose range complex-heavy (MPRC H).
Encouraged by the fact that the DFIRST system was chosen over all
current force-on-force instrumentation systems by the All Service Combat
Identification Evaluation Team (ASCIET) as the instrumentation system
for the fiscal year 1999 Joint Exercise, in the committee report on H.R.
1401 (H. Rept. 106 162), the committee recommended a pilot program at
two ARNG training sites to explore the capabilities and benefits of
DFIRST systems to increase readiness of ARNG units through more
effective training and at a lower cost with greater safety. To continue
this concept of force-on-force, simulation-based training at regional
training centers, the committee recommends an increase of $10.5 million
for the three additional DFIRSTs.
The committee understands that targeting electronic upgrades are
needed for the MPRC H authorized by the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (division B of Public Law 106
65). The committee believes that such upgrades are absolutely paramount
for effectively training ARNG units for their growing worldwide
deployments.
Therefore, the committee recommends $3.2 million for MPRC H targetry
electronic upgrades. In total, the committee recommends $95.5 million
for combat training centers, an increase of $13.7 million.
Communications equipment system upgrades
The committee believes that currently fielded military radios and
communication systems still require upgrades to improve operational
capability and dependability, as well as reduce operations and support
costs and is aware that Military Standard 188 141A includes an approved
miniaturized, multi-function, digital communications technology, based
on compressor and expander techniques, that dramatically improves
quality of voice and data communications over both wired and wireless
networks. Accordingly, the committee expects the Department of Defense
to continue to use this technology, when cost effective, to upgrade and
improve current communications systems such as, but not limited to, the
Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System, the Joint Tactical
Radio System, and the ARC 190 and PRC 104 radios.
Construction equipment service life extension program (SLEP)
The budget request contained $2.0 million for service life extensions
to various types of construction equipment but included no funds to
conduct an Army National Guard (ARNG) D 7 dozer and Army Reserve heavy
grader and scraper SLEP.
The committee understands that the majority of the currently fielded
ARNG D 7 dozers have an average age of 27 years, well beyond their
intended 15 year service lives and that there are no plans to replace
them. Additionally, the committee notes that the average age of Army
Reserve graders and scrapers is 15 years. Both of these types of
equipment continue to have greater demands placed on them by the
increased ``operations-other-than-war'' deployments being fulfilled by
the reserve component have been called upon to fulfill.
Therefore, the committee recommends $12.0 million for construction
equipment SLEPs, an increase of $5.0 million for an ARNG D 7 dozer SLEP
and $5.0 million for an Army Reserve heavy scraper and grader SLEP.
Cranes
The budget request contained $6.1 million to procure cranes, of which
$3.0 million was included for the procurement of three replacement
wheel-mounted, 25-ton all-terrain cranes (ATECs). However, no ATECs were
requested for the Army Reserve (AR).
The ATEC is a multi-use, state-of-the-art, commercial all-terrain
crane used for engineer construction excavation, lifting and loading
general supplies and materiel, and bridging movement. The ATEC replaces
three existing types of cranes, which range in age from 19 to 30 years
old and suffer from low operational readiness rates and high operations
and support costs, with a single, state-of-the-art unit that exceeds all
three of the obsolete cranes' capabilities.
The committee notes the importance of ATECs in fulfilling Army
Reserve combat support and combat service support mission requirements
and recommends $16.1 million, an increase of $10.0 million, to procure
ATECs for the Army Reserve.
Deployable universal combat earthmovers (DEUCE)
The budget request contained $14.1 million to procure DEUCEs. The
DEUCE is a military-unique, high speed, earthmoving tractor capable of
clearing, leveling, and excavating operations for light and airborne
divisions.
The committee understands that the DUECE will be a critical piece of
equipment for the Army's interim medium brigades. The committee notes
that the Army Chief of Staff has identified a $14.0 million unfunded
requirement in fiscal year 2001 to procure 36 DEUCEs for the Army's
initial and interim brigades as part of the service's transformation.
Therefore, the committee recommends $24.3 million, an increase of
$10.2 million, to begin fielding DEUCEs to the interim brigades.
Family of heavy tactical vehicles (FHTV)
The budget request contained $166.1 million for the procurement of
the FHTV. Although the budget request included $121.8 million for Army
National Guard (ARNG) FHTV and $6.2 million for Army Reserve FHTV, no
funds were included for the procurement of Heavy Expanded Mobility
Tactical Trucks (HEMTT) or Heavy Expanded Mobility Trailers (HEMAT) for
ARNG Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) battalion conversions. The
HEMTT is a diesel powered, 10-ton, 8-wheel drive, tactical vehicle that
transports ammunition, and petroleum. The vehicle is also produced in
wrecker, tanker, and tractor variants and is the prime mover in support
of certain missile systems, including the MLRS.
The committee notes the Army Chief of Staff has identified an
unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 for additional HEMMTs and
HEMATs for ARNG MLRS battalion conversion. The committee is also aware
of a HEMTT fire truck shortfall in two Army Reserve combat service
support companies that are designated as force package one units. These
vehicles would replace obsolete fire trucks that were commercially
adapted for military purposes.
The committee recommends $171.1 million for the FHTV, an increase of
$3.8 million to procure both HEMTTs and HEMATs for ARNG MLRS battalion
conversion and $1.2 million to procure three HEMTT fire trucks for the
Army Reserve.
Family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV)
The budget request contained $438.3 million for procurement of, and
identified improvements to the FMTV, of which $84.0 million was included
for two and one-half-ton variants for the Army National Guard (ARNG) and
$33.8 million was included for these variants for the Army Reserve. The
FMTV comprise the Army's two and one-half-ton and five-ton, common
chassis cargo and utility trucks. The committee notes that the Army
Chief of Staff has identified a $118.9 million unfunded requirement in
fiscal year 2001 for reserve component FMTV due to the increasing
reliance upon the reserves for combat support and combat service support
missions.
The committee strongly supports upgrading the reserve component's
aging fleet of trucks and, therefore, recommends $473.3 million, an
increase of $35.0 million for additional Army Reserve two and
one-half-ton and five-ton FMTVs.
High mobility multipurpose-wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)
The budget request contained $110.7 million for 1,002 HMMWVA2s, which
incorporate upgraded electrical, braking, engine and transmission
improvements as well as a 15-year corrosion prevention program, but
included no funds for HMMWVs to fill critical shortages in Army Reserve
combat support and combat service support units.
The HMMWV is a multi-service, four-wheel drive utility and logistics
vehicle. The Army fleet is used for personnel and weapons transport,
medical evacuation, and as an air defense weapon-mount platform. While
recognizing that the HMMWVs requested in the budget will replace older
vehicles in high priority active component units, the committee is
concerned that certain Army Reserve units do not have enough HMMWVs to
meet their growing mission and deployment requirements.
Therefore, the committee recommends $115.7 million, an increase of
$5.0 million, for 100 Army Reserve HMMWVA2s.
Hydraulic excavator (HYEX)
The budget request contained $8.3 million for procurement of HYEXs,
of which $2.6 million was included for 11 Army Reserve HYEXs. The HYEX
is a diesel driven, self-propelled, tracked vehicle with a wide variety
of excavation attachments used for general excavation; digging;
trenching and lifting for lines of communication;
logistics-over-the-shore, and other construction activities primarily in
support of Corps and Echelons Above Corps levels.
The committee understands that a HYEX shortfall exists in high
priority Army Reserve construction units and that these units will
continue to operate existing obsolete equipment for the foreseeable
future until it is replaced.
Based upon increased reliance on the reserve component to provide
engineer equipment for operations-other-than-war, and
disaster/humanitarian relief operations, the committee recommends $10.6
million, an increase of $2.3 million, for 13 additional Type I HYEXs for
the Army Reserve.
Information system security program (ISSP)
The budget request contained $54.4 million, $46.6 million, and $15.7
million to procure secure voice and data equipment for the Army, Navy,
and Air Force respectively.
The committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106 162) recommended an
increase of $9.0 million in fiscal year 2000 to support the services'
efforts to replace older secure voice and data systems with modern
multi-media secure digital communications equipment. The committee
continues to strongly support upgrading critical telecommunications
equipment to safeguard classified or sensitive information in the face
of growing information security threats.
Therefore, in order to accelerate the replacement of obsolete secure
voice and data terminals, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0
million to procure additional secure terminal equipment: $4.0 million
for the Army ISSP, $4.0 million for the Navy and Marine Corps ISSP, and
$4.0 million for the Air Force ISSP.
Integrated family of test equipment (IFTE)
The budget request contained $65.4 million to procure IFTE, of which
$37.1 million was included for Contact Test Sets (CTS) Soldier Portable
On-System Repair Tool (SPORT).
The CTS SPORT is the Army's standard lightweight, ruggedized,
portable tester used at all levels of maintenance to automatically
diagnose faulty electronic components for immediate replacement.
The committee has strongly supported the IFTE program over the years
and continues to believe in the productivity improvements resulting from
automatic test equipment usage. Therefore, the committee recommends
$70.4 million for IFTE, an increase of $5.0 million, to procure
additional CTS SPORTs.
However, the committee is aware that the current CTS SPORT indefinite
delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contract will expire in June 2001.
Based on the importance of the CTS SPORT to numerous weapons systems and
to avoid possible fielding interruptions for this equipment, the
committee expects the Secretary of the Army to extend the current ID/IQ
contract for CTS SPORT and understands that this extension would require
no government costs.
Laundries, showers, and latrines
The budget request contained $12.6 million to procure the Laundry
Advanced System (LADS). The LADS is a mobile field laundry designed to
launder clothing at four times the capacity of the current, but obsolete
M 85 field laundry system and recycle 99 percent of the water used by
the M 85 system.
The committee believes the logistical benefit to field combat service
support units from reduced water usage combined with the enhancement to
deployed soldiers' quality of life provided by LADS are impressive.
Consequently, the committee strongly supports the Army's efforts to
replace the obsolete and unserviceable M 85 system and recommends $21.6
million, an increase of 9.0 million, to accelerate procurement of LADS.
Lightweight maintenance enclosure (LME)
The budget request contained $2.0 million to procure LMEs. The LME is
a lightweight, frame-supported tent designed to provide forward deployed
maintenance units a quick setup-and-takedown enclosed shelter in which
to perform field maintenance operations across the battlefield in all
climatic conditions.
The committee notes that mobility will be the hallmark of the Army's
future medium brigades and that they must therefore be capable of
rapidly repairing and maintaining equipment while deployed. The
committee also notes that the Army Chief of Staff has identified a $4.6
million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 for LMEs to maintain
production at minimum sustaining rate.
Therefore, the committee recommends $6.6 million, an increase of $4.6
million, for the procurement of additional LMEs and to maintain a
minimum production rate.
M56 smoke generator system
The budget request contained $11.4 million for the procurement of M56
smoke generator systems.
The M56 smoke generator system, the primary battlefield obscurant for
Army light forces, is a High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled
Vehicle-mounted system capable of disseminating smoke in both a
stationary mode and on the move. The M56 can defeat enemy sensors such
as tank thermal sights as well as smart and guided munitions, which
operate in the visual through far infrared regimes of the
electromagnetic spectrum.
The committee understands that the M56 has been designated as an
essential item of equipment for early entry forces yet is not being
produced at an economic production rate. Therefore, to address this
problem, the committee recommends $22.8 million, an increase of $11.4
million, to reach an economic production rate of this system.
M915/M916 line haul truck tractor
The budget request contained $43.0 million for 915A3 line haul
tractors, of which $3.4 million was included for M915A3s for the Army
Reserve. The M915A3 line haul tractor is a six-by-four wheel drive
vehicle fielded primarily in medium transportation companies and used to
haul containers and petroleum over both primary and secondary roads.
The committee notes that currently fielded M915 tractors are
experiencing reduced mission capable rates and are both difficult and
expensive to operate due to old age. To correct this deficiency and to
fill critical shortages in Army Reserve line haul companies, the
committee recommends $44.6 million for M915/M916 line haul truck
tractors, an increase of $1.6 million to procure 12 additional upgraded
M915A3 tractors.
Night vision devices
The budget request contained $34.1 million to procure night vision
devices, of which $29.5 million was included for AN/PVS 7 night vision
goggles. However, no funds were included for third generation, 25
millimeter (mm) image intensification tube upgrades.
The AN/PVS 7 night vision goggle is a state-of-the-art
image-intensifying system, which can be head- or helmet-mounted to
enhance the dismounted soldier's nighttime operations. The 25mm image
intensification tube upgrade program, which replaces less capable tubes
with the third generation variant in fielded AN/PVS 4 night vision
goggles and AN/TVS 5 night vision sights, provides a minimum 25 percent
resolution increase in these systems.
The committee has consistently supported additional funds for night
vision devices the past five years, and notes that the Army Chief of
Staff has identified $14.8 million unfunded requirements in fiscal year
2001 to procure AN/PVS 7 night vision goggles and $8.4 million for third
generation, 25mm image intensification tube upgrades.
Consistent with prior year actions, the committee recommends an
increase of $12.0 million for AN/PVS 7 night vision goggles and $8.4
million for third generation, 25mm image intensification tube upgrades.
The committee expects $400,000 of the AN/PVS 7 increase to be used to
procure these goggles for Army Reserve combat support units.
Nonsystem training devices
The budget request contained $91.9 million for procurement of various
training devices and range modernization but no funds were included for
continued procurement of engagement skills trainer (EST) 2000 or Abrams
Full-crew Interactive Skills Trainers (A FIST) XXI upgrades for the Army
National Guard (ARNG).
The EST 2000 simulates three-dimensional targets in several realistic
terrain environments, providing marksmanship, squad-tactical, and
close-range shoot-no-shoot training. This system also provides both
shooter and instructor with real-time and post-exercise weapon handling
technique feedback. The committee understands that the ARNG has a
requirement for 100 EST 2000 systems.
The ARNG A FISTs do not meet current Army tank gunnery training
standards and require software upgrades to enhance training on the tank
commander's weapon station and to provide identical gunnery matrices to
the Conduct Of Fire Trainer, the Army's standard for stand-alone
precision gunnery training devices. The committee understands that these
upgrades will offer significant training advantages for tank crews as
well as reduced maintenance costs. The committee also understands that
the ARNG has developed a three-year, A FIST XXI conversion program to
incorporate these upgrades.
The committee believes that these training systems are critical for
ARNG forces' marksmanship and gunnery simulation training in light of
their increased worldwide deployments. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $8.0 million for procurement of 30 EST 2000
systems and an increase of $9.0 million for the first increment of a
three-year A FIST XXI conversion program, both for the ARNG. In total,
the committee recommends $108.9 million for nonsystem training devices,
an increase of $17.0 million.
Reserve component automation system (RCAS)
The budget request contained $91.5 million to procure and field RCAS
equipment and software.
The RCAS is critical to the day-to-day operation and mobilization
capability of the Army National Guard and Army Reserve. If continued
support for, and improvements to, this program are not made, the reserve
components will experience a significant deterioration in their ability
to mobilize in support of national security missions in a timely manner.
The committee understands that there is a limitation of Army funds
allocated for the RCAS beyond fiscal year 2002.
The committee expects the Secretary of the Army to budget sufficient
funds in the future years defense program to ensure that the RCAS will
be able to effectively fulfill the administrative support and
mobilization requirements of the reserve components. The committee also
expects the Secretary to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees on the yearly allocation of funds required annually maintain
and improve the RCAS program by March 1, 2001.
Ribbon bridge
The budget request contained $15.7 million for ribbon bridge
equipment but included no funds to procure this equipment for Army
National Guard (ARNG) multi-role bridge companies (MRBC). Ribbon bridge
equipment consists of 10-ton, 8-wheel drive M1977 Heavy Expanded
Mobility Tactical Truck Common Bridge Transporters, M15 Bridge Adaptor
Pallets, and M14 Improved Boat Cradles.
The committee understands that seven ARNG MRBC will be established in
fiscal year 2001 using existing engineer bridging equipment and older,
lower-capacity, five-ton trucks. The committee also understands that
without additional funds, these new MRBC units will not begin conversion
to the new equipment required for their mission until fiscal year 2004.
Therefore, the committee recommends $42.7 million for ribbon bridging
equipment, an increase of $27.0 million to accelerate the fielding of
two ARNG MRBC.
Single channel ground and airborne radio systems (SINCGARS) family
The budget request contained $18.3 million for the procurement and
the fielding of airborne SINCGARS, but included no funds to procure
SINCGARS advanced system improvement program (ASIP) radios for the Army
National Guard (ARNG).
The SINCGARS ASIP radio upgrades early version voice-only radios and
includes a tactical Internet controller and integrated communications
security enhancements, which provide commanders a highly reliable,
easily maintained, secure voice and data handling command and control
capability.
The committee understands that two ARNG divisions still require
improved SINCGARS; and, without these upgraded radios, these forces will
be unable to transmit and receive data from their active Army components
when participating together in joint and combined operations.
Therefore, the committee recommends $49.0 million for SINCGARS, an
increase of $30.7 million, to procure SINCGARS ASIP radios for one ARNG
division.
Small tug
The budget request contained no funds to procure small tugs.
The small tug is a 60-foot, steel hull, twin propeller vessel
designed to tow general cargo barges in harbors, inland waterways, and
along coastlines. It is also capable of assisting larger tugs in mooring
ships of all sizes at piers and in restricted navigation waterways,
moving of floating cranes and machine shops, and performing
line-handling duties.
The committee is aware of the Army's intent to replace its unreliable
40-year old small tugs that were used in Operations Desert Shield and
Desert Storm and understands that it has increased its requirement to
fifteen tugs to replace these older vessels. The committee included an
increase of $4.7 million in fiscal year 1999 to procure two additional
tugs and $9.0 million in fiscal year 2000 to complete the earlier
requirement of eight tugs. However, the committee notes that the Army
has not budgeted for the additional seven new tugs in its future years
defense program.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million to
accelerate procurement of 3 additional vessels towards completion of the
requirement for 15 small tugs.
Standard integrated command post system (SICPS)
The budget request contained $36.0 million to procure SICPS
components, of which $1.3 million was included for modular command post
system (MCPS) tents.
The MCPS tent consists of a lightweight aluminum frame,
interchangeable fabric wall sections, fabric roof, floors and liners,
worktables, map boards, and light sets. Multiple MCPS tents can be
interconnected to create a large complex. The committee notes the Army
Chief of Staff has identified a $40.1 million unfunded requirement in
fiscal year 2001 to accelerate the procurement of SICPS components for
force packages one and two.
The committee is aware of the vital role MCPS tents play in growing
worldwide deployments and, therefore, recommends $41.0 million, an
increase of $2.0 million and $3.0 million respectively, to procure MCPS
for active and Army National Guard units.
Standard teleoperating kit
The budget request contained $700,000 to procure Standardized Robotic
System (SRS) vehicle teleoperating kits.
The SRS kit can be installed on existing tracked or wheeled vehicles
to enable them to be operated by remote control, if circumstances
dictate, to clear mines. The committee understands that SRS contingency
sets have been responsible for detonating hundreds of mines while
deployed in Bosnia. The committee also notes that redesigned combat
engineer force structure requires SRS equipment at all force levels,
including the new interim medium brigades.
Based on the successful employment of this technology and the
critical life saving mission that it performs, the committee recommends
$10.7 million for standard teleoperating equipment, an increase of $10.0
million for additional SRS kits.
Vibratory self-propelled roller
The budget request contained $4.7 million to procure vibratory
self-propelled rollers. The vibratory self-propelled roller is a
commercial compacting vehicle used to support construction of airfields,
logistic areas, and roads required to deploy and sustain Army forces.
The committee notes that the last major procurement of this equipment
occurred in the early 1980s and that its 22-year average age, combined
with the effects of increased deployments, has reduced its readiness
ratings to unsatisfactory levels. The committee also notes that the Army
Chief of Staff has identified a $10.0 million unfunded requirement in
fiscal year 2001 to replace vibratory self-propelled rollers for both
the active and reserve components as a fiscal year 2001 unfunded
requirement.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $11.7 million, an increase of
$7.0 million to procure 96 additional vibratory self-propelled rollers,
including $3.0 million for active Army units and $4.0 million for Army
Reserve units.
CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, ARMY
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $1,003.5 million for Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction, Army, for fiscal year 2001. The committee
recommends no funds for fiscal year 2001.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION
The budget request contained $1,003.5 million for Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction, Army.
The committee notes that section 1412 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1986 (Public Law 99 145), as amended,
requires that funds for the destruction of the U.S. stockpile of lethal
chemical agents and munitions, including funds for military construction
projects necessary to carry out the demilitarization program shall only
be authorized and appropriated in the budget of the Department of
Defense (DOD) as a separate program and shall not be included in the
budget accounts for any military department. The committee notes that
for the second year in a row, the Department's budget request contained
funds for the chemical demilitarization program in a budget account of
the Department of the Army in direct violation of the law.
The committee believes that the original legislation, which mandated
that funds for the chemical demilitarization program be authorized and
appropriated in a defense-wide budget account in order to emphasize that
destruction of the chemical weapons stockpile was a national issue
affecting all of the Department and not just a single military service,
was sound in 1986, when the estimated cost of the chemical stockpile
demilitarization program was approximately $1.5 billion, and is even
more valid today, when the estimated cost of the program has grown
almost ten-fold.
Accordingly, the committee recommends no funding for Chemical Agents
and Munitions Destruction, Army, a decrease of $1,003.5 million. The
committee recommends an increase of $877.1 million for Chemical Agents
and Munitions Destruction, Defense.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $7,963.9 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Navy for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends
authorization of $8,205.8 million for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for those
programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified,
adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability
considerations.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Advanced helicopter emergency egress lighting system (ADHEELS)
The budget request contained $21.1 million for SH 60 series
modifications but included no funds for the ADHEELS. The ADHEELS
provides crew escape lighting for H 60 series helicopters in the event
of water impact.
The committee understands that the Department of the Navy has
selected ADHEELS as its future helicopter escape lighting system due to
its superior performance, significantly increased operational
reliability, and lower life-cycle costs.
The committee strongly supports this choice and recommends $29.1
million, an increase of $8.0 million for accelerated ADHEELS procurement
and installation in both new production and existing H 60 series
helicopters.
AN/AVR 2A laser detecting set
The budget request contained $41.9 million for common electronic
countermeasures modifications, of which $13.5 million was included for
an AN/AAR 47 sensor upgrade.
The AN/AVR 2A laser detecting set alerts pilots to the presence of
impending laser beamriding missile attack in sufficient time to take
evasive action. The committee notes that the Department of the Navy
plans a laser warning capability upgrade to the AN/AAR 47 missile
approach warning system, which would eliminate the need for a
stand-alone AN/AVR 2A, but is concerned that the AN/AAR 47 upgrade might
not be as capable as the existing AN/AVR 2A.
Therefore, the committee expects that procurement and installation of
the AN/AAR 47 sensor upgrade should not occur until the Commander of
Navy Operational Test and Evaluation Forces ensures that adequate
testing is undertaken, including side-by-side, on-aircraft testing
comparing it with the AN/AVR 2A.
AV 8B
The budget request contained $226.6 million to procure 10
remanufactured AV 8B aircraft. The AV 8B remanufacture program combines
a new fuselage, a power plant, and radar with other mission systems
upgrades to produce a significantly more capable aircraft at 70 percent
of the cost of a new aircraft. The committee notes that the Department
of the Navy plans for fiscal year 2001 to be the last year for
procurement of remanufactured AV 8Bs.
The committee recognizes that the AV 8B performs the close air
support (CAS) mission, which is critical to the successful employment of
Marine forces. Additionally, the committee believes that the short
take-off, vertical land (STOVL), radar-equipped AV 8B will remain an
important component of CAS capability until its replacement by the
Marine Corps' joint strike fighter (JSF) STOVL variant, currently in the
demonstration and validation phase of its development.
Since the committee understands that the Marine Corps' JSF variant is
currently planned for its initial operational capability in fiscal year
2008, it expects the Secretary of the Navy to ensure that the Marine
Corps has procured sufficient STOVL, radar-equipped AV 8Bs prior to
discontinuing the AV 8B remanufacture program.
C 40A
The budget request contained no funds for procurement of C 40A aircraft.
The C 40A, a long-range commercial-derivative airlift aircraft used
to transport high priority passengers and cargo, will replace the Navy's
27-year-old C 9 fleet which is reaching the end of its service life.
The committee understands that the Navy's aging C 9 fleet is not
compliant with either future global navigation requirements or noise
abatement standards, that will restrict future flights into European
airfields. The committee also notes that the Chief of Naval Operations
has identified additional C 40A aircraft for the Naval Reserve among his
top unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001.
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $54.0 million
to procure an additional C 40A aircraft for the Naval Reserve.
CH 60S
The budget request contained $165.1 million for 15 CH 60S helicopters
and $80.4 million for advance procurement of 16 CH 60Ss in fiscal year
2002.
The CH 60S replaces the H 46D for the Navy's helicopter combat
support missions including vertical replenishment, cargo and personnel
transfer, and search and rescue.
The committee understands that the aging H 46D is increasingly
expensive to operate and that its replacement with a fleet of H 60
series helicopters will avoid an estimated $22.0 billion of support
costs over the next 20 years. The committee also notes that the Chief of
Naval Operations has identified additional CH 60S helicopters among his
top unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001.
The committee believes that the aging H 46D fleet should be retired
as soon as practical and, therefore, recommends $207.0 million, an
increase of $41.9 million for two additional CH 60S helicopters.
2 modifications
The budget request contained $18.5 million for E 2 modifications but
included no funds to upgrade ready-storage Group I-configured E 2C
aircraft to the Hawkeye 2000 configuration.
Group I-configured E 2C aircraft are no longer usable for the Navy's
fleet operations due to their outdated computer and communications
capabilities but could be modified to the Hawkeye 2000 configuration
which would upgrade this aircraft with satellite communications; a
commercial-off-the-shelf, high-capacity mission computer and associated
workstations; and the cooperative engagement capability. The committee
understands that this modification will provide the E 2C fleet with a
quantum leap in situational awareness and fleet-wide connectivity.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $57.5 million, an increase of
$39.0 million, to upgrade one ready-storage Group I E 2Cs to the Hawkeye
2000 configuration.
EA 6B modifications
The budget request contained $203.1 million for EA 6B modifications
but included no funds for the AN/ASW 41 automatic flight control system
(AFCS), which provides the EA 6B pilot with automatic speed, attitude
and altitude control capabilities. The budget request also contained no
funds for HAVE QUICK ARC 164 radios which employ a rapid
frequency-hopping technique to provide an anti-jam radio capability.
The committee understands that replacement of the current flight
control system with the AN/ASW 41 AFCS will significantly increase this
aircraft's mission capable rates through improved reliability and
reduced maintenance man-hours. The committee notes that the Chief of
Naval Operations has identified the AN/ASW 41 AFCS among his unfunded
requirements in fiscal year 2001 and, therefore, recommends an increase
of $21.0 million for this purpose.
The committee understands that only 41 of the Department of the
Navy's 123 EA 6Bs are equipped with either an ARC 164, ARC 182, or ARC
210 HAVE QUICK anti-jam radio and that during the recent Operation
Allied Force engagement many EA 6Bs were not capable of jam-free
ultra-high frequency (UHF) communications with other Allied aircraft in
composite-force strike packages. As a result of the EA 6B's HAVE QUICK
radio deficiency, the committee also understands that entire Operation
Allied Force strike packages were forced to use single UHF frequencies
which were vulnerable to communications jamming and could be easily
monitored by our adversaries with a potential to compromise operational
mission execution plans.
While the committee is aware of the Department's plans to equip the
EA 6B fleet with ARC-210 radios as part of the block 89A upgrade, it
believes that an interim anti-jam radio capability is critical for any
future EA 6B combat operations until the block 89A upgrade is complete
in fiscal year 2005. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase
of $2.0 million to equip 40 additional EA 6B aircraft with ARC 164
anti-jam radios.
In total, the committee recommends $226.1 million for EA 6B
modifications, an increase of $23.0 million.
18 series modifications
The budget request contained $212.6 million for F 18 series
modifications, of which $22.7 million was included for engineering
change proposal (ECP) 583 kits to modify six Marine Corps F/A 18A
aircraft, $3.0 million was included for installation of ECP 560
modification kits for seven Naval Reserve F/A 18A aircraft, $5.3 million
was included for two advanced targeting forward-looking infrared
(ATFLIR) pods for both Navy and Marine Corps F/A 18C/D aircraft, and
$23.8 million was included for the advanced tactical airborne
reconnaissance system (ATARS).
The ECP 583 modification kit upgrades the radar, avionics and weapons
delivery capability of the Marine Corps' F/A 18A model aircraft to the
same capability as later-model F/A 18Cs. Without this capability, the
F/A 18A cannot autonomously deliver precision-guided munitions (PGMs) or
employ the Air Intercept Missile (AIM) 120 Advanced Medium Range
Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The committee notes that the Navy's
long-range attack aircraft plans include the employment of the F/A 18A
until at least 2015. Despite the fact that the Marine Corps has a
requirement to upgrade 76 of its F/A 18As with this modification, the
Department of the Navy has thus far only planned to upgrade 34 aircraft.
However, the committee notes that both the Chief of Naval Operations
(CNO) and the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC) have identified ECP
583 among their top unfunded aviation requirements in fiscal year 2001
and recommends an increase of $86.9 million to procure twenty additional
ECP 583 upgrade kits for the Marine Corps' F/A 18A aircraft fleet--10
for the active component and 10 for the Marine Corps Reserve.
The ECP 560 modification kit upgrades only the avionics and weapons
delivery capability of the Naval Reserve's F/A 18A aircraft to employ
PGMs and the AIM 120 AMRAAM, improving both the Naval Reserve's F/A 18A
capability and its commonality with the Navy's F/A 18C aircraft fleet.
The committee notes that only 13 of the Naval Reserve's 52 F/A 18As have
undergone ECP 560 modification upgrades, but understands that the Navy
plans to retain its Naval Reserve F/A 18As in the inventory until at
least 2012. The committee further notes that the CNO has identified the
ECP 560 among his unfunded requirements for the Naval Reserve in fiscal
year 2001 and recommends an increase of $31.0 million for this purpose.
The ATFLIR pod detects, classifies and tracks ground targets for
engagement with precision-guided munitions. The ATFLIR pod replaces the
existing tactical forward-looking infrared pod that, the committee
understands, has inadequate resolution, loses target track during high-G
maneuvering, and does not maintain automatic track at required ranges.
The committee notes that both the CNO and CMC have also included the
ATFLIR among their unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2001 and
recommends an increase of $9.6 million for an additional three ATFLIR
pods for the Marine Corps Reserve F/A 18 aircraft.
The ATARS is an image acquisition, data storage, and data link sensor
suite planned for use on the Marine Corps' F/A 18D aircraft. The
committee notes that the recently completed ATARS operational evaluation
concluded that the system was not operationally suitable due to
reliability and availability problems with its ground station component.
As a result, the committee believes that the Department of the Navy's
$23.8 million ATARS procurement request exceeds requirements and,
consequently, recommends a decrease of that amount.
In total, the committee recommends $316.3 million, an increase of
$103.7 million, for F 18 series modifications.
F/A 18C/D tactical aircraft moving map capability (TAMMAC)
The budget request contained $71.6 million for common avionics
changes but included no funds for procurement of TAMMAC units for F/A
18C/D aircraft.
The TAMMAC, which replaces obsolete data storage and digital video
units, is a modular hardware and software system with significant
memory, information processing, and video output capabilities. It
provides aircrews with a graphic presentation of the aircraft's present
position as well as relative positions of targets, threats, terrain
features, no-fly zones, and safe bases. The committee understands that
the TAMMAC also includes a ground proximity warning system to improve
flight safety and will be less expensive to operate and support than the
existing units.
The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations has included
procurement of the TAMMAC for the F/A 18C/D aircraft among his unfunded
requirements in fiscal year 2001. Accordingly, the committee recommends
$80.9 million, an increase of $9.3 million to procure 80 TAMMAC units
for F/A 18C/D aircraft.
F/A 18E/F
The budget request contained $2,818.6 million for 42 F/A 18E/F
aircraft, and $101.1 million for advance procurement of 45 aircraft in
fiscal year 2002.
In its report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106 162), the committee
supported the Navy's requirement to replace its aging fighter/attack
aircraft fleet by authorizing a multiyear procurement of 222 aircraft.
However, the committee notes that the Department of the Navy now plans
to procure three less aircraft in fiscal year 2002 than projected in
fiscal year 2000, which results in 219 F/A 18E/F aircraft planned for
the multiyear procurement period between fiscal years 2000 through 2004.
Consistent with the planned program of the Department of the Navy for
fiscal year 2002, the committee recommends $2,612.8 million, a decrease
of $205.8 million and three aircraft. The committee understands that
this reduction will maintain the F/A 18E/F fiscal year 2001 procurement
quantity within a range that will not affect the multiyear procurement
contract.
HH/UH 1N reclamation and conversion program
The budget request contained no funds for the HH/UH 1N reclamation
and conversion program.
The HH/UH 1N reclamation and conversion program would restore old
HH/UH 1N helicopters, currently in long-term storage facilities, for
entry into a remanufacture production line that rebuilds the aircraft's
avionics, propulsion, and other systems.
The committee understands that current H 1 remanufacture plans would
remove UH 1N helicopters from the Marine Corps' operating fleet for
entry into the H 1 remanufacture production line, decreasing the number
of UH 1Ns in some of the Marine Corps' UH 1N helicopter squadrons below
their authorized strength. In order to avoid this situation, the
committee notes that both the Chief of Naval Operations and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps have identified the HH/UH 1N reclamation
and conversion program among their unfunded requirements in fiscal year
2001.
The committee believes that UH 1N fleet readiness will suffer if
operational aircraft are removed from the fleet to be upgraded.
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $17.5 million for
the HH UH 1N reclamation and conversion program and believes that this
increase will provide for induction of fourteen helicopters into the
remanufacture production line.
H 46 modifications
The budget request contained $16.6 million for H 46 modifications but
included no funds for the CH 46E engine reliability improvement program
(ERIP) to rebuild the CH 46E's key engine components, providing improved
performance, safety, and reliability.
Subsequent to the submission of the budget request, the committee
learned that the mean time between engine removals (MTBR) of the CH
46E's engine has rapidly declined to 363 hours, and that the CH 46E's
engine performance has degraded 10 percent from original specifications.
To address this problem, the committee understands that an ERIP would
restore the engine's MTBR to the planned interval of 900 hours, greatly
reducing operation and support costs in the process.
The committee notes that both the Chief of Naval Operations and the
Commandant of the Marine Corps have identified the ERIP as an unfunded
requirement in fiscal year 2001. Since the CH 46E is scheduled to remain
in service until 2012, the committee recommends $21.6 million, an
increase of $5.0 million to begin an ERIP for the CH 46E engine and
encourages the Department of the Navy to budget to complete the ERIP
within the fiscal year 2002 future years defense program.
H 53 modifications
The budget request contained $19.9 million for H 53 helicopter
modifications but included no funds for AN/AAQ 29 forward looking
infrared (FLIR) system kits that would provide an improved capability
for the Marine Corps' CH 53E helicopters to operate at night and in poor
weather conditions.
The AN/AAQ 29 FLIR, which replaces the out-of-production AN/AAQ 16
FLIR, provides aircrews and embarked ground force commanders with
infrared video displays, flight information, and navigational data. The
committee understands that only 42 of the Marine Corps' 165 CH 53E
helicopters are equipped with a FLIR system and notes that both the
Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps have
included 23 AN/AAQ 29 FLIR system kits among their unfunded requirements
in fiscal year 2001.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $34.9 million, an increase of
$15.0 million, for 23 AN/AAQ 29 FLIR system kits: $12.4 million for 19
system kits for active component CH 53Es, and $2.6 million for 4 system
kits for the Marine Corps Reserve CH 53Es.
KC 130J
The budget request contained $154.8 million for two KC 130J aircraft.
The KC 130J is a tactical airlift aircraft that also serves as a
tanker for both helicopters and tactical fighters. The KC 130J replaces
existing KC 130F, R, and T
models, providing increased speed and range, a higher cruise
ceiling, and a shorter take-off distance compared to the older models.
The Marine Corps currently has an inventory of 35 KC 130Fs, 14 KC
130Rs, and 28 KC 130Ts. The KC 130F, which was procured between 1960 and
1962, is the oldest aircraft in the inventory and is approaching the end
of its service life. The committee understands that a recent service
life assessment of the KC 130F fleet revealed that unless procurement of
KC 130Js is accelerated or a comprehensive and costly service life
extension program is undertaken, an inventory shortfall of 15 aircraft
may occur as early as 2001.
In its report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106 162), the committee
recommended an increase of four KC 130Js and notes that the Commandant
of the Marine Corps has identified additional KC 130J aircraft among his
highest unfunded aviation procurement requirements in fiscal year 2001.
Therefore, consistent with its prior actions, the committee
recommends $231.1 million, an increase of $76.3 million for one
additional KC 130J aircraft.
T 45 training system (TS)
The budget request contained $268.6 million to procure 12 T 45C
aircraft and associated ground-based training equipment and $5.1 million
for advance procurement of 4 T 45C aircraft in fiscal year 2002. The T
45TS is an integrated training system that combines the T 45 aircraft,
simulators, and computer-based training for the Navy's
intermediate-level undergraduate pilot training.
The committee notes that the T 45 aircraft procurement objective has
decreased from 234 in the Department of the Navy's budget request for
fiscal year 2000 to 169 in its request for fiscal year 2001. The
committee further notes that the Navy plans to close its T 45 production
line in fiscal year 2002 although the requirement for the T 45 remains
at 234. Since the Navy has experienced a recent shortage of pilots and
the Chief of Naval Operations has identified additional T 45 aircraft
among his unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001, the committee is
puzzled by both the decrease in its T 45 procurement objective and its
proposed shutdown of the T 45 production line in fiscal year 2002.
Consequently, the committee recommends $301.4 million, an increase of
$32.8 million for two additional aircraft. Further, the committee
encourages the Department of the Navy to restore funding in its future
years defense program to continue T 45 production.
Tactical air reconnaissance pod system (TARPS)-completely digital (CD)
The budget request contained $37.1 million for other production
charges but included no funds for the TARPS CD system, an electro-optic
sensor upgrade designed to validate clear-weather digital imaging
technologies and to mitigate development risks for the shared
reconnaissance pod (SHARP) system.
The committee notes the recent, successful at-sea deployment of the
TARPS CD system and believes that the progress of the Navy's digital
imaging technology risk-mitigation efforts thus far provides sufficient
confidence to build on these efforts through the integration of a
non-developmental, commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) synthetic aperture
radar (SAR) sensor which will provide day/night imagery in all-weather
conditions. Since the committee understands that an all-weather
reconnaissance capability is a requirement for the SHARP system, it
fully supports further risk-mitigation activities integrating a SAR
sensor on the TARPS CD system.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $44.1 million, an increase of
$7.0 million, to integrate a COTS SAR sensor into the TARPS CD.
UC 35
The budget request contained no funds for procurement of UC 35
aircraft for the Army, Navy or the Marine Corps.
The UC 35 is a medium-range, medium-lift operational support
aircraft. The committee understands that the Army, Navy, and the Marine
Corps conduct the operational support airlift mission with the
short-range C 12 aircraft, which is increasingly expensive to operate,
and does not meet payload, range, or avionics requirements. The
committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff, the Chief of Naval
Operations, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps have each identified
the procurement of UC 35s among their unfunded requirements in fiscal
year 2001.
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $22.8 million
for three UC 35 aircraft: $7.6 million for one Army aircraft and $15.2
million for one aircraft each for the Navy and Marine Corps.
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $1,434.3 million for Weapons
Procurement, Navy for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,562.3 million for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for those
programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified,
adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability
considerations.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Hellfire II missile
The budget request contained no funds for Hellfire II missiles.
The Hellfire II missile is a laser-guided, anti-armor and anti-ship
weapon used by the Marine Corps on the AH 1W helicopter and by the Navy
on the SH 60B helicopter. The committee notes that, despite increased
funding provided by Congress in fiscal years 1998 and 2000, the
Department of the Navy has not met its inventory requirement for these
missiles. The committee further notes that, as a result of this
situation, the Chief of Naval Operations has identified procurement of
Hellfire II missiles among his top unfunded readiness requirements in
fiscal year 2001.
Therefore, consistent with its prior actions, the committee
recommends an increase of $55.0 million to procure additional Hellfire
II missiles.
Improved tactical air-launched decoy (ITALD)
The budget request contained $58.9 million for aerial targets but
included no funds for the ITALD.
The ITALD, launched from Navy strike aircraft, is used to deceive and
saturate hostile air defense systems, thereby enhancing strike aircraft
survivability. The committee understands that only 260 ITALDs have been
funded to date against a Navy requirement for 1500 to 1750 systems.
Because the committee believes that the use of tactical decoys
significantly improves both aircrew survival and mission success, the
committee recommends $68.9 million, an increase of $10.0 million, to
procure additional ITALDs.
Joint standoff weapon (JSOW)
The budget request contained $171.6 million for the JSOW, a standoff
air-to-ground glide weapon that uses global positioning system
satellites and an inertial navigation system for precision guidance.
The committee understands that the JSOW has performed flawlessly in
over 60 combat deliveries and notes that the Chief of Naval Operations
has identified the procurement of additional JSOWs among his top two
unfunded weapons requirements in fiscal year 2001.
Consequently, the committee recommends $206.6 million, an increase of
$35.0 million, to accelerate procurement of additional JSOWs.
Standoff land attack missile-expanded response (SLAM ER)
The budget request contained $27.9 million to convert 30 standoff
land attack missiles (SLAMs) to the SLAM ER configuration. The SLAM ER
is a long-range, air-to-ground, precision-guided missile that improves
the SLAM's range, accuracy and lethality.
The committee notes that the SLAM ER has recently completed its
operational test and evaluation with both operationally effective and
suitable ratings. The committee also notes that the Chief of Naval
Operations has included the conversion of 60 SLAMs to the SLAM ER
configuration among his unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001 in
order to reduce the risk of future missile shortages for a major theater
war or contingency operation.
Therefore, the committee recommends $57.9 million, an increase of
$30.0 million, for the conversion of an additional 60 SLAMs to the SLAM
ER configuration.
AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, NAVY/MARINE CORPS
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $429.6 million for Ammunition
Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps for fiscal year 2001. The committee
recommends authorization of $481.3 million for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for those
programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified,
adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability
considerations.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Navy ammunition procurement
The budget request contained $295.9 million for procurement of
ammunition. The committee recommends $317.4 million, an increase of
$21.5 million for the following types of ammunition, which are among the
top unfunded requirements identified by the Chief of Naval Operations in
fiscal year 2001:
[Dollars in millions]
GBU 10/12/16 laser guided bombs/kits
$15.0
MJU 52/B IR expendables
6.5
Marine corps ammunition procurement
The budget request contained $133.7 million for procurement of
ammunition. The committee recommends $163.9 million, an increase of
$30.2 million for the following types of ammunition, which are among the
top unfunded requirements identified by the Commandant of the Marine
Corps in fiscal year 2001:
[Dollars in millions]
5.56mm, all types
$3.0
7.62mm, all types
1.0
APOBS
2.0
.50 caliber
1.0
Rocket, 83mm HEDP
10.7
Rocket, 83mm HE Common Practice
4.6
155mm Projectile Extended Range M795
7.9
SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $12,296.9 million for Shipbuilding and
Conversion, Navy for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends
authorization of $11,982.0 million for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for those
programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified,
adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability
considerations.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
LHD 8 amphibious assault ship
The budget request contained no funds for procurement of a WASP-class
(LHD) amphibious assault ship.
The committee understands that the Navy intends to procure the LHD 8
amphibious assault ship in fiscal year 2005 due to funding constraints,
but notes that both the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of
the Marine Corps have identified the LHD 8 as an unfunded requirement in
fiscal year 2001. The committee further notes that procurement of the
LHD 8 before fiscal year 2005 could result in significant savings and
result in more stable funding for the Navy's shipbuilding plan.
Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $10.0 million for
advance procurement and long lead materials for the construction of LHD
8.
Auxiliary dry cargo ship
The budget request contained $339.0 million for the procurement of an
auxiliary dry cargo ship (ADC(X)).
The committee is satisfied that the Navy has programmed sufficient
resources to provide for engineering and other one-time costs of the
lead shipyard in the ADC(X) program. However, since the program calls
for the ADC(X) class ships to be built by two shipyards, the committee
is concerned that the Navy has not also provided sufficient resources to
fund engineering and other non-recurring activities unique to the second
shipyard. The committee understands that if these activities are not
adequately funded, the award of the prime contract for the ADC(X) may be
delayed.
The committee is concerned that procurement of ADC(X) ships in the
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy (SCN) account does not adequately
reflect the unique logistics and sealift mission of these vessels. The
committee understands that the ADC(X) will be used to move cargo and
other supplies to forward-deployed fleet units and believes that a
vessel performing this mission would be more appropriately funded in the
National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF). The committee has therefore
transferred the funds requested for the ADC(X) in the SCN account to the
NDSF and directs the Secretary of the Navy to fund ADC(X) procurement in
the NDSF in future budget requests.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $339.0 million
to the Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy request and an increase of
$349.0 million to the National Defense Sealift Fund, including $339.0
million to procure an ADC(X) and $10.0 million to fund engineering and
other non-recurring activities necessary to support construction of this
ship class at two shipyards.
Submarine force level
The 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) established a force of 50
nuclear powered attack submarines (SSNs) as adequate to support the
national military strategy and subsequent budget requests have supported
this force level. However, the 1999 Attack Submarine Study conducted by
the Joint Chiefs of Staff found that the QDR force level is insufficient
to meet near- and long-term operational requirements. Due to the low
rate of attack submarine procurement during the 1990s any force
structure increase above the QFR level over the long-term would require
a sustained increase in VIRGINIA class SSN procurement.
Although sustained procurement of sufficient numbers of new
submarines is the only long-term solution to the SSN force structure
shortfall, the committee is aware of near-term cost-effective
opportunities to increase the number of submarines in the fleet. The
committee understands that the budget request contains sufficient funds
through fiscal year 2005 to refuel four LOS ANGELES class SSNs that
would otherwise be retired well before the end of their useful service
lives and strongly supports this effort as well as a longer-term
opportunity to refuel, in lieu of retirement, an additional three LOS
ANGELES class SSNs.
The committee is also aware of the opportunity to refuel and convert
four OHIO class nuclear powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) to
nuclear powered cruise missile submarines (SSGNs) in lieu of retirement.
Although its final configuration would be dictated by arms control
considerations, the SSGN would provide a stealthy conventional strike
platform to support theater Commanders-in-Chief (CINC) requirements for
precision cruise missiles.
The committee supports the use of all reasonable means to increase
the submarine force level through increased procurement of new
submarines as well as refueling and conversion, in lieu of early
retirement, of existing submarines. The committee believes that this
combination of efforts would provide the most cost-effective way of
maintaining an adequate submarine force that is capable of meeting
current and future challenges to U.S. national security interests.
Submarine refueling overhauls
The budget request contained $72.3 million for advance procurement
for submarine refueling overhauls but included no funds for advance
procurement for refueling overhauls associated with the conversion of
ballistic missile submarines to cruise missile submarines.
The committee is aware of the Navy's proposal to convert four OHIO
class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) to nuclear
powered cruise missile submarines (SSGNs) as a means of providing
theater Commanders-in-Chief (CINCs) with increased numbers of cruise
missiles for conventional precision strike missions. The committee notes
that a requirement of any conversion program would be the refueling of
the nuclear reactors of the candidate SSBNs. The committee understands
that the Navy has no experience with refueling OHIO class SSBNs and that
the submarines converted to SSGNs would also be the first of the class
to require refueling.
Therefore, in order to reduce risk in any potential SSGN conversion
program, the committee recommends $86.3 million for submarine refueling
overhauls, an increase of $14.0 million, for advance planning and
procurement for OHIO class submarine refueling overhauls.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $3,334.6 million for Other Procurement,
Navy for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends authorization of
$3,432.0 million for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for those
programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified,
adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability
considerations.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
AN/SPS 73 (V) surface search radar
The budget request contained $4.9 million for items less than $5.0
million but contained no funds for the AN/SPS 73 (V) surface search
radar.
The Navy currently operates several different surface search radars
on its ships but has begun the replacement of these various systems with
the AN/SPS 73 (V) radar. The AN/SPS 73 (V) is a commercial-off-the-shelf
system that has improved performance over current radars and reduced
support costs through standardized logistics and maintenance
requirements. The committee continues to support the accelerated
standardization of surface search radars and recommends an increase of
$14.0 million for the procurement of additional AN/SPS 73 (V) radars for
this purpose.
Aviation life support
The budget request contained $20.4 million for aviation life support
equipment for Navy and Marine Corps aircrews.
The Marine Corps currently uses a mix of aircrew night vision systems
procured during the 1980s and 1990s, some of which are incompatible with
the latest glass cockpit displays in new fleet aircraft. The Marine
Corps is moving toward a standardized configuration for aircrew night
vision equipment, but currently has an inadequate supply of modern
systems. The committee notes that this shortfall was identified by both
the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps as
an unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001.
The committee notes that Congress has previously added funds to this
program to facilitate the upgrading of fixed and rotary wing aircrews
with state-of-the-art night vision systems. The committee supports the
continuation of this effort and recommends an increase of $9.9 million
to procure additional AN/AVS 9 night vision goggles for Marine Corps
aircrews.
Education support equipment
The budget request contained $2.1 million for the virtual recruiting
program, which utilizes computer-based recruiting kiosks.
The committee understands that the Navy is facing serious challenges
in meeting recruiting goals and has established a pilot program to use
computer-based kiosks to provide potential recruits with access to
information about the Navy in an interactive format. The committee
further understands that the preliminary results of the pilot project
have been very successful but that the budget request fails to fully
fund this promising program.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $4.1 million for education
support equipment, an increase of $2.0 million, to procure an additional
150 armed forces recruiting kiosks in order to fully fund the virtual
recruiting program.
High-pressure cleaner
The budget request contained $58.9 million for ship support equipment
items less than $5.0 million but included no funds for high-pressure
non-hazardous dry steam solvent-based cleaners.
The committee is aware that the Navy and the Marine Corps are each
using high-pressure dry steam solvent-based cleaners facilities to clean
turbine engine parts, avionics, printed circuit boards, and a wide
variety of other military equipment in an environmentally responsible
manner. The committee also understands that the Navy has estimated
substantial maintenance cost savings associated with the use of these
cleaners and recognizes the value of their widespread use.
The committee agrees with the Navy's findings and, therefore,
recommends $60.9 million for ship support equipment items less than $5.0
million, an increase of $2.0 million, for the procurement of
high-pressure dry steam solvent-based cleaners.
Joint tactical terminal
The budget request contained $32,000 for the Joint Tactical Terminal
(JTT).
The committee is fully supportive of the Navy's efforts to field the
JTT but is aware that the Navy has a shortfall in purchasing the
required number of terminals.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $6.0 million, and increase of
$6.0 million, to correct this deficiency.
Mobile remote emitter simulator (MRES)
The budget request contained $15.1 million for weapons range support
but included no funds to procure MRES systems.
The MRES is a high power electronic warfare threat simulator that is
capable of illuminating aircraft, ships and other signal collection
platforms.
The committee notes that Congress provided additional funding to
procure an MRES system each year since fiscal year 1998 in order to
upgrade the Navy's electronic warfare testing and training facilities.
The committee supports the continuation of this modernization effort and
recommends an increase of $7.5 million for the procurement and
installation of one MRES system.
Nuclear attack submarine (SSN) acoustics
The budget request contained $106.6 million for SSN acoustics but
included no funds for the refurbishment and upgrade of TB 23 submarine
towed arrays.
The committee understands that the Navy intends to upgrade all
submarine towed acoustic arrays with the TB 29A array beginning in 2002
but at a rate that will require the TB 23 array to remain in service for
at least the next decade. The committee further understands that the TB
23 array must be refurbished and upgraded periodically to maintain the
reliability and effectiveness of this critical acoustic sensor.
Therefore, in order to ensure that the submarine force retains modern
and reliable acoustic sensors until completely outfitted with the TB 29A
array, the committee recommends $114.6 million for SSN acoustics, an
increase of $8.0 million, to sustain the TB 23 array refurbishment and
upgrade program.
Operating forces industrial plant equipment
The budget request contained $2.7 million for operating forces
industrial plant equipment but included no funds for expeditionary
maintenance facilities (EMF).
The committee is aware that the Navy is decommissioning its repair
tenders, thereby limiting its ability to rapidly deploy a ship and
equipment repair capability to support forward deployed forces. However,
the committee is also aware that EMF, surface and air transportable,
self-contained repair and maintenance facilities that can be operational
within 72 hours of deployment, can meet the Navy's needs for a rapidly
deployable repair and maintenance capability.
The committee fully supports the EMF concept and, therefore,
recommends $7.7 million for industrial plant equipment, an increase of
$5.0 million, to procure seven of the facilities.
Other training equipment
The budget request included $21.4 million for other training
equipment, of which $16.4 million for the procurement of equipment to
support the Battle Force Tactical Training (BFTT) program.
The BFTT system allows surface combatants and aircraft carriers to
conduct realistic coordinated training scenarios using ownship equipment
instead of shore-based training simulators. In fiscal year 2000,
Congress provided funds for upgrades to the BFTT system in order to
provide an Air Traffic Control (ATC) training capability for aircraft
carrier crews. In order to complete this upgrade, the committee
recommends an increase of $4.0 million.
Sonobuoys
The budget request contained $49.5 million for the procurement of
sonobuoys, including AN/SSQ 36, AN/SSQ 53E, AN/SSQ 57, AN/SSQ 62E,
AN/SSQ 77, AN/SSQ 101, and Signal Underwater Sound (SUS) buoys.
The committee notes that the Navy's peacetime annual requirement for
sonobuoys is approximately 100,000 units of all types, but the budget
request would fund about 63,000. The Navy's low sonobuoy procurement
rate continues to fall far short of annual peacetime anti-submarine
warfare (ASW) training requirements.
The committee is concerned that the supply of sonobuoys could be
quickly exhausted in the event of a major theater contingency involving
airborne ASW operations. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
increase of $18.0 million to address the sonobuoy shortfall, distributed
as follows: $3.0 million for AN/SSQ 53E, $5.0 million for AN/SSQ 62E,
and $10.0 million for AN/SSQ 77.
Undersea warfare support equipment
The budget request contained $847,000 for undersea warfare support
equipment but included no funds for surface sonar windows and domes.
The committee understands that the Navy has developed a new material
and production process for surface ship sonar dome windows because
reliable sources for the material previously used are no longer
available. The committee also understands that it is critical that the
Navy validate the new sonar dome material fabrication process to support
orders for spare sonar dome windows.
Therefore the committee recommends $5.8 million for undersea warfare
support equipment, an increase of $5.0 million, to complete development
of production tooling and fabrication of the first production sonar dome
with the new material system.
WSN 7B ring laser gyro (RLG)
The budget request contained $33.4 million for other navigation
equipment, including $7.4 million for the procurement of 11 WSN 7 RLGs.
The WSN 7 RLG is the common RLG ship navigation system for surface
ships and submarines.
The committee has recommended a total increase of $52.0 million for
the procurement and installation of WSN 7 RLGs over the four preceding
fiscal years. Consistent with its actions in prior fiscal years, the
committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for the procurement
and installation of additional WSN 7B RLGs, associated system field
change kits, and simulators. This increase will allow the Navy to
accelerate significantly the replacement of maintenance-intensive WSN 2
conventional gyro navigation systems in surface ships with the WSN 7B
RLG.
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $1,171.9 million for Procurement, Marine
Corps for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,254.7 million for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for those
programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified,
adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability
considerations.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Command post systems
The budget request contained $9.5 million to procure equipment for
command post systems but included no funds for additional common end
user computer equipment for the Marine Forces Reserve (MARFORRES).
The MARFORRES is currently implementing state-of-the-art information
system networks to enable greater management of and communications with
remote units. These information systems have enabled the migration from
paper and manual-based business processes to the network-based flow of
information in support of growing personnel management requirements for
pay, medical entitlements, retention and separation. The committee
understands that additional computer hardware and software, high speed
printers, scanners, and multi-functional phones are required to expand
the employment of these networks and notes that the Commandant of the
Marine Corps has identified a $2.0 million unfunded requirement for this
equipment in fiscal year 2001.
Therefore, the committee recommends $11.5 million, and increase of
$2.0 million, for additional common end user computer equipment for the
MARFORRES.
High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV)
The budget request contained $124.4 million for HMMWVA2s, which
incorporate upgraded electrical, braking, engine, and transmission
improvements as well as a 15-year corrosion prevention program.
The HMMWV is a multi-service, four-wheel drive utility and logistics
vehicle. The Marine Corps fleet is used for personnel and weapons
transport, medical evacuation, and as an air defense weapon-mount
platform.
The committee understands that a 1997 corrosion study concluded that
of the more than 17,800 HMMWVs procured by the Marine Corps from 1985 to
1995, 27 percent of the fleet was unserviceable due to severely corroded
frames that no longer complied with manufacturer specifications. The
committee notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps has identified
the accelerated procurement of additional HMMWVA2s to replace these
unserviceable vehicles as his number one ground unfunded requirement in
fiscal year 2001.
The committee strongly supports this effort and, therefore,
recommends $147.4 million, an increase of $23.0 million, for additional
HMMWVA2s.
Improved recovery vehicle (IRV)
The budget request contained $42.6 million to procure IRVs.
The 56-ton M88A1 is capable of towing only vehicles weighing less
than 60 tons. Consequently, two M88A1s are required to safely tow an
Abrams tank if it is rendered immobile due to combat damage or
mechanical failure. The M88A2 IRV upgrade includes increased engine
horsepower, as well as braking, steering, winch, lift, and suspension
capabilities required to safely recover Abrams tanks and other heavy
combat systems.
The committee notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps has
identified a $14.5 million unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 for
5 additional IRVs, which would accelerate the buyout of the program by
one year. Accordingly, the committee recommends $57.1 million, an
increase of $14.5 million, for 5 additional M88A2 IRV upgrades to
support future expeditionary operations.
Material handling equipment
The budget request contained $36.3 million for the procurement of
various types of material handling equipment but included no funds for
the remanufacture or product improvement of D 7G bulldozers and
scrapers.
The D 7G bulldozer/scraper fleet is used throughout Marine Corps
combat engineer and support units for airfield construction, as well as
for combat clearing and debris excavation.
The committee notes that the service's bulldozer and scraper fleet is
over 15 years old and rapidly deteriorating. The committee also notes
that the D 7G remanufacturing/product improve program will extend the
life of these bulldozers and scrapers for an additional 10 years.
Consistent with its actions in prior years, the committee recommends
$48.4 million, an increase of $7.0 million, to remanufacture/product
improve 62 D 7G bulldozers and $5.1 million to remanufacture/product
improve 45 scrapers.
Modification kits (intelligence)
The budget request contained $5.0 million for modifications to
various tactical intelligence systems, but no funds were included to
procure Joint Surveillance Target and Attack Radar System (Joint STARS)
Common Ground Stations (CGS) or Joint Service Workstations (JSWS).
The Joint STARS CGS will provide the Marine Air-Ground Task Force
(MAGTF) commander with near-real-time battle space surveillance and
command and control capability by integrating into a single station the
processing of signals, imagery, and other intelligence received through
a data link from the Air Force's E 8 Joint STARS aircraft radar. The
system detects, locates, tracks, and classifies both moving and
stationary targets beyond the forward line of troops. The JSWS, a
principal component of the Joint STARS CGS, was developed for fixed-site
locations that do not require all of the communications assets and
deployability provided by a CGS. The committee notes the Commandant of
the Marine Corps has identified an $8.5 million unfunded requirement in
fiscal year 2001 to procure 1 CGS and 3 JSWS, which would accelerate the
approved acquisition objective by one year to fiscal year 2001.
The committee is aware of the proven success of the CGS and
understands the additional CGS and three JSWSs will provide the
necessary assets for MAGTFs throughout the Fleet Marine Force, while
greatly enhancing the MAGTF commanders' situational awareness.
Therefore, the committee recommends $13.5 million, an increase of $8.5
million, for 1 Joint STARS CGS and 3 JSWSs.
Radio systems
The budget request contained $3.1 million for procurement of radio
systems but no funds were included to procure Tactical Hand Held Radios
(THHR).
The THHR is a military-ready, multi-band, secure voice and data radio
that will provide Marine reconnaissance teams, and squad-/ platoon-size
units with a lightweight, standardized, maintainable communications
capability that is interoperable with numerous Department of Defense
legacy communications radios.
The committee notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps has
identified THHRs as an unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001, which
would meet the entire acquisition objective for replacing existing
obsolete radios. Because the committee believes that the services must
have interoperable communications in support of the growing number of
joint operation deployments and supports the need for greater
communications capability within small units, the committee recommends
$15.1 million for radio systems, an increase $12.0 million to procure
THHRs.
Small unit riverine craft (SURC)
The budget request contained no funds to procure a SURC.
The committee understands that there is a requirement for a SURC to
support Marine Corps operations for a fast, shallow draft, high capacity
craft that is C 130 deployable and that such a craft would provide
Marine units with the capability to insert combat troops into a
riverside environment.
The committee is supportive of this requirement and, therefore,
recommends an increase of $2.0 million to procure a SURC for the Marine
Corps.
Training devices
The budget request contained $30.8 million to procure of numerous
training and simulation systems, but no funds were included for upgrades
to fielded indoor simulated marksmanship trainers (ISMT).
The ISMT-enhanced (E) will be a deployable, interactive,
three-dimensional simulation-based indoor training system for individual
and small tactical unit marksmanship training. System enhancements will
allow Marines to receive marksmanship training on all infantry weapons
and replicate known-distance range qualification courses, offensive and
defensive combat situations, and shoot-no-shoot decision-making
exercises, all of which would normally be performed on an outdoor range
using live ammunition. The committee notes that 97 of the Marine Corps'
603 ISMTs will receive the enhanced upgrade in fiscal year 2000 and that
the Commandant of the Marine Corps has identified an $8.7 million
unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 to upgrade the remaining 506
ISMTs.
The committee believes that it is critical for Marines to maintain
high marksmanship standards and that the ISMT E will provide the
training designed to compliment live-fire requirements. Therefore, the
committee recommends $39.5 million, an increase of $8.7 million, to
complete ISMT E upgrades.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $9,539.6 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends
authorization of $10,267.2 million for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for those
programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified,
adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability
considerations.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
A 10 modifications
The budget request contained $33.9 million for A 10 aircraft
modifications but included no funds for the integrated flight and fire
control computer (IFFCC) or for the situation awareness data link (SADL)
for the Air National Guard's (ANG) A 10 fleet.
The IFFCC is a replacement for the A 10's existing weapons delivery
computer, which has no additional processing power for future growth.
The committee understands that the Air Force plans to conduct a
multi-stage improvement program for the A 10 that will significantly
enhance its communications, threat warning and precision-guided
munitions capabilities but will be unable to proceed with this program
without the IFFCC. The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff
has identified the IFFCC among his top 20 unfunded requirements in
fiscal year 2001 in recognition of its importance to future A 10
modernization and recommends an increase of $6.8 million for this
purpose.
The SADL provides the ANG A 10 fleet with an all-weather, secure,
jam-resistant, low-cost data link using commercial-off-the-shelf
enhanced position location reporting system radios. The committee
understands that the A 10 SADL would prevent battlefield fratricide,
integrate with the Army and Marine Corps digitized battlefield, and has
growth capability for future data link upgrades. The committee notes
that the Chief of the Air National Guard has identified the A 10 SADL
among his unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2001 and recommends an
increase of $8.6 million for this cost effective modification.
In total, the committee recommends $49.3 million, an increase of
$15.4 million, for A 10 aircraft modifications.
Aircraft navigational and passenger safety equipment
The budget request contained various amounts in several aircraft
modification budget lines for the procurement and installation of
aircraft navigational and passenger safety equipment.
The committee has recommended increases for passenger and
navigational safety for several years, supporting the Secretary of
Defense's directive to improve aircraft flight and passenger safety
subsequent to the crash of a cabinet secretary's CT 43 aircraft in 1996.
These increases have funded both terrain avoidance warning systems
(TAWS), which project an aircraft's position relative to the ground and
improves pilot situational awareness by warning of potential ground
impact, and traffic collision and avoidance systems (TCAS), which
provide predictive collision avoidance information regarding an
aircraft's position relative to another aircraft. The committee notes
that other safety upgrades are also planned in the future years defense
program (FYDP) such as cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders,
and predictive windshear radars.
While the Department of Defense continues to fund these upgrades in
both the fiscal year 2001 budget and the FYDP, the committee believes
that such navigational and passenger safety improvements should be
expedited. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0
million to accelerate upgrades of the TAWS, TCAS, cockpit voice
recorders, flight data recorders, and predictive windshear radars on
passenger-carrying aircraft. Additionally, the committee expects the
secretaries of the military departments to report to the congressional
defense committees by February 1, 2001, on the passenger and navigation
safety upgrade status and plans for each of its passenger-carrying
aircraft. This report should identify which aircraft need to be equipped
with TAWS, TCAS, cockpit voice recorders, flight data recorders, and
predictive wind shear radars.
C 130 modifications
The budget request contained $91.5 million for C 130 modifications
but included no funds for the carry-on situation awareness data link
(SADL) or the AN/APN 242 for the Air National Guard's (ANG) C 130 fleet.
The carry-on SADL provides the ANG's C 130 aircraft fleet with an
all-weather, secure, jam-resistant, and low-cost data link using
commercial-off-the-shelf enhanced position location reporting system
radios. The committee understands that, without the carry-on SADL, the
ANG's C 130 transport and rescue aircraft will be incompatible with the
Air Force's Air Expeditionary Force packages, and notes that the Chief
of the ANG has identified the C 130 carry-on SADL among his unfunded
requirements in fiscal year 2001. Consequently, the committee recommends
an increase of $6.0 million to procure carry-on SADLs for the ANG's C ,
EC , HC , and MC 130 aircraft fleets.
The AN/APN 242 is a weather and navigation radar that replaces the
1950's-era AN/APN 59 radar currently installed on the ANG's C 130
aircraft fleet. The committee understands that the AN/APN 59, in
addition to being obsolete, has a mean-time-between-failure (MTBF) rate
of 40 to 100 hours and is costly to maintain. The committee also
understands that the AN/APN 242 radar has significantly improved
performance capabilities, a projected MTBF rate of 1800 hours, and that
maintenance cost savings associated with the AN/APN 59's replacement
will pay for the AN/APN 242's acquisition within five years. To improve
C 130 mission capability and reduce maintenance costs, the committee
recommends an increase of $10.0 million for AN/APN 242 radars for the
ANG's C 130 fleet.
In total, the committee recommends $107.5 million, an increase of
$16.0 million, for C 130 modifications.
Compass call block 30/35 mission crew simulator (MCS)
The budget request contained $1.4 million for C 130 post-production
support, but included no funds for a Compass Call block 30/35 MCS. The
EC 130H Compass Call is used to disrupt enemy command and control
communications, and the block 30/35 MCS would provide aircrew training
for the current block 30 and planned block 35 aircraft configurations.
The committee understands that the current EC 130H mission simulator
is an obsolete, block 20 configuration which limits training
effectiveness for block 30- and 35-configured Compass Call aircraft due
to its inability to generate sensitive mission scenarios typical of
actual flying missions. The committee notes that training in actual
block 30-configured EC 130H aircraft is expensive and for this reason
the Air Force Chief of Staff has identified the Compass Call block 30/35
MCS among his top unfunded readiness requirements in fiscal year 2001.
Because the committee believes that a state-of-the-art simulator is
required for this high-demand, low-density aircraft, it recommends $25.1
million, an increase of $23.7 million, to procure a Compass Call block
30/35 MCS.
C 135 modifications
The budget request contained $328.2 million for C 135 modifications
but included no funds for reengining KC 135E aerial refueling aircraft
or for the KC 135 carry-on situation awareness data link (SADL) for the
Air National Guard (ANG).
The committee remains a strong supporter of the KC 135 reengining
program and understands that reengined KC 135s are capable of shorter
take-offs, operating with higher gross weights, meeting or exceeding all
noise and pollution standards, and offloading more fuel. The committee
notes that the Chief of the Air National Guard has identified reengining
of the KC 135E among his unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001. The
committee recommends an increase of $52.0 million for two KC 135E
reengining kits.
The KC 135 carry-on SADL provides the ANG's KC 135 tanker aircraft
fleet with an all-weather, secure, jam-resistant, and low-cost data link
using commercial-off-the-shelf enhanced position location reporting
system radios. The committee understands that without the KC 135
carry-on SADL, ANG tanker aircraft will be incompatible with the Air
Force's Air Expeditionary Force packages. The committee notes that the
Chief of the Air National Guard has identified the KC 135 carry-on SADL
among his unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001. The committee
recommends an increase of $6.0 million to procure additional SADLs for
the ANG's tanker fleet.
In total, the committee recommends $386.2 million, an increase of
$58.0 million, for C 135 modifications.
C 17
The budget request contained $2,211.9 million to procure 12 C 17
aircraft and $266.8 million for advance procurement of 15 aircraft in
fiscal year 2002 but included no funds for an additional weapon system
trainer (WST) at the C 17 training base or for a maintenance training
system (MTS) for the Air National Guard (ANG).
The committee understands that the C 17 training base currently has
three WSTs, but it needs a fourth system to accommodate the increased
pilot production anticipated in fiscal year 2004 when additional
aircraft and pilots are projected to arrive. The committee notes that
the Air Force Chief of Staff has identified an additional C 17 WST among
his top unfunded readiness requirements in fiscal year 2001. In order to
ensure that the C 17 training base will have sufficient capacity to meet
required pilot production levels, the committee recommends an increase
of $14.9 million for procurement of an additional WST.
The C 17 MTS is designed to qualify personnel to maintain the C 17
aircraft. In its report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106 162), the committee
recommended an increase of
$3.5 million for advance procurement of long-lead items for
the MTS. The committee understands that the ANG unit that will receive C
17 aircraft in fiscal year 2003 requires an MTS for initial
qualification of its maintenance personnel prior to the arrival of the
aircraft but notes that the Department of the Air Force has still not
budgeted for this system. Therefore, consistent with its prior actions
and to deliver a maintenance training capability on schedule, the
committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million for the MTS.
In total, the committee recommends $2,237.8 million for the C 17, an
increase of $25.9 million.
C 17 reverse-affiliate units
The committee notes that the Air Force is retiring its aging C 141
aircraft fleet and replacing it with the C 17, which was recently combat
proven in Operation Allied Force, to meet the Department of Defense's
airlift mobility requirements. The committee also notes the Air Force's
increasing reliance on, and importance of, Air Force Reserve Command
(AFRC) units to accomplish the airlift mission and that several reserve
units are scheduled to begin retiring their C 141 aircraft in fiscal
year 2003 without a designated follow-on mission identified. In light of
the current AFRC pilot and technician recruiting and retention
shortfalls, the committee is concerned that the Secretary of the Air
Force has yet to make a time-sensitive determination of a follow-on
mission for those AFRC units with retiring C 141 aircraft.
Accordingly, the committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to
designate a mission for the AFRC units affected by the retirement of the
C 141, especially those units with a joint-service requirement, and
requests the Secretary to strongly consider the designation of a
reverse-affiliate C 17 unit at bases where one of these units is
located. A C 17 reverse-affiliate unit would permit the AFRC to continue
to utilize existing aircrew and maintenance personnel expertise in its
operations and maintenance responsibilities for AFRC-assigned C 17
aircraft, while also providing mission-ready aircraft that could be
flown by active duty Air Force aircrews.
Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP), line 56
The budget request contained $165.5 million for various RC 135 and U
2 aircraft modifications but included no funds for RC 135 training
aircraft, an updated C 135 operational flight trainer (OFT II), RC 135
global air traffic management (GATM) upgrades, or the theater airborne
warning system (TAWS) for the RC 135 Rivet Joint (RJ).
The committee notes that the theater and functional
commanders-in-chief (CINCs) have repeatedly testified that their
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) requirements,
particularly those supported by ISR aircraft such as the RC 135 and U 2,
are not currently satisfied due to the limited number of these
platforms. The committee understands that the Air Force does not have a
dedicated RC 135 aircrew training aircraft and that this deficiency
contributes to the limited number of aircraft available to meet CINC
requirements. To increase the availability of RC 135 mission aircraft to
the CINCs, the committee recommends an increase of $44.0 million to
modify two C 135 aircraft into an RC 135 training aircraft
configuration.
The C 135 operational flight trainer (OFT I) is the aircraft
simulation training device for the RC , OC , WC , and TC 135 pilots. The
committee understands that OFT I is obsolete due to its outdated engine
and aircraft avionics configurations and that OFT II would train
aircrews to operate the re-engined and updated-avionics-configured C 135
model aircraft. The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff
has included the procurement of OFT II among his top five unfunded
requirements in fiscal year 2001 and recommends an increase of $9.0
million, of which $6.5 million is for an OFT II and $2.5 million is to
equip this OFT II with motion simulation.
RC 135 GATM upgrades include: interference resistant navigational
receivers, global positioning system upgrades, a traffic collision and
avoidance system, radios to permit reduced vertical separation between
aircraft during Atlantic Ocean transit, cockpit voice recorders, and
flight management system upgrades. The committee understands that,
without these upgrades, RC 135 aircraft will be restricted from flying
the most direct and fuel-efficient ocean routes and altitudes, will be
subject to critical landing-phase navigational radio interference, and
will not be equipped with the Secretary of Defense-directed safety
modifications until after fiscal year 2005. To meet these vital needs,
the committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has included RC
135 GATM upgrades among his unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2001,
and consequently, recommends an increase of $28.4 million for this
purpose.
The TAWS significantly improves the accuracy of ballistic missile
warning on RC 135 RJ, a tactical reconnaissance aircraft. In its report
on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106 162), the committee recommended an increase
of $17.3 million for the RC 135 RJ TAWS and believes that continued
integration of these suites is critical to tactical missile defense
warning. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million for continued procurement and installation of TAWS suites on the
RC 135 RJ aircraft.
To consolidate RC 135 modifications in DARP, line 56, and U 2
modifications in DARP, line 80, the committee recommends a transfer of
the $5.1 million budgeted for RC 135 aircraft modifications in DARP,
line 80 into this budget line; and a transfer of the $18.3 million
budgeted for U 2 aircraft modifications in this line into DARP, line 80.
This transfer results in a $13.2 million decrease to this line and an
increase of $13.2 million in DARP, line 80.
In total, the committee recommends $243.7 million for DARP, line 56,
an increase of $78.2 million for RC 135 modifications.
Finally, the committee is concerned about the Department of the Air
Force's budget plan for the RC 135's joint signals intelligence avionics
family (JSAF) upgrades and notes that the request would budget for a
single JSAF suite for the RC 135 but additional suites are not planned
until fiscal year 2005. Without full and continuous funding for this
upgrade, the committee understands the first system, if installed onto
the RC 135, would result in a unique RC 135 aircraft configuration which
would increase unit support costs for that aircraft. Accordingly, the
committee believes the new JSAF system should continue development and
testing in the RC 135 systems integration laboratory and on the U 2
aircraft until the Department of the Air Force budgets to upgrade all 16
RC 135 aircraft.
Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP), line 80
The budget request contained $98.4 million in DARP, line 80, for
various U 2 and RC 135 aircraft modifications, of which $1.8 million was
included for senior year electro-optic reconnaissance system (SYERS)
sensor spares and $17.0 million was included for a joint signals
intelligence avionics family (JSAF) suite for the U 2. However, the
budget request did not include any funds for additional U 2ST aircraft,
a two-seat trainer version of the single-seat U 2S reconnaissance
aircraft.
SYERS is an electro-optic camera system that provides real-time
imagery to national decision makers and tactical forces. The committee
understands that the budget request underfunds initial deployment spares
for the SYERS upgrade by $3.0 million and, accordingly, recommends an
increase of this amount.
The JSAF provides an upgraded information collection capability for
the U 2S. The committee understands that the budget request is
insufficient to procure an entire JSAF suite and required spares and
cabling. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million for this purpose.
The committee understands that there are only four U 2STs and that
without an additional U 2ST, the U 2S pilot production rate does not
meet requirements to resolve an existing pilot shortage. The committee
notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has included an additional U 2ST
among his top five unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001 and,
accordingly, recommends an increase of $10.0 million to convert a U 2S
into a U 2ST aircraft.
Including transfers between DARP lines 56 and 80 discussed elsewhere
in this report, the committee recommends $128.6 million, an increase of
$30.2 million, for U 2 modifications.
15 modifications
The budget request contained $258.2 million for F 15 modifications,
of which $37.3 million was included for modification kits that convert
the F100 engine to the F100 220E configuration. However, the budget
request included no funds for F 15 Bofers launchers (BOL) countermeasure
dispenser systems for the Air National Guard's (ANG) F 15A and B
aircraft, which would significantly improve its survivability.
Conversion kits for the F 15's F100 engine, also known as ``E-kits,''
provide increased thrust, greater reliability, better fuel efficiency,
and reduced operations and maintenance costs. The committee understands
that, without the E-kit modification, ANG's F 15A/B fleet will be
increasingly costly to operate and maintain, less safe, and have
diminished availability to respond to the Air Force's Air Expeditionary
Force contingency operations. Accordingly, the committee recommends an
increase of $70.0 million for E-kits to accelerate the conversion of the
ANG's F 15A/B aircraft engines to the F100 220E configuration.
The committee understands that the Air Force's test of a BOL
countermeasures dispenser system on the F 15 aircraft revealed that this
system provided a dramatic increase in the aircraft's chaff and flare
capacity and a new preemptive expendable capability. The committee also
understands that the Air Combat Command has identified
an urgent requirement for a preemptive chaff and flare
capability on the F 15, and notes that the Chief of the Air National
Guard has included integration of such capability on F 15A and B
aircraft among his unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001.
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million
to integrate the BOL countermeasure dispenser system on the ANG's F 15A
and B aircraft. The committee also recommends $68.9 million, an increase
of $7.6 million, in PE 27134F for F 15 operational systems development
to complete foreign comparative test activities for integration of this
system on all F 15 aircraft, as reflected in Title II of this report.
In total, the committee recommends $358.2 million, an increase of
$100.0 million for F 15 modifications.
Additionally, the committee notes that the Air Force modifies its F
15 fleet with a series of individual modifications rather than through a
comprehensive block upgrade approach, such as the B 2 block modification
upgrade program, in which several modifications are accomplished at one
time. Since the committee believes that an F 15 block upgrade program
would be more efficient, reduce cost, increase aircraft availability,
and increase readiness through a reduction in the number of different F
15 configurations, it strongly encourages the Secretary of the Air Force
to implement an F 15 block upgrade program beginning with the Air
Force's fiscal year 2002 budget request, and expects the Secretary to
report to the congressional defense committees his plan to implement
such a block upgrade program.
15E
The budget request contained no funds for procurement of F 15E
aircraft. The F 15E is a two-seat, missionized-cockpit, dual-role
fighter that retains an air-to-air capability and adds the systems
necessary to meet the requirement for an all-weather, deep penetration,
day/night air-to-surface attack aircraft.
The committee notes that the Air Force plans to operate its inventory
of 218 F 15Es until 2030, and further notes that the F 15E fleet has
recently experienced very high operational tempos. The committee
believes, therefore, that additional attrition reserve aircraft should
be procured.
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $149.8 million
for two F 15E aircraft.
16 modifications
The budget request contained $248.8 million for various F 16
modifications, of which $6.0 million was included to procure 29 ALE 50
towed decoy launcher pylons. However, the request included no funds for
the LITENING II precision attack targeting system (PATS) or for airborne
video solid-state recorder systems (AVSRs).
The committee understands that Air National Guard (ANG) F 16 units
equipped with the F 16C block 25 and 30 aircraft have an immediate
shortfall in precision strike capability. The committee notes that the
Chief of the Air National Guard has identified procurement of additional
LITENING II PATS as his number one unfunded requirement in fiscal year
2001. This system, which consists of a third-generation forward-looking
infrared and a laser spot tracker, will allow ANG block 25 and 30 F 16s
to participate in future Air Expeditionary Force contingency operations.
The committee notes that the ANG has a requirement for 160 LITENING II
PATSs, but only 56 have been funded.
The committee believes the integration of ANG F 16s into precision
strike operations is essential to the Total Force concept and,
therefore, recommends an increase of $25.0 million to procure 17
additional systems.
The ALE 50 towed decoy pylon enables F 16C aircraft to carry the ALE
50, a radio-frequency repeater which is used to decoy an incoming threat
missile away from the aircraft. The committee understands that the ALE
50 was one of the most effective countermeasure devices used during
Operation Allied Force and that it is credited with saving several
aircraft. Also, the committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff
has identified procurement of the ALE 50 towed decoy pylon among his
unfunded modernization requirements in fiscal year 2001.
Consequently, the committee recommends $18.3 million, an increase of
$12.3 million, to accelerate the production of 111 additional ALE 50
towed decoy pylons.
The AVSR is a commercial off-the-shelf replacement for the F 16's
existing mechanical airborne video tape recorders which, the committee
understands, are difficult to maintain and have low reliability. The
committee also understands that the AVSR will provide a dramatic
improvement in mean time between failure, has no moving parts which can
break or wear out, requires no scheduled maintenance and will save an
estimated $80 million in life-cycle costs compared to the F 16's current
system.
Therefore, to improve reliability and reduce F 16 airborne video tape
recorder ownership costs, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0
million for the AVSR.
In total, the committee recommends $298.1 million for F 16
modifications, an increase of $49.3 million.
16 improved avionics intermediate shop (IAIS)
The budget request contained $25.5 million for F 16 post production
support, of which $5.0 million was included for one IAIS system.
The F 16 IAIS system is a mobile test station used to diagnose and
repair F 16 avionics problems at deployed locations. Because the F 16
IAIS uses fewer people and requires less cargo space for transit than
the existing avionics intermediate shop, deployments of F 16 units which
have the IAIS require less airlift support.
The committee understands that 63 F 16 IAISs are required but notes
that only 48 have been--or are planned to be--procured in the future
years defense program. The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of
Staff has identified additional IAISs among his unfunded requirements in
fiscal year 2001.
Therefore, the committee recommends $49.5 million, an increase of
$24.0 million for five additional F 16 IAIS systems, including two for
active, two for Air National Guard, and one for Air Force Reserve units.
16C
The budget request contained no funds for the procurement of F 16C
aircraft, the primary multi-mission fighter aircraft of the Air Force.
The committee notes its continuing strong support for the F 16C
program and that Congress provided an increase of $24.0 million in
fiscal year 2000 for advance procurement of additional aircraft in
fiscal year 2001. Finally, the committee notes that the Department of
the Air Force planned to procure 20 additional aircraft (10 each in
fiscal years 2002 and 2003) but has subsequently revised its plan and
now intends to procure six aircraft in fiscal year 2003 and seven in
each of fiscal years 2004 and 2005.
Therefore, consistent with its previous actions, and noting that both
the Air Force Chief of Staff and the Chief of the Air National Guard
have identified additional F 16C aircraft among their top unfunded
requirements in fiscal year 2001, the committee recommends an increase
of $51.7 million and expects that the Department will combine these
funds with the $24.0 million appropriated for advance procurement in
fiscal year 2000 for to procure three F 16C block 50/52 aircraft.
The committee observes that the Senate Committee on Appropriations
report on H.R. 2521 (S. Rept. 102 154) stated, ``the Committee directs
that F 16 aircraft scheduled to be delivered to the Air Force during
fiscal year 1992 be turned over to those Air National Guard F 16's units
which served in Operation Desert Storm.'' The committee further observes
that the statement of the managers accompanying the conference report on
H.R. 2521 (H. Rept. 102 328) stated, ``The Committee of Conference
directs the Air Force to initiate, immediately in the first quarter of
fiscal year 1992, the modernization process for those Air National Guard
F 16 units that deployed to Operation Desert Storm, in priority over any
nondeploying unit, leading to equipping these deploying units with
updated F 16 aircraft. Units with the Close Air Support (CAS) mission
will be equipped with Block 30 aircraft.'' The committee notes that the
Air Force complied with the aforementioned directives but subsequently
reversed that action when it removed the block 30 aircraft of the 174th
Fighter Wing and replaced them with less capable block 25 aircraft.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
assign F 16 block 40, or later model F 16 aircraft, to Air National
Guard units whose capabilities have been downgraded as a result of the
substitution of older block aircraft when F 16C block 50/52 aircraft
procured in fiscal year 2001 are delivered to the Air Force.
8C joint surveillance and target attack radar system (STARS)
The budget request contained no funds for advance procurement to
continue E 8C Joint STARS aircraft production.
The E 8C Joint STARS aircraft provides near real-time surveillance
and targeting information on moving and stationary ground targets,
enabling battlefield commanders to quickly make and execute engagement
decisions. Although its situational awareness value to commanders has
prompted the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) to validate a
requirement for 19 aircraft, the Department of the Air Force has
budgeted only for 15.
While the committee is encouraged that the Department has funded the
15th Joint STARS aircraft in its budget request, it remains concerned
that, despite the JROC-validated requirement for 19 aircraft, the
Department plans to shut down the E 8C production line after this
aircraft is produced. These ``low-density, high demand'' aircraft are
among the most sought-after assets by the regional commanders-in-chief
for a range
of reconnaissance and surveillance operations and have been
combat proven in the recent Operation Allied Force.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million for
advance procurement of a 16th E 8C Joint STARS aircraft.
Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly (LESPA)
The budget request contained $28.2 million for other aircraft
modifications but included no funds for the LESPA.
Due to its longer repack cycle and extended service life, the
committee continues to believe that the Department of the Air Force will
realize substantial life cycle cost savings with LESPA, compared to
existing parachutes, and has previously recommended procurement of
LESPAs for the Navy's P 3 and E 2 aircraft.
Consistent with its previous actions to reduce ownership costs, the
committee recommends $35.2 million for other aircraft modifications, an
increase of $7.0 million for LESPAs to replace existing parachutes in C
130, C 141, C 5 and KC 135 aircraft.
Predator
The budget request contained $22.1 million for procurement of the
Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) system.
The committee understands that the Air Force is experiencing
vanishing vendor problems with some of the current hardware in the
Predator ground station and that there is a requirement to control
multiple Predator aircraft simultaneously from a single ground station.
The committee is also aware that there are required air vehicle
reliability and maintainability upgrades that have not been funded.
Consequently, the committee recommends $34.1 million for the
Predator, an increase of $12.0 million for upgrading the current ground
stations with commercial hardware, for integrating the capability to
control multiple UAVs simultaneously and for improving air vehicle
reliability and maintainability.
Finally, the committee is aware that a jointly funded effort between
the contractor and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has
developed a turbo-prop variant of the Predator to be followed by a
jet-powered variant. Both of these Predator-B variants use the current
Predator ground station, avionics, datalink, and control software but
provide major performance improvements over the current aircraft,
including a maximum speed in excess of 200 knots and a service ceiling
to 45,000 feet. While the current Predator has clearly proven its
military worth, given these performance improvements, a Predator-B would
appear to satisfy many niche missions for which the current vehicle is
not well-suited. The committee believes that a Predator-B would be a
valuable addition to the Predator fleet and that a mix of Predator-A and
-B aircraft would cost effectively satisfy all Predator mission
requirements.
Therefore, the committee requests the Secretary of the Air Force to
conduct an assessment of the utility of a Predator-B aircraft, including
the benefits or problems operating a mixed Predator fleet. The committee
further requests the Secretary report his findings to the congressional
defense and intelligence committees concurrent with the submission of
the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
T 3A modifications
The budget request contained $1.9 million for T 3A aircraft
modifications.
The committee notes that the Department of the Air Force has removed
the T 3A from service for screening prospective pilot candidates prior
to entry into undergraduate pilot training. Consequently, the committee
recommends no funding for T 3A modifications, a decrease of $1.9
million.
AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $638.8 million for Ammunition
Procurement, Air Force for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends
authorization of $638.8 million for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for those
programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified,
adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability
considerations.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $3,061.7 million for Missile
Procurement, Air Force for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends
authorization of $3,046.7 million for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for those
programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified,
adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability
considerations.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
AGM 65 modifications
The budget request contained $2.0 million to convert 200 AGM 65G
missiles to the AGM 65K configuration.
The AGM 65 is a precision guided tactical missile employed on the F
16 and A 10 aircraft. The ``G'' configuration has an infrared target
seeker that can be upgraded to the ``K'' configuration, which uses an
updated electro-optical (EO) seeker. The ``B'' configuration has an
obsolete EO target seeker that can be upgraded to the ``H''
configuration, which also uses an updated EO seeker. Since the committee
understands that over 5300 AGM 65s were fired in Operation Desert Storm
and over 800 in Operation Allied Force, it believes that the current
upgrade rate can neither meet future operational requirements nor
provide sufficient missiles for training.
Consistent with its prior year actions in adding funds for these
upgrades, the committee recommends $7.0 million, an increase of $5.0
million, for conversion to both the AGM 65H and K configurations, of
which some missiles should be procured for Air National Guard pilot
training.
Medium launch vehicle (MLV)
The budget request contained $55.9 million for MLV launch operations.
The committee notes that the MLV is used for Global Positioning
System (GPS) satellite launch operations and that, due to the
restructuring of the GPS program, GPS launches have been delayed.
Consequently, the committee believes that the budget request contains
funds in excess of MLV program requirements. Therefore, the committee
recommends $45.9 million for MLV, a reduction of $10.0 million.
Titan
The budget request contained $469.7 million for the Titan launch
vehicle and launch operations.
The committee notes that the management contingency funding request
for the Titan program is substantially larger than that of other
programs of comparable maturity and believes that the budget request
contains funds in excess of requirements. Therefore, the committee
recommends $459.7 million, a reduction of $10.0 million.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $7,699.1 million for Other Procurement,
Air Force for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends authorization
of $7,869.9 million for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for those
programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified,
adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability
considerations.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Automatic data processing equipment (ADPE)
The budget request contained $74.8 million for ADPE but included no
funds for the spare parts production and re-procurement system (SPARES),
a web-based, industry-standard electronic storage and management system.
The committee understands that SPARES has enabled parts procurement
times to be reduced from 90 to 15 days and field maintenance response
times to be reduced from 14 days to only a few hours. The committee
continues to consider these figures impressive as it did when
recommending increased funding for SPARES in its report on H.R. 1401 (H.
Rept. 106 162) for fiscal year 2000.
Therefore, consistent with its prior actions, the committee
recommends $84.8 million, an increase of $10.0 million, to continue
procurement of the SPARES.
AN/FPS 117 radar beacon replacement
The budget request contained $54.4 million for communications
electronics modifications but included no funds for replacement of
beacons on AN/FPS 117 radars. The AN/FPS 117 is a minimally attended,
long-range radar system used to provide air defense and air traffic
control in the Arctic regions of Canada and Alaska.
The committee understands that the AN/FPS 117's beacons, which
provide identification friend or foe information to military air defense
controllers as well as altitude and aircraft identification to civilian
air traffic controllers, are increasingly unsupportable due to
out-of-production parts and do not meet Federal Aviation Administration
regulations for air traffic control.
The committee believes these radars should not be allowed to
deteriorate and, therefore recommends $69.4 million, an increase of
$15.0 million, to begin a program for integration, testing and
replacement of AN/FPS 117 radar beacons.
Eagle vision
The budget request included no funds for procuring the processing
hardware necessary to complete the Eagle Vision 4 imagery system.
Eagle Vision is a ground station that receives and processes imagery
from commercial remote sensing satellites. The committee fully supports
the Eagle Vision commercial imagery initiative, which has provided
unique, unclassified imagery support to meet theater and service
requirements that, due to higher priorities, cannot be met by other
technical means. The committee believes that this initiative needs to be
fully funded to continue such support.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for
completing the Eagle Vision 4 processor installation.
Rivet joint mission trainer (RJMT)
The budget request contained $12.8 million for RC 135 Defense Aerial
Reconnaissance Program procurement but included no funds to provide a
forward-deployed training capability for the RJMT, the primary RC 135
Rivet Joint (RJ) ground training simulator.
The RC 135 RJ is a tactical reconnaissance aircraft that provides
real-time intelligence to combat forces. The committee understands that
the procurement of an enhanced field exportable training system (EFETS)
would improve training and readiness by allowing deployed RC 135 RJ
crewmembers to use existing post-mission ground data processing
equipment to function as an RJMT. Since procurement of an additional
RJMT for deployed locations would not be required, the committee further
understands that the EFETS would save the Air Force $27.4 million and
notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has included $15.5 million for
the EFETS among his top five unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2001.
Consequently, the committee recommends $28.3 million, an increase of
$15.5 million for this purpose.
Senior scout
The budget request contained $5.5 million for procurement of
intelligence communications equipment, including $2.0 million for
procurement of spares and replacement equipment for the Senior Scout
tactical reconnaissance aircraft.
The committee is pleased that the Air Force has decided to retain the
Senior Scout reconnaissance capability to augment the high demand/low
density airborne intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR)
fleets in the reserve component. However, the committee is disturbed
that the Air Force has not added funding to upgrade the Senior Scout to
more effectively interoperate with other ISR aircraft and, more
importantly, the combat aircraft it supports.
Therefore, the committee recommends $13.7 million for intelligence
communications equipment, an increase of $8.2 million for Senior Scout
collection and dissemination upgrades and for the addition of a
deployable ground data reduction system.
Situation awareness data link (SADL) gateway for the theater
air control system (TACS)
The budget request contained $15.4 million for TACS improvement but
included no funds to initiate a program for the SADL gateway for the Air
National Guard's (ANG) TACS.
The SADL gateway for the ANG's TACS would use
commercial-off-the-shelf enhanced position location reporting system
radios, a laptop-sized computer, and an integrated software package to
provide datalink-equipped ground assets with friend or foe track
identification when an aircraft's transponder is not operating. This
capability would enable ANG TACS participants on the ground to view the
entire air battle picture. The committee understands that this system
would help prevent battlefield fratricide and notes that the Chief of
the Air National Guard has identified the SADL gateway for the ANG's
TACS among his unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2001.
Consequently, the committee recommends $19.8 million, an increase of
$4.4 million, to initiate a SADL gateway program for the ANG's TACS.
Supply asset tracking system (SATS)
The budget request contained $15.1 million for mechanized material
handling equipment but included no funds for SATS.
SATS provides the capability to quickly and accurately identify and
locate personnel, equipment and supplies through the use of commercial
automated information technology. The committee understands that this
system enhances productivity, shortens inventory cycles, and allows
real-time inventory updates.
The committee notes that Congress has provided additional funds for
SATS installation over the past two years and accordingly, recommends
$27.1 million, an increase of $12.0 million, to continue the
installation of this system at Air Force bases worldwide.
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $2,275.3 million for Procurement,
Defense-Wide for fiscal year 2001. The committee recommends
authorization of $2,309.1 million for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for those
programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified,
adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability
considerations.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Automated document conversion system (ADCS)
The budget request contained no funds for ADCS.
The committee recognizes that the ADCS program continues to perform a
critical role in the attainment of the Department's goal for achieving a
digitally integrated, paperless environment by 2002. Although the ADCS
is the Department's single most productive program in converting the
vast remaining inventories of legacy engineering drawings into more
useful computerized formats, the committee understands that, a
significant conversion backlog remains in each service.
Therefore, in order to reduce this backlog, the committee recommends
an increase of $40.0 million to continue the ADCS program.
Counternarcotics discreet operations radio (CONDOR)
The budget request contained no funds for the CONDOR, a mobile
communications system that allows encrypted as well as non-encrypted
transmissions in a single device and includes a net broadcast capability
for one-to-many communications similar to handheld radios. CONDOR
addresses the Department of Defense's requirement to have secure and
net-mode mobile communications in a device that resembles a normal
cellular telephone while reducing the Department's need to maintain
unique expensive wireless networks.
The committee understands that NSA has procured a small number of
these devices; however, additional devices are required. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for additional CONDOR
procurement.
Patriot advanced capability 3 (PAC 3)
The budget request contained $365.5 million for acquisition of the
PAC 3 system and 40 PAC 3 missiles. The PAC 3 system is the only theater
missile defense (TMD) system nearing operational deployment that is
capable of defeating current sophisticated ballistic missile threats.
The committee notes that the Director of the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization has identified facilitization of the PAC 3
production line and additional procurement of PAC 3 missiles as unfunded
requirements in fiscal year 2001. The committee believes that additional
funds would provide both manufacturing efficiencies prior to full rate
production of the PAC 3 as well as inventory growth to meet emerging
threats.
Because of the near-term importance of the PAC 3 for TMD, the
committee recommends $430.7 million, an increase of $35.2 million for
procurement of eight additional PAC 3 missiles and $30.0 million for
additional facilitization of the PAC 3 production line.
Portable intelligence collection and relay capability (PICRC)
The budget request contained $32.3 million for special operations
forces (SOF) intelligence systems but included no funds for the PICRC.
The PICRC integrates commercial-off-the-shelf mapping and display
software, desktop computers, hand-held computing devices, and wireless
communications to enable SOF operators to employ high-resolution imagery
for precision navigation, annotate real-time visual observations, and
relay information to command elements.
The committee understands that this system would significantly
enhance SOF capabilities to accurately collect, quickly report, and
promptly act upon real-time intelligence data. Consequently, the
committee recommends $38.3 million, an increase of $6.0 million, for
procurement of PICRC systems.
CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, DEFENSE
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained no funds for Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction, Defense for fiscal year 2001. The committee
recommends authorization of $877.1 million for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for those
programs adjusted in the following table. Unless otherwise specified,
adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability
considerations.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Chemical agents and munitions destruction
As described elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends
transferring the budget request of $1,003.5 million for Chemical Agents
and Munitions Destruction, Army (CAMD, A) to Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction, Defense (CAMD, D), and recommends a total of
$877.1 million for the program.
The committee notes the progress during the last fiscal year in the
continuing effort to dispose of the U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical
agents and munitions and of chemical warfare related materiel, while
ensuring maximum protection of the public, personnel involved in the
destruction and the environment. Nearly 20 percent of the original
stockpile of 31,495 tons of chemical agents has been destroyed and 90
percent of the stockpile is under contract for destruction.
The committee continues to be concerned about total cost of the
chemical agents and munitions destruction program (currently estimated
at $14.9 billion). Section 141 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106 65) included several measures to
increase the flexibility of the program with respect to the disposition
of chemical stockpile destruction facilities and the destruction of
non-stockpile chemical agents, munitions or related materials in these
facilities. The provision required the Secretary of Defense to assess
the program and report to the Congress by March 1, 2000, the measures
taken, or planned to be taken, under existing law and recommendations
for additional legislation to reduce significantly program costs and to
meet U.S. obligations under the CWC. The section further provided for a
review and assessment by the Comptroller General of the United States of
program execution and financial management for each element of the
program. The committee intends to use these reports as the basis for
further review of the program later this year.
The committee continues to believe that, in order to ensure the
maximum protection of the public, personnel involved in the destruction
of the stockpile, and the environment, the Department should proceed
with destruction of the stockpile as rapidly as is technically and
programmatically feasible. Therefore, the committee recommends that the
Secretary of Defense carry out the chemical agents and munitions
destruction program in accordance with the following priorities:
Execution of the baseline chemical stockpile disposal project and the
alternative technologies project at those sites selected and approved
for use of those technologies; and
Preparation for pilot testing of those ACWA technologies which have
the greatest likelihood of implementation and, if implemented, of
meeting the destruction goals established by the CWC.
Chemical stockpile disposal project
The budget request for the chemical agents and munitions destruction
program included $105.1 million in procurement and $483.6 million in
operations and maintenance funding for the chemical stockpile disposal
project. The committee recommends the budget request for the chemical
stockpile disposal project.
Chemical stockpile emergency preparedness project (CSEPP)
The budget request for the chemical agents and munitions destruction
program included $600,000 in procurement funds for minor replacement
equipment and $66.7 million for CSEPP operations and maintenance.
The committee notes that funds provided for CSEPP in fiscal years
1999 and 2000 were subject to reductions of approximately 9 percent and
8 percent, respectively, as a pro-rata share of reductions to the CAMD,
A account. Because of the potential impact of such reductions on the
safety of those living and working near or on the chemical stockpile
storage and destruction sites, the committee directs that funding for
CSEPP shall be at the requested level unless otherwise specifically
noted.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a total of $600,000 in CAMD, D
Procurement, and $66.7 million in CAMD, D Operations and Maintenance,
for CSEPP, as a Congressional special interest item.
Alternative technologies and approaches project
The budget request for the chemical agents and munitions destruction
program included $135.2 million for development of alternative
technologies and approaches for the disposal of bulk chemical agents
stored at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and Newport, Indiana. The
committee recommends the budget request for the alternative technologies
and approaches project.
Non-stockpile chemical materiel project
The budget request for the chemical agents and munitions destruction
program included $60.2 million in research and development, $16.2
million in procurement, and $47.5 million in operations and maintenance
funds for the non-stockpile chemical materiel project.
The committee notes that the Army has destroyed a large portion of
its existing non-stockpile chemical warfare materiel and that
approximately 1,400 non-stockpile chemical munitions are currently in
storage awaiting destruction. However, because of technical issues, cost
increases, and delays in obtaining state permits, program officials are
considering alternate disposal methods, including the use of chemical
stockpile disposal facilities.
The committee is aware that an independent assessment of the
non-stockpile project recommends seeking appropriate environmental
permit language to allow destruction of non-stockpile materiel at the
chemical stockpile disposal facilities. The assessment also recommends
examination of the schedule and cost risks of the non-stockpile project
to quantify the potential program risks, ultimate costs, and time to
complete the project. The committee believes that these issues must be
addressed and serious consideration given to destruction of
non-stockpile chemical materiel in stockpile
disposal facilities before proceeding further with development
and acquisition of integrated transportable treatment systems for
non-stockpile chemical materiel.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a total of $47.5 million for
the non-stockpile chemical materiel project, a decrease of $60.2 million
for non-stockpile chemical materiel project research and development and
a decrease of $16.2 million for non-stockpile chemical materiel project
procurement.
Chemical agent identification sets
The committee notes that approximately 10,000 chemical agent
identification sets (CAIS) and components, which were used to train
soldiers in defensive responses to a chemical attack, are in storage
awaiting destruction, and that the Army's baseline approach for treating
and disposing of CAIS has been to develop a mobile treatment system in
the non-stockpile chemical materiel project. The committee has reviewed
the National Research Council (NRC)'s report ``Disposal of Chemical
Agent Identification Sets,'' which evaluates the Army's 1998 report to
Congress on alternative approaches for the treatment and disposal of
CAIS. The NRC recommends that the Army reconsider its interpretation of
CAIS as chemical warfare materiel under section 1512 of Title 50, United
States Code, evaluate the technical feasibility of non-incineration
technologies for CAIS disposal, insure the active involvement of public
and other stakeholder groups CAIS project decision, and consider the
potential use of chemical stockpile destruction facilities for CAIS
disposal.
The committee expects the Secretary of the Army to address the
Council's recommendations in the next annual status report on the
disposal of chemical weapons and materiel.
Assembled chemical weapons assessment (ACWA)
The budget request for chemical agents and munitions destruction
contains $79.0 million for ACWA research and development, including
$50.0 million for engineering design studies for three additional
alternative technologies to be demonstrated in accordance with the
statement of managers that accompanied the conference report on H.R.
2561 (H. Rept. 106 371).
The committee has reviewed the progress in the ACWA program to
identify and demonstrate not less than two alternatives to the baseline
incineration process in accordance with Title VIII, section 8065 of the
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997 (Public Law 104 208) and
to conduct evaluations of three additional alternative technologies.
The committee notes the NRC's ``Review and Evaluation of Alternative
Technologies for Demilitarization of Assembled Chemical Weapons'' dated
August 1999, which concluded that the primary alternative technologies
can decompose the chemical agents of concern with the required
destruction efficiencies; however, testing, verification, and
integration beyond the 1999 demonstration phase would be necessary. The
NRC also concluded that an extraordinary commitment of resources would
be required to complete destruction of the assembled chemical weapons
stockpile (using any of the ACWA technology packages) in time to meet
the current deadline established by the CWC.
The committee notes that the NRC's ``Supplemental Review,'' dated
March 2000, of the three technologies from the 1999 demonstration
concluded that, while the two hydrolysis-based technologies showed
promise, none of the technology packages was ready for integrated pilot
programming, and the tests were not conducted for a sufficient period of
time to demonstrate reliability and long-term operations. The committee
notes that the two hydrolysis-based technologies are currently in the
engineering design studies phase and that a site-specific Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), which includes both the baseline incineration
and hydrolysis options, is being submitted for the Pueblo, Colorado,
chemical stockpile destruction facility in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A NEPA record of decision is expected
in May 2001, approximately 15 months from the date the EIS was filed.
The committee notes that contract awards for demonstration of the
three additional alternative technologies were made in February 2000 and
a report to Congress of the results of the demonstration is planned for
March 2001. Based on this schedule and noting the concerns raised by the
NRC regarding the need for testing, verification, and integration beyond
the demonstration phase, the committee believes there is no requirement
to begin preliminary engineering design studies for the three additional
alternatives during fiscal year 2001.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $29.0 million for ACWA program
research and development, a decrease of $50.0 million.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
SECTIONS 101 107--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year 2001
funding levels for all procurement accounts.
SUBTITLE B--ARMY PROGRAMS
SECTION 111--MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to enter into
multiyear procurement (MYP) contracts for the M2A3 Bradley Fighting
Vehicle in fiscal year 2001 and the UH 60 Blackhawk and Navy CH 60
Knighthawk utility helicopters, as the Department of the Navy's
executive agent, in fiscal year 2002. This section would also prohibit
the Secretary of the Army from executing a M2A3 Bradley MYP contract
until a successful completion of the vehicle's initial operational test
and evaluation and certification by the Secretary to the congressional
defense committees that the vehicle met all of its required test
parameters.
SECTION 112--INCREASE IN LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF BUNKER DEFEAT
MUNITIONS THAT MAY BE ACQUIRED
This section would amend section 116 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103 337) to increase
the number of bunker defeat munitions that may be acquired by the Army
from 6,000 contingency rounds to 8,500 contingency rounds.
SECTION 113--ARMAMENT RETOOLING AND MANUFACTURING SUPPORT INITIATIVE
This section would modify section 193 of the Armament Retooling and
Manufacturing Support (ARMS) Act of 1992 (Public Law 102 484) by
extending the initiative through fiscal year 2002. The provision would
also expand the purposes of the ARMS Act beyond the current facilities
identified in Section 193 to include the Army manufacturing arsenals.
Finally, the provision would modify Section 194 of the ARMS Act to allow
the Secretary of the Army to enter into long term facilities use
contracts and accept non-monetary consideration in lieu of rental
payments for use of facilities. The provision would require that the
Secretary of the Army provide a report to the Congressional defense
committees by July 1, 2001, on the implementation of the arsenal
contracts provided by the ARMS Act authority.
SUBTITLE C--NAVY PROGRAMS
SECTION 121--SUBMARINE FORCE STRUCTURE
This section would prohibit the retirement of any Los Angeles class
nuclear powered attack submarine with less than 30 years of active
commissioned service. This section would also require the President to
report to Congress on the submarine force structure required to support
the national military strategy and the acquisition and overhaul
requirements necessary to achieve and maintain such a force.
Section 122--Virginia Class Submarine Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter into
a contract for the procurement of five Virginia class submarines during
fiscal years 2003 through 2006.
SECTION 123--RETENTION OF CONFIGURATION OF CERTAIN NAVAL RESERVE
FRIGATES
This provision would require the Secretary of the Navy to configure
and equip the Naval Reserve FFG 7 Flight I and II frigates remaining in
active service with the complete organic weapon system for these vessels
as specified in the Navy's Operational Requirements Document and retain
these frigates in their current locations.
SECTION 124--EXTENSION OF MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT AUTHORITY FOR ARLEIGH
BURKE CLASS DESTROYERS
This section would authorize an extension of the existing multiyear
procurement contract for the DDG 51 destroyer program through fiscal
year 2005. The section would authorize the procurement of three ships
per year through fiscal year 2001 and the procurement of up to three
ships per year from fiscal year 2002 through 2005.
SUBTITLE D--AIR FORCE PROGRAMS
SECTION 131--ANNUAL REPORT ON OPERATIONAL STATUS OF B 2 BOMBER
This section would repeal section 112 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101 89).
This section would further require the Secretary of Defense to submit an
annual report on the B 2 bomber that would include assessments related
to B 2 capabilities; technologies needed to enhance B 2 capabilities and
the adequacy of technology investments to enhance these capabilities;
and the consistency of such technology investments with the Air Force
bomber roadmap and the report of the 1998 Long Range Airpower panel
submitted pursuant to the requirements of the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105 56).
SUBTITLE E--JOINT PROGRAMS
SECTION 141--STUDY OF PRODUCTION ALTERNATIVES FOR THE JOINT STRIKE
FIGHTER PROGRAM
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to submit a report
to Congress providing the results of a study of production alternatives
for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft program and the effects on the
tactical fighter aircraft industrial base of each alternative
considered.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $37,862.4 million for research,
development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), representing a decrease of
$426.7 million to the amount provided for fiscal year 2000. The
committee recommends $39,309.2 million, an increase of $1,446.8 million
from the budget request.
The committee notes that the fiscal year 2001 request for RDT&E
funding represents the first increase in the budget request for RDT&E
funding by the Administration in five years. Although this request
approaches the level of funding provided by Congress in recent years, a
number of important priorities are identified by the services as
unfunded or underfunded. The committee has placed its emphasis on
recommending increases to the request, where appropriate, to address the
highest unfunded priorities identified by each of the military service
chiefs, the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, the Special
Operations Command, and other defense agencies prevented by funding
constraints from investing in needed advanced technology.
The committee remains concerned that the Department of Defense
continues to place higher priority on the allocation of budgetary
resources to research and development activities of some defense
agencies than on those of the military services. The committee believes
that the Department has not provided sufficient justification to support
imbalances in funding levels between the defense agencies and the
military services, and, therefore, recommends correcting these
imbalances by maintaining funding of several defense agencies at the
levels originally projected by the Department for fiscal year 2001 in
the budget estimates provided to Congress one year ago.
The budget request contained $7,543.2 million for defense science and
technology, including all defense-wide and military service funding for
basic research, applied research, and advanced development. The
committee notes that this amount represents a decrease of $853.3 million
from the amount provided in fiscal year 2000. As outlined elsewhere in
this report, the committee continues to be disturbed by the growing
number of military service research and development programs that have
been reduced or eliminated as a result of insufficient research and
development funding, and is particularly concerned with the low level of
science and technology funding. The committee views defense science and
technology investment as critical to maintaining U.S. military
technological superiority in the face of growing and changing threats to
national security interests around the world.
While the budget request for RDT&E activities represents a
significant reversal in the five-year trend of decline experienced by
the services, the committee believes that many important programs have
already experienced unnecessary cost and schedule growth as a direct
result of unjustified funding constraints. The committee strongly
recommends that the Secretary of Defense thoroughly review the
Department's modernization investment strategy to ensure proper balance
between the services and defense-wide agencies, and between legacy
systems and the technological advances critical to the future
superiority of the nation's military forces.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ARMY RDT&E
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $5,260.3 million for Army RDT&E. The
committee recommends authorization of $5,500.2 million, an increase of
$239.9 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Army RDT&E
program are identified in the table below. Major changes to the Army
request are discussed following the table.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Advanced artillery systems
The budget request contained $355.3 million in PE 63854A for
artillery systems, and $23.2 million in PE 63635M for ground combat
support systems, including $12.1 million for the lightweight 155mm towed
howitzer.
The committee notes that the Army and Marine Corps have identified a
need for lighter, more lethal, more mobile, and strategically more
deployable artillery systems to support their complementary forces. The
committee further notes the joint Army-Marine Corps program with the
United Kingdom to develop a new lightweight 155mm towed howitzer as a
replacement for the aging and operationally deficient M198 towed
howitzer for both the Marine Corps and the Army. The committee is aware
that the lightweight 155mm towed howitzer has already been successfully
transported by the MV 22 Osprey to demonstrate its ability to be rapidly
transported on the battlefield. The committee notes that the lightweight
155mm howitzer will incorporate a modern fire-control system, not
available in the M198, which will allow the howitzer to be emplaced
within two minutes, and immediately fired with greatly increased
accuracy.
The committee also notes the Army's highest priority effort, the
procurement of a medium weight brigade force and supports this effort to
develop a capability to rapidly and appropriately respond to global
threats. The Army has confirmed a requirement for a highly capable fire
support for this new force but must rely initially on the towed M198
howitzer until the lightweight 155mm development is complete.
The committee supports the rapid fielding of the lightweight 155mm
towed howitzer for both the new Army medium weight brigades and for the
Marine Corps, and is aware that the Marine Corps has stated a need to
conduct additional testing with the United Kingdom and the Army to
address at-sea environment concerns. The committee recommends an
increase of $3.2 million in PE 63635M for the lightweight 155mm
howitzer.
The committee recommends that the Secretary of the Army expedite
development of the fire control system for the lightweight 155mm towed
howitzer, within available funds, so that it will be incorporated from
the beginning of lightweight 155mm production.
Advanced battery technology
The budget request contained $23.9 million in PE 62705A for
electronics and electronic devices.
The committee notes that the Army and other services have identified
a steady growth in requirements for affordable higher performance energy
storage devices. The committee also notes that industrial development
efforts are maturing a wide array of new battery technologies, including
bi-polar wafer cell nickel-metal hydride technology. This emerging power
supply technology offers significant improvements in storage/weight and
discharge characteristics that are needed to meet emerging defense
needs.
The committee notes that the Army is the designated executive agent
for development of power supply technologies and recommends $23.9
million in PE 62705A for electronics and electronic devices, of which
$1.0 million shall be available for development of bi-polar wafer cell
nickel-metal hydride technology.
Aircrew coordination training
The budget request contained $3.1 million in PE 63007A for manpower,
personnel, and training, but included no funding for aircrew
coordination training (ACT).
The committee notes with concern the adverse trend in the Army
aviation safety record and strongly supports efforts such as the ACT
program to enhance flight safety. The committee recommends $6.1 million
in PE 63007A, an increase of $3.0 million for aircrew coordination
training.
Apache Longbow focused modernization program
The budget request contained $95.8 million in PE 23744A for aircraft
modification and product improvement, but included no funds for a
focused Apache Longbow modernization program.
The committee is aware that despite the significant capability of the
Apache Longbow, some component systems within the Apache fleet have not
been modernized as part of the Longbow program. Several of these
systems, based on older technology, are responsible for escalating
operation and maintenance costs, and reduced overall aircraft
performance.
The committee recommends an increase of $18.4 million in PE 23744A
for a focused Apache Longbow modernization effort as part of the Army's
aviation modernization program.
Army tactical unmanned aerial vehicles
The budget request contained $29.4 million in PE 35204A for tactical
unmanned aerial vehicles (TUAV).
The committee notes that the Army just completed a successful
competitive selection for an off-the-shelf TUAV. The committee notes
that the Army will place increasing reliance on its TUAV and needs to
field the best possible system including sensors.
The committee recommends $33.4 million in PE 35204A, an increase of
$4.0 million for preplanned product improvements and sensor development.
Breacher system
The budget request contained no funds in PE 64649A or for the
procurement of the Breacher system.
The Breacher, an M 1 Abrams tank chassis-based vehicle, will be used
by combat engineers to clear minefields and complex obstacles on the
forward edge of the battlefield. This vehicle is designed to replace
several other existing breaching systems and provides increased
capability to maneuver with the armor forces it supports.
Although the committee understands that the Breacher was terminated
to fund Army transformation priorities, the committee notes that this
system is the second highest unfunded modernization requirement
identified by the Army Chief of Staff in fiscal year 2001.
The committee believes that termination of the Breacher was
shortsighted, and therefore recommends an increase of $59.6 million in
PE 64649A to complete engineering and manufacturing development and
$20.0 million in procurement to begin production line facilitization.
Chinook helicopter modification and improvement
The budget request contained $95.8 million in PE 23744A for aircraft
modification and product improvement programs, including $37.2 million
for other CH 47F Chinook improved cargo helicopter (ICH), but included
no funds for the CH 47D Chinook helicopter product improvements.
The committee notes that the CH 47F Chinook improved cargo helicopter
program will upgrade engines, airframe and avionics of approximately 300
CH 47D Chinook helicopters. The committee is aware that the Army plans
to protect helicopters, including the ICH, from the serious threat posed
by infrared guided missiles by acquiring the Advanced Threat Infrared
Countermeasures/Common Missile Warning System (ATIRCM/CMWS) that
includes portions of the existing joint service ALE 47 programmable
countermeasure dispenser. However, the committee is aware that the
ATIRCM/CMWS development is delayed and the system may not be available
for several years. The committee believes it is unsatisfactory for the
Army to delay procurement of the proven ALE 47 countermeasure system
while awaiting ATIRCM/CMWS.
Therefore, the committee directs the Army to include the ALE 47
programmable countermeasure dispensers as part of the ICH program. The
committee supports the ICH program; however, the committee also notes
that many CH 47D models require additional product improvement to
address aging and part obsolescence issues that threaten near-term
flight worthiness. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
assess the need to establish a funded Chinook product improvement
program and report the results of the assessment including levels of
funding required to the congressional defense committees with the
submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Comanche
The budget request contained $614.0 million in PE 64223A for Comanche.
The committee notes that the Comanche remains the Army's highest
aviation modernization priority, and that the Secretary of the Army has
requested an additional $48.2 million over last year's forecast in order
to accelerate Comanche development. The committee notes that the
Department of Defense has recently reviewed the Comanche program and
determined that the program has successfully achieved all program exit
criteria required before entry into engineering and manufacturing
development (EMD). The committee is aware, however, that final
approval for EMD is pending while the Army assesses out-year acquisition
funding for Comanche.
The committee supports Comanche and strongly endorses the commitment
made by the Army to accelerate this program. While total out-year
procurement for major programs is an important issue, the committee
believes the Army has made every effort to accelerate this program
within the inadequate modernization funding allowed by the Department of
Defense, and strongly recommends that the Secretary of Defense grant
immediate approval for Comanche's entry into EMD. This program
represents the only viable solution to meet the requirement for a
stealthy, rapidly deployable, and highly capable armed reconnaissance
aircraft to support the Army's recently approved aviation modernization
plan. The committee believes the requirement and the urgency for the
Comanche has been more than adequately justified and entry into the EMD
phase of the program should not be delayed pending discussions of the
total planned procurement or annual rate.
The committee recommends the budget request, and supports earliest
possible entry into EMD.
Combat identification dismounted soldier (CIDDS)
The budget request contained $5.4 million in PE 64817A for CIDDS.
The committee is aware that CIDDS will allow an individual soldier to
identify quickly friendly forces and thus reduce the incidence of
fratricide.
The committee continues to support strongly all efforts to reduce
fratricide and, therefore, to enhance the capability of the dismounted
soldier to positively identify a target as friend or foe, recommends
$10.4 million in PE 64817A, an increase of $5.0 million.
Combustion-driven eye-safe self-powered laser
The budget request contained $20.5 million in PE 62709A for night
vision technology, but included no funds for the combustion-driven
eye-safe self-powered laser.
The committee notes that the combustion-driven eye-safe self-powered
laser offers the potential to field a three-dimensional identification
friend or foe system capable of identifying aircraft and vehicle threat
systems in real-time.
The committee recommends $25.5 million in PE 62709A, an increase of
$5.0 million for the combustion-driven eye-safe self-powered laser.
Common ground station
The budget request contained $17.9 million in PE 64770A for continued
development of the Army's Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar
System (Joint STARS) Common Ground Station, including $2.0 million to
develop the Army's Distributed Common Ground Station (DCGS-A). The
budget request also contained $5.9 million for development of a
wide-band data link to provide connectivity to the Joint STARS next
generation capability.
The committee notes that the DCGS A effort duplicates that being
conducted within the Army's Tactical Exploitation of National
Capabilities program. Further, the committee notes that the Air Force
has not determined the next generation Joint STARS data link and will
not do so until at least fiscal year 2002. Therefore, the committee
believes it premature for the Army to begin design or development work
for such communications connectivity.
For these reasons, the committee recommends a decrease of $7.9
million in this PE 64770A to the DCGS A program.
Communications and networking technologies
The budget request contained $49.3 million in PE 64805A for
communications, command and control engineering and manufacturing
development.
The committee notes that communications and networking technologies
are critical to command and control, precision strike, intelligence
dissemination, logistics and day-to-day business operations throughout
the joint commands, military services and supporting defense agencies.
The committee recognizes that the most advanced technological
developments in these areas are emerging from commercial industry and
are driven by the rapid evolution of the commercial markets. The
committee believes that the Department must capitalize on the rapid
progress being made in the commercial sector and identify, assess, adapt
and integrate state-of-the-art commercial communications and networking
technologies to achieve the goal of Information Superiority established
by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Joint Vision 2010. The
committee also believes that there are significant gains to be made by
leveraging information technology developments from the commercial
sector for the benefit of government users, through cooperative research
and development of technologies that promise significant gains in both
civil and military capabilities, and through training government
personnel in these rapidly evolving technologies.
Therefore, the committee recommends $62.3 million in PE 64805A, an
increase of $13.0 million to accelerate on-going programs for the
development and application of commercial information technologies for
defense purposes and to foster cooperative and complementary information
technology research and development programs. The committee recommends
that the Secretary of the Army work with the Assistant Secretary of
Defense (Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence)
to insure the applicability of the increased program to the overall
Defense communications architecture.
Defense manufacturing technology
The budget request contained a total of $149.1 million for the
manufacturing technology (ManTech) program, including $29.3 million in
PE 78045A, $59.6 million in PE 78011N, $53.1 million in PE 78011F, and
$7.1 million in PE 78011S.
The committee notes the progress by the Joint Defense Manufacturing
Technology Panel (JDMTP) in developing an overarching strategy for the
ManTech program that focuses on defense-essential requirements, involves
prospective users of the technology, ensures prioritization of projects,
and plans for transition of ManTech projects to the ultimate user of the
technology. The committee also notes the progress toward achieving
congressional guidelines on program funding levels, particularly in the
Army. The total budget request for Department of Defense ManTech
represents an increase of $16.0 million above the previous year, and the
five-year ManTech plan projects an 11 percent increase through fiscal
year 2005, with the Army program increasing $71.2 million and stable
budget projections for the Navy, Air Force, and Defense Logistics
Agency. The positive funding trend will permit the establishment of new
ManTech initiatives in critical defense technologies.
The committee notes the increasing use of thick composite structures
in rotary wing aircraft and other applications by all the military
departments and encourages increased emphasis on the development of
advanced manufacturing technologies for such composite structures.
The committee supports a continuing program in munitions
manufacturing technology and expects that munitions manufacturing
technology projects will compete for funding on an equal basis with
other manufacturing technologies.
The committee also notes that the Army, Navy, and Air Force are
developing methods to accelerate insertion of emerging
microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) technology into tactical systems
to meet precision navigation and guidance requirements. The objective of
the initiative is to develop and demonstrate low cost manufacturing
processes for emerging MEMS technologies that will enable the production
of affordable MEMS-based inertial sensors, accelerometers and gyroscopes
for tactical weapons. The committee directs the Secretary of the Defense
to establish a Tri-Service initiative for the development of affordable
MEMS manufacturing technology, and recommends that the funding for the
program be provided in the Army's ManTech program.
The committee recommends $39.3 million in PE 78045A for the Army's
manufacturing technology program, an increase of $ 10.0 million. The
committee recommends $69.6 million in PE 78011N, an increase of $10.0
million for the Navy's ManTech program. As noted elsewhere in this
report, the committee has recommended an increase of $4.5 million in PE
78011F for the development of manufacturing technology for specialty
aerospace metals.
Emergency preparedness training
The budget request contained no funds for emergency preparedness
training research and development.
The committee notes the progress in development of advanced
distributed learning programs for chemical and biological preparedness
and consequence management response training for the Army's designated
Civil Support Teams and other elements of the Reserve Components.
The committee recommends a $3.0 million in PE 23610A to continue the
development for selected Reserve Component forces of training programs
for response to and management of the consequences of potential
terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction.
Future combat system
The budget request contained $148.1 million in PE 63005A for combat
vehicle and automotive advanced technology, including funding for
efforts supporting the future combat system (FCS).
The committee is aware that the Army has begun the process, through
the FCS initiative, to transform the Army into a more strategically
responsive force that is dominant at every point across the full
spectrum of operations. The committee notes that the cornerstone of this
aggressive transformation effort would begin in fiscal year 2001 with
the partnership between the Army and the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) to incorporate the most promising, new, reaching
technologies into a family of future combat systems.
The committee notes that, while DARPA has ongoing work in many
technology areas, these efforts have not been focused on solving Army
identified problems or advancing technologies applicable to the future
combat system. The committee believes that DARPA should dedicate more
funding to the Army FCS program and other high priority requirements
identified by the services.
The committee strongly supports the future combat system development
and notes that there is an urgent requirement to provide additional
funding at the program onset to allow a more inclusive and robust
concept definition phase that will enable as many participants as
possible to explore innovative solutions for the future combat system.
The committee is also aware that additional efforts focused on
technology development in the areas such as robotics, precision weapons,
active protection and signature control are needed.
Therefore the committee recommends an increase of $46.0 million in PE
63005A for the future combat system.
The committee notes that the joint United States-United Kingdom
Future Scout and Cavalry System (FSCS) program is developing leap-ahead
technology for future ground systems. Both nations are contributing
funding and technology to a program regarded as an excellent example of
cooperation between allies and the Army has indicated that it needs the
technology from FSCS to support development of the Future Combat System.
The committee is disturbed by the Army's elimination of funding for
the FSCS engineering manufacturing development phase. The committee
believes that the FSCS is an essential collaborative program that should
continue in order to develop and demonstrate key technologies on which
to build the family of future combat vehicles. The committee believes
that industry should be encouraged to continue its significant private
venture funding and that will only occur if the FSCS consortia can
identify a firm connection between FSCS and FCS. The committee therefore
directs the Secretary of the Army to report to the congressional defense
committees on how the Army will sustain the joint FSCS program to
develop and demonstrate key technologies applicable to the future family
of combat systems, no later than December 31, 2000.
Future rotorcraft technologies
The budget request contained $31.1 million in PE 62211A for aviation
advanced technology, but included no funds to support the initiative to
focus technology for the future generation of rotorcraft.
The committee notes that despite a clear need for modern, efficient,
capable rotorcraft, no focused program exists to develop the enabling
technologies for more efficient, affordable rotorcraft in the future.
The committee recommends $33.1 million in PE 62211A, an increase of
$2.0 million for future rotorcraft technologies and directs the
Secretary of the Army to establish a focused program to develop
technologies critical for the future rotorcraft.
Guardrail common sensor
The budget request contained $95.8 million in PE 23744A for aircraft
modifications and product improvement programs, including $11.3 million
for continued development and modification of the Army's Guardrail
Common Sensor aircraft and ground stations.
The committee notes that the Guardrail System 2 was recently
delivered to the Army after nearly ten years of modification.
Unfortunately, this system was returned without upgrades to permit the
dissemination of tactical intelligence information via the Tactical
Information Broadcast Service (TIBS). TIBS is the baseline for the
Integrated Broadcast Service that is the DOD-mandated worldwide tactical
intelligence dissemination service.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 23744A to
install the TIBS capability in the final Guardrail system.
Helmet mounted infrared sensor development
The budget request contained $33.3 million in PE 63710A for night
vision technology.
The committee is aware that the Army has initiated development of a
prototype helmet mounted infrared sensor system to support the
warfighter that has been demonstrated to significantly improve
situational awareness in all weather/environmental conditions. This
technology has direct applicability to Department of Defense and
civilian firefighting personnel and increases safety and effectiveness
for firefighting in smoke filled environments as well as for search and
rescue.
The committee recommends $37.1 million in PE 63710A, an increase of
$3.8 million for helmet mounted infrared sensor development.
High-energy laser test facility
The budget request contained $14.5 million in PE 65605A for the
Department of Defense (DOD) high-energy laser system test facility
(HELSTF).
The committee notes the recent release of the congressionally
directed DOD high-energy laser master plan and identification of a need
for increased investment in solid-state laser technology. The committee
is aware that HELSTF has contributed significantly to the development of
high-power lasers, and will continue to provide unique capabilities for
research, development, test and evaluation of high-power laser systems.
The committee supports the DOD high-energy laser master plan and the
selection of the Army as lead in solid-state laser development and
recommends $19.5 million in PE 65605A, an increase of $5.0 million for
HELSTF.
Hypersonic wind tunnels
The budget request contained $47.2 million in PE 62303A for missile
technology, but included no funds for modernization of the hypersonic
wind tunnels at the Aero-optics Evaluation Center (AOEC)
The committee notes that upgrading the hypersonic wind tunnel
diagnostics and instrumentation will provide enhanced testing
capabilities for key ballistic missile defense programs, including Navy
Area Defense, the Atmospheric Interceptor Technology project, and the
Army's scramjet technology program.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 62303A to
upgrade hypersonic wind tunnels.
Integrated inertial measurement unit-geo-positioning system
The budget request contained $47.2 million in PE 62303A for missile
technology, including funds for integrated guidance systems.
The committee notes that the development of a highly integrated,
jam-proof, micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) based inertial
measuring unit-geo positioning system (IMU GPS) is critical to achieving
the goal of affordable precision fire and forget weapons. The most
demanding application for this capability is the 155mm projectile for
Army and Navy applications. The committee is aware that: (1) recent Army
flight tests have demonstrated significant progress and shown that the
goal is achievable and (2) a development plan has been established to
produce a suitable system in approximately three years. The committee
further notes that this program also offers potentially significant cost
growth and technical problem solutions to Navy fire support programs,
and the use of IMU GPS systems by both the Army and Navy could result in
billions of dollars of savings for the Department of Defense.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
62303A for continued development of an integrated IMU-GPS.
Land information warfare activity
The budget request contained $8.1 million in PE 33140A for the
information systems security program.
The committee notes that the Army's land information warfare activity
(LIWA) continues to develop a state-of-the-art capability for
information security and analysis, and that the Department of Defense
(DOD) has recently acknowledged the importance of this new capability to
DOD information assurance efforts.
The committee supports the Department of Defense efforts to establish
such capability, and supports completion of the LIWA, including tests of
that capability for Army and other entities to ensure that this
potential capability is thoroughly evaluated.
Therefore, the committee recommends $11.9 million, an increase of
$3.8 million in PE 33140A for continued development and enhancement of
the Army's land information warfare activity.
Medical errors reduction research
The budget request contained $15.8 million in PE 62716A for human
factors engineering technology, but included no funds for the medical
errors reduction research program (MERRP).
The committee notes that MEERP is an extension of the previous
emergency teams coordination (MEDTEAMS) program to reduce medical errors
in operating rooms, intensive care units and other hospital activities
and will expand that effort from the emergency department to advanced
life support protocols.
The committee recommends $19.5 million in PE 62716A, an increase of
$3.7 million for MERRP.
Mobile tactical high energy laser
The budget request contained $12.6 million in PE 63308A for Army
missile defense systems, but included no funds for mobile tactical high
energy laser development.
The committee is aware that the Army has determined a need for a
mobile directed energy air defense system. The committee understands
that one alternate being explored is the evolution of the stationary
tactical high energy laser (THEL) being developed for Israel. A mobile
THEL for the U.S. Army would require further development of key elements
such as solid-state laser development, compact power sources, and a
lightweight acquisition, tracking and beam direction system.
The committee recommends $17.6 million in PE 63308A, an increase of
$5.0 million for mobile tactical high energy laser development.
National automotive center-university innovative research
The budget request contained $148.1 million in PE 63005A for combat
vehicle and automotive advanced technology.
The committee is aware that the national automotive center (NAC) has
supported efforts by various universities to perform research in a
number of innovative technologies to solve current ground vehicle
problems and pioneer a new generation of lighter, more efficient ground
vehicles. Areas of innovation include propulsion and power sources,
ultra lightweight structures and advanced materials, supported by
innovative modeling and simulation.
The committee supports efforts of the NAC to take advantage of
university expertise and recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
63005A for NAC-university innovative research.
Passive millimeter wave camera
The budget request contained $20.7 million in PE 62120A for sensors
and electronic survivability, but included no funds for the passive
millimeter wave camera.
The committee is aware that passive millimeter wave camera technology
offers a weather-penetrating alternative to shorter wavelength infrared
thermal imaging cameras.
The committee recommends $24.7 million in PE 62120A, an increase of
$4.0 million for passive millimeter wave camera development.
Real-time heart rate variability
The budget request contained $75.7 million in PE 62787A for medical
technology, but included no funds for real-time heart rate variability.
The committee notes that heart rate variability technology offers the
potential for enhancing assessment of disease and trauma. This
technology provides the capability for emergency response personnel in
trauma environments to detect injury severity, physiological stress and
potential for survival.
The committee supports development of real-time heart rate
variability technology to enhance trauma victim survivability, and
recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 62787A for real-time heart
rate variability technology.
Semi-automated imagery processor
The budget request contained $57.4 million in PE 64766A for Tactical
Exploitation of National Capabilities, including development of the
semi-automated imagery processor (SAIP).
The SAIP will provide the Department's limited number of imagery
analysts with an automated target recognition assistance capability,
which will greatly improve their productivity. Accordingly, the
committee recommends $60.4 million in PE 64766A, an increase of $3.0
million, for continued development and fielding of the SAIP.
Starstreak
The budget request contained $28.8 million in PE 63003A for aviation
advanced technology, but included no funds to complete flight test of
the Starstreak missile.
The committee continues to support the requirement for Starstreak
testing mandated by in the Defense Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law
105 262) that required an Apache Longbow side-by-side test between the
Starstreak missile and the Stinger missile. The committee notes the Army
has announced its intention to begin the tests and that the Ministry of
Defense of the United Kingdom is providing the Starstreak missiles for
testing.
The committee recommends $28.8 million in PE 63003A, the budget
request, and recommends initiation of the planned side-by-side testing.
Surveillance control data link (SCDL)
The budget request contained $17.9 million in PE 64770A for
improvements to the Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System
(Joint STARS) ground stations, but no funds were included for the Joint
STARS SCDL System Improvement Program (SIP).
The committee notes the proven success of the Joint STARS system in
both Operations Desert Storm and Joint Endeavor. A key feature of Joint
STARS is the secure, encrypted, anti-jam SCDL. The SCDL links the Air
Force's E 8 Joint STARS aircraft to the Army's Joint STARS common ground
stations (CGS), enabling real-time data transfer of radar imagery
intelligence data and command and control information between the
aircraft and ground stations.
The committee has provided increases for phases one and two of the
three-phrase SIP in prior years. These phases eliminated CGS common data
terminal (CDT) obsolete parts and updated older circuit boards with
state-of-the-art, software-based array boards, resulting in an increased
data transfer rate while reducing component cost, size, weight, and
power requirements. The committee understands that the Army requires
funds to complete phase three of the SCDL SIP, which would further
improve interoperability through performance testing of the CDT.
Based on the increased reliability and improved performance of
earlier SIP upgrades, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0
million in PE 64770A to complete the SCDL SIP phase three engineering
effort.
Thermal fluid based combat feeding system
The budget request contained $13.6 million in PE 63747A for soldier
support and survivability, and included $3.4 million for food and food
systems.
The committee notes that a modern central heat unit co-generation
kitchen has been developed to replace the existing field kitchen. The
committee is aware that this kitchen uses diesel type fuel rather than
the more flammable gasoline that has been the primary source of the
longstanding fire hazards in existing field kitchens.
The committee supports rapid introduction of this modern, safer
kitchen, and recommends $15.1 million in PE 63747A, an increase of $1.5
million for fabrication and field testing of the thermal fluid based
combat feeding system.
Trajectory correctable munitions
The budget request contained $29.7 million in PE 63004A for weapons
and munitions advanced technology.
The committee notes that the United States and Sweden have entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding to demonstrate a 155mm trajectory
correctable munition (TCM), which employs a new technology to achieve
precision indirect fire support. The committee also notes that
development of this munition is on schedule and recent firing tests have
successfully demonstrated achievement of key milestones.
The committee recommends $37.2 million in PE 63004A, an increase of
$7.5 million, and urges the Department of Defense to complete testing of
the TCM round.
Volumetrically controlled manufacturing technology
The budget request contained $75.7 million in PE 62787A for medical
technology applied research.
The committee recalls that the Defense Appropriations Act, 1997
(Public Law 105 56) provided $2.5 million in PE 62787A for the
development of a prototype artificial hip using multidimensional,
volumetrically controlled manufacturing of synthetic materials. The
appropriation supported the first phase of a two-year, two-phase project
to develop an optimized hip stem for orthopedic implants that would
address the structural failure of implants in current use.
In the statement of managers which accompanied the conference report
on S. 1059 (H. Rept. 106 301), the conferees stated that they were
encouraged by the progress made in the program at the U.S. Army Medical
Research and Materiel Command and the establishment of a mathematical
foundation for advancing synthetic material development from
two-dimensional processes to real-time, three-dimensional manufacturing.
The process has the potential to eliminate the current mode of failure
of conventional composite materials, namely delamination and
polymer-fiber interface breakdown, and has potential applications in
aerospace and other manufacturing.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 62787A to
continue the program for development of multi-dimensional volumetrically
controlled manufacturing technology at the U.S. Army Medical Research
and Material Command.
NAVY RDT&E
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $8,476.7 million for Navy RDT&E. The
committee recommends authorization of $8,834.5 million, an increase of
$357.8 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Navy RDT&E
program are identified in the table below. Major changes to the Navy
request are discussed following the table.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Advanced amphibious assault vehicle
The budget request contained $138.0 million in PE 63611M for the
Marine Corps Advanced Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAAV).
The AAAV is one of the highest priority Marine Corps modernization
programs and is essential to the Marine Corps' ability to implement its
operational maneuver from the sea doctrine.
The committee believes that an additional engineering manufacturing
development AAAV test vehicle would significantly enhance reliability
testing, software maturation and other efforts designed to reduce
life-cycle costs. Therefore, the committee recommends $165.5 million, an
increase of $27.5 million in PE 63611M for this purpose.
Advanced anti-radiation guided missile
The budget request contained $21.4 million in PE25601N for
operational systems development of improvements to the High-Speed
Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) system, including $9.0 million to continue
the Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) project.
The AARGM project is a Phase III Small Business Innovative Research
(SBIR) program to develop and demonstrate a dual-mode guidance section
on a HARM airframe. Program objectives are to demonstrate an effective,
affordable, and lethal suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD)
capability against mobile, relocatable, or fixed air defense threats in
the presence of potential air defense radar emitter shutdown or other
anti-radiation missile countermeasures.
The AARGM technology demonstration program is an outgrowth of a Phase
I and Phase II competitive SBIR program, which successfully demonstrated
the feasibility of a dual-mode seeker to address anti-radiation missile
countermeasures. The dual-mode technology under development in the AARGM
program has demonstrated high potential to solve the problem of target
radar ``shut-down'' not only for HARM, the primary SEAD weapon, but also
for application in other missile airframes. The committee notes the
progress made in the program and the delivery of advanced ARRGM seeker
hardware for development test and evaluation at the Naval Air Weapons
Center, China Lake, California. The committee also notes the application
of AARGM technology being considered in the Quick Bolt advanced concept
technology demonstration.
The committee recommends a $26.4 million in PE 25601N, an increase of
$5.0 million to continue risk reduction, test, and other field
activities to prepare for a potential Milestone II decision to enter
engineering and manufacturing development. The committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to report to the congressional defense committees
on the results of the developmental testing of the ARRGM seeker and the
Navy's plans for further development of the AARGM with the submission of
the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Advanced deployable system
The budget request contained $20.7 million in PE 64784N for the
advanced deployable system (ADS). The ADS is a surveillance system for
use in littoral waters and restricted waterways that can be rapidly
deployed in time of crisis to provide a submarine detection and tracking
capability to U.S. Naval forces.
The committee notes the ADS program is transitioning to the
engineering and manufacturing development phase and has consistently met
or exceeded schedule and cost milestones. The committee supports
leveraging the early success of the ADS program by accelerating the
development of enhanced capabilities for the system.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $30.7 million in PE 64784N, an
increase of $10.0 million, for the ADS to accelerate the development of
advanced, long-life sensors for trip-wire arrays, increased mine
detection capabilities, and enhanced automation.
Advanced technology demonstrations and fleet battle experiments
The budget request contained $76.3 million in PE 63792N for the
Navy's advanced technology transition program to demonstrate
technologies that could significantly improve the warfighting
capabilities of the fleet and joint forces and provide the opportunity
to identify and move emerging technologies quickly and efficiently from
the laboratory to the fleet.
The committee notes the role of the Navy Warfare Development Command
in developing Navy operational concepts and doctrine, identifying
required operational capabilities, focusing research and development
issues, maturing innovative concepts in naval, joint, and coalition
warfare for evaluation in fleet battle experiments, and designing,
planning, and evaluating the experiments. The committee is aware that
fleet battle experiments have provided a test bed for validation of Navy
doctrine and operational concepts, assessment of innovative technologies
and concepts, and identification of some of the operational, tactical,
and technical challenges that will be faced by the fleet in the future.
The committee also notes the role that the Navy's science and
technology program performs by focusing on the long-term objective of
enabling future naval capabilities, science and technology developments
that are critical to ensuring naval superiority, and the demonstration
of affordable technology for transition to the fleet. The committee
encourages the Office of Naval Research, the Navy Secretariat, and the
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations to facilitate this strategy by
ensuring a close working relationship between the Office of Naval
Research, the Navy Warfare Development Command, and the numbered fleets.
Elsewhere in this report the committee notes the Navy's progress in
concept evaluation of a littoral warfare fast patrol craft and the
significant advances in logistics support, surveillance, communications
and fire support that such a craft could provide for naval forces in
littoral environments, and recommends increased funding for prototype
craft that would permit demonstration of the operational concept in
fleet battle experiments and other exercises.
The committee notes recommendations from the Defense Science Board
for improvements in tactical mobility and intratheater lift and
recommendations for demonstration of high speed, fast shuttle sealift
and advanced amphibious capabilities for movement of forces and
logistical support within the theater and of other capabilities in
future fleet battle experiments. The committee encourages the Navy to
support such activities from available funds.
Advanced waterjet propulsor
The budget request contained $244.4 million for in PE 63513N for
shipboard systems component development, but included no funds for
advanced water jet technology.
The committee report on H. R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106 162) noted proposals
for a quarter-scale at-sea demonstration and cavitation tunnel testing
of an advanced waterjet propulsor (AWJ 21) to validate critical
performance criteria and potential application of the propulsor to the
DD 21 land attack destroyer or other naval ships. The report urged the
Secretary of the Navy to assess the requirement for further development,
demonstration, and evaluation of advanced waterjet propulsor technology
and to provide recommendations regarding the demonstration, a program
execution plan, and Navy funding for the program.
On December 1, 1999, the Secretary reported that the Navy's AWJ 21
technology demonstration plan had developed hydrodynamic performance
prediction and critical performance measurement capabilities for
advanced waterjet concepts, and that the knowledge and capability
generated will be provided to both DD 21 industry teams determining the
suitability of the AWJ 21 for use on DD 21. The report stated that a
separate Navy-funded advanced waterjet development and large-scale
demonstration program would be inappropriate because it could be viewed
as Government endorsement of a specific propulsor solution and
subverting the DD 21 acquisition strategy (in which the industry team is
given full responsibility for recommending a total ship design for the
DD 21). The report stated further that development of the AWJ 21 system
by the DD 21 program is dependent upon a decision by the winning DD 21
industry team to include the AWJ 21 propulsion concept in their design.
The report concluded that there is currently no Navy operational
requirement that requires the use of an advanced waterjet propulsor and
recommended no further development of advanced waterjet technology at
this time.
Accordingly, the committee encourages the Navy to ensure that
advanced water jet technology is given all appropriate consideration.
Aircraft survivability study
The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 63216N for aircraft
survivability demonstration and validation.
The committee is aware that the population of aircrew and passengers
permitted on board military aircraft includes both female and male
personnel, and is concerned about the ability of crash protective
seating systems to provide adequate protection to occupants of lighter
weight and smaller stature.
The committee recommends an increase of $500,000 in PE 63216N to
determine and assess the potential for increased injury risk to female
operators and passengers in the Navy's helicopter fleet.
Aviation depot maintenance technology
The budget request contained $62.2 million in PE 63721N for
environmental protection.
The committee notes that new environmentally friendly repair
processes are being developed that offer significant productivity
improvements and potential cost savings. To this end, Congress provided
increased funding in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 for the development and
demonstration of aviation depot maintenance technologies that will
significantly reduce maintenance and repair costs and reduce or
eliminate hazardous waste and pollution products.
The committees recommends $63.9 million in PE 63721N, an increase of
$1.75 million to continue the program for demonstration of advanced
maintenance technologies for application of tungsten carbide coatings to
aircraft landing gear and hydraulic components.
Aviation modernization plan
The committee notes recent reports that the Office of the Chief of
Naval Operations is considering a major revision of naval aviation plans
which would remove aircraft from inventory, cancel future aircraft
systems concepts, and reconfigure the carrier air wing in order to
develop an affordable modernization plan for naval aviation. The reports
indicate that the recommendations contained in the ``Common Vision for
Naval Aviation'' would be implemented beginning with the Navy's budget
request for fiscal year 2002. The committee understands that the
following alternatives are being considered:
(1) Replacement of the EA 6B Prowler electronic warfare aircraft by
2010 with an electronic warfare aircraft follow-on;
(2) Retirement of the F 14 Tomcat strike-fighter aircraft by 2008;
(3) Service life extension of the C 2 Grayhound Tracker carrier
onboard delivery aircraft;
(4) Retirement of the S 3B Viking antisubmarine warfare aircraft by
2008 and its mission replacement by a combination of P 3C Orion maritime
patrol aircraft and SH 60R Seahawk multi-mission helicopter;
(5) Replacement of the S 3B Viking in its tanker role by F/A 18E/F
fighter aircraft with a aircraft refueling capability;
(6) Service life extension of the P 3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft;
(7) Service life extension of the EP 3E Aries electronic
surveillance aircraft;
(8) Cancellation of the concept of a common support aircraft that
would combine the mission of the E 2C Hawkeye airborne early warning
aircraft with the missions of the S 3 Viking and C 2 Greyhound aircraft;
(9) Delay introduction of a multi-mission maritime aircraft to
replace the P 3C Orion and EP 3E Aries to no later than 2015; and
(10) Reduction of the number of strike aircraft in a carrier air
wing from 56 to 50.
The committee commends the Navy for its initiative in developing a
long-term plan for naval aviation that attempts to meet the challenges
of affordability and effectiveness in a budget constrained environment.
The committee recognizes the issues of current and future operational
requirements, current force capabilities, personnel, training, research
and development, procurement, logistics, and estimated funding available
that must be considered in developing such a plan. The committee notes
that the Navy's plan is not complete and was not available during the
committee's review of the budget request.
The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to provide information
on the Navy's revised aviation modernization plan to the congressional
defense committees at the earliest opportunity to ensure adequate
opportunity for oversight review of this important initiative prior to
receipt of the budget request for fiscal year 2002.
Battle force tactical trainer (BFTT)
The budget request contained $27.1 million in PE 24571N for
consolidated training systems development, including $4.1 million for
development of the surface tactical team trainer (Battle Force Tactical
Training program).
The committee notes that the BFTT system provides the Navy with an
effective embedded training capability on many of the Navy's surface
ships, permitting realistic unit level team training and coordinated
training among ships in port, and providing commanders the ability to
conduct coordinated realistic, high stress, combat system training when
afloat. The Navy is converting BFTT to a Windows NT TM personal computer
(PC)-based environment that will extend the BFTT simulation to
shore-based facilities at the training commands to provide more
realistic combat system team and individual training at these
facilities, as well as providing the opportunity for expansion and
upgrade of the capabilities of the BFTT system.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 24571N to
accelerate the conversion and upgrade of the BFTT system to a Windows NT
TM/PC-based environment.
Beartrap
The budget request contained $19.7 million in PE 63254N for
anti-submarine warfare (ASW) systems development, including $5.3 million
for Project Beartrap.
The budget request for Beartrap supports hardware and software
development for the rapid prototyping of advanced capability acoustic
and non-acoustic ASW sensors, as well as data collection and analysis
for threat assessment and environmental characterization. The committee
notes the progress being made in the evaluation and development of the
phenomena of nonlinear dynamics and stochastic resonance (NDSR) for
acoustic, magnetic, and other ASW sensor and signal processing
applications. The committee also notes the Navy's progress in developing
a comprehensive and focused strategy for acoustic, and non-acoustic
environmental data collection, analysis and dissemination, and plans for
continued implementation of the strategy to meet the Navy's
needs in environmental data bases, modeling for new systems
research and development, and environmental inputs to tactical decision
aids.
The committee recommends $24.7 million in PE 63254N, an increase of
$5.0 million for Project Beartrap to continue the development,
demonstration, and evaluation of NDSR technology for ASW applications
and to continue the Beartrap environmental characterization program.
C 2 eight-blade composite propeller system
The budget request contained $51.0 million in PE 25633N for
improvements in operational Navy aviation and aviation support systems.
The committee notes that the Navy is seeking solutions to operational
limitations encountered with the propeller system used on E 2C and C 2A
aircraft. The current propeller system incorporates technology developed
in the 1950s and the 1960s, is difficult and expensive to maintain, and
is no longer in production. The committee report on H.R. 1119 (H. Rept.
105 132) directed the initiation of development and demonstration of an
eight-blade composite propeller for E 2C and C 2A aircraft. The Navy
subsequently began a program for design, development, test, and
production of the propeller system. The committee notes that the program
includes flight and ground test of the new propeller system for the E 2
aircraft, but includes only ground tests for the new propeller on the C
2 aircraft.
The committee recommends $57.0 million in PE 25633N, an increase of
$6.0 million to flight test the new propeller system on the C 2 aircraft
sequentially with the E 2 flight test program.
Common command and decision system
The budget request contained $119.3 million in PE 63658N for
continued development of the Navy's cooperative engagement capability
(CEC), and $33.0 million in PE 63582N for combat systems integration
demonstration and validation, including $8.7 million for common command
and decision systems development.
The committee notes the Navy's progress in resolving interoperability
issues between CEC and Navy ship self-defense (SSD) combat systems and
preparations for the CEC operational evaluation in May 2001. The
committee anticipates that successful completion of the evaluation will
provide the basis for widespread deployment of CEC to the fleet and for
joint purposes as well.
The committee also notes that the Navy initiated engineering studies
in fiscal year 1999 for a common command and decision (CC&D) system that
would be a preplanned product improvement (P3I) to the Aegis weapons
systems and the Mark 2 ship self defense system and would replace the
command and decision capability presently in these systems with a common
computer architecture. Such an architecture would reduce future combat
systems life-cycle costs, enable the fielding of new or modified combat
systems capabilities more quickly and at a lower cost, enhance system
interoperability, and eliminate the redundant, conflicting processing
that is inherent in these systems. The Navy has stated that the CC&D is
a critical step toward resolving long-term interoperability problems.
Congress provided an increase of $30.0 million for the program in fiscal
year 2000. The Navy's program plan includes $91.2 million in addition to
this year's request through fiscal year 2005. The Navy has projected a
notional program schedule that would begin engineering and manufacturing
development in March 2002 and achieve initial operational capability for
the CC&D system in September 2008. The committee notes that the Chief of
Naval Operations has identified a $43 million unfunded requirement to
accelerate the ability to begin engineering and manufacturing
development by one year.
The committee supports the CC&D system program objectives that have
been identified by the Navy. The committee notes that the CC&D
development program is at an early stage, the program schedule is
notional, and operational requirements are being refined. The committee
also notes Navy plans to evaluate a proposed new approach to cooperative
engagement capability data processing and transmission (the Tactical
Component Network (TCN)), which could conserve CEC communications
bandwidth and provide for a wider, more efficient CEC network.
The committee encourages the Navy to seek technology insertion
opportunities that will improve the interoperability of Navy combat
systems and CEC's capabilities for naval and joint forces and to provide
the required funding as a part of the Navy's core budget program. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the
congressional defense committees on the Navy's program plan and funding
for the CC&D P3I program and for insertion of advanced technology in the
CEC/SSD integrated combat system with the submission of the fiscal year
2002 budget request.
The committee recommends $119.3 million in PE 63658N for continued
development of the Navy's CEC and $33.0 million in PE 63582N to continue
combat systems integration demonstration and validation.
Common towed array
The budget request contained $113.3 million in PE 63561N for advanced
submarine systems development, including $4.5 million for the
development of advanced towed array technology for submarines and
surface ships.
The committee notes the Navy's operational requirement for
improvements in critical undersea warfare combat systems technologies
needed in the littoral regions of the world. The committee also notes
that the Navy's advanced towed array technology program is making
considerable progress in developing multiple-line and fiber optic
affordable towed array technology that could result in high gain,
volumetric towed arrays with significantly improved performance for
submarine and surface ship sonar systems
The committee recommends $123.5 million in PE 63561N, an increase of
$10.2 million to accelerate the development and demonstration of
advanced towed array systems for surface ship and submarine
anti-submarine warfare tactical and strategic surveillance.
Composite advanced sail development
The budget request contained $113.3 million in PE 63561N for advanced
submarine systems development, including $5.7 million for
hydrodynamics/hydroacoustics and completion of the advanced submarine
sail development project.
The committee notes that the Navy's technology insertion plan for the
Virginia class submarine includes installation of an advanced sail made
of steel on the seventh Virginia class ship. The committee also notes
the development of a quarter-scale advanced submarine sail made of
composite materials for the Navy's large scale vehicle and the conduct
of submersion tests at the Navy's Idaho test range in which the
composite sail exceeded the Navy's performance expectations.
The committee supports the advanced submarine technology insertion
program for the Virginia class submarine and directs the Secretary of
the Navy to report to the congressional defense committees on the Navy's
plan for further development of a composite advanced sail for the
submarine with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
CVNX aircraft carrier design product modeling
The budget request contained $149.0 million in PE 63512N for carrier
systems development.
The committee notes that all new classes of Navy ships, such as the
Virginia-class submarine, the DD 22 land attack destroyer, and the LPD
17 amphibious transport dock, are being designed using electronic three
dimensional product models to take advantage of the inherent design,
production and life cycle maintenance cost savings offered by these
modern design tools.
The committee also notes that design data for the Nimitz-class
nuclear aircraft carriers, upon which design work began in the 1950's,
remains largely in non-electronic form. Conversion of aircraft carrier
design data into an electronic format was difficult to justify when Navy
plans previously called for a complete change in designs following
completion of CVN 77.
The committee notes, however, that the Navy has adopted an
evolutionary design approach for future carriers, beginning with the CVN
77 as a transition ship and retains the Nimitz-class hull form largely
unchanged through at least CVNX 2. Therefore, the committee believes
that it now may be cost-effective to convert Nimitz-class design data
and to develop future nuclear aircraft design data utilizing electronic,
three-dimensional product models to reap the design, production, and
life cycle maintenance cost savings offered by this approach. The
committee is aware that development of a nuclear aircraft carrier design
product model may take several years and could be undertaken as part of
the planned design efforts for CVN 77, CVNX 1, and CVNX 2.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to conduct an
assessment of the cost-effectiveness of developing an aircraft carrier
design product model for the CVNX and report the results of the
assessment, together with plans and funding requirements for development
of such a model to the congressional defense committees with the
submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
The committee recommends $149.0 million in PE 63512N, including $5.0
million to begin development of an aircraft carrier design product model
for the CVNX.
Distributed engineering plant
The committee supports continued integration of high performance
computers for Navy Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA)'s multi-functional test
control center and distributed engineering plant (DEP) operations with
the Joint Forces Command's Joint Interoperability Training Center and
other military organizations and activities, academia, and industry in
the Hampton Roads region. The committee notes that cooperation and
sharing of computer resources among joint forces and the military
services, academia, and industry in the region could result in lower
costs and improved capabilities for analysis, design, modeling and
simulation, which would be reflected in major combat systems
developments, such as the cooperative engagement capability and the CVN
77 and CVN X aircraft carriers.
The committee is aware of the multi-functional test control center at
NAVSEA Dam Neck and its interface with major Atlantic test and training
ranges used for joint operations and training. The committee also notes
that the Hampton Roads network access point at NAVSEA Dam Neck provides
transcontinental connectivity to other development, test and evaluation,
acquisition, and training activities and an improved analytical and
information exchange capability.
The committee encourages the Navy to continue to capitalize on
government-sponsored high performance computing and high speed network
programs, such as the National Science Foundation's Partnership for
Advanced Computing Infrastructure, the East Coast Communication's
Network, and the Department of Defense high performance computing
modernization program, in developing improved capabilities for analysis,
design, modeling and simulation, combat systems integration, training,
test and evaluation.
Distributed marine environment forecast system
The budget request contained $60.3 million in PE 62435N for applied
research in oceanographic and atmospheric technology, including $12.0
million for ocean and atmospheric prediction.
The committee notes the long established need for a distributed
forecast system in the marine environment, which combines ocean and
atmospheric models with common database access and common tools to
provide the capability for prediction of local and future weather and
sea conditions and their potential effects on fleet and other
operations. The committee also notes the potential for building upon
oceanographic and atmospheric models and data from the Department of
Defense, National Air and Space Administration, National Oceanographic
and Atmospheric Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency to
integrate these resources into a distributed marine environment forecast
system.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 62435N to
establish an applied research program for development and demonstration
of a distributed marine environment forecast system.
DP 2 thrust vectoring system proof-of-concept demonstration
The budget request contained $39.7 million in PE 63217N for air
systems and weapons advanced technology development, but included no
funds for continuation of the DP 2 thrust vectoring system proof of
concept demonstration.
DP 2 is a proof-of-concept program to demonstrate the use of thrust
vector control to achieve vertical takeoff and conventional takeoff
capabilities in a one-half scale flight test vehicle. The technology
offers the potential for a low cost, medium range aircraft of advanced
composite construction.
The committee notes the progress being made in the DP 2 program in
the design and fabrication of large, precise composite structures and in
the potential for the use of small models to demonstrate and confirm
complex aeronautical guidance and control laws for the DP 2 system prior
to entering the flight test phase. The committee also notes that
technical issues regarding strength of materials, engineering design,
the development and test of an automated control system, and other
safety of flight issues must be resolved before the program can proceed
to the flight test phase.
The committee recommends $49.2 million in PE 63217N, an increase of
$9.5 million to continue the DP 2 development program leading to a
proof-of-concept demonstration of a one-half scale flight test vehicle.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide an assessment
of the program progress and plans and funding requirements for
completion of the flight-test demonstration to the congressional defense
committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Dry chemical fire suppressant
The committee notes that the Navy's initial tests of a gelled, dry
chemical fire suppressant agent in a self-contained fire extinguishing
system, which is reportedly non-toxic and has a long shelf life, have
successfully demonstrated the effectiveness of the material for fire
fighting. The Naval Research Laboratory report of its test of
alternative fire suppressant technologies, dated July 1999, indicated
the agent's high level of effectiveness and its potential for performing
better than clean agent fire suppressant systems in current use aboard
Navy ships, and encouraged further research on the agent. The committee
encourages the Navy to conduct comprehensive field tests of the
suppressant and, if the tests are successful, to consider deployment of
the fire suppressant system to the fleet.
E2 C2 rotordome and control surface improvements
The budget request contained $18.7 million in PE 24152N for E 2
squadron operational systems development.
The committee notes that the rotordome and control surfaces on the
Navy's E2 C2 Hawkeye aircraft have been experiencing problems due to
structural damage from water absorption and excessive wear and that the
Navy's plans to extend the service life of these aircraft require a new
retrofit design to eliminate costly maintenance and downtime.
The committee recommends $20.7 million in PE 24152N, an increase of
$2.0 million to develop composite retrofit options to improve the
serviceability and performance of the E2 C2 Hawkeye.
Extended range guided munition
The budget request contained $143.0 million in PE 63795N for land
attack technology, including $39.1 million for development of the
extended range guided munition (ERGM).
The committee notes that the Navy's core program for near-term
improvements in naval surface fire support (NSFS) includes upgrading the
existing 5-inch 54-caliber Mk 45 gun on its cruisers and destroyers to
fire a new extended-range guided munition (ERGM) with nearly five times
the range of current 5-inch projectile. Both the 5-inch 62-caliber Mk 45
Mod 4 gun and the ERGM projectile were to have achieved initial
operational capability in fiscal year 2001. The first Mk 45 Mod 4 gun
was installed in the USS Winston Church (DDG 81) on schedule in 1999.
However, technical challenges and the contractor's relocation of the
ERGM development activity have delayed the ERGM development program an
estimated three years to 2004 and doubled the program cost.
The committee notes ERGM's key role in the NSFS program and the need
for a long-range (63 nautical mile) guided, gun-fired projectile to
achieve the approved operational requirements for support of ground
forces ashore. The committee also notes that the global positioning
system/inertial measuring unit (GPS/IMU) guidance and control technology
being developed for ERGM will establish a baseline for future advanced
guided projectiles for the DD 21 land attack destroyer and for other
weapons systems.
The committee has closely monitored the ERGM program since its
inception and has supported the baseline development program and
accelerated development and integration of microelectromechanical system
(MEMS)-based GPS/INS into ERGM. The committee has encouraged close
cooperation between the Navy and Army guided munitions research and
development communities in order to achieve risk reduction in their
respective guided projectile development programs and maximum
commonality and economies of scale in production.
The committee notes the detailed reviews of the ERGM program by the
Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development, and Acquisition)
and the contractor; program management changes and risk reduction
measures taken; and program rebaseline and other measures under
consideration that might encourage program competition. The committee
believes that the technical goals of the program are challenging, but
achievable.
The committee recommends $39.1 million in PE 63795N, the budget
request, to continue the ERGM development program. The committee directs
the Secretary of the Navy to report to the congressional defense
committees on the revised program baseline, risk reduction measures, and
measures to foster competition in the ERGM program no later than
November 1, 2000.
18
The budget request contained $248.1 million in PE 24136N for
continued development of capabilities for the F/A 18 aircraft.
The committee has supported the Shared Airborne Reconnaissance Pod
(SHARP) efforts to provide the F/A 18 aircraft with an enhanced tactical
reconnaissance capability that will also be applicable to other combat
aircraft. The committee notes the recent successful demonstration of the
SHARP risk-mitigation project for the F 14 Tactical Airborne
Reconnaissance Podded System that was employed by the battle group
U.S.S. John F. Kennedy. This demonstration clearly indicated the force
multiplying capability provided by a real-time imagery system supports
continuation of this effort.
The committee is concerned, however, that the funding requested for
SHARP is insufficient to support completion of sensors for an initial
operational capability (IOC) in fiscal year 2003. The committee notes
that this shortfall in funding results in an increase in cost of
tactical reconnaissance support by extending use of the less capable F
14 Tactical Air Reconnaissance Pod (TARPS). The committee is also aware
that emerging technology is being developed to replace existing
mechanical focal plane shutters with a solid-state shutter to further
increase SHARP camera performance and reliability. However, the
committee is concerned that the current program is insufficiently funded
to ensure a fiscal year 2003 SHARP fleet deployment.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million in
PE 24136N for the development of the SHARP F 18 tactical reconnaissance
capability to maintain the SHARP IOC.
Fielded system obsolescence, technology insertion and
technology refreshment
The committee notes the increasing reliance upon
commercial-off-the-shelf in Department of Defense systems and the rapid
obsolescence of technology and exponential increases in capability in
subsequent generations that are common characteristics of the
commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) industry. The committee believes that
management of COTS in Defense systems is a major effort that must be
recognized, quantified and separately addressed as an integral part of
the procurement process. To this end, the committee recommends that all
programs within DOD with high COTS content should include a management
plan that addresses the costs associated with sustaining the military
capability of the systems in a COTS environment. The plan should clearly
distinguish the costs associated with sustaining current performance
requirements through technology refreshment and meeting increased
performance requirements through the technology insertion process.
The committee believes that institution of such a planning process in
the Department would provide Congress with the information necessary to
evaluate the merits of COTS products in DOD applications based on a true
and accurate representation of operational requirements and total
ownership costs. Based on ongoing work in technology refreshment and
technology insertion by the Department of the Navy as represented by the
Acoustic Rapid COTS Insertion (A RCI) program, the committee believes
that a pilot program to address these issues should be established
within the Navy.
The committee recommends that the Secretary of the Navy provide a
report on the Navy's plan for such a program that would address the
issues of technology refresh and technology insertion in legacy and
developmental programs with the submission of the fiscal year 2002
budget request.
Fleet health technology and occupational lung disease
The budget request contained $10.1 million in PE 63706N for medical
development, including $4.8 million for the fleet health technology
program.
The Navy's medical development program supports advanced medical care
and health protection from hazardous occupational and operational
exposure to Navy and Marine Corps personnel in operational theaters. The
committee notes that the budget request would reduce funding for the
fleet health technology program approximately $5.7 million less than the
fiscal year 2001 estimate that was provided in the fiscal year 2000
request. The committee is disturbed with this reduction in the priority
given to the medical care and occupational health and safety of Navy and
Marine Corps personnel.
The committee also notes that concerns have been raised that naval
personnel diagnosed with sarcoidosis, may have suffered from other lung
diseases related to exposure to occupational hazards during their
military service. A study by the National Institute of Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) has provided an assessment of the incidence of
sarcoidosis among Navy enlisted personnel and suggests a relationship of
sarcoidosis with assignment aboard aircraft carriers. The Navy Surgeon
General has indicated that correlation of the results of the NIOSH study
with a pathologic review of tissue samples at the Armed Forces Institute
of Pathology taken from naval personnel during the 1960s and 1970s,
would be relevant to resolving the concerns regarding sarcoidosis and
other lung diseases. The Navy Surgeon General also indicated that
collaboration with the multi-center study of sarcoidosis etiology,
natural history, and treatment currently being considered by the
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, should be considered.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Director of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology, to establish an occupational lung disease
assessment program to determine if naval personnel with lung disease due
to other causes may have been misdiagnosed with sarcoidosis and if the
incidence of sarcoidosis or other lung disease could be attributable to
service aboard Navy ships. The program should also consider
collaboration with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's
sarcoidosis etiology study. The Secretary of the Navy shall report the
plan for the study and any initial study results to the congressional
defense committees no later than March 21, 2001.
The committee recommends $13.1 million in PE 63706N, an increase of
$3.0 million, including $500,000 for the conduct of the occupational
lung disease assessment discussed above. To offset the recommended
increase, the committee recommends a reduction of $3.0 million in PE
63513N.
Flight worthy transparent armor system
The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 63216N for aircraft
survivability demonstration and validation.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63216N for
the development of a flight worthy transparent armor system for the AH
1Z light attack helicopter and V 22 tilt-rotor aircraft that could be
migrated to other platforms as well.
High mobility artillery rocket system (HIMARS)
The budget request contained no funds for the High Mobility Artillery
Rocket System (HIMARS). The HIMARS is an Army-developed, Family of
Medium Tactical Vehicle (FMTV)-mounted multiple launch rocket system.
The committee understands that the Marine Corps currently lacks an
all-weather, continuously available, long-range fire support system
capable of prosecuting a Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) and Marine
Ground Combat Element's (CGE) deep strike mission and counter fire
battle. The committee also understands that the existing prototype
HIMARS has the potential to fulfill the MEF and CGE mission
requirements. The committee notes that the Commandant of the Marine
Corps has identified a $17.3 million unfunded requirement for the
procurement of two HIMARS systems for evaluation and a system design
study to address integrating the HIMARS launcher onto the Marine Corps'
Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement truck in fiscal year 2001.
The committee believes that evaluation of this weapon system as a
deep strike alternative capability for Marine expeditionary forces is
important, and, therefore, recommends $17.3 million in PE 63635M to
procure two HIMARS systems for this purpose.
High performance sigma-delta waveform generator
The budget request contained $26.0 million in PE 62270N for applied
research in electronic warfare technology.
The committee notes that the Office of Naval Research has been
developing semi-conductor and super-conducting technology for the
implementation of a Sigma-Delta Waveform Generator. This activity has
included development of high speed gallium arsenide and/or Josephson
Junction circuits to implement a highly linear, flexible, digital
waveform generator for next generation Navy systems. The advanced
semi-conductor and super-conducting circuits being developed will enable
higher levels of performance required to detect small targets in clutter
and to perform multiple radio frequency functions.
The committee recommends an $29.0 million in PE 62270N, an increase
of $3.0 million to continue the program for development of
super-conducting wave form generator technology.
Hybrid fiberoptic/wireless communication technology
The budget request contained $79.9 million in PE 62232N for applied
research in communications, command and control, intelligence, and
surveillance.
The committee notes the progress made in development and
demonstration of the technology for hybrid fiber optic wireless
communications systems, and believes that the application of this
technology to shipboard communications will provide increased mobility
and security while reducing the effects of frequency interference.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 62232N to
continue the development of hybrid fiberoptic/wireless communication
system technology. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to assess the
progress in the program and the potential for incorporation of the
technology in the Navy's core science and technology program and to
report the results of that assessment to the congressional defense
committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Hybrid light detection and ranging (LIDAR)/radar technology
The budget request contained $76.3 million in PE 63792N for advanced
technology demonstration and transition.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63792N to
continue the development and further demonstration of hybrid LIDAR/radar
technology in the Claymore Marine advanced technology demonstration.
Hyperspectral research
The budget request contained $79.9 million in PE 62232N for applied
research in communications, command and control, intelligence, and
surveillance technology.
The committee notes that hyperspectral sensor systems provide the
capability to detect and identify targets that are not discernible with
conventional sensors by exploiting the spectral signature of both the
target and the environment. The Naval Research Laboratory has conducted
extensive research into the use of hyperspectral technology to provide a
surveillance sensor that is capable of finding difficult military
targets in clutter-rich environments. The laboratory has made excellent
progress in developing hyperspectral technology and has conducted
successful testing on board Navy intelligence collection aircraft.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 62232N to
continue the Navy's development, integration, and testing of
hyperspectral sensors with other sensors.
Insensitive munitions
The budget request contained $28.6 million in PE 63609N for
conventional munitions demonstration and validation, including $3.2
million for insensitive munitions advanced development; and $7.5 million
in PE 63216N for aviation survivability, including $1.8 million for
aircraft and ordnance safety.
The committee notes that insensitive munitions reduce the severity of
cook-off and bullet/fragment impact reactions, and minimize the
probability for sympathetic detonation (both in normal storage and in
use) without compromising combat performance, and are recognized as a
critical technology requirement in the design of new weapons systems.
The committee also notes that, despite the Navy's requirements for
insensitive munitions, nearly all Navy munitions require a wavier to be
carried aboard ships. The committee notes that the Navy is the lead
service for the development of insensitive munition technology and that
the budget request would reduce insensitive munition technology
development funding almost $6.0 million below the amount provided in
fiscal year 2000 as well as the average program level of the past
several years. In view of joint requirements and the Navy's requirements
for insensitive munitions, the committee believes that the Navy needs to
assign a high priority to the insensitive munitions program and directs
the Secretary of the Navy to address this issue in the fiscal year 2002
budget request.
Integrated aviation life support systems
The budget request contained $17.5 million in PE 64264N for aircrew
systems engineering and manufacturing development, including $8.9
million for development of aviation life support systems.
The committee notes progress in development of the two-part,
tri-service modular helmet, the advanced visionics helmet system for
day/night, all-weather sight display, and the helicopter aircrew
integrated life support system. The committee also notes that the
current program, which develops the helicopter life support system and
helmet systems separately, could result in an overall aviation life
support system that is geared to the lowest performing component. The
committee believes that integrated development of these systems will
result in an aviation life support system that provides optimal
performance, greater tactical advantage, and improved aircrew safety.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $25.5 million in PE 64264N, an
increase of $8.0 million for continued development and flight evaluation
of an integrated aviation life-support system that includes the
tri-service modular flight helmet, the advanced visionics helmet system,
and the helicopter aircrew integrated life support system.
Integrated semiconductor bridge based fuze
The budget request contained $38.0 million in PE 62111N for applied
research in air and surface launched weapons technology.
The committee notes the progress that has been made in the
development of semi-conductor bridges as electrical initiators for
explosives and their potential for replacing conventional hot bridgewire
devices with significant reductions in size, weight, power and cost. The
coupling of semiconductor bridge devices with microelectromechanical
systems technology in initiation and safe/arm components offers the
opportunity for the development of electromechanical fuzes with superior
accuracy and reliability, reduced power consumption and weight, and
lower cost.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 62111N to
initiate a proof-of-concept development and demonstration of an
integrated semiconductor bridge based fuze for potential use in air and
surface launched weapons systems.
Intermediate modulus carbon fiber and ultra-high thermal
conductivity graphite fibers
The budget request contained $68.1 million in PE 62234N for applied
research in materials and radio frequency/electro-optics/infrared
electronics technology and $72.8 million in PE 62102F for materials
applied research, including $44.1 million for materials for structures,
propulsion, and subsystems.
The committee notes that the joint strike fighter (JSF), the F/A
18E/F strike fighter, the V 22 tilt-rotor aircraft, the joint
air-to-surface standoff missile, and many other advanced aviation and
weapons systems use composite structures which have carbon fiber as a
major component. The committee is aware of proposals for the use of
intermediate modulus carbon fiber materials as an alternative to the
carbon fiber that could result in as much as a 50 percent reduction in
the cost of raw materials used in these weapons systems.
The committee also notes initial progress in the evaluation and
qualification of ultra-high thermal conductivity graphite fiber
materials for critical spacecraft requirements related to
countermeasures and spacecraft protection, high energy/thermal loading,
very large antennas, high-efficiency solar collectors, and other
applications.
The committee believes that the Department of Defense should place
priority on the development of procedures for qualifying new materials
for potential use in military systems that could result in lower costs
while maintaining system performance requirements. The committee
supports continued validation of design methods, material performance in
various service environments, and the capability of the materials to
manage thermal loads generated by electronics.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 62234N for
evaluation of new, lower cost, commercially available carbon fibers for
JSF and other Navy aircraft and missile applications and $2.0 million in
PE 62102F to continue the program for evaluation and qualification of
ultra-high thermal conductivity graphite materials for critical
spacecraft requirements.
Joint forces command operational testbed
The budget request contained $113.1 million in PE 35204N for tactical
unmanned aerial vehicles, but included no funds for the Joint Forces
Command unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) joint operational testbed.
Congress previously provided funds for two Predator unmanned aerial
vehicles and a tactical control system (TCS) ground station to support
development of TCS and UAV operational employment procedures. The
committee notes that the joint tactical UAV program office (JPO) was
disestablished. The committee further notes that the Joint Forces
Command has responsibility for oversight of joint operational testing
and evaluation of weapons systems, a function previously conducted by
the UAVJPO for specific UAV systems.
The committee supports the efforts of the Joint Forces Command and
recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 35204N for the Joint Forces
Command UAV testbed. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to
transfer the two Predator UAVs and TCS ground station to the Joint
Forces Command for use by the joint operational UAV testbed.
Joint helmet mounted cueing system
The budget request contained $248.1 million in PE 24136N for
operational systems development for F/A18 naval strike fighter aircraft,
including $3.3 million to continue development of the joint helmet
mounted cueing system, digital communications systems, and positive
identification system.
The committee notes that the joint helmet mounted cueing system, when
combined with state of the art missile systems currently in development,
provides a significant improvement in air to air combat survivability.
The committee is also aware that this improved capability is essential
to the success of the Navy's F/A 18 E/F strike fighter aircraft
currently being deployed.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 24136N for
continued development of the joint helmet mounted cueing system for the
F/A 18C/D fighter.
Joint tactical combat training system
The budget request contained $27.1 million in PE 24571N for
consolidated training systems development, including $7.8 million for
development of the Joint Tactical Combat Training Systems (JTCTS).
The JTCTS is a joint Air Force/Navy program for the development of
fixed, transportable, and mobile range instrumentation for shore-based
tactical aircrew training and for deployable, at-sea naval expeditionary
force training. The statement of managers that accompanied the
conference report on H.R. 4103 (H. Rept. 105 746) directed the
Department of Defense to conduct a technical evaluation to compare the
capabilities, performance, and costs of competing system approaches to
JTCTS, and to identify the best technical solution with the best value
for meeting the Department's operational training requirement. In
November 1999, the Undersecretary of Defense (Acquisition and
Technology) reported that after completion of the technical evaluation
and a thorough analysis, the JTCTS was determined to be the system of
choice to meet the joint training requirement.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 24571N to
accelerate the development and fielding of JTCTS for fleet and fixed
range support of Navy and Air Force tactical air combat training.
Lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly (LESPA)
The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 63216N for aircraft
survivability demonstration and validation.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63216N to
continue the application of lightweight environmentally sealed parachute
assembly (LESPA) sealing technology for use on existing and planned
parachutes for Navy ejection seats.
Littoral support fast patrol craft
The budget request contained $76.3 million in PE 63792N for advanced
technology transition.
The committee notes that the Office of Naval Research (ONR) has
evaluated initial results of the concept evaluation of a littoral
warfare fast patrol craft and is favorably impressed with the potential
for such a system. The committee continues to believe that such a craft
could provide significant advances in logistics support, surveillance,
communications and fire support capabilities for naval forces in
littoral environments.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $22.0 million in
PE 63792N to develop a prototype for demonstrating the operational
concepts of a littoral support fast patrol craft.
Location of global positioning systems (GPS) jammers
The budget request contained $97.3 million in PE 64270N for
electronic warfare development but included no funds to continue
development and demonstration of a state-of-the-art precision
surveillance and targeting system for location of global positioning
systems jammers (LOCO GPSI).
The committee notes that the Navy has developed a prototype LOCO GPSI
airborne detection system, capable of rapid, precision location sources
for GPS interference. In the committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106
162), the committee recommended an increase of $6.0 million to continue
development and evaluation of the LOCO GPSI system and directed the Navy
to assess its operational requirement.
Consistent with its past action, the committee recommends $103.3
million in PE 64270N, an increase of $6.0 million, to complete advanced
development for the LOCO GPSI system, provide two additional sensor
systems, and to complete system testing.
Malaria deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) vaccine
The budget request contained $10.1 million in PE 63706N for advanced
medical technology development.
The committee notes the outstanding achievement by the military
medical research community in collaboration with the pharmaceutical
industry in developing DNA vaccines for complex multistage pathogens and
for multiple pathogens of military importance. This collaboration has
resulted in the promising development of an effective recombinant
protein malaria vaccine of unprecedented efficacy. Successful completion
of the development will result in a cost-effective means of controlling
malaria, the most important infectious threat to ground troops and to
third-world populations.
Of the funds authorized for PE 63706N, the committee recommends $1.5
million to continue development of the recombinant protein malaria
vaccine, and recommends that the Secretary of the Navy accelerate the
development of this technology in the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Manned reconnaissance systems
The budget request contained $27.5 million in PE 35207N for manned
reconnaissance systems, including $25.3 million for development of the
shared airborne reconnaissance pod (SHARP).
The committee continues its support for the SHARP program to increase
dramatically real-time tactical reconnaissance capabilities. The
committee is aware of developmental EO framing processing techniques
that will provide for real-time precision strike targeting and
solid-state shutter technology that will greatly reduce operational
costs and improve camera performance.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 35207N for
long-range optical sensor technology and $3.0 million for development of
a solid-state shutter mechanism that can be retrofitted on currently
fielded framing array cameras.
Marine corps dragon warrior UAV
The budget request contained no funds in PE 35204M for Marine Corps
close range tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).
The committee notes that the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory
(MCWL) is developing the Dragon Warrior, a low cost, small UAV that
combines the speed of a fixed wing UAV with some operational
characteristics of a rotary wing UAV. The committee notes that Dragon
Warrior would carry a variety of payloads that are currently being
examined by the MCWL to provide the Marine Corps with a highly, flexible
close range reconnaissance capability that will enlarge the area of
influence of a small expeditionary force.
The committee recommends $5.0 million in PE 35204M, an increase of
$5.0 million for Dragon Warrior.
Marine mammal research
The budget request contained $381.1 million in PE 61153N for the
Navy's defense research sciences program, but included no funds for
marine mammal research.
The committee notes recent activities involving potential interaction
of Navy tactical sonar operations with cetaceans in littoral waters of
the Atlantic Ocean near the Bahamas. The committee believes that the
Navy should place a priority on gaining an increased understanding of
the reaction of marine mammals to tactical sonar and other underwater
sounds that are characteristic of naval operations.
The committee recommends $381.9 million in PE 61153N, an increase of
$750,000 for the Navy's cooperative marine mammal research program.
Maritime technology (MARITECH) program
The budget request contains $9.4 million in PE 78730N for the
Maritime Technology (MARITECH) program. The request also contained
$244.4 million in PE 63513N for shipboard system component development
and $46.9 million in PE 63564N for ship preliminary design and
feasibility studies.
The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA) initiated the MARITECH program in 1994 to enhance the
commercial viability of U.S. shipbuilding and preserve the defense
industrial shipbuilding base. An independent study of the economic
impact of the program concluded that the Navy shipbuilding industrial
base experienced considerable productivity improvements and cost savings
from the application of technologies developed in the MARITECH program.
In fiscal year 1999 the program was moved to the Department of the Navy
and a five-
year, $20 million per year, Navy MARITECH Advanced
Shipbuilding Enterprise (ASE) was established to build upon the progress
made by the original DARPA program.
The committee believes that the success of the original MARITECH
program was the result of the application of innovative management and
technologies, and stable funding throughout the five-years of the
program. The committee believes that the reduction in the budget request
for the ASE breaks the paradigm established in the original program and
will adversely affect the program objective of assisting the Nation's
shipbuilding industry in achieving significant reductions in the cost
and time required for commercial and Navy ship construction, conversion,
and repair. The committee believes that all Navy shipbuilding programs
will benefit from the MARITECH ASE and should share in funding the
program.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $15.4 million in PE 78730N, an
increase of $6.0 million to fully fund the MARITECH program. The
committee further recommends a decrease of $3.0 million each in PE
63513N and PE 63564N.
Mobile electronic warfare support system
The budget request contained $96.2 million in PE 26313M, and included
$449,000 for improvements to the Marine Corps' mobile electronic warfare
support system (MEWSS).
The committee notes that the Marine Corps' MEWSS tactical
reconnaissance system is a cooperative effort with the Army's ground
based common sensor (GBCS) program. The GBCS program was terminated and
all residual equipment was transferred to the Marine Corps for use in
the MEWSS. However, no funds were included in the budget request to
transfer and integrate GBCS components into the MEWSS vehicles or to
maintain the limited rate initial production items.
The committee recommends $104.7 million in PE 26313M, an increase of
$8.5 million for the specific purposes of transferring, integrating and
maintaining the equipment gained from GBCS.
Mobile integrated diagnostic and data analysis system (MIDDAS)
The budget request contained $5.3 million in PE 64771N for medical
development.
The committee understands that the Navy has no trauma management
tools to aid medical personnel in monitoring and analyzing wounded
patient medical data on a real-time basis in the field. The committee
further understands that the Navy has made significant progress in the
development of the MIDDAS to provide such a capability but that
additional resources are required to complete this effort.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $7.3 million in PE 64771N for
medical development, an increase of $2.0 million to accelerate
development of the MIDDAS and demonstrate its ability to interface with
communications and medical data systems.
Multi-function radar/volume search radar and the Navy's radar roadmap
The budget request contained a total of $305.3 million in PE 64300N
for total ship systems engineering and manufacturing development for the
DD 21 land attack destroyer, including $69.6 million for the
multi-function radar (MFR) for ship defense and $57.5 million for the
volume search radar (VSR) for air search and track.
The committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106 162) expressed
concern that significant radar upgrades are required to meet the
objective capabilities of the Navy theater wide (NTW) system. The report
also noted that radar upgrades for TMD need to be thoroughly integrated
with continued radar improvements required for fleet defense,
development of the cooperative engagement capability (CEC), and
development of next generation Navy destroyers and cruisers. The report
called for a clearly defined roadmap of radar requirements and
technology to identify the best approaches for meeting the overlapping
requirements of fleet defense and TMD.
The committee notes the Navy's submission of the Surface Navy Radar
Roadmap Study as an interim report on the Navy's radar roadmap. The
study states that a series of time-phased radar development decisions
must be made to support varying surface ship acquisitions:
(1) Immediate decisions to be made regarding the radar suite
configuration for new ships including DD 21 and the CVN 77 aircraft
carrier.
(2) Near term decision on the radar configuration for the initial
phase (Block I) of the NTW program.
(3) Near- to mid-term decisions (2 3 years) for Block II of the NTW
program and for improvement in self-defense capabilities of ships now in
service.
(4) Radar technologies to be developed for the next-generation air
dominance/theater ballistic missile defense (TBMD) cruiser that would
reach the fleet in 2015.
The plan provides a strategy to reduce the large number of redundant,
obsolescing radars currently in the fleet to a small number of radars
common across multiple ship classes. The plan confirms the need for:
(1) A radar suite composed of MFR and VSR for ships whose radar
requirements are limited to self-defense and air control.
(2) A next generation radar suite, either derived from MFR/VSR, or
perhaps involving one additional radar, for ships with TBMD and area
anti-air warfare requirements.
The committee expresses concern that a clearly defined and funded
radar roadmap is necessary to ensure the necessary upgrades to legacy
radar systems and the development of new radar systems. The committee
awaits Secretary of the Navy approval of the radar roadmap, delivery to
the congressional defense committees, and incorporation of the approved
program in the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Multipurpose processor
The budget request contained $34.8 million in PE 64503N for submarine
systems equipment development, including $28.2 million for submarine
sonar improvements.
The committee notes that that the Acoustic Rapid
Commercial-Off-the-Shelf Insertion (A RCI) program has provided a
tremendous improvement in sonar processing capabilities through the
application of a cost-effective multipurpose acoustic signal processing
technology and the advanced process build software development
initiative. The committee continues to support incorporation of this
advanced multipurpose signal processing technology into the Navy's
acoustic surveillance and intelligence systems.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $49.8 million in PE 64503N, an
increase of $15.0 million, to support the accelerated development and
extension of common acoustic processing capabilities for undersea
warfare applications through the use of the multipurpose processor.
Naval space surveillance
The budget request contained $2.0 million in PE 35927N for the Navy
Space Surveillance network life extension activities.
The committee notes that the budget request for the fiscal year 2001
included a request for design concept activities that were provided in
fiscal year 2000. Therefore, the committee recommends $1.4 million in PE
35927N, a decrease of $600,000.
Navy mine countermeasures program
The budget request contained a total of $647.3 million for the
Department of the Navy mine countermeasures program, including $334.9
million for research, development, test and evaluation, $118.4 million
for procurement, and $177.4 million for operations and maintenance.
The committee has reviewed the U.S. Naval Mine Warfare Plan and the
Department of the Navy's mine countermeasures (MCM) program for fiscal
year 2001. The plan highlights mine warfare as a core competency of the
naval services and near-, mid-, and long-term measures to ensure the
continued readiness of the Navy's dedicated force of 26 MCM ships and
the development and fielding of organic MCM systems in the fleet.
The committee notes that the increased funding levels provided for
the MCM program through fiscal year 2005 will allow deployment of the
programmed organic MCM capability to a carrier battle group in 2005, as
well as continued modernization of dedicated MCM forces. The committee
also notes that the Navy is establishing a capstone requirements
document for a MCM system of systems that will baseline current
requirements and identify shortfalls in existing MCM systems. Because
the deployment of advanced MCM systems to the fleet will require new
tactics, techniques, and procedures for their employment, the committee
recommends that the Secretary of the Navy consider the establishment of
a Mine Warfare Battle Laboratory to accelerate the introduction of new
technologies and concepts of operations for both MCM forces.
The committee is aware that the Navy has begun an analysis of
alternatives for replacement of the USS INCHON (MCS 12) MCM support ship
and a second analysis of alternatives for a future MCM(X) ship for the
dedicated MCM fleet. The committee notes that technical problems
encountered with the development of the shallow water assault breaching
system (SABRE) and the Army's cancellation of the MDBU``GrizzlyMDBU''
combat breaching vehicle program severely impacts the development of the
Navy and Marines in-stride assault mine-clearing capability. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide to the
congressional defense committees the revisions to the MCM plan
and programs that address these issues with the submission of
the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Advanced sensors for mine countermeasures and oceanography
The budget request contained $60.3 million in PE 62435N for
oceanographic and atmospheric technology, including $22.6 million for
applied research in natural and environmental influences on MCM systems
and littoral oceanography.
The committee notes significant progress in the development of
advanced underwater chemical, optical, and physical sensors and sensor
systems for mine countermeasures and other underwater sensor
applications, including the successful test of an underwater mass
spectrometer for detection and mapping of trace quantities of volatile
organic compounds that might be associated with underwater mines,
chemical or biological agents, or hazardous wastes. The committee also
notes the development of a small spectrophotometric and fluormetric
analysis system for detection of trace elements underwater and of a
high-speed, high resolution laser line scanner for three-dimensional
mapping sea floor topography, both of which have potential application
for mine countermeasures and other purposes.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 62435N to
continue the development and demonstration of advanced underwater
chemical, optical, and physical sensors and sensor systems for mine
countermeasures and other applications.
AN/AQS 20/X mine hunting sonar
The budget request contained $47.3 million in PE 64373N for airborne
mine countermeasures engineering and manufacturing development,
including $14.9 million to continue development of the AN/AQS 20/X
helicopter-towed, mine hunting sonar system.
The AN/AQS 20/X will be the common mine hunting sonar system for the
submersible AN/WLD 1 Remote Minehunting System (RMS) and the CH 60S
airborne mine countermeasures (AMCM) helicopter that will provide the
primary organic mine counter-measures capabilities for the fleet. The
committee notes the progress that has been made in the development of
the AN/AQS 20/X mine hunting sonar and the Navy's decision in fiscal
year 1999 to add an electro-optical sensor to the system's mine
detection, localization and classification capabilities. The committee
also notes that incorporating current state-of-the-art,
commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) processor technology in the AN/AQS 20/X
would significantly improve system performance, eliminate obsolescent
components dating from the early 1990s, permit any system to operate
from either the AMCM helicopter or the RMS, and significantly upgrade
computer-aided detection and classification of mines and mine-like
objects.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $64.3 million in PE 64373N, an
increase of $17.0 million for incorporation of COTS processor technology
in the AN/AQS 20/X mine hunting sonar.
Synthetic aperture sonar development for long-term mine
reconnaissance system
The budget request contained $97.9 million in PE 63502N for
demonstration and validation of surface and shallow water mine
countermeasures, including $26.1 million for development of unmanned
underwater vehicles (UUV).
The committee notes that the Navy developed the near-term mine
reconnaissance system (NMRS) as a single operational prototype mine
hunting UUV system, which is capable of mine detection, classification,
and localization, and is launched and recovered from an SSN 688 class
submarine. Employing forward- and side-scanning sonar systems, the
AN/BLQ 11 long-term mine reconnaissance system (LMRS) will replace the
limited capability provided by the NMRS with a submarine launched and
recoverable, autonomous capability that will have increased endurance,
reliability, and search rate, and will provide the fleet a greatly
improved capability to conduct clandestine mine reconnaissance. The
committee also notes that the Chief of Naval Operations has identified
the development of a synthetic aperture sonar capability for the LMRS as
an unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends $103.4 million in PE 63502N, including $5.5
million for development of a synthetic aperture sonar capability for the
LMRS.
Naval modeling and simulation
The budget request contained $9.1 million in PE 38601N for naval
modeling and simulation.
The committee notes recent advances in modeling and simulation for
command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance
and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems. These advances demonstrate the use
of efficient systems engineering and business practices and leverage and
promote simulation based acquisition applied to the assessment,
planning, testing, and technology insertion for C4ISR systems. The
committee also notes progress in modeling and simulation systems
engineering initiatives that aid operations analysis, engineering
assessment, and additional efforts directed at understanding model
development, fidelity, accuracy, and simulation efficiencies and their
effects on tradeoff analyses involving C4ISR systems. The committee
supports the development and understanding of new modeling and
simulation tools that will assist in more effective decision-making and
in the design of C4ISR systems and information architectures.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $12.1 million in PE 38601N, an
increase of $3.0 million to continue initiatives for the development of
improvements in C4ISR modeling and simulation.
New composite materials for aircraft canopies
The budget request contained $21.1 million in PE 62122N for applied
research in aircraft technology.
The committee notes that aircraft windscreens and canopies are made
of relatively soft materials, which can degrade over time, resulting in
significant replacement costs. The committee is aware of proposals for
the use of nano-composite materials that combine the ultraviolet
stability, hardness and abrasion resistance of glass and the durability
and adhesion of a plastic coating, offering significant improvements
over conventional coating materials. The committee believes that the
successful development and demonstration of the use of such materials on
canopies and windscreens could significantly reduce operations and
maintenance cost for the armed services.
The committee recommend $23.1 million in PE 62122N, an increase of
$2.0 million for applied research and development of nano-composite hard
coat materials for aircraft windscreens and canopies.
Optical correlation technology for automatic target recognition
The budget request contained $28.6 million in PE 63609N for
conventional munitions demonstration and validation.
The committee notes the progress in the development and demonstration
of optical correlation technology to enhance target discrimination and
aim point selection for next-generation weapon system seekers.
The committee recommends $33.6 million in PE 63609N, an increase of
$5.0 million to continue the program for development and demonstration
of miniature, rugged optical correlators for automatic target
recognition and improved aim point selection for the Navy's Standard
Missile.
Optically multiplexed wideband radar beam-forming array
The budget request contained $79.9 million in PE 62232N for applied
research in communications, command, control, intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance technology, including $17.6 million for
radar technology.
The committee notes that Congress provided a total of $4.0 million in
fiscal year 2000 to initiate a cooperative program for research,
development, and demonstration of a prototype optically multiplexed,
wideband, radar beam-forming array that uses optical wavelength-division
multiplexing (WDM). The committee also notes that the use of optical WDM
is expected to reduce hardware complexity and system cost in a wideband
electronically-steered active radar antenna that has high instantaneous
bandwidth and the resolution necessary for theater ballistic missile
defense and ship self defense in a littoral environment.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 62232N to
continue the program for development and demonstration of an optically
multiplexed wideband radar beam-forming array.
P 3 modernization program
The budget request contained $2.9 million in PE 64221N for the P 3
maritime patrol aircraft modernization program, which provides upgrades
to the aircraft's systems in order to enhance its surface and subsurface
tracking and classification capabilities.
The committee continues to note the increasing demands placed by the
major theater commanders on the P 3 for intelligence and surveillance
missions in maritime, regional, and littoral operations. The committee
also notes the Navy's cancellation of the sustained readiness program
for the P 3 and the postponement of previous plans to initiate an
analysis of alternatives for a replacement maritime patrol aircraft.
Yet, the
Navy's Integrated Submarine Warfare Roadmap cites the need for
improvements in P 3 capabilities that are critical to near-term
anti-submarine warfare operational capabilities. The committee report on
H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106 162) expressed the belief that increased
priority must be given to the maintenance of a robust, continuing
research and development to sustain current P 3 capabilities and support
introduction of new capabilities and recommended that the Secretary of
the Navy review the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the P 3 to
ensure that it follows the program priorities established in the
roadmap.
The committee is concerned that the Navy is not taking the steps
necessary to maintain the P 3 fleet and support the introduction of new
operational capabilities that may be required in the future. The
committee is aware of the need for the Navy to balance its competing
program priorities among available funds, but believes that there is a
systemic problem in the Navy in which insufficient attention is given to
funding for the sustainment, technology refreshment, and improvement of
legacy systems that are expected to remain in service and have no
programmed replacement. The average age of the P 3 fleet is over 20
years, and the aircraft and its weapons systems are expected to remain
in service until after 2020. The aircraft electrical system was designed
for analog equipment and has become less compatible with modern digital
equipment as technology has advanced. As expressed in previous reports,
the committee believes that additional funding is required for combat
systems development and integration of commercial-off-the-shelf signal
processing technology to ensure that the P 3 provides the advanced
anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, and surveillance
capabilities that are required by the fleet.
Therefore, the committee recommends $7.8 million in PE 64221N, an
increase of $1.9 million for the design, demonstration, and testing of a
new electrical system and an increase of $3.0 million for advanced
concept systems development. The committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to report on the Navy's plans for sustaining the operational
capabilities of the P 3 and for development of a replacement aircraft to
the congressional defense committees with the fiscal year 2002 budget
request.
P 3 special mission squadron sensor upgrade
The budget request contained $ 27.5 million in PE 35207N for manned
reconnaissance systems research and development, including $2.2 million
for special mission P 3 reconnaissance squadrons.
The committee notes the increased operational requirements placed on
the P 3 special mission reconnaissance squadrons by the major combatant
commanders and the need for improvements in aircraft sensors
capabilities identified by the Chief of Naval Operations as an unfunded
requirements in fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.6 million in PE 35207N to
accelerate the development of three sensor upgrades for special mission
P 3 aircraft squadrons.
Parametric airborne dipping sonar
The budget request contained $58.3 million in PE 63747N for undersea
warfare advanced technology development and $69.9 million in PE 64216N
for the multi-mission helicopter upgrade program, but included no funds
for the parametric airborne dipping sonar (PADS).
The committee notes that the Navy's advanced technology demonstration
of a prototype PADS has indicated the significant potential of
parametric sonar technology against both mine-like and submarine targets
in littoral waters. The results of the Navy's at-sea test of PADS
indicated that the essential goals of the PADS demonstration had been
met and suggest PADS potential for mine detection. The Secretary of the
Navy's evaluation report, dated January 1999, stated that the PADS
technology merits further pursuit and that the Navy intended to continue
demonstration of parametric sonar technology. The committee is aware
that the Navy plans at-sea tests of the PADS prototype against submarine
targets later this summer. Pending the successful completion of those
tests, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the
congressional defense committees on the Navy's plan for further
development of the PADS system with the submission of the fiscal 2002
budget request.
The committee recommends no additional funds for PADS in PE 63747N
and PE 64216N and awaits recommendations from the Secretary of the Navy
regarding the program.
Power node control centers
The budget request contained $37.4 million in PE 63508N for advanced
development of surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and
engineering advanced technology.
The committee notes the progress made in the development and
demonstration of power node control centers for integrated switching,
conversion, distribution, and control of electrical power aboard naval
vessels. The committee is aware of other new electric power distribution
and propulsion system architectures that can be automatically
reconfigured to maintain the combat readiness of the shipboard
navigation, communication, and weapons systems following accidental or
hostile damage. The committee also notes the Navy's plans for the
application of power node control centers in integrated power systems
for the DD 21 land attack destroyer and other ships.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63508N to
continue the development and demonstration of power node control centers
and other flexible power distribution architectures and their
application in integrated power systems.
Project M
The budget request contained $37.4 million in PE 63508N for advanced
development of surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and
engineering advanced technology, but contained no funds to continue
Project M development of advanced machinery quieting technology.
The committee notes the initial reports of successful testing of
Project M quieting technology installed in the one-quarter scale
submarine at the Navy's acoustic test range, and believes that the
technology is ready for transition from the Navy's science and
technology base to potential applications in Navy propulsion and other
machinery systems. The committee is aware that an issue of the potential
magnetic signature of the technology must be resolved as a part of any
transition to ship board applications.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63508N to
transition Project M technology for Navy systems applications. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the
congressional defense committees on the Navy's plan for transition of
the technology with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget
request.
Radio frequency integration and testing environment
The budget request contained $270.3 million in PE 65864N for test and
evaluation support.
The committee notes that the proliferation of antennas and radio
frequency emitters on board Navy ships results in potentially severe
electromagnetic interference among communications and sensor systems,
which compete for bandwidth in the electromagnetic spectrum, unless
careful attention is given to electromagnetic compatibility. While
research and development continues to pursue the use of common aperture
antenna arrays to reduce shipboard ``antenna farms'', the requirement to
resolve potential electromagnetic compatibility issues can only grow as
demands for communications channels and bandwidth increase and new
sensors which use the electromagnetic spectrum are deployed to counter
new threats.
The committee believes that the requirement may exist for a testing
environment for radio frequency integration and ship electronic
interoperability that would address the electromagnetic compatibility of
ships in the demanding radio frequency environment of modern, joint
littoral warfare. Such a testing environment would provide the
capability for instrumented electronic testing for ship-based equipment
to identify and resolve electromagnetic interference problems, before
the deployment of the equipment to the fleet. The committee believes
that a fully instrumented, electromagnetic simulation environment,
similar to that currently used in aircraft and telecommunications system
testing, would be re-configurable for different ship classes and capable
of participating in distributed interactive simulations. This capability
could enable fleet analysis, technology evaluation, and development of
new tactics, techniques, and procedures.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in coordination with
the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, to conduct an
assessment and provide recommendations on requirements for
electromagnetic compatibility testing of ship-based equipment and the
potential need to establish a radio frequency integration and ship
interoperability testing environment. The committee further directs the
Secretary to submit the results of the assessment and any
recommendations to the congressional defense committees with the
submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
The committee recommends $270.3 million, the budget request, in PE
65864N for Navy test and evaluation support.
Remote precision gun
The budget request contained $ 54.7 million in PE 63640M for Marine
Corps advanced technology demonstrations, but included no funds for the
remote precision gun.
The committee is aware that a remotely operated precision gun
platform is being developed to reduce risk to personnel under a variety
of conditions. The committee notes that this remote fire system allows
the operator to remain out of the line of fire and eliminates human
error in aiming and firing a weapon.
The committee recommends $55.7 million in PE63640M, an increase of
$1.0 million for completion of development of the remote precision gun
aiming platform for military applications.
S 3B surveillance system upgrade program
The budget request contained $455,000 in PE 64217N for engineering
and manufacturing development for the S 3 weapons system improvement
program.
The committee notes that the objective of the S 3B surveillance
system upgrade program is the integration of off-the-shelf radar,
electro-optic, and infrared sensors; electronic support measures; and
tactical data links to demonstrate an enhanced stand-off capability for
this systems that could be achieved with low risk and at relatively low
cost.
The committee strongly supports efforts to improve Navy battle group
operations and, therefore, recommends $12.5 million in PE 64217N, an
increase of $12.0 million to continue the S 3B surveillance system
upgrade prototype demonstration program.
Ship service fuel cell program
The budget request contained $37.4 million in PE 63508N for surface
ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and electrical advanced technology
development, including $17.6 million for advanced electrical systems.
The committee notes the progress in the Navy's marine fuel cell
program in the development of advanced ship service fuel cell power
systems as affordable, alternative electrical sources for ship service
power and the potential use of such systems in the DD 21 land attack
destroyer program and for other ship service power applications. The
committee notes program emphasis on leveraging commercial fuel cell
technology and solving Navy issues such as operation in salt-laden air,
shipboard shock and vibration, and reforming diesel and other common
naval fuels for use in fuel cells systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million in PE 63508N to
accelerate the on-going Phase II program for development and
demonstration of a molten carbonate ship service fuel cell power system.
Silicon carbide and gallium nitride semiconductor substrates
The budget request contained $68.1 million in PE 62234N for applied
research in materials, electronics and computer technology.
The committee is aware that silicon carbide and gallium nitride are
wide band-gap semiconductor materials with unique physical and
electrical properties, which make possible the fabrication of a
next-generation of microelectronic devices that will be capable of
operating in radiation environments and at high temperatures, high
voltages, high power levels, and microwave frequencies. These
capabilities will enable a wide range of applications in military and
commercial systems such as advanced radars, power systems, sensors and
satellite communications. The committee continues to support the
development of silicon carbide and gallium nitride materials and
encourages the establishment of partnerships with industry to exploit
the technology for commercial uses.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 62234N for
the continued development of silicon carbide and gallium nitride
semiconductor materials and microelectronic applications.
Single flux quantum electronics
The budget request contained $68.1 million in PE 62234N for applied
research in materials and radio frequency/electro-optics/infrared
electronics technology.
The committee notes the steady progress in laboratory demonstration
of single flux quantum electronics and the potential of this technology
for applications in high-speed military electronic systems and the
processing of high-speed electronic signals. The committee notes that
the development of the technology can be accelerated to take single flux
quantum electronics from the present stage of component demonstration in
the laboratory to the development of integrated modules that demonstrate
key functions needed for specific military electronics applications,
including analog to digital conversion of very high-speed electronic
signals.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $3.0 million in PE 62234N for
the initial two-year phase of a program for the development and
demonstration of single flux quantum electronic technology for military
applications.
SSGN Conversion
The budget request contained $34.8 M in PE 63559N to initiate the
option for converting Ohio class Trident ballistic missile submarines
(SSBN), currently scheduled for retirement, to a conventional cruise
missile submarine (SSGN) configuration.
The committee understands that the Department of Defense is assessing
alternatives to maintain the nuclear attack submarine (SSN) force at the
minimum force level of 55 SSNs, as recommended in the recent submarine
force requirements study approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The
committee notes that the Secretary of Defense directed the addition of
$1.1 billion spread across the future years defense plan (FYDP) to
sustain the 55 SSN structure by refueling four additional SSN 688s. The
committee notes that the Secretary directed that conversion of up to
four Trident SSBNs to an SSGN configuration be considered as an
alternative to SSN refueling to maintain the 55 SSN force.
In the statement of managers which accompanied the conference report
on S.1059 (H. Rept. 106 301), the conferees directed the Secretary to
initiate arms control studies and cost and operational effectiveness
analysis required to provide the basis for a defense acquisition
milestone decision to proceed with the SSBN-to-SSGN conversion program.
The committee notes that significant arms control issues relating to the
Trident SSBN to SSGN conversion remain unresolved and that the cost and
operational effectiveness assessment of the SSGN conversion is
incomplete.
The committee notes that the Navy's notional plan for an SSGN
conversion program would begin refueling and conversion of the first
SSBN in fiscal year 2003. The notional schedule includes a Milestone 0
review by the Defense Acquisition Board late in fiscal year 2000,
preliminary design and risk reduction studies in fiscal year 2001, a
Milestone I/II decision to begin engineering and manufacturing
development in fiscal year 2002, and initial operational capability for
the first SSGN in fiscal year 2007. The committee notes, however, that
the Navy budget projection for fiscal years 2002 through 2005 contains
no additional funds for the program.
Senior Navy officials have confirmed that the budget request of $34.8
million is sufficient only to sustain the option for a version of the
SSGN accountable under Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), and that
$260 million is required in fiscal year 2001 to retain the option for a
treaty-compliant SSGN conversion. The Navy estimates the cost of
converting four SSBNs to START-accountable SSGNs at $1.3 billion and the
cost of conversion to START-compliant SSGNs at $3.4 billion. Either of
these two versions of SSGNs would require an additional $1.1 billion for
refueling if SSGN conversion is conducted in addition to SSN refueling.
Navy officials acknowledged that the budget request is predicated on
indications from the Administration that future START negotiations might
include discussion of a change to the START protocol which would exempt
non-treaty compliant SSGNs from START accountability. The committee is
concerned that the proposed START-accountable SSGN acquisition strategy,
dependent on successful resolution of START negotiations including a new
protocol allowing special consideration of SSGNs, does not support the
Navy's stated requirements to initiate design immediately in fiscal year
2001 to support a fiscal year 2002 milestone decision to begin the
program.
Navy officials indicated that the converted SSBNs, although
possessing unique operational capabilities, would not satisfy the
mission capabilities required of nuclear attack submarines, and further
indicated that an SSGN conversion program would affect the submarine
industrial base and the schedule for the Virginia class SSN
construction.
The committee expresses deep concern for the initiation of additional
major program acquisition programs not currently in the Navy's outyear
planning budgets. These new efforts threaten the funding available for
Navy aircraft modernization and ship construction programs through the
end of the FYDP and beyond, and are, (as noted elsewhere in this
report), resulting in consideration of significant changes in
modernization and procurement programs required to maintain essential
Navy capabilities and core competencies. The funding required for Navy
core programs and the cost of the SSGN conversion program, even if the
arms control and cost and operational effectiveness issues can be
resolved, will severely impact the Navy's future budget projections. The
committee also notes that a development strategy for preserving the SSGN
conversion option that is based on the assumption of a willingness to
negotiate an exception to START could, if the negotiations were not
successful, have a significant impact on the U.S. strategic nuclear
force levels under START II and an unacceptable impact under proposed
START III limits.
The committee recommends $34.8 M in PE 63559N, the budget request for
the SSGN conversion program. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide
the congressional defense committees with an approved
acquisition strategy and program plan for the SSBN SSGN conversion that
identifies program funding and schedule, which addresses a milestone
schedule for resolution of the arms control issues and a decision as to
whether the SSGN shall be START-accountable or START compliant, with the
submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Submarine sonar dome window
The budget request contained $207.1 million in PE 64558N for the
Virginia class SSN program.
The committee notes the Navy's progress in the application for
submarine sonar domes and windows of an advanced glass-reinforced
plastic and rubber structural acoustic sandwich material system, which
was originally developed for surface ship sonar domes and windows. The
committee understands that at-sea testing of a quarter-scale submarine
sonar dome indicates potentially significant improvements in sonar
performance and sonar dome durability for the VIRGINIA class SSN and
that system manufacturing costs for this dome should be reduced compared
to the current sonar dome.
The committee recommends $209.1 million in PE 64558N for Virginia
class SSN engineering and manufacturing development, an increase of $2.0
million to continue the program for fabrication of a full-scale sonar
dome using the advanced acoustic sandwich material system for further
evaluation and testing.
Supply chain management and development best practices
The budget request contained $949,000 in PE 65804N for technical
information services that support cooperative advanced technology
initiatives between the Navy and U.S. industry with the goals of
improving affordability and reducing life cycle costs of new and
modernized Navy systems.
The committee notes that technology advances by the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, other military services, and other government
agencies provide the Navy with an opportunity to leverage research and
development investments that could lead to radical improvements in the
affordability and effectiveness of Navy systems. Similarly, technology
and production and business practices developed by industry can also
contribute to the development of more effective and affordable defense
systems. With a growing reliance on industry as the integrator of ships
and other weapon systems, the understanding and promotion of new
technologies and the adoption of best business practices between
government and industry can result in significant improvements in
operational effectiveness and affordability over the life cycle of
systems. The committee notes, however, that logistical support and
supply activities are often brought into the development cycle at late
stages and are, as a result, not able to influence the development of
the system at a time when the adoption of improvements in management and
business practices could have the greatest effect on the system life
cycle.
The committee strongly supports coordination and involvement by the
materiel developer, the user, the logistical support chain, government,
and industry in the development of new systems and the modernization of
existing systems. The committee believes that there is much to be gained
from the development and adoption of best business practices in the
materiel and systems development life cycle from its initial stages
through research and development, acquisition and fielding, and support
of the systems in the field, and in facilitating the exchange of
information and technology between industry and government for this
purpose.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $ 4.9 million in PE 65804N, an
increase of $4.0 million to establish a program that will facilitate the
development and adoption of logistical best business and management
practices among government and industry that are involved in the
development, acquisition, and support of defense systems.
Surface ship torpedo defense
The budget request included no funds for continuation of the Navy's
joint surface ship torpedo defense program with the United Kingdom.
The committee recommends $8.4 million in PE 63506N to continue the
joint collaborative surface ship torpedo defense program with the United
Kingdom for upgrades to the SLQ 25A torpedo countermeasures capability
and development and integration of promising soft kill and hard kill
countermeasures.
Tactical unmanned aerial vehicles
The budget request contained $113.1 million in PE 35204N for tactical
unmanned aerial vehicles, but included no funding to continue
development of the multi-function self-aligned gate (MSAG).
The committee is aware that the MSAG technology successfully
demonstrated ability to transmit and receive full-motion video and
communication. This new form of antenna, with no moving parts, offers
reduced life-cycle costs and enables production of light, conformal,
multi-beam antennas for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (TUAV) and
associated systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 35204N to
construct and test a line-of-sight array for the tactical control system
for the UAV.
Vacuum electronics
The budget request contained $68.1 million in PE 62234N for applied
research in materials and radio frequency, electro-optics, and infrared
electronics technology, including $10.0 million for applied research in
vacuum electronics.
The committee is aware of the potential need for increased funding
levels for vacuum technology research and development in order to
support the development of advanced high power vacuum tubes for Navy
radar and other applications that cannot be met with current solid state
devices. In the committee report on H.R. 1402 (H. Rept. 106 162), the
committee noted its support for continuation of a robust vacuum
electronics research and development program within the Department of
Defense (DOD) and other federal agencies. The committee directed the
Secretary of the Navy to assess DOD's requirements for advanced vacuum
electronics technology and to report the results of that assessment and
the long-term funding plan for the vacuum electronics program.
The committee notes that the Secretary's interim report to the
congressional defense committees, dated March 7, 2000, states that an
ongoing assessment of vacuum electronics and solid state technologies
and applications will lead to the development of a long-term investment
strategy and roadmap for future vacuum electronics and solid state
technology activities. The results of the assessment will be reported to
the congressional defense committees with the fiscal year 2002
President's budget request. In the interim, the Department of the Navy
intends to continue its current investment level in vacuum electronics.
The committee recommends $10.0 million in PE 62234N for applied
research in vacuum electronics technology and awaits the Secretary's
final report and recommendations for the long-term vacuum technology
program with the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Vectored thrust ducted propeller compound helicopter demonstration
The budget request contained $76.3 million in PE 63792N for advanced
technology transition, including the vectored thrust ducted propeller
(VTDP) compound helicopter advanced technology demonstration project,
and $13.2 million in PE 64212N for development of the CH 60S airborne
mine counter measures helicopter.
The committee notes that the Navy has placed a high priority on the
development of an organic airborne mine countermeasures capability and
the demonstration of a variant of the CH 60 helicopter for the towed
airborne mine counter measures (AMCM) missions. As a back-up technology,
the Navy plans an advanced technology demonstration (ATD) of the VTDP
compound helicopter to demonstrate and assess the helicopter's towed
AMCM capability, other multi-mission capabilities, and life cycle cost
effectiveness.
The committee notes reports by Navy officials that early results from
CH-60 land- and sea-based tow tests indicate that the helicopter should
be able to perform the towed AMCM mission and that the final phase of
the tow test will begin in late fiscal year 2000. Following integration
of AMCM systems and sensors on the CH 60S helicopter, the Navy plans
initial operational capability of the helicopter in its organic AMCM
role in fiscal year 2005.
The committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106 162) directed the
Secretary of the Navy to assess the requirements, schedule, and cost of
conducting the ATD for the VTDP compound helicopter. The Secretary's
report, dated March 2000, states that the requirement to demonstrate the
potential value of this back-up technology for the AMCM mission and
other multi-mission applications remains unchanged, and that the Navy
has programmed the funds required through fiscal year 2002 to complete
the demonstration, including $11.3 million in fiscal year 2001. The
Department plans to begin a two-phased ATD in the third quarter of
fiscal year 2000, contingent upon successful completion of VTDP ground
test, and to complete flight testing in fiscal year 2004. The report
also indicated delays in completion of the ground test are being
assessed for their effect on project cost, schedule, and risk. The
Secretary's report concludes that the Department
will proceed with the ATD as planned and will advise the
Congressional defense committees regarding any significant information
that would affect the project's progress.
The committee intends to monitor closely the Navy's progress in
development of the CH 60S helicopter for the AMCM mission and progress
in the VTDP compound helicopter ATD. The committee recommends $11.3
million, the requested amount, in PE 63792N for continuation of the VTDP
compound helicopter demonstration project.
Virtual test bed for advanced electrical ship systems
The budget request contained $37.4 million in PE 63508N for advanced
development of surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and
engineering advanced technology.
The committee continues to support the development and application of
technologies that will lead to lower cost designs for future naval
ships. The committee notes the progress that has been made in the
development of a virtual, distributed test bed that supports the
integration of power electronics into ship systems. As a part of the
Navy's program leading to the development of an all-electric ship, the
virtual test bed provides a virtual test laboratory of new software and
hardware modeling tools for shipboard machinery design, and allows
government and industry ship designers to evaluate machinery
alternatives in a virtual prototype before committing to full-scale
development.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 63508N to
continue the development and application of the virtual test bed for the
design and evaluation of advanced shipboard electrical power system
concepts and designs.
AIR FORCE RDT&E
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $13,685.6 million for Air Force RDT&E.
The committee recommends authorization of $13,677.1 million, a decrease
of $8.5 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Air Force
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes to the
Air Force request are discussed following the table and in the
classified annex to this report.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
21st century affordable aircraft thrust demonstration project
The budget request contained $13.2 million in PE 63245F for flight
vehicle performance and supportability technologies but included no
funds for the 21st century affordable aircraft thrust demonstration
project, a unique, science and technology approach to legacy aircraft
modernization which provides an integrated, life-cycle focus for key
technologies that support acquisition affordability processes.
The committee is increasingly concerned with the rising operations
and support costs for the services' aging inventory of fighter and
attack aircraft and believes that such rising costs have the potential
to adversely impact the budgets required to both modernize and maintain
future operational readiness. To address this concern, the committee
understands that the Air Force Research Laboratory completed a fiscal
year 1999 study which determined that near-term advanced technology,
when coupled with innovative acquisition, design, production and support
processes, could produce a new and more capable F 15C aircraft. The
committee also understands that the aircraft's 20-year life cycle cost,
including acquisition, would be dramatically less that the projected
cost of both upgrading and sustaining the existing F 15C fleet.
In an effort to reduce rising operations and support costs, the
committee recommends $69.2 million in PE 63245F, an increase of $56.0
million to begin construction of two demonstration aircraft consistent
with the Air Force Research Laboratory's fiscal year 1999 study and
believes that lessons learned and data collected from this project will
be applicable to aircraft of all services.
Aging landing gear life extension
The budget request contained $14.2 million in PE 65011F for RDT&E For
Aging Aircraft.
The committee notes the increasing incidence of Class A aviation
mishaps attributable to landing gear failure, as well as rising Mission
Incapable rates for high priority aircraft such as the KC 135 and C 130
due to limited availability of replacement landing gear components. The
committee is aware that the Air Force is working to develop improved
components and advanced inspection and overhaul equipment to address a
number of aging problems for the current inventories of U.S. aircraft.
However, the limited funds available in the RDT&E For Aging Aircraft
program are insufficient to support the promising goals of the Aging
Landing Gear Life Extension (ALGLE) program.
The committee recommends $26.2 million in PE65011F, an increase of
$12.0 million for acceleration of the ALGLE program.
Airborne laser
The budget request contained $148.6 million in PE 63319F for the
Airborne Laser (ABL) program.
The committee is disturbed that the budget request represents a
reduction of $92.4 million compared to the funding level projected in
the fiscal year 2000 budget request. The committee understands that this
reduction will delay the first lethal test against a missile by two
years, from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2005. The committee further
understands that the Air Force reduced ABL funding throughout the future
years defense plan by approximately fifty percent, a decrease that would
delay initial operational capability by five years or more. The
committee notes that, prior to these funding decreases, the program was
on schedule, meeting costs and technical milestones.
The committee also notes that the Air Force justified the proposed
reductions on the basis that the service has higher priorities. The
committee is aware that the ABL is an important part of the ballistic
missile defense architecture developed by the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO), yet the changes to the ABL budget profile and the
program delays that would result were not coordinated in any way with
the Director of the BMDO.
The committee continues to believe that ballistic missile defense
remains a very high priority and that the challenge of meeting rapidly
evolving missile threats requires an integrated approach. Therefore, the
committee recommends a provision (section 235) to establish a new
program element within defense-wide research and development for the ABL
program. The committee strongly recommends that the Secretary of Defense
realign resources throughout the future years defense program to assure
that the BMDO can manage the ABL program to achieve timely development
and testing.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to establish the
Director of BMDO as the ABL program acquisition executive through
development and operational testing, at which time the committee would
support a recommendation by the Secretary of Defense to transfer
procurement responsibilities to the Air Force. The committee understands
that the Department of the Air Force has executed this program since its
inception and directs the Director of BMDO assure that the Department of
the Air Force continue to execute program management during ABL
development and operational testing. The committee further understands
that the Air Force will provide ABL training and that Air Force
personnel will operate the ABL system when deployed.
The committee recommends no funds in PE 63319F, a decrease of $148.6
million, and $231.0 million in a new PE 63XXXC, an increase of $82.4
million and transfer of all funding for ABL.
Airborne reconnaissance systems
The budget request contained $136.9 million in PE 35206F for airborne
reconnaissance systems.
The committee notes that the joint signals intelligence (SIGINT)
avionics family (JSAF) under development, consisting of a low-band
subsystem (LBSS) and high band subsystem (HBSS), has applications in
several intelligence collection platforms. The committee notes that the
joint airborne SIGINT architecture (JASA) provides future SIGINT
payloads, such as JSAF, with a standard architecture, thereby providing
the potential for reducing costs through use of commercial off-the-shelf
technologies. The committee fully supports the research and development
of this program in order to determine if the JASA potential can be
realized. However, the committee is concerned that procurement of JSAF
is not properly funded and sequenced to preclude adverse effects on
intelligence collection operations. Furthermore, the committee is aware
that the emerging commercial silicon germanium (SiGe) technology may
offer significant size, weight, performance, and cost advantages over
existing technology, and believes it may well be beneficially applied to
the JSAF requirements. The committee strongly recommends rapid
development of SiGe technology for appropriate applications.
Therefore, the committee recommends $136.9 million in PE 35206F.
Further, the committee makes specific procurement funding modifications
elsewhere in this report to better support both the continued
development of the JSAF and operational SIGINT capabilities already
fielded.
Air Force/National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) partnership
The budget request contained $3.4 million in PE 63856F for the Air
Force/National Reconnaissance Office Partnership.
The committee understands that $2.0 million of the funding requested
would be used for studies and analysis of synergies between the Air
Force and the NRO. The committee notes that the Assistant Secretary of
the Air Force, Space, also serves as the director of the NRO. The
committee believes that coordination between the two organizations is
inherently institutionalized, and should be a matter of routine.
The committee recommends $1.4 million in PE 63856F, a reduction of
$2.0 million.
Air Force science and technology
The budget request contained $1,291.3 million for Air Force science
and technology (S&T) funding, including $206.1 million for basic
research, $590.3 for applied research, and $494.9 for advanced
technology development.
The committee notes that the total request for Air Force S&T
represents a decrease from the amount provided for fiscal year 2000, and
a third consecutive year of decline for this critical area of
modernization investment. The Air Force has shown modest improvement in
this area by increasing the fiscal year 2001 S&T request above the
forecasted level. However, the committee remains concerned that Air
Force modernization investments still reflect a much higher priority on
near-term modernization and sustainment of legacy systems than on
sustaining adequate levels of investment in S&T to enable future
modernization.
The committee is aware that the Air Force is designated as the lead
service for a number of technology areas including aerospace propulsion,
flight vehicle technology, and space systems development, and that many
Army, Navy, and Marine Corps acquisition programs depend on adequate
levels of S&T funding being sustained in these areas. The committee is
also aware that the Department of Defense has recently taken action to
correct the unacceptable decline in the Air Force funding for aerospace
propulsion and fully supports the revitalized emphasis in this important
technology area.
To correct the investment imbalances caused by the Air Force
prioritization of legacy system sustainment and near term modernization,
the committee recommends an increase of $77.2 million for Air Force
science and technology as described in the following adjustments to the
specific programs. Elsewhere in this report, the committee provides
support for special materials development including an increase of $2.0
million in PE 62102F for intermediate modulus carbon fiber and
ultra-high thermal conductivity graphite materials.
Aerospace propulsion
The budget request contained $116.3 million in PE 62203F for
aerospace propulsion applied research, $38.0 million in PE 62111N for
air and surface launched weapons technology, and $24.3 million in PE
63302F for space and missile rocket propulsion technology.
The committee notes the numerous advances in Integrated High
Performance Turbine Engine Technology (IHPTET) and Integrated High
Performance Rocket Propulsion Technology (IHPRPT) achieved over the past
several years. The IHPRPT initiative has enabled the services to pursue
needed advances in liquid and solid propulsion research for small
missile projects such as the lightweight, low cost SPIKE infantry guided
missile project and the solid fuel ramjet deep strike missile. Programs
that benefit from IHPTET include F 22 Raptor and Joint Strike Fighter
advanced turbine engines, all current turbine engine aircraft programs,
and numerous strategic and tactical missile systems.
The committee also notes important technology advances in the area of
magnetic bearing cooling turbine designs that offer significant
improvements in operational readiness and safety of the KC 135 and C 130
aircraft fleets. The magnetic bearing provides near frictionless bearing
capability resulting in dramatically reduced lifecycle costs and
improved mission capable rates.
The committee notes that many space launch vehicles, both planned and
currently under development, will transition from traditional propulsion
systems to high-pressure systems that use liquid oxygen and kerosene.
The committee notes that this rocket fuel is both more energetic than
hydrogen fuels and is environmentally friendly. The committee is
concerned, however, that the research and development test
infrastructure is inadequate to validate the performance of new
high-energy propulsion technologies in a timely manner and believes that
additional funding is needed to reinforce this effort. The committee
believes that such upgrades would also support a wide range of IPHRPT
programs.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 62203F,
and an increase of $4.0 million in PE 62111N for acceleration of
advanced aerospace propulsion initiatives associated with the IHPTET and
IPHRPT programs. The committee further recommends an increase of $23.7
million in PE 63302F for new technology insertion into existing large
propulsion test facilities to test new high-energy propulsion systems.
Aircrew laser eye protection
The budget request contained $12.5 million in PE 63231F for crew
systems and personnel protection technology, including $1.3 million for
aircrew laser eye protection.
The committee has consistently supported the Department of Defense's
efforts to enhance aircraft crewmember protection systems. The committee
is aware of the
ongoing efforts to develop both laser eye protection in both
the near-infrared and visible light portions of the spectrum. The
committee notes the exceptional future battlefield benefit of providing
maximum protection in the visible spectrum urges the continued
development of these initiatives and encourages them to be viewed as a
high priority.
The committee recommends $14.5 million in PE 63231F, an increase of
$2.0 million to address visible spectrum technologies and development.
Ballistic missile technology
The budget request contained no funds in PE 63311F for the ballistic
missile technology (BMT) program.
The committee notes that both the Navy Trident D 5 submarine launched
ballistic missile and the Air Force Minuteman III land-based
intercontinental ballistic missile are aging, will require continuing
efforts to assure their operational viability, and will eventually need
to be replaced. The committee also notes that current defense planning
guidance directs the Air Force and Navy to apply common technologies and
components to meet requirements for ballistic missile sustainment and
upgrades. The committee is aware that the Navy and Air Force are
actively seeking to avoid duplication of missile technology development
efforts. If adequately funded, BMT is the Air Force program in which
these efforts will be pursued. The committee also believes that the BMT
program could support a number of other on-going technology developments
with potential to meet important military needs, including the
demonstration of a portable Global Positioning System range safety
system and technologies relevant to the destruction of hardened and
deeply buried targets.
The committee believes these efforts offer significant contributions
to Air Force missile programs and is concerned with the lack of support
for the BMT program. The committee, therefore, recommends $12.0 million
in PE 63311F, an increase of $12.0 million.
Combat identification
The budget request contained $13.7 million in PE 63203F for target
attack and recognition technology.
The committee notes the importance placed by the military services on
pursuing technological advances to improve rapid combat identification
of friendly and opposing forces, and is disturbed by recent Air Force
funding reductions in this area. All-weather positive target
identification at long stand-off ranges was specifically cited as a
limiting factor during operations in Kosovo.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63203F for
acceleration of combat identification development.
Composite affordability initiative
The budget request contained $48.8 million in PE 62201F for aerospace
flight dynamics, including $1.8 million for concepts and initiatives to
reduce manufacturing cost.
The committee is aware of a number of technologies being developed
under the Composite Affordability Initiative (CAI) program, including 3D
weaving technology. This technology offers the potential for improved
performance and cost reduction in applications such as future military
aircraft unitized structures and lightweight civil aircraft.
The committee supports the CAI program and recommends an increase of
$1.0 million in PE 62201F for 3D weaving technology.
Low cost launch technology
The budget request contained $24.3 million in PE 63302F for
development of space and missile rocket propulsion, but included no
funds for low cost launch technology.
The committee is aware of a number of technologies and concepts that
offer the potential to reduce launch costs dramatically, including
Scorpius, which utilizes simplified processes and technologies to
achieve streamlined, low cost launch and has successfully demonstrated
launch capabilities. The committee believes that continued research in
this area is important to the long-term viability of the U.S. launch
industry and that those technologies that have demonstrated success
deserve priority. The committee believes that the Air Force, as the
service primarily responsible for meeting national security launch
needs, should manage this effort rather than the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63302F,
for low cost launch technologies including Scorpius.
Miniature satellite threat reporting system
The budget request contained $97.3 million in PE 63401F for advanced
spacecraft technology, of which $1.1 million is for space systems
protection.
The miniature satellite threat reporting system (MSTRS) program is
developing technologies for a variety of space platforms to provide
warning against ground-based, broadband radio frequency threats to
satellites and to help protect against interference, intrusion, jamming,
and unauthorized use of U.S. satellites. Prior year funding has
supported miniaturization of the technology, preparations for a test
flight of MSTRS technology in fiscal year 2001, and a year-long
demonstration of these technologies starting in fiscal year 2004. The
committee continues to believe that MSTRS is an important effort given
the increasing reliance of U.S. military forces on space assets and the
potential vulnerability of these assets to evolving threats.
The committee understands that additional funding is needed to
accommodate the 2001 flight test and to complete miniaturization.
Therefore the committee recommends $102.3 million in PE 63401F, an
increase of $5.0 million for further development of MSTRS technology.
Specialty aerospace metals
The budget request contained $72.8 million for PE 62102F for applied
research and $21.7 million in PE 63112F for advanced development of
materials technologies for aerospace systems and $53.1 million in PE
78011F for the Air Force's manufacturing technology program.
The committee notes the continuing need for advances in special
aerospace metals and metal alloys for aircraft and space vehicle
structures, propulsion, components, and weapon systems. Both the Navy
and the Air Force are seeking access to materials that are lightweight,
high strength, high performance, and capable of withstanding the
stressing environments that are experienced by aerospace systems, and
for the development and optimization of manufacturing processes for
these materials.
The committee recommends increases of $5.25 million in PE 62102F,
$5.25 million in PE 63112F, and $4.5 million in PE 78011F to establish
an integrated program for the development and demonstration of special
aerospace materials and materials manufacturing processes, and
encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to establish a continuing
program for special aerospace metals and alloys as an integral part of
the Air Force's science and technology and manufacturing technology
programs. The committee requests the Secretary to assess Air Force
requirements for advanced special aerospace metals and alloys and to
report to the congressional defense committees on the Air Force's plan
for meeting those requirements with the submission of the fiscal year
2002 budget request.
Upper atmospheric and astronomical research
The budget request contained $206.1 million in PE 61102F for Air
Force basic research, but included no funding for proposed enhancements
to upper atmospheric and astronomical research activities.
The committee understands that completion and testing of a proposed
thirty-six reflector telescope would support Air Force relevant space
research and efforts to increase fundamental understanding of the upper
atmosphere. The committee supports this effort and recommends $209.1
million in PE 61102F, an increase of $3.0 million for upper atmospheric
and astronomical research.
Advanced message-oriented data security module (AMODSM)
The budget request contained $12.6 million in PE 64735F for combat
training range development but included no funds to integrate AMODSM
units in the Nellis Air Combat Training System (NACTS) or the Tyndall
Range Expansion (TRE). Additionally, the budget request contained $398.5
million for in the procurement miscellaneous production charges and
$26.0 million for combat training ranges but included no funds for
procurement of AMODSM units.
Both the NACTS and the TRE are used to train aircrews for combat and
are configured with instrumentation to determine aerial combat outcomes.
AMODSM units provide encrypted fly-out information for the advanced
medium-range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM), the primary
beyond-visual-range air-to-air weapon for Air Force, Navy and Marine
Corps fighter and attack aircraft, and enable aircrews to determine
AMRAAM training mission results at the NACTS and TRE. The committee
believes that AMOSM
units are required for training at the NACTS and TRE and
recommended an increase for this purpose in its report on H.R. 1401 (H.
Rept. 106 162) for fiscal year 2000.
To complete the AMODSM unit integration effort on the NACTS and TRE,
the committee recommends $16.6 million in PE 64735F, an increase of $4.0
million. Additionally, the committee recommends $399.5 million in
miscellaneous production charges, an increase of $1.0 million, to begin
procurement of AMODSM units for aircraft installation; and $27.0 million
for combat training ranges, an increase of $1.0 million, for procurement
of ground-based AMODSM equipment at the NACTS and TRE. The committee
expects these additional funds to be expeditiously obligated in order to
achieve AMODSM operational capability at the earliest possible date.
B 1B link 16 data link
The budget request contained $168.1 million in PE 64226F for B 1B
bomber modernization but included no funds for B 1B Link 16
connectivity.
The committee believes that upgraded data links are needed for the B
1B that can provide real-time information to B 1B flight crews to
improve their situational and threat awareness and their ability to plan
and execute missions. The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of
Staff has identified the B 1B Link 16 data link as one of his unfunded
priorities for fiscal year 2001.
Therefore, the committee recommends $178.1 million in PE 64226F, an
increase of $10.0 million for the B 1B Link 16 data link.
B 2 upgrades
The budget request contained $48.3 million in PE 64240F for continued
development of technologies to enhance the capabilities of the B 2
bomber.
The committee continues to accept the conclusion of the 1998 Long
Range Air Power panel that additional investments are required for the B
2 to reach its full operational potential. The committee notes that the
Air Force has identified a number of technologies that would enhance B 2
capabilities, including development of a bomb rack assembly with
communications interfaces, development of a 500-pound variant of the
Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), improvements in B 2 connectivity,
and upgrades of B 2 data displays. Development of the smart bomb rack
and the smaller JDAM will improve the B 2's operational flexibility by
allowing it to carry larger payloads of all-weather near-precision
munitions. The committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has
identified development of the smart bomb rack assembly as an unfunded
requirement in fiscal year 2001 and recommends an increase of $56.0
million for development of the smart bomb rack assembly for the B 2
bomber.
The committee notes the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2000 (Public Law 106 65) added funds for Link 16 integration with
the B 2. The committee notes that this datalink in conjunction with a
center instrument display (CID) capable of augmenting the current
display system will enhance the situational awareness of B 2 aircrews
and B 2 mission effectiveness. Therefore, the committee also recommends
an increase of $38.0 million for Link 16 integration and development of
the CID.
In total, the committee recommends $142.3 million in PE 64240F, an
increase of $94.0 million for B 2 upgrades.
B 52 modified miniature receive terminals configuration
The budget request contained $15.3 million in PE 33131F for research
and development on the minimum essential emergency communications
network (MEECN), of which $2.7 million was for improvements for aircraft
very low frequency/low frequency (VLF/LF) communications.
The committee notes that B 52 bombers have not been equipped with
modified VLF/LF miniature receive terminals (MMRT) that provide high
data rate capability and that modification of existing miniature receive
terminals has been directed by the Joint Staff. This capability is
critical for timely reception of emergency action messages by
nuclear-capable bombers.
The committee recommends $20.3 million in PE 33131F, an increase of
$5.0 million to modify the B 52 miniature receive terminals to the MMRT
configuration with high data rate capabilities.
Defense reconnaissance support program
The budget requested contained $45.1 million in PE 35159F for various
projects within the defense reconnaissance support program (DSRP).
The committee recommends $38.0 million in PE35159F, a decrease of
$7.1 million. This reduction is taken without prejudice.
Discoverer II
The budget request contained $97.3 million in PE63401F, including
$54.2 million for Discoverer II, and $182.2 million in PE 63762E for
sensor and guidance technology, including $40.1 million for Discoverer
II. The request also contained additional funding in a classified
program element for the design and development of the Discoverer II
space-based moving target indicator (MTI) demonstration project.
The committee remains supportive of the Discoverer II demonstration
and believes that space-based radar has the potential to meet identified
military requirements. However, the committee believes that the
capabilities promised by space-based radar are valuable only if the
capability is developed and deployed at affordable cost, and that cost
discipline will be key to success for Discover II. The committee also
notes that the Department of Defense has yet to provide a concept of
operations that achieves synergies between space and airborne MTI assets
and other national and tactical sensor assets, and believes that the
ultimate value of the program cannot be determined without this
definition.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide
a report to the congressional defense and intelligence committees, by
February 15, 2001 describing the Discoverer II concept of operations as
defined, as of that date and a firm cost estimate for the two-satellite
demonstration program that will provide a benchmark by which the
committees can judge the cost of the technologies.
Eagle vision
The budget request included no funds to improve the Eagle Vision
imagery ground station's capability to receive and process new
commercial imagery sources.
The committee notes the recent successful launch and initial
operations of the Ikonos II commercial imagery satellite. The committee
also notes that two other U.S. commercial companies are about to launch
their own high-resolution imagery satellites. Currently, the Eagle
Vision ground station is designed to receive and process relatively
low-resolution imagery from Canadian and French commercial satellites.
It is, however, not able to process imagery from the higher resolution
U.S. systems that are either in or soon to be in orbit.
Therefore, the committee recommends $4.5 million in PE 27277F, an
increase of $4.5 million, for the purpose of integrating into the Eagle
Vision ground stations a receive and processing functionality necessary
to exploit current and future U.S. commercial satellite imaging systems.
Electronic warfare development
The budget request contained $58.2 million in PE 64270F for
electronic warfare (EW) development, but included no funds for the PLAID
technology program. The budget request also included $4.0 million for
the miniature air-launched decoy (MALD) program, which, the committee
notes, only partially funds its transition from the advanced concept
technology demonstration (ACTD) to the engineering and manufacturing
development (EMD) phase.
The PLAID technology program will enhance aircrew situational
awareness by providing accurate ground emitter location and
identification. The improved situational awareness resulting from this
technology will help combat pilots to effectively avoid radar-guided
surface-to-air missiles. In its report on H.R. 1401 (H.Rept. 106 162)
for fiscal year 2000, the committee recommended an increase of $13.7
million for PLAID, and understands that recent test reports indicate
that PLAID technology has been remarkably successful. Further, the
committee notes that PLAID technology has been identified as critical
for the joint strike fighter, unmanned aerial vehicles, and suppression
of enemy air defense platforms. Consequently, the committee recommends
an increase of $17.7 million, to continue the PLAID technology
development.
The MALD is a low-cost decoy intended to stimulate enemy integrated
air defense systems to enable pilots to either avoid or target these
systems. The committee understands that the Air Force Operational Test
and Evaluation Center recently evaluated the MALD and found it to be
potentially both operationally effective and suitable with tactically
significant capabilities for the Air Force. Encouraged by these results,
the committee believes that the MALD should complete its ACTD effort and
transition to EMD in fiscal year 2001. Accordingly, the committee
recommends an increase of $7.0 million to increase the MALD's
suitability for operational use.
In total, the committee recommends $82.9 million, an increase of
$24.7 million, for EW development.
Extended range cruise missile (ERCM)
The budget request contained no funds for either the conventional
air-launched cruise missile (CALCM) or for the ERCM, a proposed
replacement for this weapon.
The committee recalls that as a result of CALCM combat expenditures
between 1991 and 1999 that substantially reduced inventory, Congress
required the Secretary of the Air Force to report on CALCM replacement
options in Section 132 of the National Defense Authorization for Fiscal
Year 2000 (P.L. 106 65). The committee notes that this report detailed
the Air Force's need for an ERCM that would meet the requirement to
quickly increase the inventory of cruise missiles and provide an
extended-range missile capability to protect the Air Force's aging
bomber force. The committee also notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff
has included the start of an ERCM program among his top 20 unfunded
requirements for fiscal year 2001.
Consequently, the committee recommends $86.1 million in PE 64XXXF to
begin an ERCM program and expects the Department of the Air Force to
both employ fair and open competitive practices and to fund fully a
618-unit program in its fiscal year 2002 and future years defense
program. If the Department of the Air Force proposes to pursue an
acquisition strategy using other than full and open competition, the
Secretary of the Air Force shall inform the congressional defense
committees the rationale and justification therefore at least 30 days
prior to obligating any funds.
Additionally, the committee understands that the currently planned
ERCM program does not include missiles configured with a penetration
warhead. If the Department of the Air Force subsequently opts to include
a penetration warhead as part of the ERCM program, the Director of
Defense Research and Engineering shall report to the congressional
defense committees, 30 days prior to the obligation of funds for such a
warhead, his independent assessment of penetration warhead improvements
necessary for the ERCM to defeat the full spectrum of those targets
identified by a Joint Requirements Oversight Council-approved
requirement.
Global hawk unmanned aerial vehicle
The budget request included $109.2 million in PE 35205F for endurance
unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), including $103.2 million for continued
development of the Global Hawk UAV.
The committee supports the Global Hawk and believes that it has the
potential for providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance
support to military customers, complementing the current U 2 operations.
The committee notes that due to a crash of the one air vehicle, and a
runway accident of another, there are no electro-optic/infra-red (EO/IR)
sensors to continue test and evaluation of the UAV. The committee
believes it is important to procure sensor sets to replace those lost to
the accidents. Further, the committee is aware of unobligated and
unexpended funding from prior year funds provided for endurance UAV that
could be used to purchase these sensors and continue the Global Hawk
engineering and development in fiscal year 2001.
Therefore, the committee recommends $109.2 million in PE 35205F for
endurance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), of which $12.0 million is for
the purchase of two EO/IR sensors for the Global Hawk aircraft.
Hyperspectral imagery system
The budget request contained $9.8 million in PE 27247F for Air Force
tactical exploitation of national capabilities (TENCAP) projects.
The committee recalls Congress provided additional funding in fiscal
year 2000 for continuing development of a hyper-spectral sensor for
application on Navy P 3 and Air Force unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).
The committee is aware that this initiative has resulted in a joint
effort to integrate and demonstrate a real-time hyper-spectral sensor on
a Predator UAV. The committee notes that no funding was provided in the
budget request to continue this effort through demonstration. The
committee believes that a hyper-spectral sensor will significantly
mitigate the problems of detecting and targeting camouflaged targets
that has hampered aerial targeting in past operations.
Therefore, the committee recommends $13.8 million in PE 27247F, an
increase of $4.0 million to continue this demonstration with the goal of
producing an operational real-time hyper-spectral sensing system on UAVs
and other intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft.
Integrated broadcast service
The budget request included $24.5 million in PE 63850F for
development of the Integrated Broadcast Service (IBS). The request also
included $15.1 million in operation and maintenance, Navy, for operating
the legacy systems, including the Tactical Information Broadcast Service
(TIBS), the TRAP Data Dissemination System (TDDS), the Tactical
Reconnaissance Information Exchange System (TRIXS), the Tactical Digital
Information Exchange System (TADIXS B) and the Near-real-time
Dissemination (NRTD) System.
The committee has been very supportive of the IBS program since its
inception in fiscal year 1995. IBS was to result in a coordinated
broadcast capability and the termination of the legacy systems,
providing better support to real-time users of intelligence. This goal
clearly has not been achieved, and the committee is extremely
disappointed with the Department's progress toward IBS. The original
program schedule provided for the legacy systems to be integrated into
an initial IBS functionality in the 2000 time frame. The current
schedule now shows such a capability in 2007. Further, there has been no
progress in terminating any or all of the legacy systems. In fact, some
of the legacy systems have actually been modified to increase their
capabilities. It is clear that the program managers have had no
intention of terminating these systems. In preparation of the fiscal
year 2001 budget markup, the committee drafted legislation to direct the
Department to terminate all legacy broadcast systems on a date certain.
However, the committee decided to rescind the provision, allowing the
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and
Intelligence) (ASD(C3I)) to be responsible for commitments to the
Congress to move forward with IBS.
The committee notes that the IBS executive agent has been moved from
the Navy to the Air Force. However, the budget request for IBS had been
submitted before this change. Therefore, all operation and maintenance
funding should be transferred to the Air Force in accordance with the
transfer of management responsibility.
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense has tentatively
decided to proceed with IBS in a phased spiral-development approach
beginning with an ``increment one'' that uses the current, or slightly
modified, TIBS message set as the baseline. This will allow the
Department to baseline the IBS program using an existing program, and
improve on it, rather than begin wholly anew. The committee supports
this approach and expects the ASD(C3I) personally will oversee its
progress and the most expedient retirement of all other legacy systems.
Finally, the IBS contract was terminated for non-performance prior to
the beginning of fiscal year 2000. The committee understands that,
accordingly, there are funds available from previous congressional
appropriations. Further, the committee believes the current request for
program office personnel and funding is far in excess of need.
Therefore, the committee recommends $15.8 million, a decrease of $8.7
million in PE 63850F for IBS. Further, the committee recommends a
transfer of $15 million from operation and maintenance, Navy, to
operation and maintenance, Air Force.
Joint ejection seat program
The budget request contained $14.8 million in PE 64706F for life
support systems, including $10.9 million for ejection seat development,
but included no funds for standardized cockpit and crew seats.
The committee notes the serious shortage of ejection seat
manufacturers available to meet U.S. aircraft ejection seat requirements
and fully supports the Joint Ejection Seat Program (JESP). The goal of
this joint program is to distribute equally, JESP funds among viable
ejection seat producers to enable them to compete for Air Force and Navy
requirements, including the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. However,
the committee is aware that ejection seat development efforts are
currently being conducted, that assists only one of the potential
competitors in preparing to meet these requirements. Although well
intentioned, these ongoing projects result in unfairly disadvantaging
other potential competitors during this highly sensitive period
immediately prior to selection of the ejection seat producer for the
JSF. The committee notes that the Department of Defense is making every
effort to ensure that the JSF program is closely monitored and that the
enormous implications to the fighter aircraft industrial base are
completely understood and taken into account prior to the planned
``winner take all'' selection for development and production of JSF.
However, the committee is concerned that similar precautions are not in
place to prevent a potential imbalance to the competitive playing field
for selection of the JSF ejection seat. In order to protect the JSF
program from potentially damaging program delays due to unfair
competition claims, the committee recommends that no funds other than
that included in the JESP be allowed for ejection seat development
efforts involving producers identified as potential JSF ejection seat
competitors .
Thus, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.9 million in PE
64706F for all Air Force ejection seat development efforts. The
committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to conduct a thorough assessment of all development
work for fighter aircraft ejection seats within the Department to ensure
that no funding is provided which unfairly benefits any potential
competitor prior to a full and open competitive selection for the
ejection seat for JSF. The Secretary shall provide the results of this
assessment to the congressional defense committees with the submission
of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
The committee is also aware of Air Force efforts previously supported
in PE 64706F to develop standardized cockpit and crew seats to protect
aircrew members and passengers against crash loads up to 1.6 times the
force of gravity. The committee notes that these efforts are separate
from ejection seat development and recommends an increase of $4.0
million in PE 64706F for continued development and testing of
standardized cockpit and crew seats.
Joint strike fighter
The budget request contained $856.6 million for the Joint Strike
Fighter (JSF) program, including $129.5 million in PE 63800F, $299.5
million in PE 64800F, $131.6 million in PE 63800N, and $296.0 million in
PE 64800N.
The committee notes that $261.1 million of the total funds requested
for JSF are intended to support completion of the demonstration and
validation phase of the program and a ``winner take all'' selection of
one of two competing approaches for entry into engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD). The remaining $595.5 million will
support award of an EMD contract to the winning competitor.
The committee understands that the JSF program is attempting to
integrate a significant number of challenging new technologies into one
joint service multi-purpose aircraft for the Air Force, Marine Corps,
Navy, and United Kingdom to replace a number of aging fighter and attack
aircraft fleets. The committee believes that, in light of the program's
scope and technological advances, the Secretary of Defense should take
all necessary measures to ensure that the JSF program's critical
technologies are sufficiently mature before entry into the EMD phase.
Consequently, the committee recommends a provision (Section 213) that
would limit the JSF program's approval to proceed beyond the
demonstration and validation phase until the Secretary of Defense
certifies to the congressional defense committees that the technological
maturity of the JSF program's key technologies is sufficient to warrant
its entry into EMD stage.
The Committee continues to express concern for the stability of the
fighter aircraft industrial base and notes that the JSF program
represents the only new fighter aircraft acquisition program proposed by
the Department of Defense during the next three decades. Accordingly,
the committee recommends a provision (Section 141) that would direct the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress providing the
results of a study of production alternatives for the JSF and the
effects on the tactical fighter aircraft industrial base of each
alternative considered.
Additionally, while the Department is currently reviewing the planned
JSF ``winner take all'' strategy to ensure that aircraft industrial base
concerns are addressed, the committee notes that no specific concern has
been stated with respect to the future stability of the fighter aircraft
engine industrial base. The committee supports continuation of the JSF
alternate engine program (AEP) as directed in section 211 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (P.L. 105 85)
and recommends that the Department specifically address measures to
ensure the health of the fighter aircraft engine industrial base in any
proposed restructure of the acquisition program for JSF.
The committee also notes that the JSF AEP, as currently funded, will
not be capable of completing development and flight qualification of the
alternate engine until after award of lot five of the JSF production
program. In order to reduce risk to JSF production and aircraft
fielding, the Committee supports acceleration of AEP development to
ensure that the alternative engine completes configuration compatibility
for the JSF airframe.
The committee recommends $299.5 million in PE 64800F, $131.6 million
in PE 63800N, and $296.0 million in PE 64800N, the requested amounts.
The committee also recommends $144.5 million in PE 63800F, an increase
of $15.0 million, to accelerate the JSF AEP.
Military strategic and tactical relay (MILSTAR)
The budget request contained $236.8 million in PE 64479F for
development of the Military Strategic and Tactical Relay (MILSTAR)
communications satellite, including $14.2 million for the automated
communications management.
The committee understands that demand for military satellite
communications continues to rise and that the efficient use of military
satellite communications resources remains a priority. The committee
believes that web-based satellite communications management technologies
that utilize the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, such as the
Satellite Planning Information Network (SPIN), have the potential to
greatly expand flexibility in the use of satellite communications,
improve insight into system status, balance communications loads, and
provide superior connectivity during wartime or humanitarian operations.
The committee believes that the use of common standards will allow such
efforts to improve utilization of legacy systems, such as MILSTAR, as
well the effectiveness of next generation communications satellites,
including the Advanced Extremely High Frequency system. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 64479F for
development of new technologies, such as SPIN, to improve the automated
management and command and control of communications satellites.
The committee notes that the MILSTAR budget request represents an
$11.0 million increase over the level forecast in the fiscal year 2000
budget submission. Although this increase is intended to fund
engineering change orders, the committee does not believe that adequate
justification has been provided for the full increase requested.
Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $4.0 million in PE
64479F.
Overall, the committee recommends $237.8 million in PE 64479F, an
increase of $1.0 million.
Mobile approach control system
The budget request contained $15.9M in PE 35114F for development of
the Mobile Approach Control System (MACS).
MACS is the Air Force replacement for the Air National Guard MPN 14K
and Active Force TPN 19 mobile and tactical approach control facilities.
These facilities enable expeditionary operations by providing safe
launch and recovery for combat air operations in all weather conditions
at deployed airfields. These facilities are also the primary means by
which the Air National Guard trains its force of air traffic controllers
and maintenance personnel to meet their wartime commitments.
The committee is aware of the deplorable condition of the current
systems and that the schedule for the program to replace these systems
is unacceptably late. Several, if not all, Air National Guard and Active
units with the current antiquated equipment will be forced to
discontinue operations over the next several years until replacement
equipment is in place. The committee is also aware that the current MACS
acquisition strategy, a combination of Air Force and Navy acquisition
efforts, will place the first operational units into service in 2004.
The committee is concerned with the operationally unacceptable position
this imposes on the Air National Guard forces and the limitations placed
on their ability to train and operate.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force, as
lead service for the MACS program, to restructure its MACS acquisition
strategy to initiate low-rate initial production (LRIP) at the earliest
opportunity, but not later than fiscal year 2002, and to include
necessary funds to support LRIP and appropriate modifications in the
fiscal year 2002 and beyond budget requests.
Multi-link antenna system
The budget request contained no funding in PE 35207F for manned
reconnaissance systems including exploitation technologies for RC 135
aircraft.
The Congress provided funds for development and evaluation of the
Multi-function, self-aligned gate (MSAG) active array antenna technology
on the RC 135 aircraft in fiscal year 2000. The conferees were convinced
that the MSAG technology, now called Multi-link Active System (MLAS) has
the potential for satisfying several RC 135 antenna deficiencies, and
also has the potential for reducing the size and number of antennas for
many other applications. In fact, the committee is aware that the
Department of Defense has determined that the potential for this
technology merited funding through an advanced concept technology
demonstration.
The committee is aware that the budget request was insufficient to
complete the fabrication, installation and evaluation of an MLAS antenna
on an RC 135. Therefore, the committee recommends $2.0 million in
PE35207F for this purpose.
Satellite control network
The budget request contained $58.6 million in PE 35110F for satellite
control network research and development, and $39.1 million for
satellite control network procurement.
The satellite control network is a global system of control centers,
remote tracking stations, and communications required to control
satellites in orbit. The committee understands that telemetry and
command data rates need to be improved and supports the modernization of
the current system, which is inefficient and increasingly difficult to
support. The committee believes that current technology can
meet these improvement needs, but is concerned, however, that the
current Air Force program fails to adequately leverage opportunities
offered by commercial technology to reduce the cost of modernizing and
operating the network.
The committee recommends the requested amount for PE 35110F and
directs that $1.5 million shall be available to the Space Battlelab to
evaluate the utility of commercial antennae networks for satellite
control. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide
to the congressional defense committee, by February 15, 2001, a report
on satellite control network modernization, including possible
architectures, the command and control interface between the satellite
control network and satellite operations centers, the roles that
commercial technology and services might play, a description of
commercial technology demonstrations that would be useful, and
operational, manpower, cost and schedule implications associated with
the architectures.
Small smart munitions
The budget request contained $1.2 million in PE 64618F for continued
development of the joint direct attack munition (JDAM) but included no
funds for the 500-pound variant of the JDAM. The budget request also
contained $8.9 million in PE 64602F for Air Force armament development,
but included no funds for miniaturized munitions capability (MMC).
The committee is supportive of Department of Defense efforts to
increase future weapons load-outs and combat effectiveness for bomber
and other ground attack aircraft. The committee believes that
development of a 500-pound JDAM variant and a 250-pound MMC are
important in this regard.
The committee notes that the B 2 bomber, when deployed with a smart
bomb rack assembly, will be able to carry up to 80 500-pound JDAMs for
near-precision delivery against individual targets or target sets and
that the Air Force Chief of Staff has identified development of the
500-pound JDAM as an unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001. The
committee believes that this development should proceed rapidly and will
serve as a strong foundation for follow-on MMC technologies. Therefore,
the committee recommends $26.2 million in PE 64618F, an increase of
$25.0 million for development of the 500-pound JDAM.
The committee notes that the February 2000 interim report of the
Secretary of the Air Force and Secretary of the Navy on MMC, prepared in
response to a requirement in the committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept.
106 62), did not include consideration of development of a 250-pound
MMC. However, the committee has been informed that there are relatively
mature MMC technologies which offer considerable potential capability
against both fixed and mobile targets and can support an initial
operational capability (IOC) sooner than fiscal year 2007, the currently
planned date. Accordingly, the committee recommends $23.9 million in PE
64602F, an increase of $15.0 million to accelerate development of a
250-pound MMC variant.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force and the
Secretary of the Navy to submit a final report on the MMC analysis of
alternatives to the congressional defense committees with the fiscal
year 2002 budget request. The report shall include a review of all 26
government and industry MMC concepts noted in the interim report,
specific analysis of the technical feasibility of a future-250 pound MMC
variant, and funding requirements associated with a fiscal year 2007 IOC
as well as accelerated IOCs for 250-pound MMC variants.
Space-based infrared system-high (SBIRS-High)
The budget request contained $569.2 million in PE 64441F for
engineering and manufacturing development of the space-based infrared
system-high (SBIRS-High) program, including $162.1 million for
geosynchronous SBIRS-High satellites.
The committee notes that the ground control segment to support the
SBIRS-High satellites has been delayed due to difficulty in developing
and integrating the computer codes needed to manage the data flow from
both SBIRS-High and the Defense Satellite Program early warning
satellites. While concerned with these delays, the committee has been
informed that the ground control segment will be operational in time to
support the scheduled launch of the first SBIRS-High satellite into a
highly elliptical orbit in fiscal year 2001. The committee further
understands that the delays, while delaying the development of follow-on
upgrades of the ground control segment, will not impact the scheduled
fiscal year 2004 launch of the first geosynchronous SBIRS-High
satellite.
The committee notes that SBIRS-High capabilities will be essential to
achieving the required levels of confidence in the performance of the
national missile defense system and continues to support the deployment
of SBIRS-High satellites without delay. Consequently, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to provide written notification to the
congressional defense committees of any proposed change to the currently
established milestones for the SBIRS-High program prior to approval of
those changes.
The committee recommends $569.2 million for SBIRS-High.
Space-based infrared system-low (SBIRS-Low)
The budget request contained $241.0 million in PE 64442F for research
and development on the space-based infrared system-low (SBIRS-Low)
system.
The committee notes that Section 231 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106 65) establishes
ballistic missile defense as the primary mission of SBIRS-Low and that
SBIRS-Low will be critical to achieving advanced national missile
defense (NMD) and theater missile defense (TMD) capabilities.
The committee further notes that Section 231 also directs that the
Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) will have
authority to approve or disapprove any changes to the baseline SBIRS-Low
schedule, budget and system level technical requirements. The committee
has been informed that BMDO and the NMD lead system integrator have not
been sufficiently consulted with by the Air Force and the SBIRS
contractor to assure that missile defense requirements are effectively
reflected in the SBIRS Low development process. The committee
understands that the Secretary of the Air Force acknowledges these
concerns and has testified that he recommends moving SBIRS-Low program
management from the Air Force to BMDO. Senior BMDO officials have
confirmed to the committee that BMDO management would ensure appropriate
interaction between the NMD and SBIRS-Low programs. Therefore, the
committee recommends a provision (section 212) that would transfer
management authority for the SBIRS-Low program from the Air Force to the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
The committee concurs with views expressed by senior DOD officials
that the primary SBIRS Low mission is ballistic missile defense. The
committee, however, believes that the director of BMDO, in coordination
with other defense agencies, should afford appropriate priority to
ancillary SBIRS Low requirements in battlespace characterization and
technical intelligence, to the extent that they do not increase
technical or schedule risk to the primary SBIRS Low mission. The
committee believes that the intelligence community and other
organizations that seek to add technical capabilities to the SBIRS Low
system to meet those ancillary requirements must provide the resources
needed to do so.
Consistent with the transfer of ABL management authority, the
committee recommends no funds in PE 64442F, a decrease of $241.0 million
and an increase of $241.0 million in PE 63871C, the national missile
defense program. The committee understands that the Air Force would
remain the executive agent for the SBIRS-Low development program and
would retain operational control of the system when deployed.
Spacelift range system
The budget request contained $53.7 million in PE 35182F for research
and development for the spacelift range system.
The Air Force spacelift range system program funds modernization for
the Eastern Range at Cape Canaveral, Florida, and the Western Range at
Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. This is accomplished through the
Range Standardization and Automation (RSA) project, which funds
long-term upgrades, and the Space Lift Range System contract, which
supports short-term system integration and engineering and
recapitalization priorities.
The Air Force continues to subsidize heavily the commercial launch
industry at the Eastern and Western Ranges, even though commercial
launches and other government launches now far outnumber Air Force
launches. The subsidy results from Air Force funding of the
modernization, management, and operation of the launch ranges, while
recovering only about five percent of direct incremental costs and none
of the indirect support costs of a commercial launch.
The committee believes that the funding burden of modernizing,
managing and operating the spacelift ranges should be shared more
equitably by the range users. Such an arrangement would more accurately
reflect the costs and benefits to each of the users and allow the Air
Force to meet its legitimate priorities more fully. At the same time,
the committee recognizes that the Air Force must be responsible for
sustaining the ranges until satisfactory alternative funding and
management arrangements that meet civil, national security and
commercial requirements can be established.
The committee notes that the February 2000 report of the interagency
working group on ``The Future Management and Use of the U.S. Space
Launch Bases and Ranges'' supports maximizing the use of ``non-federal''
funding sources ``for the continued maintenance and modernization'' of
the launch bases and ranges. The report also points to restrictions
imposed by in the Commercial Space Launch Act (Public Law 98 575) that
limit reimbursement to the Air Force for costs incurred in supporting
commercial launch activities and the Air Force ability to accept
privately financed range improvements. Therefore, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense, with appropriate consultation with other
federal and state officials and private industry, to identify the legal
impediments to such non-federal funding of range improvements and
maintenance, and the changes required to eliminate these impediments.
The Secretary shall submit a report on his findings to the House
Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Armed Services
by January 15, 2001.
The committee understands that the flight termination system in use
at both the Vandenberg Air Force Base and Cape Canaveral test ranges is
obsolescent, expensive to maintain, unreliable, subject to unintentional
signal interference during flight missions, and unable to preclude
inadvertent flight termination. The committee recommends an increase of
$700,000 in PE 35182F to initiate a study for a new flight termination
system.
The committee also endorses an effort to develop a space launch
operations complex at the Vandenberg test range to improve space launch
operations through improved communications and better integration of
launch system technologies. The committee recommends an increase of $5.5
million in PE 35182F for this purpose. The committee expects that this
effort will become a public-private partnership in the future.
Overall, the committee recommends $59.9 million in PE 35182F, an
increase of $6.2 million for the spacelift range system.
U 2 senior year electro-optic system polarimetry
The budget request included $27.5 million in PE 35202F for Dragon U 2
reconnaissance aircraft.
The committee notes that the use of a polarization technique on the U
2 Senior Year Electro-optic System (SYERS) will provide the ability to
discern military targets hidden under camouflage or concealed in dense
vegetation. The committee believes the SYERS polarization processor will
provide a force multiplying effect.
Therefore, the committee recommends $31.5 million in PE 35202F, an
increase of $4.0 million for this purpose.
DEFENSE WIDE RDT&E
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $10,238.2 million for Defense Agencies
RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $11,077.8 million, an
increase of $839.5 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Defense
Agencies RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes
to the Defense Agencies request are discussed following the table.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Advanced sensor applications program
The budget request contained $15.5 million in PE 63714D8Z for the
advanced sensor applications program.
The committee recommends $25.0 million in PE 63714D8Z, an increase of
$9.5 million for the program. Details of the recommendations are
contained in the classified annex.
Ballistic missile defense (BMD)
The budget request contained $4,490.6 million for the programs of the
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO), of which $3,737.6 was for
research and development, $444.0 was for procurement, and $103.5 million
was for military construction.
The committee notes a succession of BMD test successes that provides
considerable confidence that hit-to-kill technology is fundamentally
sound. The Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC 3), Theater High Altitude
Area Defense (THAAD), and National Missile Defense programs all
conducted highly successful tests that demonstrated substantial degrees
of system maturity and the potential for more rapid progress.
The committee also notes that the BMDO budget request represents a
substantial increase compared over the fiscal year 2000 request and the
funding level anticipated for fiscal year 2001 in last year's budget
request. The committee is gratified that this request would more fully
fund ballistic missile requirements than in the past. The committee
believes that the urgent need to meet substantial and growing ballistic
missile threats and demonstrated technical progress fully justifies
these increases.
However, the committee remains deeply concerned about the pace and
direction of BMD programs on a number of grounds:
(1) The committee notes that the Director of BMDO identified $1.0
billion in additional funding for BMD programs for fiscal year 2001 that
would reduce risk, speed deployment schedules, and provide greater
capability. The committee continues to believe that BMD programs remain
seriously underfunded.
(2) Major BMD programs such as Navy Theater Wide and THAAD are not
adequately funded throughout the future years defense program to achieve
timely operational capability.
(3) Funding for advanced BMD technologies has declined dramatically
to a level that cannot support next generation BMD systems. The
committee believes that such funding is critical to prevent the
obsolescence of systems now being developed and to meet more demanding
threats in the future.
(4) The commitment to BMD by the services to service-funded BMD
programs remains highly suspect. The committee notes that the Air Force
budget request would reduce funding for the Airborne Laser by 50 percent
over the future years defense program.
(5) Deployed missile defenses are not adequate to meet identified
threats. The missile threat from North Korea is particularly stressing
for deployed U.S. systems.
(6) Deployment timelines for key systems may fail to meet expected
threats, particularly new ballistic missile developments in North Korea
and Iran.
(7) The President has not committed to deployment of NMD, in spite of
the fact that the Secretary of Defense has stated that the threat
justifies such a deployment.
The committee believes that ballistic missile defense remains a very
high priority and urges the Department of Defense to commit the funds
needed to achieving timely deployment of systems that will defeat
current and future ballistic missile threats.
Overall, the committee recommends $5,245.8 million for BMDO including
an increase of $283.2 million and transfers of $472.0 million.
Advanced technology development
The budget request contained $93.2 million in PE 63173C for advanced
ballistic missile defense technologies. The committee remains concerned
that the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) technology
efforts are insufficiently funded to keep pace with expected threats,
and strongly recommends that the Director of BMDO identify funds
throughout the future year defense program to support a technology
development effort capable of doing so.
The budget request included $19.4 million in project 1281 for
atmospheric interceptor technology (AIT). The AIT program develops
advanced interceptor technologies to support the theater high-altitude
area defense (THAAD), Navy theater wide (NTW), and Patriot advanced
capability-3 configuration 3 (PAC 3) missile defense systems. This
effort is needed to keep pace with rapidly evolving ballistic missile
threats. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in
project 1281 for this effort. The budget request also included $18.9
million in project 1282 for exoatmospheric interceptor technology (EIT).
This effort is key to keeping pace with evolving long-range missile
threats. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in project
1282 for development of advanced sensors that will enhance NMD, NTW, and
THAAD capabilities.
The committee notes that the Director of BMDO identified funding to
develop robust adaptive algorithms needed to counter evolving and
off-nominal ballistic missile threats as an unfunded priority. The
committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million to initiate this
effort.
The committee recommends the $122.2 million in PE 63173C, an increase
of $29.0 million for advanced technology development.
Liquid surrogate target
The budget request contained $270.7 million in PE 63874C ballistic
missile defense (BMD) technical operations, including $49.1 million was
for BMD targets, but contained no funds for liquid surrogate targets.
The committee notes that many of the operational targets for the
airborne laser (ABL) will be liquid-fueled theater ballistic missiles
and the ABL program has a validated requirement for a liquid surrogate
target. The committee also understands that the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization (BMDO) has concluded that development of a liquid
surrogate target will be required to support other BMD programs by
emulating threat missiles in their boost and ascent phases.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE
63874C for the development of a liquid surrogate target.
National missile defense (NMD)
The budget request contained $1,740.2 million in PE 63871C for
national missile defense research and development, $74.5 million for NMD
procurement, and $101.6 million for NMD military construction.
The committee notes that the Director of the Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization (BMDO) provided an accounting of unfunded BMDO
priorities that included additional NMD risk reduction activities. The
committee continues to believe that NMD remains one of the highest
defense priorities.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $ 85.0 million in
PE 63871C for additional kill vehicle emulators to reduce risk during
integration and assembly of kill vehicles, in-flight interceptor
communications system modem development to reduce schedule risk, site
activation teams to provide required support at potential deployment
sites, an additional target booster to reduce schedule risk in the event
of target problems, and additional development of the test and training
evaluation center to enhance system test and evaluation capabilities. To
further reduce risk, the committee also encourages the Director of BMDO
to maximize the use of test launches of ballistic missiles to analyze
and advance the NMD battle management, command, control, and
communications system.
The committee notes that BMDO has planned an evolutionary deployment
of NMD capabilities to address long-range missile threats. The committee
believes that a new radar technology proposal may offer improved
capabilities to discriminate warheads from sophisticated offensive
countermeasures that may be deployed in the future. The committee
recommends that the director of BMDO fully assess future NMD radar
requirements; all radar technologies and architectures relevant to the
NMD program beyond fiscal year 2005; and technical risk, schedule and
cost implications associated with those technologies and architectures.
The committee also recommends that the director of BMDO assure the use
of all appropriate competitive procedures in the development and
acquisition of NMD radars. The committee directs the director of BMDO,
if he determines that the development and acquisition of NMD radars
should not be competed, to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees detailing the justification for that determination not later
than 30 days prior to the proposed initiation of any noncompetitive
effort.
As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee also recommends that
the budget request for the space-based infrared system--low (SBIRS Low),
$241.0 million, be transferred from PE 64442F to PE 63871C. The
committee believes that this transfer will provide needed focus and
management efficiencies that will allow more rapid maturation of both
SBIRS Low and NMD capabilities. Overall, the Committee recommends
$2,066.3 million in PE 63871C for NMD research and development. The
committee also recommends $74.5 million for NMD procurement and $101.6
million for NMD military construction.
Navy theater wide
The budget request contained $382.7 million in PE 63868C for the Navy
theater wide (NTW) missile defense system.
The committee is concerned that the NTW deployment schedule is both
inadequate to meet expected threats and inadequately funded. The current
NTW schedule provides for a four missile contingency Block I capability
by fiscal year 2006, a limited capability on two dedicated missile
defense ships by fiscal year 2008, and a full Block I capability by
2010. However, the committee understands that NTW Block I will only
defend against very limited numbers of unsophisticated missile threats.
Further, the committee notes that funding for even this limited
capability is not programmed through the future years defense plan, and
that no timeline has been laid out for development and deployment of NTW
Block II, which will be capable of defense against larger numbers of
more sophisticated threats.
The committee understands that NTW will be tested a number of times
in fiscal year 2001, and that the budget request fully supports these
tests. The committee expects that if these tests meet with substantial
success that funds will be identified and programmed to provide for
rapid development and timely NTW deployment.
The committee believes that an effort is needed to provide greater
NTW capability earlier than planned and notes the support of the
Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization for that research
and development on an advanced technology kill vehicle. Therefore, the
committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 63868C to
support this effort.
The committee also understands that the Navy has considered an X band
high power discriminator and modifications to the current SPY 1 radar to
meet ballistic missile defense radar needs for NTW. However, the
committee believes that a new radar technology approach may offer
improved capabilities in the 2010 timeframe. The committee understands
that this new approach would take advantage of new algorithms and beam
steering technology to achieve improved capabilities to discriminate
warheads from sophisticated offensive countermeasures that may be
deployed in the future.
Therefore, the committee directs the director of BMDO to assess NTW
radar requirements and technologies and architectures relevant to the
NTW program, and provide a report on his assessment to the congressional
defense committees by February 15, 2001. The report should include
consideration of expected threats, and technical risk, schedule and cost
implications associated with those technologies and architectures.
The committee also recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
63868C to initiate a demonstration of the alternative radar approach.
Overall, the committee recommends $407.7 in PE 63868C for research
and development of the Navy theater wide system.
Russian-American cooperative national missile defense
The committee notes that representatives of the government of Russia
have expressed concern that deployment of a U.S. national missile
defense (NMD) would undermine the effectiveness of the Russian deterrent
forces and existing arms control agreements. The committee is also aware
of ongoing discussions between the U.S. and Russian governments related
to U.S. plans for deployment of an NMD system.
The committee believes that these discussions are important and that
additional confidence building measures are warranted to assure the
Russian government that NMD deployment does not threaten Russian
interests. One such measure could include discussions and eventual
development of a joint U.S.-Russian national missile defense system that
could defend both nations from a range of missile threats.
The committee encourages the Administration to continue the
discussions with Russia to explore this possibility. The committee
directs the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
(BMDO) to examine this concept and provide a report to the congressional
defense committees by January 15, 2001. The report should include
consideration of possible architectures, technical merits and
challenges, and potential cost, effectiveness, technology transfer
risks, and areas of technical cooperation related to a joint
U.S.-Russian national missile defense effort.
Support technology
The budget request contained $37.7 million in PE 62173C for ballistic
missile defense support technologies.
The committee remains concerned that funding for innovative ballistic
missile technology projects is insufficient to support Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization's (BMDO) future needs. The committee strongly
recommends that the Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO) to identify funds throughout the future year defense
program sufficient to support a technology program that hedges against
rapidly evolving missile threats.
The committee also understands that BMDO has identified wideband gap
electronic materials for high speed and high temperature device
operation as a high priority that is insufficiently funded. The
committee notes that significant progress has been made in the
development of these materials and believes that additional research
offers the opportunity for further progress.
The committee recommends $47.7 million in PE 62173C, an increase
$10.0 million for the continuation of wide-band gap materials research.
Wide bandwidth information infrastructure
The budget request contained $270.7 million in PE 63874C for
ballistic missile defense technical operations.
The committee understands that the Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO) is using recent advances in wide band information
technology to enhance operational efficiency and improve the test
infrastructure. BMDO's efforts have linked geographically dispersed
radar and missile hardware-in-the-loop test facilities to improve the
ground testing of theater missile defense systems and increase the
probability of successful flight tests. The committee believes that the
use of this technology can be
expanded into other critical areas, including battle
management, command, control, communications, and intelligence.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in
PE 63874C to continue the development of a wide bandwidth information
infrastructure for BMDO.
Chemical-biological defense program
The budget request contained $835.8 million for the chemical
biological defense (CBD) program, including $361.9 million in research,
development, test and evaluation, and $473.9 million in procurement. The
budget request also contained $162.1 million in PE 62383E for the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency biological warfare applied
research program.
In order to insure an integrated CBD program within the Department of
Defense (DOD), section 1703 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160) mandated the coordination and
integration of all DOD CBD programs and the funding of these programs in
a defense-wide account, separate from the accounts of the military
departments. The committee notes that funding for the DOD program has
grown significantly from $387.8 million in fiscal year 1996, and is
projected to continue at an average of $876 million per year through
fiscal year 2005.
The committee has reviewed the Department's Chemical and Biological
Defense Program Annual Report to Congress, dated March 2000, and notes
that the oversight and management of the program continue to mature. The
report details the considerable progress made in improving cooperation
among the military departments and the jointness of CBD research,
development, and procurement since the establishment of the consolidated
program, but indicates a number of issues with regard to
chemical-biological medical defense, logistics, readiness, and training.
As addressed elsewhere in this report, the committee intends to examine
these issues in greater detail during upcoming oversight hearings.
The committee also notes a growing tendency to fund individual CBD
projects directly within the budget accounts of the military services.
The committee emphasizes that this practice violates the intent and
purpose of Congress in establishing the consolidated program.
Chemical and biological defense program initiatives
The committee believes that the Department of Defense has established
a robust chemical and biological defense research and development
program that focuses on meeting joint and service unique operational
requirements for medical and non-medical chemical and biological defense
in the areas of contamination avoidance, battle management, collective
protection, decontamination, and individual protection. The committee
recognizes the challenges faced by the medical chemical and biological
defense program in the development of medical prophylaxes,
pretreatments, and therapies necessary to protect personnel from the
toxic or lethal effects of exposure to chemical or biological agents.
The committee notes the development and fielding of a number of medical
countermeasures that improve individual medical protection, treatment,
and diagnoses. The committee also notes technical and procedural
shortcomings in the development, licensing, and production of vaccines
and drugs that require both short-term and long-term solutions. The
committee continues to monitor closely the Department's policy for the
development and production of vaccines against anthrax and for
vaccination of members of the armed forces who might be exposed to
anthrax.
The committee continues to support initiatives for research,
development, and demonstration of advanced chemical and biological
defense technologies and systems. The committee directs that these
initiatives compete for funding within the appropriate program elements
of the joint chemical and biological defense program and the DARPA
biological defense program on the basis of technical merit and the
anticipated ability of the technology or system to meet joint and
service unique needs.
The committee recommends increases of $3.0 million in PE 61384BP and
$5.0 million in PE 62384BP for research, development, and demonstration
of advanced chemical and biological defense technology, systems, and
capabilities for contamination avoidance, battle management, collective
protection, decontamination, and individual protection.
Optical computing device materials for chemical sensors
The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 61384BP to
continue the basic research program in organic and inorganic optical
computing device materials for use in standoff sensors for detection and
identification of chemical agents.
Commercial off-the-shelf-receiver development
The budget request included $95.7 million in PE 35885G for
development of tactical cryptologic systems.
The committee is concerned about the lack of a true commercial
off-the-shelf (COTS) signals intelligence (SIGINT) receiver that is
based on open-architecture standards established by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Versa Module Europa (VME)
backplane. The Department of Defense has stated that all future signals
intelligence systems will be COTS based. However, most SIGINT
developments the Department is currently pursuing are based wholly, or
in part, on custom approaches that are not ``interchangeable'' at the
circuit board level. The committee is further concerned that these
customized approaches do not encourage competitors for U.S. signal
intelligence systems to utilize the COTS marketplace, thereby forcing
more expensive solutions.
The committee is aware of a small business development that has
produced a true COTS receiver solution for several Defense Cryptologic
Program needs. The committee notes that this solution is cost-effective
and based completely on ANSI and VME standards, thereby allowing true
``plug and play'' use between systems. The committee also notes that the
Joint SIGINT Avionics Program Office has sought to use this technology
as a commercial replacement for one of its custom applications. However,
there is no funding in the budget request to pursue or procure this
commercial solution.
The committee is aware of other innovative small business development
using emerging commercial silicon germanium technology and supports
rapid application of this leading-edge commercial technology for defense
applications.
Therefore, the committee recommends $97.7 million in PE 35885G, an
increase of $1.0 million for development of COTS VME receiver technology
for SIGINT applications, and an increase of $1.0 million for development
of commercial silicon germanium integrated circuits for defense and
intelligence applications.
Competitive sustainment demonstration
The budget request contained $23.1 million in PE 63712S for generic
logistic research and development technology demonstrations.
The committee notes that an increasing portion of the defense budget
is being used to support and manage large inventories of older weapons
systems. The committee believes that costs associated with logistics and
maintenance must be reduced in order to free resources to develop and
procure modern systems. Leveraging the best practices of commercial
industry in logistics and maintenance planning and management could
permit the Department of Defense to reduce these costs in weapons and
supporting systems. The committee notes the establishment by the Defense
Logistics Agency of a sustainment demonstration program that pursues
dramatic reductions in sustainment costs and improvements in logistics
efficiency.
The committee recommends $26.1 million in PE 63712S, an increase of
$3.0 million to continue the competitive sustainment demonstration
program.
Complex systems design
The budget request contained $10.8 million in PE 63704D8Z for special
technical support, but included no funds for complex systems design.
The committee notes that the effort to develop an integrated digital
environment for complex systems design has made significant progress,
and is ahead of schedule. This development is critical to improving the
acquisition process and minimizing life-cycle costs of future weapons
systems.
The committee recommends $15.8 million in PE 63704D8Z, an increase of
$5.0 million for complex systems design.
Computational fluid dynamics and finite element analysis
The Department of Defense university research initiative supports
basic research in a wide range of scientific and engineering disciplines
that are relevant to maintaining the superiority of U.S. military
technology such research contributes to the education of scientists and
engineers in disciplines critical to defense needs, and helps build and
maintain the infrastructure needed to improve the quality of defense
research performed at universities.
The committee notes the increased reliance in defense research,
development, and acquisition on the use of computer modeling and
simulation and the testing of system and component scale models to
evaluate system concepts, technology, and design. The ability to extend
the results of such modeling, simulation, and testing to the development
and fabrication of full-scale operational systems which can then be
expected to operate in accordance with the test results of the system
scale model places a premium on advances
in the development and application of finite element analysis
and computational fluid dynamics. The committee believes that the
application of such capabilities to real-world problems associated with
analysis of advanced structures and materials will provide an effective
vehicle for research, education of scientists and engineers, and
establishment of the infrastructure required to insure future U.S.
capabilities in these disciplines.
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to place increased
emphasis in the university research initiative on the development of
advanced capabilities in finite element analysis and computational fluid
dynamics.
Computer network security
The budget request contained $164.0 million in PE 63755D8Z for the
High Performance Computing Modernization Program (HPCMP).
The committee understands that the Department of Defense's HPCMP is
the primary source of Department of Defense computer system upgrades and
enhancements and that the HPCMP specifically supports needed computer
system modernization for defense laboratories as well.
The committee strongly supports the HPCMP, but expresses concern that
the programs charter does not highlight efforts to address the
increasing security threat to computer systems.
The committee recommends authorization of $164.0 million, the budget
request, in PE 63755D8Z for HPCMP and strongly urges the DOD to work
with industry and basic research organizations to ensure that computer
modernization efforts include the latest state-of-the-art computer
network security and access assurance capabilities.
CV 22 Osprey radar improvements
The budget request contained $133.5 million in PE 116404BB for
special operations tactical systems development.
The committee is aware that the covert, all-weather, nap-of-the-earth
operations that are characteristic of the special operations command
make stealth and terrain avoidance imperative. The committee notes that
low probability of intercept/ low probability of detection (LPI/LPD)
radar and terrain following/terrain avoidance (TF/TA) capability are
essential to safe and successful CV 22 Osprey operation.
The committee recommends an increase of $9.2 million in PE 116404BB
for LPI/LPD radar and terrain avoidance improvements.
Defense agency science and technology funding
The budget request contained $7,543.2 million for defense science and
technology, including all defense-wide and military service funding for
basic research, applied research, and advanced development.
The committee notes that this amount represents a decrease of $853.3
million from the amount provided in fiscal year 2000. As outlined
elsewhere in this report, the committee continues to be disturbed by the
growing number of military service research and development programs
that have been reduced or eliminated as a result of insufficient
research and development funding, and is particularly concerned with the
low level of science and technology funding. The committee views defense
science and technology investments as critical to maintaining U.S.
military technological superiority in the face of growing and changing
threats to national security interests around the world.
As expressed in previous reports, the committee is also concerned by
the Department's continuing trend of placing higher priority on defense
agency research and development programs at the expense of the already
inadequate service research and development budgets. The committee
believes that the Department has not provided sufficient justification
to support these imbalances in funding levels between defense agencies
and the services, and, therefore, recommends correcting these imbalances
by maintaining funding of several defense agencies at the levels
projected by the Department for fiscal year 2001.
Accordingly, the committee recommends the following adjustments and,
except as noted, decreases are made without prejudice:
Biological warfare defense
The budget request contained $162.1 million in PE 62382E for applied
research in biological warfare defense, including $10.0 million for
applied research in consequence management information systems.
The committee supports the progress being made in the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency's biological warfare defense program
in research in medical countermeasures, advanced diagnostics, sensors
for the detection of biological and chemical warfare agents, and
decontamination. The committee also notes on-going efforts within the
chemical-biological defense program as noted elsewhere in this report to
transition technologies developed in the DARPA program to the military
services and other agencies for exploitation and further development.
The committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106 162) expressed the
belief that DARPA's consequence management project did not meet the high
risk, high payoff, breakthrough concepts and technology criteria
normally associated with DARPA programs and directed transfer of the
program to the DOD chemical and biological defense program following
completion of the prototype phase. In reviewing the project after
another year has passed, the committee maintains its original view.
Accordingly, the committee recommends $142.1 million in PE 62383E for
the DARPA biological warfare defense program, a decrease of $20.0
million for the DARPA consequence management project.
Computing systems and communications technology
The budget request contained $376.6 million in PE 62301E for applied
research in computing systems and communications technology.
The committee recommends $331.6 million, a decrease of $45.0 million
in PE 62301E.
Extensible information systems
The budget request contained $69.3 million in PE 62302E for applied
research in extensible information systems.
The committee recommends $49.3 million in PE 62302E, a decrease of
$20.0 million.
Nuclear sustainment and counter-proliferation technologies
The budget request contained $230.9 million in PE 62715BR for applied
research in nuclear sustainment and counterproliferation technologies.
The committee recommends a decrease of $20.0 million in PE 62715 BR
for nuclear sustainment and counter-proliferation technologies.
Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive research
The budget request contained $9.9 million in PE 61114D8Z for the
defense experimental program to stimulate competitive research
(DEPSCoR).
The committee is aware that the DEPSCoR program provides funding that
enables broader university participation in national defense research.
The committee supports DEPSCoR and notes that the Department of
Defense has acknowledged the importance of the program by requesting
funding under a separate program element line in the budget request, and
recommends $19.9 million in PE 61114D8Z, an increase of $10.0 million
for DEPSCoR.
Facial recognition technology
The budget request contained $41.3 million for DOD combating
terrorism technology support (CTTS) in PE 63122D8Z.
The CTTS is an interagency program for development and demonstration
of surveillance, physical security, and infrastructure protection
technology. The committee supports use of advanced technology to control
access to critical facilities and is aware of the Department's
examination of biometric access control technology, including the use of
authentication software and the principal component method of facial
recognition.
The committee recommends $45.3 million in PE 63122D8Z, an increase of
$4.0 million for continued development of facial recognition technology.
High definition displays for military applications
The budget request contained $31.8 million in PE 62708E for applied
research in high definition displays.
The committee notes that many Department of Defense systems utilize
the display of visual and graphical information and are therefore
dependent on high definition display production capability. Major
components of the program are the development of technologies for
advanced flexible emissive displays, development of equipment and
components required to manufacture advanced display technologies, and
prototyping display systems for system evaluation. The program is
designed to establish a domestic
capability for the manufacture of components necessary for
high-resolution military displays.
The committee notes the efforts by the Department of Defense and the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop advanced
high definition display technologies for military applications and to
establish a domestic production base for these displays. However,
despite the Department's investment and the strength of the commercial
display industry, the number of suppliers of military-qualified displays
has declined. The committee notes the efforts by the Department to form
a Joint Display Acquisition Working Group and proposals to form a
permanent Display Overarching Integrated Process Team to address these
issues. The committee is concerned, however, that the budget request
indicates no funding for the DARPA high definition display program
beyond fiscal year 2001.
The committee believes that the Department must renew efforts to
define a comprehensive strategy for development and acquisition of high
definition display technology and for maintaining a domestic high
definition display infrastructure capable of supporting the requirements
of the military services and defense agencies. The committee believes
that the strategy should include appropriate funding levels for the
development of advanced high definition display and display
manufacturing technology, and should build on prior Department efforts
to ensure that this technology becomes reliably and widely available to
all Services.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a strategy
for meeting the Department's requirements for advanced high definition
displays that addresses the issues raised above, and to report the
proposed strategy and budget requirements to the congressional defense
committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
High energy laser research and development
The committee notes that the March 2000 DOD laser master plan
mandated by section 251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) will facilitate better coordination
between service high energy laser (HEL) programs and will enable the
Department of Defense to direct a more coherent and more effective
investment strategy for all future high energy laser development. The
committee believes that the management structure recommended in the plan
represents a substantial improvement over the current situation, where
such coordination is virtually absent. The committee believes that high
energy lasers hold considerable promise for weapons applications sooner
than widely anticipated, and believes that these efforts deserve greater
attention and priority than they have received in the past.
Defense-wide high energy laser development
The budget request contained no funds in PE 61108D8Z, PE 62890D8Z, or
PE 63921D8Z for HEL research development.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has established
program elements 61108D8Z, 62890D8Z, and 63921D8Z through which it will
manage HEL development investments. The committee understands that $5.7
million in fiscal year 2000 funds were made available for these program
elements to initiate these efforts.
The committee believes that the establishment of these program
elements will provide the Department of Defense with an effective
management tool that can reinforce HEL developments managed and funded
by the services and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. The
committee recommends a provision (section 211), described elsewhere in
this report, to reinforce and provide additional structure to this
effort. The committee notes that this provision would require the
Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) to conclude a memorandum of agreement to
conduct joint high energy laser research.
The committee recommends $10.0 million in 61108D8Z to support basic
research in high energy lasers, and $25.0 million in PE 62890D8Z, to
support heat capacity laser development being conducted by the Army and
other HEL applied research. The committee further recommends that of
these funds, $10.0 million may be made available for high energy laser
research and development pursued jointly with the NNSA.
Free electron laser
The budget request contained $38.0 million in PE 62111N for applied
research in electronic warfare technology, but included funds for free
electron laser development.
The committee notes the Navy's support for a proposal to upgrade the
Department of Energy's free electron laser demonstration facility for
applied research in the potential use of tunable free electron lasers as
countermeasures against anti-ship missiles and anti-aircraft missile
infrared seekers.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 62111N to
continue the demonstration facility upgrade program.
Solid state laser
The budget request contained $1.0 million in PE 62307A for research
and development of high power lasers for tactical weapons systems. The
committee is aware that the Army, in cooperation with Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, has developed a prototype ten kilowatt solid state
heat capacity glass laser that has been tested successfully. The
committee understands that the Army plans to develop a 100 kilowatt
demonstration laser that could be mounted on Army vehicles for weapons
applications depending on the availability of funds.
The committee believes that this technology has reached a state of
maturity that supports such a demonstration, and if successful, has
significant potential in air defense, missile defense, and other weapons
applications. Therefore, the committee recommends $11.0 million in PE
62307A, an increase of $10.0 million, for the Army's solid state laser
demonstrator.
The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of the Army to
provide funds for this initiative in the fiscal year 2002 budget request
and throughout the future years defense plan.
Information technology, superiority and assurance
The budget request contained a total of $19,913.7 million for the
Defense information technology program: including $2,456.3 million for
information technology research, development, test, and evaluation, and
$1,233.6 million for information assurance.
The budget request for information technology research and
development represents an increase of $472.2 million, while the budget
request for information assurance contains an increase of $95.2 million.
The committee notes that the goal of the ``National Plan for
Information Protection, Version 1.0,'' dated January 2000, is to
establish a full operational capability by 2003 to defend the United
States against deliberate attacks aimed at disrupting national critical
infrastructures, such as communications, banking, electric power. Key
elements of the plan include establishing the Federal government as a
model for infrastructure protection; the development of public-private
partnerships to defend our national infrastructures; meeting the
nation's needs for skilled information technology personnel; and
ensuring a robust and comprehensive critical infrastructure protection
research and development program.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has a major role
in information protection, accounting for approximately $450 million of
the $606 million in research and development that is specifically
contained in the President's request for the National Plan. The
committee is aware of other ongoing information systems security and
critical infrastructure protection activities that are part of the
Department's information assurance program.
The committee notes that Joint Vision 2010, the capstone document for
joint forces, emphasizes information superiority and information
technology as key enablers for joint operations by U.S. forces. The
committee also notes that the globalization of information systems and
networks has created a new dimension for warfare in which the dependence
of U.S. Forces upon advanced information technology and information
systems is both an advantage and vulnerability.
The committee notes that considerable progress has been made in the
program to achieve information superiority, provide information
assurance, and protect critical defense infrastructure. The committee
recognizes, however, that additional work is required, particularly in
the areas of operations-other-than-war or asymmetrical conflict. The
committee believes that the Secretary of Defense must continue to assign
a high priority to resolving critical shortcomings in the Department's
information technology program.
The committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106-162) directed the
Assistant Secretary of Defense to provide a comprehensive report to the
congressional defense and intelligence committees on the Department of
Defense's information superiority program. The report by the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications, and
Intelligence) (ASD C3I) cites the need to focus more attention and to
accelerate efforts on the following:
(1) Information assurance to better protect information and
information processes;
(2) Establishing the connectivity and interoperability needed in the
global information grid;
(3) Collection and analysis capabilities and end-to-end integration
of communications and intelligence systems;
(4) Education, training, and retention of information technology
professionals;
(5) Removal of legal impediments to protecting information and
information processes; and,
(6) Implementation of electronic commerce and electronic business
practices within the Department.
To address these issues the committee recommends the budget request
for information technology research, development, test, and evaluation.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess shortfalls in
the information technology program and to report his findings and
recommendations to the congressional defense committees by November 1,
2000.
Interference with global positioning system
The committee notes that section 1062 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106 65) provided for
an interagency review and assessment and report to Congress and the
President on the progress made in implementation of national spectrum
planning, the reallocation of Federal Government spectrum to non-Federal
use, and the implications of such reallocations to the affected federal
agencies. The report would also include which would include the effect
of the reallocation on critical military and intelligence capabilities,
civil space programs, and other Federal government systems used to
protect public safety.
The committee notes the potential interference to the communications
frequency bands used by the global positioning system (GPS) due to the
emergence of new telecommunications and information technologies that
could aversely affect GPS use in both military and civilian sectors. As
a part of the Department of Defense contribution to the interagency
review and assessment, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
identify potential interference with the GPS frequency bands as one of
the issues that should be addressed in the assessment. The Secretary
shall coordinate with the Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Chairman
of the Federal Communications Commission in developing the technical
information, support, and assistance necessary to address this issue and
to begin the development of appropriate regulations and enforcement
procedures to protect the delivery of GPS signals during peacetime.
MC 130 autonomous landing guidance system
The budget request contained $133.5 million in PE 116404BB for
special operations tactical systems development but included no funds
for the autonomous landing guidance (ALG) system for the MC 130
aircraft.
The MC 130 aircraft provides night and all-weather infiltration and
extraction of special operations forces (SOF) personnel and equipment,
as well as military re-supply operations, in hostile areas. To
accomplish this mission, the committee understands that the ALG system
will provide SOF MC 130 pilots with a precision approach system that
enhances their ability to land under adverse weather conditions. Since
the committee also understands that the ALG system may have application
to other aircraft such as the C 130X and the C 17, it believes that both
the ALG system's MC 130 flight tests and its engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD) should be accelerated.
Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in
PE 116404BB to accelerate the ALG system's flight tests, EMD and
installation on the MC 130.
Medical free electron laser
The budget request contained $15.0 million in PE 62227D8Z for medical
free electron laser (MFEL) technology.
The committee is aware of the progress made by the medical free
electron laser program. The committee notes that recent accomplishments
include a new method of treating chemical burns, controlling sepsis, the
development of artificial cartilage for injured joints, non-thermal
cutting of bone, tissue welding and delivery of drugs through the skin.
These new health care technologies are not only cost effective but also
address key health care issues important both to military personnel and
the general population.
The committee commends the Department of Defense for requesting
sufficient funding for the MFEL to maintain the merit-based program's
continued research momentum and recommends $15.0 million. The committee
supports the MFEL program and encourages the Department of Defense to
sustain this level of funding.
Microelectromechanical systems sensor development
The budget request contained $253.6 million in PE 61103D8Z for the
Department of Defense university research initiative.
The committee continues its support for and recommends funding for
research and development in microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) and
applications of MEMS technology in precision weapons guidance and
control, reconfigurable antenna elements, and a variety of other
applications.
The committee recommends $263.1 million in PE 61103D8Z, including an
increase of $9.5 million for basic research in MEMS sensors for
radionuclide detection and ordnance monitoring.
National imagery and mapping agency
The budget request contained $75.0 million in PE 35102BQ for the
National Imagery and Mapping Agency's (NIMA) to conduct research and
development of imagery and geospatial exploitation tools and for the
National Technology Alliance (NTA).
The committee is concerned that the variety of current synthetic
aperture radar (SAR) imaging systems, including the Joint Surveillance,
Target and Attack Radar System (JSTARS), the U 2 Advanced SAR System
(ASARS) and unmanned aerial vehicles have limited to no capability to
image moving targets. The committee notes that the Air Force Research
Laboratory in Rome, New York, has been developing the Multi-Platform
Target Exploitation Processing capability that will allow SAR imaging of
moving targets. However, no funds were included in the budget request to
field such a capability, which, the committee is convinced, will result
in significant new capabilities for SAR-equipped platforms.
Further, the committee notes that the NTA has proven its ability to
rapidly apply commercial technology to defense applications, reducing
cost and increasing systems performance. The committee also notes that
the NTA has been a very effective means of leveraging commercial
technology to solve intelligence community technical problems.
The committee is aware that the airborne geographic synthetic
aperture radar GeoSAR) is being developed to provide a dual band
interferometric radar that is able to provide the military high
resolution, three-dimensional maps of the earth, above, through and
below the vegetation canopy.
Therefore, the committee recommends $97.0 million in PE 35102BQ, an
increase of $22.0 million, $4.0 million for continuing the Rome
Laboratory moving target exploitation effort, and $3.0 million for the
NTA to continue national imagery and mapping agency viewer development
and $15.0 million for GeoSAR.
Requirement for ``designated laboratory''
The committee notes that section 2, paragraph (18) of Senate
Executive Resolution 75 providing the advice and consent of the Senate
to the ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC),
established the condition that the President certify to the Senate that
no sample collected in the United States pursuant to the Convention will
be transferred for analysis to any laboratory outside the United States.
In its verification annex, the CWC requires that samples for off-site
analysis be analyzed in at least two ``designated laboratories,'' i.e.
laboratories that have been ``designated'' for such testing by the
Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The Army's
Edgewood Forensic Science Laboratory is currently the only U.S.
designated laboratory. The committee notes that establishment of a
second designated laboratory within the United States is necessary in
order to fulfill U.S. ratification commitments, as well as the
requirements imposed by the Senate.
The committee requests that the Secretary of Defense report to the
congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year
2002 budget request, the Department of Defense position, actions, and
funding requirements relative to establishment of a second designated
laboratory.
Science and technology affordability initiative
The committee is aware of the Department's ``Defense Science and
Technology Strategy 2000'' and notes the potential for significant
savings in defense systems ownership cost savings associated with
science and technology investments. The committee agrees that science
and technology advancements can contribute to the affordability of both
current and future systems, and supports the Department's emphasis in
this area as one of its top five priorities.
Further, the committee is aware that each service has a current
program of emphasis in this area. Anticipated Army science and
technology investments focus a great deal of attention to reduced
logistical requirements for improved deployability and maneuverability.
Air Force plans anticipate targeted investments to facilitate the
fielding
of a more lean and efficient expeditionary force. The Navy has
embraced a concept called Total Cost of Ownership as one of its twelve
Future Naval Capabilities. Two initiatives, Shipboard Integration
Logistics System (SILS) and a proposed knowledge-based diagnostic and
maintenance system, offer significant potential cost savings during the
operation and maintenance of naval assets.
The committee urges further development of these proposals and
supports the budget request. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to provide the congressional defense committees by March 1,
2001, a report on the manner in which the science and technology program
addresses total life cycle costs of weapons systems. The report shall
include a description and assessment of the programs, associated funding
requirements, and related policy initiatives.
Special operations tactical video system
The budget request contained $3.0 million in PE 116405BB for Special
Operations Forces (SOF) intelligence system developments, including
$100,000 for continued development of the Special Operations Tactical
Video System (SOTVS).
The committee notes that no commercial solution to the SOF underwater
camera requirements exists, and that a dedicated research and
development program is necessary to satisfy this critical mission
requirement. Therefore, the committee is dismayed that the budget
request is insufficient to develop and procure a replacement for the
aging cameras currently in the inventory.
The committee recommends $5.0 million in PE116405BB, an increase of
$2.0 million to expedite the development of the SOTVS camera.
Tactical and support aircraft noise reduction
The committee notes problems with increasing levels of noise
pollution associated with aircraft operations ashore and afloat and the
potential physical and environmental hazards posed by high frequency and
intensity noise and vibration to aircrew, ground support personnel, and
those residing and working in the vicinity of active aviation
operations. The committee also notes the impact of high noise and
vibration levels experienced in tactical aircraft on aircraft structural
fatigue.
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has not
given adequate attention to noise reduction as an essential element of
the tactical aircraft modernization program. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Director of the National
Aeronautical and Space Administration, to assess requirements for
establishment of an aviation noise and vibration reduction research and
development program that will lead to reduction in noise associated with
tactical and support aircraft operations. The committee further directs
the Secretary to report to the congressional defense committees by March
1, 2001, the status of funding and plans for noise reduction in tactical
and support aircraft and for the reduction of sound pressure levels that
can cause vibration problems and structural fatigue.
Texas regional institute for environmental studies
The budget request contained $51.4 million in PE 63716D8Z for the
strategic environmental research program, but included no funds for the
ongoing Texas regional institute for environmental studies (TRIES)
program
The committee recommends $51.4 million in PE 63716D8Z for the
strategic environmental research program, including $3.0 million for the
TRIES computer-based land management model and to collaborate with
Brooks Air Force Base San Antonio, Texas for potential application of
environmental technologies.
Thermionics for space power systems
The budget request contained $230.9 million in PE 62715BR for applied
research in nuclear sustainment and counterproliferation technologies,
but included no funds to continue the program for development of
thermionic power conversion technology.
The committee notes that the Air Force and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration have identified potential applications for
large capacity (40 100 kilowatt) nuclear space power systems having long
lifetimes. The committee also notes the progress being made in the
advanced thermionics program to develop technologies for making
thermionics a more viable power conversion option for space power
systems, demonstrate highly reliable thermionic power converters capable
of providing high output power per unit mass, and design of thermionic
system concepts. The committee further notes that the program supports
the Defense technology area plan for space platforms.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess the progress
being made in the advanced thermionics program, the potential for
incorporation of the program in the Department of Defense core science
and technology program, and anticipated requirements for thermionic
power conversion systems. The Secretary shall report the results of the
assessment and plans for continuation of the program to the
congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year
2002 budget request.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 62715BR to
continue the development of advanced thermionics power conversion
technology.
TRICARE encounter data system
The budget request included $12.0 million in PE 65013D8Z for
information technology development.
The committee is concerned that no funds were included to accelerate
the development and deployment of the TRICARE encounter data system
(TEDS), a key system for improving the efficiency of the TRICARE claims
processing system.
The committee recommends $15.6 million in PE 65013D8Z, an increase of
$3.6 million to complete development of TEDS.
Ultra-wideband radar
The budget request contained $116.4 million in PE 63750D8Z for
advanced concept technology demonstrations, but included no funds to
demonstrate ultra-wideband, single-cycle radar and communications.
The committee is aware that recent unanticipated technology
breakthroughs in radio frequency electronics have resulted in
applications for radar and communications. The committee notes that
ultra-wideband, single cycle technology is now ready for demonstration
of wall penetrating radar capability.
The committee recommends $117.4 million in PE 63750D8Z, an increase
of $1.0 million for radar vision demonstration.
OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $201.6 million for Operational Test and
Evaluation, Defense. The committee recommends authorization of $219.6
million, an increase of $18.0 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2000 Operational
Test and Evaluation, Defense programs are identified in the table below.
Major changes to the Operational Test and Evaluation request are
discussed following the table.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Central test and evaluation investment program
The budget request contained $121.4 million in PE 64940D8Z for
Central Test and Evaluation Investment Program (CTEIP).
The committee notes that the objective of the CTEIP is to fund
critically needed, high priority, test and evaluation capabilities for
joint and multi-service system test requirements. The Department of
Defense recently disbanded the office of the Director, Test, Systems
Engineering and Evaluation, formerly responsible for CTEIP as an element
of the Department's developmental test and evaluation (DT&E) program,
and transferred responsibility for the CTEIP to the Director,
Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E). The committee notes that the
first CTEIP budget request under the DOT&E management represents a
decrease in funding for this important program.
The committee expresses concern that while the Department's decreased
request for CTEIP indicates that less funding is required, the military
services are, at the same time, identifying an alarming increase in
critically needed test facility upgrades and instrumentation
modernization. The committee believes that the combination of declining
research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) budgets and an
increasing number of test facility sustainment issues is largely
responsible for the decline in utilization of service operated test
facilities. The committee is also aware of test and evaluation (T&E)
community concerns that the continued decline in utilization of these
T&E facilities is a primary cause of the underfunded status of these
facilities within the service budget requests and, therefore, a direct
cause of the higher testing costs assessed to test program customers.
The committee is aware that the Department is reviewing this critical
test facility sustainment issue, but believes that decreases in the
CTEIP are premature and do not address the importance of the growing
list of proposed test facility and range modernization efforts. The
committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has identified a high
priority unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2001 for $26.0 million of
test and evaluation upgrades. The committee also notes that the Air
Force is conducting a propulsion wind tunnel (PWT) upgrade program to
modernize the primary wind tunnel facilities used for transonic and
supersonic testing of major propulsion development programs including F
22 and the Joint Strike Fighter. Additional funds for the PWT program
would enhance structural test monitoring and data analysis and enable
Air Force test facilities to increase and enhance turbine engine test
capability. The committee is also aware of an innovative new technology,
Laser Induced Surface Improvement (LISI), which would have far reaching
joint service benefits. A multi-service cooperative program
incorporating the LISI technology would cut test time and costs, as well
as reduce long term maintenance and material construction costs through
the use of new laser surfacing technologies synergistically applied to
several Air Force, Navy, and Army assets vulnerable to corrosion and
abrasion. The committee believes LISI is a project with a limitless
potential for the military and eventually for private sector use, and is
a worthy candidate for funding under CTEIP.
The committee believes that many of the service test facility
modernization proposals such as digital video data collection and
similar instrumentation upgrade efforts would support establishment of
uniform test data collection for all service-run T&E facilities.
The committee is disturbed by the Department's inability to ensure
sufficient funds necessary to sustain T&E facilities, as well as the
many worthy test facility upgrades identified by the services. The
committee is aware that the Department is conducting an assessment of
various funding methods, to include consideration of working capital
funding and other T&E customer cost-sharing alternatives in order to
ensure adequate sustainment funding for T&E facilities. The committee
expresses strong congressional interest in this issue and directs the
Secretary of Defense to report any recommended change to current funding
procedures for these facilities prior to including them in future budget
requests.
The committee recommends $139.4 million, an increase of $18.0 million
to address additional T&E facility upgrade proposals within the CTEIP
and supports this program as an appropriate method of ensuring
coordinated investments to support joint requirements for T&E facility
upgrades and capability sustainment efforts.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
SECTION 201--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
This section would authorize Research, Development, Testing and
Evaluation (RDT&E) funding for fiscal year 2000.
SECTION 202--AMOUNT FOR BASIC AND APPLIED RESEARCH
This section would specify the amount authorized for fiscal year 2000
for technology base programs.
SUBTITLE B--PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS
SECTION 211--HIGH ENERGY LASER PROGRAMS
This section would authorize funds for high energy laser (HEL)
research and development; require a designated senior civilian official
in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) to carry out
responsibilities for coordinating, prioritizing, planning, programming,
and oversight of HEL programs, establish appropriate policy to guide
funding of OSD, services and Ballistic Missile Defense Organization
(BMDO) HEL programs; state a sense of Congress concerning funding levels
for HEL research and development; require the establishment of a
memorandum of agreement between the Secretary of Defense and the
Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration to conduct
joint laser research programs; and establish certain reporting
requirements.
The committee notes that the High Energy Laser Executive Review Panel
(HELERP) prepared the laser master plan mandated by section 251 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law
106-65). This report identifies many of the technical challenges in
maturing laser technologies for weapons applications and establishes a
High Energy Laser Board of Directors, chaired by the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, to oversee and
approve HEL science and technology investments. The committee believes
that this organization represents a significant advance over the past,
in which laser development activities proceeded within the services with
little or no coordination.
However, the committee remains concerned that the management
structure established by the HELERP may not vest sufficient authority in
the Office of the Secretary of Defense to assure that service and BMDO
HEL programs are fully coordinated. The committee is also concerned that
this structure and the funding mechanisms established in the laser
master plan will not be adequate to encourage the services to invest
scarce resources in a potentially revolutionary capability. Section 211
would define the authorities of a designated OSD official to assure that
HEL programs within the Department of Defense are adequately funded and
coordinated. The committee also believes that requiring OSD funding to
support service--and BMDO--funded HEL programs at a level no greater
than that provided by the service or BMDO will maximize the relevance of
OSD efforts to service and BMD requirements and incentivize appropriate
investment in these technologies.
SECTION 212--MANAGEMENT OF SPACE-BASED INFRARED SYSTEM-LOW
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to assign program
management authority for the Space-Based Infrared System-Low to the
Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.
SECTION 213--JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
This section would limit the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program's
approval to proceed beyond the demonstration and validation phase until
the Secretary of Defense certifies to the congressional defense
committees that the technological maturity of the JSF program's key
technologies is sufficient to warrant its entry into the engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD) stage.
SUBTITLE C--BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
SECTION 231--FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
The section would authorize appropriations for research and
development for National Missile Defense for fiscal year 2001.
SECTION 232--SENSE OF CONGRESS CONCERNING COMMITMENT TO DEPLOY NATIONAL
MISSILE DEFENSE
This section would make certain findings and express the sense of
Congress that the enactment of the National Missile Defense Act of 1999
(Public Law 106 38) entails a commitment to deploy a national missile
defense.
The committee believes that integrated flight tests to date
demonstrate the feasibility of the National Missile Defense (NMD)
technology under development. Integrated Flight Test-3 (IFT 3) confirmed
the ability of the exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) to discriminate a
warhead from other objects. IFT 4, notwithstanding the fact that the EKV
missed the target because of failure of EKV sensors, confirmed the
ability of the NMD battle management, command and control system, early
warning sensors, and radar to provide engagement information to the kill
vehicle as a functioning system of systems. The committee recognizes
that much test and evaluation remains to be done, but believes that the
tests to date provide confidence that NMD system technologies are
feasible.
The committee believes that the North Korean development of
long-range missiles capable of reaching the continental United States is
sufficiently mature that a commitment to a firm deployment schedule is
warranted. The committee notes that the September 1999 threat assessment
by the National Intelligence Council states that Iran could test an ICBM
by the latter half of this decade. The committee further notes that the
Secretary of Defense shares the view that ``the threat threshold has
been crossed.''
The committee notes that the National Missile Defense Act of 1999
(Public Law 106 38) established that it is the policy of the United
States to deploy an NMD system as soon as technically possible. The
committee remains baffled by Administration statements to the effect
that, while the policy of the United States is to deploy a national
missile defense, no decision has been made to deploy such a defense. The
committee believes that the establishment of any policy incurs an
inherent commitment to execute it.
SECTION 233--REPORTS ON BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT POSED BY NORTH KOREA
This section would require the President to issue, within two weeks
of the next test of a long-range ballistic missile by North Korea or 60
days after the date of enactment, a report to assess the North Korean
missile threat, the U.S. capability to defend against that threat,
proliferation threats, steps the U.S. will take to reduce the threat
while the nation is vulnerable, and the viability of testing other BMD
systems against targets with flight characteristics similar to those of
long range North Korean missiles.
The committee believes that if North Korea should test a long-range
missile, the Department of Defense should quickly revise threat
assessments and rapidly put into place actions to reduce the increased
vulnerability that are assessed as result of the test.
SECTION 234--PLAN TO MODIFY BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ARCHITECTURE TO
COVER INTERMEDIATE-RANGE BALLISTIC MISSILE THREATS
This section would require the Director of Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization to develop a plan to address threats posed by ballistic
missiles of 2500 to 4000 kilometers in range.
The committee notes that the National Missile Defense system under
development will defend the United States from intercontinental range
ballistic missiles, and theater missile defense systems under
development will provide effective defense for U.S. forces and allies
from ballistic missiles with ranges out to approximately 2000
kilometers. The committee notes that, according to public reports, Iran
is developing an intermediate range ballistic missile with a range well
in excess of 2000 kilometers, capable of striking virtually all of
Europe. The committee believes that the evolution of this threat must be
addressed in BMD architecture and technology development.
SECTION 235--DESIGNATION OF AIRBORNE LASER PROGRAM AS A PROGRAM ELEMENT
OF BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM
This section would establish a new program element in the Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) for the airborne laser.
The committee notes that Airborne Laser (ABL) is a key element of
BMDO architectures. The committee notes that the Air Force drastically
reduced funding and delayed ABL testing and deployment schedules by as
much as seven years. The committee further notes that the Air Force did
so without consulting BMDO and without consideration of the impact on
the BMD architecture developed by BMDO or requirements for upper and
lower tier BMD systems. To properly coordinate the elements of the BMD
architecture and BMD technology development, the committee believes that
ABL is more effectively managed and funded by BMDO.
SUBTITLE D--OTHER MATTERS
SECTION 241--RECOGNITION OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS INSTRUMENTAL TO NAVAL
RESEARCH EFFORTS DURING THE PERIOD FROM BEFORE WORLD WAR II THROUGH THE END OF THE
COLD WAR
This provision would recognize those individuals instrumental in the
establishment and conduct of oceanographic and scientific research
partnerships between the Federal Government and academic institutions
during the period beginning before World War II and continuing through
the end of the Cold War, support efforts by the Secretary of the Navy
and the Chief of Naval Research to honor those individuals, and express
appreciation for the ongoing efforts of the Office of Naval Research to
support oceanographic and scientific research and the development of
researchers in scientific fields related to the missions of the Navy and
the Marine Corps.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OVERVIEW
The budget request for fiscal year 2001 for operation and maintenance
represents an increase in spending of just $3.0 billion over spending
levels authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2000. Increasing fuel
prices account for $1.2 billion of that increase, and the remaining
represents inflation assumptions of about one percent. Despite the
Administration's reported funding increase, the reality of the budget
request is that there are little if any real increases. The committee is
concerned that current budget estimates project a decrease in operation
and maintenance funding for critical readiness needs for fiscal year
2002.
Despite increased funding by Congress for readiness, the budget
request for fiscal year 2001 falls well short of addressing many of the
military services' current and future readiness requirements.
Compounding the problem, the budget request does not adequately take
into account the current and future financial impacts on equipment,
training, and facilities being created by the high pace of unscheduled
contingency operations around the world. The committee remains deeply
concerned that the continued underfunding of key readiness and quality
of life accounts, coupled with a continued high pace of operations, will
exacerbate readiness and personnel retention concerns. For example, in
spite of the addition by Congress of $858.4 million to the real property
maintenance and repair accounts of the four military services in fiscal
year 2000, the chiefs' fiscal year 2000 unfunded priorities list still
identifies a real property and repair shortfall of over $1.03 billion.
Despite a Congressional increase last year of $135.0 million for spare
parts, the services unfunded priorities list nonetheless identifies a
shortfall in spare parts funding of $250.0 million in fiscal year 2001.
As a further example, Congress increased the budget request for ship
depot maintenance by $25.0 million last year, yet this year's unfunded
priorities list reflects a shortfall in fiscal year 2001 of $182.3
million.
In an effort to obtain a more accurate and detailed assessment of
current and near-term readiness, the committee conducted a series of
hearings. The evidence received during the hearings was of an
overextended force struggling to maintain acceptable readiness levels in
an environment of declining human and budgetary resources. The committee
continues to hear significant complaints about lack of spare parts,
aging equipment, decaying infrastructure and growing equipment and
facilities' backlogs and the difficulties of conducting quality training
and operational deployments with significant personnel shortages.
The committee continues to believe that DOD must continue to take
steps to reduce costs in non-readiness related accounts. At the same
time, DOD must provide more aggressive oversight of the military
department's proposals to reduce costs through contracting out and
privatization. As an example, the Department of the Navy has proposed
the contracting out of a major portion of its communications
requirements without including any documentation for this proposed
five-year, $10.0 billion program. Proposals of this magnitude may have
serious budgetary consequences for other DOD programs. The committee
fully supports well developed and justified programs that will reduce
costs; but, at a time when readiness shortfalls are growing almost
exponentially, the committee does not believe that poorly developed and
uncoordinated new programs, or that funding for administrative and
support activities, such as headquarters management, should be
increasing. Consistent with past practice, the committee has identified
spending that does not directly support military readiness and has
reprioritized it into areas that will. In making decisions on how best
to apply resources to address readiness problems, the committee relied
heavily on lessons learned during extensive oversight hearings and on
the unfunded priorities lists provided by the service chiefs.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
BUDGET REQUEST INCREASES
CRITICAL READINESS ACCOUNTS
The committee continues to place a high priority on addressing
funding shortfalls for critical readiness accounts. Accordingly, the
committee recommends an increase of approximately $1.4 billion to
support a number of underfunded readiness accounts. Although the
committee has significantly increased funding above the budget request
in key readiness accounts by just under $10.0 billion during the past
six years, this has not been sufficient to significantly improve
readiness across the military services. The committee recommendations
emphasize problems highlighted throughout extensive hearings and have
been guided by the shortfalls identified by the service chiefs.
Depot maintenance
The committee notes that operational tempo is at an all-time high and
that aging military equipment is approaching a point beyond its useful
service life. As a consequence of the aging of significant elements of
the services' combat equipment, the maintenance of such equipment is
increasingly difficult, time consuming, and expensive. The committee
recommends an increase of $461.1 million for depot maintenance to
address the added requirements of aging combat equipment as follows:
[Dollars in millions]
Army
$125.0
Navy (Air)
30.0
Navy (Sea)
204.3
Marine Corps
22.0
Marine Corps Reserve
2.0
Air Force
77.8
Real property maintenance
The committee continues to note that shortfalls in real property
maintenance accounts remain among the principal unfunded requirement
identified by the service chiefs. To address the backlog of facility
maintenance, the committee recommends an increase of $660.0 million as
follows:
[Dollars in millions]
Army $280.36
Navy 162.17
Marine Corps 38.320
Marine Corps Reserve 3.11
Air Force 176.04
Miscellaneous unfunded requirements
The committee recommends an increase of $403.992 million in funding
for miscellaneous unfunded readiness-related requirements identified by
the service chiefs and the committee:
[Dollars in millions]
Army $136.152
Army Reserve 12.0
Army National Guard 24.0
Navy 44.74
Marine Corps 75.8
Marine Corps Reserve 8.2
Air Force 67.1
Air National Guard 6.0
Mobility enhancement funding
The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million to improve the
deployment and mobility of military forces and supplies through
investment in en route infrastructure. These funds are provided to the
United States Transportation Command Mobility Enhancement Fund (MEF),
which was established to address strategic mobility shortcomings that
were apparent during the conduct of Operation Desert Shield and
Operation Desert Storm. The committee believes that these funds will
improve the ability of the military services to respond to future
contingencies.
Training accounts
The committee continues to focus its attention on the training
accounts of the military services. In hearings this year, the committee
continued to hear reports that insufficient funding has been a
contributing factor in the decline in the quality of training provided
our combat forces. Shortages of equipment, parts, decaying
infrastructure, and personnel shortages were identified as serious
problems. The committee believes that training equipment and base
facilities at many of the established training ranges is in urgent need
of both repair and upgrade.
Therefore, based on shortfalls identified by the military services,
the committee recommends an increase of $153.3 million as follows:
[Dollars in millions]
Army:
Training Range Modernization
$76.0
Training Area Environmental Management
32.0
Institutional Training
15.0
Specialized Skill Training
15.0
Marine Corps:
Institutional Training
4.0
Marine Corps Reserve:
Training Center Improvements
1.2
Air Force:
LD/HD Flight Crew Training
5.1
Institutional Training
5.0
ARMY COLD WEATHER CLOTHING
The committee is aware of unbudgeted requirements for the reserve
components for the Extended Cold Weather Clothing System (ECWCS), which
is designed to provide protection during cold and wet weather. The
committee notes, for example, that the Army National Guard has equipped
only 25 percent of its forces with this clothing. The committee believes
ECWCS is a significant contributor to the combat readiness of the
individual soldier. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of
funding for ECWCS as follows:
[Dollars in millions]
Army National Guard
$24.0
Army Reserve
12.0
Air National Guard
6.0
BUDGET REQUEST REDUCTIONS
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL REDUCTIONS
The committee understands that in order to determine civilian
personnel requirements for the budget request, the Department of Defense
relied on actual fiscal year 1999 personnel levels and the estimated
personnel levels the Department would have on hand at the end of fiscal
year 2000 to forecast civilian personnel levels for fiscal year 2001.
The committee notes that the Department was unable to estimate
accurately the fiscal year 2000 end strength prior to the submission of
the budget request. The committee further notes the General Accounting
Office (GAO) has determined that the Department will employ fewer
civilian personnel at the beginning of fiscal year 2001 than are assumed
in the budget request. Therefore, the committee recommends decreases in
funding as follows:
[Dollars in millions]
Navy
$49.6
Defense Agencies
0.9
EXCESS FOREIGN CURRENCIES REDUCTIONS
Since the submission of the budget request, the U.S. dollar has
increased in value compared to various foreign currencies. As a result,
the committee believes that the
budget request is overstated. In addition, the committee
understands that the Defense Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account
already contains a balance of over $600.0 million to be used in the
event that unfavorable currency fluctuations develop. The committee
believes the requested amount is, therefore, in excess of the needs of
the Department and recommends the following reductions:
[Dollars in millions]
Army
$150.0
Navy
30.0
Marine Corps
2.2
Air Force
37.7
Defense Agencies
10.1
HEADQUARTERS REDUCTIONS
As discussed elsewhere in this report, the Department has failed to
comply with the reductions in headquarters personnel mandated by section
921 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000
(Public Law 106 65). Therefore, the committee recommends decreases in
funding for headquarters activities as follows:
[Dollars in millions]
Army $27.086
Navy 13.340
Air Force 12.200
Special Operations Command 1.682
Office, Secretary of Defense 4.446
The Joint Staff 0.552
Defense Agencies 12.586
JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF TRAINING EXERCISES
The committee continues to be concerned with the increasing pace of
operations throughout the military services and believes that
requirements for Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) training exercises are
levied against units already overextended with operational deployments,
home station training exercises, and training exercises at the services'
major combat training centers. The committee questions whether the
benefits of the current scope of JCS exercises exceeds the costs to
military units otherwise experiencing the effects of high operational
tempo. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction for participation
in JCS exercises as follows:
[Dollars in millions]
Army $11.000
Navy 1.014
Air Force 12.200
Joint Chiefs of Staff 32.914
OTHER ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
ACCOUNTABILITY OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING
The committee is alarmed by recent reports regarding the movement
within the military services of large amounts of funds authorized and
appropriated for operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts. The committee
notes recent reports by the General Accounting Office (GAO) indicate the
Department of Defense (DOD) redirected funds within O&M readiness
accounts by almost $43.0 billion between fiscal years 1994 and 1998.
These changes to the original intent specified by Congress included
transfers into, as well as out, of several accounts considered critical
to readiness. Although these transferred funds were subsequently used
for shortfalls in other O&M accounts, the committee is especially
concerned about the underexecution of funding provided by Congress in
the readiness critical accounts. The committee notes that over the
five-year period assessed by GAO, the Department of the Navy
underexecuted by $1.2 billion the ship depot maintenance portion, and
that the Department of the Air Force underexecuted by $988.4 million
support of primary combat forces. The Department of the Army, over just
the past two years, underexecuted by $579.9 million its support of
combat divisions. Although the committee understands that the unexecuted
funds were applied to other requirements, the committee believes that
movements of funds intended for critical readiness accounts will have a
severe impact on the ability of the services to maintain readiness at
acceptable levels.
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
FINES AND PENALTIES
The committee supports the goal of the Department of Defense (DOD)
environmental quality program to transition from a reactive,
compliance-driven focus to a more proactive goal-oriented approach. The
committee is concerned, however, with the Department of the Army's
effort to achieve this goal. The committee notes that the Army
continually receives a disproportional number of environmental
non-compliance assessments, and that the Army pays the majority of fines
and penalties levied against DOD. The committee further notes, of the
total DOD fines and penalties paid in fiscal years 1997, 1998, and 1999,
the Army's portion was 97, 53, and 87 percent, respectively. The
committee believes that the Secretary of the Army must place greater
emphasis on efforts to achieve environmental compliance and to achieve
DOD's goals within the environmental quality program.
NAVY ENVIRONMENTAL LEADERSHIP PROGRAM
The committee continues to support the Chief of Naval Operation's
Navy Environmental Leadership Program (NELP) and believes that while
there have been numerous programmatic successes in NELP, many of which
are being implemented throughout the Navy, budget constraints have
prevented NELP from reaching its full potential in providing solutions
to priority Navy environmental problems. Current requirements include
pollution prevention technologies, implementation of Green Energy
Management initiatives, and development of a regional prototype for
hazardous waste management. To support improved environmental
stewardship efforts, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million for the NELP. The committee strongly believes that this increase
in funds would permit a cost-effective leveraging of ongoing efforts to
meet urgent Navy environmental requirements.
INTELLIGENCE ISSUES
CRYPTOLOGIC SKILLS TRAINING
The budget request contained $1.3 million in operation and
maintenance, Army, for conducting cryptologic and language skills
training at the U.S. Army Intelligence Center (USAIC).
The committee is aware of a unique Korean language training program
developed in-house at the USAIC. The committee believes this
computer-based tool has the potential of providing critical language
maintenance training for many language specialists, and it believes this
effort should be expanded to other languages.
Consequently, the committee recommends $5.3 million in operation and
maintenance, Army, an increase of $4.0 million, for continued
development of this language training program into the service's seven
core language requirements. The committee also recommends that this
program be provided to the other services for language training
maintenance.
DEFENSE FOREIGN LANGUAGE PROGRAM
The budget request contained $61.9 million in operation and
maintenance, Army, for the Defense Language Institute (DLI)
The committee is supportive of DLI training efforts to provide high
quality linguists for the growing requirement of many agencies and
services but believes that its language laboratories are in need of
technical upgrades, to include new equipment and access to the internet.
The committee is aware of local area Marine Corps self-help efforts that
have done similar upgrades very cost effectively. The committee believes
the Army should utilize the Marine Corps self-help assistance to upgrade
the DLI language laboratories
Further, the committee is aware of an unfunded DLI initiative to
provide better language training by issuing laptop computers to
students. These computers would be used to provide language laboratory
access to on-line language training materials, allow ``after hours''
access from the institute's dormitories, and access to ``live''
world-wide foreign training materials. The committee believes this is a
worthwhile effort that should be properly funded
Therefore, the committee recommends $64.9 million in operation and
maintenance, Army, an increase of $3.0 million, for the Defense Foreign
Language
Program. Of this amount, $1.0 million is for self-help upgrade
of the language laboratories and $2.0 million is for the laptop computer
initiative.
DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND SYSTEM
The committee understands that the Air Force is currently operating
with a waiver to utilize communications for the Air Force's Distributed
Common Ground Systems (DCGS) reachback operations that are provided in
whole or part by national agencies within the National Foreign
Intelligence Program. The committee further understands that this
arrangement has allowed the DCGS to have access to wideband
communications at very inexpensive rates, and accordingly, that the Air
Force is seeking a permanent waiver to continue this arrangement.
However, the committee has learned that the Assistant Secretary of
Defense (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence) has directed
that all continental United States DCGS long-haul communications are to
be procured through the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA). The
committee understands that this will increase the Air Force's
communications costs by a factor of 16 and that this cost increase is
unfunded in the fiscal year 2001 request. The committee finds this
increase incomprehensible and notes that such direction is not in accord
with congressional efforts to create an interoperable, networked
Intelligence Community communications environment.
Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence) to provide the
defense and intelligence committees a report that clearly identifies the
costs, the rationale for the cost differences and the benefits versus
drawbacks of providing DCGS communications through the national partner
or the DISA. Further, this report is to provide the rationale for
approval of the current temporary waiver and the Assistant Secretary's
decision for a permanent waiver. The committee directs that no DCGS
funding authorized for appropriation in this act be obligated or
expended by DISA, or transferred through DISA, for procurement or lease
of DCGS communications until this report is provided.
EAGLE VISION COMMERCIAL IMAGERY
The budget request contained $10.0 million for the National Imagery
and Mapping Agency (NIMA) to purchase commercial data.
The committee notes the successful Air Force operation of the Eagle
Vision commercial imagery ground station, which has resulted in timely,
unclassified imagery support to the theater commanders-in-chief (CINCs).
Much of this imagery has been unique and could not be provided by other
technical means due to higher priorities. The committee believes that
there are insufficient funds to meet the CINCs' commercial image and
mapping needs and, therefore, recommends $16.0 million, an increase of
$6.0 million, for purchasing Eagle Vision commercial imagery.
INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE
The budget request contained $15.1 million in operations and
maintenance, Navy, for the Integrated Broadcast Service (IBS).
The committee notes that, subsequent to the submission of the budget
request to Congress, the IBS executive agent was changed from the Navy
to the Air Force. Therefore, the committee recommends a transfer of
$15.1 million from operation and maintenance, Navy, to operation and
maintenance, Air Force.
RC 135 AND U 2 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
The budget request contained a total of $373.1 million for operations
and maintenance of the RC 135 and U 2 aircraft fleets.
The committee is concerned that funding for many Intelligence
Community programs, including intelligence surveillance and
reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft are regularly transferred from the
programs for which funds were authorized and appropriated to fund
shortfalls in other programs, often not related to ISR requirements. The
committee understands the theater and functional Commanders in Chief
have stated that their number one shortfall is in ISR aircraft and
systems. The committee is concerned that transferring funding,
particularly operation and maintenance funding, from ISR aircraft to
fund non-intelligence programs exacerbates the CINCs' ISR shortfalls.
Therefore the committee directs that the RC 135 and U 2 programs be
designated as congressional interest items.
MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION ISSUES
ARMED FORCES RECREATION CENTERS
The committee notes that the Army operates, on behalf of all military
personnel, several popular recreational facilities known collectively as
Armed Forces Recreation Centers (AFRC). These facilities provide much
needed recreation opportunities to service members and their families at
a reasonable cost, and the committee has consistently supported these
important programs. The committee is aware that access to AFRC
facilities is not limited to active duty, reserve, and retired service
members, but is also available to a broad array of other personnel,
including many with no military service. The committee believes that
such a relatively unrestricted access policy suggests that honorably
discharged veterans could be accommodated by these facilities. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the categories of
personnel with AFRC privileges to determine whether those categories
should be broadened to include honorably discharged veterans, and to
report his findings and any recommendations to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by January 31,
2001.
LODGING PROGRAMS
The committee is aware of a recent change in lodging policy by the
Department of Defense (DOD) that all permanent change of station travel
be considered as official travel for the purposes of on-base lodging.
The committee notes this change in policy will cost Army Morale,
Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) programs alone over $14.0 million
annually. The committee is also concerned that this action essentially
donates approximately $75.0 million soldier dollars invested in bricks
and mortar lodging facilities to appropriated fund accounts. In the
course of attempting to determine the policy reason underpinning the
regulatory change, the committee learned that the files documenting the
reason for this decision could not be found. DOD officials were thus
forced to speculate as to the actual policy rationale used, but most
often have cited consistency among the military services as the reason.
The committee believes that a shift of this magnitude should be the
subject of open debate, rather than a seemingly arbitrary decision
apparently made in the name of consistency. The committee, therefore,
directs the Secretary of Defense to review this change in policy,
detailing the reasons for the change, and to submit a plan to hold
harmless Army and Marine Corps MWR by this action to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
January 31, 2001.
NONAPPROPRIATED FUND SUPPORT OF OFFICIAL ACTIVITIES
The committee is pleased to note that the service secretaries have at
last begun to provide nonappropriated fund activities with the minimum
established standard of appropriated fund support. The committee expects
this trend to continue. In that regard, the committee heard testimony
that some nonappropriated fund category C activities, which are
generally expected to be self-sustaining, have become essential elements
of command programs on some installations. An example of this phenomenon
is the club system, which is generally prohibited from receiving
appropriated fund support, but which is frequently used for official
functions and training sessions. The committee notes that previous
criticism of club management practices resulted in stringent
restrictions on the amount of appropriated fund support for these
activities. The committee is concerned that the restrictions are too
rigorous, and that category C activities of all types are unduly
penalized as a result. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
review the support that category C activities provide to official
activities without reimbursement and report his findings and any
recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2001.
OTHER ISSUES
ARMY APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM
The committee is concerned that the Department of the Army has paid
little attention to sustaining critical readiness workforce skills at
Army depots. The committee heard testimony that the majority of skilled
workers at these depots will be eligible to retire by fiscal year 2005,
and that there is no plan to fill these jobs. Many of these workers are
highly proficient craftsmen, possessing skills that take years to
develop under careful supervision. The committee believes that the Army
should establish a program to hire and train new workers equally capable
of repairing complex Army vehicles and
weapons systems. The committee understands that the Secretary
of the Navy operates a successful apprenticeship program in its
shipyards to address a similar shortfall in the Navy.
The committee therefore directs the Secretary of the Army to
establish an apprenticeship program for Army maintenance depots to
address these critical needs and report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by January 31, 2001,
on his plans to implement this program. In addition, the committee
recommends an increase of $4.4 million as a separate line item in the
Department of the Army's Budget Activity 03 to establish this
depot-level apprenticeship program.
ARMY WORKLOAD AND PERFORMANCE SYSTEM
The committee has long supported the Department of Defense in the
development of analytical systems based on workload requirements to
support its civilian personnel budget requirements. The committee
commends the Department of the Army for leading the effort to correct
this material weakness in the staffing requirements determination
process by the development of the Army Workload and Performance System
(AWPS). Although slow in its formulation, the committee continues to
believe that AWPS should be the standard functional management system
for all industrial operations and should be adequately funded. In the
committee report on H.R. 3616, the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1999 (H. Rept. 105 532), the Secretary of the Army was
required to provide the committee with a long-range master plan for the
implementation of AWPS. In its review of the AWPS master plan, the
General Accounting Office (GAO) reported to the committee that untimely
and inadequate funding was causing major delays in the full
implementation of AWPS. In addition, the GAO reported that the Army
needs to develop a more detailed master plan that includes better system
cost estimates for future modules, and an improved management and
oversight structure. The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to
update the AWPS master plan to incorporate GAO's recommendations and
submit a revised master plan to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services not later than February 1,
2001.
In order to sustain this important program at an adequate funding
level, the committee recommends the addition of $2.0 million
specifically for AWPS during fiscal year 2001. The committee believes
that this minimum level of funding is necessary for AWPS to develop in a
timely and effective manner.
AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
The committee continues to be concerned with reports of shortages of
repair parts that have necessitated the grounding of critical aviation
assets and other combat equipment, and by the decrease in mission
capable rates due to a combination of increased maintenance requirements
and a lack of spare parts. Although the committee has increased funding
for spare parts and additional maintenance by nearly $3.5 billion
between fiscal years 1994 and 2000, the committee notes that improvement
trends in these areas show minimal improvements.
The committee understands that Automatic Identification Technology
(AIT), currently being developed by the Department of the Army, has the
potential to provide the needed solutions to these problems and could
significantly improve readiness. As also discussed elsewhere in this
report, AIT would make key maintenance information available to all
participants in the repair process and would improve productivity and
effectiveness to enhance overall logistics operations. In addition, AIT
will provide connectivity and information to related business processes
such as financial, supply and transportation. Although Congress included
funding for AIT in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2000, there is no funding in the budget request for AIT.
Because of the potential to significantly improve readiness in the
military services, the committee recommends the addition of $4.0 million
for the Department of the Army to continue AIT integration.
CIVILIAN AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
The committee notes that civilian air traffic controllers who are
employed by the Federal Aviation Administration are compensated
significantly better than air traffic controllers who are employed by
the Department of Defense (DOD). The committee understands that the
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of
1996 (Public Law 104 50) established a separate personnel system for the
Federal Aviation Administration, even though DOD air traffic controllers
perform the same work to the same standards. The committee has learned
that this disparity of pay has created a difficult recruiting and
retention challenge for DOD as the Department strives to maintain safety
at military airfields around the world. The committee is disturbed that
the Department has known about this problem for some time, but has yet
to formulate a solution. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to determine the best method to solve the Department's recruiting and
retention problem for air traffic controllers and report his
recommendations accompanied by any necessary legislative changes to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by January 31, 2001.
COMMERCIAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
The committee continues to believe that the Commercial Technologies
for Maintenance Activities (CTMA) program, created by the Department of
Defense (DOD) in 1998 to bring the most modern and advanced
manufacturing capabilities from commercial industry to depot and related
maintenance activities, is valuable as a technology resource which will
have a positive effect on the efficiency and effectiveness of the
Department's industrial activities. The CTMA program is a by-product of
section 361 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1998 (Public Law 105 85) that required DOD to re-engineer industrial
processes and adopt best-business practices at their depot-level
activities. The committee is concerned that DOD has not provided funding
for this vital and cost-effective program. Therefore, the committee
recommends the addition of $12.0 million for the Defense Logistics
Agency to pursue strategies for re-engineering at depot-level activities
that will lower operations and sustainment costs. The committee believes
the addition of these funds will allow depot-level activities to
participate in manufacturing technology demonstration projects in
collaboration with more than 220 of the leading U.S. manufacturers. The
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to ensure that funds for the
CTMA program will be forthcoming in future budget requests.
CONTAINER FREIGHT STATION OPERATIONS
The committee is aware that the Military Traffic Management Command
(MTMC) is presently considering the transfer of workload from the
Container Freight Station (CFS), Norfolk, Virginia, to the Defense
Distribution Center (DDC), New Cumberland, Pennsylvania. While
supportive of the efforts of MTMC for its efforts to reduce costs, the
committee is concerned that MTMC has not adequately evaluated the
potential adverse impact on fleet operational requirements, contingency
operation flexibility, mission readiness of forward deployed units,
operations at the Military Ocean Terminal, Norfolk, Virginia, and
operations at the Norfolk Naval Air Station. The committee is also aware
that MTMC is conducting a business case analysis to evaluate the
potential impacts of the CFS transfer on current and future military
readiness.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services on the results of the MTMC business case analysis and to
assess the effects of the proposed transfer on military readiness.
Further, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to take no
action on the transfer of any existing CFS functions until 180 days
after the submission of this report.
CORE LOGISTICS CAPABILITIES
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) is
undertaking a study to examine the military logistics system, including
a review of the implementation by the military departments of core
logistics capabilities methodology as required by section 2464 of title
10, United States Code. Because the military departments have not had
the benefit of clear policy guidance concerning core logistics, the
implementation of DOD's current core logistics determination policy has
not been consistent. As a result, significant confusion has developed,
which the committee believes has worked against the most effective
capitalization of resources made available for core logistics
activities.
The committee believes that the DOD core logistics study represents a
necessary first step and opportunity to develop and implement the
required policy and methodology on a consistent basis, and urges the
Department to complete the study as soon as possible. Every effort
should be made to develop a consensus of all those involved on those
items that would be included in any final policy guidance.
DEFENSE JOINT ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
As well documented by General Accounting Office, the Inspector
General of the Department of Defense, and other Department of Defense
(DOD) studies, the DOD has had a longstanding history of poor and
inadequate automated financial accounting systems. DOD has repeatedly
indicated a commitment to financial management reform,
part of which is to integrate and thus reduce the number of
financial and accounting systems. In 1996, DOD initiated the Defense
Joint Accounting System (DJAS), a financial information management
system that supports the general ledger for general and working capital
funds at the installation level. The committee understands that DJAS
will ultimately cost $322 million to develop and fully deploy. The
committee is concerned that the Department of the Navy and the
Department of the Air Force do not intend to participate in this
program.
The committee has consistently urged DOD and the military departments
to move away from service unique automated information systems. The
DJAS, as its title indicates, appears to be a financial accounting
system that has been designed to be truly joint. The committee fails to
understand why the Navy and the Air Force have failed to incorporate
this joint accounting system and have decided to retain their own
service specific legacy systems. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services, no later than
September 1, 2000, that addresses the following:
(1) The decision to withdraw the Air Force from DJAS to include the
date of the decision and justification used;
(2) The impact of the decision to withdraw the Air Force from DJAS
on the projected cost of DJAS; and
(3) The rationale why the Department of the Navy was not required to
participate in this joint program.
In addition, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy and the
Secretary of the Air Force to provide a report to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services, no later
than September 1, 2000, that address the following:
(1) The specific rationale as to why DJAS will not meet service needs;
(2) The identification of any business process reengineering
initiatives that were attempted in order to participate in the DJAS
program; and
(3) The accounting systems are currently in use to support the
general ledger, funds control, budget execution, disbursing, travel,
cost accumulation and asset accounting for general and transportation
working capital funds at the installation level, the level of funding in
fiscal year 2001 to support these systems, and whether any of the
identified systems will migrate to any other system in the next five
years, and if so identify the new system.
The committee expects that a milestone III decision on DJAS shall not
be made until these reports are submitted.
DEFENSE PERSONNEL RECORDS IMAGING SYSTEM-ELECTRONICS MILITARY PERSONNEL
RECORDS SYSTEM
The committee is concerned with the Defense Personnel Records Imaging
System-Electronics Military Personnel Records System (DPRIS-EMPRS).
DPRIS-EMPRS is an automated imaging system whereby a digital image
replaces the current military personnel records systems which are stored
on obsolete and worn out microfiche. The committee is concerned that the
Department of the Navy is not adequately committed to DPRIS-EMPRS
because the Navy has not adequately funded this program since fiscal
year 1996. The committee notes that the Navy recently reported that this
automated system is not being properly developed and implemented, and
that an inadequate number of program management support personnel is the
principal cause of problems in the program. The Navy also reported that
the infrastructure to support the system development, testing, and
configuration management is currently non-existent. The committee,
however, notes the obligation of the Department of Navy to maintain an
adequate personnel-reporting system. The committee directs the Secretary
of the Navy to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services not later than September 1,
2000, identifying the strategy for the sustainment of this system.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
Personnel safety
The committee is concerned with civilian personnel safety and notes
that the Department of Defense (DOD) has a safety and worker incident
rate over twice the rate of comparable companies in the private sector.
The committee further notes that accidents to federal civilian employees
cost the taxpayer approximately $2.4 billion per year. In the statement
of managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 2561 (H. Rept.
106 371), the conferees directed the Secretary of Defense to initiate
programs funded from within existing Operation and Maintenance accounts
at designated DOD facilities that employ alternative, private sector
proven, models of safety to determine the best ways to improve DOD's
record with respect to injury incidence rates and associated costs. The
committee fully supports this effort and strongly encourages the
Secretary of Defense to initiate expeditiously the required worker
safety enhancement programs to bring the Department of Defense accident
rate more in line with private sector achievements.
Recruiting and retention
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense (DOD) has
not begun the planning necessary to recruit and retain civilian
employees with the technical skills required to fill the critical jobs
of the future. The committee received testimony from workforce shaping
experts that such planning is essential for large, complex organizations
such as DOD. Yet, the committee continues to receive numerous unofficial
requests for special hiring authorities from various components of DOD
that would solve a particular need for hiring scientific and engineering
personnel.
While the committee desires the Department to attract high quality
scientists and engineers, the committee is disturbed by the lack of a
comprehensive plan to meet this critical need. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to develop a comprehensive plan to meet these
requirements, and to report his findings and recommendations to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by January 31, 2001.
DISTANCE LEARNING COURSEWARE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
The committee is aware that distance learning technologies have the
potential to benefit the armed forces in many ways. These technologies
enable those stationed or who perform required duty away from major
military installations to complete required educational courses, receive
updates on important information, and to participate remotely in
operationally-oriented learning activities. In short, the
``anytime-anywhere'' characteristics of distance learning enable service
members, particularly those in the National Guard and Reserve, to better
meet military education, training and readiness requirements. Such
technologies could also have benefit in new, evolving areas of military
endeavor, such as weapons of mass destruction-related response
activities. The committee anticipates that funds authorized for distance
learning will be used to create web-based courseware to meet National
Guard requirements associated with the development of weapons of mass
destruction response capabilities.
FINANCIAL POLICY
The committee is aware of circumstances where the military services
have not recorded financial obligations at the time that their legal
obligation is incurred. The committee notes the established financial
management policy of the Department of Defense (DOD) requires all
obligations to be recorded not later than 10 calendar days following the
date the obligation is incurred. The committee believes that prompt
recording of all obligations is absolutely essential to prudent
financial management. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide further guidance to the military departments and to take the
necessary steps to ensure that all defense agencies follow DOD
guidelines for the accurate and timely recording of financial
obligations.
LOCAL SCHOOL RENOVATION AND REPAIR
The committee is concerned that children of military personnel are
forced to attend many local schools around the country that are falling
into disrepair. The committee understands that school districts that
serve a great number of military families often have difficulty raising
bond issues because the local tax base is constrained by the presence of
large federal reservations. Nevertheless, the committee believes that
failing school infrastructure is a national problem that is not
restricted to local schools serving children of military personnel, and
is therefore not appropriately solved using Department of Defense funds.
The committee is heartened to learn that the House Committee on
Education and the Workforce has passed the impact aid reauthorization
bill of 2000 (H.R. 3616), which when enacted, will provide authority for
funding these needs. The committee commends the House Committee on
Education and the Workforce for its farsighted efforts on behalf of all
children of the United States, including the children of military
personnel. The committee agrees that these pressing needs should be
addressed by appropriations authorized by the committees with
jurisdiction over Department of Education funding.
LOGISTICS SUPPORT PLANNING
The committee notes that the Department of Defense (DOD) is
implementing a logistics support strategy that is resulting in actions
that move more authority and responsibility for the performance of
logistics support operations from the public to the private sector. Some
of these actions are being taken using best practices from the private
sector and directly applying them to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of logistics support operations. In the past, DOD has
based many of these initiatives on a series of studies that promote the
outsourcing of various logistics support activities such as supply and
base level maintenance. The committee understands that these initiatives
are intended to provide resources that can be applied to the
modernization of military systems and equipment. The committee is
concerned, however, that these activities may or may not be performed
more cost-effectively in the private sector, and to what extent that at
least some of these activities should be retained by the military
departments to support military requirements. In addition, the General
Accounting Office (GAO) has issued a series of reports that question the
adequacy of DOD's long-range logistics strategic planning process. The
committee believes that a comprehensive long-range logistics strategic
plan that is in concert with current statutes and past GAO
recommendations will ensure the best utilization of DOD's current
logistical infrastructure.
The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United States to
provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services, not later than February 15, 2001 that
addresses the following issues:
(1) An analysis of the various studies that form the basis for DOD's
privatization initiatives to determine the extent to which these studies
provide evidence to support the cost effectiveness of on-going and
proposed privatization initiatives;
(2) Cost and management data for military systems managed using
contractor logistics support to determine the extent to which these
systems provide information on cost-effectiveness of this strategy of
weapons system support;
(3) An examination of depot maintenance contracts and military costs
for the same workloads to compare the cost and responsiveness of both
categories of maintenance support;
(4) An examination of DOD core depot maintenance policy and its
implementation in each of the military services to determine:
a. How core maintenance policy is being implemented;
b. The extent to which the military depots are being allocated
workloads to support new technologies and systems; and
c. The extent to which the DOD depot maintenance strategy and the
implementation of that strategy is supporting the long-term viability of
the military depots.
(5) An assessment whether source-of-repair decisions are being made
in coordination with all sectors of the logistics community and whether
acquisition officials are considering total life-cycle costs in weapons
systems purchasing decisions;
(6) The type and extent of usage of waivers to bypass supportability
analyses, including source-of-repair decisions for developments,
modifications, new acquisitions, and upgrades, and the impact on the
field of these waiver decisions;
(7) An assessment of the current status of the Department of the
Army's merger of logistics into the acquisition community, including
benefits/problems encountered to date and the validity of the rationale
for the merger; and,
(8) An assessment of the methodology used by DOD in the formulation
of their long-range logistics strategic plan, and whether the plan
conforms with current statutes.
MILITARY AFFILIATE RADIO SYSTEM
The committee reiterates its long-standing support for the Military
Affiliate Radio System (MARS), a Department of Defense-sponsored program
that relies on volunteer civilian amateur radio operators to provide an
auxiliary means of communication in the event of local, national, or
international emergencies. Although the MARS program operates at low
cost to the Department, the committee believes that the Department
continues to underutilize the system and is failing to derive maximum
benefit from it.
With this in mind, the committee urges the Secretary of Defense take
a number of actions to improve the utility of MARS. Such actions should
include:
(1) Increasing the visibility of MARS to senior military and civil
authority leadership;
(2) Incorporating MARS into appropriate contingency and emergency
operations plans;
(3) Increasing the use of MARS as a cost-effective and viable
alternative to commercial telecommunications for the purposes of troop
morale and welfare;
(4) Ensuring that all forward deployed units possess communications
equipment capable of operation on MARS frequencies; and
(5) Considering the applicability of using MARS as a low-cost test
bed for the evaluation of new communications technology and equipment.
The committee notes that contemplated changes to communications modes
and frequency allocations between military and commercial use may
negatively impact the ability of MARS to fulfill its auxiliary
communications role in the event of emergency. The committee also notes
that section 1062 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2000 (Public Law 106 65) prevented the commercial use of certain
frequencies previously assigned to the federal government and used
primarily by the Department of Defense, and further required an
interagency review prior to the commercial reallocation of frequencies
currently used by the Department. The committee encourages the
Department to ensure that issues related to MARS frequency allocations
are addressed in connection with any review of emergency response
mission requirements.
NATIONAL MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
The committee commends the Secretary of the Army for addressing the
critical maintenance needs of the Army with the establishment of the
National Maintenance Program (NMP) and the inclusion in the budget
request of $16.8 million as an incremental step to execute this program
worldwide. While the Army is making significant progress in developing
the NMP, as well as developing other needed organizational changes such
as the Depot Maintenance Corporate Board, further improvements are
needed. The committee continues to believe that the Army needs an
effective total depot maintenance and repair program to sustain
readiness. For example, the Army still cannot identify the total amount
of depot-level maintenance work conducted at field locations.
Depot-level maintenance work is currently being performed by civilians
and active duty personnel in military units, by contractors in various
field locations, as well as in the public depots. Until the Army is able
to distinguish and account for depot-level maintenance workloads from
other work performed by organizations outside of the established
maintenance depots, it is unclear how the Army can realistically comply
with existing statutes, including section 2466 of Title 10, United
States Code.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a report
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Service by February 1, 2001 that identifies the proliferation of
depot-level maintenance that is performed outside of the public depots.
The committee further requests that the Comptroller General of the
United States review this report and provide an analysis, including an
assessment of the Army's ability to comply with section 2466 of title 10
United States Code, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2001.
NAVAL AUDIT SERVICE
The committee supports the Department of Defense and the military
services to implement initiatives to become more efficient and more cost
effective. As an example, the Department of the Navy plans to reorganize
and consolidate the Naval Audit Service. The committee supports this
reorganization to the extent that there is efficiency to be gained and
all applicable rules, regulations, and statutes are followed. The
committee questions, however, whether it would be efficient and
economical for the Department of Navy to close audit sites in major
fleet concentration areas. The committee, therefore, directs the
Secretary of the Navy to inform the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services of any decision to close audit
sites in major fleet concentration areas, and to submit documentation to
support this decision, within 10 days of such a decision being made.
Further, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to take no
action to implement such a decision until 180 days after the
Congressional notification.
RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATION SYSTEM (RCAS)
The committee notes that the Reserve Component Automation System
(RCAS) is a system critical to the day-to-day operational capabilities
and mobilization of the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve. The
committee is concerned that without continued support and modernization,
the Army Reserve could experience a serious deterioration in readiness.
The committee is further concerned that the Army has allocated only
limited funding for the RCAS program in the future years defense
program. In order to ensure this program continues to enable the
effective administrative support and mobilization capability required by
the reserve components, the committee expects the Department of the Army
to program sufficient funds for RCAS. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report not later that March 1, 2001 to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services detailing programmed
funds for RCAS for fiscal years 2002 through 2007.
SPARE AND REPAIR PARTS
The committee continues to be concerned by reports of persistent
shortages of spare and repair parts throughout the military services.
The committee believes that one of the primary causes of unacceptable
reliability rates, especially for operational unit aircraft, is the
shortage of spare repair parts. The status of critical Air Force C 5
aircraft repair and spare parts is illustrative of the committee's
concern. The C 5 remains a key asset in air mobility and the airlifting
of heavy equipment and personnel to both military contingencies and
humanitarian relief efforts around the world. While the Air Force has
identified several problem areas, and has begun to implement actions
that are intended to mitigate this problem, the committee continues to
receive reports of spare and repair parts backlogs and repeated parts
cannibalization of air-worthy C 5 aircraft.
The committee is concerned whether the Air Force will be able to meet
all of its commitments in the future without addressing its parts
shortfall problems. As such, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Air Force to report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services no later than January 31, 2001 and
again on September 30, 2001 on the overall status of the Air Force spare
and repair parts program, with a specific emphasis on the C 5 aircraft,
to include whether the necessary resources are programmed to address
future spare and repair parts requirements.
URBAN WARFARE TRAINING
The committee notes favorably the recent assessment conducted by
General Accounting Office of the Department of Defense's (DOD) urban
warfare training. The committee is concerned about significant
shortfalls in the areas of joint experimentation, joint training and
training facilities, and intelligence. The committee is aware that joint
experimentation, which is designed to systematically evaluate what new
doctrine, organizations, and equipment are needed for urban operations,
is not taking place. Although urban operations will likely involve
larger units such as battalions and brigades, the military services
continue to concentrate their urban training on individual soldiers and
small units, such as squads, platoons, and companies.
The committee supports the recommendation of the GAO that the
Secretary of Defense should designate a single entity to lead and
coordinate Joint Staff and service efforts to improve capabilities to
conduct urban operations. The committee believes that the current Joint
Urban Working Group does not have the resources or authority necessary
to ensure the necessary coordination in this area.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
designate an appropriate executive agent with the authority to develop
and coordinate a master plan for a DOD-wide strategy, with milestones,
for improving service and joint capabilities to conduct military
operations in urban environments. The committee further directs the
Secretary of Defense to report on such a master plan to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
February 1, 2001.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SUBTITLE A--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
SECTION 301--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE FUNDING
This section would authorize $ XXX 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 $ XXX million for Working Capital Funds
of the Department of Defense.
SECTION 303--ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME
This section would authorize $69.832 million from the Armed Forces
Retirement Trust Fund for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement
Home, including the U.S. Soldiers' and Airmen's Home and the Naval Home.
SECTION 304--TRANSFER FROM NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE TRANSACTION FUND
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer not
more than $150.0 million from the amounts received from sales in the
National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund to the operation and
maintenance accounts of the military services.
SUBTITLE B--ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 311--PAYMENT OF FINES AND PENALTIES IMPOSED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
VIOLATIONS
This section would authorize the secretary of the army and the
Secretary of the Navy to pay for specific environmental violations at
several locations within the united states.
SECTION 312--NECESSITY OF MILITARY LOW-LEVEL FLIGHT TRAINING TO PROTECT
NATIONAL SECURITY AND ENHANCE MILITARY READINESS
This section would mandate that the environmental impact statements
previously completed for special use airspace designated by a military
department, for the performance of low-level training flights, satisfy
the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (title
42, United States Code).
SECTION 313--USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION ACCOUNTS TO RELOCATE
ACTIVITIES FROM DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION SITES
This section would amend section 2703 of title 10, United States
Code, to authorize environmental restoration funds to be obligated or
expended in order to permanently relocate facilities on land under the
control of the Department of Defense, or formerly under control of the
Department, if there is a release of a hazardous material on the land,
and the Department is obligated to cleanup and restore the land. This
new authority would be in effect for the next three fiscal years.
SUBTITLE C--COMMISSARIES AND NONAPPROPRIATED FUND INSTRUMENTALITIES
SECTION 321--USE OF APPROPRIATED FUNDS TO COVER OPERATING EXPENSES OF
COMMISSARY STORES
This section would provide that funds appropriated for the operation
of the Defense Commissary Agency (DECA) may be used for salaries,
utilities, communications, operating supplies and services, second
destination transportation costs, and above store level costs.
The committee notes that the surcharge fund currently supports
several of these items. The committee is concerned that since the
surcharge must pay operational expenses first, little or no funds remain
to provide for store maintenance and replacement. The committee believes
that appropriated funds are the correct funding source for commissary
store operating costs, leaving to the commissary patron the
responsibility of providing for capital replacement through payment of
the surcharge. The committee expects, however, that DECA will
aggressively pursue efficiencies that will result in no increase in the
requirement for appropriated fund support.
SECTION 322--ADJUSTMENT OF SALES PRICES OF COMMISSARY STORE GOODS AND
SERVICES TO COVER CERTAIN EXPENSES
This section would clarify that commissary store prices shall include
the cost of first destination transportation of the goods to the stores
and the actual or estimated cost of shrinkage, spoilage, and pilferage
of merchandise under the control of commissary stores. The committee
notes that the Defense Commissary Agency has an exceptional record in
controlling shrinkage and expects that high standard to continue.
SECTION 323--USE OF SURCHARGES FOR CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT OF
COMMISSARY STORES
This section would limit the responsibility of the patrons to finance
the commissary system with their surcharge dollars to store replacement
and maintenance only, putting the surcharge fund on sound financial
footing. This section would provide that funds received from the
surcharge on the price of goods sold in commissary stores
shall be used exclusively for construction and maintenance of
commissary stores and central product processing facilities.
The committee notes that the surcharge currently is responsible to
fund these items, as well as other expenses such as utilities, operating
supplies, and Defense Commissary Agency wide information technology. The
committee notes further that the surcharge is unable to meet these
expenses and still provide for the maintenance and replacement of older
stores. The committee believes that commissaries are an essential
non-pay benefit for the nation's service members, retirees, and their
families; and that a system of commissary stores bereft of capital
funding is not a true benefit.
SECTION 324--INCLUSION OF MAGAZINES AND OTHER PERIODICALS AS AN
AUTHORIZED COMMISSARY MERCHANDISE CATEGORY
This section would remove magazines and periodicals as items that may
be sold in commissary stores as noncommissary store inventory and add
magazines and periodicals to the list of authorized commissary store
merchandise.
The committee believes that military patrons rightfully expect to
find magazines and periodicals at the checkout counter, as is the
practice in commercial grocery stores. The committee understands that
this change will provide extra funding to the commissary surcharge fund
through increased sales with little impact on military exchange sales.
SECTION 325--USE OF MOST ECONOMICAL DISTRIBUTION METHOD FOR DISTILLED
SPIRITS
This section would amend section 2488 of title 10, United States
Code, to repeal the restriction on the procurement of distilled spirits
from a private distributor by nonappropriated fund instrumentalities if
the use of a private distributor results in direct or indirect state
taxation.
The committee notes that in some instances nonappropriated fund
instrumentalities are currently compelled to make less than optimal
purchases in order to avoid state taxes. The committee urges
nonappropriated fund instrumentalities to explore the most economical
means of procurement of all products intended for resale.
SECTION 326--REPORT ON EFFECTS OF AVAILABILITY OF SLOT MACHINES ON
UNITED STATES MILITARY INSTALLATIONS OVERSEAS
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to report to
Congress the effect that the military services' slot machine operations
overseas have on military community life and service members' personal
financial stability.
SUBTITLE D--PERFORMANCE OF FUNCTIONS BY PRIVATE-SECTOR SOURCES
SECTION 331--INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN REPORTS TO CONGRESS
REQUIRED BEFORE CONVERSION OF COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS TO
CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE
This section would amend section 2461 of title 10, United States
Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to provide Congress additional
information on studies concerning the change of performance of
Department of Defense functions by civilian personnel to performance by
the private sector. The provision would require the Secretary of Defense
to identify when outsourcing studies were initiated, how the results of
the study will affect the government workforce, and a certification that
necessary funds have been specifically included in a budget request to
perform the study.
SECTION 332--LIMITATION REGARDING NAVY MARINE CORPS INTRANET CONTRACT
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from using
FY2001 funds for payment of a long-term contract for comprehensive
end-to-end information services until supporting documentation is
provided to Congress.
The committee understands that the Department of the Navy's
initiative, known as the Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI), is an effort
to acquire information technology that would require a private sector
contractor to own and maintain all Navy and Marine Corps desktop
computers, network hardware, and software, and to provide all other
required information technology services. The proposed transfer of
responsibility from the Navy to the private sector is to be achieved
through a ``seat management'' contract. The committee notes that the
Navy's expected contract for at least 360,000 seats would exceed all
prior government contracting experience.
The committee recognizes the Navy's requirement for seamless and
interoperable data, voice, and video communications. The committee,
however, is quite concerned with the Navy's overall approach to this
multi-billion dollar initiative. First, of utmost concern, is the Navy's
failure to present Congress with any documentation in the budget request
for this initiative. In pursuit of this initiative the Navy has
circumvented internal financial management regulations and Office of
Management and Budget requirements. Despite repeated requests, the Navy
has not identified what funds will be used in the procurement of the
Navy Marine Corps Intranet. The committee is concerned by the Navy's
failure to provide basic funding information when the Navy plans to
award a multi-billion contract in fiscal year 2000. This section would
prohibit the use of FY2001 funds for NMCI until the Navy provides
Congress the specific funding requirements for the NMCI contract.
The committee expects that if the Navy enters into the NMCI contract,
that in future year budget submissions the Navy will comply with all
planning and budgeting documents.
SUBTITLE E--DEFENSE DEPENDENTS EDUCATION
SECTION 341--ASSISTANCE TO LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCIES THAT BENEFIT
DEPENDENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN
EMPLOYEES
This section would authorize $35.0 million for educational assistance
to local education agencies where the standard for the minimum level of
education within the state could not be maintained because of the large
number of military connected students. The committee's long-standing
commitment to the children of military personnel has provided
significant assistance to their education.
The committee acknowledges that the Department of Education impact
aid program provides supplementary funds to eligible school districts
nationwide, and the committee believes that the Department of Education
should continue to asserts its leading role to provide federal support
for the educational needs of the children of military personnel.
SECTION 342--ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTENDANCE AT DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE DOMESTIC DEPENDENT ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to permit a
student who is a dependent of an employee of the American Red Cross
performing armed forces emergency services on a full-time basis to
enroll in Department of Defense domestic schools located in Puerto Rico
on a reimbursable basis. The committee notes that children of Red Cross
employees stationed in overseas areas are currently authorized to enroll
in Department of Defense overseas schools on a reimbursable basis. The
committee believes that similarly-situated dependents of American Red
Cross employees in Puerto Rico should have similar privileges.
SUBTITLE F--MILITARY READINESS ISSUES
SECTION 351--ADDITIONAL CAPABILITIES OF, AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
FOR, THE READINESS REPORTING SYSTEM
This section would amend section 117 of title 10, United States Code
to include an annual report detailing the funding programmed for
deficiencies identified in the Joint Monthly Readiness Review process.
Currently, section 117 requires the Secretary of Defense to provide
Congress with a quarterly report detailing the readiness of military
units. Although generally satisfied with the information provided by
this report, the committee believes there should be additional
information included to provide an indication that adequate funding is
being programmed for identified military readiness and capability
deficiencies. This section would provide Congress with more visibility
of the existence of these readiness deficiencies and the programmed
funding to rectify these known deficiencies.
This section would also require the reporting of the amount of
cannibalization performed on vehicles and aircraft during the quarter
and the efforts being made to decrease the amount of cannibalization
required. The committee is concerned with the increasing amount of
cannibalization that takes place in each of the service's maintenance
programs due to the chronic shortage of spare and replacement parts. The
committee continues to hear of numerous occasions where aircraft sit in
hangars and are used for spare parts, which are unavailable through
normal parts requisition channels. The cannibalization of parts creates
extra work for an already overworked maintenance crew and often leads to
the damage of other parts in the process.
SECTION 352--REPORTING REQUIREMENTS REGARDING TRANSFERS FROM
HIGH-PRIORITY READINESS APPROPRIATIONS
This section would amend section 483 of title 10, United States Code,
which currently requires an annual report to Congress on any transfers
from several specified high-priority readiness accounts. This section
would extend the requirement for this report and expands the report to
include additional high priority sub-activity groups.
In recent years, the Department of Defense has improved the
information it gives to Congress on the movement of Operations and
Maintenance (O&M) funds. The report, submitted pursuant to section 483,
has been useful to the committee in trying to understand the transfers
of funds from several critical readiness accounts. The committee
believes that extending and expanding the requirement for this report
would continue to be helpful in reviewing the transfer of funds within
operation and maintenance accounts.
SECTION 353--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE STRATEGIC PLAN TO REDUCE BACKLOG IN
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR OF DEFENSE FACILITIES
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop an
overall strategic plan for the maintenance, repair, and sustainment of
facilities and infrastructure of the Department of Defense (DOD) to
include a comprehensive strategy for facilities revitalization,
replacement, demolition of unusable facilities, and sustainment
maintenance tied to measurable goals, specified time frames, and
expected funding in the five year defense plan. The provision would
require the plan to be submitted to the Congressional defense committees
by March 15, 2001, and be updated annually.
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense and the
military services do not have complete, reliable information on the cost
associated with either maintaining their current facilities
infrastructure or the cost associated with various infrastructure
reduction options. Such information is critical to the development of a
department-wide strategic plan that considers difficult options for the
care and maintenance of essential facilities and infrastructure. The
committee is also concerned that the complete disclosure of costs
associated with facilities' deferred maintenance and repair and
demolition cannot be adequately calculated without such a plan.
SUBTITLE G--OTHER MATTERS
SECTION 361--AUTHORITY TO ENSURE DEMILITARIZATION OF SIGNIFICANT
MILITARY EQUIPMENT FORMERLY OWNED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
This section would amend chapter 153 of title 10, United States Code
to allow the Secretary of Defense to recover significant military
equipment that has been released by the Department of Defense without
proper demilitarization. Section 1051 of the Strom Thurmond National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105 261)
identified the need for the Department of Defense to improve
demilitarization of excess and surplus defense property. This section
would clarify the authority of the United States to recover critical and
sensitive defense property that has been inadequately demilitarized.
SECTION 362--ANNUAL REPORT ON PUBLIC SALE OF CERTAIN MILITARY EQUIPMENT
IDENTIFIED ON UNITED STATES MUNITIONS LIST
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to report
annually to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services on excess military items sold to the public.
The report would list all items sold to the public that were included on
the United States Munitions List and labeled with a Department of
Defense (DOD) demilitarization code of ``B''. Demilitarization code
``B'' is placed on any item of inventory that is included on the United
States Munitions List and for which the Department of Defense does not
require demilitarization before the item is sold to the public.
The committee is concerned that once again sales of excess military
items may have been diverted to uses and individuals that could be
harmful to national security. The committee is aware of a recent case in
which individuals were indicted for illegally exporting items on the
munitions list to China without the required export license. The
committee understands that the items included export-controlled
electronic parts for missiles and military aircraft.
SECTION 363--REGISTRATION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS
WITH CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER
This section would require that for the next three fiscal years all
mission essential and mission critical information technology system be
registered with the Chief Information Officer of the Department of
Defense.
SECTION 364--STUDIES AND REPORTS REQUIRED AS PRECONDITION TO CERTAIN
MANPOWER REDUCTIONS
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on Armed Services prior to the initiation of any civilian manpower
reductions at any organizations within the Department of Defense. A
separate report would also be required once a decision has been made to
consolidate, restructure, or reengineer an organization or function
within the Department.
SECTION 365--NATIONAL GUARD ASSISTANCE FOR CERTAIN YOUTH AND CHARITABLE
ORGANIZATIONS
This section would amend section 508 of title 32, United States Code
to include an additional youth organization, known as Reach for
Tomorrow, to the list of youth and charitable organizations that are
eligible for assistance by the National Guard.
MILITARY PERSONNEL OVERVIEW
The committee's military personnel recommendations have four major
complementary goals that, taken together, will advance and help to
sustain the manpower readiness of the all-volunteer force. Those four
goals are to:
(1) Reform the Defense Health Program (DHP) to improve the TRICARE
managed care program; to achieve savings in the DHP through management
and process changes; to provide access for all Medicare-eligible
military retirees to a pharmacy benefit; and to set the stage for the
near-term implementation of a permanent health care program for
Medicare-eligible military retirees.
(2) Continue improvements in the economic well-being of military
personnel and their families--a long term effort begun last year by the
committee--through both targeted and broad-based pay and benefits
initiatives that put real dollars in the pockets of soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines.
(3) Assist the armed services in the demanding task of attracting
and retaining sufficient numbers of quality personnel.
(4) Provide targeted increases in active and reserve military
manpower where such increases improve readiness or otherwise directly
facilitate the recruiting effort.
A fundamental challenge facing the committee in achieving these goals
was that the President's budget request was clearly inadequate in
several key aspects and required substantial enhancement.
With regard to health care, for example, the budget request failed to
support the commitment of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
provide health care reform for military retirees. To fulfill that
commitment and to make substantial progress toward defining permanently
future military retiree health care, the committee recommends a retail
and mail order pharmacy benefit for all Medicare-eligible military
retirees and their families. The committee also is committed to renewing
TRICARE Senior Prime (the Medicare subvention demonstration program)
that the Department of Defense would have allowed to expire this year,
and extending the two other demonstration programs--TRICARE Senior
Supplement and the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. In
addition, believing that final decisions must soon be made to define the
military health care benefit for Medicare-eligibles, the committee
recommends a process to implement a permanent benefit in 2004. To fund
the pharmacy benefit and other health care initiatives, including DHP
reforms designed to reduce spending by as much as $500.0 million over
the next five years, the committee recommends an increase of over $286.0
million to the DHP.
With regard to its longstanding effort to improve the economic
viability of service members and their families, the committee again
went beyond the welcome, but limited, initiatives contained in the
budget request. For example, the committee authorizes a targeted
subsistence payment, and $5.0 million, that is designed to assist the
most economically challenged service personnel--those living off post
and receiving food stamps. To more comprehensively address the economic
difficulties confronting junior enlisted people, the committee also
authorizes $30.0 million and requires an upward revision of minimum
housing standards. Also, the committee provides $30.0 million, an
increase of nearly 19 percent over the budget request to accelerate the
reduction in service members' out-of-pocket housing costs, and $6.0
million to establish a minimum
dislocation allowance. This latter measure, targeting junior
enlisted military personnel, would begin to reduce the substantial
out-of-pocket costs military people experience while moving. Moreover,
despite numerous other proposals in the President's budget request that
both increased and reduced entitlement spending, the budget request gave
no priority to the entitlement spending needed to allow service members
to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). To rectify this
significant shortfall, the committee, building on the funding provided
in the conference agreement on the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget
for Fiscal Year 2001, authorizes service members to begin enrolling in
TSP.
Being aware of the severe and continuing challenges facing each of
the military services in their mutual goal of sustaining the
all-volunteer force with sufficient numbers of quality personnel, the
committee is disturbed to learn that most service budget requests for
fiscal year 2001 reflect either steady state or decreased funding from
fiscal year 2000 when measured in the investment per recruit, or in
select critical recruiting accounts, and that the recruiting and
retention budget shortfalls identified by the services amount to more
than $700.0 million. Furthermore, the current Deputy Secretary of
Defense testified to the committee that the services deliberately
underfunded recruiting and retention, with the expectation that Congress
would step up to fill the shortfalls.
This information directly affected the committee's decision regarding
funding allocations for the services' recruiting and retention. First,
where in the past the committee has willingly provided added resources
to meet much of the services' unfunded requirements, this year the
committee recommends additional funding for less than one third of the
shortfall, an increase of $217.6 million. Second, the recommended
additional funding gives priority to enlistment and reenlistment
bonuses, rather than recruiting advertising because bonuses not only are
highly effective at drawing and retaining people, but they also put
money into service members' pockets. The committee strongly urges the
military services to resolve the remaining fiscal year 2001 recruiting
and retention requirements in the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Finally, in an effort to overcome the manpower shortfalls contained
in the budget request for both the active and reserve components, the
committee authorizes nearly 650 additional active duty Navy personnel,
and a total of nearly 2,900 full time support personnel in the Army
National Guard, the Army Reserve, Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
SUBTITLE A--ACTIVE FORCES
SECTION 401--END STRENGTHS FOR ACTIVE FORCES
This section would authorize the following end strengths for active
duty personnel of the armed forces as of September 30, 2001.
Service FY 2000 authorized & floor FY 2001 request FY 2001 committee recommendation Change from FY 2001 request
Army 480,000 480,000 480,000 0
Navy 372,037 372,000 372,642 642
USMC 172,518 172,600 172,600 0
USAF 360,877 357,000 357,000 0
DOD 1,385,432 1,381,600 1,382,242 642
The committee, responding to the critical manpower shortfall
identified by the Chief of Naval Operations, recommends an increase in
Navy end strength by 642 above the requested level. The increase will
provide 500 recruiters, as well as 142 personnel for the crew of the
U.S.S. Houston that the Navy intends to retain in the force structure.
To support the additional end strength, the committee authorizes an
increase of $18.5 million in Navy military personnel accounts.
SECTION 402--REVISION IN PERMANENT END STRENGTH MINIMUM LEVELS
This section would amend section 691 of title 10, United States Code,
by establishing end strength floors for the active forces at the end
strengths contained in the budget request.
The committee is surprised that each of the active and reserve
components of the Air Force are projected to end fiscal year 2000 below
the strengths authorized by law. The committee notes that the
Congressional Budget Office projects that the active Air Force could
have a shortfall of up to 4,700, the Air National Guard a shortfall of
up to 3,200, and the Air Force Reserve a shortfall of as much as 2,300.
If these predictions should become fact, the active Air Force will
violate the statutory end strength floor for a second consecutive year.
The existence of these projected shortfalls in the Air Force is
surprising because Congress provided, in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 105 65) and the
Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106 79) the
full funding requested by the Department of Defense to sustain end
strengths at the requested levels, as well as additional funding beyond
the budget request for recruiting and retention initiatives. While the
committee applauds the recent Air Force decision to launch major
short-term initiatives to stave off active component recruiting and
retention shortfalls in fiscal year 2000, the committee believes that
the fundamental cause of the projected fiscal year 2000 end strength
shortfalls is a lack of early full commitment by the Department of the
Air Force to sustain required manpower levels with adequate resources.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to ensure that future
budget requests comply with the requirements of section 691 of title 10,
United States Code, and to provide the full funding required to sustain
active and reserve end strengths at the levels required by law.
SECTION 403--ADJUSTMENT TO END STRENGTH FLEXIBILITY AUTHORITY
This section would authorize the Secretary to reduce the end strength
below the floor in cases where the authorized end strength was higher
than the floor. Section 691(e) of title 10, United States Code, provides
authority to the Secretary of Defense to reduce by one-half of one per
cent the authorized end strength of a service when the statutorily
authorized end strength is equal to the end strength floor established
in law.
SUBTITLE B--RESERVE FORCES
SECTION 411--END STRENGTHS FOR SELECTED RESERVE
This section would authorize the following end strengths for the
selected reserve personnel, including the end strength for reserves on
active duty in support of the reserves, as of September 30, 2001:
Service FY 2000 authorized FY 2001 request FY 2001 committee recommendation Change from FY 2001 request
Army National Guard 350,000 350,000 350,706 706
Army Reserve 205,000 205,000 205,300 300
Naval Reserve 90,288 88,900 88,900 0
Marine Corps Reserve 39,624 39,500 39,558 58
Air National Guard 106,678 108,000 108,000 0
Air Force Reserve 73,708 74,300 74,358 58
Coast Guard Reserve 8,000 8,000 8,000 0
-------------------- ----------------- ---------------------------------- -----------------------------
Total 873,298 873,700 874,822 1,122
SECTION 412--END STRENGTHS FOR RESERVES ON ACTIVE DUTY IN SUPPORT OF
THE RESERVES
This section would authorize the following end strengths for reserves
on active duty in support of the reserves as of September 30, 2001:
Service FY 2000 authorized FY 2001 request Committee recommendation Change from FY 2001 request
Army National Guard 22,430 22,448 23,154 706
Army Reserve 12,804 12,806 13,106 300
Naval Reserve 15,010 14,649 14,649 0
Marine Corps Reserve 2,272 2,203 2,261 58
Air National Guard 11,157 11,148 11,148 0
Air Force Reserve 1,134 1,278 1,336 58
--------------------- ----------------- --------------------------- -----------------------------
Total 64,807 64,532 65,654 1,122
The committee believes that full time manning is a crucial component
of readiness in the reserve components and therefore recommends an
increase of 1,122 above the requested end strength for reserves on
active duty to support the reserve components. To support the increase,
the committee authorizes an additional $37.5 million.
SECTION 413--END STRENGTH FOR MILITARY TECHNICIANS (DUAL STATUS)
This section would authorize the following end strengths for military
technicians (dual status) as of September 30, 2001:
Service FY 2000 authorized (floor) FY 2001 request Committee recommendation (floor) Change from FY 2001 request
Army National Guard 23,125 22,357 23,392 1,035
Army Reserve 6,474 5,271 5,921 650
Air National Guard 22,247 22,221 22,247 26
Air Force Reserve 9,785 9,733 9,785 52
---------------------------- ----------------- ---------------------------------- -----------------------------
Total 61,631 59,582 61,345 1,763
The committee recommends an increase of 1,763 in the requested end
strength for military technicians (dual status). The bulk of the
increase is to meet high priority manning shortfalls in the Army
National Guard and the Army Reserve. To support the increases, the
committee authorizes a total increase of $51.0 million to the civilian
personnel pay accounts of those two components.
The committee is aware that some of the military services have
attempted to reduce civilian personnel funding for technicians in the
belief that because the annual defense authorization act does not
specifically authorize end strength for non-dual status technicians, the
committee is suggesting that non-dual status technicians should not be
funded. To the contrary, the committee believes that the civilian
personnel accounts of
the military services must fund not only the military
technician (dual status) end strength authorized above, but also the
end-strength for the non-dual status technician end strength indicated
below:
Service
FY 2001 request
Army National Guard
1,600
Army Reserve
997
Air National Guard
326
Air Force Reserve
0
Total
2,923
SECTION 414--INCREASE IN NUMBER OF MEMBERS IN CERTAIN GRADES AUTHORIZED
TO BE ON ACTIVE DUTY IN SUPPORT OF THE RESERVES
This section would authorize increases in the grades of reserve
members authorized to serve on active duty or on full-time national
guard duty for the administration of the reserves or the national guard.
The section would authorize 20 additional colonels, 82 additional
lieutenant colonels, 138 additional majors, 97 additional E 9s, and 90
additional E 8s in the Air Force. This section would also authorize 76
additional colonels, 219 additional lieutenant colonels, 178 additional
majors, 221 additional E 9s, and 373 additional E 8s in the Army. The
committee believes these increases are necessary to support the
additional missions now being performed by the reserve components.
The committee notes that the increases listed above would be the
third consecutive year in which the grade tables were adjusted for
reserve officers on active duty in support of the reserves. The
committee recognizes that section 555 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106 65) expanded the
roles that could be performed by reserve officers on active duty in
support of the reserves and that there would be new requirements for
career progression for these officers. The committee believes a
comprehensive solution for the controlled grades is now necessary.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study
the grades assigned to reserve officers on active duty in support of the
reserves and to recommend a permanent solution for managing the grade
structure for those officers. In developing his recommendations, the
Secretary should consider the following areas during the study:
(1) The grade structure authorized for the active duty forces and
the reasons why the grade structure for reserve officers on active duty
in support of the reserves is different;
(2) The need for independent grade limits for each reserve component;
(3) The potential for repealing the current grade tables in favor of
a system that would manage grades based on the grade authorized for the
position occupied by the service member; and
(4) The current mix within each reserve component of traditional
reservists, military/civilian technicians, regular component officers,
and reserve officers on active duty in support of the reserves in each
controlled grade and how that mix for each component would shift over
time under the Secretary's recommended solution.
The committee further directs the Secretary to report on his findings
and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2001.
SUBTITLE C--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
SECTION 421--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL
This section would authorize $75,801.7 million to be appropriated for
military personnel.
This authorization of appropriations reflects both reductions and
increases to the budget request that are itemized below.
[Dollars in millions]
Military personnel accounts O&M accounts
RECOMMENDED INCREASES
Active End Strength:
Navy:
Add Recruiters (500) $15.0
USS Houston (142) 3.5
RC End Strength:
Army National Guard:
Add AGR's (706) 23.5
Add Military Technicians (Dual Status) (1035) $30.5
Army Reserve:
Add AGR's (300) 10.0
Add Military Technicians (Dual Status) (650) 20.5
Air Force Reserve:
Add AGR Recruiters (50) 1.7
Add Red Horse AGR's (8) 0.4
Compensation 30.0
Recruiting & Retention:
Army:
Enlistment Bonus 50.0
Senior ROTC Recruiting 7.0
Army Reserve:
Recruiting Advertising 9.0
Additional Recruiters 1.0
Enlistment Bonus 12.0
Navy Reserve:
Recruiting Advertising 3.7
Recruiter Support 3.0
Non-prior Svc Enlistment Bonus 2.4
USMC:
Enlistment Bonus 4.0
Selective Reenlistment Bonus 4.0
College Fund 4.4
Recruiting Advertising 7.5
Recruiter Support 0.6
Air Force:
Enlistment Bonus 7.5
Selective Reenlistment Bonus 29.0
College-to-USAF Enl. Program 6.0
Air Guard:
Recruiter Support 3.5
Recruiting Advertising 6.0
AF Reserve:
Tuition Assistance 5.2
Air Reserve Technician Pilot Retention Bonus 5.0
AGR Pilot Retention Bonus 3.8
Senior ROTC: 0.4
Other Issues: 3.0
Naval Reserve:
Reserve Annual Training 2.4
Reserve ADT (CINC Support) 13.4
Reserve ADT (Schools) 4.4
ADSW (Voluntary Support) 1.2
Inactive Duty for Training Travel 3.5
Defense Health Program: 2.0
----------------------------- ---------------
Total Recommended Additions 326.2 396.2
[Dollars in millions]
Military personnel accunts O&M accounts
RECOMMENDED REDUCTIONS
Active Component Strength and Grade Underexecution: $5.3
Reserve Component Strength, Grade and Drill Underexecution: 4.2
DOD Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Fund 17.0
Defense Health Program Foreign Military Training $10.0
Unemployment Compensation: 2.1
Foreign Currency Fluctuation: 73.3
---------------------------- ---------------
Total Recommended Reductions 326.2 25.4
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
DEFENSE PRISONER OF WAR/MISSING IN ACTION OFFICE
The committee notes that section 1501 of title 10, United States
Code, charges the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Office
(DPMO) with broad responsibilities throughout the Department of Defense
concerning policy, control, and oversight of the process for the
investigation and recovery of missing persons. The committee has learned
that DPMO is developing a strategic plan intended to serve as a roadmap
for all elements of the Department in carrying out those important
responsibilities. However, the committee is concerned that the strategic
plan envisions a lessening of ongoing efforts to account for the
thousands of service members still unaccounted for in previous wars. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to consult the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services
before implementing any plan that would reduce the current level of
effort to account for missing personnel.
The committee further notes that the Secretary of Defense has
published directives implementing the Missing Persons Act (section 569
of Public Law 104 106), as amended. However, the committee is
disappointed that the directives do not provide a means to inform family
members of the existence of classified information that could pertain to
one or more missing persons as required by section 1506(d) of title 10,
United States Code. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
incorporate the procedures required by law into a revised directive by
December 1, 2000.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INTERNATIONAL STUDENT PROGRAM AT THE MILITARY
COLLEGES
The committee, despite working cooperatively last year with
Department of Defense (DOD) officials to incorporate the Senior Military
Colleges (SMC) into the DOD international student program in a manner to
allow the Secretary of Defense to expand the impact and scope of that
program, was severely disappointed that the fiscal year 2001 budget
request did not include funds for the SMC international student program.
The committee, therefore, authorizes $2.0 million for the Secretary of
Defense to carry out the SMC international student program and directs
the Secretary of Defense to provide funding to the program from funds,
other than those for the Senior ROTC program, made available to the
Secretary for fiscal year 2001. The committee also strongly encourages
the Secretary of Defense to fund this program in the fiscal year 2002
budget request.
FUNDING FOR RECRUITING AND RETENTION
The committee continues to be concerned about the ability of the
services to recruit and retain a quality force, as well as the apparent
unwillingness or inability of the armed services to adequately resource
their recruiting and retention programs. Furthermore, based on testimony
presented to the committee, it appears that the armed services are
taking advantage of Congressional support for recruiting and retention
by underfunding their budget requests with the expectation that
additional resources for recruiting and retention will be provided in
the authorization and appropriations process.
Congressional support for recruiting and retention has been
substantial, with over $400.0 million in additional funding to
recruiting accounts alone provided by Congress over the last three
years. In addition, Congress crafted the extensive pay and retirement
reforms enacted by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2000 (Public Law 106 65).
Despite this support, the committee notes that the active Army, the
Army Reserve, the active Navy, the Naval Reserve, the active Air Force,
and the Air Force Reserve all failed to achieve recruiting objectives in
fiscal year 1999. In fiscal year 2000, the armed services continue to
experience difficulty in recruiting due to increased college attendance,
reduced youth population, and record low unemployment rates, with all
components of the Air Force (active, national guard and reserve), the
Army Reserve and the Naval Reserve unlikely to meet recruiting goals.
Additionally, the active Army, the active Marine Corps and active Navy
will be severely challenged to do so.
Similarly, the armed services continue to experience difficulty in
retaining personnel with certain technical skills and within units
burdened with high operations tempo. Additionally, both the active
component Air Force and the active component Navy failed to meet
retention objectives across all segments of the enlisted force during
fiscal year 1999, and are unlikely to achieve those retention objectives
in fiscal year 2000.
The committee believes that DOD's inadequate funding for recruiting
and retention programs only exacerbates the recruiting and retention
difficulties. For example, following the submission of the budget
request for fiscal year 2001, the armed services reported $704.0 million
in unfunded requirements in recruiting and retention programs.
Additionally, the budget request included examples for each of the armed
services, including both active and reserve components, of recruiting
and retention accounts that were funded at considerably lower levels for
fiscal year 2001 than what the armed services expected to execute during
fiscal year 2000. The committee concludes from these facts that
inadequate defense budgets have forced the service secretaries into
tough choices, with recruiting and retention getting a lower priority
than other programs. The committee believes that the low priority placed
on recruiting and retention programs by budget managers can be
attributed in part to the presumption that Congress will add the needed
resources that the secretaries concerned are unwilling or unable to
provide.
In recognition of the general inadequacy of the defense budget to
meet all the armed services requirements, the committee recommends an
increase of $217.6 million over the amounts requested for the recruiting
and retention by the active and reserve components. In deciding what
shortfalls to address, the committee gave priority to those recruiting
and retention initiatives that provide money directly to service
members. The details of the recommended increases are provided in the
table accompanying section 421 above.
The committee notes, however, that the recommended increase is less
than one third of the funding shortfall reported by the armed services.
The committee expects DOD and the armed services to move aggressively to
eliminate the remaining shortfall in fiscal year 2001. Furthermore, the
committee strongly recommends the secretaries concerned include full
funding for recruiting and retention programs in the fiscal year 2002
budget request and not rely on Congress to provide the necessary
resources to sustain the all volunteer force.
Additionally, the committee is disappointed that progress in
developing recruiting kiosks using computer technology has been slowed
due to inadequate funding. The committee believes that recruiting kiosks
are an important initiative that should be developed expeditiously. The
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to initiate a fully funded
joint program to expand the testing of computer kiosks within all the
military departments.
HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT BRIEFINGS
The committee desires to clarify the objectives of the briefings and
training sessions on the policy, regulations, and laws governing
homosexual conduct that are required by section 654 of title 10, United
States Code, or directed by the Secretary of Defense. The committee
believes that all briefings and training sessions on homosexual conduct
should focus on the standards of behavior as required by law, and should
be limited to the behavior expected of service members regarding the
professional treatment of other members. The briefings and training
sessions should respect and acknowledge the personal or religious values
of service members, and they shall be informed of their right to retain
them.
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to review all
homosexual conduct briefings and training being conducted by the armed
services and bring them in compliance with the committee's directions.
INCENTIVES FOR OVERSEAS ASSIGNMENTS
The committee is concerned that the military services are having
difficulty filling overseas duty positions with volunteers. The
committee notes that volunteers for overseas duty in the Navy are
considered to have met their sea duty requirement, and further notes
that volunteers in overseas shore-based positions hinder the Navy's
ability to meet its ship staffing requirements. While overseas duty is
often desirable for younger unaccompanied service members, senior
service members are frequently reluctant to go overseas because of
family concerns. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to study incentives for overseas assignments and report to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by December 31, 2000, on attainable and affordable
recommendations to resolve this problem.
NATIONAL GUARD MILITARY TECHNICIAN OVERTIME PAY
The committee notes that section 709(h) of title 32, United States
Code, prohibits Army and Air Force National Guard military technicians
from receiving overtime pay. Instead, that section requires that
technicians be granted compensatory time for overtime work. The
committee recognizes that the law concerning national guard military
technician overtime has remained essentially unchanged since the
enactment of the National Guard Technicians Act of 1968 (Public Law 90
486). The committee believes
that a review of this policy is needed, however, because the
role and utilization of the full time support force has changed
fundamentally since 1968. This increased reliance on the full time force
causes many military technicians to routinely work irregular and
overtime hours. While the law directs that these national guard military
technicians be given time off in lieu of overtime, the reality is that
they are receiving neither. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to review the policy and cost considerations by which national
guard military technicians are treated for overtime work and to report
his findings and any recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2001.
UNIFORMED SERVICES FORMER SPOUSE PROTECTION ACT
The committee notes that section 643 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105 85) required the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of the Uniformed
Services Former Spouse Protection Act (USFSPA) and to report his
findings to Congress by September 30, 1999. The committee considers this
an important review with significant implications for many service
members and their families. The committee is disappointed the review
remains incomplete and encourages the Secretary to submit the report as
soon as possible.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SUBTITLE A--GENERAL PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES
SECTION 501--AUTHORITY FOR SECRETARY OF DEFENSE TO SUSPEND CERTAIN
PERSONNEL STRENGTH LIMITATIONS DURING WAR OR NATIONAL EMERGENCY
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to suspend in
time of war or national emergency the limits on the number of personnel
serving on active duty in the grades of E 8 and E 9, and the number of
personnel serving on active duty in support of the reserves in grades 0
6, 0 5, 0 4, E 9, and E 8. This section would also make the procedures
for calculating the number of service members authorized to serve in
controlled grades in time of war or national emergency for the
categories of personnel listed above consistent with the procedures used
for active duty officers.
SECTION 502--AUTHORITY TO ISSUE POSTHUMOUS COMMISSIONS IN THE CASE OF
MEMBERS DYING BEFORE OFFICIAL RECOMMENDATION FOR APPOINTMENT OR PROMOTION IS
APPROVED BY SECRETARY CONCERNED
This section would clarify that the secretary concerned may confer
posthumous commissions in cases where military members die prior to the
approval of an official recommendation for appointment or promotion.
SECTION 503--TECHNICAL CORRECTION TO RETIRED GRADE RULE FOR ARMY AND
AIR FORCE OFFICERS
This section would repeal conflicting provisions of law regarding the
determination of retirement grade for reserve officers. This section
would also clarify that retirement grade for reserve officers will be
determined in accordance with section 1370 of title 10, United States
Code.
SECTION 504--EXTENSION TO END OF CALENDAR YEAR OF EXPIRATION DATE FOR
CERTAIN FORCE DRAWDOWN TRANSITION AUTHORITIES
This section would extend through December 31, 2001, certain force
drawdown transition authorities. These authorities include:
(1) Active duty early retirement authority;
(2) Special separation benefit authority;
(3) Voluntary separation incentive authority;
(4) Increased flexibility in the management of selective early
retirement boards;
(5) Reduction of time-in-grade requirement for retention of grade
upon voluntary retirement;
(6) Reduction of length of commissioned service for voluntary
retirement as an officer;
(7) Enhanced travel and transportation allowances and storage of
baggage and household effects for certain involuntary separated members;
(8) Increased flexibility for granting educational leave relating to
continuing public and community service;
(9) Enhanced health, commissary and family housing benefits;
(10) Increased flexibility in the management of enrollments of
dependents in the Defense Dependents' Education System;
(11) Definition of the force reduction transition period for reserve
forces;
(12) Force reduction period reserve retirement authority;
(13) Reduction of length of non-regular service requirements for
reserve retirements;
(14) Reserve early retirement authority;
(15) Reduction of time-in-grade requirement for retention of grade
upon voluntary reserve retirement;
(16) Increased flexibility in the management of the affiliation of
active duty personnel with reserve units;
(17) Increased flexibility in the management of eligibility for
reserve educational assistance.
SECTION 505--CLARIFICATION OF REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPOSITION OF
ACTIVE-DUTY LIST SELECTION BOARDS WHEN RESERVE OFFICERS ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION
This section would clarify section 612 of title 10, United States
Code, by specifying that reserve officers serving on active duty may be
appointed to serve on promotion boards even though they are not on the
active-duty list.
SECTION 506--VOLUNTARY SEPARATION INCENTIVE
This section would authorize service members who simultaneously
receive retired or retainer pay and voluntary separation incentive (VSI)
to terminate their eligibility for VSI. The section would also allow the
service member who is eligible for retired pay and who has received VSI
to reimburse the government for the amount of VSI received without
concurrently increasing the amount of VSI that is owed.
SECTION 507--CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW PERIOD FOR ASSIGNMENT OF WOMEN TO
DUTY ON SUBMARINES AND FOR ANY PROPOSED RECONFIGURATION OR DESIGN OF SUBMARINES TO
ACCOMMODATE FEMALE CREW MEMBERS
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide to
Congress written notification prior to any policy change affecting the
current male-only assignment policy for submarines take effect, and
prior to the expenditure of funds to reconfigure or design a submarine
to accommodate the assignment of female crewmembers. Such changes could
take place only after 120 days of continuous congressional session have
expired following receipt by Congress of the notice of the proposed
changes.
SUBTITLE B--RESERVE COMPONENT PERSONNEL POLICY
SECTION 511--EXEMPTION FROM ACTIVE-DUTY LIST FOR RESERVE OFFICERS ON
ACTIVE DUTY FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OR LESS
This section would prevent a reserve officer voluntarily serving on
active duty for a period of three years or less from being placed on the
active-duty list and required to compete for promotion with active duty
officers. This section would also authorize such officers to remain on
the Reserve Active Status List and compete for promotion with other
reserve officers. The committee considers this section to apply to
reserve component officers serving in positions authorized by section
526(b)(2)(A) of title 10, United States Code.
SECTION 512--EXEMPTION OF RESERVE COMPONENT MEDICAL AND DENTAL OFFICERS
FROM COUNTING IN GRADE STRENGTHS
This section would exempt medical and dental officers from the
calculation of the number of officers in each grade authorized to serve
in an active status in a reserve component. This section would also make
the procedures for calculating the number of officers serving in
controlled grades for the reserve components consistent with the
procedures used for active duty officers.
SECTION 513--CONTINUATION OF OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE STATUS LIST
WITHOUT REQUIREMENT FOR APPLICATION
This section would authorize the secretary of a military department
to offer continuation on the Reserve Active Status List to reserve
officers without requiring the officer to request continuation.
SECTION 514--AUTHORITY TO RETAIN RESERVE COMPONENT CHAPLAINS AND
OFFICERS IN MEDICAL SPECIALTIES UNTIL SPECIFIED AGE
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to extend
the service of Medical Service Corps and biomedical sciences officers to
age 67.
SECTION 515--AUTHORITY FOR TEMPORARY INCREASE IN NUMBER OF RESERVE
COMPONENT PERSONNEL SERVING ON ACTIVE DUTY OR FULL-TIME NATIONAL GUARD DUTY IN
CERTAIN GRADES
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to increase the
number of reserve members serving on active duty in support of the
reserves in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps in the grades of
0 6, 0 5, 0 4, E 9, and E 8 by the same percentage the Secretary is
authorized to increase the end strength of that force by section 115 of
title 10, United States Code.
SECTION 516--AUTHORITY FOR PROVISION OF LEGAL SERVICES TO RESERVE
COMPONENT MEMBERS FOLLOWING RELEASE FROM ACTIVE DUTY
This section would authorize legal services assistance to reservists
who served on active duty for more than 29 days and their dependents for
a period not to exceed twice the length of time served on active duty.
SECTION 517--ENTITLEMENT TO SEPARATION PAY FOR RESERVE OFFICERS
RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY UPON DECLINING SELECTIVE CONTINUATION ON ACTIVE DUTY
AFTER SECOND FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR PROMOTION
This section would clarify that the separation of a reserve officer
on active duty who was non-selected for promotion twice to the same
grade, and who subsequently declines selective continuation shall be
considered an involuntary separation, and would authorize such an
officer to be eligible for separation pay.
The committee is disappointed that the Secretary of the Army was
unable to prevent a number of reserve captains from being separated from
active duty involuntarily without separation pay because the officers
declined continuation on active duty after being non-selected for
promotion. The committee notes that regular captains non-selected for
promotion by the same promotion board did receive separation pay after
declining continuation on active duty. This section would insure that
similarly situated reserve officers receive separation pay in the
future, but would not allow separation pay to be provided to those
reserve captains separated during fiscal year 2000.
The Secretary of the Army indicates that he will rely on the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to restore fairness and
equity to the reserve captains denied separation pay during fiscal year
2000. The committee requests that the Secretary expedite consideration
of these cases by the ABCMR to minimize hardships for these members and
their families.
SECTION 518--EXTENSION OF INVOLUNTARY CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT DATE FOR
CERTAIN RESERVE TECHNICIANS
This section would authorize the secretaries of the military
departments to retain certain non-dual status reserve technicians until
age 60, an age beyond which these technicians would otherwise be
required to separate from federal civil service as required by section
10218 of title 10, United States Code.
The committee notes that current law was intended to reduce the
numbers of non-dual status technicians while providing for a process
that minimized the impact on the technicians being separated. The
committee has learned that the process has not worked as intended, and
the committee is concerned that some technicians would be forced to
retire without adequate notice as a result of that process.
SUBTITLE C--EDUCATION AND TRAINING
SECTION 521--COLLEGE TUITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR PURSUIT OF DEGREES
BY MEMBERS OF THE MARINE CORPS PLATOON LEADERS CLASS PROGRAM
This section would authorize the use of the Marine Corps Platoon
Leaders Class Tuition Assistance Program for the purpose of providing
educational assistance to include legal training to commissioned
officers participating in the Platoon Leaders Class program.
SECTION 522--REVIEW OF ALLOCATION OF JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS TRAINING
CORPS UNITS AMONG THE SERVICES
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to review and
redistribute the current service Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps
(JROTC) allocations for fiscal years 2001 to 2006 to enable those
services that want to more quickly eliminate their current JROTC waiting
lists and are willing to commit the necessary resources to do so, have
the opportunity to grow. Further, if the reallocation results in the
Secretary of Defense determining that the current statutory cap of 3,500
JROTC units should be increased, then his recommendations for the
increase should be included in the fiscal year 2002 budget request. The
Secretary of Defense has begun expanding the number of JROTC units from
the present 2,700 to the statutory maximum of 3,500. The committee
commends this effort and encourages the Secretary of Defense to achieve
expansion before 2006, the target completion date. To that end, the
committee believes that if a military service is willing to commit the
resources to expand its JROTC program to eliminate its waiting list of
high schools that have requested a JROTC program more quickly than
envisioned by the six-year Department of Defense (DOD) plan, then the
service should not be constrained by the internal unit allocation limits
of the DOD plan.
SECTION 523--AUTHORITY FOR NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL TO ENROLL CERTAIN
DEFENSE INDUSTRY CIVILIANS IN SPECIFIED PROGRAMS RELATING TO DEFENSE PRODUCT
DEVELOPMENT
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enroll up
to ten defense-industry civilians at any one time at the Naval
Postgraduate School in a defense product development curriculum leading
to the award of a master's degree. The defense-industry civilians would
be joined in the curriculum by Department of Defense civilian and
military personnel who themselves are engaged in defense product
development. The committee believes that the new authority granted by
this section will create a shared learning environment that will
facilitate the growth and development of government-industry
partnerships that are critical to faster and more efficient defense
acquisition.
SUBTITLE D--DECORATIONS, AWARDS, AND COMMENDATIONS
SECTION 531--AUTHORITY FOR AWARD OF THE MEDAL OF HONOR TO ANDREW J.
SMITH FOR VALOR DURING THE CIVIL WAR
This section would waive the statutory time limitations for the award
of the Medal of Honor to Andrew J. Smith for valor during the Battle of
Honey Hill in South Carolina.
SECTION 532--AUTHORITY FOR AWARD OF THE MEDAL OF HONOR TO ED W. FREEMAN
FOR VALOR DURING THE VIETNAM CONFLICT
This section would waive the statutory time limitations for the award
of the Medal of Honor to Ed W. Freeman for valor during the battle of
the IaDrang Valley in the Republic of Vietnam.
SECTION 533--CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS FOR POSTHUMOUS OR HONORARY
PROMOTIONS OR APPOINTMENTS OF MEMBERS OR FORMER MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND
OTHER QUALIFIED PERSONS
This section would authorize Members of Congress to request the
secretary concerned review a proposal for posthumous or honorary
promotion or appointment of a member or former member of the armed
services or other person. The section would require the secretary
concerned to review the case and provide the Senate Committee on Armed
Services, the House Committee on Armed Services, and the requesting
Member of Congress written notice of one of the following
determinations, to include a statement of the reasons supporting the
determination:
(1) The appointment or promotion does not warrant approval on the
merits.
(2) The appointment of promotion warrants approval on the merits and
has been recommended to the President as an exception to policy.
(3) The appointment or promotion warrants approval on the merits and
authorization by law is required, but not recommended.
The committee is concerned that requests for posthumous or honorary
promotions and appointments are being considered by Congress without the
benefit of the views of the service secretaries.
SECTION 534--WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS FOR AWARD OF NAVY DISTINGUISHED
FLYING CROSS TO CERTAIN PERSONS
This section would waive the statutory time limitations for the award
of Distinguished Flying Cross to individuals recommended for award of
the Distinguished Flying Cross by the secretaries of the military
departments.
SECTION 535--ADDITION OF CERTAIN INFORMATION TO MARKERS ON GRAVES
CONTAINING REMAINS OF CERTAIN UNKNOWNS FROM THE U.S.S. ARIZONA WHO DIED IN THE
JAPANESE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR ON DECEMBER 7, 1941
This section would require that the Secretary of the Army, based on a
review of existing information related to the interment of unknown
casualties from the U.S.S. Arizona, provide the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs with information to be added to the inscriptions on the grave
markers of those unknowns who are interred at the National Memorial
Cemetery of the Pacific, Honolulu, Hawaii.
SECTION 536--SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING FINAL CREW OF U.S.S.
INDIANAPOLIS
This section would express the Sense of Congress that the commander
of the U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS, Admiral (then Captain) Charles Butler McVay
III was not culpable for the sinking of the ship. The section would also
express the Sense of Congress that the President should award the
Presidential Unit Citation to the final crew of the U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS
for courage and fortitude after the torpedo attack.
SECTION 537--POSTHUMOUS ADVANCEMENT OF REAR ADMIRAL (RETIRED) HUSBAND
E. KIMMEL AND MAJOR GENERAL (RETIRED) WALTER C. SHORT ON RETIRED LISTS
This section would request the President to advance Rear Admiral
Husband E. Kimmel to admiral and Major General Walter Short to
lieutenant general on the retired list with no increase in compensation
or benefits. The provision also expresses the Sense of Congress that
both officers were professional and competent, and the losses incurred
during the attack on Pearl Harbor were not the result of dereliction in
the performance of duties in the case of either officer.
SECTION 538--COMMENDATION OF CITIZENS OF REMY, FRANCE, FOR WORLD WAR II
ACTIONS
This section would commend the bravery and honor of the citizens of
Remy, France for their action to bury Lieutenant Houston Braly, 364th
Fighter Group, during World War II. The section would also recognize the
efforts of the surviving members of the United States 364th Fighter
Group to raise funds to restore the stained glass windows of Remy's 13th
century church that were destroyed.
SUBTITLE E--MILITARY JUSTICE MATTERS
SECTION 541--RECOGNITION BY STATES OF MILITARY TESTAMENTARY INSTRUMENTS
This section would amend chapter 53 of title 10, United States Code,
to require the fifty states of the United States, the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands and each territory and possession of the United
States, to include Guam, American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands, and the Virgin Islands to recognize a will prepared for
a person eligible to receive legal assistance under section 1044 of
title 10, United Sates Code. This section would also ensure that wills
prepared by members of the armed forces, their spouses, and other
persons eligible for legal assistance are admitted for state probate
proceedings. This section would also simplify will preparation for
eligible personnel and afford them greater certainty and security in
accomplishing their testamentary intent.
SECTION 542--PROBABLE CAUSE REQUIRED FOR ENTRY OF NAMES OF SUBJECTS
INTO OFFICIAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE REPORTS
This section would require the Department of Defense to apply the
``probable cause'' standard before titling a crime suspect. This section
would also require the Secretary of Defense to amend the standards and
procedures for the removal of titling information from the Defense
Clearance and Investigations Index to permit the removal of a titled
person's name by the head of the submitting Defense Criminal
Investigative Organization when there is reason to believe that the
titling is in error, a person is falsely accused, no crime occurred, or
the entry does not serve the interests of justice.
The committee is concerned that the standard of the Department of
Defense for titling a crime suspect as established by Department of
Defense Instruction 5505.7 requires ``credible information.'' This
standard appears to be significantly different from the ``probable
cause'' standard common in state and federal criminal procedure.
SECTION 543--COLLECTION AND USE OF DNA IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION FROM
VIOLENT AND SEXUAL OFFENDERS IN THE ARMED FORCES
This section would require the secretaries of the military
departments to collect a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sample from each
member of the armed forces who is, or has been, convicted of a violent
or sexual offense. This section would also require the Secretary of
Defense to analyze each sample and furnish the results of each DNA
analysis to the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
for use in the Combined DNA Index System of the FBI.
SECTION 544--LIMITATION ON SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY TO GRANT CLEMENCY FOR
MILITARY PRISONERS SERVING SENTENCE OF CONFINEMENT FOR LIFE WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY
FOR PAROLE
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to make two
changes to the procedures for considering clemency for prisoners serving
sentences of life without parole. First, the authority for the granting
of clemency to prisoners serving sentences of life without parole would
be vested solely in the secretary of the military department concerned
and would not be delegable to any other person. The section would also
establish as a minimum that a prisoner will have served twenty years of
a sentence of life without parole before being eligible for
consideration for clemency. The committee is
aware that a majority of the members of the Department of
Defense Corrections Council has recommended these or similar actions.
The committee supports these recommendations to ensure that prisoners
serving sentences of life without parole will remain incarcerated for a
significantly longer period of time than would otherwise be expected for
prisoners serving lesser sentences.
SECTION 545--AUTHORITY FOR CIVILIAN SPECIAL AGENTS OF MILITARY
DEPARTMENT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE ORGANIZATIONS TO EXECUTE WARRANTS AND MAKE
ARRESTS
This section would authorize the secretaries of the military
departments to grant the authority to execute and serve warrants and
make arrests to the civilian special agents of their respective military
criminal investigative organization subject to certain guidelines.
SUBTITLE F--OTHER MATTERS
SECTION 551--FUNERAL HONORS DUTY COMPENSATION
This section would authorize a reserve component member assigned to a
funeral honors detail for the funeral of a veteran to be compensated at
the same rate as the member would be compensated for participating in
inactive-duty training.
SECTION 552--TEST OF ABILITY OF RESERVE COMPONENT INTELLIGENCE UNITS
AND PERSONNEL TO MEET CURRENT AND EMERGING DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE NEEDS
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
three-year test to determine the most effective peacetime structure and
operational employment of reserve component intelligence assets for
meeting future Department of Defense peacetime operational intelligence
requirements, and to establish a means of coordinating the transition of
the peacetime operational support network into wartime requirements.
SECTION 553--NATIONAL GUARD CHALLENGE PROGRAM
This section would authorize the head of a federal agency or
department to provide funds to the Secretary of Defense to support the
National Guard Challenge Program, and would allow the Secretary to
expend those funds notwithstanding the $62.5 million limit in defense
funding established by section 509(b) of title 32, United States Code,
for the Challenge program. The section would also require the Secretary
of Defense to establish regulations for the Challenge program.
SECTION 554--STUDY OF USE OF CIVILIAN CONTRACTOR PILOTS FOR OPERATIONAL
SUPPORT MISSIONS
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to study the
feasibility and cost of using civilian contractor personnel as pilots
and other aircrew members to fly government aircraft performing
non-combat personnel transportation missions worldwide. Military pilots
and aircrew now perform these missions. The committee recommends this
study to determine whether such contracting out would help to resolve
pilot shortages being experienced by several of the armed services, and
help to improve pilot retention.
SECTION 555--PILOT PROGRAM TO ENHANCE MILITARY RECRUITING BY IMPROVING
MILITARY AWARENESS OF SCHOOL COUNSELORS AND EDUCATORS
The committee has noted that at some locations the strained
relationship between military recruiters and student counselors and
educators limits the access of recruiters to students. The committee
believes that historical barriers between the two groups can be overcome
and access to students enhanced by improving the understanding of
student counselors and educators about military recruiting and career
opportunities.
Accordingly, this section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a pilot program to improve communication with student counselors
and educators by providing funding, assistance, and information to an
existing interactive Internet site designed to provide information and
services to employees of local education agencies and institutions of
higher education. The pilot program would be conducted during a
three-year period beginning not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment of this act.
SECTION 556--REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES INCURRED BY MEMBERS IN
CONNECTION WITH CANCELLATION OF LEAVE ON SHORT NOTICE
This section would authorize the service secretaries to reimburse
members for travel expenses when leave is cancelled within 48 hours of
commencing due to mission requirements of a contingency operation.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
OVERVIEW
The committee remains convinced that compensation provided to service
members and their families is the key to reversing unfavorable retention
trends. Surveys of military members conducted during the past year have
confirmed that compensation remains the most important factor in the
decision of service members to leave the military.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public
Law 106 65) enhanced and reformed the following compensation programs:
(1) Pay raises guaranteed to exceed private sector pay raises were
authorized.
(2) Pay table reform was implemented to recognize individual effort.
(3) Military retirement benefits were restored to pre-1986 levels.
(4) Basic allowance for housing (BAH) was increased to promise
improved reimbursement levels.
(5) Special pays and retention bonuses were initiated and increased
to improve compensation to military members.
(6) A military Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) was authorized to provide
military members a retirement savings vehicle.
The committee is committed to fulfill the promise for continued
improvement to compensation programs begun in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106 65).
The committee is pleased that the budget request for fiscal year 2001
included a pay raise of 3.7 percent, one-half of one percent above the
Employment Cost Index (ECI) level, and a program to increase BAH and
reduce out-of-pocket housing costs for members to zero by fiscal year
2005. Given the Administration's reluctance to fund adequate pay raises
and a decision to abandon after one year a prior six-year plan to reduce
out-of-pocket housing costs, the committee applauds the Administration's
improvement of military compensation programs.
The committee is disappointed that the Administration was unable to
identify the pay-go offsets needed to implement the military Thrift
Savings Plan (TSP). The committee is pleased that the Concurrent
Resolution on the Budget, Fiscal Year 2001, does include the necessary
offsets. Accordingly, the committee would authorize the military TSP to
be implemented during fiscal year 2001.
The committee is concerned that even a small percentage of military
families qualify for the food stamp program. Accordingly, the committee
would authorize a family assistance supplemental subsistence allowance
specifically targeted to increase compensation for low-income members
who qualify for food stamps. The allowance would pay members the monthly
amount of supplemental allowance required to remove them from the food
stamp program, not to exceed a maximum of $500 per month. Additionally,
the committee would authorize a series of broad-based initiatives to
enhance the fiscal welfare of young families by increasing the minimum
standards for adequate housing, increasing reimbursement for moving
costs, and reducing out-of-pocket housing costs.
The committee also recognizes that military personnel are likely to
respond positively to indications that Congress is prepared to make
substantial investments in their long-term welfare. Accordingly, the
committee would increase the maximum levels on several special pays and
would also establish a new retention bonus program that affords the
Secretary of Defense a more flexible and responsive tool to retain
service members with critical skills.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
BRIEFINGS ON BENEFITS OF MILITARY SERVICE
The committee is concerned that the armed services have not included
among the many new retention initiatives a robust program for briefing
service members on the benefits of military service. The committee
believes that retention would be improved by a program designed to
provide service members periodic briefings on benefits.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review
the current programs employed by the armed services to provide service
members information on the full array of benefits available to them. The
review shall include an assessment of program effectiveness in
communicating information on the following benefit programs, at a
minimum, as well as other programs operated by the Department of Defense
and the Department of Veterans Affairs, at the discretion of the
Secretary.
(1) Military compensation and retired pay;
(2) Health care benefits, including the TRICARE program;
(3) Survivor benefits;
(4) Montgomery G.I. Bill and other education and training
opportunities;
(5) Morale, welfare, and recreational benefits, including child care
benefits;
(6) Commissary and exchange benefits;
(7) Retirement homes operated for the benefit of former military
members; and
(8) Veteran benefits offered by the Department of Veterans Affairs,
including health care; disability benefits, education and training, home
loan guarantees, life insurance, burial benefits, and survivor benefits.
The Secretary shall also determine if the current programs providing
information on benefits to service members require modification and
expansion.
The committee directs the Secretary to report his findings and
recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2001.
EXTENSION OF TIME LIMITATION ON USE OF RESERVE EDUCATION BENEFITS
The committee is concerned that the time limitation on the use of
education benefits by members of the selected reserve detracts from the
potential of the program to promote career-long retention. Section 16331
of title 10, United States Code, provides that members of the selected
reserve who remain in an active status lose eligibility 10 years from
the date the service member becomes eligible for benefits.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the time
limitations on the use of education benefits by the selected reserve and
determine if an extension of the
time limitations is useful and cost effective. The committee
directs the Secretary to report his findings and any recommendations to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 31, 2001.
IMPROVED BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING
The committee believes that the additional funding for the basic
allowance for housing (BAH) included in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106 65) and the
proposal to reduce out-of-pocket housing costs in the fiscal year 2001
budget request will improve the quality of life for many military
members and their families. The BAH rates in high cost areas have
already been significantly increased as of January 1, 2000, pursuant to
Public Law 106 65.
The committee is concerned that some landlords will view the increase
in the BAH as an incentive to increase housing costs not only for
military members, but also for civilians in the local community. The
committee supports additional funding for the BAH to ensure that
military families receive sufficient compensation for adequate housing
as dictated by the local housing market. The committee intends to
monitor any growth in housing costs within areas that appear to be
fueled by BAH increases and not the economic forces of the local housing
market. The committee is prepared to reexamine BAH rates in areas where
there is evidence that BAH increases have unduly influenced local
housing markets.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study the growth of
housing costs in areas where the local costs of housing are believed to
be directly influenced by increases in BAH rates. The Secretary shall
report his findings and recommendations for correcting the problem to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 31 of each year of the period beginning in 2001 and
ending in 2006.
MILITARY PAY DAY EVERY 14 DAYS
The committee recognizes that the current practice of paying military
personnel twice a month causes some pay periods to be longer, thus
increasing the financial stress for military families. The committee
notes that paying military personnel every 14 days would provide
military members with more consistent pay periods.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study
whether the change to a 14-day pay period for military personnel is both
necessary and desirable. The committee directs the Secretary to report
his findings and any recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2001.
PAY TABLE REFORM FOR MID-GRADE ENLISTED MEMBERS
The committee is increasingly interested in pay increases targeted
for noncommissioned officers in pay grades E 5 through E 7. The
committee recognizes that the pay table reform provision included in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106
65) did little to restore the historic pay advantages enjoyed by
mid-grade and senior enlisted members when compared to junior enlisted
members.
The committee is concerned that more needs to be done to improve
mid-grade enlisted pay levels. Accordingly, the committee encourages the
Secretary of Defense to study the issue and present with the fiscal year
2002 budget request either a legislative proposal to remedy the concerns
of the enlisted force, or an explanation as to why the concerns of the
enlisted force are not valid.
REIMBURSEMENT FOR RESERVISTS' TRAVEL EXPENSES
The committee is concerned that some reservists incur significant
expenses traveling to inactive-duty training locations. This problem
becomes particularly acute when reserve members are forced to use
commercial air when surface transportation is not available or large
distances are involved. For example, reservists must use commercial air
between Pacific islands and some locations in Alaska.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review
the current travel practices used by reservists to meet training
obligations and determine the financial impact on members. The Secretary
will assess the potential advantages for reservists and the reserve
components of providing reimbursement for travel expenses, to include
the potential for increasing retention, improving recruiting, and
attracting higher quality members to leadership roles.
The committee directs the Secretary to report his findings and
recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2001.
REIMBURSEMENT OF PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION EXPENSES
The committee is aware of the results of a study conducted by the
Department of Defense that demonstrates that military members bear
approximately 40 percent of the cost of moving to a new duty station.
The committee is deeply concerned that personnel in the grades E 4 and
below bear approximately 70 percent of the financial burden to change
permanent duty stations (PCS).
The committee intends to focus on improving PCS reimbursements.
Accordingly, the committee strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense
to develop a legislative proposal designed to enhance PCS reimbursement
levels and to submit such a proposal with the fiscal year 2002 budget
request.
RETIRED PAY FOLLOWING REDUCTION IN GRADE
The committee notes that during calendar year 2000 longevity retired
pay for members of the uniformed services who entered service after
September 8, 1980, will be calculated based on the average of the
highest 36 months of base pay. The committee is concerned that members
covered by the high-36 rule will enjoy a windfall when reduced in grade
due to misconduct prior to retirement. Under high-36 procedures, the
retired pay of such personnel is largely based on the grade held by the
member prior to the reduction in grade.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to study
the need for legislation to provide an alternative method for
calculating retired pay when a member has been reduced in grade due to
misconduct. The Secretary shall report his finding and recommendations
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services by March 31, 2001.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SUBTITLE A--PAY AND ALLOWANCES
SECTION 601--INCREASE IN BASIC PAY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
This section would authorize a 3.7 percent military pay raise
effective January 1, 2001. This pay raise would be one-half of one
percent more than the pay raise that would result if the Employment Cost
Index (ECI) standard were used.
The committee strongly supports this pay raise and believes it is
critical that military members receive military pay increases over the
next five years that improve their level of pay compared to the private
sector, as authorized in section 602 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106 65).
SECTION 602--REVISED METHOD FOR CALCULATION OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR
SUBSISTENCE
The committee believes that the program to transition the basic
allowance for subsistence (BAS) for enlisted members to a lower rate
established in section 602 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105 85) is no longer serving the best
interests of service members.
Accordingly, this section would repeal the transition program
effective October 1, 2001, and establish a process for increasing the
BAS rate in effect for the prior year by the increase in food costs as
determined by the Department of Agriculture.
The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to pay eligible
service members a partial BAS effective January 1, 2002 equal to rate of
BAS reduced by the rate of Basic Daily Food Allowance as determined by
the Secretary.
SECTION 603--FAMILY SUBSISTENCE SUPPLEMENTAL ALLOWANCE FOR LOW-INCOME
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES
The committee is concerned that a number of service members are
eligible to receive food stamps. Although the number of members
receiving food stamps has been reduced from the 12,000 estimated in
1996, there are still 6,300 service members believed to be relying on
food stamps to meet the nutritional needs of family members.
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a
program to pay members who qualify for food stamps a monthly amount to
supplement the basic allowance for subsistence (BAS). The program would
pay members who qualify for food stamps the amount of supplemental
allowance necessary to make them ineligible for food stamps, up to a
maximum of $500 dollars per month. The member's eligibility for food
stamps would be determined by DOD officials using the same gross income
standards used by state officials to determine food stamp eligibility
for the general public, except that the income for all military members
would be calculated to include the payment of basic allowance for
housing (BAH) even when the member resides in government quarters.
SECTION 604--CALCULATION OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING FOR INSIDE THE
UNITED STATES
This section would repeal the requirement that service members pay 15
percent of housing costs out-of-pocket. The section would also authorize
the Secretary of Defense to increase basic allowance for housing rates
and to reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses for military members to
zero by fiscal year 2005.
SECTION 605--EQUITABLE TREATMENT OF JUNIOR ENLISTED MEMBERS IN
COMPUTATION OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a
single housing rate for members in grades E 1 through E 4 with
dependents and to increase the basic allowance for housing rate paid to
such members above the rate previously paid to members in grade E 4.
SECTION 606--BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING AUTHORIZED FOR ADDITIONAL
MEMBERS WITHOUT DEPENDENTS WHO ARE ON SEA DUTY
This section would include personnel in the grade of E 4 among those
authorized to receive basic allowance for housing (BAH) while assigned
to sea duty.
The committee notes that some personnel authorized to receive BAH
while assigned to sea duty do not maintain residences on shore when
their ships are deployed. The committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy to study this issue. The committee directs the Secretary to submit
a report on his findings and any recommendations to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31,
2001.
SECTION 607--PERSONAL MONEY ALLOWANCE FOR SENIOR ENLISTED MEMBERS OF
THE ARMED FORCES
This section would authorize a $2,000 personal money allowance to the
senior enlisted members in each of the armed services.
SECTION 608--ALLOWANCE FOR OFFICERS FOR PURCHASE OF REQUIRED UNIFORMS
AND EQUIPMENT
This section would increase the one-time initial uniform allowance
paid to officers from $200 to $400, and the one-time additional uniform
allowance paid to officers from $100 to $200.
SECTION 609--INCREASE IN MONTHLY SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE FOR MEMBERS OF
PRECOMMISSIONING PROGRAMS
This section would increase the minimum stipend to $250 per month,
and establish a maximum stipend of $600 per month, and it also would
provide the Secretary of Defense the authority to establish a
tiered-stipend system. Under such a system, the committee intends that
the value of the monthly stipend should grow as a student's involvement
in ROTC grows. The changes contained in this section would be effective
on October 1, 2001. The committee is aware that the senior Reserve
Officers Training Corps (ROTC) programs of the Army and the Air Force
continue to have difficulty meeting officer commissioning objectives.
The committee notes that the Army may miss its objectives by 20 percent,
and the Air Force by five percent for fiscal year 2000. The committee
further notes that the Department of Defense has reported a 20 percent
reduction in the number of ROTC scholarship applications, and that the
current monthly fixed subsistence stipend of $200 paid to all contracted
cadets is ineffective as a recruiting and retention measure. The
committee is concerned by these trends in the ROTC program and believes
that a fundamental change is required.
SECTION 610--ADDITIONAL AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 INCREASE
IN BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING INSIDE THE UNITED STATES
The committee remains concerned that military families are not
receiving sufficient reimbursement for housing. The committee is pleased
that the budget request included an initiative to decrease out-of-pocket
housing cost for service members, but the committee is disappointed that
the initiative would only reduce out-of-pocket housing costs to 15
percent.
Accordingly, this section would increase the funding available for
basic allowance for housing by $30.0 million. This initiative would
reduce out-of-pocket housing costs by an additional one-half of one
percent.
SUBTITLE B--BONUSES AND SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS
SECTION 611--EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL PAY AUTHORITIES
FOR RESERVE FORCES
This section would extend the authority for the special pay for
health care professionals who serve in the selected reserve in
critically short wartime specialties, the selected reserve reenlistment
bonus, the selected reserve enlistment bonus, special pay for enlisted
members of the selected reserve assigned to certain high priority units,
the selected reserve affiliation bonus, the ready reserve enlistment and
reenlistment bonus, and the prior service enlistment bonus until
December 31, 2001. This section would also extend the authority for
repayment of educational loans for certain health care professionals who
serve in the selected reserve until January 1, 2002.
SECTION 612--EXTENSION OF CERTAIN BONUSES AND SPECIAL PAY AUTHORITIES
FOR NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATES, REGISTERED NURSES AND NURSE ANESTHETISTS
This section would extend the authority for the nurse officer
candidate accession program, the accession bonus for registered nurses,
and the incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists until December 31,
2001.
SECTION 613--EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES RELATING TO PAYMENT OF OTHER
BONUSES AND SPECIAL PAYS
This section would extend the authority for the aviation officer
retention bonus, reenlistment bonus for active members, enlistment bonus
for persons with critical skills, Army enlistment bonus, special pay for
nuclear qualified officers extending the period of active service,
nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive
bonus to December 31, 2001.
SECTION 614--CONSISTENCY OF AUTHORITIES FOR SPECIAL PAY FOR RESERVE
MEDICAL AND DENTAL OFFICERS
This section would clarify that reserve medical and dental officers
are paid special pay in a consistent manner.
SECTION 615--SPECIAL PAY FOR COAST GUARD PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS
This section would extend the authority to pay special pay currently
provided to physician assistants in the military departments to
physician assistants in the Coast Guard.
SECTION 616--SPECIAL DUTY ASSIGNMENT PAY FOR ENLISTED MEMBERS
This section would increase the maximum amount that may be paid in
special duty assignment pay from $275 to $600 per month.
The committee notes that recruiters would be eligible for this
increase. Given the stress associated with recruiting duty and the
importance of attracting quality service members to recruiting duty, the
committee recommends that the secretaries of the military departments
begin to pay increased rates of special duty assignment pay to
production recruiters at the earliest date possible.
SECTION 617--REVISION OF CAREER SEA PAY
This section would authorize the secretary concerned to restructure
career sea pay and increase the rates of career sea pay to a maximum of
$750 per month and the rates for premium sea pay to $350 per month after
36 months of sea duty.
The committee continues to be concerned that the eroding value of sea
pay has contributed to the shortage of personnel in some sea-going
positions. The committee looks forward to the implementation of enhanced
sea pay rates by the uniformed services at the earliest opportunity.
SECTION 618--REVISION OF ENLISTMENT BONUS AUTHORITY
This section would consolidate existing enlistment bonus authorities
and establish a maximum amount of $20,000 that may be paid to any
enlistee.
SECTION 619--AUTHORIZATION OF RETENTION BONUS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED
FORCES QUALIFIED IN A CRITICAL MILITARY SKILL
The section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to implement a
critical skill retention bonus program providing payments up to $200,000
over the course of the career of a military member effective 90 days
after providing notice of the details of the program to Congress.
The committee is concerned that the Secretary of Defense does not
have a retention tool sufficiently flexible to allow skill-specific
retention problems to be addressed in a timely manner.
SECTION 620--ELIMINATION OF REQUIRED CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE
IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN SPECIAL PAY AUTHORITY
This section would eliminate the requirement for the secretary
concerned to notify Congress of the intent to pay special pay to
optometrists and nurse anesthetists.
SUBTITLE C--TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES
SECTION 631--ADVANCE PAYMENTS FOR TEMPORARY LODGING OF MEMBERS AND
DEPENDENTS
This section would authorize advance payment of temporary lodging and
living expenses incident to permanent changes in station.
SECTION 632--ADDITIONAL TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE REGARDING BAGGAGE AND
HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS
This section would authorize the secretaries concerned to reimburse a
member for mandatory pet quarantine fees for household pets up to a
maximum of $275 when the member incurs the fees incident to a permanent
change of station.
SECTION 633--EQUITABLE DISLOCATION ALLOWANCES FOR JUNIOR ENLISTED
MEMBERS
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to increase the
amount of dislocation allowance paid to service members with dependents
in pay grades E 1 through E 4 to the amount paid to service members in
pay grade E 5.
SECTION 634--AUTHORITY TO REIMBURSE MILITARY RECRUITERS, SENIOR ROTC
CADRE, AND MILITARY ENTRANCE PROCESSING PERSONNEL FOR CERTAIN PARKING EXPENSES
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to reimburse
service members and civilian employees for expenses incurred in parking
their privately owned vehicles at their duty locations if they are
assigned to duty as a recruiter, with a military entrance processing
facility, or with a Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps detachment.
SECTION 635--EXPANSION OF FUNDED STUDENT TRAVEL FOR DEPENDENTS
This section would authorize funded student travel payments to be
made for students pursuing graduate and vocational education programs in
addition to secondary and undergraduate education programs.
SUBTITLE D--RETIREMENT AND SURVIVOR BENEFIT MATTERS
SECTION 641--INCREASE IN MAXIMUM NUMBER OF RESERVE RETIREMENT POINTS
THAT MAY BE CREDITED IN ANY YEAR
This section would increase from 75 to 90 the maximum number of days
in any one year that a reservist may accrue as credit towards retirement
benefits by permitting a reservist to earn more points each year for
attending drills, performing annual training and completing
correspondence courses.
SECTION 642--RESERVE COMPONENT SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN SPOUSAL CONSENT
REQUIREMENT
This section would require retirement-eligible reservists to obtain
the concurrence of their spouses before making a decision to decline or
defer participation in the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit Plan, to
select a level of participation that is less than the maximum available,
or to select the coverage of a child but not the spouse. This section
would conform the procedures for the Reserve Component Survivor Benefit
Plan to the procedures for the active component Survivor Benefit Plan.
SUBTITLE E--OTHER MATTERS
SECTION 651--PARTICIPATION IN THRIFT SAVINGS PLAN
This section would authorize active duty and reserve members of the
uniformed services to deposit up to five percent of their basic pay,
before tax, each month in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) now available
for federal civil service employees. The section would not require the
employing department to match the member's contributions. This section
would also authorize members to deposit special pays, incentive pays,
and bonuses into a TSP account up to the extent allowable under the
Internal Revenue Code. The section would also authorize the secretary
concerned to make contributions to the TSP account belonging to members
serving in a critical specialty as a retention incentive.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee was encouraged by the early, strong commitment late
last year by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to make major
reforms in the Department of Defense health program a part of the budget
request for fiscal year 2001.
Notwithstanding that commitment, the budget request unfortunately
provided only a shadow of the program support and improvements
recommended by the Joint Chiefs. The request was notably bereft of any
initiatives to improve military health care benefits available to
Medicare-eligible military retirees.
In the face of an incomplete reform effort by the Department of
Defense, and in order to better understand the full range of reforms
required, the committee undertook a deliberate oversight and fact
finding effort that included field hearings. These hearings, as well as
informal staff investigations and meetings, provided all stake
holders--beneficiaries, advocacy groups, health care providers and
contractors, as well as the Department of Defense--the ability to
present options and information upon which the committee could base
reform decisions. The oversight developed several significant findings,
to include:
(1) The provision of a prescription drug benefit to Medicare-eligible
military retirees and their dependents was given the highest priority by
all stakeholders.
(2) Neither the Department of Defense, nor Congress, had sufficient
information to move the currently running health care demonstration
programs for the military Medicare-eligible beneficiaries from the
demonstration to the permanent program stage.
(3) The cost to the Defense Health Program (DHP) to process claims
was found to be three to four times that of Medicare's cost per claim.
As a result, the committee determined that hundreds of millions of
dollars annually could be saved through investment in reform of the DHP
claims system.
(4) Access to care was severely hampered by the lack of effective use
of information technology and funding limits that reduced use of
military treatment facilities. The difficulty in getting access to care
generated enormous frustration among beneficiaries with the TRICARE
system.
(5) Despite a continuing promise that the medical benefits would be
portable from one region of the country to the next, military personnel
and their families repeatedly found that not to be the case.
To address these and other issues, the committee recommends a range
of initiatives to improve and reform the DHP for all beneficiaries
including active, retired and the Medicare-eligible. These reforms are
explained in more detail below in their respective sections, but can be
summarized as follows by saying that the committee recommends:
(1) Implementation of a TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program to provide
the same level of benefits for Medicare-eligible military retirees as is
now available to other TRICARE beneficiaries through the mail order
pharmacy program and retail pharmacies.
(2) Extension until 2003 of the current Medicare related
demonstration programs to ensure each program receives a fair and
comprehensive test, with an independent oversight effort required to
make recommendations to Congress on what a permanent program of health
care for the Medicare-eligibles should provide.
(3) Claims processing reform, with additional investment funding
recommended to the DHP to kick-start the reform effort.
(4) Required use of Internet based systems to help improve claims
processing, access to health care and portability of benefits.
(5) Additional funding to increase use of the military treatment
facilities through the hiring of additional support staff, refurbishment
of facilities, and procurement of technology and equipment.
While the committee believes that the reforms recommended here will
move DHP reform forward significantly, other challenges will remain to
ensure that the DHP is adequately funded and managed. To that end, the
committee recommendations also include requirements for the Secretary of
Defense to determine if accrual funding of the DHP is necessary, and to
assess whether mandatory enrollment of beneficiaries should be required
as a possible future step.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
FUNDING FOR THE DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
The committee is deeply concerned about the persistent inattention
demonstrated by the Department of Defense to adequately fund the Defense
Health Program. The committee received testimony that the underfunding
will reach $6.0 billion over the future years defense plan. Two
foreseeable and unfortunate responses by military health care managers
to this chronic underfunding have resulted: reduced funding for
maintenance and repair of facilities, and the delay or elimination of
infrastructure and technology investments in order to avoid reductions
in the provision of health care services. These two critical budget
areas are key components of an effective Defense Health Program.
Continuing to underfund these areas will result in less efficient
facilities and, ultimately, in a reduction in the amount and quality of
services available.
The committee is pleased by the active participation of the senior
uniformed leadership of the Department of Defense in the important
decisions affecting the management of the military health care system.
The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to foster this level
of participation and to ensure the health system is funded to a level
that not only provides for continuous patient care, but also invests in
the health system infrastructure to ensure the long-term effectiveness
of the system.
PREVENTIVE HEALTH CARE SERVICES
The committee notes the recent report of the Secretary of Defense,
prepared pursuant to the committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106
162) describing the scope of preventive health care benefits provided to
all eligible TRICARE beneficiaries. The report favorably compared the
TRICARE preventive benefits to those recommended by the American Academy
of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the Agency
for Health Research and Quality. At the committee's direction, the
Secretary
also evaluated implementation of the ``Put Prevention into
Practice'' (PPIP) initiative prepared by each service and concluded that
PPIP needs to be more effectively and uniformly implemented. The
committee concurs with that assessment and directs the Secretary to
submit a report by March 1, 2001, to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on the steps taken to
improve the implementation of the PPIP initiative.
REPORT ON COMPUTER-BASED PATIENT RECORD AND MEDICAL RECORDS TRACKING
SYSTEM
The committee notes the on-going cooperation between the Department
of Defense (DOD), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and the
Indian Health Service to develop a Government Computer-Based Patient
Record (GCPR) system. The GCPR system would serve as the core of a
medical digital network by linking the agencies' currently incompatible
health information systems to provide a life-long medical record for all
service members. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
provide an annual report, beginning March 1, 2001, to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on
the progress to date and the remaining timelines and tasks associated
with integrating these medical information systems. The committee
further directs the Comptroller General of the United States to evaluate
the program with a focus on the agencies' plans for meeting critical
GCPR milestones, including budget and cost estimates, and issues related
to data quality, privacy, and security. The Comptroller General shall
report on his findings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2001.
While GCPR will provide for the timely transfer of patient records in
the future, the committee has recently learned that the Military
Personnel Records section of the National Personnel Records Center
(NPRC) has been unable to provide timely retrieval of complete medical
records needed for adjudication of claims filed with the VA. Many
medical records needed by veterans cannot be retrieved because the
records are filed according to the treating hospital or other facilities
and copies or reference to hospitalization are normally not included in
the service member's records. The committee understands that DOD has
been working since 1995 on a Medical Records Tracking System (MRTS) to
facilitate the supply of this information to the Medical Records
Registry System being developed by the VA and the NPRC. The committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31,
2001, on the progress of the MRTS and any interim measures to assure
that all hospital and medical records of service members can be easily
identified.
REPORT ON MANDATORY ENROLLMENT PROGRAM FOR TRICARE BENEFICARIES
The committee is aware that military beneficiaries are required to
enroll in the Department of Defense TRICARE Prime option if they wish to
participate in the managed care program. Enrollment provides the
Department of Defense a valuable management tool on which manpower,
budget, contracting, and other management decisions are based. The
committee is concerned that the same degree of analytic rigor cannot be
brought to bear on decisions related to beneficiaries using the point of
service options under TRICARE because there is no mandatory enrollment
requirement. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
study of the benefits to be gained by requiring TRICARE beneficiaries to
enroll in any of the Department's TRICARE programs. The study should
include, but not be limited to, an analysis of the benefits of requiring
eligible beneficiaries to enroll in TRICARE Prime or risk being
prohibited from using the Department of Defense military treatment
facilities. The report should include an analysis of the value of
requiring all non-active duty beneficiaries to pay a small enrollment
fee to enroll in any TRICARE program. The report shall be submitted to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than March 31, 2001.
SUBTITLE A--HEALTH CARE SERVICES
SECTION 701--TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR USE OF CONTRACT
PHYSICIANS AT MILITARY ENTRANCE PROCESSING STATIONS AND ELSEWHERE OUTSIDE MEDICAL
TREATMENT FACILITIES
This section would extend for two years, from December 31, 2000, the
authority of the Secretary of Defense to contract with physicians to
provide health care and new-recruit examination services at military
entrance processing stations and other locations. The extension would
permit the Secretary of Defense to complete tests of alternative methods
for streamlining the new-recruit medical screening and make
recommendations for changes to Congress.
SECTION 702--MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE FOR MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENTS
This section would authorize Medal of Honor recipients who are not
otherwise entitled to military medical and dental care and the
dependents of those recipients to be given medical and dental care in
the same manner that such care is provided to former members who are
entitled to military retired pay and the dependents of those former
members.
SECTION 703--PROVISION OF DOMICILIARY AND CUSTODIAL CARE FOR CHAMPUS
BENEFICIARIES AND CERTAIN FORMER CHAMPUS BENEFICIARIES
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to reimburse
certain former Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed
Services (CHAMPUS) beneficiaries for costs incurred for custodial or
domiciliary care services during a period of temporary ineligibility for
such services under CHAMPUS. The section would also authorize a maximum
expenditure for the continuing custodial care program at $100.0 million.
SECTION 704--DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR EXPANDED ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH
COUNSELORS
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
demonstration project to determine the effect of increasing access to
certified professional mental health counselors by removing the
requirement for physician referral prior to engaging a counselor under
the TRICARE program. The committee is aware that certified professional
mental health counselors are only authorized to be reimbursed by TRICARE
for treating military beneficiaries if a physician refers those
beneficiaries to the counselors. The committee views this referral
requirement as possibly unnecessary and would test the effect of lifting
the requirement in a demonstration project to be conducted in one
TRICARE region over a two year period.
SECTION 705--TELERADIOLOGY DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to implement a
teleradiology demonstration project for the purpose of increasing
efficiency of operations and coordination between outlying clinics and a
major military medical facility (MTF). The teleradiology initiative
would be demonstrated at a multi-specialty tertiary care MTF with a
university medical school affiliation and would link at least 5
geographically-dispersed Army, Navy and Air Force clinics as well as
remote Department of Veterans Affairs and Coast Guard health care
clinics. Once implemented, the initiative would be unique in having all
but one of the medical facilities in a single TRICARE region using a
common Composite Health Care System (CHCS) data platform. The committee
expects this teleradiology initiative to increase the efficiency of
patient and provider contacts, particularly in the need for follow-up
diagnostic and therapeutic appointments. The project will demonstrate
the usefulness of teleradiology by eliminating many follow-up
appointments and accelerating the processing, reading and interpretation
of radiographic exam imagery prior to providing clinical reports and
consultation to the primary care providers in the outlying clinics. To
fund this demonstration project in fiscal year 2001, the committee
authorizes an increase of $1.5 million in the amount requested for the
Defense Health Program.
SUBTITLE B--TRICARE PROGRAM
SECTION 711--ADDITIONAL BENEFICIARIES UNDER TRICARE PRIME REMOTE
PROGRAM IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES
This section would repeal the requirement for co-payments by family
members of active duty military members under TRICARE Prime Remote and
would require the same access and claims processing standards as would
be available under TRICARE Prime. This section would also extend this
program to all uniformed service personnel and their immediate family
members as described in section 101 of title 10, United States Code.
The committee is concerned that family members accompanying an active
duty member who is stationed in a location that is remote from military
treatment facilities must pay TRICARE co-payments not normally required
of active duty families that have access to military treatment
facilities.
SECTION 712--ELIMINATION OF COPAYMENTS FOR IMMEDIATE FAMILY
This section would repeal the requirement for co-payments by family
members of active duty military members enrolled in TRICARE Prime.
The committee is aware that some active duty families enrolled in
TRICARE Prime do not pay co-payments when they receive care in military
treatment facilities, while others are required to pay co-payments for
care received as a result of a referral from a military treatment
facility to a civilian network provider when the required care is not
available at the military treatment facility. This section would
eliminate that inequity.
SECTION 713--MODERNIZATION OF TRICARE BUSINESS PRACTICES AND INCREASE
OF USE OF MILITARY TREATMENT FACILITIES
This section would require managers for the Department of Defense
TRICARE program to implement improvements in business practices by the
end of fiscal year 2001, and would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a plan for improving TRICARE business practices by March 15,
2001, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on Armed Services and require implementation of the plan by October 1,
2001. This section would also establish improvement benchmarks for the
TRICARE program in the area of portability of the benefit. This section
would also require the Secretary of Defense to simplify and
Internet-enable critical administrative processes within the military
health system and TRICARE and authorize the Department of Defense to
work with a managed care support contractor to build an open
architecture model administration system in one TRICARE managed care
region.
The committee also recommends an increase of $134.5 million in the
amount requested for the Defense Health Program in fiscal year 2001 to
be used solely for the purpose of maximizing the use of military
treatment facilities. The committee recommends $85.5 million to provide
additional support staff to primary care providers in the military
direct care system, $20.0 million to support procurement of a local
appointing and scheduling system, and $29.0 million to support local
customer service and support initiatives. While the committee expects
these funds to be used to improve access at the military treatment
facilities, the committee also directs that the planning and
installation of the local appointing and scheduling and customer service
operations be coordinated with the regional managed care support
contractors in order to integrate and synchronize the local systems with
regional applications the managed care support contractors might be
operating to the maximum extent possible.
The committee remains concerned that the Department of Defense is not
taking full advantage of business practices and technologies that could
result in increased provider satisfaction or budgetary savings, which
could be redirected to providing increased benefits. The committee
believes opportunities exist for immediate improvements in the areas of
claims processing, appointment access, and benefit portability. The
committee also continues to be concerned that the scheduling of
appointments for beneficiaries is difficult. Many of the administrative
procedures currently employed by TRICARE program managers and claims
administrators are relics of the Civilian Health and Medical Program of
the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) program. The model system would fully
exploit all available technologies to enhance beneficiary and provider
satisfaction and improve TRICARE efficiency.
SECTION 714--CLAIMS PROCESSING IMPROVEMENTS
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to implement
several changes to the TRICARE claims processing system. These actions
include: replacing the Health Care Service Record (HCSR) with the
TRICARE Encounter Data system, separating the HCSR and claims payment
components of the claims adjudication and payment system, requiring high
volume TRICARE providers to submit claims by electronic means, and
increasing the use of automated voice response unit systems for
determining claims status. The committee has also coordinated with the
research and development subcommittee to recommend an increase of $3.6
million in the amount requested for the Defense Health Program in fiscal
year 2001 to be used only for the purpose of implementing the TRICARE
Encounter Data system as a replacement for the HCSR during fiscal year
2001. During field hearings and in discussions with TRICARE providers,
the committee learned that providers were dissatisfied with TRICARE
payment levels seemingly unnecessary, administrative requirements and
continuing slow claims payment practices. The committee notes the
concern of health care providers that the timeliness of claims
processing continues to be a problem, hampering the program's ability to
attract and retain qualified health care providers. Several witnesses
also testified that processing TRICARE claims could cost three to four
times the cost of similar Medicare claims. The committee is concerned
that the Department of Defense continues to spend money on
administration that could be used to provide valuable benefits to
military beneficiaries.
SECTION 715--PROHIBITION AGAINST REQUIREMENT FOR PRIOR AUTHORIZATION
FOR CERTAIN REFERRALS; REPORT ON NONAVAILABILITY-OF-HEALTH-CARE STATEMENTS
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from requiring
any TRICARE managed care support contractors to establish prior approval
requirements among network providers.
The committee is concerned that some TRICARE patients are being
needlessly required to seek approval prior to being referred to another
specialist or institution within the TRICARE network of providers and
institutions.
SECTION 716--AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH SPECIAL LOCALITY-BASED
REIMBURSEMENT RATES; REPORTS
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish
higher rates for reimbursement for services in some localities under
certain conditions.
The committee is aware that there are a few areas in the United
States where recruitment of health care providers into the TRICARE
provider networks is hampered by TRICARE provider reimbursement rates
which are unusually low, compared to the prevailing local or other
governmental reimbursement rates.
SECTION 717--REIMBURSEMENT FOR CERTAIN TRAVEL EXPENSES
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to reimburse
TRICARE beneficiaries for their reasonable expenses incurred while
traveling to a referral more than 100 miles from the location at which
they normally receive their primary care services. Provisions under
TRICARE managed care support contracts require network providers to
limit their referrals to specialists available within a one hour drive.
However, exceptions are allowed under certain circumstances. These so
called ``drive time waivers'' can require TRICARE beneficiaries to
travel great distances at their own expense only because a particular
specialist is not available within the local network of TRICARE
providers. To fund this policy change in fiscal year 2001, the committee
authorizes an increase of $15.0 million in the amount requested for the
Defense Health Program.
SECTION 718--REDUCTION OF CATASTROPHIC CAP
This section would reduce the maximum amount retired TRICARE
beneficiaries could pay under TRICARE to $3000 per family. To fund this
policy change in fiscal year 2001, the committee authorizes an increase
of $32.0 million in the amount requested for the Defense Health Program.
TRICARE beneficiaries not enrolled in TRICARE Prime face potential
medical expenses of up to $7500 per family. The committee is concerned
that as a result of the decreasing amount of space available care to
which the retired beneficiary population has access, more families of
retired military personnel who are not enrolled in TRICARE Prime will
face these burdensome medical expenses.
SECTION 719--REPORT ON PROTECTIONS AGAINST HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
SEEKING DIRECT REIMBURSEMENT FROM MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES
The section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report by January 31, 2001, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services on ways to discourage or
prohibit TRICARE health care providers from seeking inappropriate direct
reimbursement from military service members or their families for
eligible health care services.
The committee is concerned that the financial credit status of
military service members or their family members is being adversely
affected by the inability of health care providers to receive
reimbursements from TRICARE in a timely manner.
SECTION 720--DISENROLLMENT PROCESS FOR TRICARE RETIREE DENTAL PROGRAM
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to permit
retirees who enrolled in the Department of Defense Retiree Dental
Program to disenroll from the program under certain circumstances.
SUBTITLE C HEALTH CARE PROGRAMS FOR MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE BENEFICIARIES
SECTION 721--IMPLEMENTATION OF TRICARE SENIOR PHARMACY PROGRAM
This section would authorize establishment of the TRICARE Senior
Pharmacy Program. The TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program would provide
Medicare eligible military retirees and their eligible family members
the same pharmacy benefit as is currently available to other military
health care beneficiaries through the TRICARE preferred provider and
fee-for-service options commonly referred to as TRICARE Extra and
TRICARE Standard. No enrollment fee or premium would be required, but
the co-pays and out of network deductible expenses normally associated
with these programs would apply. Participation in the program would also
require Medicare-eligible military retirees and their eligible family
members to be enrolled in the Medicare Part B supplemental medical
insurance program. The TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Program would make
available the full range of prescription pharmaceuticals now offered
through the Department of Defense TRICARE uniform formulary and
preserves the beneficiaries' right to choose a non-network pharmacy when
that is their best choice. Participants in the TRICARE Senior Pharmacy
Program would continue to be eligible to use the pharmacies located in
military treatment facilities. To fund this requirement in fiscal year
2001, the committee authorizes an increase of $94.0 million in the
amount requested for the Defense Health Program.
SECTION 722--STUDY ON HEALTH CARE OPTIONS FOR MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE
MILITARY RETIREES
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
study on alternatives for providing continued health care benefits for
Medicare-eligible military retirees. The section would also require the
Secretary of Defense to conduct the study through an agreement with a
federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) and require the
Secretary of Defense to appoint an independent committee to advise the
Secretary and the FFRDC on the conduct of the study. To fund this
requirement in fiscal year 2001, the committee authorizes an increase of
$2.0 million in the amount requested for the Defense Health Program.
SECTION 723--EXTENDED COVERAGE UNDER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS
PROGRAM
This section would extend the period of the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program (FEHBP) demonstration program for one year and would
require the Secretary of Defense to take the necessary actions to
encourage participation in the program to its full-authorized enrollment
level of 66,000 persons.
The committee is concerned that the FEHBP demonstration program has
not attracted sufficient retirees to be considered a true test of its
value as an alternative source of health care benefits for military
retirees. In the selection of additional sites for this program, the
committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to select at least one
site with at least 5,000 military retirees served by multiple military
installations. The committee expects such a site would show evidence
that retirees are heavily reliant on the local Department of Veterans
Administration hospitals and outpatient clinics, thereby demonstrating
the attractiveness of the FEHBP option relative to Departments of
Defense and Veterans Administration facilities. The committee also
expects such a site to be representative of both urban and rural
populations in order to test the attractiveness of the
FEHBP option for persons with easy access to military
treatment facilities as well as those residing in locations more remote
from military treatment facilities.
The committee is aware that some beneficiaries are reluctant to sign
up for the FEHBP program because of concerns about health insurance
availability, without any assurance of continuation in the elected FEHBP
option, when the test period ends. Congress anticipated this concern in
the original authorization for the program and provided assured
availability of standard Medigap plans. Unfortunately, the Department of
Defense marketing materials for this demonstration program failed to
effectively convey this assurance thereby leading potential enrollees to
believe they might be without any health insurance options at the
conclusion of the demonstration program. Therefore, the committee
encourages the Secretary to modify all marketing materials in such a way
as to make clear to potential enrollees that alternative health care
insurance will be available at the conclusion of the demonstration
project.
SECTION 724--EXTENSION OF TRICARE SENIOR SUPPLEMENT PROGRAM
This section would extend the period of the TRICARE Senior Supplement
Program for one year. The committee is concerned that several Department
of Defense TRICARE demonstration programs will not be in effect for
sufficient time to permit a complete evaluation of their desirability as
an alternative TRICARE benefit or their effectiveness as health benefit
management tools.
SECTION 725--EXTENSION OF TRICARE SENIOR PRIME DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
This section would extend to December 31, 2003, the Senior Prime
Demonstration to make the project consistent with the termination date
of other demonstration projects.
SUBTITLE D--OTHER MATTERS
SECTION 731--TRAINING IN HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION
The section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on Armed Services on the continued implementation of section 715 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104
106). This section would increase the number of senior management
positions requiring professional management and administrative
experience. Section 715 directed the Secretary of Defense to provide a
report on the training of Department of Defense health care managers.
Since the submission of that report, the TRICARE managed care
environment has changed significantly and even more change lies on the
horizon. The committee is concerned that Department of Defense personnel
are not being properly prepared before being assigned to duties
requiring expert knowledge of the managed care environment.
SECTION 732--STUDY OF ACCRUAL FINANCING FOR HEALTH CARE FOR MILITARY
RETIREES
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a
study on the feasibility and desirability of financing the military
health care program for uniformed services retirees on an accrual basis.
The committee expects the study be conducted by an organization, which
has expertise in financial programs, retirement systems, actuarial
methodologies and health care financing and is independent of the
Department of Defense. To fund this requirement in fiscal year 2001, the
committee authorizes an increase of $2.0 million in the amount requested
for the Defense Health Program.
SECTION 733--TRACKING PATIENT SAFETY IN MILITARY MEDICAL TREATMENT
FACILITIES
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to implement a
system of indicators, standards, and protocols necessary to track
patient safety. The Department of Defense does not have a process to
systematically report, compile and analyze errors in the provision of
health care under the Defense Health Program.
SECTION 734--PHARMACEUTICAL IDENTIFICATION TECHNOLOGY
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to implement a
pharmaceutical bar code identification program to improve the safety of
Department of Defense pharmacy programs. The committee notes that
similar pharmaceutical bar code identification applications utilized by
the private sector have resulted in significant improvements in patient
safety.
SECTION 735--MANAGEMENT OF VACCINE IMMUNIZATION PROGRAM
This section would strengthen Congressional oversight of the
Department of Defense Anthrax Vaccine Immunization Program (AVIP). The
Department of Defense Inspector General and the Defense Contract Audit
Agency have both been critical of the management of financial aspects of
the program. The committee is concerned that poor financial practices
could lead to wasteful expenditures. The committee is also concerned
that these practices, if continued, could undermine service members'
confidence in the program itself. Therefore, the committee would require
the Secretary of Defense to implement several initiatives to strengthen
oversight of the program. These actions include: require the Secretary
to keep track of and report separations resulting from refusal to
participate in the program; require clear guidance for emergency
essential civilian personnel who are participating in AVIP; require the
Secretary of Defense to put uniform medical and administrative
exemptions into regulation; improve the system for the monitoring of
adverse reactions including ``active surveillance'' and long term
follow-up; require the Secretary of Defense to develop a plan of action
for modernizing all-force protection immunizations and avoid using a
single manufacturer wherever possible; require reports on financial and
overall program management.
SECTION 736--STUDY ON FEASIBILITY OF SHARING BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH
FACILITY
Modern biomedical research requires highly sophisticated equipment,
sufficient research facilities and a highly skilled and educated
workforce. The committee recognizes the desire of the Army to expand its
research capabilities and commends its efforts to partner with the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), particularly at the Tripler Army
Medical Center (TAMC). The partnering successes between TAMC, VA and the
School of Medicine at the University of Hawaii (UH) has allowed for
further collaboration. The committee understands that the Army is
interested in expanding their research capabilities, but acknowledges
the scarcity of funds to expand research. The committee believes that it
would be advantageous for the Army to conduct a feasibility study for a
medical research facility to be shared by TAMC, VA, and UH that includes
a clinical research center, educational, academic, and laboratory
research space to better leverage its limited research funds. The
committee authorizes an additional $2.5 million in the amount requested
for the Defense Health Program to fund this study.
SECTION 737--CHIROPRACTIC HEALTH CARE FOR MEMBERS ON ACTIVE DUTY
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services a plan to phase in over a period of five years, permanent
chiropractic services for all active duty military personnel. This
section would also require the Secretary of Defense to continue to
provide the same level of chiropractic health care services and benefits
during fiscal year 2001 as were provided during fiscal year 2000. The
committee intends that the scope of services offered under this section
would include, at a minimum, care for neuro-musculoskeletal conditions
typical among military personnel on active duty. The committee does not
intend that the scope of chiropractic services should be limited to the
treatment of conditions of the lower back.
SECTION 738--VA/DOD SHARING AGREEMENTS FOR HEALTH SERVICES
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to give full
force and effect to any sharing agreement entered into between the
Veterans Health Administration and the Department of Defense treatment
facilities. The section would also require the Secretary of Defense over
the next year to review all sharing agreements.
The committee is concerned that some payments from the Department of
Defense to the Department of Veterans Affairs under existing VA/DOD
sharing agreements are not being made in accordance with the agreements.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
PROCUREMENT OF MILITARY CLOTHING AND CLOTHING-RELATED ITEMS BY MILITARY
INSTALLATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
Pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1998 (Public Law 105 85) the Department of Defense Inspector General
performed an audit of purchases of military clothing and
clothing-related items in excess of the micro-purchase threshold by
military installations during fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to determine
the extent to which such procurements did not comply with the Buy
American Act. The committee is concerned with the number of violations
of the Buy American Act identified in the audit. The committee directs
the Department of Defense Inspector General to perform a follow-up audit
on the purchases of military clothing and clothing-related items in
excess of the micro-purchase threshold by military installations during
fiscal years 1998 and 1999. The audit shall also include an evaluation
of DOD actions, if any, taken since the original audit in order to
improve compliance by military installations with the Buy American Act.
COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LABOR LAWS IN PROCUREMENT OF MILITARY
CLOTHING
The Secretary of Defense shall report to the congressional defense
committees, no later than April 1, 2001, any information indicating
non-compliance with applicable labor laws by contractors supplying
military clothing and clothing-related items. Emphasis shall be placed
on proper wage payments and scales. This information shall be gathered
pursuant to compliance checking required by part 22 of the Federal
Acquisition Regulation.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SECTION 801--EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
ACQUISITION PILOT PROGRAMS; REPORTS REQUIRED
This section would amend the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of
1994 (Public Law 103 355) to extend until fiscal year 2005 the
acquisition pilot programs originally authorized by that Act. This
section would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit, no later
than January 1, 2001, a report evaluating the success of these pilot
programs.
SECTION 802--TECHNICAL DATA RIGHTS FOR ITEMS DEVELOPED EXCLUSIVELY AT
PRIVATE EXPENSE
This section would amend section 2320 of title 10, United States
Code, by modifying the circumstances under which a contractor would be
considered responsive to a solicitation. This section would authorize
the Department to negotiate with a potential contractor the United
States rights to technical data, developed exclusively at private
expense, when the technical data is necessary for normal operations,
maintenance, installation, or training. This section would also require
the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations describing the
difference between normal and critical operations, maintenance,
installation, or training.
SECTION 803--MANAGEMENT OF ACQUISITION OF MISSION-ESSENTIAL SOFTWARE
FOR MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS
This section would require the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to designate a Director of
Mission-Essential Software Management. The Director would oversee
development and management of software embedded in software intensive
defense acquisition programs.
The committee expects the Director to seek advice from a wide range
of organizations and officials, including the Chief Information Officer
for the Department of Defense and the Software Program Managers Network.
The committee also expects the Director to examine issues best software
management practices such as a set of standard metrics, strong risk
management analysis, interoperability, and opportunities for reuse of
software.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to
the congressional defense committees, no later than March 1, 2001, that
identifies plans implemented and recommendations made to improve the
acquisition, management, development, and maintenance of mission
essential software for major defense acquisition programs. The report
shall also describe any necessary legislation needed to carry out plans
and recommendations.
SECTION 804--EXTENSION OF WAIVER PERIOD FOR LIVE-FIRE SURVIVABILITY
TESTING FOR MH 47E AND MH 60K HELICOPTER MODIFICATION PROGRAMS
This section would amend section 142 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102 484) to authorize
the Secretary of Defense to waive the survivability testing requirements
of section 2366 of title 10, United States Code, for the MH 47E and MH
60 K helicopters prior to full materiel release of those systems.
SECTION 805--THREE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF DEFENSE ADVANCED
RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN PROTOTYPE PROJECTS
This section would amend section 845 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103 160), by
extending for three years the authority of the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, the military departments, and other officials
designated by the Secretary of Defense to carry out prototype projects
using transactions other than contracts, cooperative agreements, and
grants, which must be executed with statutes or regulations applicable
to contracts.
The committee believes that other transaction authority is an
important acquisition tool that facilitates integration of the civilian
and military industrial bases and
incorporation of commercial technology into military weapon
systems. The flexibility of the other transaction authority provides the
Department the opportunity to streamline the procurement process,
facilitate development of contractor strategic relationship, take
advantage of innovative or commercial business practices, and attract
companies that do not traditionally do business with the Department of
Defense. In an environment where commercial industry is leading defense
in many technological areas and defense budgets are declining, it is
imperative that the Department continue to have the flexibility provided
by this tool to use innovative contractual instruments that provide the
opportunity to broaden the technology and industrial base or foster new
relationships and practices that support our national security.
SECTION 806--CERTIFICATION OF MAJOR AUTOMATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS AS TO
COMPLIANCE WITH CLINGER-COHEN ACT
This section would require that in each of the next three fiscal
years the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer certify that
each major automated information system is in compliance with the
Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 prior to granting milestone approval. This
section would also require the Chief Information Officer for the
Department of Defense to notify the Congressional defense committees
upon each decision to label a major automated information system as a
special interest major technology initiative.
SECTION 807--LIMITATIONS ON PROCUREMENT OF CERTAIN ITEMS
This section would amend section 2534 of title 10, United States
Code, to extend the limitations on the procurement of ball bearings and
roller bearings. This section would also extend the limitations on the
procurement of naval valves for another three fiscal years, and
authorize limitations on the procurement of polyacrylonitrile based
carbon fiber for the next three fiscal years.
SECTION 808--MULTIYEAR SERVICES CONTRACTS
This section would amend section 2306b of title 10, United States
Code, to clarify that this section applies to the multiyear procurement
of property, as well as to the multiyear procurement of services.
SECTION 809--STUDY ON IMPACT OF FOREIGN SOURCING OF SYSTEMS ON
LONG-TERM MILITARY READINESS AND RELATED INDUSTRIAL INFRASTRUCTURE
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to study and
provide a report to Congress on whether parts, components, and materials
of certain systems are obtained through domestic sources or from foreign
sources, and the impact on military readiness of purchasing such items
from foreign sources.
SECTION 810--PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FUNDS TO
GIVE OR WITHHOLD A PREFERENCE TO A MARKETER OR VENDOR OF FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION
This section would prohibit the Department of Defense from using a
preference for the procurement of items from a marketer or vendor of
firearms or ammunition that has entered into an agreement to abide by a
designated code of conduct, operating practice, or product design.
SECTION 811--STUDY AND REPORT ON PRACTICE OF CONTRACT BUNDLING IN
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS
This section would require the General Accounting Office to study the
use of ``contract bundling'' in military construction contracts. A
report on the study findings would be due to the congressional defense
committees no later than February 1, 2001.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF CHINESE MILITARY AFFAIRS
The committee notes that section 914 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106 65) required the
Secretary of Defense to establish a Center for the Study of Chinese
Military Affairs at the National Defense University. Although the
Secretary established this center on March 1, 2000, the committee is
concerned that the Department of Defense has not placed sufficient
priority on ensuring that the center can carry out its mandate. The
committee is especially concerned that the Department has not identified
a source of funding for the center to allow it to proceed with hiring a
permanent director and implementing the research, conference, and other
activities for which the center was established.
The committee reiterates its belief that the center should play a
central role in assessing political, strategic, and military
developments within the People's Republic of China and the security
implications of the evolving U.S.-China relationship. The committee
believes the importance of the center is highlighted by recent
developments in the evolution of Chinese military capability and
strategic thought.
The committee believes that these developments reinforce the need to
move forward rapidly with the appointment of a permanent director for
the center by June 1, 2000, and to ensure that the center is fully
operational by June 1, 2001, as required by Public Law 106 65. The
committee is aware of proposals by the center's interim director for the
center to identify and hire research scholars, create a high-level Board
of Visitors, establish a working group, and conduct at least one
conference this year. The committee encourages the Department to provide
adequate funding to the center in order to allow planned activities to
proceed in a timely manner.
Finally, the committee expects the Department to facilitate the
center's mission of informing government policymakers, including
Congress, of the national goals and strategic posture of the People's
Republic of China and that country's ability to develop and deploy
effective military power in support of its national strategic
objectives. In this regard, the committee expects the Secretary of
Defense to provide the committee with regular reports on the activities
and research findings of the center.
MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS
The committee notes that the fiscal year 2001 budget request for the
Department of Defense supports an estimated 60,867 positions performing
management headquarters functions, an increase in personnel of nearly 30
percent over the revised fiscal year 1999 level as reported to Congress
in March of this year. The committee is aware that this personnel
increase is a result of a statutorily mandated directive contained in
section 921 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2000 (Public Law 106 65),
which was intended to more accurately capture the
Department's personnel level of effort in support of management
headquarters activities.
The committee continues to strongly believe that management
headquarters reductions must be in alignment with overall personnel cuts
that have occurred throughout the Department. However, the fiscal year
2001 budget request, after adjusting for the revised baseline, only
reduces management headquarters positions by 734 from the fiscal year
2000 estimate, far below the mandated 3,182 positions required by
section 921. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of funding
for management headquarters activities as provided elsewhere in this
report.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SECTION 901--CHANGE OF TITLE OF CERTAIN POSITIONS IN THE HEADQUARTERS,
MARINE CORPS
This section would abolish the positions of Chief of Staff and Deputy
and Assistant Chiefs of Staff from Headquarters, Marine Corps,
authorized by sections 5041 and 5045 of title 10, United States Code,
respectively. This section would also authorize five Deputy Commandant
positions within the Marine Corps. The committee understands that this
section would not change the current staffing requirements of the Marine
Corps.
SECTION 902--FURTHER REDUCTIONS IN DEFENSE ACQUISITION AND SUPPORT
WORKFORCE
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to implement
13,000 reductions in the Defense acquisition workforce in fiscal year
2001. This section would also direct the Secretary of Defense to provide
a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services by May 1, 2001, containing an implementation
plan for re-shaping, recruiting, and sustaining the Department's
acquisition workforce and any changes in statutory authorities that the
Secretary deems necessary.
The committee is aware that the Department has programmed personnel
reductions of 11,800 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in fiscal year 2001 in
the defense acquisition workforce, as defined in section 931 of the
Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999
(Public Law 105 261). Since 1996, however, the Department has exceeded
its annual reduction goals within the acquisition workforce. The
committee supports continued reductions in this area for the purposes of
reducing costly overhead, encouraging cross-functional acquisition
relationships between the military services, and improving the
acquisition process. In addition, the committee believes the Department
must reorganize and streamline its acquisition structure to capitalize
on rapidly changing technology and industry practices.
SECTION 903--CLARIFICATION OF SCOPE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL AUTHORITIES
UNDER MILITARY WHISTLEBLOWER LAW
This section would authorize the inspectors general of the defense
agencies and joint service organizations and civilian employees assigned
as inspectors general elsewhere within the Department of Defense to
receive and process protected communications and reprisal allegations
from members of the armed forces under section 1034 of title 10, United
States Code.
SECTION 904--REPORT ON NUMBER OF PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO LEGISLATIVE
LIAISON FUNCTIONS
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services a report identifying all personnel assigned to legislative
affairs and legislative liaison offices throughout the military
departments and all defense agencies not later than December 1, 2000.
The committee has long benefited from the Department's various
legislative affairs offices and relies on these offices to provide
timely and accurate information and to respond to numerous inquires
daily. However, the committee is concerned by the increasing number of
legislative affairs, or liaison offices throughout the Department. The
committee notes that there are now legislative affairs or legislative
liaison offices at nearly every unified and specified command, at major
military commands, and at most defense agencies. The committee questions
how the necessary coordination between these separate various offices
and the primary legislative affairs offices of the Secretary of Defense
and the secretaries of the military departments can be effectively
accomplished.
SECTION 905--JOINT REPORT ON ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL COLLABORATIVE
INFORMATION ANALYSIS CAPABILITY
The committee is aware of the emerging capability to collect and
analyze information using the latest computer technology to leverage the
ability of analysts. The committee notes that this capability to discern
meaningful intelligence from disparate data has, to this moment, been
best demonstrated through the work of the Army's Land Information
Warfare Activity's (LIWA) recent analysis conducted at the request of
the Deputy Secretary of Defense.
The committee believes that this data mining capability must be
rapidly and fully developed as strong foundation for future efforts to
support national defense against new and growing worldwide asymmetrical
threats.
The committee supports Department of Defense efforts to determine the
proper architecture for a collaborative operations and analysis
capability to fuse the distributed efforts of the more than thirty
appropriate entities into a national level center. However, the
committee realizes that several approaches are under consideration,
including the Joint Counterintelligence Assessment Group and the
National Analysis and Operations Hub concepts. Therefore, the committee
recommends a provision, (sec. 905) that would require the Secretary of
Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence to prepare a joint
report assessing alternatives for the establishment of a national
information analysis capability. The provision would also require that
the Secretary of Defense take maximum advantage of the data mining,
profiling and analysis capability of the LIWA.
SECTION 906--ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF CIVIL AIR PATROL
This section would revise section 9441 of title 10, United States
Code to define more clearly the relationship between the United States
Air Force and the Civil Air Patrol (CAP). This section would also
authorize a new board of governors for the CAP to include
representatives from the Air Force, the CAP, and from outside interests,
and would also make numerous changes in the organization of the CAP to
improve administrative and financial management.
SECTION 907--REPORT ON NETWORK CENTRIC WARFARE
This section would require a report on Network Centric Warfare (NCW).
It would require the Secretary of Defense to clearly define NCW, and
outline the conceptual, doctrinal and operational concepts surrounding
NCW. It would also require the Secretary to outline how NCW is related
the overall strategy for military transformation. Finally, the Secretary
would be required to report on any acquisition programs and experiments
that are planned or currently underway that relate to NCW.
Historically, revolutions in military affairs (RMA) have occurred
when new technologies imbedded in a significant number of military
systems, combined with innovative operational concepts, have
fundamentally altered the nature of armed conflict. This combination
often significantly increases the combat power and military
effectiveness of military forces. The committee recognizes that due to
the rapid advances in information technology, such a condition may exist
today.
One possible concept proposed in relation to the emerging RMA is the
idea of Network Centric Warfare (NCW). According to proponents, NCW will
integrate emerging technologies to create a ``system-of-systems'' that
will enable the U.S. military to apply force with dramatically greater
efficiency while simultaneously reducing the risk to U.S. forces. While
there has been much discussion of this concept within the Department, no
consensus on the definition, operational concepts, doctrine, programs or
experiments relating to NCW has emerged. The committee also recognizes
that some detractors are critical of NCW believing it is an attempt to
impose a technically rigid theory of warfare on the inherent chaos of
armed conflict.
The committee believes this to be an important debate and recognizes
the potential enhancement in military capability that could result from
transformation concepts such as NCW. Therefore, the committee looks
forward to the Department's assessment and to the resultant debate on
this issue.
SECTION 908--DEFENSE INSTITUTE FOR HEMISPHERIC SECURITY COOPERATION
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish
and operate the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation.
The purpose of the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security
Cooperation would be to provide professional education and training to
military, law enforcement, and civilian personnel of nations of the
Western Hemisphere in defense and security matters. The section would
require that the curriculum of the Institute include a minimum of eight
hours of instruction per student in human rights, the rule of law, due
process, civilian control of the military, and the role of the military
in a democratic society. The section would additionally establish a
board of visitors to oversee the activities and curriculum of the
Institute and require the board to submit a report to the Secretary of
Defense and, in turn, to Congress. This section would strike the
authority for the Secretary of the Army to operate the School of the
Americas contained in section 4415 of title 10, United States Code, and
direct the Secretary of Defense to take such steps as he deems necessary
to ensure that the Secretary of the Army provides for the transition of
the School of the Americas into the Defense Institute for Hemispheric
Security Cooperation.
The committee affirms its long-standing support for the mission of
the Army School of the Americas to enhance military professionalism and
respect for democratic values throughout Latin America. The committee
notes the significant contribution the School has played in advancing
democratization in the hemisphere over the past two decades. However,
the committee is aware of persistent concerns that the School of the
Americas does not focus sufficient classroom attention upon critical
issues such as rule of law and civilian control of the military within
the countries of Latin America. While the committee believes that these
concerns are unfounded, the committee recognizes the need to implement
fundamental changes to the School of the Americas to ensure that its
student curriculum is properly structured. Accordingly, the committee
proposes to eliminate the School of the Americas and establish in its
place the Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation. The
committee believes that the establishment of a board of visitors with a
broad mandate to examine the activities and curriculum of the Defense
Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation will serve to address any
future concerns associated with the operations of the program.
The committee believes a relationship should exist between the
duration of courses offered at the Institute and instruction in human
rights, rule of law, due process, civilian control of the military, and
the role of the military in a democratic society. Accordingly, the
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to consider initiatives to
increase such instruction beyond eight hours, where practicable. The
committee recommends the Secretary consider a minimum of twelve hours of
instruction in human rights, rule of law, due process, civilian control
of the military, and the role of the military in a democratic society
for each student attending courses of the Institute for up to eight
weeks duration; twenty four hours of instruction for courses between
eight and fifteen weeks duration; and forty hours of instruction for
courses over fifteen weeks duration.
SECTION 909--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE REGIONAL CENTERS FOR SECURITY
STUDIES
This section would consolidate in title 10, United States Code,
various authorities that currently exist regarding the operation of
Department of Defense regional centers for security studies. It would
also require congressional notification of an intent to establish
additional regional centers and an annual report to Congress by the
Secretary of Defense on the status, objectives, and operations of the
regional centers.
SECTION 910--CHANGE IN NAME OF ARMED FORCES STAFF COLLEGE TO JOINT
FORCES STAFF COLLEGE
The section would strike the reference to Armed Forces Staff College
contained in section 2165 of title 10, United States Code, and insert in
its place Joint Forces Staff College.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES
OVERVIEW
The budget request for fiscal year 2001 for counter-drug activities
includes an expanding commitment by the Department of Defense to support
the government of Colombia in its counter-drug efforts. In particular,
the budget request would support the training and equipping of two
Colombian army counter-drug battalions in addition to naval riverine
units, upgrade Colombian military aircraft, and expand intelligence
collection in Colombia. The committee notes with concern that the budget
request continues the trend of requesting authorization of
appropriations for foreign military assistance through the Department of
Defense as opposed to the Department of State.
The committee is aware that the escalating production of cocaine and
heroin in Colombia has fueled the ongoing conflict between the
government of Colombia and armed insurgents and paramilitary groups. The
increasing level of violence within Colombia continues to cause
instability throughout the region and has specifically strained the
ability of the governments of Panama, Ecuador, and Peru to respond
adequately to incursions by Colombian drug trafficking organizations,
guerrillas, and paramilitary forces. The committee recognizes the
important contribution that the Department of Defense can play in
support of these regional allies as part of a comprehensive and
coordinated effort by the United States to contain the drug trade.
However, as noted in the committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106
162), the committee remains concerned with the appropriateness of
expanding the role of the Department of Defense in support of Colombian
governmental security forces and, in particular, the force protection
risks for U.S. military personnel stationed or assigned to temporary
duty in Colombia.
The committee continues to support a robust Department of Defense
counter-drug program and notes the challenges to U.S. Southern Command
with the 1999 closure of Howard Air Force Base in Panama that served as
a key installation for aircraft monitoring the source and transit zones.
The committee notes that long-term agreements for the establishment of
forward operating locations (FOLs) for drug interdiction purposes at
Manta, Ecuador, and Curacao and Aruba in the Netherlands Antilles, were
recently secured and that limited operations are ongoing at these sites.
The committee also notes the testimony provided by senior officials of
the Department of Defense that an FOL in Central America is crucial in
confronting drug trafficking by the way of the Eastern Pacific. The
committee has raised concern over the prior two fiscal years that the
Department has failed to resource adequately the gaps in Eastern Pacific
detection and monitoring despite increased usage by maritime drug
traffickers. Therefore, the committee is encouraged that a long-term FOL
agreement with the government of El Salvador is pending and urges the
Secretary of the Navy, as executive agent, to utilize fully such an FOL
for the conduct of detection and monitoring flights over the Eastern
Pacific transit zone.
FUNDING
The budget request for counter-drug activities contained $836.3
million for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, in addition
to $155.9 million for operational tempo, which is included within the
operating budgets of the military services. The budget request
represents a net increase of $48.2 million from the fiscal year 2000
budget request of $788.1 million, and a decrease of $10.6 million for
operational tempo from the previous budget request of $166.5 million.
The committee understands that the overall increase in the fiscal year
2001 counter-drug budget request is attributed to increased activities
in Colombia.
The committee recommends authorization for Department of Defense
counter-drug activities as follows:
[Dollars in thousands]
FY01 Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Request $836,300
Educate America's Youth 23,029
Increase Safety of Citizens 81,974
Reduce Health & Social Costs 74,754
Shield America's Frontiers 339,486
Break Drug Sources of Supply 317,057
Recommended Decreases:
Air National Guard Fighter Operations 5,000
Coastal Patrol Equipment Procurement 3,000
Recommended Increases:
Operation Caper Focus 6,000
Puerto Rico ROTHR Security 1,200
Southwest Border Fence 6,000
Recommendation 841,500
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Air National Guard Fighter Operations
The committee notes the fighter operations of the Air National Guard
previously located at Howard Air Force Base, Panama, in support of the
Department of Defense counter-drug program have relocated to Curacao,
Netherlands Antilles, and are currently conducting operations. The
committee further notes that in fiscal year 1999, the Air National Guard
was funded at $7.2 million for this purpose. The fiscal year 2001 budget
request included $15.8 million for this purpose, due in part to the high
cost of temporary duty for pilots and crews in Curacao. However, the
committee believes the budget request significantly overstates the
actual costs associated with planned operations and, therefore,
recommends a reduction of $5.0 million for this purpose.
Coastal Patrol equipment procurement
The budget request contained $3.0 million for the continued
installation of Combatant Craft Retrieval Systems (CCRS) on two Navy
Coastal Patrol ships. The committee is aware that such equipment
supports various activities of the Special Operations Command, but
understands that CCRS provides slight benefit for the conduct of
counter-drug operations. Accordingly, the committee recommends a
decrease of $3.0 million for this program.
Operation Caper Focus
The committee notes with concern that the budget request failed to
support fully Operation Caper Focus, a valuable, ongoing operation to
disrupt maritime narcotics trafficking in the Eastern Pacific. The
committee continues to support strongly this important operation and,
therefore, recommends an increase of $6.0 million for this purpose.
Puerto Rico ROTHR security
The committee understands the Relocatable Over-The-Horizon Radar
(ROTHR) based in Puerto Rico will greatly enhance the effectiveness of
the interagency effort to curtail the flow of illegal narcotics into the
United States. The committee supports strongly the ROTHR program but
notes with concern that the Navy's planned transfer of land on the
western side of Vieques, Puerto Rico, would leave the ROTHR without
adjacent federal property. The Navy, as executive agent for the program,
recognizes the inadequacy of its force protection plan for the ROTHR but
the committee notes the budget request does not contain funding for this
purpose. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.2 million
for security enhancements of the ROTHR facility.
Southwest border fence
The committee remains concerned with the increased smuggling of
narcotics across the Southwest border in the San Diego County,
California, area. The committee is aware that the Southwest border
continues to be one of the most heavily utilized drug trafficking
corridors into the United States. Accordingly, the committee believes
that existing fence and road-building activities must continue and
recommends an increase of $6.0 million for this purpose.
OTHER MATTERS
QUADRENNIAL DEFENSE REVIEW
The committee reiterates its concern over the pending Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR). Previous attempts to define U.S. national security
interests in the post-Cold War world have been less than satisfactory,
as have efforts to identify the proper national military strategy and
the force structure required to execute that strategy. The committee has
previously expressed its view that any defense strategy should be
designed to protect the full range of U.S. national security interests
and that forces should be sufficient to do so at the lowest possible
risk.
The committee reemphasizes this view and reminds the Department that
the QDR should be driven by the demands of strategy and should not be
constrained by any presupposition about the size of future defense
budgets. Previous reviews, including the 1996 Quadrennial Defense Review
and the 1993 Bottom-Up Review, were budget-driven exercises that reduced
the size of the armed forces by approximately 40 percent from 1991
levels. Neither study recommended a substantial change to the way the
services were structured or organized. This reduced force, coupled with
a national security strategy of ``engagement and enlargement,'' has
increased operations tempo 300 percent over Cold War levels.
Currently, the force is ostensibly sized and structured to fight and
win two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts. However, the
requirement to forward deploy forces on an ever-increasing number of
peacekeeping and humanitarian missions on a rotational basis with a
force designed to fight major theater wars has strained military
readiness. In addition, the committee believes that not enough attention
is paid by the Department of Defense to future threats facing this
nation and the requirement to maintain forces to meet these threats.
These include the rise of a near-peer competitor and the difficulties
posed by asymmetric threats, including weapons of mass destruction,
improved ballistic missile technology, and cyber-attacks against
critical infrastructure.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to take a comprehensive
approach to the QDR and to develop an honest and realistic assessment of
the vital national security interests of this nation. With these
interests in mind, the QDR should provide recommendations for a force
that is sized and structured to meet the challenges of this new era.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PERSONNEL SECURITY INVESTIGATION REQUIREMENTS
PRIORITIES
The federal government uses personnel security investigations to
determine whether individuals should be granted access to classified
information. These investigations are a critical first step in
safeguarding national security information. The committee is concerned
over the results of a review conducted by the Comptroller General that
established that Department of Defense personnel security investigations
are often incomplete and are not conducted in a timely manner. Moreover,
there does not seem to be a prioritization scheme for these
investigations to ensure that those with the most sensitive duties are
investigated first and subject to more frequent review and update.
Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in
conjunction with the service secretaries and heads of defense agencies,
to develop a means of quantifying requirements for personnel security
investigations for clearances and of prioritizing categories of
personnel involved in duties requiring access to the most sensitive
national security information. This prioritization scheme should ensure
that personnel with sensitive positions should be subject to background
investigation review and update at least every five years to ensure the
currency of relevant information. Priority categories
should be used to guide the submission and expeditious
completion of background investigations on personnel with the most
sensitive duties. The Secretary shall submit a report describing the
Department's efforts to establish a prioritization scheme and to provide
more timely and complete personnel security investigations to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services no
later than March 1, 2001.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SUBTITLE AU--FINANCIAL MATTERS
SECTION 1001--TRANSFER AUTHORITY
This section would permit the transfer of amounts of authorizations
made available in Division A of the bill for any fiscal year to any
other authorization made available in Division A upon determination by
the Secretary of Defense that such a transfer would be in the national
interest. The provision would provide the authorization for
reprogramming involving the transfer of authorization between amounts
authorized as set out in bill language.
The authority to transfer could only be used to provide authorization
for higher priority items than the items from which authorization was
transferred and could not be used to provide authorization for an item
that was denied authorization by Congress. The Secretary of Defense
would be required to notify the Congress promptly of transfers. The
total amount of transfers would be limited to $2.0 billion.
Historically, the transfer authority authorized has changed as follows:
Billions
FY85 88
2.00
FY89 91
3.00
FY92
2.25
FY93
1.50
FY94 00
2.00
SECTION 1002--INCORPORATION OF CLASSIFIED ANNEX
This section would incorporate the classified annex prepared by the
Committee on Armed Services into the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2001.
SECTION 1003--AUTHORIZATION OF EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
This section would extend authorization to those defense items
appropriated pursuant to the 2000 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act. Specifically, $5,254,346,000 of national defense appropriations in
the Act would be authorized as follows:
Department of Defense
Title I, Chapter 2:
$185,800,000 for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities,
Defense.
Title I, Chapter 4:
$116,523,000 for Military Construction, Defense-Wide.
Title II, Chapter 2:
$19,532,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army;
$20,565,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Navy;
$37,155,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps;
$30,065,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force;
$40,000,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide;
$2,174,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve;
$2,851,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard;
$2,050,400,000 for Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund;
$73,000,000 for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force;
$3,533,000 for Defense Health Program.
Section 2202:
$1,556,200,000 for Defense-Wide Working Capital Fund.
Section 2204:
$125,000,000 for Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles,
Army.
Section 2205:
$854,500,000 for Defense Health Program.
Title II, Chapter 4:
$12,348,000 for Military Construction, Army Reserve.
Section 2401:
$2,000,000 for Family Housing, Army.
$3,000,000 for Family Housing, Navy and Marine Corps.
$1,700,000 for Family Housing, Air Force.
Department of Energy
Title III, Chapter 3:
$63,000,000 for Other Defense Activities.
Title IV, Chapter 1:
$55,000,000 for Weapons Activities.
SECTION 1004--CONTINGENT REPEAL OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS SHIFTING CERTAIN
OUTLAYS FROM ONE FISCAL YEAR TO ANOTHER
This section would repeal, subject to inclusion in appropriations
acts, provisions of fiscal year 2000 appropriations acts that delayed
obligations of Department of Defense funds for pay and benefits and
progress payments.
SECTION 1005--LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR BOSNIA AND KOSOVO PEACEKEEPING
OPERATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
This section would limit the amount of funds available for
peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Kosovo to the amounts contained in
the budget request, $1,387.8 million for operations in Bosnia and
$1,650.4 million for operations in Kosovo. The provision would authorize
the president to waive the limitation after submitting to the Congress a
written certification that the waiver is necessary to the national
security interests of the United States. This section would also require
a written certification that the exercise of the waiver will not
adversely affect the readiness of U.S. military forces; a report setting
forth the reasons for the waiver, a discussion of the impact of the
involvement of U.S. military forces in Balkans peacekeeping operations
on U.S. military readiness; and a supplemental appropriations request
for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2001 costs associated with
U.S. military forces participating in, or supporting, Bosnia or Kosovo
peacekeeping operations.
SUBTITLE B--NAVAL VESSELS AND SHIPYARDS
SECTION 1011--NATIONAL DEFENSE FEATURES PROGRAM
This section would amend section 2218 of title 10, United States
Code, to permit the payment to a vessel operator, as consideration for
making a vessel available to the government on such terms as the
Secretary of Defense or secretary of a military department and the
operator agree, amounts equal to the cost of maintaining the vessel in a
4 day Reduced Operating Status (ROS-4) condition in the Ready Reserve
Fleet for a period of 25 years.
SUBTITLE C--COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES
SECTION 1021--REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPENDITURES TO SUPPORT
FOREIGN COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees by January 1, 2001,
detailing the total amount and type of, and legal basis for, foreign
counter-drug assistance provided by the Department of Defense during
fiscal year 2000.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense has increased its
level of counter-drug assistance to foreign law enforcement agencies and
militaries in recent years. As part of the fiscal year 2001 budget
request, the Department requested additional authority to directly
support the governments of Colombia, Peru, and Ecuador. Under section
1004 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991
(Public Law 101 510) and section 1033 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105 85), the
Department is presently authorized to support various types of foreign
assistance ranging from equipment maintenance to military training and
intelligence sharing. While the committee recognizes the important role
of the Department of Defense in supporting regional allies in combating
the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States, the committee
believes that any additional counter-drug authorities for the Department
should be considered only after a comprehensive review of the current
foreign counter-drug support activities of the Department.
SECTION 1022--REPORT ON TETHERED AEROSTAT RADAR SYSTEM
The section would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation
with the Commissioner of Customs, to submit to Congress a report on the
Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) by May 1, 2001, that includes the
operational availability of each of the existing TARS sites; a
discussion of any plans to close TARS sites over the next 5 years and a
justification for each proposed closure; a review of the requirements of
other agencies, especially the United States Customs Service, for TARS
data; an assessment of the value of TARS in the conduct of
counter-narcotics, border security, and air sovereignty operations, and;
costs associated with the Department's planned standardization of the
program and the Secretary's analysis of that standardization.
SUBTITLE D--OTHER MATTERS
SECTION 1031--FUNDS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES UNDER DEFENSE EXPORT
LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to allocate up
to $500,000 per year from available Operations and Maintenance,
Defense-wide, funds to administer the Defense Export Loan Guarantee
Program. The provision would require the Secretary to replenish fully
the funds expended under this authority from fees generated from the
loans guaranteed under the program.
The committee notes the increasing interest in the Defense Export
Loan Guarantee Program recently displayed by domestic defense industry,
eligible countries, and the financial sector. The committee believes the
program has significant potential to support U.S. national security
objectives in certain regions of the world and believes further that the
authority in this section will provide the stability needed for the
effective long-term management of the program.
SECTION 1032--TECHNICAL AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS
This section would make a number of technical and clerical amendments
to existing law of a non-substantive basis.
SECTION 1033--TRANSFER OF VIETNAM ERA TA 4 AIRCRAFT TO NONPROFIT
FOUNDATION
This section would permit the Secretary of the Navy to convey,
without consideration, one surplus TA 4 aircraft to a nonprofit
foundation. This section would also require that any aircraft
transferred under this authority would be completely demilitarized prior
to transfer and that the conveyance would be at no cost to the United
States.
SECTION 1034--TRANSFER OF 19TH CENTURY CANNON TO MUSEUM
This section would direct the Secretary of the Army to convey,
without consideration, a specific 19th century cannon that was
manufactured in Macon, Georgia, to the Cannonball House Museum, Macon,
Georgia. The section would also direct the Secretary of the Army to
acquire, by donation or purchase, one or more cannons documented as
having been manufactured in Macon, Georgia, during the Civil War in
order to replace the cannon conveyed to the museum.
SECTION 1035--EXPENDITURES FOR DECLASSIFICATION ACTIVITIES
This section would require that any future budget request submitted
to Congress by the Department of Defense (DOD) specifically identify, in
a single display, funds being requested for the Department, each
military department, and each defense agency to be used to declassify
records to comply with declassification requirements of any statute or
executive order. This section would also limit the expenditure of funds
by the Department of Defense for the declassification of records during
fiscal year 2001 to no more than $30.0 million.
The review or records for potential declassification and release to
the public can be quite costly. The Department estimates that records
review for declassification and public release will cost the Department
$34.0 million from operation and maintenance (O&M) accounts during
fiscal year 2000. The committee is concerned about the drain on
operations and maintenance resources resulting from the declassification
process. The O&M accounts, and the readiness accounts in particular,
have been dramatically underfunded for years, a serious problem that is
exacerbated by almost annual unbudgeted contingency operations. The
committee believes that record declassification is a significantly lower
priority for already scarce O&M funds and believes these funds should be
spent addressing shortfalls in higher priority areas such as
maintenance, training, spare parts, and other key readiness activities.
Consequently, this section would limit the amount of funds available for
the Department's fiscal year 2001 records declassification effort to
$30.0 million, the amount the Department estimates will be necessary for
planned record reviews.
In addition, section 230 of title 10, United States Code provides
that the Secretary of Defense shall provide in budget justification
materials submitted to Congress ``specific identification, as a
budgetary line item, of the amounts required to carry out''
declassification activities. The Department of Defense failed to provide
in the fiscal year 2001 budget request the required declassification
line item. Parts of the declassification budget request were scattered
across more than 10 budget accounts, and other portions of the
declassification budget request were invisible, having been imbedded in
other budget lines. The committee believes it is necessary that the full
DOD declassification budget be visible in the annual budget request, so
Congress will be better able to establish appropriate levels for such
expenditures. Therefore, this section would require the Department to
include in future budget request materials a single display reflecting
the total amount requested for records declassification.
SECTION 1036--AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE LOAN GUARANTEES TO IMPROVE DOMESTIC
PREPAREDNESS TO COMBAT CYBERTERRORISM
This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to provide loan
guarantees to qualified commercial firms seeking to improve their
critical infrastructure protection. It would require the Secretary to
prescribe regulations providing that fees assessed for the purpose of
loan guarantees be credited to a special account and be available, to
the extent provided in appropriations acts, to pay administrative
expenses associated with this program. This section would also require
the recipients of loan guarantees to report to the Secretary on the
results of improvements made pursuant to this program, and would require
the Secretary to submit to Congress an annual report on the loan
guarantee program.
SECTION 1037--V 22 COCKPIT AIRCRAFT VOICE AND FLIGHT DATA RECORDERS
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to require that
all V 22 Osprey aircraft be equipped with state-of-the-art cockpit
aircraft voice and flight data recorders which meet, as a minimum, the
National Transportation Safety Board standards for such devices.
TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SECTION 1101--EMPLOYMENT AND COMPENSATION PROVISIONS FOR EMPLOYEES OF
TEMPORARY ORGANIZATIONS ESTABLISHED BY LAW OR EXECUTIVE ORDER
This section would provide legislative and executive agencies the
flexibility to use a streamlined process to hire and pay employees for
temporary organizations established by law or executive order. The
committee notes that temporary organizations are normally established to
examine issues of immediate public concern, yet these organizations are
often slow to begin substantive work due to the lack of established
structures or processes to acquire staff.
SECTION 1102--RESTRUCTURING THE RESTRICTION ON DEGREE TRAINING
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to pay tuition
for a civilian employee to obtain an academic degree if that degree
training occurs at an accredited institution and is part of a planned
Department of Defense (DOD) professional development program. The
committee supports education and training programs that the service
secretaries conduct for military personnel, but is concerned that DOD
civilian personnel professional development programs have been
neglected. The committee expects this authority will be used to enhance
the professional abilities of the Department's most promising civilian
employees.
SECTION 1103--CONTINUATION OF TUITION REIMBURSEMENT AND TRAINING FOR
CERTAIN ACQUISITION PERSONNEL
This section would amend section 1745 of title 10, United States
Code, to extend the ``shortage of personnel'' designation for qualified
civilian acquisition personnel of the Department of Defense until
September 30, 2005, in order for such personnel to qualify for
eligibility for reimbursement of expenses for training and tuition. The
committee believes such an extension is necessary to enhance the
professional development of the acquisition workforce of the Department
of Defense.
SECTION 1104--EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY FOR CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE TO PARTICIPATE VOLUNTARILY IN REDUCTIONS IN FORCE
This section would amend section 3502 of title 5, United States Code,
to extend to September 30, 2005, the authority of the Secretary of
Defense to allow certain civilian employees to volunteer for separation
under reduction in force procedures even though those employees would
not otherwise be subject to separation. The committee believes that this
program has ameliorated the disruptive effects of reductions-in-force by
lessening the number of civilian employees who would otherwise have been
involuntarily separated.
SECTION 1105--EXPANSION OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN INTELLIGENCE PERSONNEL
SYSTEM POSITIONS
This section would amend section 1601 of title 10, United States
Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to create positions within
the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System outside the
designated intelligence components of the Department of Defense. The
committee believes that a limited number of positions should be created
outside the designated intelligence components to establish appropriate
career broadening intelligence related positions within the Office of
the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications,
and Intelligence and other activities of the Office of the Secretary of
Defense.
SECTION 1106--PILOT PROGRAM FOR REENGINEERING THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMPLAINT PROCESS
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to carry out a
pilot program to demonstrate improved processes for the resolution of
equal employment opportunity complaints.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
ARMS CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION
The budget request contained $219.0 million for arms control
implementation programs, representing a slight decrease from the fiscal
year 2000 current spending level of $222.7 million. The committee
recommends $207.5 million, a decrease of $11.5 million from the budget
request.
The committee notes that the budget request assumes the entry into
force of a number of arms control treaties that remain unratified by all
necessary parties. This includes the Open Skies Treaty and the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT); the latter failed a vote on
ratification before the United States Senate. In addition, although the
START II Treaty between the United States and Russia was signed in 1993,
subsequently ratified by the United States Senate, and ratified by the
Russian Duma in April 2000, the Duma has linked Russian observance of
START II to acceptance by the United States of a Protocol to the START
II Treaty that was agreed to by Presidents Clinton and Yeltsin in 1997.
The START II Treaty cannot enter into force prior to the Senate giving
its advice and consent to the Protocol to the Treaty, which has yet to
be submitted to the Senate for its consideration.
In light of the delayed entry into force of these treaties, the
committee believes that adjustments to the budget request are warranted.
The committee's recommendation to reduce the requested level of funding
is premised on the belief that funds should not be expended on
activities to comply unilaterally with treaties that have not yet
entered into force. The committee expects the Department to take this
into account in apportioning the recommended reductions.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SECTION 1201--SUPPORT OF UNITED NATIONS-SPONSORED EFFORTS TO INSPECT
AND MONITOR IRAQI WEAPONS ACTIVITIES
This section would amend section 1505 of the Weapons of Mass
Destruction Control Act of 1992 by extending the authority provided to
the Department of Defense under that Act to support the activities of
the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission
(UNMOVIC) in fiscal year 2001. This section would limit assistance
provided to UNMOVIC by the Department of Defense to $15.0 million.
The committee continues to be troubled by the efforts of Iraq to
develop and potentially to militarize weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
The committee strongly believes that the United Nations must
re-establish a robust, long-term monitoring program in Iraq that
includes on-site inspections and remote surveillance involving cameras,
sensors, seismic devices, and other technology. However, United Nations
weapons inspectors have been barred from entering Iraq since October
1998. The committee believes the current status-quo is unacceptable and
jeopardizes long-standing U.S. policy that Iraq must be denied access to
ballistic missile technology and weapons of mass destruction.
The committee notes the adoption by the United Nations Security
Council of Resolution 1284 in December 1999 that established UNMOVIC as
the successor to the United Nations Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM).
The committee remains doubtful that Iraq will fulfill its responsibility
to allow inspections as mandated by the Security Council. However, the
committee supports the Department of Defense's assistance to UNMOVIC
under the Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992 and believes
the Department should maintain a level of readiness necessary to ensure
the swift resumption of monitoring missions should future conditions
permit.
SECTION 1202--ANNUAL REPORT ASSESSING EFFECT OF CONTINUED OPERATIONS IN
THE BALKANS REGION ON READINESS TO EXECUTE THE NATIONAL MILITARY STRATEGY
This section would amend section 1035 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) to make
annual the reporting requirement of the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report 180 days after enactment assessing the effects of operations in
the Balkans on the ability of the United States to meet other regional
contingencies and the National Military Strategy. The committee notes
that the slow pace of civil implementation in both Bosnia-Herzegovina
and Kosovo will require the United States and NATO to maintain military
forces in the region for the foreseeable future necessitating an annual
reporting requirement.
The committee further notes with concern that the Army announced in
November 1999 that the two divisions deployed to the Balkans, the 1st
Infantry Division in Kosovo and the 10th Mountain Division in Kosovo,
had been assigned a C-4 readiness rating. The division commanders of
each unit assigned this rating over concerns that neither division could
disengage from their peacekeeping duties in time to deploy to a major
theater conflict as required by current war plans. These concerns were
subsequently reported in the Department's Quarterly Readiness Report of
the Department of Defense to Congress for that period, in which the
Department expressed concern over the ability of the armed forces to
disengage forces from on-going contingencies in order to fight major
regional conflicts. The committee believes that as long as the United
States has military forces in the Balkans region conducting peacekeeping
operations, combat readiness will be degraded.
SECTION 1203--SITUATION IN THE BALKANS
This section would require the President to establish militarily
significant benchmarks that will create a sustainable peace in Kosovo
and that will facilitate the withdrawal of US troops from Kosovo. This
section would also require the President to seek concurrence with
members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to establish a
comprehensive political-military strategy toward the situation in the
Balkans. In creating this strategy, this section would urge the
President to take into consideration the benchmarks already established
for the Bosnia peacekeeping mission as well as those that are to be
developed for Kosovo. This section would also require an initial and
subsequent semi-annual reports on the progress being made toward
developing and implementing a comprehensive strategy in the Balkans.
This section would also require an initial and subsequent semi-annual
reports on the progress being made on the establishment and
implementation of the benchmarks for Kosovo.
The committee remains concerned about the on-going, open-ended
peacekeeping missions in the Balkans and their effect on military
readiness. Since last year, the United States, in conjunction with the
NATO alliance, fought a 78-day air war against Serbia, followed by the
introduction of a peacekeeping force into the province of Kosovo. These
efforts were in addition to NATO's already extensive commitment to
peacekeeping in Bosnia-Herzegovina that began in 1995. As a result, the
United States has a significant military commitment to peacekeeping
operations in the region.
These extensive military efforts have produced an absence of war in
the Balkans. However, the pace of civil implementation has lagged far
behind the military operations in both areas. In Bosnia, the slow
progress on implementation of the Dayton Accords has led to questions
regarding the duration of the Stabilization Force (SFOR) mission. Due to
the lack of civil institutions, military forces have assumed many tasks
more appropriately reserved for civilian law enforcement and judicial
institutions. In Kosovo, the final status of the province remains
unresolved. The Kosovar Albanians desire an independent country, while
the Serbs desire the area remain a province of Serbia. The committee is
concerned that several European nations are not maintaining commitments
regarding promised troop levels in the Kosovo Force (KFOR). The
committee is also concerned that there is a chronic shortage of civilian
international police and that the United Nations Mission in Kosovo is
severely underfunded. Without a clearly defined end-state, and with
unrest between the warring parties continuing, prospects for stability
in Kosovo are bleak.
The committee is concerned that the lack of an overall strategy in
the Balkans, compounded by the continuing destabilizing influence of
Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, is slowing the pace of civil
implementation and prolonging the military mission in the region. The
lack of a comprehensive strategy ensures that the military missions in
both Bosnia and Kosovo appear vague and open-ended.
The studies conducted by the Government Accounting Office estimates
the cost of U.S. operations in Bosnia and Kosovo to the Department of
Defense at $15.6 billion between fiscal years 1992 and 2000. These
operations are projected to cost the Department $3.1 billion in fiscal
year 2001 alone. These operations drain funds from modernization and
operations and maintenance accounts. At the same time, the requirement
to maintain large numbers of personnel on a rotational basis in the
region adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to conduct
wartime missions as required by the National Military Strategy. The
increased pace of operations has compelled the Department to augment
active duty units with reserve component forces in an attempt to relieve
the pressure on already over-committed units.
The committee believes that a comprehensive strategy for dealing with
the Balkans is an essential prerequisite to lasting stability in the
region and the maintenance of the readiness of the armed forces.
SECTION 1204--LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF MILITARY PERSONNEL IN COLOMBIA
This section would restrict funds available to the Department of
Defense to support or maintain more than 500 U.S. military personnel on
duty in Colombia at any time. This section would exclude from the
numerical limitation any U.S. military personnel who are in Colombia for
a period of not more than 30 days, unless expressly authorized by law,
for the purpose of rescuing or retrieving U.S. military or governmental
personnel. This section would also exempt from the limitation U.S.
military personnel assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Colombia as an
attache AE1, as part of the security assistance office, or the Marine
Corps security contingent; service members participating in natural
disaster relief efforts, and; non-operational transient military
personnel.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE
FORMER SOVIET UNION
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $458.4 million for cooperative threat
reduction (CTR) activities, representing a slight increase of $0.3
million over the amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2000. The request
included $226.2 million for destruction and dismantlement, $161.1
million for fissile materials and nuclear weapons safety and storage,
$32.1 million for reactor core conversion in Russia, $12.0 million for
biological weapons proliferation prevention in Russia, $14.0 million for
defense and military contacts, and $13.0 million for other program
support, including administrative and management costs.
The committee recommends a total of $433.4 million for CTR activities
in fiscal year 2001, a decrease of $25.0 million from the budget
request. The committee recommends the request of $57.4 million for
fissile material storage in Russia; $9.3 million for fissile material
processing and packaging in Russia; $14.0 million for nuclear weapons
transportation security in Russia; $89.7 million for nuclear weapons
storage security in Russia; $12.0 million for biological weapons
proliferation prevention in Russia; and $13.0 million for other program
support. The committee recommends the following increases to the budget
request: $10.0 million for strategic offensive arms elimination in
Russia; and $5.0 million for strategic nuclear arms elimination in
Ukraine; The committee recommends the following decreases to the budget
request: $35.0 million for chemical weapons destruction; and $5.0
million for defense and military contacts.
Although the committee supports the overriding goal of the CTR
program to reduce the threat to the United States posed by the former
Soviet Union's residual weapons of mass destruction, the committee
remains concerned that the United States is absorbing an increasing
share of the costs of implementing CTR projects as a result of the
continued poor economic situation in the states of the former Soviet
Union. In Congressional testimony on March 6, 2000, Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Threat Reduction Policy Susan Koch stated that
Russia's economic conditions mean that its financial contribution to
threat reduction projects ``is less than originally expected.'' The
committee is concerned that U.S. costs will continue to grow unless
economic conditions in the former Soviet Union improve markedly. As the
General Accounting Office (GAO) noted in recent testimony, ``Given the
current situation, the United States may have to fully fund not only its
implementation but also the operations and maintenance of the threat
reduction projects.''
In this regard, the committee is troubled by the Department of
Defense's willingness to absorb additional costs without prior
consultation with the Congress. In response to the reporting requirement
contained in section 1308 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106 65), the Secretary of Defense noted
that the Department ``continuously urges the states receiving CTR
assistance to contribute their own funds to projects. . . . CTR assesses
the contribution arrangements of each project to avoid starting a
project under conditions whereby the recipient will not be able to meet
its share and restructuring has to occur.'' Unfortunately, the committee
sees
no evidence that this strategy has achieved the desired
results, and calls on the Department to redouble its efforts in this
regard.
Further, the committee is convinced that the focus of the CTR program
should remain on eliminating those weapons that pose the most serious
and direct threat to U.S. security--first and foremost, strategic
nuclear weapons and associated infrastructure. The committee notes that
the original focus of the CTR program has expanded in scope since its
inception, raising questions about the Department's role in funding
certain projects. Section 1306 of Public Law 106 65 prohibits the
obligation or expenditure of more than 50 percent of fiscal year 2000
CTR funds until the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress a report
explaining why the Department is the appropriate funding source for each
CTR project for which funding is requested, and identifies those
projects that might more appropriately be funded by other agencies. The
committee has not yet received this report, but believes that certain
projects--for example, those associated with the effort to eliminate the
production of weapons-grade plutonium at Russian nuclear reactors--ought
not to be funded by the Department.
Finally, the committee's overall support of the CTR program is
tempered with the realization that it is increasingly difficult to know
with certainty how effective this program is in actually reducing the
threat to the United States. This is the case as the program transitions
away from more concrete projects involving the destruction of missile
launchers and associated hardware and toward support of less tangible
projects, such as funding collaborative research with former Soviet
scientists. The committee notes recent testimony by the GAO, which
points out that ``conclusively demonstrating that most of these programs
are having a positive impact has proven to be very difficult. . . . Most
of these programs . . . are inherently a cost risk in that we may never
be able to prove that they have achieved their intended purpose.''
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
ARMS ELIMINATION PROJECTS IN RUSSIA
The budget request contained $152.8 million for strategic offensive
arms elimination projects in Russia, a 16 percent decrease from the
fiscal year 2000 appropriated amount of $182.3 million. The committee
recommends $162.8 million for this activity, an increase of $10.0
million to the budget request.
The committee continues to support the accelerated reduction and
elimination of Russian strategic nuclear arms. However, the committee
remains concerned that Russia has not been complying with certain arms
reduction obligations and that CTR funding provided to assist Russia in
meeting its obligations is not being used for this purpose. In
particular, the committee notes that under the START I Treaty, Russia
committed to eliminating at least 22 SS 18 intercontinental ballistic
missile (ICBM) launchers annually. According to the Department of
Defense, Russia eliminated only 6 SS 18 launchers in 1997 and none in
1998 or 1999. In a January 9, 2000 report to Congress on the SS 18 ICBM
elimination program, the Department conceded that Russia's commitment to
eliminate at least 22 SS 18 ICBM launchers per year is ``legally
binding.''
The committee remains concerned with Russia's failure to carry out
its obligations in this regard, and fails to understand why Russia
should be allowed to renege on its legally binding obligation while it
continues to invest scarce resources in the development, production, and
deployment of more modern and capable ICBMs such as the SS 27
``Topol-M.'' The committee expects the Department to continue to press
Russia to comply with its obligations under START I, regardless of the
level of CTR assistance provided.
Moreover, the committee notes that under the START II Treaty,
recently ratified by Russia, up to 90 SS 18 silos may be converted for
deployment of modern SS 27 ICBMs. The committee supports the complete
elimination of SS 18 missiles, silos, and related infrastructure, and
does not support the use of CTR funds for activities that would
facilitate silo conversion. Therefore, the committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to focus the Department's SS 18 elimination effort
at locations where missile silos are to be eliminated, not converted, to
ensure that CTR assistance is not used in support of Russia's strategic
modernization program.
ARMS ELIMINATION PROJECTS IN UKRAINE
The budget request contained $29.1 million for strategic nuclear arms
elimination projects in Ukraine, a 17 percent reduction from the fiscal
year 2000 appropriated level of $35.0 million. This decrease continues a
downward trend in funding strategic nuclear elimination projects in
Ukraine made possible by the completion of certain activities and
objectives. The committee recommends $34.1 million for this activity, a
$5.0 million increase to the budget request, for the purpose of
accelerating dismantlement activity.
The committee notes that last year Ukraine agreed to transfer to
Russia 11 heavy bombers, including Tu-95 Bear and Tu-160 Blackjack
bombers, in partial payment of energy debts. More than 500 air-launched
cruise missiles were also included in the deal. These weapons and
platforms were planned to be eliminated in Ukraine. The committee
regrets Ukraine's decision to transfer these systems to Russia, and
encourages the Department to seek Russia's agreement to the elimination
of these systems.
BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PROLIFERATION PREVENTION IN RUSSIA
The budget request contained $12.0 million for biological weapons
proliferation prevention activities in Russia, a 14 percent decrease
from the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level of $14.0 million. This
would support approximately one dozen collaborative research projects
with Russian scientists at institutes previously involved in biological
weapons work. In addition, it would help to secure and safeguard
stockpiles of biological pathogens that exist at several institutes in
Russia. The committee recommends the budget request.
The committee continues to support efforts directed toward reducing
the risk of biological weapons proliferation, but continues to have
concerns regarding the overall approach taken by the Department to
addressing those risks.
First, unlike other collaborative ventures where joint research
projects are directed toward exclusively civilian applications, it is
difficult to demonstrate that collaborative research projects in the
area of biological defense have no offensive military application.
According to an April 2000 GAO report, ``This type of research is
difficult to distinguish from offensive research because of the inherent
dual-use nature of biotechnology.''
Second, the committee is concerned that funding collaborative
research efforts with Russian scientists in the area of biological
defense may serve to perpetuate a knowledge base and set of skills among
Russian scientists that might make them more attractive targets for
recruitment by foreign states seeking to develop their own biological
weapons programs. Such an outcome would be precisely the opposite of
that intended. As the GAO recently testified, ``supplementing the
salaries of these scientists is no guarantee that they will not in the
future sell their services to individuals or countries that pose
national security risks to the United States.'' Moreover, the GAO's
April 2000 report concludes that ``sustained U.S. support of institutes,
especially through research aimed at advancing U.S. biodefense
capabilities, may help to preserve Russian scientists' knowledge and
skills and otherwise help to maintain these institutes' capacity to
research and develop biological weapons.''
Third, the committee remains troubled with the overall lack of
transparency with respect to Russia's biological weapons programs.
Existing and planned collaborative projects involve scientists at
Russian civilian institutes that were a part of the former Soviet
Union's massive biological weapons complex. To date, the Russian
Ministry of Defense has refused to engage the United States in
collaborative projects at sites or institutes exclusively under its
control. Moreover, there is much about the former Soviet biological
weapons program that remains unknown, and Russia has not been
forthcoming in providing information that would reassure the United
States that it is not still engaged in offensive biological weapons
work. The United States cannot be assured that scientists currently
engaged in collaborative efforts at civilian institutes will not be
subsequently employed at facilities controlled by the Russian Ministry
of Defense. According to the GAO report, ``None of these [proposed U.S.
risk-mitigation] measures, however, would prevent Russian project
participants or institutes from potentially using their skills or
research outputs to later work on offensive weapons activities at any of
the Russian military institutes that remain closed to the United
States.''
Fourth, the committee is concerned about the ability of the United
States to verify that assistance is being used for the purposes intended
and not being diverted to offensive weapons work. This concern has
increased in light of recent revelations that civilian research
assistance previously provided to Russia by the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration and the Agency for International Development was
diverted to Biopreparat, the main civilian support arm of Russia's
biological weapons complex.
Fifth, the committee notes that under the Expanded Threat Reduction
Initiative, the Department of Defense is only one of several agencies
involved in support of collaborative biological research efforts with
Russian scientists. This places a premium on ensuring that current and
planned efforts are not in conflict and raises questions regarding the
Department of Defense's overall role in this effort. To this end,
section 1309 of Public Law 106 65 required the President to submit to
the Congress no later than March 31, 2000 a report on the Expanded
Threat Reduction Initiative. This report has not yet been submitted, and
therefore, the committee does not have all the information it needs to
determine whether program redundancies have been avoided. Consequently,
the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1311) that would prohibit the
obligation or expenditure of CTR funds for biological weapons
proliferation prevention activities until the required report is
submitted. The committee will continue to assess carefully the
Department's plans and programs with respect to this activity.
CHEMICAL WEAPONS DESTRUCTION IN RUSSIA
The budget request contained a provision that would repeal section
1305 of Public Law 106 65, which prohibits any funding for the design,
planning, or construction of a chemical weapons destruction facility in
Russia. The budget request also contained $35.0 million to restart
funding for the chemical weapons destruction facility at Shchuch'ye,
Russia. The committee disapproves repeal of the existing statutory
prohibition and denies the requested funding for this activity.
The Department of Defense bases its request for repeal of the section
1305 prohibition on three main arguments: 1) that the risk of
proliferation of the chemical munitions stockpiled at Shchuch'ye remains
a threat to the United States; 2) that Russia has begun to take the
actions necessary to move forward with the project; and 3) that the
international community is willing to contribute additional resources to
the task of assisting Russia with the elimination of its chemical
weapons. The committee questions the Department's assessment and does
not believe that the situation warrants a reversal of the Congress'
decision last year to halt funding for this project.
To begin with, while the committee supports in principle efforts to
eliminate Russia's chemical weapons stockpile in accordance with its
obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention, the committee takes
issue with the Department's characterization of the proliferation threat
at Shchuch'ye. The committee recognizes that there is a risk of
proliferation of chemical weapons in Russia. For this reason, the
Congress last year directed that $20.0 million in CTR assistance be used
to enhance security at Russia's existing chemical weapons sites.
Nevertheless, the committee is not aware of any evidence to suggest that
the risk of theft or diversion of the chemical munitions stockpiled at
Shchuch'ye is particularly acute. The committee notes that no fiscal
year 2001 CTR funds are proposed to be spent on additional security
upgrades at Shchuch'ye. This alone calls into question the Department's
assertion that the risk of weapons theft or diversion at this site is
serious.
Second, the Department has noted that Russia has begun making
infrastructure improvements to the local community--a necessary
prerequisite to U.S. construction of the chemical weapons destruction
facility. For example, new housing units are being constructed and water
and sewer lines are being installed. However, the committee notes that,
in part, the Congress' prohibition on funding the Shchuch'ye facility
last year was not based on the lack of infrastructure improvements but
on concern over Russia's ability to absorb all of the prospective costs
associated with this effort. This concern has not abated. Consequently,
the committee does not believe that recent developments warrant a repeal
of last year's statutory prohibition.
Third, the level of international contributions to Russia's chemical
weapons elimination effort in general--and to support for the Shchuch'ye
facility in particular--is minimal. Based on the Department's projection
of the life-cycle costs of the Shchuch'ye facility ($1.6 billion) and
the level of international funding required to ensure that the facility
meets its chemical weapons destruction objectives ($721.5 million to
$756.0 million), current assistance provided by the international
community amounts to roughly 0.001 percent of what is required. To date,
only Canada has provided assistance to help Russia with the costs of
local infrastructure improvements at Shchuch'ye--and only in
the amount of $70,000. Great Britain is considering
contributing approximately $5 million to the effort, but has conditioned
this assistance on a U.S. decision to restart funding. Other countries
had previously committed to assist in the overall Russian chemical
weapons elimination effort. However, the level of assistance committed
is also a small fraction of what is required and little is directed
toward the effort at Shchuch'ye.
The Department's latest estimate of the cost to the United States of
the Shchuch'ye project has grown significantly, rising from roughly $750
million last year to almost $900 million. The committee expects that
this cost estimate will continue to rise and may soon exceed $1.0
billion. Moreover, the committee remains concerned over the ability of
Russia to fund the costs of increasing the destruction rate of the
facility and to operate and maintain it over the period of time required
to eliminate the chemical weapons stockpile located there. Without any
assurances that Russia will absorb the costs of running and maintaining
the facility over the next decade, the United States may spend more than
a billion dollars to build a facility that never accomplishes its
objective, unless the United States--despite Administration
representations to the Congress--reverses its position and agrees to pay
these costs. In fact, the committee notes that Russia continues to
significantly underfund its chemical weapons destruction effort.
According to Russian officials, Russia has fallen significantly
behind schedule in destroying its chemical weapons stockpiles and has
missed the April 1, 2000 deadline established by the Chemical Weapons
Convention to eliminate 400 tons of its declared chemical weapons
stockpile. As Lieutenant General Valery Kapachin, the head of Russia's
chemical weapons elimination effort, declared on March 31, 2000, ``We
haven't destroyed anything as of today.'' With respect to the
demilitarization of existing chemical weapons production plants, three
Russian officials noted last year that ``the Russian Government can
provide only ten percent of the necessary budget,'' and therefore
``financial assistance from other countries is crucial.''
Finally, the committee notes that Shchuch'ye is only one of seven
declared sites where Russian chemical munitions are stored and one of
five sites where nerve agents are located. The Department asserts that
Russia's arsenal of nerve agents poses the most serious security threat
to the United States. However, Russian law prohibits the transportation
of agents located at one stockpile site to another site for destruction.
Therefore, unless Russia changes its law, additional chemical weapons
destruction facilities will need to be built at the other locations.
Last year, the committee directed the Department to use unobligated
prior year balances ``to provide for an orderly close-out'' of
activities at Shchuch'ye. To date, the Department has ignored this
direction. The committee reiterates its call for an orderly close-out
and urges the Department to focus its efforts on projects with greater
prospective benefits for U.S. security.
DEFENSE AND MILITARY CONTACTS
The budget request contained $14.0 million for defense and military
contacts with the states of the former Soviet Union, a 600 percent
increase over the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level of $2.0 million.
The Department asserts that this increase is necessary to support
approximately 350 contacts annually and that the program has exhausted
much of the prior year unobligated funds that allowed it to maintain a
consistent level of contacts in recent years with significantly less new
funding. The committee recommends $9.0 million for this activity, a
decrease of $5.0 million from the budget request.
The committee notes that, according to the latest financial
information provided by the Department, there remains approximately
$20.0 million in prior year unobligated balances for these activities.
Moreover, the committee recalls the long-standing prohibition on
conducting peacekeeping exercises or related activities with Russia
using CTR funds, and questions whether all planned exercises are
consistent with this prohibition. This concern has been exacerbated by
the Department's explanation that the description of some planned
activities identified to the committee as peacekeeping-related was ``in
error.'' The committee expects the Department to ensure that all defense
and military contacts are consistent with statutory guidance.
ELIMINATION OF PLUTONIUM PRODUCTION IN RUSSIA
The budget request contained $32.1 million for the elimination of
plutonium production in Russian nuclear reactors, a slight decrease from
the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level of $32.2 million. The committee
recommends the budget request, subject to the restriction below.
Since the start of this project, CTR funds have been directed toward
core conversion--a process whereby the production of weapons-grade
plutonium would be eliminated, but the nuclear reactors would continue
producing lower-grade fuel to provide for the energy needs of the
communities where they are located. Recently, Russia informed the United
States that it would prefer to shut down the reactors entirely and to
construct fossil fuel plants to provide for local energy needs. The
Department of Defense previously rejected this option as too costly.
However, Russia now believes the cost of the fossil fuel option would be
less than core conversion. In order to determine of validity of Russian
estimates, U.S. and Russian officials met in March 2000 to discuss the
issue. In the meantime, all work on the core conversion project has been
suspended.
Department of Defense officials have indicated that if the fossil
fuel option turns out to be the most cost-effective approach, Russia
will link its agreement to shut down the nuclear reactors at Krasnoyarsk
and Tomsk with U.S. assistance for the construction of fossil fuel
plants. Although the committee supports the elimination of Russia's
weapons-grade plutonium production and the shutting down of these
reactors, the committee does not believe that CTR funds should be used
to build fossil fuel plants in Russia. Therefore, if this option is
chosen, the committee believes that any U.S. assistance provided for
this activity should be funded through other means, external to the
Department of Defense. Consequently, the committee recommends a
provision (sec. 1309) that would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of any CTR funds for the construction of fossil fuel plants in Russia.
FISSILE MATERIAL PROCESSING AND PACKAGING
The budget request contained $9.3 million to assist Russia in
processing the fissile components of dismantled nuclear warheads in
preparation for long-term storage. This amount is the same as the fiscal
year 2000 appropriated level. The committee recommends the budget
request.
The committee notes that the required implementing agreement that
would allow the United States to assist Russia in this endeavor has not
yet been negotiated. In addition, discussions regarding effective
transparency measures have not produced any agreement. Agreement on
transparency measures is essential to ensure that these fissile
materials are the actual materials removed from dismantled nuclear
warheads. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1307)
that would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of fiscal year 2001
CTR funds for this purpose until 15 days after the Secretary of Defense
notifies the Congress that an acceptable transparency agreement has been
concluded.
FISSILE MATERIAL STORAGE FACILITY
The budget request contained $57.4 million for continued construction
of a fissile material storage facility in Russia, a reduction of 8
percent from the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level of $62.1 million.
The facility, located at Mayak, Russia, would be used to house fissile
materials from dismantled nuclear weapons. The committee recommends the
budget request.
The committee reiterates its previously expressed concern over cost
increases and schedule delays in connection with construction of the
Mayak facility. In particular, the committee notes that the anticipated
cost of this project has increased by roughly 300 percent since 1996.
Moreover, the committee remains troubled by the fact that the United
States agreed last year to increase its share of the costs of this
facility by 50 percent without seeking prior Congressional consultation
or approval. Consequently, the committee recommends a provision (sec.
1304) that would establish a funding cap of $412.6 million on the level
of U.S. assistance provided for activities associated with the Mayak
facility.
Moreover, the committee is aware of plans to construct a second
storage wing of the Mayak facility to provide additional storage
capacity for weapons-origin fissile materials. However, no agreement
with Russia on transparency measures has yet been reached to assure that
the fissile materials stored at Mayak are in fact weapons-origin. The
committee understands that transparency negotiations are taking place in
the context of possible U.S. assistance to Russia in the processing and
packaging of fissile material removed from nuclear warheads. Therefore,
consistent with last year's Congressional action, the committee
recommends a provision (sec. 1304) that would prohibit fiscal year 2001
CTR funds from being used for construction of a second wing at Mayak and
would restrict funding for design and planning until 15 days after the
Secretary of Defense notifies the Congress that a transparency agreement
with Russia has been reached.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS STORAGE SECURITY IN RUSSIA
The budget request contained $89.7 million for nuclear weapons
storage security in Russia, a 7 percent increase from the fiscal year
2000 appropriated level of $84.0 million. The committee recommends the
budget request.
The committee continues to support the objective of ensuring the safe
and secure storage of nuclear weapons in Russia. However, the committee
believes it essential that the United States be granted appropriate
access to nuclear weapons storage facilities to ensure that assistance
provided is being used as intended. Consequently, the committee
recommends a provision (sec. 1308) that would direct the Secretary of
Defense to seek an agreement with Russia that would grant the United
States appropriate access to nuclear weapons storage sites where CTR
assistance is being provided to confirm such assistance is being used as
intended.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS TRANSPORTATION SECURITY
The budget request contained $14.0 million for nuclear weapons
transportation security in Russia, an 8 percent decrease from the fiscal
year 2000 appropriated level of $15.2 million. The committee recommends
the budget request. However, the committee again urges the Department to
seek an agreement with Russia that does not commit the United States to
paying the costs of nuclear weapons transportation, costs previously
paid by Russia.
OTHER ASSESSMENTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
The budget request contained $13.0 million for other program costs,
including management and administrative costs, project development, and
audits and examinations, a 550 percent increase from the fiscal year
2000 appropriated level of $2.0 million. The Department asserts that it
requires additional new funding because of the drawdown in prior year
unobligated balances. The committee recommends the budget request.
The committee notes that this funding is used to support at least 20
audits and examinations of CTR assistance annually, which are intended
to ensure that such assistance is being used as intended. However, the
committee is concerned that the Department, which is required to report
to the Congress annually on the results of these audits and
examinations, has not provided this information in a timely manner and,
in several instances, provided information that is incomplete or
inaccurate.
The committee emphasizes that this reporting requirement is essential
to ensure that the Congress can exercise its appropriate oversight role
with respect to the CTR program. According to a recent GAO study, the
Department ``cannot fully support its determination that assistance was
used as intended'' and places a ``relatively low priority'' on providing
audit and examination information to the Congress. Consequently, the
committee recommends a provision (sec. 1310) that would require the
Comptroller General of the GAO to conduct an audit and examination of
the Department's ability to make accurate assessments of whether CTR
funds are being used as intended.
The committee notes that section 1312 of Public Law 106 65 required
the Department to include information on Russia's arsenal of tactical
nuclear warheads in its annual reports on audits and examinations
submitted to the Congress after fiscal year 1999. The committee further
notes that the Department's 1997 and 1998 audit and examination reports
did not contain this information, even though they were submitted to the
Congress in fiscal year 2000. The Department has indicated that it
interprets the section 1312 requirement to apply to only those reports
covering fiscal year 2000 and beyond, the first of which would not be
submitted to the Congress until January 2001. The committee notes that
the language of section 1312 is clear and does not support the
Department's interpretation. Therefore, the committee recommends a
provision (sec.
1306) that would require the Department to provide this
information not later than October 1, 2000.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SECTION 1301--SPECIFICATION OF COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAMS
AND FUNDS
This section would specify the kinds of programs to be funded under
this title and would make fiscal year 2001 CTR funds available for
obligation for three years.
SECTION 1302--FUNDING ALLOCATIONS
This section would allocate fiscal year 2001 funding for various CTR
purposes and activities.
SECTION 1303--PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR ELIMINATION OF
CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS
This section would prohibit the use of CTR funds for conventional
weapons elimination purposes.
SECTION 1304--LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS FOR FISSILE MATERIAL STORAGE
FACILITY
This section would restrict the use of CTR funds for activities
associated with the construction of a fissile material storage facility
in Russia and would establish a funding ceiling on the first wing of
such a facility.
SECTION 1305--LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS UNTIL SUBMISSION OF MULTIYEAR
PLAN
This section would limit the obligation or expenditure of fiscal year
2001 CTR funds until the Secretary submits the update to the multiyear
plan required by section 1205 of Public Law 103 337.
SECTION 1306--RUSSIAN NONSTRATEGIC NUCLEAR ARMS
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report on Russian nonstrategic nuclear arms not later than October 1,
2000.
SECTION 1307--LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS TO SUPPORT WARHEAD
DISMANTLEMENT PROCESSING
This section would prohibit the use of fiscal year 2001 CTR funds to
support warhead dismantlement processing in Russia until a transparency
agreement with Russia is signed.
SECTION 1308--AGREEMENT ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS STORAGE SITES
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to seek an
agreement with Russia allowing for U.S. access to nuclear weapons
storage sites where CTR assistance is provided.
SECTION 1309--PROHIBITION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FOSSIL
FUEL ENERGY PLANTS
This section would prohibit the use of CTR funds for the construction
of fossil fuel plants in Russia.
SECTION 1310--AUDITS OF COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAMS
This section would require the Comptroller General to submit to
Congress not later than March 31, 2001 a report on procedures used by
the Department of Defense to audit CTR assistance.
SECTION 1311--LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR PREVENTION OF BIOLOGICAL
WEAPONS PROLIFERATION IN RUSSIA
This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of CTR
funds for this purpose until the report required by section 1309 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106
65) is submitted to the Congress.
TITLE XIV--COMMISSION TO ASSESS THE THREAT TO THE UNITED
STATES FROM ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE (EMP) ATTACK
OVERVIEW
The committee understands that a nuclear weapon detonated at
high-altitude would generate a powerful electromagnetic pulse (EMP),
similar to a very high energy radio wave, that can potentially damage or
destroy electronic systems over a wide area of the Earth's surface. For
example, a single nuclear weapon detonated at an altitude of 500
kilometers could produce an EMP that would blanket the entire
continental United States, potentially damaging or destroying military
forces and civilian communications, power, transportation and other
infrastructure on which modern society depends.
The committee is aware that EMP has been the focus of significant
government-funded research and testing for over 30 years. However, the
committee is also aware that most of these efforts were conducted during
the Cold War and focused on hardening strategic systems against a
massive nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. The committee understands
that far fewer resources have been dedicated to examining the potential
vulnerability of the U.S. civilian and industrial infrastructure to an
EMP attack. Moreover, since the Cold War, U.S. military and civilian
systems have become increasingly dependent on advanced electronics that
are potentially more vulnerable than older electronics to EMP attack, a
trend that is likely to continue in the future.
In the committee's view, the potential vulnerability of the United
States to an EMP attack may be an issue of greater moment, now that
missiles and nuclear weapons are proliferating. Some analysts have
suggested that nations having small numbers of nuclear missiles, such as
China or North Korea, may consider an EMP attack against U.S. forces
regionally, to degrade the U.S. technological advantage, or against the
United States' national electronic infrastructure, as a way to get the
most utility from their modest nuclear capabilities. Analysts have also
suggested that Russia's new military doctrine, which gives unprecedented
emphasis to limited nuclear options, may assign increased importance to
EMP attacks as a way of limiting a nuclear conflict and averting a
massive nuclear exchange in the event of a confrontation with the United
States.
Accordingly, the committee recommends the establishment of a
commission to assess the threat to the United States from
electromagnetic pulse attacks.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SECTION 1401--ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION
This section describes how the ``Commission to Assess the Threat to
the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack'' is to be selected
and organized.
SECTION 1402--DUTIES OF COMMISSION
This section describes the duties of the Commission, would require
the Commission to assess the EMP threat to the United States, to make
recommendations on how to better protect U.S. military and civilian
infrastructure from EMP, and would require the Department of Defense and
Federal Emergency Management Agency to cooperate with the Commission.
SECTION 1403--REPORT
This section would require the Commission to submit a report to
Congress, the Secretary of Defense, and the Director of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency within twelve months of the Commission's
first meeting.
SECTION 1404--POWERS
This section would grant the Commission the power to hold hearings
and secure information directly from any Federal department or agency.
SECTION 1405--COMMISSION PROCEDURES
This section describes the procedural rules for Commission meetings,
for establishing Commission panels, and for agents or individual members
acting on behalf of the Commission.
SECTION 1406--PERSONNEL MEMBERS
This section would describe and regulate how Commission members are
to be paid and reimbursed for travel expenses; and how Commission staff
are to be appointed and paid, government employees detailed to the
Commission, and temporary services acquired by the Commission.
SECTION 1407--MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
This section would make postal, printing, administrative and support
services available to the Commission.
SECTION 1408--FUNDING
This section would regulate how funds are to be provided to the
Commission.
SECTION 1409--TERMINATION OF THE COMMISSION
This section would provide for the termination of the Commission
within 60 days after the submission of its report under Section 1403.
TITLE XV--PROVISIONS REGARDING VIEQUES ISLAND, PUERTO RICO
OVERVIEW
The committee remains concerned about the situation at the Atlantic
Fleet Weapons Training Facility located on Vieques Island, Puerto Rico.
On April 19, 1999, during a routine training event, live ordnance
deployed by a Marine Corps F/A 18 accidentally struck an observation
post within the Vieques weapons range complex and killed David Sanes
Rodriguez, a Navy contract employee. From that day until May 4, 2000,
protestors occupying the live impact area on Vieques prevented the Navy
and Marine Corps from conducting training on the range.
Due to this situation, the Eisenhower and George Washington battle
groups and their associated amphibious ready groups were unable to
conduct pre-deployment training on Vieques. As a result, valuable live
naval gunfire, air-to-ground, and combined arms training normally
conducted prior to deployment did not take place. This had a substantial
negative impact on the overall readiness of these deploying units as
reported in the Department of Defense Quarterly Readiness Report to
Congress for October to December 1999. The Navy stated in that report
that, ``Several deploying surface combatants will depart Atlantic ports
in February 2000 with reduced training readiness due to expired gunfire
qualifications resulting from the continued non-availability of the
Vieques training range.''
On January 31, 2000, the President and the Governor of Puerto Rico
concluded an agreement on the future of Vieques. This agreement would
allow the Navy to resume live fire on Vieques with inert ammunition in
return for $40.0 million in economic assistance and the conveyance of
Navy land on the western end of the island to The Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico. According to the agreement, the future status of Navy training on
Vieques would be determined by a local referendum.
On May 4, 2000, after over a year of occupation, federal law
enforcement and Puerto Rican officials cleared the live impact area and
Eastern Maneuver Area of protestors. However, even with the range now
cleared, training is still restricted to inert munitions. This
restriction will not allow the for the full range of live, joint and
combined training that is necessary prior to the deployment of carrier
battle groups and amphibious ready groups. The committee does not
believe that training conducted solely with inert ammunition adequately
provides for the readiness of our combat forces.
The committee also believes that the Department of the Navy has not
been a good steward of Vieques. The Navy has failed to implement
adequately many of the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding of
1983 concluded between the Navy and the Government of Puerto Rico.
Furthermore, the committee believes that the Navy has consistently
failed to take into account the concerns of the local population
regarding training on the island. These facts, combined with the lack of
economic development that normally accrues to communities that host
military installations, has created an occasionally hostile atmosphere
toward the Navy presence on the island that has been central to this
situation.
In recognition of this problem and in order to encourage the Navy to
be a better neighbor, the committee recommends training restrictions on
the use of the range designed to protect the citizens of Vieques. Live
fire training would be restricted to 90 days a year, with an allowance
for an additional 90 days of non-live fire training. The committee would
also require the Navy take steps to ensure the safety of civilians on
Vieques while also taking measures to reduce noise in civilian areas of
the island. The committee also recommends the establishment of an
advisory committee made up of military officers and Puerto Rican
citizens appointed by the Governor of Puerto Rico and the Mayor of the
Municipality of Vieques. The advisory committee would provide a forum
for the people of Vieques to express their views to the Navy and to
comment on operations and the policies relating to military activities
on Vieques. All these measures are recommended by the committee in
recognition of the sacrifices made by the people of Vieques toward the
national security of the United States.
However, the committee ultimately believes that Vieques is vital to
the training of the Nation's naval forces and that it is imperative that
live-fire training resume on the island as soon as possible. The
committee is concerned about the possibility that the ranges on Vieques
may be unavailable in the future and believes that battle groups
deploying overseas are not currently receiving the training necessary to
meet the challenges they may face during overseas deployments.
The committee rejects the idea that the future of military training
on Vieques be determined by referendum. Allowing local communities to
vote on the future of military training at local bases would establish a
precedent that could endanger access to other critical military
installations both in the United States and overseas. Therefore, the
committee does not believe that the agreement signed by the President
and the Governor of Puerto Rico on January 31, 2000, adequately provides
for U.S. national security by ensuring the Navy's future access to this
vital training area. The committee believes that its recommendations
provide for the fair and equitable treatment of the people of Vieques
while preserving access to critical training ranges.
SECTION 1501--CONDITIONS ON DISPOSAL OF NAVAL AMMUNITION SUPPORT
DETACHMENT, VIEQUES ISLAND
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from including
any portion of the Naval Ammunition Support Detachment on the western
end of Vieques Island, Puerto Rico, in a report of excess real property
pursuant to the requirements of section 2662 of title 10, United States
Code, until the President certifies to Congress that military training
operations have resumed using the full range of live ordnance in use
prior to April 19, 2000 and that this training is conducted without
interference. This section would also require any portion of the land
declared as excess by the Navy be managed by any recipient as a
conservation zone subject to the irrevocable condition that the
recipient of the property, and any successor in interest, manage all
lands in the same manner. This section would further require the
Secretary to retain approximately 100 acres, containing the Relocatable
Over-the-Horizon Radar and the Mt. Pirata telecommunication facility, at
the Naval Ammunition Support Detachment.
SECTION 1502--RETENTION OF EASTERN PORTION OF VIEQUES ISLAND
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Navy from declaring
any lands within the Eastern Manuever Area or the Atlantic Fleet Weapons
Training Facility, including the live impact area, on Vieques Island,
Puerto Rico, to be excess to the needs of the armed forces or
transferring or conveying any such lands from the jurisdiction of the
Department of the Navy.
SECTION 1503--LIMITATIONS ON MILITARY USE OF VIEQUES ISLAND
This section would require the Secretary of the Navy to notify the
Government of Puerto Rico at least 15 days prior to any major training
exercise on Vieques. This section would also limit the number of
training days explosive ordnance can be used to 90 days per calendar
year, and allows for an additional 90 days of training with inert
ordnance. This section would further require the Secretary of the Navy
to establish an advisory committee to review and comment on operations
and policies regarding military training on Vieques. This section would
also require the Secretary of the Navy to ensure the safety of the
inhabitants of Vieques and to minimize noise levels in civilian areas to
the maximum extent possible. Finally, the section would also provide for
a waiver of the advance warning requirements, the safety and noise
restrictions and training day limitations for reasons of national
security.
SECTION 1504--ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE FOR RESIDENTS OF VIEQUES ISLAND
This section would authorize $40.0 million in economic assistance
for the citizens of Vieques for the projects outlined in the President's
Directive to the Secretary of Defense and Director, Office of Management
and Budget (Community Assistance) and the President's Directive to the
Secretary of Defense and Director, Office of Management and Budget
(Referendum) dated January 31, 2000. However, this section would
expressly prohibit any of the funds to be used for a referendum
regarding the further use of the island for military training purposes.
In addition, the section would withhold all funding until the Department
of Defense can resume live-fire training on the island using the full
range of live ordnance in use prior to April 19, 1999, without
interference.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
PURPOSE
The purpose of Division B is to provide military construction
authorizations and related authority in support of the military
departments during fiscal year 2001. As approved by the committee,
Division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of
$8,433,908,000 for construction in support of the active forces, reserve
components, defense agencies for fiscal year 2001.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW
The military construction authorization request for fiscal year 2001
was introduced by request as division B of H.R. 4205 on April 6, 2000.
The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations
of $4,553,427,000 for fiscal year 2001 for military construction,
including $1,174,369,000 for activities associated with base closure and
realignment, and $3,480,481,000 for family housing construction and
support. The committee recommends $4,874,647,000 for military
construction, including $1,174,369,000 for activities associated with
base closure and realignment, and $3,559,261,000 for family housing
construction and support for fiscal year 2001.
The committee restates its deepening concern about the condition of
the Nation's military installations and facilities and continues to be
troubled by the continuing and persistent underinvestment by the
Administration in military facilities and infrastructure. The budget
request for the authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for
the military construction and military family housing programs of the
Department of Defense, if enacted, would represent a four percent
reduction from current spending levels and a 25 percent reduction from
the funding levels authorized by Congress for fiscal year 1996.
To address the serious shortfalls in the Administration's budget
request, the committee recommends an increase in new budget authority
for these programs of $400,000,000.
In an effort to improve the quality of life for military personnel
and their families, the committee reiterates its support for the
authorities provided in subchapter IV, chapter 169 of title 10, United
States Code. The Military Housing Privatization Initiative remains a
central component of the ultimate resolution of the military housing
crisis. The committee recommends an extension of current authorities to
support this program for an additional five years to 2006. The committee
recognizes that implementation of this program has occurred more slowly
than initially anticipated and expects the secretaries of the military
departments to accelerate implementation of this program during the
extended pilot program period.
A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in Division B for
fiscal year 2001 follows:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
A tabular summary of the military construction projects included with
the authorization of appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for the BRAC IV
account follows:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
TITLE XXI--ARMY
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $897,938,000 for Army military
construction and $1,140,381,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends authorization of $672,391,000 for military
construction and $1,152,249,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2001.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
CONDITION OF BARRACKS TO SUPPORT BASIC TRAINING
The committee notes favorably the commitment of the Secretary of the
Army and the uniformed leadership of the Army to a resolution of the
problem of substandard barracks conditions for permanent party personnel
by fiscal year 2008. The committee continues to support strongly
improvement in the quality of life for unaccompanied military personnel.
The committee recognizes that the program to conclude the modernization
of permanent party barracks in a timely manner, combined with the
requirement to modernize the Army's strategic mobility infrastructure by
fiscal year 2004, limits the ability of the Army to program adequately
for other military construction priorities given the funds currently
allocated to the military construction account in the current future
years defense program (FYDP). The committee reiterates its view that
additional funds for military construction are required to meet
significant infrastructure shortfalls affecting military readiness and
the retention of military personnel. The committee is concerned that
current Army programming will not permit adequate attention to the
problem of substandard barracks conditions for recruits. The committee
notes that only one barracks construction project, based on newly
adopted Army standards for recruit barracks, is funded within the
current FYDP. The committee does not believe such a funding profile is
sufficient. The committee is especially concerned that training
installations, which may expect increases in the number of new recruits
and trainees, lack sufficient barracks spaces to accommodate that
training load and that existing barracks spaces are generally
substandard. The committee urges the Secretary of the Army to review
current plans and programs to improve the condition of barracks to
support basic training and directs the Secretary to report on his
findings, including any recommendations, coincident with the submission
of the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for
improvements to military family housing and facilities, the Secretary of
the Army execute the following projects: $4,700,000 for Whole
Neighborhood Revitalization (28 units) at Fort Irwin, California, and
$4,150,000 for Whole Neighborhood Revitalization (56 units) at Fort
Leonard Wood, Missouri.
PLANNING AND DESIGN
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for planning
and design, the Secretary of the Army complete planning and design
activities for the following projects: $1,600,000 for a power train
modification facility at Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, and $4,320,000
for a basic trainee barracks complex at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.
UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for
unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army execute the
following project: $500,000 for multimedia learning centers at the
United States Military Academy, New York.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SECTION 2101--AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION
PROJECTS
This section contains the list of authorized Army construction
projects for fiscal year 2001. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this
report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
SECTION 2102--FAMILY HOUSING
This section would authorize new construction and planning and design
of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 2001.
SECTION 2103--IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS
This section would authorize improvements to existing units of family
housing for fiscal year 2001.
SECTION 2104--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, ARMY
This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line
item contained in the Army's budget for fiscal year 2001. This section
also provides an overall limit on the amount the Army may spend on
military construction projects.
SECTION 2105--MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN FISCAL
YEAR 1999 PROJECT
This section would amend the table in section 2101 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (division B of
Public Law 105 261) to provide for an increase in the amount authorized
for the construction of a railhead facility at Fort Hood, Texas.
TITLE XXII--NAVY
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $753,422,000 for Navy military
construction and $1,245,460,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends authorization of $887,810,000 for military
construction and $1,299,863,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2001.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
ACQUISITION OF PREPOSITIONED EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE FACILITIES, BLOUNT
ISLAND, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA
The committee reiterates its support for the acquisition of
prepositioned equipment facilities managed under lease by the Department
of the Navy at Blount Island Command, Jacksonville, Florida. The
committee recalls that the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2000 (Public Law 106 79) provided authority for the expenditure of
$5,000,000 as the first phase of this major land acquisition. The
committee recommends an additional $3,320,000 for this purpose for
fiscal year 2001 and expects those funds to be combined to acquire three
parcels of real property based on current real estate valuations. The
committee notes that the budget estimates for fiscal year 2002 provided
by the Secretary of the Navy indicate that sufficient funds are
programmed to acquire the remainder of the real property required by the
Marine Corps. The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to make
every effort to complete this acquisition in a timely fashion.
IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for
improvements to military family housing and facilities, the Secretary of
the Navy execute the following project: $8,600,000 for Whole House
Revitalization (98 units) at Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton,
California.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SECTION 2201--AUTHORIZED NAVY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION
PROJECTS
This section contains the list of authorized Navy construction
projects for fiscal year 2001. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this
report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
SECTION 2202--FAMILY HOUSING
This section would authorize new construction and planning and design
of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 2001.
SECTION 2203--IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS
This section would authorize improvements to existing units of family
housing for fiscal year 2001.
SECTION 2204--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, NAVY
This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line
item in the Navy's budget for fiscal year 2001. This section also
provides an overall limit on the amount the Navy may spend on military
construction projects.
SECTION 2205--MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT FISCAL YEAR 1997
PROJECT AT MARINE CORPS COMBAT DEVELOPMENT COMMAND, QUANTICO, VIRGINIA
This section would modify the authorized use of funds authorized for
appropriation for fiscal year 1997 for a military construction project
at Marine Corps Command Development Command, Quantico, Virginia. This
section would permit the use of previously authorized funds to carry out
a military construction project involving infrastructure development at
that installation.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $530,969,000 for Air Force military
construction and $1,049,754,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends authorization of $703,873,000 for military
construction and $1,062,263,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2001.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
ROME RESEARCH SITE, NEW YORK
The committee notes the authority provided by the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 (Public Law 106 79) to permit the
Secretary of the Air Force to utilize appropriated funds and
contributions by the State of New York to support the improvement of
facilities at the Rome Research Site, New York. The committee was
concerned that such authority could be utilized in a manner that would
provide a comparative advantage over similar installations for which the
authority did not apply in the event additional base closures and
realignments are authorized by Congress. The committee notes that the
terms of the memorandum of understanding entered into by Empire State
Development, Griffiss Local Development Corporation, and Air Force
Materiel Command does not constitute a commitment by the Air Force to
preclude the Rome Research Site from being considered, recommended, or
selected for closure under any current or future base closure law.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SECTION 2301--AUTHORIZED AIR FORCE CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION
PROJECTS
This section contains the list of authorized Air Force construction
projects for fiscal year 2001. The authorized amounts are listed on an
installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this
report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
SECTION 2302--FAMILY HOUSING
This section would authorize new construction and planning and design
of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal year 2001.
SECTION 2303--IMPROVEMENTS TO MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING UNITS
This section would authorize improvements to existing units of family
housing for fiscal year 2001.
SECTION 2304--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, AIR FORCE
This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line
item in the Air Force's budget for fiscal year 2001. This section also
would provide an overall limit on the amount the Air Force may spend on
military construction projects.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $784,753,000 for defense agencies
military construction and $44,886,000 for family housing for fiscal year
2001. The committee recommends authorization of $815,504,000 for
military construction and $44,886,000 for family housing.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
FORWARD OPERATING LOCATIONS IN SUPPORT OF COUNTER-DRUG AND DRUG
INTERDICTION ACTIVITIES
The budget request contained $76,823,000 for military construction at
Manta, Ecuador, and Aruba and Curacao in the Netherlands Antilles for
the establishment of forward operating locations to support the
counter-drug and drug interdiction activities of the Department of
Defense. The committee supports the establishment of forward operating
locations at those sites. However, the committee notes that funds to
support military construction for this purpose was included in H.R.
3908, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, as passed by the
House on March 30, 2000. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease
of that amount in Military Construction, Defense-Wide.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SECTION 2401--AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS
This section contains the list of authorized defense agencies
construction projects for fiscal year 2001. The authorized amounts are
listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list
contained in this report is intended to be the binding list of the
specific projects authorized at each location.
SECTION 2402--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, DEFENSE AGENCIES
This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line
item in the Defense Agencies' budget for fiscal year 2001. This section
also would provide an overall limit on the amount the Defense Agencies
may spend on military construction projects.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $190,000,000 for the NATO infrastructure
fund (NATO Security Investment Program) for fiscal year 2001. The
committee recommends $177,500,000.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SECTION 2501--AUTHORIZED NATO CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION
PROJECTS
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to make
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization security
investment program in an amount equal to the sum of the amount
specifically authorized in section 2502 of this bill and the amount of
recoupment due to the United States for construction previously financed
by the United States.
SECTION 2502--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, NATO
This section would authorize appropriations of $177,500,000 as the
U.S. contribution to the NATO security investment program.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $221,976,000 for fiscal year 2001 for
guard and reserve facilities. The committee recommends authorization for
fiscal year 2001 of $434,560,000 to be distributed as follows:
Army National Guard $ 129,139,000
Air National Guard 110,885,000
Army Reserve 104,854,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve 47,934,000
Air Force Reserve 41,748,000
443,200,000
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
PLANNING AND DESIGN, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for planning
and design, the Secretary of the Army complete planning and design
activities for the following project: $1,281,000 for a combined support
and maintenance shop at Fort Lewis, Washington.
PLANNING AND DESIGN, ARMY RESERVE
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for planning
and design, the Secretary of the Army complete planning and design
activities for the following project: $809,000 for an advanced training
barracks complex at Fort Dix, New Jersey.
UNSPECIFIED MINOR CONSTRUCTION, ARMY RESERVE
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for
unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army execute the
following project: $700,000 for parking and site improvements at Fort
Douglas, Utah.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SECTION 2601--AUTHORIZED GUARD AND RESERVE CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS
This section would authorize appropriations for military construction
for the guard and reserve by service component for fiscal year 2001. The
state list contained in this report is intended to be the binding list
of the specific projects authorized at each location.
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SECTION 2701--EXPIRATION OF AUTHORIZATIONS AND AMOUNTS REQUIRED TO BE
SPECIFIED BY LAW
This section would provide that authorizations for military
construction projects, repair of real property, land acquisition, family
housing projects and facilities, contributions to the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization infrastructure program, and guard and reserve
projects will expire on October 1, 2000 or the date of enactment of an
Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2001,
whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to authorizations
for which appropriated funds have been obligated before October 1, 2000
or the date of enactment of an Act authorizing funds for these projects,
whichever is later.
SECTION 2702--EXTENSIONS OF AUTHORIZATIONS OF CERTAIN FISCAL YEAR 1998
PROJECTS
This section would provide for selected extension of certain fiscal
year 1998 military construction authorizations until October 1, 2000, or
the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2001, whichever is later.
SECTION 2703--EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS OF CERTAIN FISCAL YEAR 1997
PROJECTS
This section would provide for selected extension of certain fiscal
year 1997 military construction authorizations until October 1, 2000, or
the date of the enactment of the Act authorizing funds for military
construction for fiscal year 2001, whichever is later.
SECTION 2704--EFFECTIVE DATE
This section would provide that Titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, and
XXVI of this bill shall take effect on October 1, 1999, or the date of
the enactment of this Act, whichever is later.
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
MILITARY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION INITIATIVE
The committee reiterates its strong support for the development of
military housing under the authority provided by subchapter IV, chapter
169 of title 10, United States Code. The committee acknowledges that the
privatization of military family housing may, in certain instances, have
an effect on local educational agencies and educational infrastructure
requirements. The committee notes that section 2871 of title 10, United
States Code, provides general authority for the development of
facilities to support elementary or secondary education as ancillary
supporting facilities to privatized military housing. The committee
urges the secretaries of the military departments to assess more
adequately the impact of the development of military housing under this
authority on local education agencies and infrastructure. The committee
directs the Secretary of the Army, in consultation with the Secretary of
Defense, to assess the impact of military housing developed under the
authority of subchapter IV, chapter 169 of title 10, United States Code,
at Fort Carson, Colorado. The committee further directs the Secretary of
the Army to submit a report on his findings, and any recommendations,
concurrent with the submission of the budget request for fiscal year
2002.
WATER QUALITY ISSUES AFFECTING MILITARY INSTALLATIONS IN THE AREA OF
KAISERSLAUTERN, GERMANY
The committee is aware of limited environmental contamination at five
locations on, or near, military installations supporting the missions of
the Army and the Air Force in the area of Kaiserslautern, Germany. The
committee urges the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Air
Force to continue to work cooperatively with local German authorities to
resolve matters relating to environmental contamination affecting the
water supply supporting military installations and civilians in the area
of Kaiserlautern, Germany.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SUBTITLE A--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
CHANGES
SECTION 2801--REVISION OF LIMITATIONS ON SPACE BY PAY GRADE
This section would amend section 2826 of title 10, United States
Code, to require the secretary concerned to ensure that the room
patterns and floor areas of military family housing units constructed,
acquired, or improved by the secretary shall be generally comparable to
those available in the locality of the military installation on which
such military family housing units are located.
SECTION 2802--LEASING OF MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING, UNITED STATES
SOUTHERN COMMAND, MIAMI, FLORIDA
This section would amend section 2828 of title 10, United States
Code, to modify the authorized terms of leasing for military family
housing to support the United States Southern Command in Miami, Florida.
SECTION 2803--ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITY FOR ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF
MILITARY HOUSING
This section would amend section 2885 of title 10, United States
Code, to extend the authorities contained in subchapter 169 of title 10,
United States Code, for an additional five-year period to 2006.
SECTION 2804--EXPANSION OF DEFINITION OF ARMORY TO INCLUDE READINESS
CENTERS
This section would amend section 18232 of title 10, United States
Code, to clarify that the term ``readiness center'' shall have the same
meaning as the term ``armory''.
SUBTITLE B--REAL PROPERTY AND FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION
SECTION 2811--INCREASE IN THRESHOLD FOR NOTICE AND WAIT REQUIREMENTS
FOR REAL PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS
This section would amend section 2662 of title 10, United States
Code, to increase the threshold for notice and wait requirements for
real property transactions from $200,000 to $500,000.
SECTION 2812--ENHANCEMENT OF AUTHORITY OF MILITARY DEPARTMENTS TO LEASE
NON-EXCESS PROPERTY
This section would amend section 2667 of title 10, United States, to
modify the permissible forms of consideration received by the secretary
concerned for the lease of non-excess real property under the control of
the secretary.
SECTION 2813--CONVEYANCE AUTHORITY REGARDING UTILITY SYSTEMS OF
MILITARY DEPARTMENTS
This section would amend section 2688 of title 10, United States
Code, to require the secretary concerned to comply with the competition
requirements of section 2304 of title 10, United States Code, in the
conveyance of utility system infrastructure.
SUBTITLE C--LAND CONVEYANCES GENERALLY
PART I--ARMY CONVEYANCES
SECTION 2831--TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION, ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL, ILLINOIS
This section would authorize the transfer of, and exchange of
jurisdiction on, a parcel of real property with improvements consisting
of approximately 23 acres at Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois, between the
Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of Veterans' Affairs. The parcel
is to be incorporated into the Rock Island National Cemetery.
SECTION 2832--LAND CONVEYANCE, ARMY RESERVE CENTER, GALESBURG, ILLINOIS
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey,
without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements,
consisting of approximately 4.65 acres in Galesburg, Illinois, to Knox
County, Illinois. The property is to be used for the development of
municipal and other public purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary
for the conveyance would be borne by the County.
SECTION 2833--LAND CONVEYANCE, ARMY RESERVE CENTER, WINONA, MINNESOTA
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey,
without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements to
Winona State University Foundation. The property is to be used for
educational purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the
conveyance would be borne by the Foundation.
SECTION 2834--LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT POLK, LOUISIANA
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey,
without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements,
consisting of approximately 100 acres at Fort Polk, Louisiana, to the
State of Louisiana. The property is to be used for the establishment of
a State-run veterans' cemetery. The cost of any surveys necessary for
the conveyance would be borne by the Commission.
SECTION 2835--LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT PICKETT, VIRGINIA
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey,
without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements,
consisting of not more than 700 acres, at Fort Pickett, Virginia, to the
Commonwealth of Virginia. The property is to be used for the development
and operation of a public safety training facility. The cost of any
surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the Commonwealth.
SECTION 2836--LAND CONVEYANCE, FORT DIX, NEW JERSEY
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey,
without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements,
consisting of approximately two acres and containing a parking lot
inadvertently constructed on the parcel, at Fort Dix, New Jersey, to
Pemberton Township, New Jersey.
SECTION 2837--LAND CONVEYANCE, NIKE SITE 43, ELRAMA, PENNSYLVANIA
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey,
without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements,
consisting of approximately 160 acres in Elmara, Pennsylvania, to the
Board of Supervisors of Union Township, Pennsylvania. The parcel is to
be used for municipal and other public purposes. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the Township.
SECTION 2838--LAND EXCHANGE, FORT HOOD, TEXAS
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey a
parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately
200 acres at Fort Hood, Texas, to the City of Copperas Cove, Texas. As
consideration for the conveyance, the City would convey to one or more
parcels of real property, consisting of approximately 300 acres, to the
Secretary. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyances would
be borne by the City.
SECTION 2839--LAND CONVEYANCE, CHARLES MELVIN PRICE SUPPORT CENTER,
ILLINOIS
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey a
parcel of real property with improvements consisting of approximately
752 acres to the Tri-City Regional Port District of Granite City,
Illinois. As consideration for the conveyance, the Secretary shall
determine if the Port District satisfies the criteria to qualify for a
public benefit conveyance. If the public interest is served, the
secretary may accept an amount less than fair market value for a lease
of the property. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance
would be borne by the Port District.
SECTION 2840--LAND CONVEYANCE, ARMY RESERVE LOCAL TRAINING CENTER,
CHATTANOOGA, TENNESSEE
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey,
without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements,
consisting of approximately 15 acres at the Army Reserve Local Training
Center, Chattanooga, Tennessee, to the Medal of Honor Museum, Inc.,
Chattanooga, Tennessee. The parcel is to be used as a museum and for
other educational purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the
conveyance would be borne by the Corporation.
PART II--NAVY CONVEYANCES
SECTION 2851--MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY FOR OXNARD HARBOR DISTRICT,
PORT HUENEME, CALIFORNIA, TO USE CERTAIN NAVY PROPERTY
This section would amend section 2843 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (division B of Public Law 103
337) to clarify the restrictions on the use of real property under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy by the Oxnard Harbor District,
Port Hueneme, California. This section would also clarify the forms of
consideration which the District shall pay to the Secretary for the use
of the property.
SECTION 2852--MODIFICATION OF LAND CONVEYANCE, MARINE CORPS AIR
STATION, EL TORO, CALIFORNIA
This section would amend section 2811 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (Public Law 101 189) to
modify the permissible uses of funds received by the Secretary of the
Navy.
SECTION 2853--TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION, MARINE CORPS AIR STATION,
MIRAMAR, CALIFORNIA
This section would authorize the transfer of, and exchange of
jurisdiction on, a parcel of real property with improvements, consisting
of approximately 250 acres at Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar,
California, between the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the
Interior. The parcel is to be incorporated into the Vernal Pool Unit of
the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge.
SECTION 2854--LEASE OF PROPERTY, MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, MIRAMAR,
CALIFORNIA
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to lease,
without consideration, a parcel of real property with improvements,
consisting of approximately 250 acres and known as the Hickman Field, to
the City of San Diego, California, for a period not to exceed five
years. The lease would be subject to the condition that the City
maintain the property at no cost to the United States, make the property
available to the existing tenant at no cost, and use the property solely
for recreational purposes. The cost of any survey necessary for the
lease would be borne by the City.
SECTION 2855--LEASE OF PROPERTY, NAVAL AIR STATION, PENSACOLA, FLORIDA
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to lease real
property improvements to be designed and constructed by the Naval
Aviation Museum Foundation at the National Museum of Naval Aviation at
Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida, to the Foundation for a period up
to 50 years, with an option to renew for an additional 50 years. The
improvements are to be used for the development and operation of a
National Flight Academy. As a condition for the lease, the Foundation
would make the property available at no cost to the Secretary under
certain specified conditions. This section would also authorize the
Secretary to provide assistance to the Foundation in the form services
on a reimbursable basis. The cost of any survey necessary for the lease
would be borne by the Secretary.
SECTION 2856--LAND EXCHANGE, MARINE CORPS RECRUIT DEPOT, SAN DIEGO,
CALIFORNIA
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey a
parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately
45 acres at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego, California, to the
San Diego Unified Port District. As consideration for the conveyance,
the Port District would convey to the Secretary a parcel of real
property contiguous to the installation and would construct suitable
replacement facilities and necessary supporting structures as determined
by the Secretary.
SECTION 2857--LAND EXCHANGE, NAVAL AIR RESERVE CENTER, COLUMBUS, OHIO
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey a
parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately
24 acres comprising the Naval Air Reserve Center at Rickenbacker
International Airport, Ohio, to the Rickenbacker Port Authority of
Columbus, Ohio. As consideration for the conveyance, the Authority would
convey to the Secretary a parcel of real property consisting of
approximately 15 acres. This section would require the Secretary to
utilize the property conveyed by the Authority as the site for a joint
reserve center for units associated with the Naval Air Reserve Center at
the Airport and the Naval and Marine Corps Reserve Center currently
located in Columbus, Ohio. The cost of any survey necessary for the
exchange would be borne by the Authority.
SECTION 2858--LAND CONVEYANCE, NAVAL RESERVE CENTER, TAMPA, FLORIDA
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey a
parcel of real property with improvements, consisting of approximately
2.18 acres and comprising the Naval Reserve Center, Tampa, Florida, to
the Tampa Port Authority. As consideration for the conveyance the Port
Authority is required to provide a replacement facility and bear all
reasonable costs incurred during the relocation. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the Port Authority.
PART III--AIR FORCE CONVEYANCES
SECTION 2861--LAND CONVEYANCE, WRIGHT PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, OHIO
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements, consisting of approximately 100 acres at Wright Patterson
Air Force Base, Ohio, to Greene County, Ohio. The property is to be used
for recreational purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the
conveyance would be borne by the County.
SECTION 2862--LAND CONVEYANCE, POINT ARENA AIR FORCE STATION,
CALIFORNIA
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property with
improvements, consisting of approximately 82 acres at the Point Arena
Air Force Station, California, to Menocino County, California. The
property is to be used for municipal and other public purposes. The cost
of any surveys necessary for the conveyance would be borne by the
County.
SECTION 2863--LAND CONVEYANCE, LOS ANGELES AIR FORCE BASE, CALIFORNIA
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to convey
on terms the Secretary considers appropriate, any or all portions of
four parcels of real property with improvements, totaling approximately
111 acres at Los Angeles Air Force Base, California. As consideration
for the conveyance, the recipient shall provide for the design and
construction, acceptable to the Secretary, of one or more facilities to
consolidate the mission and support functions at the installation. Any
such facilities would comply with specified seismic and safety
standards. This section would also authorize the Secretary to enter into
a lease for the facility for a period not to exceed 10 years in the
event the fair market value of a facility provided as consideration for
the conveyance exceeds the fair market value of the conveyed property.
Rental payments under the lease would be established at the rate
necessary for the lessor to recover, by the end of the lease term, the
difference between the fair market value of the facility and the fair
market value of the conveyed property. The cost of any surveys necessary
for the conveyance would be borne by the recipient.
PART IV--OTHER CONVEYANCES
SECTION 2871--CONVEYANCE OF ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE
PROPERTY, FARMERS BRANCH, TEXAS
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to permit the
Army and Air Force Exchange Service to sell a parcel of real property
with improvements in Farmers Branch, Texas, for an amount equal to the
fair market value of the parcel. The section would also require the
payment by the purchaser to be handled in the manner provided in section
485(c) of title 40, United States Code. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the sale would be borne by the purchaser.
SUBTITLE D--OTHER MATTERS
SECTION 2881--RETENTION OF EASEMENT AUTHORITY TO LEASED PARKLAND,
MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA
This section would amend section 2851 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (division B of Public Law 105
261) to exempt certain lands located within Marine Corps Base, Camp
Pendleton, California, and leased by the State of California for use as
a restricted access highway from the requirements of section 303 of
title 49 and section 138 of title 23, United States Code. This section
would also require the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Agency to be
responsible for the implementations of any mitigation measures required
by the Secretary of Transportation.
SECTION 2882--EXTENSION OF DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR PURCHASE OF FIRE,
SECURITY, POLICE, PUBLIC WORKS, AND UTILITY SERVICES FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES
This section would amend section 816 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103 337), as amended,
to extend the period under which a demonstration project is authorized
for the purchase of fire, security, police, public works, and utility
services from local government at specified locations in Monterey,
California.
SECTION 2883--ESTABLISHMENT OF WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL ON GUAM
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the American Battle Monuments Commission, to establish
a suitable memorial on federal property near the Fena Caves in Guam to
honor those civilians killed during the occupation of Guam during World
War II and to commemorate the liberation of Guam by the armed forces of
the United States in 1944.
SECTION 2884--NAMING OF THE ARMY MISSILE TESTING RANGE AT KWAJALEIN
ATOLL AS THE RONALD REAGAN BALLISTIC DEFENSE TEST SITE AT KWAJALEIN ATOLL
This section would designate the missile testing range at Kwajalein
Atoll as the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Defense Test Site at Kwajalein
Atoll.
SECTION 2885--DESIGNATION OF BUILDING AT FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA, IN
HONOR OF ANDREW T. MCNAMARA
This section would designate a building at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, as
the Andrew T. McNamara Building.
SECTION 2886--REDESIGNATION OF THE BALBOA NAVAL HOSPITAL, SAN DIEGO,
CALIFORNIA, IN HONOR OF BOB WILSON, A FORMER MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES
This section would redesignate the Balboa Naval Hospital, San Diego,
California, as the Bob Wilson Naval Hospital.
SECTION 2887--SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING IMPORTANCE OF EXPANSION OF
NATIONAL TRAINING CENTER, FORT IRWIN, CALIFORNIA
This section would express the sense of Congress that the prompt
expansion of the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, California, is
vital to the national security interests of the United States.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY
AUTHORIZATION AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $13,150.6 million for the national
security activities of the Department of Energy. This includes $6,177.6
million for the programs of the National Nuclear Security
Administration. The budget request also contained $6,832.9 million for
defense environmental and other defense activities. The committee
recommends $12,871.4 million, a decrease of $279.2 million. The
following table summarizes the request and the committee
recommendations:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $6,832.9 million for environmental and
other defense activities.
The committee recommends $6,601.9, a decrease of $231.0 million.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Acceleration of the 94 1 program and restoration of
infrastructure at the Savannah River Site
The budget request contained $452.9 million for Site Project
Completion at the Savannah River Site.
In May 1994, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board submitted
Recommendation 94 1 to the Secretary of Energy dealing with the need to
stabilize and to store safely large amounts of fissionable and other
nuclear materials at the Savannah River Site. The committee is aware of
accomplishments in remediating this material. However, the committee
notes severe problems continue to exist. The committee believes that an
acceleration of the 94 1 Program is necessary and recommends an increase
of $16.0 million to execute the following projects: (1) development of
process flowsheets, safety documentation, and pre-operational activities
to support planned stabilization campaigns; (2) acceleration of the rack
construction and testing for the Amercium/Curium stabilization project;
and (3) continued operation of the HB-Line Phase I to process plutonium
residues.
The committee notes that much of the Savannah River Site
infrastructure is nearing 50 years of age and believes that Savannah
River environmental management programs require restorative improvements
to support current operations, retain core competencies, and to maintain
nuclear materials in a safe and secure manner. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $24.0 million for Savannah River Site
infrastructure improvements, including $16.0 million for design and
procurement of site ventilation, electrical, and safety alarm systems
and for repair or replacement of leaking roofs, and $8.0 million of the
increase for replacement of the computer control system for the Defense
Waste Processing Facility.
The committee recommends $492.9 million for Site Project Completion
at the Savannah River Site, an increase of $40.0 million.
Energy Employees Compensation Initiative
The budget request contained $17.0 million for the Energy Employees
Compensation Initiative to fund a program, separately transmitted to
Congress in November 1999, that would establish three programs to
compensate current and former Department of Energy (DOE) and contractor
employees who are ill due to:
(1) Workplace exposure to beryllium at various DOE nuclear weapons
production facilities;
(2) workplace exposure to plutonium and other highly radioactive
materials at the Paducah, Kentucky, gaseous diffusion facility; or
(3) workplace exposure to radiation and hazardous materials, at the
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, site.
While the committee acknowledges that some DOE or contractor
employees may have developed illnesses as a result of being unknowingly
exposed to dangerous materials or not being adequately protected from
such exposure, it questions whether the funds to compensate these
individuals should come from the national defense budget function and
why a compensation program should not be set up as an entitlement rather
than financed from discretionary appropriations.
The committee notes that the legislative proposal, the Energy
Employees' Compensation Act was introduced and referred to committees in
both the House of Representatives (H.R. 3418) and the Senate (S. 1954)
in November 1999 but was not referred to the House Committee on Armed
Services, since authorization for the program would have to be approved
by another committee. The committee further notes that no other
committee has held hearings or taken any other action on the legislative
proposal.
Additionally, the committee notes that the $17.0 million requested is
just the beginning of the Department's plans to compensate workers who
were exposed to radiation while helping to build the nation's nuclear
arsenal. The Department has recently publicized a plan that would cost
an estimated $400.0 million over the first five years for this purpose.
The committee believes that the compensation program under the
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) provides a useful precedent
in addressing compensation of the DOE and contractor employees at issue
here. RECA is an entitlement program designed to compensate uranium
miners and individuals who suffered radiation exposure because they
lived down-wind from nuclear test sites. The program is administered by
the Department of Justice, and entitlement funding is carried in
Department of Justice budgetary accounts.
The committee believes that the Department of Energy could use RECA
as a model in establishing a program to compensate those made ill by
working at DOE facilities. Such an entitlement program would have the
advantage of guaranteeing appropriate compensation once eligibility
criteria are defined. Moreover, the program would not be subject to the
funding vagaries of the annual authorization process. Once such a
program is established and eligibility criteria are defined, the
committee will be in a position to make a more informed judgment about
how much funding is appropriate and necessary.
Even though the committee has questions about this compensation
initiative, it nevertheless recommends a $2.0 million increase for
Environment, Safety, and Health to structure such a program. The
committee notes that DOE officials have recently indicated that almost
all of the $17.0 million requested would be used for administrative
start-up expenses rather than to pay claims. The committee does not
support this amount for administrative purposes and believes that the
$2.0 million should be adequate for these costs until the committee's
concerns can be properly addressed.
Hanford tank waste remediation system privatization, phase I
The budget request contained $450.0 million for the Hanford Tank
Waste Remediation System (TWRS) Privatization, Phase IB 2.
The current contractor for TWRS Phase IB 1 recently submitted a
proposal to the Department of Energy (DOE) to complete the design, as
well as to construct and operate, a waste treatment facility for the
radioactive waste at the Hanford site. The expected cost for this work
was $15.2 billion, which the Secretary of Energy denounced as
unacceptably high. The Secretary stated that the $15.2 billion cost was
proposed just 18 months after the contractor informed the Department
that it could design, construct, and operate a waste treatment facility
for $6.9 billion and that he would not approve the proposal.
While the Secretary of Energy has rejected the proposal, the
committee acknowledges that this waste must be extracted from the tanks,
solidified, and safely stored because the risk of leakage is
unacceptable. However, the committee believes that given the uncertain
path forward for this program, the budget request is overstated.
Therefore, the committee recommends $194.0 million, a decrease of $256.0
million for the TWRS.
The committee believes that the $194.0 million in new budget
authority should be combined with funds appropriated for TWRS in prior
years that remain unobligated. The committee understands that $118.0
million in prior appropriations are currently reserved for termination
costs which would be incurred if the Phase IB 1 contract is terminated
by the Department. Since DOE intends to allow this contract to be
completed in August 2000, these funds will not be needed for termination
expenses. The committee also understands that $58.0 million of prior
year carryover balances exist in the TWRS program and that DOE intended
to apply this amount to Phase IB 2 TWRS design work in fiscal year 2001.
Therefore, the $176.0 million of prior appropriations could be combined
with the $194.0 million of new budget authority to provide DOE with
$370.0 million for the planned continuation of the design work for the
waste treatment facility, for procurement of long lead items, and to
provide for possible rework required should a different contractor be
selected to continue this project.
In order to make the funds held for termination liability available
for other purposes, the committee has included a provision (section
3131) that would prohibit the use of appropriated funds to establish a
reserve for contract termination costs for the Tank Waste Remediation
System. Should the need for termination liability arise, the committee
stands ready to assist the Department.
Mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility
The budget request contained $15.0 million for design of the mixed
oxide fuel (MOX) fabrication facility.
The Department of Energy (DOE) awarded a $65.0 million contract for
the design of the MOX fabrication facility in March 1999. The committee
understands that since the award of the contract, the contractor has had
to make unforeseen changes to the facility's planned configuration and
will have to do additional environmental work to satisfy the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC).
The committee notes that recent DOE security assessments recommend
the installation of earth and concrete barriers around the MOX facility
to deny or delay access by intruders and that these requirements were
not conveyed to the contractor until after the contract award.
Similarly, the DOE Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the
MOX facility was not available until after the design contract award,
and the NRC indicated that significant differences between the MOX
facility advance preliminary design and the EIS will require the
contractor to do additional environmental impact analyses.
Due to these unforeseen changes and a subsequent requirement for
additional contingency funds, the committee recommends $23.0 million for
the MOX fabrication facility, an increase of $8.0 million.
Nonproliferation and national security
The budget request contained $38.0 million for a new start design of
facilities in Russia for the storage of spent fuel from civil nuclear
reactors. The committee understands that this program is intended to
encourage Russia to cease separating plutonium from spent reactor fuel
due to concerns about the potential for increased risk of proliferation
of nuclear weapons material. The committee is concerned that the
completed facility should have adequate security to protect the stored
fissile material. Therefore, the committee directs that, if this
facility is constructed, the Department of Energy (DOE) extend
protection to the facility through the Department's International
Materials Protection, Control, and Accounting program.
The committee is also concerned about the expenditure of funds on
nonproliferation efforts in Russia with little DOE on-site monitoring.
The committee understands that the Department currently monitors the
various programs in Russia through occasional visits by Department
employees and believes that this level of monitoring is insufficient.
Therefore, the committee directs that at each Russian site where a
significant DOE nonproliferation program is in operation, the Department
locate a DOE employee or contractor on a continual basis to monitor the
operations of the nonproliferation program and that U.S. funds are
efficiently applied.
Worker and community transition
The budget request contained $24.5 million for Worker and Community
Transition, of which $6.0 million was designated for assistance at an
identified site. The remainder was either designated for administration
of the program ($3.0 million) or intended to be held as a contingency
for site closings and workforce transitions that were unforeseen at the
time the budget was prepared ($15.5 million).
The committee understands that a portion of the Savannah River Site
is in Barnwell County, South Carolina, an area of the state experiencing
chronic underemployment resulting from workforce reductions at Savannah
River during the last decade.
In the 1970s, a facility to reprocess spent nuclear fuel was
constructed on the Allied General Nuclear Site (AGNS) in Barnwell County
immediately adjacent to the Savannah River Site. However, before
reprocessing began, federal policy toward
reprocessing was reversed and the facility was closed. In an
effort to mitigate the employment problems surrounding the Savannah
River Site, the Tri-County Alliance, consisting of the counties of
Barnwell, Allendale, and Bamberg, has agreed to acquire the AGNS site
for redevelopment as a special-use industrial park. The committee
understands that a major investment is required at the site to develop
the necessary infrastructure for industries that would locate there to
serve the Savannah River Site and the surrounding community.
Therefore, the committee recommends $24.5 million for Worker and
Community Transition and directs that $5.0 million of the undesignated
amount be expended on infrastructure development at the AGNS site.
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
The budget request contained $6,177.6 million for the National
Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2001.
The committee recommends $6,269.4 million, an increase of $91.8 million.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Budget Structure of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
The committee notes that section 3251of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106 65) required
that, beginning with fiscal year 2001, the budget request for the NNSA
be set forth in individual, dedicated program elements. The committee
notes that the budget request does not include such program elements
and, therefore, does not comply with the requirements of current law.
The committee observes that supporting material accompanying the
budget request for Defense Programs describes in detail a budget
structure organized around directed stockpile work, campaigns, readiness
in technical base and facilities (RTBF), and construction. Within each
of these areas, funds are identified to support discrete project
activities or sets of activities. In view of the lack of cooperation
from the Department of Energy (DOE) in formulating the budget request in
compliance with the requirements of Public Law 106 65, the committee
believes that it must take the step of establishing program elements.
The committee believes that the discrete activities identified in the
budget request provide the basis for such program elements. The
designation of program elements and funding levels recommended by the
committee are depicted in table entries.
However, the committee does not believe that the Defense Programs
activities identified in directed stockpile work, campaigns, RTBF, and
construction are appropriately aligned or portrayed. As a first step
toward realigning these activities, the committee recommends that
related activities and construction projects be consolidated under their
associated campaign program elements. The realignment of funds by the
committee within the individual program elements is described elsewhere
in this report.
The committee urges the Administrator of NNSA to prepare, and the
Department to submit, future budget requests that: (1) align major
construction projects and facilities with their related campaigns, in
order to enhance Congressional and managerial oversight; (2) fund
infrastructure and operational readiness by facility, in order to
provide a clear picture of the business and overhead costs at NNSA
facilities; and (3) organize directed stockpile work by warhead, in
order to provide a clear picture of the status of each warhead in the
inventory and the work required to sustain it.
The committee also notes that section 3252 of Public Law 106 65
required that, beginning with fiscal year 2001, funding requested for
the NNSA be available for obligation for a limited number of years. The
committee notes that the DOE has again requested that its funds be
available until expended. The committee recommends a provision (section
3128) that would define the length of time for which funding for the
NNSA would be available.
Campaigns
The budget request contained $1,049.9 million for campaigns.
The committee recommends $2057.0 million for campaigns, including an
increase of $131.0 million, a transfer of $621.8 million from readiness
in technical base and facilities, and a transfer of $254.3 million from
construction.
Advanced Design and Production Technology (ADAPT)
The budget request contained $75.7 million for the ADAPT campaign,
which will develop advanced manufacturing capabilities critical to
improving efficiency at the nuclear weapons plants, but included no
funds for the American Textile (AMTEX) partnership.
The committee understands that the budget request does not adequately
support process development, integrated product and process and design,
agile manufacturing, and enterprise integration at the Kansas City
plant. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million
to support these activities.
AMTEX enhances capabilities relevant to both the stockpile
stewardship program and the textile industry by developing technologies
that integrate product and process design in a concurrent manufacturing
enterprise. Consistent with its previous support for AMTEX activities,
the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in the ADAPT
campaign to continue this effort.
In total, the committee recommends $81.7 million for ADAPT, an
increase of $6.0 million.
Advanced radiography
The budget request contained $43.0 million for the advanced
radiography campaign and $35.2 million for construction of the dual-axis
radiographic hydrotest facility (DARHT). The committee believes that
congressional and managerial oversight of these activities would be
enhanced if funds for these activities were consolidated in the advanced
radiography campaign. Therefore, the committee directs this realignment.
The budget request contained a total of $78.2 million in these
activities. The committee recommends the requested amount.
The committee understands that hydrotest capabilities are unlikely to
provide test results in a timely manner to certify new and
remanufactured primaries (the fission device that triggers the fusion
reaction in nuclear weapons), that development of advanced radiography
technologies has been delayed, and that the advanced radiography and
primary certification campaigns are being rebaselined. Therefore, the
committee directs the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration to provide a report to the congressional defense
committees by January 15, 2001, on hydrotest and radiography
requirements, the process by which they are defined, the technologies
available to meet the requirements, the timelines on which these
technologies are available, and the funding associated with the
technologies and schedules.
The committee also encourages the Administrator to examine the
relationship between the advanced radiography and campaign and the
primary certification campaign to determine if management insight would
be enhanced by an appropriate realignment of these two efforts.
Defense computing and modeling
The budget request contained $477.1 million for the Accelerated
Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI) component of advanced simulation
and computing in readiness in technical base and facilities (RTBF). The
budget request also contained the following amounts for ASCI and defense
computing: $249.1 million for the defense application and modeling
campaign, which provides funds to develop and run nuclear weapons
computer codes on ASCI computers; $2.3 million for construction of the
distributed information systems laboratory at Sandia National
Laboratories; $5.0 million for construction of the terascale simulation
facility at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; $56.0 million for
construction of the strategic computing complex at Los Alamos National
Laboratory; and $6.7 million for the joint computational engineering
laboratory at Sandia National Laboratories. Each of these facilities
under construction will be used to house ASCI computers. The committee
believes that funding all of these activities in the defense application
and modeling campaign will provide better understanding of ASCI costs
and enhance congressional oversight and managerial control. Therefore,
the committee directs this realignment. As realigned, the budget request
contained $796.2 million for defense computing and modeling.
ASCI is an effort to develop by 2004 a computer capable of 100
trillion operations a second. This computer will be powerful enough to
conduct three-dimensional simulations of nuclear explosions to be used
as a means of assuring the safety, reliability, and effectiveness of
U.S. nuclear weapons in the absence of actual testing. The committee
understands the significance of ASCI for science-based stockpile
stewardship and is encouraged by the technical progress demonstrated to
date.
Of the $477.1 million requested for ASCI in RTBF, $55.7 million was
included for collaborations with universities and industry. The
committee notes that this represents a 38 percent increase over the
amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000. The committee understands the
value of these collaborations in attracting university talent to the
benefit of the stewardship program, but believes that the increase is
excessive. The committee recommends $40.7 million for university
collaborations, a reduction of $15.0 million.
The budget request also contained $112.8 million for the visual
interactive environment for weapon simulation (VIEWS) project, a 68
percent increase over the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level. The
committee continues to be concerned about the pace of growth in certain
parts of the ASCI project and does not believe that the Department of
Energy has adequately justified an increase of this magnitude.
Therefore, the committee recommends $107.8 million for VIEWS, a
reduction of $5.0 million.
In total, the committee recommends $776.2 million for the defense
computing and modeling campaign, a reduction of $20.0 million.
Inertial confinement fusion (ICF) ignition and high yield margins
The budget request contained $120.8 million for the ICF ignition and
high yield margins campaign; $100.8 million in readiness in technical
base and facilities (RTBF) for the National Ignition Facility (NIF), a
key component of the ICF ignition campaign; $43.9 million for other RTBF
operations related to pulse power and lasers; and $74.1 million for NIF
construction. The total request in these various activities is $339.6
million. The committee believes that funding all of these activities in
the ICF ignition campaign will provide a better understanding of ICF
costs and enhance both congressional oversight and managerial control.
Therefore, the committee directs this realignment.
The committee also encourages the Administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to examine the relationship of
the ICF high yield campaign and the secondary readiness campaign and to
determine if management insight would be enhanced by an appropriate
realignment of these two efforts.
The committee recognizes that NIF is a key element of the effort to
sustain the nuclear stockpile in the absence of underground nuclear
testing and supports completion of the NIF project. NIF will use a large
array of lasers used to achieve a fusion reaction by focusing their
energy on a small hydrogen target. Experiments with NIF, both those that
achieve a fusion reaction and subcritical experiments, will contribute
important experimental data to several stockpile stewardship campaigns
and will allow scientists to confirm computer models on the behavior of
nuclear weapons explosions.
However, the committee understands that the NIF project is now $750.0
million to $1.0 billion over budget and behind schedule by four years.
The cost growth and delay stem from the greater-than-expected complexity
of assembling and integrating 192 high energy lasers in a clean,
confined space.
The committee is concerned that the NIF project management failed to
indicate in a clear and timely way the magnitude of the technical
difficulties as they emerged. The committee is also concerned that
project oversight by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, independent
review teams, the University of California as the contractor with
oversight responsibilities, and the Department of Energy failed to
detect or report the technical difficulties. For example, the committee
understands that independent reviews examined the program's performance
related to schedule and budget, without examining the underlying
engineering plans. The General Accounting Office and the Department now
both confirm that, in fact, there was no detailed engineering plan for
the assembly and integration of the laser components. These failures
also highlight the lack of
appropriate technical expertise within the Department to allow
for effective oversight and the urgent need to address this problem.
The committee, therefore, directs that no more than 35 percent of the
funds authorized for appropriation for the NIF program may be obligated
until the Administrator certifies to the congressional defense
committees that program management flaws resident in the laboratory and
contractor have been corrected and that NNSA oversight and management of
the program is performed by NNSA personnel with appropriate technical
and management expertise.
The committee notes that the Secretary of Energy has recently
recommended a realignment of $95.0 million from various campaigns to
NIF. In light of the significance of the NIF project to stockpile
stewardship, the committee recommends an increase of $95.0 million to
the ICF and High Yield Margins campaign for NIF construction.
However, the committee believes that the sources for the additional
NIF funds identified in the Secretary's recommendation will detract from
activities that are key to sustaining the safety, reliability, and
effectiveness of the nuclear stockpile and that lower priority funding
should be identified for realignment. In the absence of credible sources
for additional NIF funding, the committee believes that the designation
of specific sources to offset the increase to NIF construction is
premature. The committee will coordinate closely with the Administrator
of the NNSA to assure that that appropriate offsets for this increase
are identified in a timely manner.
The ICF campaign budget request also included $32.1 million for the
University of Rochester's Laboratory for Laser Energetics (LLE). The
committee believes that LLE's Omega laser continues to make important
contributions to the ICF program, particularly in light of the delays
and technical challenges facing the NIF project, and directs that the
Department fund this facility at the requested level.
Laser development
The budget request contained $120.8 million for the inertial
confinement fusion (ICF) ignition and high yield margins campaign but
included no funds for laser research and development jointly funded by
the Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Nuclear Security Agency
(NNSA).
The committee notes that the high energy laser master plan mandated
by section 251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2000 (Public Law 106 65) recommended that DOD and the Department of
Energy conclude a memorandum of agreement to conduct a joint high energy
laser research program beneficial to both the NNSA and DOD. The
committee recommends a provision, described elsewhere in this report,
that would require the NNSA and DOD to conclude such an agreement
wherein the costs of peer-reviewed research conducted under the auspices
of the agreement would be evenly shared between them.
The committee believes that joint research on high energy lasers can
help to meet critical national security challenges, including the need
for effective ballistic missile defenses, while simultaneously
benefitting stockpile stewardship activities of the NNSA.
Therefore, the recommends an increase of $10.0 million to the ICF
ignition and high yield margins campaign budget request for joint DOD
NNSA research on high energy lasers.
Pit manufacturing readiness
The budget request contained $108.0 for the pit manufacturing
readiness campaign.
The committee notes that the National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA) lacks a robust capability for the replacement of plutonium pits.
The Report of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security
of the United States Nuclear Stockpile expressed concern over ``the high
degree of uncertainly in the current understanding of the useful life of
plutonium pits.'' The Panel, citing estimates that construction of new
plutonium facilities could take 7 to 15 years, urged that conceptual
design activities of a pit production facility begin on an expedited
basis.
The committee also notes that the pit production facility at Los
Alamos National Laboratory is designed for a maximum capacity of about
50 pits per year. The committee recognizes that the rate at which pits
may need replacement remains unclear, due to the uncertainties related
to pit lifetime and the ultimate size of the stockpile, but the
committee understands that this rate is unlikely to allow for replacing
stockpile pits in a timely manner. Accordingly, the committee believes
conceptual design of a pit production facility should begin promptly as
a hedge against the risk that the need for expanded pit production will
develop more rapidly than is now anticipated. Given the uncertain demand
for pit production, the committee also believes that a scalable design
is desirable so that the design can be readily adapted as demand is more
precisely defined.
Therefore, the committee recommends $123.0 million for pit
manufacturing readiness, an increase of $15.0 million for the initiation
of conceptual design work on a pit manufacturing facility. Noting that a
science-oriented laboratory is not the best institution for pit
production and that industry is better suited to this task, the
committee urges the Administrator of the NNSA to maximize industry
involvement in the design and manufacture of plutonium pits.
The committee understands that funds appropriated in fiscal year 1999
for pit production readiness were diverted for other uses, have not yet
been restored, and may result in a delay of up to two years in the
production of the first certifiable pit. The committee strongly urges
the Department to initiate a reprogramming to restore these funds as
soon as possible.
Tritium readiness
The budget request contained $77.0 million in the tritium readiness
campaign, including $58.0 million for commercial light water reactor
(CLWR) tritium production and $19.0 million for accelerator production
of tritium (APT). It also contained $75.0 million for construction of
the tritium extraction facility. The committee believes that
congressional and managerial oversight of these activities would be
enhanced if funding for these activities were consolidated in the
tritium readiness campaign. Therefore, the committee directs this
realignment. As realigned, the budget request contained a total of
$152.0 million in these activities.
The committee notes that section 3134 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106 65) required the
Department of Energy to
complete preliminary design and engineering development of APT
and codified the December 1998 tritium production decision by the
Secretary of Energy that designated CLWR technology as the primary
tritium production technology but committed to completion of the APT
preliminary design. The budget request, however, suspends APT backup
design activities and, in so doing, both violates current law and
contradicts the Secretary's tritium production decision.
The committee believes that the uncertainty inherent in the CLWR
license amendment process requires the precaution of continuing APT
design work at a reasonable level. Therefore, the committee recommends
$177.0 million in the tritium readiness campaign, an increase of $25.0
million.
Construction projects
The budget request contained $414.2 million for construction and
infrastructure improvements. The committee recommends the alignment of
most construction projects with their associated campaigns. The
committee recommends that the following projects be realigned: the
distributed information systems laboratory (01 D 101, $2.3 million), the
terascale simulation facility (00 D 103, $5.0 million), the strategic
computing complex (00 D 105, $56.0 million), and the joint computational
engineering laboratory (00 D 107, $6.7 million) to the defense
applications and modeling campaign; the tritium extraction facility (98
D 125, $75.0 million) to the tritium readiness campaign; the dual-axis
radiographic hydrotest facility (97 D 102, $35.2 million) to the
advanced radiography campaign; and the national ignition facility (96 D
111, $74.1 million) to the inertial confinement fusion ignition and high
yield margins campaign.
The budget request contained $159.8 million for the remaining
construction projects. The committee recommends the budget request. The
committee believes that many of these projects should also migrate to an
associated campaign and encourages the Administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration to do so in subsequent budget requests.
Defense programs requirements process
The committee understands that the nuclear weapons requirements
process involves project officer groups responsible for the health of
each weapons type, the nuclear weapons requirements working group, the
nuclear weapons council standing and safety committee, and the nuclear
weapons council. The membership of each of these groups includes
officers and personnel of the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department
of Energy (DOE) and each deals with system or technical requirements at
various levels of detail. The committee notes that DOE's 1999 Stockpile
Stewardship Program 30-Day Review concluded that coordination between
DOD and DOE is inadequate to generate and prioritize nuclear weapons
requirements. The review further contended that the Office of Defense
Programs (DP) lacks a formal process for assessing these requirements,
developing plans to address them, and prioritizing workloads. The
committee believes that concerns expressed by the review are legitimate.
The committee also notes that DP has pursued a science-based
stockpile stewardship program to sustain the viability of U.S. nuclear
weapons in the absence of underground nuclear testing. DP has been
developing and acquiring a range of science-based tools for this
purpose, and the committee understands that DP must also define and
prioritize requirements for these tools. The committee notes that DP has
a long history of poor program management, in part attributable to poor
program definition and frequently changing program baselines. The
committee believes that this history gives rise to legitimate concern
that DP also lacks a sufficiently formal and rigorous approach to
defining the technical requirements of these science-based tools and
prioritizing competing technology programs.
Therefore, the committee directs the Administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), in consultation with the
Secretary of Defense, to submit to the congressional defense committees
by February 15, 2000, a report on the steps being taken to improve
requirements processes related to nuclear weapons. The report should
include an assessment of coordination between the NNSA and DOD together
with actions required to more fully coordinate this process, as well as
an assessment of DP's internal processes for developing plans to address
nuclear weapons requirements and prioritizing resulting workloads
together with any actions required to improve DP's processes. The report
should further assess DP's procedures for defining the technical
requirements for science-based stewardship tools and prioritizing
competing technology programs and steps required to improve these
procedures.
Department of Energy Reorganization Issues
The committee notes that title 32 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) required the
establishment of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) by
March 1, 2000, and the committee is pleased that the NNSA has been
formally established by the Department of Energy (DOE). The committee is
also pleased that a nominee for Administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration has been forwarded to the Senate by the
President.
However, the committee remains concerned about the slow progress of
the Department toward full compliance with the law. The Special
Oversight Panel on Department of Energy Reorganization expressed, in its
report to the committee on February 11, 2000, a number of concerns with
the Department's January 2000 implementation plan. These concerns
included the Department's placement of DOE officials to serve
concurrently in key NNSA positions, the continuation of confused lines
of authority within the NNSA, the failure to provide any information on
the use of authorities to restructure the NNSA workforce, an
overemphasis in the plan on continued DOE control over the NNSA, and the
retention of current DOE budget and planning practices.
The committee remains particularly concerned about the placement of
DOE officials to serve concurrently in key NNSA positions, a practice
known as ``dual-hatting.'' The Secretary of Energy testified to the
committee that he would not change this practice, even after an NNSA
Administrator is confirmed by the Senate.
The committee notes that the Department, in its written legal opinion
in support of this practice, maintains that Congress was explicit and
detailed throughout title 32 of Public Law 106-65, but did not
explicitly prohibit dual-hatting.
The committee asserts that dual-hatting DOE officials to any
positions in NNSA violates a clearly implied prohibition in current law
and notes that the entire purpose, structure and legislative history of
title 32 of Public Law 106 65 reflect an intent to insulate NNSA and its
contractors from the rest of DOE. This intent is apparent in several
sections, including: section 3213(a), which established that the
Secretary or Deputy Secretary may provide direction to NNSA only through
the NNSA Administrator; section 3212(d), which stated that the
Administrator may make policies specific to NNSA, subject only to the
disapproval of the Secretary; section 3212(c), which established the
Administrator as the chief procurement executive for NNSA; sections
3212(b) and 3218, that provide the NNSA Administrator with staff to
perform all of the normal administrative functions in running an agency,
including budget, personnel, legislative affairs, public affairs,
procurement, counterintelligence; section 3217 which established the
position of General Counsel within the Administration; and sections
3213(a) and 3213(b), which specifically prohibited DOE officers and
employees, other than the Secretary acting through the Administrator,
from exercising authority, direction, or control over NNSA employees or
NNSA contractor employees. The committee believes that these provisions,
in combination, provide compelling evidence of congressional intent to
insulate the NNSA from direct control by DOE staff and to prohibit
dual-hatting within the NNSA.
The legislative history also clearly indicates that Congress, in
mandating the establishment of the NNSA, was attempting to rectify the
longstanding bureaucratic confusion and overlap that has plagued DOE.
The committee remains concerned that the DOE implementation plan fails
to correct these confused lines of authority. The Department as
currently organized requires three NNSA facilities to report through
non-NNSA operations offices. The committee believes that this
arrangement is not compliant with current law. The implementation plan
also makes no changes in the role or function of operations offices. The
committee believes that the roles and functions of operations offices
should be revised to clarify headquarters authorities and streamline
NNSA management. Finally, the committee notes that dual-hatting senior
DOE officials to NNSA positions, particularly those that involve
overseeing NNSA field operations, will undermine the authority of the
Administrator, perpetuate confused lines of authority, and ultimately
will make it more difficult to rectify problems in the weapons complex.
The committee also observes that section 3241 of Public Law 106 65
authorized the Administrator of the NNSA to establish up to 300 excepted
service positions to fill science, engineering, and technical positions
with qualified personnel. The committee notes the Department's lack of
appropriate technical expertise to manage complex projects and
activities. Thus, the committee was disappointed that a proposal to use
this authority was not forwarded as part of the Secretary's January 2000
implementation plan. The committee continues to believe that this
authority will be an important tool for the Administrator to reshape the
NNSA workforce.
Accordingly, the committee expects the Secretary and the
Administrator of the NNSA to reform lines of authority and the roles and
functions of operations offices within the NNSA, and to develop
management structures that incorporate the use of personnel hired
through excepted service authority.
Directed stockpile work
The budget request contained $836.6 million for directed stockpile work.
The committee recommends $856.6 million, an increase of $20.0 million.
Stockpile evaluation
The budget request contained $151.7 million for stockpile evaluation.
The committee notes that the budget request does not adequately
support radiographic inspection of nuclear weapons components and
assemblies, vacuum chamber inspection activities, testing in the
accelerated aging unit, and other stockpile evaluation activities at the
Pantex plant. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to
support these activities.
The committee also notes that the budget request does not adequately
support quality evaluation and certification activities and joint test
assemblies at the Y 12 plant. The committee recommends an increase of
$6.0 million for stockpile evaluation at the Y 12 plant.
In total, the committee recommends $162.7 million, an increase of
$11.0 million for stockpile evaluation.
Stockpile maintenance
The budget request contained $258.0 million for stockpile maintenance.
The committee notes that the budget request does not adequately
support life extension and repairs for the B 61 warhead and other
directed stockpile work at the Kansas City plant. The committee
recommends an increase of $5.0 million to support these activities.
The committee also notes that the budget request does not adequately
support life extension activities for the B 61 and W-76 warheads and
other directed stockpile work at the Y 12. The committee recommends an
increase of $4.0 million to support these activities.
In total, the committee recommends $267.0 million, an increase of
$9.0 million for stockpile maintenance.
Program direction for defense programs
The budget request contained $224.1 million for program direction for
the Office of Defense Programs (DP).
The committee notes federal staffing levels planned for National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) operations offices is the same as
the authorized staffing level for fiscal year 2000. The committee also
notes that the size of the operations offices and the confusing lines of
authority within the Office of Defense Programs were criticized in many
independent reports over two decades, most recently by the June 1999
report by the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. The
committee believes that the Administrator of the NNSA should clarify
lines of authority and adjust the personnel levels at the operations
offices accordingly. Consequently, the committee recommends a
reduction of $5.0 million, which corresponds to a five percent
reduction in federal staffing at the NNSA operations offices.
The committee also notes that of the funds requested for program
direction, $2.2 million would support automatic data processing
equipment (ADPE) upgrades at the Oak Ridge and Oakland Operations
Offices. These operations offices are part of the Office of Science of
the Department of Energy. Title 32 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106 65) included Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory and the Y 12 plant as part of the NNSA and required
that these facilities report to the Deputy Administrator for Defense
Programs. The committee believes that an organizational structure that
entails DP facilities reporting through the Office of Science is both
inefficient and inappropriate and does not believe that DP should fund
computer upgrades for the Office of Science. Therefore the committee
recommends an additional reduction of $2.2 million to program direction.
The committee recommends $216.9 million, a decrease of $7.2 million
for program direction for the Office of Defense Programs.
Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF)
The budget request contained $1,953.6 million in RTBF. The committee
recommends $1,366.8 million, including an increase of $35.0 million and
a transfer of $621.8 million to campaigns.
The committee understands that the facility costs budgeted in RTBF
were not calculated consistently. While the nuclear weapons production
plants included all salaries under RTBF, the nuclear weapons
laboratories allocated salaries to various ongoing program activities.
The committee believes that this inconsistency hinders congressional
understanding of overhead costs and project costs and expects the
Administrator of the NNSA to develop the NNSA budget for submission by
DOE with RTBF funding calculated consistently among all the facilities.
Further, the committee does not believe that projects and activities
that present complex scientific and engineering challenges should be
funded in RTBF. Consequently, as described elsewhere in this report, the
committee recommends funding for the advanced simulation and computing
component of RTBF through the defense computing and modeling campaign,
and that inertial confinement fusion (ICF) and national ignition
facility operations be funded through the ICF and high yield margins
campaign.
Operations of facilities
The budget request contained $1,313.4 million for operations of
facilities, including $29.1 million for infrastructure costs at the
Pantex plant, $39.8 million for infrastructure costs at the Kansas City
plant, and $67.3 million for infrastructure costs at the Y 12 plant.
The committee understands that the budget request for infrastructure
costs at the nuclear weapons plants represent reductions of 25 percent,
6 percent, and 27 percent at the Y 12, Kansas City, and Pantex plants
respectively. The committee is concerned that such reductions are
inconsistent with the problems highlighted by the Stockpile Stewardship
Program 30-Day Review conducted by the Department of Energy. This review
cited studies showing that the historical rate of reinvestment in
nuclear weapons facilities is far below industry standards and that the
aging infrastructure was not designed to meet current mission
requirements or safety standards.
The committee believes that the budget request places insufficient
priority on restoring and modernizing infrastructure at the plants, and
recommends $49.1 million for infrastructure improvements at Pantex
plant, an increase of $20.0 million; $56.8 million for infrastructure
improvements and capital equipment at the Kansas City plant, an increase
of $17.0 million; and $82.3 million for infrastructure improvements at
the Y 12 plant, an increase of $15.0 million.
As described elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends
realigning $100.8 million from operations of facilities for the National
Ignition Facility (NIF) and $43.9 million in other RTBF funds to the
inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield margins campaign.
Overall, the committee recommends $1,220.7 million for operations of
facilities, a reduction of $92.7 million.
Special projects
The budget request contained $17.0 million for educational
activities, including funding for mathematics and science education for
local schools near the national weapons laboratories, the Los Alamos
County School District, and the Northern New Mexico Educational
Enrichment Foundation.
The committee understands the importance of primary and secondary
education in mathematics and science but believes that funding of these
activities in the Defense Programs account provides no direct benefit to
the core national security mission of the National Nuclear Security
Administration. Consequently, the committee recommends no funds for
these activities, a reduction of $17.0 million.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SUBTITLE A--NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS AUTHORIZATIONS
SECTION 3101--NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
This section would authorize funds for the National Nuclear Security
Administration for fiscal year 2001.
SECTION 3102--DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
This section would authorize funds for Department of Energy
environmental restoration and waste management activities for fiscal
year 2001.
SECTION 3103--OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES
This section would authorize funds for other defense activities of
the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2001.
SECTION 3104--DEFENSE FACILITIES CLOSURE PROJECTS
This section would authorize funds for Department of Energy defense
facilities closure projects for fiscal year 2001.
SECTION 3105--DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION
This section would authorize funds for Department of Energy defense
environmental management privatization activities for fiscal year 2001.
SECTION 3106--DEFENSE NUCLEAR WASTE DISPOSAL
This section would authorize funds for Department of Energy defense
nuclear waste disposal activities for fiscal year 2001.
SUBTITLE B--RECURRING GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 3121--REPROGRAMMING
This section would prohibit the reprogramming of funds in excess of
110 percent of the amount authorized for the program, or in excess of
$1.0 million above the amount authorized for the program until the
Secretary of Energy has notified the congressional defense committees
and a period of 60 days has elapsed after the date on which the
notification is received.
SECTION 3122--LIMITS ON GENERAL PLANT PROJECTS
This section would limit the initiation of general plant projects if
the current estimated cost for any project exceeds $5.0 million and
would require the Secretary of Energy to notify the congressional
defense committees in the event the estimated cost of any project
exceeds $5.0 million and the reasons for the cost variation.
SECTION 3123--LIMITS ON CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
This section would permit the initiation and continuation of any
construction project only if the estimated cost for the project does not
exceed 125 percent of the higher of: (1) the amount authorized for the
project; or (2) the most recent total estimated cost presented to
Congress as justification for such project. To exceed this limit, the
Secretary of Energy must report in detail the reason therefore to the
congressional defense committees and the report must be before the
committees for 30 legislative days. This section would also specify that
the 125 percent limitation would not apply to projects estimated to cost
under $5.0 million.
SECTION 3124--FUND TRANSFER AUTHORITY
This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to transfer
funds to other agencies of the government for performance of work for
which the funds were authorized and appropriated. The provision would
permit the merger of such funds with the funds made available to the
agency to which they are transferred.
SECTION 3125--AUTHORITY FOR CONCEPTUAL AND CONSTRUCTION DESIGN
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to certify that a
conceptual design for a construction project has been completed prior to
requesting funding for that project, except in the case of emergencies.
SECTION 3126--AUTHORITY FOR EMERGENCY PLANNING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITIES
This section would permit the Secretary of Energy to perform planning
and design for construction activities utilizing available funds for any
Department of Energy national security program construction project
whenever the Secretary determines that the design must proceed
expeditiously to protect the public health and safety, to meet the needs
of national defense, or to protect property.
SECTION 3127--AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS
This section would require that funds authorized for the various
activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration and
environmental management activities of the Department of Energy would be
available for obligation for three years, and that funding authorized
for program direction would be available for obligation for one year.
SECTION 3128--AUTHORITY RELATING TO TRANSFER OF DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT FUNDS
This section would provide the manager of each field office of the
Department of Energy with limited authority to transfer defense
environmental management funds from a program or project under the
jurisdiction of the office to another such program or project.
SECTION 3131--FUNDING FOR TERMINATION COSTS FOR TANK WASTE REMEDIATION
SYSTEM ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT, RICHLAND, WASHINGTON
This section would prohibit the Secretary of Energy from using
appropriated funds to establish a reserve for the payment of termination
costs of contracts relating to the tank waste remediation system at
Richland, Washington and identifies alternatives to pay for these costs
should the need arise to do so.
SECTION 3132--ENHANCED COOPERATION BETWEEN NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION AND BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION
This section would establish the basis for expanded cooperation
between the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and the National
Nuclear Security Administration.
The committee continues to believe that ballistic missile defense
remains one of the highest defense priorities and that the national
laboratories represent a repository of expertise of potentially great
value in meeting technology challenges in the ballistic missile defense
program.
SECTION 3133--REQUIRED CONTENTS OF FUTURE-YEARS NUCLEAR SECURITY
PROGRAM TO BE SUBMITTED WITH FISCAL YEAR 2002 BUDGET AND LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION
OF CERTAIN FUNDS PENDING SUBMISSION OF THAT PROGRAM
This section would make certain findings that the budget submission
for fiscal year 2001 to Congress does not comply with requirements
imposed by sections 3251 and 3253 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106 65); would establish
requirements for the content of the future-years nuclear security
program to be submitted annually by the Administrator of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) pursuant to section 3253 of
Public Law 106 65; and would prohibit the obligation of more than 50
percent of funds authorized for appropriation for program direction
within NNSA until 30 days after the Administrator provides Congress with
the required future-years nuclear security program.
SECTION 3134--LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF CERTAIN FUNDS
This section would prohibit the use of funds authorized to be
appropriated for the National Nuclear Security Administration for
infrastructure upgrades or maintenance in the readiness of technical
base and facilities or construction accounts to be used for any other
purpose.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
The budget request contained $18.5 million for the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB).
The committee notes that the fiscal year 2000 appropriation for DNFSB
was $17.0 million and does not believe there is ample justification to
warrant increase of $1.5 million. The Board cites an increased number of
Department of Energy facilities to oversee as the basis for their
increased budget request. However, most of these new facilities will be
in the design, not construction, phase during fiscal year 2001.
Consequently, the committee recommends $17.0 million for the DNFSB, a
decrease of $1.5 million.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISION
SECTION 3201--AUTHORIZATION
This section would authorize $17.0 million for the operation of the
Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SECTION 3301--AUTHORIZED USES OF STOCKPILE FUNDS
This section would authorize $70.5 million from the National Defense
Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operation and maintenance of the
National Defense Stockpile for fiscal year 2001. The provision would
also permit the use of additional funds for extraordinary or emergency
conditions 45 days after a notification to Congress.
SECTION 3302--USE OF EXCESS TITANIUM SPONGE IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE
STOCKPILE TO MANUFACTURE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EQUIPMENT
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer
excess titanium sponge contained in the National Defense Stockpile for
use in manufacturing equipment to be used by the military services. This
transfer authority would be on a non-reimbursable basis, except that the
military service requesting the titanium would be responsible for all
transportation and related costs. This new transfer authority would not
conflict with transfer authorities for titanium contained in section
3305 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104 106).
TITLE XXXIV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
MERCHANT MARINE ACADEMY
The budget request contained $37.2 million for the U.S. Merchant
Marine Academy (USMMA). The committee is deeply troubled that the health
and safety hazards to the cadets and staff still continue due to the
appalling condition of physical plant and infrastructure at the
institution. Although the budget request includes an increase of $3.0
million for repairs and capital improvements, this amount is
insufficient to begin to buy down the backlog of deferred maintenance
and facilities replacement. The committee is concerned that a facilities
master plan that would establish and prioritize necessary repairs and
improvements is not complete. Therefore, the committee recommends an
increase of $13.9 million to complete development of a facilities master
plan and to address the most critical health and safety related repair
and capital replacement projects at the USMMA.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
SECTION 3401--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
This section would authorize a total of $148.3 million for fiscal
year 2001, an increase of $61.9 million above the budget request, for
the Maritime Administration. Of the funds authorized, $94.2 million
would be for operations and training programs, $50.0 million would be
for the costs as defined in section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act
of 1990, of loan guarantees authorized by Title XI of the Merchant
Marine Act, 1936, as amended (46 App. U.S.C. 1271 et seq.), and $4.2
million would be for administrative expenses related to providing these
loan guarantees.
SECTION 3402--EXTENSION OF PERIOD FOR DISPOSAL OF OBSOLETE VESSELS FROM
THE NATIONAL RESERVE FLEET
This section would amend the National Maritime Heritage Act of 1994
to extend by five years, until September 20, 2006, the date by which
obsolete vessels from the National Defense Reserve Fleet vessels must be
disposed and require the use if overseas scrapping facilities to meet
this requirement. In addition, this section would require the Secretary
of Transportation to submit to the Congress a plan describing how the
required disposals will be completed by the revised date.
SECTION 3403--AUTHORITY TO CONVEY NATIONAL DEFENSE RESERVE FLEET
VESSEL, GLACIER
This section would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to
convey, at no cost to the government, a surplus National Defense Reserve
Fleet vessel, to the Glacier Society for use as a museum.
DEPARTMENTAL DATA
The Department of Defense requested legislation, in accordance with
the program of the President, as illustrated by the correspondence set
out below:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, March 6, 2000.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Defense proposes the enclosed
draft legislation, ``To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2001
for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe
military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2001, and for other
purposes.''
This legislative proposal is part of the Department of Defense
Legislative Program for the Second Session of the 106th Congress and is
necessary to carry out the President's budget plans for fiscal year
2001. The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no
objection to the presentation of this proposal to the Congress, and that
its enactment would be in accord with the program of the President.
The bill proposes several important initiatives needed for the
efficient operation of the Department of Defense. It would contribute to
the smooth management of the Department by providing many improvements
to the authorities under which we operate.
The Department currently is developing several other legislative
proposals, including an initiative regarding the basic allowance for
housing for military personnel. We will submit these initiatives in the
near future.
Sincerely,
Douglas A. Dworkin,
Acting General Counsel.
Enclosures.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, February 28, 2000.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Enclosed is proposed legislation to authorize
military construction and related activities of the Department of
Defense. It is styled as Division B--Military Construction
Authorizations, with the expectation that it will be included in the
National Defense authorizations for fiscal year 2001 with that
designation. Enactment of this legislation is necessary to carry out the
President's budget plan with regard to military housing and property for
fiscal year 2001. This legislation is part of the Legislative Program of
the Department of Defense for the Second Session of the 106th Congress.
If enacted, this legislation would make several improvements to the
efficiency of managing military construction, base housing, and the use
of defense lands. These improvements would include extension of
authority to conduct our military privatization initiatives, the
revision of the limitations on space in housing by grade, the
enhancement of the Military Leasing Act, and several other general and
specific authorities in the management of our military housing and
property.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no
objection to the presentation of this proposal to the Congress, and that
its enactment would be in accord with the program of the President.
Sincerely,
Douglas A. Dworkin,
Acting General Counsel.
Enclosures.
COMMITTEE POSITION
On May 10, 2000 the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum being
present, approved H.R. 4205, as amended, by a vote of 56 to 1.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES
House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.
Hon. Floyd Spence, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: According to information provided by Armed
Services staff, H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001, includes several provisions that affect laws within
the jurisdiction of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. Those provisions
are found at section 738 of the bill (improvements regarding VA DOD
sharing agreements for health services), section 535 of the bill
(addition of certain information to markers on graves at the National
Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific), and section 2831 of the bill
(transfer of jurisdiction of land to VA at Rock Island Arsenal). In
order to expedite consideration of H.R. 4205, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs waives the right it would have under the House Rules to seek a
referral of the measure to the Committee for consideration of these
provisions.
Thank you for your courtesy in bringing these matters to the VA
Committee's attention.
Sincerely,
Bob Stump, Chairman.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, May 11, 2000.
Hon. Floyd Spence, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write concerning the jurisdictional interest of
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in H.R. 4205, the
Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act.
H.R. 4205 as reported by the Committee on Armed Services contains
many provisions over which the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has jurisdiction and as such would be entitled to a
sequential referral. As in previous bills, these generally include all
sections that affect the pay, benefits and personnel of the United
States Coast Guard, including Section 615, providing for Physicians
Assistants for the Coast Guard.
In addition to matters related to pay, benefits and personnel of the
Coast Guard, we would also be entitled to a sequential referral of Title
XIV, creating a Commission to assess the threat to the United States
from electromagnetic pulse attack, Section 2839, regarding a land
conveyance for the Charles Melvin Price Support Center in Illinois, and
Section 2881, relating to easement authority to leased parkland at the
Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California.
Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4205 and the need for
this legislation to move expeditiously. While we have a valid claim to
jurisdiction over the provisions identified above, I do not intend to
request a sequential referral. This is of course conditional on our
mutual understanding that nothing in this legislation waives or affects
the jurisdiction of the Transportation Committee, that every effort will
be made to include any agreements worked out by our staffs as the bill
is taken to the Floor and that a copy of this letter and your response
will by included in the Committee Report and as part of the record
during consideration of this bill by the House. Our Committee would
request to be included as conferees on these provisions, as well.
Thank you for your cooperation in this manner.
Sincerely,
Bud Shuster, Chairman.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.
Hon. Bud Shuster, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of May 12, 2000
regarding H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2001.
I agree that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has
valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request
such a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill.
I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its jurisdiction.
Further, as you requested, this exchange of letters will be included in
the Committee report on the bill.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Floyd D. Spence, Chairman.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Resources,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.
Hon. Floyd Spence, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for an opportunity to review the text
of H.R. 4205, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001, for provisions which are within the jurisdiction of
the Committee on Resources. These provisions include those dealing with
oceanography, environmental review, benefits for the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration Corps, historic preservation, public
lands, and territories of the United States.
Because of the continued cooperation and consideration you have
afforded me and my staff in developing these provisions, I will not seek
a sequential referral of H.R. 4205 based on their inclusion in the bill.
Of course, this waiver does not prejudice any future jurisdictional
claims over these provisions or similar language. I also reserve the
right to seek to have conferees named from the Committee on Resources on
these provisions, should a conference on H.R. 4205 or a similar measure
become necessary.
Once again, it has been a pleasure to work with you and Phil Grone of
your staff. I look forward to seeing H.R. 4205 enacted soon as a very
suitable monument to your years of distinguished service as Chairman of
the Committee on Armed Services.
Sincerely,
Don Young, Chairman.
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.
Hon. Floyd Spence, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that on Wednesday, May 10, 2000, the
Committee on Armed Services ordered favorably reported H.R. 4250, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. The bill
includes a number of provisions that fall within the legislative
jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations pursuant to
Rule X(k) of the House of Representatives.
The specific provisions within our committee's jurisdiction are: (1)
Section 232, Sense of Congress concerning commitment to deployment of
National Missile Defense system; (2) Section 233, Reports on ballistic
missile threat posed by North Korea; (3) Section 908, Defense Institute
for Hemispheric Security Cooperation; (4) Section 1201, Support of
United Nations-sponsored efforts to inspect and monitor Iraqi weapons
activities; (5) Section 1203, Situation in the Balkans; and (6) Title
XIII, Cooperative Threat Reduction with States of the Former Soviet
Union.
With respect to Section 1204, Limitation on number of military
personnel in Colombia, it is my understanding that the Parliamentarians
continue to review our jurisdictional claim on this provision. Because
of our Committee's strong interest in this provision, which we believe
is at the heart of our Committee's jurisdiction regarding decisions
governing intervention abroad, we will continue to seek jurisdiction
over this provision as we move toward conference committee on H.R. 4250.
Pursuant to Chairman Dreier's announcement that the Committee on
Rules will move expeditiously to consider a rule for H.R. 4250 and your
desire to have the bill considered on the House floor next week, the
Committee on International Relations will not seek a sequential referral
of the bill as a result of including these provisions, without waiving
or ceding now or in the future this committee's jurisdiction over the
provisions in question. I will seek to have conferees appointed for
these provisions during any House-Senate conference committee.
Sincerely,
Benjamin A. Gilman, Chairman.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, May 9, 2000.
Hon. Floyd Spence, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing concerning H.R. 4025, the ``National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001,'' which contains several
items of jurisdictional interest to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Specifically, draft section 651, ``participation in the Thrift
Savings Plan,'' would permit the military to participate in the Thrift
Savings Plan. I understand that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) is
expected to score secondary revenue losses of approximately $321 million
over 5 years due to this provision. Normally, the Committee on Ways and
Means would have a budgetary interest in such legislation. However, I am
informed that the statement of managers to accompany the Conference
Report for H. Con. Res. 290, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for
Fiscal Year 2001 states that ``the revenue levels in the Conference
Agreement would accommodate the revenue effects from legislation that
would permit members of the Armed Forces to participate in the Thrift
Savings Plan.''
Draft section 724 would directly amend the Medicare law contained in
Title XVIII of the Social Security Act to extend the Tricare Senior
Prime Demonstration Project for an additional three years.
Finally, a new draft section would authorize, in consultation with
the Commissioner of Customs, a report on the Tethered Aerostat Radar
System, used, in part, by the Customs Service to conduct counter-drug
detection and interdiction.
Normally, the Committee on Ways and Means would meet to consider such
legislation. However, in order to expedite consideration of H.R. 4205, I
will not object to the inclusion of these items, and, for this reason,
it will not be necessary for the Committee on Ways and Means to meet to
consider the legislation.
However, this is only being done with the clear understanding that
you have agreed to accept no additional changes on these or any other
matters of concern to this Committee during further consideration of
this legislation, including during consideration on the House floor and
during a conference with the Senate. Finally, this action is being done
with the understanding that it will not prejudice the jurisdictional
prerogatives of the Committee on Ways and Means on these provisions or
any other similar legislation and will not be considered as precedent
for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my Committee
in the future.
Finally, I would ask that you include a copy of our exchange of
letters on this matter in your Committee Report on the legislation.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in this matter. With best
personal regards,
Sincerely,
Bill Archer, Chairman.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Washington, DC, May 12, 2000.
Hon. Floyd Spence, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On May 10, 2000, the Committee on Armed Services
ordered reported H.R. 4205, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. H.R. 4205, as ordered reported
by the Committee on Armed Services, contains a number of provisions
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce. They include:
Section 601, relating to the compensation of uniformed officers of
the Public Health Service;
Section 723, relating to Medicare subvention;
Section 724, extending a pilot program;
Section 725, extending a pilot program;
Section 736, relating to biomedical research; and,
Title XIV, creating a commission to study issues related to
electromagnetic pulse.
Because of the importance of this matter, I recognize your desire to
bring this legislation before the House in an expeditious manner and
will waive consideration of the bill by the Commerce Committee. By
agreeing to waive its consideration of the bill, the Commerce Committee
does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 4205. In addition, the
Committee on Commerce reserves its authority to seek conferees on any
provisions of the bill that are within the Commerce Committee's
jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on
this legislation. I ask for your commitment to support any request by
the Committee on Commerce for conferees on H.R. 4205 or related
legislation.
I request that you include this letter as a part of your committee's
report on H.R. 4205 and as part of the Record during consideration of
the legislation on the House floor.
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
Tom Bliley, Chairman.
FISCAL DATA
Pursuant to clause 3(d) Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual outlays
resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2001 and the following four
years. The results of such efforts are reflected in the cost estimate
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under
section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which is included
in this report pursuant to clause 3(c)(3)
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of
Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office and submitted pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget
Act of 1974 is as follows:
May 12, 2000.
Hon. Floyd Spence, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the
enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4205, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2001.
The CBO staff contact is Kent Christensen, who can be reached at 226
2840. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased
to provide them.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen.
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE
Summary: H.R. 4205 would authorize appropriations totaling $310
billion for fiscal year 2001 and an estimated $9 billion for 2000 for
the military functions of the Department of Defense (DoD) and the
Department of Energy. It also would prescribe personnel strengths for
each active duty and selected reserve component of the U.S. armed
forces. CBO estimates that appropriation of the authorized amounts for
2000 and 2001 would result in additional outlays of $313 billion over
the 2000 2005 period. In addition, the bill contains provisions that
would raise the costs of discretionary defense programs over the 2002
2005 period by about $8 billion, assuming appropriation of the necessary
sums.
The bill contains provisions that would affect direct spending,
primarily through demonstration projects in the defense health program.
We estimate that the direct spending resulting from provisions of H.R.
4205 would total about $165 million over the 2001 2005 period and $151
million over the 2001 2010 period. The bill would reduce revenues by
about $380 million over the 2001 2005 period and $1.1 billion over the
2001 2010 period as the result of a provision that would allow military
personnel to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Because it
would affect direct spending and receipts, the bill would be subject to
pay-as-you-go procedures.
The bill contains private-sector and intergovernmental mandates;
however, the costs of those mandates would not exceed the thresholds
specified in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary
impact of H.R. 4205 is shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1.--BUDGETARY IMPACT OF H.R. 4205 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending Under Current Law for Defense Programs: 289,218 0 0 0 0 0
Proposed Changes:
Authorization of Supplemental Appropriations:
Estimated Authorization Level\2\ 9,205 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays\2\ 6,953 136 1,470 453 134 28
Authorization of Regular Appropriations:
Authorization Level 0 310,182 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays 0 199,797 65,795 24,055 9,210 4,525
Subtotal-Proposed Changes:
Estimated Authorization Level 9,205 310,182 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays 6,953 199,933 67,265 24,508 9,344 4,553
Spending Under H.R. 4205 for Defense Programs: 298,423 310,182 0 0 0 0
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Estimated Budget Authority 0 27 39 83 21 -5
Estimated Outlays 0 27 39 83 21 -5
CHANGES IN REVENUES
Change in Income Tax Receipts 0 -10 -61 -82 -105 -125
\1\The 2000 level is the amount appropriated for programs authorized by the bill.
\2\The amounts shown here for the 2000 supplemental are the total amounts in the 2000 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act as passed by the House. The outlay estimate includes $4,897 million designated as emergency funding. Excluding emergency funds would lower total outlays in 2001 to $294,314 million.
Note.--Costs of the bill would fall within budget function 050 (national defense), except for certain items noted in the text.
Authorizations of Appropriations
The bill would authorize specific appropriations totaling $310
billion in 2001 (see Table 2) and such sums as may be necessary for
supplemental appropriations in 2000. It would also authorize certain
payments, which are due to be made in fiscal year 2001, to be paid
instead in 2000. Most of those costs would fall within budget function
050 (national defense). H.R. 4205 would also authorize appropriations of
$94 million for the Maritime Administration (function 400) and $70
million for the Armed Forces Retirement Home (function 700).
The estimate assumes that the amounts authorized for 2001 will be
appropriated by October 1, 2000, and that the authorization of
supplemental appropriations would amount to $9 billion, the amount of
funding passed by the House in the 2000 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act. (All but $167 million of the supplemental funding is
designated as an emergency.) Outlays are estimated based on historical
spending patterns.
The bill also contains provisions that would affect various costs,
mostly for personnel, that would be covered by the fiscal year 2001
authorization and by authorizations in future years. Table 3 contains
estimates of those amounts. In addition to the costs covered by the
authorizations in the bill for 2001, these provisions would raise
estimated costs by $8 billion over the 2002 2005 period. The following
sections describe the provisions identified in Table 3 and provide
information about CBO's cost estimates.
Multiyear Procurement Programs. In most cases, purchases of weapon
systems are authorized annually, and as a result, DoD negotiates a
separate contract for each annual purchase. In a small number of cases,
the law permits multiyear procurement; that is, it allows DoD to enter
into a contract to buy specified annual quantities of a system for up to
five years. In those cases, DoD can negotiate lower prices because its
commitment to purchase the weapons gives the contractor an incentive to
find more economical ways to manufacture the weapon, including
cost-saving investments. Funding would continue to be provided on an
annual basis for these multiyear contracts, but potential termination
costs would be covered by an initial appropriation.
H.R. 4205 would authorize DoD to enter into new multiyear contracts
for three weapons systems: Blackhawk (UH 60L) helicopters, Knighthawk
(CH 60S) helicopters, and Bradley fighting vehicles. The Blackhawk and
Knighthawk helicopters would be purchased under one contract
administered by the Army and covering five years of production beginning
in 2002. The contract for the Bradley fighting vehicles would cover
three years starting in 2001. H.R. 4205 would also extend the
authorization of multiyear procurement of the Arleigh Burke class
destroyer by two years through 2005.
TABLE 2.--SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS IN THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
Category 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Military Personnel: 75,802 0 0 0 0
Operation and Maintenance: 109,709 0 0 0 0
Procurement: 62,300 0 0 0 0
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation: 39,309 0 0 0 0
Military Construction and Family Housing: 8,434 0 0 0 0
Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 12,888 0 0 0 0
Other Accounts: 1,667 0 0 0 0
General Transfer Authority: 0 0 0 0 0
Total: 310,109 0 0 0 0
TABLE 3.--ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED PROVISIONS IN H.R. 4205 AS ORDERED REPORTED
[By fiscal year, in millions of dollars]
Category 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Multiyear Procurement: 0 -12 -9 -20 -45
Military Endstrengths: -113 -233 -241 -249 -257
Compensation and Benefits (DOD): 358 257 136 105 71
Military Health Care: 94 320 481 536 595
Other Provisions: 90 90 90 90 90
Bill Total: 1,234 1,555 1,949 2,177 2,680
Notes:--For every item in this table except one, the 2001 impacts are included in the amounts specifically authorized to be appropriated in the bill. Those amounts are shown in Table 2. Only the authorization of endstrength for the Coast Guard Reserve is additive to the amounts in Table 2.
CBO estimates that savings from buying the Blackhawk and Knighthawk
helicopters under a multiyear contract would total $86 million or an
average of about $22 million a year over the 2002 2005 period. Funding
requirements would total just under $2.2 billion instead of the almost
$2.3 billion needed under annual contracts. Similarly, CBO estimates
that the Army would save $79 million, or about $26 million a year,
through 2003 under a multiyear contract for Bradley fighting vehicles,
which would cost about $0.9 billion over that period under current law.
CBO estimates that extending the Arleigh Burke destroyer multiyear
contract would save the Navy an additional $132 million between 2001 and
2005. Those estimates are based on actual savings from multiyear
procurement of similar systems and the assumption that annual production
will be at the levels planned by the Administration for each of these
programs.
Endstrength. The bill would authorize active and reserve endstrengths
for 2001 and would lower the minimum endstrength authorization in
permanent law. The authorized endstrengths for active-duty personnel and
personnel in the selected reserve would total about 1,382,000 and
866,000, respectively. The bill would specifically authorize
appropriations of $75.8 billion for military pay and allowances in 2001.
The reduction in authorized personnel would decrease costs for salaries
and other expenses by $113 million in the first year and about $250
million annually in subsequent years, compared to the authorized
strengths for 2000.
Also, the bill would authorize an endstrength of 8,000 in 2001 for
the Coast Guard Reserve. This authorization would cost about $73 million
and would fall under budget function 400, transportation.
Section 414 would change the grade structure of active duty personnel
in support of the reserves. This change would not increase the overall
strength, but would result in more promotions. The provision would cost
$11 million in 2001 and about $25 million a year in subsequent years.
Compensation and Benefits. H.R. 4205 contains several provisions that
would affect military compensation and benefits.
Pay Raises. Section 601 would raise basic pay by 3.7 percent at a
total cost of about $1.5 billion in 2001. Because this pay raise would
be the same as the one projected under current law and assumed in its
baseline projections, CBO estimates no incremental costs.
Expiring Bonuses and Allowances. Several sections would extend for
one year DoD's authority to pay certain bonuses and allowances to
current personnel. Under current law, these authorities are scheduled to
expire in December 2000, or three months into fiscal year 2001. The bill
would extend most of those authorities through December 2001. CBO
estimates that the cost of these extensions would be as follows:
Payment of reenlistment bonuses for active duty personnel would cost
$193 million in 2001 and $111 million in 2002; enlistment bonuses for
active duty personnel would cost $65 million in 2001 and $29 million in
2002. (The bill would extend the authority to pay enlistment bonuses
only through September 2001);
Various bonuses for the Selected and Ready Reserve would cost $48
million in 2001 and $55 million in 2002;
Special payments for aviators and nuclear-qualified personnel would
cost $44 million in 2001 and $47 million in 2002; and
Authorities to make special payments to nurse officer candidates,
registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists would cost $8 million in 2001
and $3 million in 2002.
Extension of other authorities, including temporary early retirement
authority, special separation benefit, voluntary separation incentive,
and certain other contingent benefits would cost $12 million in 2002.
(The bill would extend the authorities for three months past their
current expiration date of October 1, 2001.)
Most of these changes would result in additional, smaller costs in
subsequent years because payments are made in installments.
Increases in Special Pays and Bonuses. Sections 616 through 618
would revise certain eligibility criteria and pay for personnel with
special skills. Those provisions would raise maximum pay rates for
servicemembers performing career sea duty and certain enlisted personnel
performing special duty, including recruiters. In addition, the bill
would establish a common enlistment bonus among the services for certain
personnel on active duty, by ending the separate authority for the Army
and by revising the existing department-wide enlistment bonus. Under
section 618, the minimum enlistment period for enlistment bonuses would
decrease from four to two years and the critical skill requirement would
be eliminated. Authority to pay the enlistment bonuses would expire
December 31, 2001. These changes would have no cost in 2001 and cost
$216 million in 2002, when the changes would become effective. Costs in
subsequent years would total about $200 million annually.
Housing Allowances. Several sections would increase housing
allowances for servicemembers within the United States. The combination
of these provisions would cost $315 million in 2001 and $4.8 billion
over the 2001 2005 period.
Section 604 would revise the calculation of Basic Allowance for
Housing (BAH) within the United States by no longer requiring that
housing allowances be limited to 85 percent of the cost of adequate
housing in the United States. DoD plans to gradually increase BAH over 5
years to reach 100 percent of that cost by 2005. Based on that plan, CBO
estimates that higher BAH payments would cost $274 million in 2001 and
$4.4 billion over the 2001 2005 period.
Section 605 would revise the basis of BAH for enlisted members with
dependents in pay grades E 1 through E 4. BAH rates for enlisted members
in these grades are currently based on the cost of a two-bedroom
apartment. Section 605 would increase the minimum housing standard to
the amount halfway between the current standard and the cost of a
two-bedroom townhouse. This change would be effective July 1, 2001. CBO
estimates that increasing the minimum housing standard for these
enlisted members would cost $10 million in 2001 and $188 million over
the 2001 2005 period.
Section 606 would allow the Secretary of Defense to pay BAH to
certain enlisted members without dependents in pay grade E 4, who are
assigned to sea duty and who sleep aboard ship when it is in port and
quarters on base are unavailable. Based on the Navy's plan to implement
this authority, and an effective date of October 1, 2001, CBO estimates
that paying BAH to these enlisted members would cost $45 million
starting in 2002 and total $186 million over the 2002 2005 period.
Section 610 would earmark $30 million of the amount authorized to be
appropriated in 2001 for military pay and allowances to further increase
BAH within the United States.
Subsistence Allowances. Sections 602, 603, and 609 would increase
subsistence allowances for certain active-duty servicemembers and
officers prior to being commissioned. CBO estimates that enactment of
these provisions would cost $5 million in 2001 and $579 million over the
2001 2005 period.
Compared to current law, section 602 would allow a speedier
elimination of the gap between the Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS)
paid to enlisted members who eat off-base and the value of subsistence
provided to enlisted members who eat in DoD dining facilities. Current
law limits the annual growth of regular BAS to 1 percent and allows for
a partial
allowance to be paid to those receiving an in-kind benefit.
Because the partial allowance grows at a faster rate, the gap between
the total benefits would eventually close. CBO estimates that the cost
to equalize payments to both groups in 2001 and eliminate the 1 percent
growth cap would be $35 million in 2002 and would grow to $166 million
by 2005.
Section 603 would authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide a new
allowance, through fiscal year 2006, for servicemembers who meet certain
eligibility criteria of the Food Stamp program. CBO estimates that, if
the Secretary chooses to offer it, this allowance would increase
personnel costs by $5 million in fiscal year 2001 and by a total of $59
million over the 2001 2005 period.
To receive the allowance, a servicemember would apply to DoD,
providing proof that his or her household income meets the gross income
test for the Food Stamp program. The value of the allowance would be the
amount needed to make the household ineligible for food stamps, up to a
maximum of $500 per month. In determining eligibility and the size of
the allowance, DoD would count the value of all housing assistance as
income, even if that assistance is delivered in-kind.
Under current law, CBO estimates that about 5,500 servicemembers will
participate in the Food Stamp program in 2001. This estimate is based on
a recent DoD survey of servicemembers receiving food stamps, adjusted
for projected pay raises. Not all of these Food Stamp participants would
be eligible for the new allowance when the value of in-kind housing is
counted as income. Using data on the distribution of servicemembers by
pay grade and family size, CBO expects that about 3,300 current Food
Stamp recipients would be eligible for the allowance and that another
800 servicemembers would apply, at an average household cost of $315 per
month. CBO assumes that the allowance would be available beginning April
1, 2001, and participation would phase in over the remainder of the
fiscal year. Once the allowance is fully phased in, the costs are
projected to decrease each year as fewer servicemembers would be
eligible for the allowance. The number of eligible members would decline
because pay rates are projected to rise faster than the poverty
threshold used to determine Food Stamp eligibility.
If this allowance is instituted, it would make an estimated 1,100
servicemembers ineligible for food stamps and reduce costs of the Food
Stamp program by an estimated $22 million over the 2001 2005 period.
Because the decision to provide the allowance would depend, in part, on
future appropriation action, CBO has not shown direct spending savings
for this provision.
Section 609 would increase the subsistence allowance paid to members
in precommissioning programs, effective October 1, 2001. These members
currently receive a monthly allowance of $200. Section 609 would
establish a minimum monthly rate of $250 and allow the Secretary of
Defense to pay as much as $600. CBO estimates that this increase would
cost $12 million in 2002 and $50 million by 2005, when the allowance
would approach the $600 limit.
Travel and Transportation Allowances. Section 632 would allow the
Secretary of Defense to reimburse members who change duty stations for
the fees of mandatory pet quarantine, but limit the compensation amount
to $275 per change. CBO estimates that these payments would cost $1
million a year. Section 633 would increase dislocation allowances for
enlisted members with dependents in pay grades E 1 through E 4 by
requiring that the Secretary of Defense not differentiate between grades
E 1 through E 5 when determining dislocation allowances for enlisted
members with dependents. CBO estimates that paying the resulting higher
dislocation allowances would cost $6 million in 2001 and $33 million
over the 2001 2005 period. Under section 634, the Secretary could
reimburse recruiters and other military and civilian employees assigned
to certain duties for parking expenses. CBO estimates that that the cost
of paying these parking fees would be $41 million in 2001 and $210
million over the 2001 2005 period.
Involuntary Separation Pay. Section 517 would reclassify as
involuntary the discharges of reserve officers who are twice passed over
for promotion. This would allow these members to receive involuntary
separation pay. Based on information from DoD, CBO estimates that
approximately 550 reserve officers a year would become eligible for
separation pay under this provision. CBO estimates that enactment of
section 517 would cost $30 million in 2001 and $162 million over the
2001 2005 period.
New Retention Bonus for Critical Skills. Section 619 would authorize
a new retention bonus for military personnel with critical skills who
extend their period of duty by at least one additional year. This new
bonus could be paid in addition to the current selected reenlistment
bonus available to certain enlisted members and certain other
compensation provided to officers. The authority to offer this bonus
would expire on December 31, 2001. CBO estimates that this new retention
bonus would cost $12 million in 2001. Smaller costs would be incurred in
subsequent years because payments are made in installments.
TSP Contributions. Under section 651, the Secretary of Defense could
make contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) for military
personnel in designated occupational specialties who commit to serve on
active duty in that specialty for a period of six years. Based on DoD's
use of similar authority to award bonuses for enlistment or
reenlistment, CBO estimates that the discretionary costs for the agency
contributions to TSP would total $1 million in 2001 and $26 million by
2005, based on an effective date of July 15, 2001.
Other Compensation Provisions. Section 641 would raise reserve
retirement pay by increasing the number of days that can be counted in
the retirement pay calculation. The military retirement system is
financed in part by an annual payment from appropriated funds to the
military retirement trust fund, based on an estimate of the system's
accruing liabilities. If the bill is enacted, the yearly contribution to
the military retirement trust fund (a DoD outlay in budget function 050)
would increase to reflect the added liability from the increase in
retirement pay. The payment into the trust fund is discretionary because
it depends on whether and how much funding is made available each year
for military personnel. Using information from DoD, CBO estimates that
implementing this bill would increase such payments by $4 million in
2001, $23 million over the 2001 2005 period, and $50 million over the
2001 2010 period, subject to appropriation of the necessary amounts.
This provision would also increase outlays from the retirement trust
fund. Those costs are discussed under the heading of direct spending.
CBO estimates that increases in allowances paid to officers for
purchasing uniforms and equipment would cost $5 million a year under
section 608.
Military Health Care. Title VII contains several provisions that
would affect DoD health care and benefits. Tricare is the name of DoD's
three-part health care program: Tricare Prime is a managed care option;
Tricare Extra is a preferred provider program; and Tricare Standard is a
fee-for-service program of other participating providers.
Tricare Pharmacy Benefit. Section 721 would allow military
beneficiaries age 65 and over to use DoD's National Mail Order Pharmacy
(NMOP) and retail networks, and would allow Tricare to pay 75 percent of
all pharmacy claims after each beneficiary meets an annual $150
deductible. CBO estimates that this provision would affect about 360,000
individuals who do not currently use DoD for pharmacy benefits, and
about 450,000 beneficiaries who are
eligible for the NMOP and retail networks but do not have
access to the Tricare insurance for reimbursement. Because the program
would not take effect until April 1, 2001, the cost in fiscal year 2001
is comparatively low. CBO estimates that providing the Tricare pharmacy
benefit to seniors would cost $94 million in 2001 and a little more than
$2 billion over the 2001 2005 period.
Tricare Prime Remote. Under current law, members of the armed forces
on active duty who live far enough away from a military treatment
facility (MTF) are eligible to participate in what DoD calls Tricare
Prime Remote. This program allows such personnel to receive care without
facing the co-insurance and deductibles that they would otherwise face
if they used Tricare Standard. To implement the program, DoD either
establishes a network of providers for the active-duty personnel, or it
waives the copayments and deductibles when claims are filed under
Tricare Standard. In many cases, where the cost of setting up networks
is more costly than the cost of waiving such payments, DoD just waives
the deductibles and co-insurance.
Section 711 would grant the Tricare Prime Remote benefit to
dependents of members of the armed forces on active duty and to other
members of the uniformed services (e.g., uniformed members of the Public
Health Service) and their dependents. Using data from DoD, CBO estimates
that roughly 71,000 people in remote locations already use Tricare
Standard or Extra. DoD's only additional cost for those beneficiaries
would come from waiving the co-insurance and deductibles. CBO expects
that almost 4,000 people who do not currently use Tricare insurance
would enroll in Tricare Prime Remote under the bill because of the lower
out-of-pocket costs. Those beneficiaries would cost DoD significantly
more per person. CBO estimates that establishing Tricare Prime Remote
for the 75,000 new beneficiaries would cost $50 million in 2001 and $268
million over the 2001 2005 period.
Copayments Under Tricare Prime. Under current law, beneficiaries who
use MTFs do not need to make any copayments, but beneficiaries enrolled
in Tricare Prime, the military health care system's managed care option,
are required to make copayments whenever they visit a civilian doctor.
In 1999, dependents of active-duty personnel who are enrolled in Tricare
Prime saw civilian doctors about 2.4 million times. Section 712 would
eliminate the requirement for those copayments. (Beneficiaries who use
Tricare Standard or Extra would still have to pay the applicable
co-insurance amounts for each civilian visit.)
CBO estimates that this change would cost $38 million in 2001 and
$195 million over the 2001 2005 period. Reimbursing Tricare insurance
providers for lost revenue would compose about 70 percent of DoD's cost.
The remaining 30 percent of the estimated cost results because the lack
of cost sharing would likely increase the number of visits to civilian
doctors.
Reduction of Catastrophic Cap. Under current law, beneficiaries who
use Tricare Standard or Extra must pay deductibles and co-insurance up
to a cap of $7,500 each year. DoD is responsible for any costs over
$7,500. Section 718 would lower this cap from $7,500 to $3,000 per
family. CBO estimates that lowering the cap would cost $30 million in
2001 and $153 million over the 2001 2005 period. Using data from the
Medical Expense Panel Survey, conducted by the Department of Health and
Human Services, CBO estimates that about 3 percent of the population has
out-of-pocket costs greater than $3,000. Applying this to the DoD
population that uses Tricare Standard or Extra yields roughly 14,000
people that would be affected by this provision. Assuming a uniform
distribution of expenditures across the range from the new cap ($3,000)
to the existing cap ($7,500), CBO estimates that DoD's costs would rise
by an average of just under $2,250 per person.
Reimbursement for Travel Expenses. Under current law, when somebody
using the military health system is referred to a new doctor or
hospital, the costs of traveling to the new location are paid by the
individual. Section 717 would require the Secretary of Defense to
reimburse reasonable travel expenses for anybody who had to travel more
than 100 miles because of a medical referral. CBO estimates that this
provision would apply about 50,000 times each year and that in about
one-third of those cases, additional expenses would be incurred for
individuals who must accompany the patient. CBO also expects that
reimbursements would average about $650 per occurrence, although those
costs would rise with inflation. CBO estimates that implementing this
proposal would cost $15 million in 2001 and $137 million over the 2001
2005 period.
Chiropractic Care. Section 737 would require DoD to continue
providing chiropractic care in 2001 at MTFs where such care is currently
provided. The bill would require a five-year phase-in period beginning
in 2002 for DoD to provide chiropractic care to all members of the
uniformed services. The costs are initially low because of the phase-in
period. CBO estimates that the provision would cost $3 million in 2001
and $80 million over the 2001 2005 period.
Patient Safety. Section 733 would require DoD to set up a
centralized process for tracking and reporting mistakes in the provision
of health care that endangers patient safety. Simple reporting is part
of DoD's current effort to improve services, but more complex reporting
would likely require substantial investments in information technology.
Based on information from DoD, CBO estimates that this provision would
cost the department about $50 million over the 2001 2005 period,
primarily for the purchase of computer equipment and software support.
Other Health Care Provisions. Title VII also contains several
proposals that would cost relatively little over the 2001 2005 period,
including some temporary authorities and demonstration projects. CBO
estimates that implementing all of these additional health care
provisions would cost $7 million in 2001 and $34 million over the 2001
2005 period.
The Congress authorized a demonstration program, called Tricare
Senior Supplement, at two sites during a period ending December 2002
where Tricare acts as second-payer to Medicare for those beneficiaries
who have enrolled in the program. Enrollment for the demonstration
program began in March of 2000. Enrollees must pay a fee and are no
longer eligible to use MTFs. Section 724 would extend the demonstration
program through the end of calendar year 2003. CBO estimates that this
provision would cost $5 million over the 2003 2004 period. Those costs
would be discretionary, but extending this demonstration program would
also raise Medicare costs because better insurance tends to increase the
use of health care. CBO estimates that the Medicare costs of Tricare
Senior Supplement would be about $1 million over the 2003 2004 period.
Other health care provisions that would have discretionary budgetary
effects are as follows:
Section 715 would prohibit Tricare insurers from requiring prior
authorization for specialty medical care if the provider of that
specialty care is part of the Tricare network. CBO estimates that this
provision would cost $5 million a year.
Section 701 would extend for two years the authority to employ
physicians on a contract basis under certain conditions, including at
entrance processing stations. CBO estimates that this provision would
save $6 million over the two years.
Section 702 would allow all recipients of the Medal of Honor and
their dependents to have access to the military health system and would
cost less than $500,000 a year.
Section 703 would allow DoD to pay for domiciliary and custodial care
for certain Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. CBO estimates that the cost
of this proposal would be less than $500,000 a year.
Section 704 would authorize a two-year demonstration program allowing
all DoD beneficiaries to use mental health facilities without the need
for prior authorization and supervision. CBO estimates that this would
cost $6 million over the two years.
Section 705 would authorize a two-year teleradiology demonstration
project. CBO estimates the cost would be $4 million, assuming that the
sites require new equipment.
Section 720 would allow beneficiaries enrolled in the Tricare retiree
dental program to withdraw under special circumstances. CBO estimates
that this would cost less than $500,000 a year.
Commissary Surcharge. Subtitle C of title III would make several
changes to laws governing DoD's commissaries, and CBO estimates that
their combined cost would be about $90 million a year. The commissary
system is supported through a mix of appropriated and nonappropriated
funding. One source of nonappropriated funds, a surcharge on grocery
bills, funds a combination of operating expenses and construction costs.
The bill would limit DoD to using the collections from the surcharge for
only construction or improvement of commissary stores. Funding from that
source that now goes for other purposes would have to be made up with
discretionary appropriations. CBO estimates those costs to be about $90
million a year, based on information from DoD.
Reductions in Defense Acquisition Workforce. The bill would limit
the size of the acquisition workforce by requiring a reduction of at
least 13,000 military and civilian personnel during fiscal year 2001.
Because the total number of military personnel is determined by
endstrength requirements, CBO assumes that the provision would lead to
their transfer to other activities rather than separation from the
services. Separations of civilian personnel, who comprise about 80
percent of the acquisition workforce, would account for the remaining
reductions. Because these civilian reductions would exceed those
expected under current law, CBO estimates savings of $7 million in 2001,
$63 million in 2002, and similar amounts in subsequent years. Savings
would be relatively small during the first year because the cost of
separation payments would offset most of the initial savings in
salaries.
Tuition Reimbursement for Civilians. Section 1103 would extend for
five years a program to reimburse certain civilians in the acquisition
workforce for tuition expenses. Based on recent funding levels for that
program, CBO estimates that section 1103 would cost about $6 million a
year starting in 2002.
Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI). Section 2803 would
extend from 2001 to 2006 special authorities to finance the construction
and renovation of military family housing. It would authorize DoD to
continue to use direct loans, loan guarantees, long-term leases, rental
guarantees, barter, direct government investment, and other financial
arrangements to encourage private-sector participation in building
military housing. Funding for those activities is contained in the
Family Housing Improvement Fund and would consist of direct
appropriations to the fund, transfers from other accounts, receipts from
property sales and rents, returns on any capital, and other income from
operations or transactions connected with the program. The amounts in
the fund would be available to acquire housing using the various
techniques mentioned above, but the total value of budget authority for
all contracts and investments undertaken would be limited to $1 billion.
The bill would not explicitly authorize appropriations for the fund,
and based on how the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has treated
recent use of the authority, CBO does not estimate any budgetary impact
from extending the authorities. However, CBO believes that OMB's current
accounting for MHPI initiatives is at odds with government-wide
standards for recording obligations and outlays. Those standards call
for different treatments depending on the character of the transaction.
The OMB accounting treats certain initiatives primarily as matters of
credit reform that have relatively little cost in terms of recorded
obligations and outlays. In contrast, CBO considers those initiatives as
having the characteristics of lease-purchases, which call for recording
higher levels of obligations and outlays. The budgetary effect of the
Administration's approach (compared to CBO's) is to allow DoD to
obligate significantly more federal resources than the $1 billion
allocated for such projects.
Government-wide Accounting Principles. Some of the options available
for use of the Family Housing Improvement Fund involve up-front
commitments of government resources that would be spent over a long
period of time. According to standard principles of federal accounting,
obligations of the fund should reflect the full amount of the financial
liability incurred when the government makes such a commitment. In the
case of a long-term capital lease or rental guarantee, for example,
obligations should equal the total amount of lease or rental payments
over the life of the contract, and appropriations to cover the full
amount of such obligations should be available before entering into the
lease or guarantee. Some commitments could take the form of
lease-purchases, which would require the recording of both obligations
and outlays up front. For a direct loan or loan guarantee, obligations
should equal the estimated present value of federal transactions with
the public, excluding receipts from other federal budget accounts that
depend on the availability of future appropriations.
Actual Accounting for Current DoD Projects. To date, DoD has signed
contracts for four projects and will soon finalize 12 others. The common
thread among the projects so far is that regular appropriations directly
finance only a small portion of the construction costs; most costs
initially are paid by developers, who borrow funds from private markets.
The developers will repay the loans from the government and the private
sector using rent received from servicemembers who pay their housing
costs with their allowances, which are provided as part of
appropriations for military personnel. If rents exceed the
servicemembers' housing allowances, DoD can make up the difference. The
four projects underway are as follows:
Lackland Air Force Base (AFB), Texas: In exchange for the
construction of 420 housing units, the Air Force provided the contractor
with a long-term lease of federal land, a direct loan of $11 million,
and a guarantee of a private-sector loan ($30 million) against base
closure, downsizing, and substantial redeployment of units based at
Lackland. The Administration recorded an obligation of $6 million for
the transaction.
Fort Carson, Colorado: For construction of 840 units and renovation
of 1,800 others, the Army provided a long-term lease of federal land,
title to existing housing, and a $220 million loan guarantee against
base closure, downsizing, and substantial redeployment. The
Administration recorded an obligation of $10 million for the
transaction.
Naval Station Everett, Washington: For construction of 185 units and
a share of proceeds and equity, the Navy provided an equity investment
of $6 million and funds the difference between the rent and the member's
housing allowance. Occupants have the right to purchase the units at
below-market prices during the last five years of the 10-year
partnership. The recorded obligation totaled $9 million from the equity
investment ($6 million) and the differential lease payments ($3
million).
Corpus Christi, Texas: In exchange for 404 units of off-base housing
and a share of proceeds and equity, the Navy provided an equity
investment of $10 million and funds the difference between the rent and
the member's housing allowance. The recorded obligation amounted to $19
million from the equity investment ($10 million) and the differential
lease payments ($9 million).
Thus, for these four projects DoD obtained about $320 million worth
of housing at the expense of $44 million in obligational authority.
MHPI Under Government-wide Accounting Principles. The principles
guiding the accounting for programs like the MHPI are defined in the
conference report to the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (H. Rept. 105 217,
pages 1007 1012). CBO believes that the four listed projects meet the
criteria stated in the scorekeeping guidelines for a lease-purchase with
substantial government risk. Although current MHPI projects employ tools
like direct loans, they are more fundamentally projects that achieve the
practical effects of government ownership of the properties. Thus,
up-front scoring of obligations and outlays is more appropriate than the
methods of credit reform.
In CBO's view, those guidelines require the up-front accounting of
obligations and outlays for those four projects and for other similar
projects this bill would make possible. First, the construction is
occurring on federal land for at least two of the four projects. Second,
the private-sector market for the housing will be sharply constrained.
On-base housing will probably be restricted to military personnel for
security and other such reasons. Off-base housing must first be offered
to servicemembers over civilians, and since demand for on-base housing
exceeds supply, the practical effect would likely be the same as for a
federally constructed facility. Third, although DoD is not providing an
open-ended guarantee of third-party financing, it is essentially
committing itself to providing tenants. Finally, DoD is providing the
developers with significant portions of their up-front equity, including
direct loans and cash investments.
In sum, the lease-purchase criteria clearly apply to the two projects
on government property (Lackland AFB and Fort Carson). The proper
treatment of the other two projects is less clear, but on balance, CBO
believes that they too are the equivalent of lease-purchases with
substantial government risk because the housing units will be built or
renovated for governmental purposes and would be based on a significant
financial commitment by the government. On that basis, the true
obligations and outlays from current projects are higher than were
recorded, as would be the obligations and outlays from future projects
if they are recorded the same way.
Table 4 shows how CBO believes these projects should be recorded in
the budget, compared to the approach used by the Administration.
TABLE 4.--ILLUSTRATIVE SCORING OF MHPI AUTHORITIES FOR FOUR PROJECTS
By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Administration Approach to Scoring: 44 0 0 0 0 0
CBO Approach to Scoring: 320 0 0 0 0 0
SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office based on information from the Department of Defense.
Note: This table illustrates the approach that the Administration uses for recording obligations and outlays for four MHPI projects compared to the approach that CBO believes would be in keeping with government-wide accounting principles. The four projects are family housing initiatives at Lackland AFB, Ft. Carson, Naval Station Everett, and Corpus Christi. For illustrative purposes, we assume the obligations for the four projects occur in 2000 even though actual obligations occurred in other years.
Direct Spending
The bill contains provisions that would affect direct spending
primarily through changes to defense health programs. We estimate that
the direct spending from provisions of H.R. 4205 would total about $165
million over the 2001 2005 period.
Demonstration of Medicare Subvention. DoD provides health care to
almost 350,000 retirees and survivors who are over age 64 and eligible
for Medicare. This health care is provided at MTFs on a space-available
basis and includes some services that Medicare does not cover, primarily
prescription drugs. Under current law, DoD cannot bill Medicare for the
cost of providing health care to those beneficiaries over age 64 except
in a demonstration project.
The Congress authorized a demonstration project at up to six sites
beginning in January 1998 and ending in December 2000. Under that
demonstration, DoD provides care to Medicare-eligible beneficiaries and
is reimbursed under certain conditions by the Health Care Financing
Administration (HCFA), which administers Medicare. The most important
condition is the requirement that DoD maintain a level of effort; any
additional care is reimbursable by HCFA up to a cap set in law. This
care and reimbursement procedure is known as Medicare subvention. To
date, however, HCFA has not reimbursed DoD for any care provided under
this program.
Section 725 would extend the demonstration project for three more
years, through the end of 2003. In the current demonstration project,
enrolled beneficiaries use substantially more care than civilians
enrolled in Medicare managed care plans. Because these enrollees have a
high priority for care in MTFs, Medicare-eligible beneficiaries who now
receive space-available care at MTFs and choose not to enroll in the
subvention program would not be able to use the MTFs as frequently as
they otherwise would. Instead, they would obtain more of their care in
the private sector, thus raising costs for the Medicare program because
Medicare would be paying for some services that would otherwise be
provided at MTFs. CBO estimates that these provisions would cost $20
million in 2001 and $95 million over the 2001 2005 period (see Table 5).
FEHB Demonstration Program. Under current law, military retirees
under the age of 65 are eligible to either enroll in DoD's managed care
program (Tricare Prime) or use one of its insurance programs (Tricare
Standard or Extra). Those who use Tricare Standard or Extra may also
seek care at an MTF on a space-available basis. Once retirees turn age
65, they are no longer eligible to use Tricare, though they may continue
to seek care at an MTF when space is available. The same eligibility
rules apply to survivors, who are primarily widows and widowers.
Section 723 would extend a current demonstration project by three
years (through December 2005), increase the number of eligible sites,
and allow new or extended enrollment in all sites. The demonstration
allows up to 66,000 people to enroll in FEHB at up to 10 sites, though
only about 2,000 people are currently enrolled. Because there would be
more sites and increased familiarity with the program, CBO estimates
that the program would eventually cover a total of about 13,000
people--10,000 in existing sites and 3,000 in new sites under H.R. 4205.
Expanding coverage to new sites would cost $18 million over 2001 and
2002, and extending the demonstration project for one more year would
cost an additional $63 million over the 2003 2005 period. The
government's contribution toward FEHB premiums for beneficiaries under
H.R. 4205 would be direct spending because the bill would add an
entitlement benefit.
TABLE 5.--ESTIMATED DIRECT SPENDING FROM HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS IN H.R. 4205
By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars--
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
DIRECT SPENDING
Cost Increases in Medicare
Spending Under Current Law: 195,113 211,518 217,077 234,887 250,997 274,149
Proposed Changes:
Medicare Subvention:
Estimated Budget Authority 0 20 30 35 10 0
Estimated Outlays 0 20 30 35 10 0
FEHB Demonstration Project:
Estimated Budget Authority 0 1 1 4 1 0
Estimated Outlays 0 1 1 4 1 0
Tricare Senior Supplement:
Estimated Budget Authority 0 0 0 1 0 0
Estimated Outlays 0 0 0 1 0 0
---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Subtotal-Proposed Changes:
Estimated Budget Authority 0 21 31 40 11 0
Estimated Outlays 0 21 31 40 11 0
Spending Under H.R. 4205: 195,113 211,539 217,108 234,927 251,008 274,149
Costs of Premium Payments Under FEHB
Spending Under Current Law: 5,012 5,456 5,906 6,352 6,826 7,338
Proposed Changes: 0 7 11 48 15 0
Spending Under H.R. 4205: 5,012 5,463 5,917 6,400 6,841 7,338
Total Changes in Direct Spending--Health Care Provisions
Estimated Budget Authority 0 28 42 88 26 0
Estimated Outlays 0 28 42 88 26 0
In addition, extending the demonstration would tend to raise Medicare
costs because better insurance coverage often leads to greater use of
health care services. That increase would cost an estimated $7 million
over the 2001 2005 period.
Tricare Senior Supplement. This program involves Tricare Standard
and Extra in a demonstration project for retirees over age 64 and their
dependents. The costs to DoD for those programs are treated as
discretionary, but expanding them to cover beneficiaries of Medicare
would raise direct spending by $1 million in 2003 (and by less than
$500,000 in 2004). Other costs of Tricare Senior Supplement are
discussed above with other spending subject to appropriation.
Retirement of Reserve Technicians. The reserves employ a number of
civilian federal workers to perform administrative and maintenance
tasks. These employees, known as military technicians, are usually
required to be members of the reserve units for which they work. Under
current law, employees who lose their membership in the reserves and
were hired before February 10, 1996, have to retire as soon as they
become eligible for an unreduced annuity under one of the civilian
retirement programs. Section 518 of the bill would allow these employees
to remain in their positions until they become eligible for an unreduced
annuity or reach age 60, whichever is later. Technicians who have
already been forced to retire and are under age 60 would be able to
apply for reinstatement.
Based on information from DoD, CBO estimates that about 500
technicians would be affected by this provision. This includes 400
technicians who, under current law, would retire during the 2001 2005
period, and 100 technicians who have already retired but would be
reinstated to their old positions. By allowing these technicians to
delay their retirement, CBO estimates this bill would reduce spending on
federal retirement benefits (function 600, income security) by $17
million over the 2001 2005 period. Since many technicians would be
covered by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (function 550,
health) after their retirement, this provision would also reduce direct
spending in that program by $3 million over the same period.
Retroactive Housing Allowances. Section 604 would authorize
retroactive BAH payments to compensate members who received lower BAH
during January and February of 2000 compared to the BAH rate they
received prior to December 31, 1999. CBO estimates that these
retroactive payments would cost $1 million in 2001.
Property Transactions. Title XXVIII contains a variety of provisions
that would authorize DoD to convey or lease land to nonfederal entities.
These transactions would affect both large and small properties, ranging
from about 700 acres at Fort Pickett, Virginia to about two acres at
Fort Dix, New Jersey.
Conveyances. Some property that would be conveyed under title XXVIII
has been--or soon will be--declared excess by DoD and transferred to the
General Services Administration (GSA) for disposal. In some instances,
GSA is likely to give the property to state or local governments, and in
those cases conveyances would not affect receipts. In other instances,
such as the conveyances of about 5 acres containing an Army Reserve
Center in Galesburg, Illinois and about 100 acres at Fort Polk,
Louisiana, the property would likely be sold under current law. Based on
information from DoD, forgone receipts from these conveyances would
total less than $500,000.
CBO has not received any information from the Administration on other
parcels specified in the bill, some of which are large and potentially
worth $1 million or more.
Because CBO has no basis for knowing whether these parcels
have been or will be declared excess and sold under current law, CBO
cannot estimate the extent of any forgone receipts.
Leases. Section 2851 would allow the Navy to receive in-kind
consideration for the lease of property at Port Hueneme, California.
Under current law, the Navy will receive cash for that lease. CBO
estimates that this provision would lower receipts by less than $500,000
annually.
Other Provisions. The following provisions would have an
insignificant budgetary impact:
Section 506 would allow retirees receiving Voluntary Separation
Incentive (VSI) payments concurrently with retired or retainer pay to
give up the VSI payment. Currently, retirement pay is reduced by the
amount of VSI payments. The formula for the offset causes retirement pay
to be reduced by future VSI payments. Terminating participation in the
program would accelerate outlays for military retirement. Based on
information from DOD, CBO expects few people would be affected by this
provision.
Section 641 would increase reserve retirement pay by giving more
credit toward annuities for time spent in training. While CBO estimates
this provision would have a substantial effect when today's reservists
reach 60 years of age and would begin to collect retirement benefits
under this new rule, it would affect few people during the next 10
years.
Section 642 would increase participation in the Reserve Component
Survivor Benefit Plan (RCSBP) by requiring certain reservists to obtain
spousal consent to waive participation. Spousal consent is already
required for reservists over 60 years of age. This provision would make
that requirement effective when the reservist is first notified that he
or she has completed the years of service required for retirement
eligibility. CBO estimates the provision would create a negligible
increase in payments to annuitants.
Revenues
Section 651 would allow members of the uniformed services on active
duty and members of the Ready Reserve in any pay status to participate
in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). Contributions would be capped at 5.0
percent of basic pay. In addition, servicemembers would be able to
contribute income they receive in the form of special or incentive pay
to the extent allowable under the Internal Revenue Code. This provision
would become effective July 15, 2001, or earlier if certain legislative
conditions are met. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the
revenue loss caused by deferred income tax payments would total $10
million in 2001 and $1.1 billion over the 2001 2010 period.
Pay-as-you-go considerations
The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up
pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or
receipts. The net changes in direct spending that would result from H.R.
4205 are shown in Table 6. For the purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go
procedures, only the effects in the current year, the budget year, and
the succeeding four years are counted.
TABLE 6.--ESTIMATED IMPACT OF H.R. 4205 ON DIRECT SPENDING AND RECEIPTS
By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars--
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Changes in outlays 0 27 39 83 21 -5 -4 -4 -3 -2 -1
Changes in receipts 0 -10 -61 -82 -105 -125 -135 -144 -153 -162 -171
Intergovernmental and private-sector impact
The bill contains both intergovernmental and private-sector mandates,
including one preemption of state law. None of the mandates would impose
significant costs; therefore, the thresholds established by UMRA ($55
million for intergovernmental mandates and $109 million for private
sector mandates in 2000, adjusted annually for inflation) would not be
exceeded.
The bill would give the Secretary of Defense the authority to require
recipients of military equipment either to ensure that the equipment is
demilitarized or to return the equipment to DoD for demilitarization.
The Secretary of Defense could also repossess the equipment under some
circumstances. In all of those cases, the requirements would be
considered intergovernmental and private-sector mandates because, if the
equipment is not returned to DoD for demilitarization, the recipient
would have to bear the costs of demilitarizing the equipment. However,
this provision would be rarely used because, in most cases, DoD
demilitarizes equipment prior to transferring ownership. Consequently,
the costs of this mandate would be minimal.
The bill would extend and expand a demonstration project that
involves intergovernmental and private sector mandates. Specifically, it
would require insurers, under certain circumstances, to issue medigap
policies to Medicare enrollees who choose to drop coverage from DoD's
Federal Employees Health Benefits demonstration program. The bill would
also prohibit insurers from discriminating in the pricing of such
policies based on an individual's health status or use of care, or from
using coverage exclusions for preexisting conditions as long as any
lapse in coverage was no more than 63 days. Those requirements would be
intergovernmental and private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
However, because only a small number of people could be affected by
these provisions, the direct costs of the mandates would be small.
In addition, the bill contains a mandate affecting only state
governments. It would give legal effect to military testamentary
instruments regardless of the provisions of state law. (A testamentary
instrument is a document intended to take effect after the death of the
person who executes it.) This provision would preempt state laws
governing the execution of such documents; however, it would impose no
costs on those governments.
The bill also would convey lands to state and local entities, provide
support for cooperative efforts between the Civil Air Patrol and state
and local governments, and authorize funding for assistance to local
school districts and agencies.
Estimate Prepared By. --Federal Costs: Military Construction and
Other Defense--Kent Christensen, Military and Civilian Personnel--Dawn
Regan, Civilian Retirement--Eric Rollins, Food Stamps--Valerie Baxter,
Stockpile Sales and Atomic Energy Defense Activities--Raymond Hall,
Military Retirement--Sarah Jennings, Health Programs--Sam Papenfuss,
Medicare Subvention--Tom Bradley, Multiyear Procurement--Jo Ann Vines,
Maritime Administration--Deborah Reis. Impact on State, Local, and
Tribal Governments: Leo Lex. Impact on the Private Sector: William
Thomas.
Estimate Approved By: Robert A. Sunshine, Assistant Director for
Budget Analysis.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the committee generally concurs with the estimates as
contained in the report of the Congressional Budget Office.
OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, this legislation results from hearings and other
oversight activities conducted by the committee pursuant to clause
2(b)(1) of rule X.
With respect to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974, this legislation does not include any new spending or credit
authority, nor does it provide for any increase or decrease in tax
revenues or expenditures. The bill does, however, authorize
appropriations. Other fiscal features of this legislation are addressed
in the estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the committee has not received a report from the
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight pertaining to the subject
matter of H.R. 4205.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Pursuant to Rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the committee finds the authority for this legislation
in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution.
STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES
Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104 4, this legislation
contains no federal mandates with respect to state, local, and tribal
governments, nor with respect to the private sector. Similarly, the bill
provides no federal intergovernmental mandates.
RECORD VOTES
In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, record and voice votes were taken with respect to
the committee's consideration of H.R. 4205. The record of these votes is
attached to this report.
The committee ordered H.R. 4205 reported to the House with a
favorable recommendation by a vote of 56 1, a quorum being present.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as
reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is
enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing
law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
* * * * * * *
SEC. 116. BUNKER DEFEAT MUNITION ACQUISITION PROGRAM.
The Secretary of the Army, in acquiring munitions under the bunker
defeat munition weapons acquisition program--
(1) may acquire only those munitions that are designated as ``type
classified, limited procurement for contingency operations''; and
(2) may not acquire more than 6,000 8,500 such munitions.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 816. DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ON PURCHASE OF FIRE, SECURITY,
POLICE, PUBLIC WORKS, AND UTILITY SERVICES FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCIES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Duration of Project.--The authority to purchase or receive
services under the demonstration project shall expire on September 30,
2000 2002.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XIII--MATTERS RELATING TO ALLIES AND OTHER NATIONS
Subtitle A--Matters Relating to NATO
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1306. GEORGE C. MARSHALL EUROPEAN CENTER FOR SECURITY STUDIES.
(a) Use of Contributions.--Funds received by the United States
Government from the Federal Republic of Germany as its fair share of the
costs of the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies
shall be credited to appropriations available to the Department of
Defense for the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies.
Funds so credited shall be merged with the appropriations to which
credited and shall be available for the Center for the same purposes and
the same period as the appropriations with which merged.
(b) Waiver of Charges.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may waive
reimbursement of the costs of conferences, seminars, courses of
instruction, or similar educational activities of the George C. Marshall
European Center for Security Studies for military officers and civilian
officials of cooperation partner states of the North Atlantic
Cooperation Council or the Partnership for Peace if the Secretary
determines that attendance by such personnel without reimbursement is in
the national security interest of the United States.
* * * * * * *
ARMAMENT RETOOLING AND MANUFACTURING SUPPORT ACT OF 1992
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE H--ARMAMENT RETOOLING AND MANUFACTURING SUPPORT INITIATIVE
* * * * * * *
SEC. 193. ARMAMENT RETOOLING AND MANUFACTURING SUPPORT INITIATIVE.
(a) Authority for Initiative.--During fiscal years 1993 through 2001
2002, the Secretary of the Army may carry out a program to be known as
the ``Armament Retooling and Manufacturing Support Initiative''
(hereinafter in this subtitle referred to as the ``ARMS Initiative'').
* * * * * * *
(d) Inclusion of Manufacturing Arsenals.--For purposes of this Act, a
manufacturing arsenal of the Department of the Army shall be treated as
a Government-owned, contractor-operated manufacturing facility of the
Department of the Army.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 194. FACILITIES CONTRACTS.
(a) In General.--In the case of each Government-owned,
contractor-operated ammunition manufacturing facility of the Department
of the Army that is made available for the ARMS Initiative, the
Secretary of the Army may, by contract, authorize the facility
contractor--
(1) to use the facility for one or more years consistent with the
purposes of the ARMS Initiative; and
(1) to use the facility for any period of time that the Secretary
determines is appropriate for the accomplishment of, and consistent
with, the needs of the Department of the Army and the purposes of the
ARMS Initiative; and
(2) to enter into multiyear subcontracts for the commercial use of
the facility consistent with such purposes.
* * * * * * *
(c) Authority to Accept Non-Monetary Consideration for Use of
Facilities.--The Secretary may accept non-monetary consideration in lieu
of rental payments for use of a facility under a contract entered into
under this section.
TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--General Military Law
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 2--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
* * * * * * *
117. Readiness reporting system: establishment; reporting to
congressional committees
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Capabilities.--The readiness reporting system shall measure such
factors relating to readiness as the Secretary prescribes, except that
the system shall include the capability to do each of the following:
(1) Measure, on a monthly basis, the capability of units (both as
elements of their respective armed force and as elements of joint
forces) to conduct their assigned wartime missions.
* * * * * * *
(7) Measure, on a quarterly basis, the extent to which units of the
armed forces remove serviceable parts, supplies, or equipment from one
vehicle, vessel, or aircraft in order to render a different vehicle,
vessel, or aircraft operational.
* * * * * * *
(e) Submission to Congressional Committees.-- (1) The Secretary shall
each month submit to the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services and
the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives a report
in writing containing the results of the most recent joint readiness
review or monthly review conducted under subsection (d), including the
current information derived from the readiness reporting system. Each
such report
(2) The monthly report submitted under paragraph (1) that covers the
first quarter of the then current fiscal year shall also include a
description of the funding proposed in the President's budget for the
next fiscal year, and for the subsequent fiscal years covered by the
most recent future-years defense program submitted under section 221 of
this title, to address each deficiency in readiness identified during
the joint readiness review conducted for the first quarter of the
current fiscal year.
(3) Each report under this subsection shall be submitted in
unclassified form and may, as the Secretary determines necessary, also
be submitted in classified form.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 4--OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
Sec.
131. Office of the Secretary of Defense.
* * * * * * *
144. Director of Mission-Essential Software Management.
* * * * * * *
144. Director of Mission-Essential Software Management
(a) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics shall designate within the Office of the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics a Director of
Mission-Essential Software Management.
(b) The Director of Mission-Essential Software Management shall
provide effective oversight of, and shall seek to improve mechanisms
for, the management, development, and maintenance of mission-essential
software for major defense acquisition programs described in subsection
(c).
(c) For purposes of this section, mission-essential software for
major defense acquisition programs is software--
(1) that is an integral part of software-intensive major defense
acquisition programs; and
(2) that is physically part of, dedicated to, or essential to the
mission performance of a weapons system.
(d) The Director of Mission-Essential Software Management shall be
responsible for--
(1) reviewing the policies and practices of the military departments
and Defense Agencies for developing software described in subsection
(c);
(2) reviewing planning and progress in the management of such
software; and
(3) recommending goals and plans to improve management with respect
to such software.
* * * * * * *
223. Ballistic missile defense programs: program elements
(a) Program Elements Specified.--In the budget justification
materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department of Defense
budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of the
President under section 1105(a) of title 31), the amount requested for
activities of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization shall be set
forth in accordance with the following program elements:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(13) Airborne Laser program.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 7--BOARDS, COUNCILS, AND COMMITTEES
* * * * * * *
Sec.
171. Armed Forces Policy Council.
* * * * * * *
184. Regional Centers for Security Studies.
* * * * * * *
184. Regional Centers for Security Studies
(a) In General.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary of
Defense may operate in the Department of Defense regional centers for
security studies, each of which is established for a specified
geographic region of the world. Any such regional center shall serve as
a forum for bilateral and multilateral communication and military and
civilian exchanges with nations in the region for which the center
is established. A regional center may, as the Secretary
considers appropriate, use professional military education, civilian
defense education, and related academic and other activities to pursue
such communication and exchanges.
(2) After the date of the enactment of this section, a regional
center for security studies as described in paragraph (1) may not be
established in the Department of Defense until at least 90 days after
the date on which the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress a
notification of the intent of the Secretary to establish the center. The
notification shall contain a description of the mission and functions of
the proposed center and a justification for the proposed center.
(b) Employment and Compensation of Faculty.--Section 1595 of this
title provides authority for the Secretary of Defense to employ certain
civilian personnel at certain Department of Defense regional center for
security studies without regard to certain provisions of title 5.
(c) Acceptance of Foreign Gifts and Donations.--Section 2611 of this
title provides authority for the Secretary of Defense to accept foreign
gifts and donations in order to defray the costs of, or enhance the
operations of, certain Department of Defense regional centers for
security studies.
(d) Annual Report to Congressional Committees.--The Secretary shall
submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives an annual
report on the status, objectives, and operations of the Department of
Defense regional centers for security studies. Each such report shall
include information on international participation in the programs of
the centers and on foreign gifts and donations accepted under section
2611 of this title.
(e) Provisions Relating Specifically to Marshall Center.--(1) The
Secretary of Defense may waive reimbursement of the costs of
conferences, seminars, courses of instruction, or similar educational
activities of the George C. Marshall European Center for Security
Studies for military officers and civilian officials of cooperation
partner states of the North Atlantic Cooperation Council or the
Partnership for Peace if the Secretary determines that attendance by
such personnel without reimbursement is in the national security
interest of the United States. Costs for which reimbursement is waived
pursuant to this paragraph shall be paid from appropriations available
for the Center.
(2)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of
Defense may authorize participation by a European or Eurasian nation in
Marshall Center programs if the Secretary determines, after consultation
with the Secretary of State, that such participation is in the national
interest of the United States.
(B) Not later than January 31 of each year, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a report setting forth the names of the foreign
nations permitted to participate in programs of the Marshall Center
during the preceding year under paragraph (1). Each such report shall be
prepared by the Secretary with the assistance of the Director of the
Marshall Center.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 9--DEFENSE BUDGET MATTERS
* * * * * * *
230. Amounts for declassification of records
The Secretary of Defense shall include in the budget justification
materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department of Defense
budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the budget of the
President under section 1105(a) of title 31) specific identification, as
a budgetary line item, of the amounts required to carry out programmed
activities during that fiscal year to declassify records pursuant to
Executive Order No. 12958 (50 U.S.C. 435 note) or any successor
Executive order or to comply with any statutory requirement, or any
request, to declassify Government records. Identification of such
amounts in such budget justification materials shall be in a single
display that shows the total amount for the Department of Defense and
the amount for each military department and Defense Agency.
* * * * * * *
PART II--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 23--MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS
* * * * * * *
483. Reports on transfers from high-priority readiness appropriations
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Matters To Be Included.--In each report under subsection (a) or
(b), the Secretary of Defense shall include for each covered budget
activity the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) A detailed explanation of the transfers into, and out of, funds
available for that activity during the period covered by the report ,
including identification of the sources from which funds were
transferred into that activity and identification of the recipients of
the funds transferred out of that activity.
(d) Covered Budget Activity Defined.--In this section, the term
``covered budget activity'' means each of the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) The Air Operations and Combat Related Operations budget activity
groups (known as ``subactivities'') within the Operating Forces budget
activity of the annual Operation and Maintenance, Air Force,
appropriation that are designated as follows:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(G) Combat Enforcement Forces.
(H) Combat Communications.
* * * * * * *
(e) Termination.--The requirements specified in subsections (a) and
(b) shall terminate upon the submission of the annual report under
subsection (a) covering fiscal year 2000.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 31--ENLISTMENTS
* * * * * * *
517. Authorized daily average: members in pay grades E 8 and E 9
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Whenever under section 527 of this title the President may
suspend the operation of any provision of section 523, 525, or 526 of
this title, the Secretary of Defense may suspend the operation of any
provision of this section. Any such suspension shall, if not sooner
ended, end in the manner specified in section 527 for a suspension under
that section.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 36--PROMOTION, SEPARATION, AND INVOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OF
OFFICERS ON THE ACTIVE-DUTY LIST
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--SELECTION BOARDS
* * * * * * *
612. Composition of selection boards
(a)(1) Members of selection boards shall be appointed by the
Secretary of the military department concerned in accordance with this
section. A selection board shall consist of five or more officers who
are on the active-duty list of the same armed force as the officers
under consideration by the board. Each member of a selection board
(except as provided in paragraphs (2), (3), and (4)) shall be an officer
on the active-duty list. Each member of a selection board must be
serving in a grade higher than the grade of the officers under
consideration by the board, except that no member of a board may be
serving in a grade below major or lieutenant commander.
* * * * * * *
(3) When reserve officers of an armed force are to be considered by a
selection board, the membership of the board shall include at least one
reserve officer of that armed force, with the exact number of reserve
officers to be of that armed force on active duty (whether or not on the
active-duty list). The actual number of reserve officers shall be
determined by the Secretary of the military department concerned, in his
discretion, except that the Secretary's discretion. Notwithstanding the
first sentence of this paragraph, in the case of a board which is
considering officers in the grade of colonel or brigadier general or, in
the case of officers of the Navy, captain or rear admiral (lower half),
no reserve officer need be included if there are no reserve officers of
that armed force on active duty in the next higher grade who are
eligible to serve on the board.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER III--FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR PROMOTION AND RETIREMENT FOR
YEARS OF SERVICE
* * * * * * *
628. Special selection boards
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Reports of Boards.--(1) * * *
(2) The provisions of sections 617(b) and 618 of this title apply to
the report and proceedings of a special selection board convened under
this section in the same manner as they apply to the report and
proceedings of a selection board convened under section 611(a) of this
title. However, in the case of a board convened under this section to
consider a warrant officer or former warrant officer, the provisions of
sections 576(d) and 576(f) of this title (rather than the provisions of
section sections 617(b) and 618 of this title) apply to the report and
proceedings of the board in the same manner as they apply to the report
and proceedings of a selection board convened under section 573 of this
title.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IV--CONTINUATION ON ACTIVE DUTY AND SELECTIVE EARLY
RETIREMENT
* * * * * * *
638a. Modification to rules for continuation on active duty;
enhanced authority for selective early retirement and early discharges
(a) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a
military department, during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and
ending on September 30, 2001 December 31, 2001, to take any of the
actions set forth in subsection (b) with respect to officers of an armed
force under the jurisdiction of that Secretary.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER V--ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO PROMOTION, SEPARATION,
AND RETIREMENT
* * * * * * *
641. Applicability of chapter
Officers in the following categories are not subject to this chapter
(other than section 640 and, in the case of warrant officers, section
628):
(1) Reserve officers--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) on the reserve active-status list who are on active duty under
section 12301(d) of this title, other than as provided in subparagraph
(C), under a call or order to active duty specifying a period of three
years or less;
(D) (E) on active duty to pursue special work;
(E) (F) ordered to active duty under section 12304 of this title;
(F) (G) on active duty under section 10(b)(2) of the Military
Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 460(b)(2)) for the administration
of the Selective Service System; or
(G) (H) on full-time National Guard duty.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 39--ACTIVE DUTY
* * * * * * *
691. Permanent end strength levels to support two major
regional contingencies
(a) * * *
(b) Unless otherwise provided by law, the number of members of the
armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) on active duty at the end of
any fiscal year shall be not less than the following:
(1) For the Army, 480,000.
(2) For the Navy, 371,781 372,000.
(3) For the Marine Corps, 172,148 172,600.
(4) For the Air Force, 360,877 357,000.
* * * * * * *
(e) For a fiscal year for which the active duty end strength
authorized by law pursuant to section 115(a)(1)(A) of this title for any
of the armed forces is identical to or greater than the number
applicable to that armed force under subsection (b), the Secretary of
Defense may reduce that number by not more than 0.5 percent.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 40--LEAVE
* * * * * * *
702. Cadets and midshipmen
(a) * * *
(b) Involuntary Leave Without Pay for Suspended Academy Cadets and
Midshipmen.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) A cadet or midshipman placed on involuntary leave under paragraph
(1) is not entitled to any pay under section 230(c) section 203(c) of
title 37 for the period of the leave.
* * * * * * *
706. Administration of leave required to be taken pending
review of certain court-martial convictions
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) A member required to take leave under section 876a of this
title is not entitled to any right or benefit under chapter 43 of title
38 solely because of employment during the period of such leave.
(2) Section 974 of this title does not apply to a member required to
take leave under section 876a of this title during the period of such
leave.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 47--UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IX--POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW OF COURTS-MARTIAL
* * * * * * *
874. Art. 74. Remission and suspension
(a) The Secretary concerned and, when designated by him, any Under
Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Judge Advocate General, or commanding
officer may remit or suspend any part or amount of the unexecuted part
of any sentence, including all uncollected forfeitures other than a
sentence approved by the President. However, in the case of a sentence
of confinement for life without eligibility for parole, after the
sentence is ordered executed, the authority of the Secretary concerned
under the preceding sentence (1) may not be delegated, and (2) may be
exercised only after the service of a period of confinement of not less
than 20 years.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 53--MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS
Sec.
1031. Administration of oath.
* * * * * * *
1044d. Military testamentary instruments: requirement for
recognition by States.
* * * * * * *
1034. Protected communications; prohibition of retaliatory
personnel actions
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Inspector General Investigation of Allegations of Prohibited
Personnel Actions.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3)(A) An Inspector General receiving an allegation as described in
paragraph (1) shall expeditiously determine , in accordance with
regulations prescribed under subsection (h), whether there is sufficient
evidence to warrant an investigation of the allegation.
* * * * * * *
(i) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``Member of Congress'' includes any Delegate or
Resident Commissioner to Congress.
(2) The term ``Inspector General'' means any of the following:
(A) The Inspector General of the Department of Defense.
* * * * * * *
(C) The Inspector General of the Army, in the case of a member of
the Army.
(D) The Naval Inspector General, in the case of a member of the Navy.
(E) The Inspector General of the Air Force, in the case of a member
of the Air Force.
(F) The Deputy Naval Inspector General for Marine Corps Matters, in
the case of a member of the Marine Corps.
(G) An officer of the armed forces assigned or detailed under
regulations of the Secretary concerned to serve as an Inspector General
at any command level in one of the armed forces.
(C) Any officer of the armed forces or employee of the Department of
Defense who is assigned or detailed to serve as an Inspector General at
any level in the Department of Defense.
* * * * * * *
1044. Legal assistance
(a) Subject to the availability of legal staff resources, the
Secretary concerned may provide legal assistance in connection with
their personal civil legal affairs to the following persons:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Members of a reserve component not covered by paragraph (1) or
(2), but only during a period, following a release from active duty
under a call or order to active duty for more than 29 days under a
mobilization authority (as determined by the Secretary of Defense), that
is not in excess of twice the length of time served on active duty.
(4) (5) Dependents of members and former members described in
paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) (3), and (4).
* * * * * * *
1044d. Military testamentary instruments: requirement for
recognition by States
(a) Testamentary Instruments To Be Given Legal Effect.--A military
testamentary instrument--
(1) is exempt from any requirement of form, formality, or recording
before probate that is provided for testamentary instruments under the
laws of a State; and
(2) has the same legal effect as a testamentary instrument prepared
and executed in accordance with the laws of the State in which it is
presented for probate.
(b) Military Testamentary Instruments.--For purposes of this section,
a military testamentary instrument is an instrument that is prepared
with testamentary intent in accordance with regulations prescribed under
this section and that--
(1) is executed in accordance with subsection (c) by (or on behalf
of) a person, as a testator, who is eligible for military legal
assistance;
(2) makes a disposition of property of the testator; and
(3) takes effect upon the death of the testator.
(c) Requirements for Execution of Military Testamentary
Instruments.--An instrument is valid as a military testamentary
instrument only if--
(1) the instrument is executed by the testator (or, if the testator
is unable to execute the instrument personally, the instrument is
executed in the presence of, by the direction of, and on behalf of the
testator);
(2) the instrument is executed in the presence of a military legal
assistance counsel acting as presiding attorney;
(3) the instrument is executed in the presence of at least two
disinterested witnesses (in addition to the presiding attorney), each of
whom attests to witnessing the testator's execution of the instrument by
signing it; and
(4) the instrument is executed in accordance with such additional
requirements as may be provided in regulations prescribed under this
section.
(d) Self-Proving Military Testamentary Instruments.--(1) If the
document setting forth a military testamentary instrument meets the
requirements of paragraph (2), then the signature of a person on the
document as the testator, an attesting witness, a notary, or the
presiding attorney, together with a written representation of the
person's status as such and the person's military grade (if any) or
other title, is prima facie evidence of the following:
(A) That the signature is genuine.
(B) That the signatory had the represented status and title at the
time of the execution of the will.
(C) That the signature was executed in compliance with the
procedures required under the regulations prescribed under subsection
(f).
(2) A document setting forth a military testamentary instrument meets
the requirements of this paragraph if it includes (or has attached to
it), in a form and content required under the regulations prescribed
under subsection (f), each of the following:
(A) A certificate, executed by the testator, that includes the
testator's acknowledgment of the testamentary instrument.
(B) An affidavit, executed by each witness signing the testamentary
instrument, that attests to the circumstances under which the
testamentary instrument was executed.
(C) A notarization, including a certificate of any administration of
an oath required under the regulations, that is signed by the notary or
other official administering the oath.
(e) Statement To Be Included.--(1) Under regulations prescribed under
this section, each military testamentary instrument shall contain a
statement that sets forth the provisions of subsection (a).
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed to make inapplicable the
provisions of subsection (a) to a testamentary instrument that does not
include a statement described in that paragraph.
(f) Regulations.--Regulations for the purposes of this section shall
be prescribed jointly by the Secretary of Defense and by the Secretary
of Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not
operating as a service in the Department of the Navy.
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``person eligible for military legal assistance'' means
a person who is eligible for legal assistance under section 1044 of this
title.
(2) The term ``military legal assistance counsel'' means--
(A) a judge advocate (as defined in section 801(13) of this title); or
(B) a civilian attorney serving as a legal assistance officer under
the provisions of section 1044 of this title.
(3) The term ``State'' includes the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands, and each possession of the United States.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 55--MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE
Sec.
1071. Purpose of this chapter.
* * * * * * *
1074h. Medical and dental care: medal of honor recipients; dependents.
1074i. Reimbursement for certain travel expenses.
* * * * * * *
1095d. TRICARE program: waiver of certain deductibles.
1095d. TRICARE program: waiver of certain deductibles; reduction
of catastrophic cap.
* * * * * * *
1095f. TRICARE program: referrals for specialty health care.
* * * * * * *
1110. Policies and procedures for immunization program.
* * * * * * *
1074. Medical and dental care for members and certain former members
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) Funds appropriated to a military department , the Department
of Transportation (with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not
operating as a service in the Navy), or the Department of Health and
Human Services (with respect to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the Public Health Service) may be used to provide
medical and dental care to persons entitled to such care by law or
regulations, including the provision of such care (other than elective
private treatment) in private facilities for members of the armed forces
uniformed services. If a private facility or health care provider
providing care under this subsection is a health care provider under the
Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed Services, the
Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the other administering
Secretaries, may by regulation require the private facility or health
care provider to provide such care in accordance with the same payment
rules (subject to any modifications considered appropriate by the
Secretary) as apply under that program.
(2)(A) Subject to such exceptions as the Secretary of Defense
considers necessary, coverage for medical care for members of the armed
forces uniformed services under this subsection, and standards with
respect to timely access to such care, shall be comparable to coverage
for medical care and standards for timely access to such care under the
managed care option of the TRICARE program known as TRICARE Prime.
* * * * * * *
(C) The Secretary of Defense shall consult with the other
administering Secretaries in the administration of this paragraph.
(3)(A) The Secretary of Defense may not require a member of the armed
forces described in subparagraph (B) A member of the uniformed services
described in subparagraph (B) may not be required to receive routine
primary medical care at a military medical treatment facility.
(B) A member referred to in subparagraph (A) is a member of the armed
forces uniformed services on active duty who is entitled to medical care
under this subsection and who--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
1074g. Pharmacy benefits program
(a) Pharmacy Benefits.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) The Secretary, as part of the regulations established in the
regulations prescribed under subsection (g), may establish cost sharing
requirements (which may be established as a percentage or fixed dollar
amount) under the pharmacy benefits program for generic, formulary, and
nonformulary agents. For nonformulary agents, cost sharing shall be
consistent with common industry practice and not in excess of amounts
generally comparable to 20 percent for beneficiaries covered by section
1079 of this title or 25 percent for beneficiaries covered by section
1086 of this title.
(7) The Secretary shall establish procedures for eligible covered
beneficiaries to receive pharmaceutical agents not included on the
uniform formulary, but, that are not included on the uniform formulary
but that are considered to be clinically necessary. Such procedures
shall include peer review procedures under which the Secretary may
determine that there is a clinical justification for the use of a
pharmaceutical agent that is not on the uniform formulary, in which case
the pharmaceutical agent shall be provided under the same terms and
conditions as an agent on the uniform formulary. Such procedures shall
also include an expeditious appeals process for an eligible covered
beneficiary, or a network or uniformed provider on behalf of the
beneficiary, to establish clinical justification for the use of a
pharmaceutical agent that is not on the uniform formulary.
* * * * * * *
(b) Establishment of Committee.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall,
in consultation with the Secretaries of the military departments,
establish a Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee for the purpose of
developing the uniform formulary of pharmaceutical agents required by
subsection (a), reviewing such formulary on a periodic basis, and making
additional recommendations regarding the formulary as the committee
determines necessary and appropriate. The committee shall include
representatives of pharmacies of the uniformed services facilities,
contractors responsible for the TRICARE retail pharmacy program,
contractors responsible for the national mail-order pharmacy program,
providers in facilities of the uniformed services, and TRICARE network
providers. Committee members shall have expertise in treating the
medical needs of the populations served through such entities and in the
range of pharmaceutical and biological medicines available for treating
such populations. The committee shall function under procedures
established by the Secretary under the regulations required by
subsection (g).
* * * * * * *
(d) Procedures.--(1) * * *
(2) Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this
section, the Secretary shall utilize Effective not later than April 5,
2000, the Secretary shall use a modification to the bid price adjustment
methodology in the current managed care support contracts to ensure
equitable and timely reimbursement to the TRICARE managed care support
contractors for pharmaceutical products delivered in the nonmilitary
environments. The methodology shall take into account the ``at-risk''
nature of the contracts as well as managed care support contractor
pharmacy costs attributable to changes to pharmacy service or formulary
management at military medical treatment facilities, and other military
activities and policies that affect costs of pharmacy benefits provided
through the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Uniformed
Services. The methodology shall also account for military treatment
facility costs attributable to the delivery of pharmaceutical products
in the military facility environment which were prescribed by
a network provider.
* * * * * * *
(e) Pharmacy Data Transaction Service.--Not later than April 1, 2000,
the The Secretary of Defense shall implement the use of the Pharmacy
Data Transaction Service in all fixed facilities of the uniformed
services under the jurisdiction of the Secretary, in the TRICARE retail
pharmacy program, and in the national mail-order pharmacy program.
(f) Definitions.--As used in this section-- In this section:
(1) the The term ``eligible covered beneficiary'' means a covered
beneficiary for whom eligibility to receive pharmacy benefits through
the means described in subsection (a)(2)(E) is established under this
chapter or another provision of law; and .
(2) the The term ``pharmaceutical agent'' means drugs, biological
products, and medical devices under the regulatory authority of the Food
and Drug Administration.
(g) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall, after consultation
with the other administering Secretaries, promulgate prescribe
regulations to carry out this section.
* * * * * * *
1074h. Medical and dental care: medal of honor recipients; dependents
(a) Medal of Honor Recipients.--A former member of the armed forces
who is a Medal of Honor recipient and who is not otherwise entitled to
medical and dental benefits under this chapter may, upon request, be
given medical and dental care provided by the administering Secretaries
in the same manner as if entitled to retired pay.
(b) Dependents.--A person who is a dependent of a Medal of Honor
recipient and who is not otherwise entitled to medical and dental
benefits under this chapter may, upon request, be given medical and
dental care provided by the administering Secretaries in the same manner
as if the Medal of Honor recipient were, or (if deceased) was at the
time of death, entitled to retired pay.
(c) Definitions --In this section:
(1) The term ``Medal of Honor recipient'' means a member or former
member of the armed forces who has been awarded a medal of honor under
section 3741, 6241, or 8741 of this title or section 491 of title 14.
(2) The term ``dependent'' has the meaning given that term in
subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), and (D) of section 1072(2) of this title.
1074i. Reimbursement for certain travel expenses
In any case in which a covered beneficiary is referred by a primary
care physician to a specialty care provider who provides services more
than 100 miles from the location in which the primary care provider
provides services to the covered beneficiary, the Secretary shall
provide reimbursement for reasonable travel expenses for the covered
beneficiary.
* * * * * * *
1076c. Dental insurance plan: certain retirees and their
surviving spouses and other dependents
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) Disenrollment Process for TRICARE Retiree Dental Program.--With
respect to the provision of dental care to a retired member of the
uniformed services or the dependent of such a member under the TRICARE
program, the Secretary of Defense--
(A) shall require that any TRICARE dental insurance contract allow
for a period of up to 30 days, beginning on the date of the submission
of an application for enrollment by the member or dependent, during
which the member or dependent may disenroll;
(B) shall provide for limited circumstances under which
disenrollment shall be permitted during the 24-month initial enrollment
period, without jeopardizing the fiscal integrity of the dental program.
(2) The circumstances described in paragraph (1)(B) shall include--
(A) a case in which a retired member or dependent who is also a
Federal employee is assigned to a location overseas which prevents
utilization of dental benefits in the United States;
(B) a case in which such a member or dependent provides medical
documentation with regard to a diagnosis of a serious or terminal
illness which precludes the member or dependent from obtaining dental
care;
(C) a case in which severe financial hardship would result; and
(D) any other instances which the Secretary considers appropriate.
(3) A retired member or dependent described in paragraph (1)--
(A) shall make any initial requests for disenrollment under this
subsection to the TRICARE dental insurance contractor; and
(B) may appeal a decision by the contractor, or policies with
respect to the provision of dental care to retirees and their dependents
under the TRICARE program, to the TRICARE Management Activity.
(4) In a case of an appeal described in paragraph (3)(B) the
contractor shall refer all relevant information collected by the
contractor to the TRICARE Management Activity.
(i) (j) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``eligible dependent'' means a dependent described in
subparagraph (A), (D), or (I) of section 1072(2) of this title.
(2) The term ``eligible child dependent'' means a dependent
described in subparagraph (D) or (I) of section 1072(2) of this title.
(3) The term ``retired pay'' includes retainer pay.
* * * * * * *
1079. Contracts for medical care for spouses and children: plans
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(17) (A) The Secretary of Defense may establish a program for the
individual case management of a person covered by this section or
section 1086 of this title who has extraordinary medical or
psychological disorders and, under such a program, may waive benefit
limitations contained in paragraphs (5) and (13) of this subsection or
section 1077(b)(1) of this title and authorize the payment for
comprehensive home health care services, supplies, and equipment if the
Secretary determines that such a waiver is cost-effective and
appropriate.
(B) The total amount expended under subparagraph (A) for a fiscal
year may not exceed $100,000,000.
* * * * * * *
(h)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) To assure access to care for all covered beneficiaries, the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the other administering
Secretaries, shall designate specific rates for reimbursement for
services in certain localities if the Secretary determines that without
payment of such rates access to health care services would be severely
impaired. Such a determination shall be based on consideration of the
number of providers in a locality who provide the services, the number
of such providers who are CHAMPUS participating providers, the number of
covered beneficiaries under CHAMPUS in the locality, the availability of
military providers in the location or a nearby location, and any other
factors determined to be relevant by the Secretary.
* * * * * * *
(p)(1) Subject to such exceptions as the Secretary of Defense
considers necessary, coverage for medical care under this section for
the dependents referred to in subsection (a) of a member of the
uniformed services referred to in section 1074(c)(3) of this title who
are residing with the member, and standards with respect to timely
access to such care, shall be comparable to coverage for medical care
and standards for timely access to such care under the managed care
option of the TRICARE program known as TRICARE Prime.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall enter into arrangements with
contractors under the TRICARE program or with other appropriate
contractors for the timely and efficient processing of claims under this
subsection.
(3) The Secretary of Defense shall consult with the other
administering Secretaries in the administration of this subsection.
* * * * * * *
1091. Personal services contracts
(a) Authority.--(1) * * *
(2) The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Transportation
with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in
the Navy, may also enter into personal services contracts to carry out
other health care responsibilities of the Secretary (such as the
provision of medical screening examinations at Military Entrance
Processing Stations) at locations outside medical treatment facilities,
as determined necessary pursuant to regulations prescribed by the
Secretary. The Secretary may not enter into a contract under this
paragraph after December 31, 2000 December 31, 2002.
* * * * * * *
1095d. TRICARE program: waiver of certain deductibles
1095d. TRICARE program: waiver of certain deductibles;
reduction of catastrophic cap
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Reduction of Catastrophic Cap.--The Secretary shall reduce the
catastrophic cap for covered beneficiaries under TRICARE Standard and
TRICARE Extra to $3,000.
* * * * * * *
1095f. TRICARE program: referrals for specialty health care
The Secretary of Defense shall provide that no contract for managed
care support under the TRICARE program shall require a managed care
support contractor to require a primary care provider or specialty care
provider to obtain prior authorization before referring a patient to a
specialty care provider that is part of the network of health care
providers or institutions of the contractor.
* * * * * * *
1097a. TRICARE Prime: automatic enrollments; payment options
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) No Copayment for Immediate Family.--No copayment shall be charged
a member for care provided under TRICARE Prime to a dependent of a
member of the uniformed services described in subparagraph (A), (D), or
(I) of section 1072(2) of this title.
(e) (f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``TRICARE Prime'' means the managed care option of the
TRICARE program.
(2) The term ``catchment area'', with respect to a facility of a
uniformed service, means the service area of the facility, as designated
under regulations prescribed by the administering Secretaries.
* * * * * * *
1108. Health care coverage through Federal Employees Health
Benefits program: demonstration project
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Area of Demonstration Project.--The Secretary of Defense and the
Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall jointly identify
and select the geographic areas in which the demonstration project will
be conducted. The Secretary and the Director shall establish at least
six, but not more than ten, such demonstration areas. In establishing
the areas, the Secretary and Director shall include--
(1) an area that includes the catchment area of one or more military
medical treatment facilities;
(2) an area that is not located in the catchment area of a military
medical treatment facility;
(3) an area in which there is a Medicare Subvention Demonstration
project area under section 1896 of title XVIII of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ggg); and
(4) not more than one area for each TRICARE region.
In establishing the areas, the Secretary and the Director of the
Office of Personnel Management shall include an area that includes the
catchment area of one or more military medical treatment facilities, an
area that is not located in the catchment area of a military medical
treatment facility, an area in which there is a Medicare Subvention
Demonstration project area under section 1896 of title XVIII of the
Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ggg), and one area for each TRICARE
region.
(d) Duration of Demonstration Project.--(1) The Secretary of Defense
shall conduct the demonstration project during three four contract years
under the Federal Employees Health Benefits program.
(2) Eligible beneficiaries shall, as provided under the agreement
pursuant to subsection (a), be permitted to enroll in the demonstration
project during an open enrollment period for the year 2000 (conducted in
the fall of 1999). The demonstration project shall terminate on December
31, 2002 December 31, 2003.
* * * * * * *
(f) Term of Enrollment in Project.--(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and
(3), the period of enrollment of an eligible beneficiary who enrolls in
the demonstration project during the open enrollment period for the year
2000 shall be three] four years unless the beneficiary disenrolls before
the termination of the project.
* * * * * * *
(k) Comptroller General Report.--Not later than December 31, 2002
December 31, 2003, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a
report addressing the same matters required to be addressed under
subsection (j)(2). The report shall describe
any limitations with respect to the data contained in the
report as a result of the size and design of the demonstration project.
(l) Application of Medigap Protections to Demonstration Project
Enrollees.--(1) * * *
(2) In applying paragraph (1)--
(A) any reference in clause (v) or (vi) of section 1882(s)(3)(B) of
such Act to 12 months is deemed a reference to 36 48 months; and
(B) the notification required under section 1882(s)(3)(D) of such
Act shall be provided in a manner specified by the Secretary of Defense
in consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management.
* * * * * * *
(m) Expansion of Coverage for Retirees Over Age 65.--(1) Eligible
beneficiaries referred to in subsection (b)(1) shall be permitted to
enroll, or to extend a previous enrollment entered into under subsection
(d)(2), during a period of open enrollment for the year 2003 (conducted
in the fall of 2002).
(2) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (f), the period
of enrollment, or extension of enrollment, of an eligible beneficiary
under paragraph (1) shall be one year unless the beneficiary disenrolls
before the termination of the demonstration project.
1109. Organ and tissue donor program
(a) * * *
(b) Responsibilities of the Secretaries of the Military
Departments.--(1) The Secretaries of the military departments shall
ensure that--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
1110. Policies and procedures for immunization program
(a) System and Procedures for Tracking Separations.--(1) The
Secretary of each military department shall establish a system for
tracking, recording, and reporting separations of members of the armed
forces that result from procedures initiated as a result of a refusal to
participate in the anthrax vaccine immunization program.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall consolidate the information
recorded under the system described in paragraph (1) and shall submit to
the Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the
Senate on an annual basis a report on such information. Such reports
shall include a description of--
(A) the number of personnel separated, categorized by military
department, rank, and active-duty or reserve status; and
(B) any other information determined appropriate by the Secretary.
(b) Emergency Essential Civilian Personnel.--The Secretary of Defense
shall--
(1) prescribe regulations for the purpose of ensuring that any
civilian employee of the Department of Defense who is determined to be
an emergency essential employee and who is required to participate in
the anthrax vaccination program is notified of the requirement to
participate in the program and the consequences of a decision not to
participate; and
(2) ensure that any individual who is being considered for a
position as such an employee is notified of the obligation to
participate in the program before being offered employment in such
position.
(c) Procedures for Medical and Administrative Exemptions.--(1) The
Secretary of Defense shall establish uniform procedures under which
members of the armed forces may be exempted from participating in the
anthrax vaccination program for either administrative or medical
reasons.
(2) The Secretaries of the military departments shall provide for
notification of all members of the armed forces of the procedures
described in paragraph (1).
(d) System for Monitoring Adverse Reactions.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall establish a system for monitoring adverse reactions of
members of the armed forces to the anthrax vaccine which shall include
the following:
(A) Independent review of Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System
reports.
(B) Periodic surveys of personnel to whom the vaccine is administered.
(C) A continuing longitudinal study of a pre-identified group of
members of the armed forces (including men and women and members from
all services).
(D) Active surveillance of a sample of members to whom the anthrax
vaccine has been administered that is sufficient to identify, at the
earliest opportunity, any patterns of adverse reactions, the discovery
of which might be delayed by reliance solely on the Vaccine Adverse
Event Reporting System.
(2) The Secretary may extend or expand any ongoing or planned study
or analysis of trends in adverse reactions of members of the armed
forces to the anthrax vaccine in order to meet any of the requirements
in paragraph (1).
(3) The Secretary shall establish guidelines under which members of
the armed forces who are determined by an independent expert panel to be
experiencing unexplained adverse reactions may obtain access to a
Department of Defense Center of Excellence treatment facility for
expedited treatment and follow up.
(e) Vaccine Development and Procurement.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall develop a plan, including milestones, for modernizing all
vaccines used or anticipated to be used as part of the protection
strategy for members of the armed forces.
(2) The Secretary--
(A) shall, to the maximum extent possible, be the sole purchaser of
a vaccine to immunize members of the armed forces and employees of all
Federal agencies;
(B) shall, to the maximum extent possible, procure such a vaccine
from more than one manufacturer; and
(C) in any case in which the Secretary determines that sole source
procurement of such a vaccine is necessary, may not enter into a
contract to purchase such vaccine until 30 days after providing
notification to the Committees on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives and the Senate that the
Secretary intends to enter into a sole source contract for the vaccine.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 58--BENEFITS AND SERVICES FOR MEMBERS BEING SEPARATED OR
RECENTLY SEPARATED
* * * * * * *
1145. Health benefits
(a) Transitional Health Care.--(1) For the applicable time period
described in paragraph (2), a member of the armed forces who is
involuntarily separated from active duty during the period beginning on
October 1, 1990, and ending on September 30, 2001 December 31, 2001 (and
the dependents of the member), shall be entitled to receive--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Health Care for Certain Separated Members Not Otherwise
Eligible.--(1) Consistent with the authority of the Secretary concerned
to designate certain classes of persons as eligible to receive health
care at a military medical facility, the Secretary concerned should
consider authorizing, on an individual basis in cases of hardship, the
provision of that care for a member who is separated from the armed
forces during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on
September 30, 2001 December 31, 2001, and is ineligible for transitional
health care under subsection (a) or does not obtain a conversion health
policy (or a dependent of the member).
* * * * * * *
(e) Coast Guard.--The provisions of this section shall apply to
members of the Coast Guard (and their dependents) involuntarily
separated from active duty during the period beginning on October 1,
1994, and ending on September 30, 2001 December 31, 2001. The Secretary
of Transportation shall implement this section for the Coast Guard.
1146. Commissary and exchange benefits
The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations to allow a
member of the armed forces who is involuntarily separated from active
duty during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on
September 30, 2001 December 31, 2001, to continue to use commissary and
exchange stores during the two-year period beginning on the date of the
involuntary separation of the member in the same manner as a member on
active duty. The Secretary of Transportation shall implement this
provision for Coast Guard members involuntarily separated during the
period beginning on October 1, 1994, and ending on September 30, 2001
December 31, 2001.
1147. Use of military family housing
(a) Transition for Involuntarily Separated Members.--(1) The
Secretary of a military department may, pursuant to regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, permit individuals who are
involuntarily separated during the period beginning on October 1, 1990,
and ending on September 30, 2001 December 31, 2001, to continue for not
more than 180 days after the date of such separation to reside (along
with other members of the individual's household) in military family
housing provided or leased by the Department of Defense to such
individual as a member of the armed forces.
(2) The Secretary of Transportation may prescribe regulations to
permit members of the Coast Guard who are involuntarily separated
thereof ``during the period beginning on October 1, 1994, and ending on
September 30, 2001 December 31, 2001, to continue for not more than 180
days after the date of such separation to reside (along with others of
the member's household) in military family housing provided or leased by
the Coast Guard to the individual as a member of the armed forces.
* * * * * * *
1150. Affiliation with Guard and Reserve units: waiver of
certain limitations
(a) Preference for Certain Persons.--A person who is separated from
the armed forces during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and
ending on September 30, 2001 December 31, 2001, and who applies to
become a member of a National Guard or Reserve unit within one year
after the date of such separation shall be given preference over other
equally qualified applicants for existing or projected vacancies within
the unit to which the member applies.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 59--SEPARATION
* * * * * * *
1174. Separation pay upon involuntary discharge or release
from active duty
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Other Members.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) The discharge or release from active duty of an officer under a
law or regulation requiring that an officer who has failed of selection
for promotion to the next higher grade for the second time, or who
declines continuation on active duty after such a failure, be discharged
or released from active duty shall be considered to be involuntary for
purposes of paragraph (1)(A).
1174a. Special separation benefits programs
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) Termination of Program.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2),
the Secretary concerned may not conduct a program
pursuant to this section after September 30, 2001 December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
1175. Voluntary separation incentive
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) After September 30, 2001 December 31, 2001, the Secretary may not
approve a request.
(e)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) (A) A member who has received the voluntary separation incentive
and who qualifies for retired or retainer pay under this title shall
have deducted from each payment of such retired or retainer pay so much
of such pay as is based on the service for which he received the
voluntary separation incentive until the total amount deducted equals
the total amount of voluntary separation incentive received. If the
member elected to have a reduction in voluntary separation incentive for
any period pursuant to paragraph (2), the deduction required under the
preceding sentence shall be reduced accordingly.
(B) If a member is receiving simultaneous voluntary separation
incentive payments and retired or retainer pay, the member may elect to
terminate the receipt of voluntary separation incentive payments. Any
such election is permanent and irrevocable. The rate of monthly
recoupment from retired or retainer pay of voluntary separation
incentive payments received after such an election shall be reduced by a
percentage that is equal to a fraction with a denominator equal to the
number of months that the voluntary separation incentive payments were
scheduled to be paid and a numerator equal to the number of months that
would not be paid as a result of the member's decision to terminate the
voluntary separation incentive.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 69--RETIRED GRADE
* * * * * * *
1370. Commissioned officers: general rule; exceptions
(a) Rule for Retirement in Highest Grade Held Satisfactorily.--(1) *
* *
(2)(A) In order to be eligible for voluntary retirement under any
provision of this title in a grade above major or lieutenant commander,
a commissioned officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps
must have served on active duty in that grade for not less than three
years, except that the Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary
of a military department to reduce such period to a period not less than
two years in the case of retirements effective during the period
beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on September 30, 2001 December
31, 2001.
(d) Reserve Officers.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a
military department to reduce the 3-year period required by paragraph
(3)(A) to a period not less than 2 years in the case of retirements
effective during the period beginning on October 17, 1998, and ending on
September 30, 2001 December 31, 2001. The number of reserve commissioned
officers of an armed force in the same grade for whom a reduction is
made during any fiscal year in the period of service-in-grade otherwise
required under this paragraph may not exceed the number equal to 2
percent of the strength authorized for that fiscal year for reserve
commissioned officers of that armed force in an active status in that
grade.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 73--ANNUITIES BASED ON RETIRED OR RETAINER PAY
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--SURVIVOR BENEFIT PLAN
* * * * * * *
1448. Application of Plan
(a) General Rules for Participation in the Plan.--
(1) * * *
(2) Participants in the plan.--The Plan applies to the following
persons, who shall be participants in the Plan:
(A) * * *
(B) Reserve-component annuity participants.--A person who (i) is
eligible to participate in the Plan under paragraph (1)(B), (ii) is
married or has a dependent child when he is notified under section
12731(d) of this title that he has completed the years of service
required for eligibility for reserve-component retired pay, and (iii)
elects to participate in the Plan (and makes a designation under
subsection (e)) before the end of the 90-day period beginning on the
date he receives such notification.
(B) Reserve-component annuity participants.--A person who (i) is
eligible to participate in the Plan under paragraph (1)(B), and (ii) is
married or has a dependent child when he is notified under section
12731(d) of this title that he has completed the years of service
required for eligibility for reserve-component retired pay, unless the
person elects (with his spouse's concurrence, if required under
paragraph (3)) not to participate in the Plan before the end of the
90-day period beginning on the date on which he receives that
notification.
A person described in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B) who
does not elect to participate in the Plan before the end of the 90-day
period referred to in that clause who elects under
subparagraph (B) not to participate in the Plan remains
eligible, upon reaching 60 years of age and otherwise becoming entitled
to retired pay, to participate in the Plan in accordance with
eligibility under paragraph (1)(A).
(3) Elections.--
(A) * * *
(B) Spousal consent for certain elections respecting
reserve-component annuity.--A married person who elects to provide who
is eligible to provide a reserve-component annuity may not without the
concurrence of the person's spouse elect--
(i) not to participate in the Plan;
(ii) to designate under subsection (e)(2) the effective date for
commencement of annuity payments under the Plan in the event that the
member dies before becoming 60 years of age to be the 60th anniversary
of the member's birth (rather than the day after the date of the
member's death);
(i) (iii) to provide an annuity for the person's spouse at less than
the maximum level; or
(ii) (iv) to provide an annuity for a dependent child but not for
the person's spouse.
(4) Irrevocability of elections.--
(A) Standard annuity.--An election under paragraph (2)(A) not to
participate in the Plan is irrevocable if not revoked before the date on
which the person first becomes entitled to retired pay.
(B) Reserve-component annuity.--An election under paragraph (2)(B)
to participate in the Plan is irrevocable if not revoked before the end
of the 90-day period referred to in that paragraph.
* * * * * * *
(b) Insurable Interest and Former Spouse Coverage.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Former spouse coverage by persons already participating in plan.--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(E) Effective date of election.--An election under this paragraph is
effective as of--
(i) * * *
(ii) in the case of a person required (as described in section
1450(f)(3)(B) of this title) to make the election by reason of a court
order or filing the date of which is after October 16, 1998,, the first
day of the first month which begins after the date of that court order
or filing.
* * * * * * *
(e) Designation for Commencement of Reserve-Component Annuity.--In
any case in which a person electing to participate in the Plan is
required to make a designation under this subsection, the person making
such election shall designate whether, in the event he dies before
becoming 60 years of age, the annuity provided shall become effective
on--
(1) the day after the date of his death; or
(2) the 60th anniversary of his birth.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 77--POSTHUMOUS COMMISSIONS AND WARRANTS
* * * * * * *
1521. Posthumous commissions
(a) The President may issue, or have issued, an appropriate
commission in the name of a member of the armed forces who, after
September 8, 1939--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) was officially recommended for appointment or promotion to a
commissioned grade and the recommendation for whose appointment or
promotion was approved by the Secretary concerned but was unable to
accept the promotion or appointment because of death in line of duty.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 80--MISCELLANEOUS INVESTIGATION REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER DUTIES
Sec.
1561. Complaints of sexual harassment: investigation by commanding
officers.
* * * * * * *
1563. Consideration of proposals for posthumous and honorary
promotions and appointments: procedures for review and recommendation.
1564. Military criminal investigations: probable cause required
for entry of names of subjects into official investigative reports.
1565. DNA identification information: collection from violent and
sexual offenders; use.
* * * * * * *
1563. Consideration of proposals for posthumous and honorary
promotions and appointments: procedures for review and recommendation
(a) Review by Secretary Concerned.--Upon request of a Member of
Congress, the Secretary concerned shall review a proposal for the
posthumous or honorary promotion or appointment of a member or former
member of the armed forces, or any other person considered qualified,
that is not otherwise authorized by law. Based upon such review, the
Secretary shall make a determination as to the merits of approving the
posthumous or honorary promotion or appointment and the other
determinations necessary to comply with subsection (b).
(b) Notice of Results of Review.--Upon making a determination under
subsection (a) as to the merits of approving the posthumous or honorary
promotion or appointment, the Secretary
concerned shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives and to the requesting Member of Congress notice in
writing of one of the following:
(1) The posthumous or honorary promotion or appointment does not
warrant approval on the merits.
(2) The posthumous or honorary promotion or appointment warrants
approval and authorization by law for the promotion or appointment is
recommended.
(3) The posthumous or honorary promotion or appointment warrants
approval on the merits and has been recommended to the President as an
exception to policy.
(4) The posthumous or honorary promotion or appointment warrants
approval on the merits and authorization by law for the promotion or
appointment is required but is not recommended.
A notice under paragraph (1) or (4) shall be accompanied by a
statement of the reasons for the decision of the Secretary.
(c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Member of Congress''
means--
(1) a Senator; or
(2) a Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to,
Congress.
1564. Military criminal investigations: probable cause
required for entry of names of subjects into official investigative
reports
(a) Probable Cause Required for ``Titling''.--The Secretary of
Defense shall require that an employee of a military criminal
investigative organization or a member of the armed forces assigned to a
military criminal investigative organization, in connection with the
investigation of a reported crime, may not designate any person, by name
or by any other identifying information, as a suspect in the case in any
official investigative report, or in a central index for potential
retrieval and analysis by law enforcement organizations, unless there is
probable cause to believe that that person committed the crime.
(b) Standard for Removal of ``Titling'' Information From
Records.--The Secretary of Defense shall establish a uniform standard
applicable throughout the Department of Defense for removal from an
official investigative report of a reported crime, and from any
applicable central index, of the name of a person (and any other
identifying information about that person) that was entered in the
report or index to designate that person as a suspect in the case when
it is subsequently determined that there is not probable cause to
believe that that person committed the crime.
(c) Criminal Investigative Organization Defined.--In this section,
the term ``criminal investigative organization'' means any of the
following:
(1) The Defense Criminal Investigative Service (or any successor to
that service).
(2) The Army Criminal Investigation Command (or any successor to
that command).
(3) The Naval Criminal Investigative Service (or any successor to
that service).
(4) The Air Force Office of Special Investigations (or any successor
to that office).
1565. DNA identification information: collection from violent
and sexual offenders; use
(a) Collection of DNA Samples.--The Secretary concerned shall collect
a DNA sample from each member of the armed forces under the Secretary's
jurisdiction who is, or has been, convicted of a qualifying military
offense (as determined under subsection (e)).
(b) Analysis of Samples.--The Secretary concerned shall furnish each
DNA sample collected under subsection (a) to the Secretary of Defense.
The Secretary of Defense shall carry out a DNA analysis on each such DNA
sample.
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``DNA sample'' means a tissue, fluid, or other bodily
sample of an individual on which a DNA analysis can be carried out.
(2) The term ``DNA analysis'' means analysis of the deoxyribonucleic
acid (DNA) identification information in a bodily sample.
(d) Use in CODIS.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall furnish the
results of each DNA analysis carried out under subsection (b) to the
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for use in the Combined
DNA Index System (in this section referred to as ``CODIS'') of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(2) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, shall establish procedures
providing that if a DNA sample has been collected from a person pursuant
to subsection (a), and the Secretary receives notice that each
conviction of that person of a qualifying military offense has been
overturned, the Secretary shall promptly transmit a notice of that fact
to the Director in accordance with section 210304(d) of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
(e) Qualifying Military Offenses.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General, shall
determine those violent or sexual offenses under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice that shall be considered for purposes of this section
as qualifying military offenses.
(2) An offense under the Uniform Code of Military Justice that is
equivalent to a serious violent felony (as that term is defined in
section 3559(c)(2)(F) of title 18), as determined by the Secretary in
consultation with the Attorney General, shall be considered for purposes
of this section as a qualifying military offense.
(f) Waiver.--The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirement of
subsection (a) for a member if CODIS contains a DNA analysis with
respect to that member.
(g) Regulations.--This section shall be carried out under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation and the Attorney General. Those regulations
shall apply, to the extent practicable, uniformly throughout the armed
forces.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 83--CIVILIAN DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE EMPLOYEES
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--DEFENSE WIDE INTELLIGENCE PERSONNEL POLICY
* * * * * * *
1601. Civilian intelligence personnel: general authority to
establish excepted positions, appoint personnel, and fix rates of pay
(a) General Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may--
(1) establish, as positions in the excepted service, such defense
intelligence positions in the intelligence components of the Department
of Defense and the military departments in the Department of Defense as
the Secretary determines necessary to carry out the intelligence
functions of those components and departments of the Department,
including--
(A) Intelligence Senior Level positions designated under section
1607 of this title; and
(B) positions in the Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service;
* * * * * * *
1611. Postemployment assistance: certain terminated
intelligence employees
(a) Authority.--Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense
may, in the case of any individual who is a qualified former
intelligence employee, use appropriated funds--
(1) to assist that individual in finding and qualifying for
employment other than in an intelligence component of the Department of
Defense defense intelligence position;
* * * * * * *
(b) Qualified Former Intelligence Employees.--For purposes of this
section, a qualified former intelligence employee is an individual who
was employed as a civilian employee of the Department of Defense in a
sensitive position in an intelligence component of the Department of
Defense sensitive defense intelligence position--
(1) who has been found to be ineligible for continued access to
information designated as ``Sensitive Compartmented Information'' and
employment with the intelligence component in a defense intelligence
position; or
(2) whose employment with the intelligence component in a defense
intelligence position has been terminated.
* * * * * * *
(d) Duration of Assistance.--Assistance may not be provided under
this section in the case of any individual after the end of the
five-year period beginning on the date of the termination of the
employment of the individual with an intelligence component of the
Department of Defense in a defense intelligence position.
* * * * * * *
(f) Definition.--In this section, the term ``intelligence component
of the Department of Defense'' includes the National Reconnaissance
Office and any intelligence component of a military department.
* * * * * * *
1614. Definitions
In this subchapter:
(1) The term ``defense intelligence position'' means a civilian
position as an intelligence officer or intelligence employee of an
intelligence component of the Department of Defense or of a military
department of the Department of Defense.
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING AND EDUCATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 102--JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS
* * * * * * *
2033. Contingent funding increase
If for any fiscal year the amount appropriated for appropriated
directly to the Secretary of Defense for the National Guard Challenge
Program under section 509 of title 32 is in excess of $62,500,000, the
Secretary of Defense shall (notwithstanding any other provision of law)
make the amount in excess of $62,500,000 available for the Junior
Reserve Officers' Training Corps program under section 2031 of this
title, and such excess amount may not be used for any other purpose.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 105--ARMED FORCES HEALTH PROFESSIONS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATE ACCESSION PROGRAM
* * * * * * *
2130a. Financial assistance: nurse officer candidates
(a) Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person described in subsection (b) who,
during the period beginning on November 29, 1989, and ending on December
31, 2000 December 31, 2001, executes a written agreement in accordance
with subsection (c) to accept an appointment as a nurse officer may,
upon the acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid
an accession bonus of not more than $5,000. The bonus shall be paid in
periodic installments, as determined by the Secretary concerned at the
time the agreement is accepted, except that the first installment may
not exceed $2,500.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 108--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SCHOOLS
Sec.
2161. Joint Military Intelligence College: academic degrees.
* * * * * * *
2166. Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation.
* * * * * * *
2164. Department of Defense domestic dependent elementary and
secondary schools
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Eligibility of Dependents of Federal Employees and Other
Persons.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3)(A) The Secretary may authorize the dependent of an American Red
Cross employee described in subparagraph (B) to enroll in an education
program provided by the Secretary pursuant to subsection (a) if the
American Red Cross agrees to reimburse the Secretary for the educational
services so provided.
(B) An employee referred to in subparagraph (A) is an American Red
Cross employee who--
(i) resides in Puerto Rico; and
(ii) performs, on a full-time basis, emergency services on behalf of
members of the armed forces.
(C) Amounts received under this paragraph as reimbursement for
educational services shall be treated in the same manner as amounts
received under subsection (g).
* * * * * * *
2165. National Defense University: component institutions
(a) * * *
(b) Component Institutions.--The National Defense University consists
of the following institutions:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The Armed Forces Staff College Joint Forces Staff College.
* * * * * * *
2166. Defense Institute for Hemispheric Security Cooperation
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may operate an education and
training facility known as the ``Defense Institute for Hemispheric
Security Cooperation''. The Secretary of Defense may designate the
Secretary of the Army as the Department of Defense executive agent for
carrying out the responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense under this
section.
(b) Purpose.--(1) The Institute shall be operated for the purpose of
providing education and training to military, law enforcement, and
civilian personnel of nations of the Western Hemisphere in defense and
security matters.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), defense and security matters
include--
(A) professional military education;
(B) leadership development;
(C) counter-drug operations;
(D) peace support operations; and
(E) disaster relief.
(c) Curriculum.--The education and training programs provided by the
Institute shall include (for each person attending the Institute under
subsection (b)) instruction totaling not less than eight hours relating
to each of the following subjects:
(1) Human rights.
(2) The rule of law.
(3) Due process.
(4) Civilian control of the military.
(5) The role of the military in a democratic society.
(d) Board of Visitors.--(1) There is a Board of Visitors for the
Institute. The Board shall be composed of members appointed by the
Secretary of Defense (or the Secretary of the Army as the Secretary's
designee). In selecting members of the Board, the Secretary shall
consider recommendations by--
(A) the Speaker and the minority leader of the House of
Representatives;
(B) the majority leader and the minority leader of the Senate;
(C) the Secretary of State;
(D) the commander of the unified command with geographic
responsibility for Latin America; and
(E) representatives from academic institutions, religious
institutions, and human rights organizations.
(2) Members shall serve for two years and shall meet at least annually.
(3)(A) The Board shall inquire into--
(i) the curriculum, instruction, physical equipment, fiscal affairs,
academic methods, and other matters relating to the Institute that the
Board decides to consider; and
(ii) any other matters relating to the Institute that the Secretary
considers appropriate.
(B) The Board shall review the curriculum of the Institute to ensure
that the curriculum--
(i) complies with applicable United States law and regulations;
(ii) is consistent with United States policy goals toward Latin
America and the Caribbean; and
(iii) adheres to current United States doctrine.
(4)(A) Not later than 60 days after its annual meeting, the Board
shall submit to the Secretary a written report of its action and of its
views and recommendations pertaining to the Institute.
(B) Within 30 days of receipt of the Board's report for any year, the
Secretary shall transmit the report, with the Secretary's comments, to
Congress.
(5) While performing duties as a member of or adviser to the Board,
each member of the Board and each adviser shall be reimbursed for travel
expenses under Government travel regulations. Board members shall not be
compensated by reason of service on the Board.
(e) Source of Funds.--The fixed costs of operating and maintaining
the Institute may be paid from funds available for operation and
maintenance.
(f) Tuition.--Tuition fees charged for persons who attend the
Institute may not include the fixed costs of operating and maintaining
the Institute.
* * * * * * *
PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 131--PLANNING AND COORDINATION
* * * * * * *
2218. National Defense Sealift Fund
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(k) Contracts for Incorporation of Defense Features in Commercial
Vessels.--(1) The head of an agency may enter into a contract with a
company submitting an offer for that company to install and maintain
defense features for national defense purposes in one or more commercial
vessels owned or controlled by that company in accordance with the
purpose for which funds in the National Defense Sealift Fund are
available under subsection (c)(1)(C). The head of the agency may enter
into such a contract only after the head of the agency makes a
determination of the economic soundness of the offer. As consideration
for a contract with the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a
military department under this subsection, the company entering into the
contract shall agree with the Secretary to make any vessel covered by
the contract available to the Secretary, fully crewed and ready for sea,
at any time at any port determined by the Secretary, and for whatever
duration the Secretary determines necessary.
(2) The head of an agency may make advance payments to the contractor
under a contract under paragraph (1) in a lump sum, in annual payments,
or in a combination thereof for costs associated with the installation
and maintenance of the defense features on a vessel covered by the
contract, as follows:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(E) Payments of such sums as the Government would otherwise expend,
if the vessel were placed in the Ready Reserve Fleet, for maintaining
the vessel in the status designated as `ROS 4 status' in the Ready
Reserve Fleet for 25 years.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 136--PROVISIONS RELATING TO SPECIFIC PROGRAMS
Sec.
2281. Global Positioning System.
2282. B 2 bomber: annual report on operational status.
* * * * * * *
2282. B 2 bomber: annual report on operational status
Not later than March 1 of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report on
the operational status of the B 2 bomber. Each such report shall include
the following:
(1) An assessment as to whether the B 2 aircraft has a high
probability of being able to perform its intended missions.
(2) Identification of all planned or ongoing development of
technologies to enhance B 2 aircraft capabilities for which funds are
programmed in the future years defense program and an assessment as to
whether those technologies--
(A) are consistent with the Air Force bomber roadmap in effect at
the time of the report;
(B) are consistent with the recommendations of the report of the
Long-Range Air Power panel established by section 8131 of the Department
of Defense Appropriations Act, 1998 (Public Law 105 56); and
(C) will be sufficient to assure that the B 2 aircraft will have a
high probability of being able to perform its intended missions in the
future.
(3) Definition of any additional technology development required to
assure that the B 2 aircraft will retain a high probability of being
able to perform its intended missions and an estimate of the funding
required to develop those additional technologies.
(4) An assessment as to whether the technologies identified pursuant
to paragraph (2) are adequately funded in the budget request for the
next fiscal year and whether funds have been identified throughout the
future years defense program to continue those technology developments
at an adequate level.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 137--PROCUREMENT GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
Sec.
[2301. Repealed.]
* * * * * * *
2306b. Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property.
2306b. Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property or services.
* * * * * * *
2306. Kinds of contracts
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) In the event funds are not made available for the continuation of
such a contract into a subsequent fiscal year, the contract shall be
canceled or terminated, and the costs of cancellation or termination may
be paid from--
(A) appropriations originally available for the performance of the
contract concerned;
(B) appropriations currently available for procurement of the type
of services concerned, and not otherwise obligated; or
(C) funds appropriated for those payments.
(3) Additional provisions regarding mulityear contracts for the
purchase of services are provided in section 2306b of this title.
* * * * * * *
2306b. Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property or services
(a) In General.--To the extent that funds are otherwise available for
obligation, the head of an agency may enter into multiyear contracts for
the purchase of property whenever the head of that agency finds each of
the following:
(1) * * *
(2) That the minimum need for the property or services to be
purchased is expected to remain substantially unchanged during the
contemplated contract period in terms of production rate, procurement
rate, and total quantities.
* * * * * * *
(4) That In the case of a contract for the purchase of property,
that there is a stable design for the property to be acquired and that
the technical risks associated with such property or services are not
excessive.
* * * * * * *
(f) Cancellation or Termination for Insufficient Funding.--In the
event funds are not made available for the continuation of a contract
made under this section into a subsequent fiscal year, the contract
shall be canceled or terminated. The costs of cancellation or
termination may be paid from--
(1) appropriations originally available for the performance of the
contract concerned;
(2) appropriations currently available for procurement of the type
of property or services concerned, and not otherwise obligated; or
(3) funds appropriated for those payments.
* * * * * * *
2320. Rights in technical data
(a)(1) * * *
(2) Such regulations shall include the following provisions:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) Subparagraph (B) does not apply to technical data that--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(iii) is necessary for operation, maintenance, installation, or
training (other than detailed manufacturing or process data); or
(iii) is necessary for normal operation (other than detailed
manufacturing or processing data), maintenance, installation, or
training when such services are to be provided by an entity other than
the contractor or its subcontractor;
(iv) is necessary for critical operation, maintenance, installation
of deployed equipment, or training, when such services are to be
provided by an entity other than the contractor or its subcontractor; or
(iv) (v) is otherwise publicly available or has been released or
disclosed by the contractor or subcontractor without restriction on
further release or disclosure.
* * * * * * *
(F) A contractor or subcontractor (or a prospective contractor or
subcontractor) may not be required, as a condition of being responsive
to a solicitation or as a condition for the award of a contract--
(i) to sell or otherwise relinquish to the United States any rights
in technical data except--
(I) rights in technical data described in clause (i), (ii), (iv), or
(v) of subparagraph (C); or
(II) under the conditions described in subparagraph (D); or
(III) under the conditions described in subsection (a)(2)(C)(iii),
reaching agreement in negotiations concerning provision of the rights
involved may not be required as a condition of being responsive to a
solicitation, but may be a condition for the award of a contract; or
* * * * * * *
(H) In a case described in subparagraph (C)(iii), the provision of
the rights involved shall be subject to negotiations between the
Government and the contractor or contractors involved.
(I) A description of the difference between ``normal operation'' and
``critical operation'', as such terms are used in subparagraph (C).
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 141--MISCELLANEOUS PROCUREMENT PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
2401. Requirement for authorization by law of certain
contracts relating to vessels and aircraft
(a)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b)(1) The Secretary may make a contract described in subsection
(a)(1) if--
(A) * * *
(B) before a solicitation for proposals for the contract was issued
the Secretary notified the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services and
the Committees on Appropriations Committee on Appropriations of the
House of Representatives of the Secretary's intention to issue such a
solicitation; and
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 146--CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE OF CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL OR
INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS
Sec.
2460. Definition of depot-level maintenance and repair.
* * * * * * *
2475. Consolidation of functions or activities and reengineering
or restructuring of organizations, functions, or activities: required
studies and reports before manpower reductions.
* * * * * * *
2461. Commercial or industrial type functions: required
studies and reports before conversion to contractor performance
(a) * * *
(b) Notification and Elements of Analysis.--(1) Before commencing to
analyze a commercial or industrial type function described in subsection
(a) for possible change to performance by the private sector, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report containing the
following:
(A) * * *
(D) The anticipated length and cost of the analysis , and a
certification that funds are specifically budgeted to pay for the cost
of the analysis.
* * * * * * *
(c) Notification of Decision.--(1) If, as a result of the completion
of the examinations under subsection (b)(3), a decision is made to
change the commercial or industrial type function that was the subject
of the analysis to performance by the private sector, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to Congress a report describing that decision. The
report shall contain the following:
(A) The date when the analysis of that commercial or industrial type
function for possible change to performance by the private sector was
commenced.
(A) (B) An indication that the examinations required under
subsection (b)(3) have been completed.
(B) (C) The Secretary's certification that the Government
calculation of the cost of performance of the function by Department of
Defense civilian employees is based on an estimate of the most cost
effective manner for performance of the function by Department of
Defense civilian employees.
(C) (D) The Secretary's certification that the examination required
by subsection (b)(3)(A) as part of the analysis demonstrates that the
performance of the function by the private sector will result in savings
to the Government over the life of the contract.
(E) The number of Department of Defense civilian employees who were
performing the function when the analysis was commenced and the number
of such employees whose employment was terminated or otherwise adversely
affected in implementing the most efficient organization of the function
or whose employment will be terminated or otherwise adversely affected
by the change to performance of the function by the private sector.
(D) (F) The Secretary's certification that the entire analysis is
available for examination.
(E) (G) A schedule for completing the change to performance of the
function by the private sector.
* * * * * * *
2475. Consolidation of functions or activities and
reengineering or restructuring of organizations, functions, or
activities: required studies and reports before manpower reductions
(a) Reporting and Analysis Requirements as Precondition to Manpower
Reductions.--The Secretary of Defense may not initiate manpower
reductions at organizations or activities, or within functions, that are
commercial, commercial exempt from competition, military essential, or
inherently governmental until the Secretary fully complies with the
reporting and analysis requirements specified in subsections (b) and
(c).
(b) Notification and Elements of Analysis.--Before commencing to
analyze any commercial, commercial exempt from competition, military
essential, or inherently governmental organization, function, or
activity for the consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering of
military personnel or Department of Defense civilian employees, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report containing the
following:
(1) The organization, function, or activity to be analyzed for
possible consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering.
(2) The location or locations at which military personnel or
Department of Defense civilian employees would be affected.
(3) The number of military personnel or Department of Defense
civilian employee positions potentially affected.
(4) A description of the organization, function, or activity to be
analyzed for possible consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering,
including a description of all missions, duties, or military
requirements that might be affected.
(5) An examination of the cost incurred by the Department of Defense
to perform the function or to operate the organization or activity that
will be analyzed.
(6) A certification that a proposed consolidation, restructuring, or
reengineering of a commercial, commercial exempt from competition,
military essential, or inherently governmental organization, function,
or activity is not a result of a decision by an official of a military
department or Defense Agency to impose predetermined constraints or
limitations on the number of military personnel or Department of Defense
civilian employees.
(c) Notification of Decision.--If, as a result of the completion of
an analysis carried out consistent with the requirements of subsection
(b), a decision is made to consolidate, restructure, or reengineer an
organization, function, or activity, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate a
report describing that decision. The report shall contain the following:
(1) The Secretary's certification that the consolidation,
restructuring, or reengineering that was analyzed will yield savings to
the Department of Defense.
(2) A projection of the savings that will be realized as a result of
the consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering, compared with the
cost incurred by the Department of Defense to perform the function or to
operate the organization or activity prior to such proposed
consolidation, restructuring, or reengineering.
(3) A description of all missions, duties, or military requirements
that will be affected as a result of the decision to consolidate,
restructure, or reengineer the organization, function, or activity that
was analyzed.
(4) The Secretary's certification that the consolidation,
restructuring or reengineering will not result in any diminution of
military readiness.
(5) A schedule for performing the consolidation, restructuring or
reengineering.
(6) The Secretary's certification that the entire analysis is
available for examination.
(d) Delegation.--The responsibility to prepare reports under
subsections (b) and (c) may be delegated to the Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense for Installations.
(e) Commencement; Waiver for Small Functions.--(1) The consolidation,
restructuring, or reengineering of an organization, function, or
activity for which a report is required under subsection (c) shall not
begin until at least 45 days after the submission of the report to the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Armed Services of the Senate.
(2) Subsection (c) shall not apply to a consolidation, restructuring,
or reengineering that will result in the elimination of 10 or fewer
military or Department of Defense civilian employee positions.
(f) Comptroller General Review.--Not later than March 1 of each year,
the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a report reviewing
decisions taken by the Secretary of Defense to consolidate, restructure,
or reengineer organizations, functions, or activities during the
previous year and assessing the Secretary's compliance with this
section. The report shall include a detailed assessment by the
Comptroller General of whether the savings projected by the Secretary to
result from such decisions are likely to be realized, and whether any
decision taken by the Secretary is likely to result in a diminution of
military readiness. The report shall also include detailed audits of
selected analyses performed by the Secretary.
(g) Relation to Other Law.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to obviate the requirements set forth in section 1597 of this
title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 147--COMMISSARIES AND EXCHANGES AND OTHER MORALE, WELFARE, AND
RECREATION ACTIVITIES
Sec.
[2481. Transferred.]
* * * * * * *
2484. Commissary stores: expenses.
2484. Commissary stores: use of appropriated funds to cover
operating expenses.
* * * * * * *
2484. Commissary stores: expenses
(a) Except to the extent authorized in regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of a military department and approved by the Secretary of
Defense and except as provided in subsection (b), funds available to the
Department of Defense may not be used to pay, in connection with the
operation of any commissary store--
(1) the cost of purchases (including commercial transportation in
the United States to the place of sale) and the cost of maintenance of
operating equipment and supplies;
(2) the actual or estimated cost of utilities furnished by the
United States;
(3) the actual or estimated cost of shrinkage, spoilage, and
pilferage of merchandise under the control of the commissary store; or
(4) costs incurred in connection with obtaining the face value
amount of manufacturer or vendor cents-off discount coupons by the
commissary store (or other entity acting on behalf of the commissary
store).
(b) Appropriated funds may be used to pay any costs described in
subsection (a) but only to the extent that appropriation accounts used
to pay such costs are reimbursed for the payment of such costs,
including, in the case of any costs incurred in connection with discount
coupons referred to in subsection (a)(4), all fees or moneys received
for handling or processing such coupons. The sales prices in commissary
stores shall be adjusted to the extent necessary to provide sufficient
gross revenues from the sales of such stores to make such
reimbursements. Such adjustments shall be made under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of the military department concerned and
approved by the Secretary of Defense.
(c) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense,
utilities may be furnished without cost to a commissary store outside
the United States or in Alaska or Hawaii.
(d) Transportation outside the United States may be furnished in
connection with the operation of commissary stores outside the United
States.
2484. Commissary stores: use of appropriated funds to cover
operating expenses
(a) Operation of Agency and System.--Except as otherwise provided in
this title, the operation of the Defense Commissary Agency and the
defense commissary system may be funded using such amounts as are
appropriated for such purpose.
(b) Operating Expenses of Commissary Stores.--Appropriated funds may
be used to cover the expenses of operating commissary stores and central
product processing facilities of the defense commissary system. For
purposes of this subsection, operating expenses include the following:
(1) Salaries of employees of the United States, host nations, and
contractors supporting commissary store operations.
(2) Utilities.
(3) Communications.
(4) Operating supplies and services.
(5) Second destination transportation costs within or outside the
United States.
(6) Any cost associated with above-store level management or other
indirect support of a commissary store or a central product processing
facility, including equipment maintenance and information technology
costs.
* * * * * * *
2486. Commissary stores: merchandise that may be sold; uniform
surcharges and pricing
(a) * * *
(b) Authorized Commissary Merchandise Categories.--Merchandise sold
in, at, or by commissary stores may include items only in the following
categories:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(11) Magazines and other periodicals.
(11) (12) Such other merchandise categories as the Secretary of
Defense may prescribe, except that the Secretary shall submit to
Congress, not later than March 1 of each year, a report describing--
(A) any addition of, or change in, a merchandise category proposed
to be made under this paragraph during the one-year period beginning on
that date; and
(B) those additions and changes in merchandise categories actually
made during the preceding one-year period.
(c) Uniform Sales Price Surcharge or Adjustment.--An adjustment of or
surcharge on sales prices in commissary stores under section 2484(b) or
subsection (d) or section 2685(a) of this title or for any other purpose
shall be applied as a uniform percentage of the sales price of all
merchandise sold in, at, or by commissary stores. Effective on November
18, 1997, the uniform percentage shall be equal to five percent and may
not be changed except by a law enacted after such date.
(d) Sales Price Establishment.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
establish the sales price of each item of merchandise sold in, at, or by
commissary stores at the level that will recoup the actual product cost
of the item (consistent with this section and sections 2484 and section
2685 of this title).
* * * * * * *
(3) The sales price of merchandise and services sold in, at, or by
commissary stores shall be adjusted to cover the following:
(A) The cost of first destination commercial transportation of the
merchandise in the United States to the place of sale.
(B) The actual or estimated cost of shrinkage, spoilage, and
pilferage of merchandise under the control of commissary stores.
* * * * * * *
(f) Special Rules for Certain Merchandise.--(1) Notwithstanding the
general requirement that merchandise sold in, at, or by commissary
stores be commissary store inventory, the Secretary of Defense may
authorize the sale of items in the merchandise categories specified in
paragraph (2) tobacco products as noncommissary store inventory.
Subsections (c) and (d) shall not apply to the pricing of such
merchandise items.
(2) The merchandise categories referred to in paragraph (1) are as
follows:
(A) Magazines and other periodicals.
(B) Tobacco products.
* * * * * * *
2488. Nonappropriated fund instrumentalities: purchase of
alcoholic beverages
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) In the case of covered alcoholic beverage purchases of
distilled spirits, to determine whether a nonappropriated fund
instrumentality of the Department of Defense provides the most
economical method of distribution to package stores, the Secretary of
Defense shall consider all components of the distribution costs incurred
by the nonappropriated fund instrumentality, such as overhead costs
(including costs associated with management, logistics, administration,
depreciation, and utilities), the costs of carrying inventory, and
handling and distribution costs.
(2) If the use of a private distributor would subject covered
alcoholic beverage purchases of distilled spirits to direct or indirect
State taxation, a nonappropriated fund instrumentality shall be
considered to be the most economical method of distribution regardless
of the results of the determination under paragraph (1).
(3) (2) The Secretary shall use the agencies performing audit
functions on behalf of the armed forces and the Inspector General of the
Department of Defense to make determinations under this subsection.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 148--NATIONAL DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL BASE, DEFENSE
REINVESTMENT, AND DEFENSE CONVERSION
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER V--MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGY BASE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
2534. Miscellaneous limitations on the procurement of goods
other than United States goods
(a) Limitation on Certain Procurements.--The Secretary of Defense may
procure any of the following items only if the manufacturer of the item
satisfies the requirements of subsection (b):
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) Polyacrylonitrile carbon fiber.--Polyacrylonitrile carbon fiber
in accordance with subpart 225.71 of part 225 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement, as in effect on April 1, 2000.
* * * * * * *
(c) Applicability to Certain Items.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) Valves and machine tools.--(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) Subsection (a)(4) and this paragraph shall cease to be effective
on October 1, 1996.
(C)(i) Subsection (a)(4)(B), subparagraph (B), and this clause shall
cease to be effective on October 1, 1996.
(ii) Subsection (a)(4)(A), subparagraph (A), and this clause shall
cease to be effective on October 1, 2003.
(3) Ball bearings and roller bearings.--Subsection (a)(5) and this
paragraph shall cease to be effective on October 1, 2000.
(4) (3) Vessel propellers.--Subsection (a)(3)(A)(iii) and this
paragraph shall cease to be effective on February 10, 1998.
(4) Polyacrylonitrile carbon fiber.--Subsection (a)(6) and this
paragraph shall cease to be effective on October 1, 2003.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER VI--DEFENSE EXPORT LOAN GUARANTEES
* * * * * * *
2540c. Fees charged and collected
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Administrative Fees.-- (1) The Secretary of Defense shall charge
a fee for each guarantee issued under this subchapter to reflect the
additional administrative costs of the Department of Defense that are
directly attributable to the administration of the program under this
subchapter. Such fees shall be credited to a special account in the
Treasury. Amounts in the special account shall be available, to the
extent and in amounts provided in appropriations Acts, for paying the
costs of administrative expenses of the Department of Defense that are
attributable to the loan guarantee program under this subchapter.
(2)(A) If for any fiscal year amounts in the special account
established under paragraph (1) are not available (or are not
anticipated to be available) in a sufficient amount for administrative
expenses of the Department of Defense for that fiscal year that are
directly attributable to the administration of the program under this
subchapter, the Secretary may use amounts currently available for
operations and maintenance for Defense-wide activities, not to exceed
$500,000 in any fiscal year, for those expenses.
(B) The Secretary shall, from funds in the special account
established under paragraph (1), replenish operations and maintenance
accounts for amounts expended under subparagraph (A) as soon as the
Secretary determines practicable.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 153--EXCHANGE OF MATERIAL AND DISPOSAL OF OBSOLETE, SURPLUS, OR
UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
Sec.
2571. Interchange of property and services.
* * * * * * *
2573. Significant military equipment: continued authority to
require demilitarization after disposal.
* * * * * * *
2582. Military equipment identified on United States munitions
list: annual report of public sales.
* * * * * * *
2573. Significant military equipment: continued authority to
require demilitarization after disposal
(a) Authority To Require Demilitarization.--The Secretary of Defense
may require any person in possession of significant military equipment
formerly owned by the Department of Defense--
(1) to demilitarize the equipment,
(2) to have the equipment demilitarized by a third party; or
(3) to return the equipment to the Government for demilitarization.
(b) Cost and Validation of Demilitarization.--When the
demilitarization of significant military equipment is carried out by the
person in possession of the equipment pursuant to paragraph (1) or (2)
of subsection (a), the person shall be solely responsible for all
demilitarization costs, and the United States shall have the right to
validate that the equipment has been demilitarized.
(c) Return of Equipment to Government.--When the Secretary of Defense
requires the return of significant military equipment for
demilitarization by the Government, the Secretary shall bear all costs
to transport and demilitarize the equipment. If the person in possession
of the significant military equipment obtained the property in the
manner authorized by law or regulation and the Secretary determines that
the cost to demilitarize and return the property to the person is
prohibitive, the Secretary shall reimburse the person for the purchase
cost of the property and for the reasonable transportation costs
incurred by the person to purchase the equipment.
(d) Establishment of Demilitarization Standards.--The Secretary of
Defense shall prescribe by regulation what constitutes demilitarization
for each type of significant military equipment.
(e) Exception for Government Contracts.--This section does not apply
when a person is in possession of significant military equipment
formerly owned by the Department of Defense for the purpose of
demilitarizing the equipment pursuant to a Government contract.
(f) Definition of Significant Military Equipment.--In this section,
the term ``significant military equipment'' means--
(1) an article for which special export controls are warranted under
the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2751 et seq.) because of its
capacity for substantial military utility or capability, as identified
on the United States Munitions List maintained under section 121.1 of
title 22, Code of Federal Regulations; and
(2) any other article designated by the Department of Defense as
requiring demilitarization before its disposal.
* * * * * * *
2582. Military equipment identified on United States munitions
list: annual report of public sales
(a) Report Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall prepare an
annual report identifying each public sale conducted by a military
department or Defense Agency of military items that are--
(1) identified on the United States Munitions List maintained under
section 121.1 of title 22, Code of Federal Regulations; and
(2) assigned a demilitarization code of ``B'' or its equivalent.
(b) Elements of Report.--(1) A report under this section shall cover
all public sales described in subsection (a) that were conducted during
the preceding fiscal year.
(2) The report shall specify the following for each sale:
(A) The date of the sale.
(B) The military department or Defense Agency conducting the sale.
(C) The manner in which the sale was conducted.
(D) The military items described in subsection (a) that were sold or
offered for sale.
(E) The purchaser of each item.
(F) The stated end-use of each item sold.
(c) Submission of Report.--Not later than March 31 of each year, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of
the House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate the report required by this section for the preceding fiscal
year.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 155--ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS AND SERVICES
Sec.
2601. General gift funds.
* * * * * * *
2611. Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies: acceptance of
foreign gifts and donations.
2611. Regional centers for security studies: acceptance of foreign
gifts and donations.
* * * * * * *
2611. Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies: acceptance of
foreign gifts and donations
(a) Authority To Accept Foreign Gifts and Donations.--(1) Subject to
subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may accept, on behalf of the
Asia-Pacific Center, foreign gifts or donations in order to defray the
costs of, or enhance the operation of, the Asia-Pacific Center.
(2) In this section, the term ``Asia-Pacific Center'' means the
Department of Defense organization within the United States Pacific
Command known as the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies.
2611. Regional centers for security studies: acceptance of
foreign gifts and donations
(a) Authority To Accept Foreign Gifts and Donations.--(1) Subject to
subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may accept foreign gifts or
donations in order to defray the costs of, or enhance the operation of,
one of the specified defense regional centers for security studies.
(2) For purposes of this section, a specified defense regional center
for security studies is any of the following:
(A) The Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies.
(B) The George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies.
* * * * * * *
(d) Crediting of Funds.--Funds accepted by the Secretary under
subsection (a) shall be credited to appropriations available to the
Department of Defense for the Asia-Pacific Center the regional center
intended to benefit from the gift or donation of such funds. Funds so
credited shall be merged with the appropriations to which credited and
shall be available to the Asia-Pacific Center such regional center for
the same purposes and same period as the appropriations with which
merged.
(e) Notice to Congress.--If the total amount of funds accepted under
subsection (a) in any fiscal year with respect to a defense regional
center for security studies exceeds $2,000,000, the Secretary shall
notify Congress of the amount of those donations for that fiscal year.
Any such notice shall list each of the contributors of such amounts and
the amount of each contribution in that fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 157--TRANSPORTATION
Sec.
2631. Supplies: preference to United States vessels.
* * * * * * *
2647. Reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection with leave
canceled due to contingency operations.
* * * * * * *
2647. Reimbursement for expenses incurred in connection with
leave canceled due to contingency operations
(a) Authorization To Reimburse.--The Secretary concerned may
reimburse a member of the armed forces under the jurisdiction of the
Secretary for travel and related expenses (to the extent not otherwise
reimbursable under law) incurred by the member as a result of the
cancellation of previously approved leave when the leave is canceled in
connection with the member's participation in a contingency operation
and the cancellation occurs within 48 hours of the time the leave would
have commenced.
(b) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe
regulations to establish the criteria for the applicability of
subsection (a).
(c) Conclusiveness of Settlement.--The settlement of an application
for reimbursement under subsection (a) is final and conclusive.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 159--REAL PROPERTY; RELATED PERSONAL PROPERTY; AND LEASE OF
NONEXCESS PROPERTY
* * * * * * *
2661. Miscellaneous administrative provisions relating to real property
(a) Availability of Operation and Maintenance Funds.--Appropriations
for operation and maintenance of the active forces shall be available
for the following:
(1) The repair of facilities.
(2) The installation of equipment in public and private plants.
(b) General Leasing Authority; Maintenance of Defense Access
Roads.--The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of each military
department may provide for the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Plan To Address Maintenance and Repair Backlog.--(1) The
Secretary of Defense shall develop, and update annually thereafter, a
strategic plan to reduce the backlog in maintenance and repair needs of
facilities and infrastructure under the jurisdiction of the Department
of Defense or a military department. At a minimum, the plan shall
include or address the following:
(A) A comprehensive strategy for the repair and revitalization of
facilities and infrastructure, or for the demolition and replacement of
unusable facilities, carried as backlog by the Secretary concerned.
(B) Measurable goals, over specified time frames, for achieving the
objectives of the strategy.
(C) Expected funding for each military department and Defense Agency
to carry out the strategy during the period covered by the most recent
future-years defense program submitted to Congress pursuant to section
221 of this title.
(D) The cost of the current backlog in maintenance and repair for
each military department and Defense Agency, which shall be determined
using the standard costs to standard facility categories in the
Department of Defense Facilities Cost Factors Handbook, shown both in
the aggregate and individually for each major military installation.
(E) The total number of square feet of building space of each
military department and Defense Agency to be demolished or proposed for
demolition under the plan, shown both in the aggregate and individually
for each major military installation.
(F) The initiatives underway to identify facility and infrastructure
requirements at military installation to accommodate new and developing
weapons systems and to prepare installations to accommodate these
systems.
(2) Not later than March 15, 2001, the Secretary shall submit the
strategic plan to Congress. The annual updates shall be submitted to
Congress each year at or about the time that the President's budget is
submitted to Congress that year under section 1105(a) of title 31.
* * * * * * *
2662. Real property transactions: reports to congressional committees
(a) General Notice and Wait Requirements.--The Secretary of a
military department, or his designee, may not enter into any of the
following listed transactions by or for the use of that department until
after the expiration of 30 days from the date upon which a report of the
facts concerning the proposed transaction is submitted to the Committee
on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of
the House of Representatives:
(1) An acquisition of fee title to any real property, if the
estimated price is more than $200,000 $500,000.
(2) A lease of any real property to the United States, if the
estimated annual rental is more than $200,000 $500,000.
(3) A lease or license of real property owned by the United States,
if the estimated annual fair market rental value of the property is more
than $200,000 $500,000.
(4) A transfer of real property owned by the United States to
another Federal agency or another military department or to a State, if
the estimated value is more than $200,000 $500,000.
(5) A report of excess real property owned by the United States to a
disposal agency, if the estimated value is more than $200,000 $500,000.
* * * * * * *
(b) Annual Reports on Certain Minor Transactions.--The Secretary of
each military department shall submit annually to the congressional
committees named in subsection (a) a report on transactions described in
subsection (a) that involve an estimated value of more than the
simplified acquisition threshold under section 2304(g) of this title
specified in section 4(11) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Act (41 U.S.C. 403(11)), but not more than $200,000 $500,000.
* * * * * * *
(e) Notice and Wait Regarding Leases of Space for DoD by GSA.--No
element of the Department of Defense shall occupy any general purpose
space leased for it by the General Services Administration at an annual
rental in excess of $200,000 $500,000 (excluding the cost of utilities
and other operation and maintenance services), if the effect of such
occupancy is to increase the total amount of such leased space occupied
by all elements of the Department of Defense, until the expiration of
thirty days from the date upon which a report of the facts concerning
the proposed occupancy is submitted to the congressional committees
named in subsection (a).
* * * * * * *
2667. Leases: non-excess property of military departments
(a) Whenever the Secretary of a military department considers it
advantageous to the United States, he may lease to such lessee and upon
such terms as he considers will promote the national defense or be in
the public interest, real or personal property that is--
(1) under the control of that department; and
(2) not for the time needed for public use; and
(3) (2) not excess property, as defined by section 3 of the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 472).
(b) A lease under subsection (a)--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) may provide, notwithstanding section 321 of the Act of June 30,
1932 (40 U.S.C. 303b), or any other provision of law, for the
improvement, maintenance, protection, repair, or restoration,
alteration, repair, or improvement, by the lessee, of the property
leased, or of the entire unit or installation where a substantial part
of it is leased, as the payment of part or all of the consideration for
the lease.
(c)(1) In addition to any in-kind consideration accepted under
subsection (b)(5), in-kind consideration accepted with respect to a
lease under subsection (b) may include the following:
(A) Maintenance, protection, alteration, repair, improvement, or
restoration (including environmental restoration) of property or
facilities under the control of the Secretary concerned.
(B) Provision of facilities for use by the Secretary concerned.
(C) Facilities operation support for the Secretary concerned.
(D) Provision of such other services relating to activities that
will occur on the leased property as the Secretary concerned considers
appropriate.
(2) In-kind consideration under paragraph (1) may be accepted at any
property or facilities under the control of the Secretary concerned that
are selected for that purpose by the Secretary concerned.
(3) The Secretary concerned may not accept in-kind consideration
during a fiscal year with respect to leases under subsection (a) until
the Comptroller General certifies to the Secretary concerned that the
total received by the Secretary concerned as money rentals for that
fiscal year under such leases is equal to the total money rentals under
such leases received by the Secretary concerned during fiscal year 2000.
(4) In the case of a lease for which all or part of the consideration
proposed to be accepted by the Secretary concerned under this subsection
is in-kind consideration with a value in excess of $500,000, the
Secretary concerned may not enter into the lease until 30 days after the
date on which a report on the facts of the lease is submitted to the
congressional defense committees.
(d)(1)(A) * * *
(B) Sums deposited in a military department's special account
pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be available to such military
department, as provided in appropriation Acts, as follows:
(i) 50 percent of such amount shall be available for facility
maintenance and repair or environmental restoration at the military
installation where the leased property is located.
(ii) 50 percent of such amount shall be available for facility
maintenance and repair and for environmental restoration by the military
department concerned.
(B) Subject to subparagraphs (C) and (D), the amounts deposited in
the special account of a military department pursuant to subparagraph
(A) shall be available to the Secretary of that military department, in
such amounts as provided in appropriation Acts, for the following:
(i) Maintenance, protection, alteration, repair, improvement, or
restoration (including environmental restoration) of property or
facilities.
(ii) Lease of facilities.
(iii) Facilities operation support.
(C) At least 50 percent of the amounts deposited in the special
account of a military department under subparagraph (A) by reason of a
lease shall be available for activities described in subparagraph (B)
only at the military installation where the leased property is located.
(D) The Secretary concerned may not expend under subparagraph (B) an
amount in excess of $500,000 at a single installation until 30 days
after the date on which a report on the facts of the proposed
expenditure is submitted to the congressional defense committees.
* * * * * * *
(3) As part of the request for authorizations of appropriations
submitted to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the
Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives for each
fiscal year, the Secretary of Defense Not later than March 15 each year,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense
committees a report which shall include--
(A) an accounting of the receipt and use of all money rentals that
were deposited and expended under this subsection during the fiscal year
preceding the fiscal year in which the request report is made; and
* * * * * * *
(f)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) The Secretary concerned may accept under subsection (b)(5)
services of a lessee for an entire installation to be closed or
realigned under a base closure law, or for any part of such
installation, without regard to the requirement in subsection (b)(5)
that a substantial part of the installation be leased.
(5) (4)(A) Notwithstanding the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the scope of any environmental impact
analysis necessary to support an interim lease of property under this
subsection shall be limited to the environmental consequences of
activities authorized under the proposed lease and the cumulative
impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
actions during the period of the proposed lease.
* * * * * * *
(h) In this section, the term ``base closure law'' means each of the
following:
(1) The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of
title XXIX of Public Law 101 510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
(2) Title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base
Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100 526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
(3) Section 2687 of this title.
(h) In this section:
(1) The term ``congressional defense committees'' means:
(A) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations of the Senate.
(B) The Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
(2) The term ``base closure law'' means the following:
(A) Section 2687 of this title.
(B) The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of
title XXIX of Public Law 101 510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
(C) Title II of the Defense Authorization Amendments and Base
Closure and Realignment Act (Public Law 100 526; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
(3) The term ``military installation'' has the meaning given such
term in section 2687(e)(1) of this title.
(c) (i) This section does not apply to oil, mineral, or phosphate
lands.
* * * * * * *
2685. Adjustment of or surcharge on selling prices in
commissary stores to provide funds for construction and improvement of
commissary store facilities
(a) Adjustment or Surcharge Authorized.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary of a military department, under
regulations established by him and approved by the Secretary of Defense,
Secretary of Defense may, for the purposes of this section, provide for
an adjustment of, or surcharge on, sales prices of goods and services
sold in commissary store facilities.
(b) Use for Construction and Improvement of Facilities.--The
Secretary of a military department, under regulations established by him
and approved by the Secretary of Defense, may use the proceeds from the
adjustments or surcharges authorized by subsection (a) to acquire,
construct, convert, expand, install, or otherwise improve commissary
store facilities at defense installations and for related environmental
evaluation and construction costs, including surveys, administration,
overhead, planning, and design.
(b) Use for Construction, Repair, Improvement, and Maintenance.--(1)
The Secretary of Defense may use the proceeds from the adjustments or
surcharges authorized by subsection (a) only--
(A) to acquire (including acquisition by lease), construct, convert,
expand, improve, repair, maintain, and equip the physical infrastructure
of commissary stores and central product processing facilities of the
defense commissary system; and
(B) to cover environmental evaluation and construction costs,
including surveys, administration, overhead, planning, and design,
related to activities described in paragraph (1).
(2) In paragraph (1), the term ``physical infrastructure'' includes
real property, utilities, and equipment (installed and free standing and
including computer equipment), necessary to provide a complete and
usable commissary store or central product processing facility.
(c) Advance Obligation.--The Secretary of a military department, with
the approval of the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Defense, with
the approval of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, may
obligate anticipated proceeds from the adjustments or surcharges
authorized by subsection (a) for any use specified in subsection (b) or
(d), without regard to fiscal year limitations, if the Secretary of the
military department determines Secretary determines that such obligation
is necessary to carry out any use of such adjustments or surcharges
specified in subsection (b) or (d).
(d) Cooperation With Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities.--(1) The
Secretary of a military department Secretary of Defense may authorize a
nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the United States to enter into
a contract for construction of a shopping mall or similar facility for a
commissary store and one or more nonappropriated fund instrumentality
activities. The Secretary may use the proceeds of adjustments or
surcharges authorized by subsection (a) to reimburse the nonappropriated
fund instrumentality for the portion of the cost of the contract that is
attributable to construction of the commissary store or to pay the
contractor directly for that portion of such cost.
* * * * * * *
2688. Utility systems: conveyance authority
(a) * * *
(b) Selection of Conveyee.--If more than one utility or entity
referred to in subsection (a) notifies the Secretary concerned of an
interest in a conveyance under such subsection, the Secretary shall
carry out the conveyance through the use of competitive procedures.
(b) Selection of Conveyee or Awardee.--(1) The Secretary concerned
shall comply with the competition requirements of section 2304 of this
title in conveying a utility system under this section and in awarding
any utility services contract related to the conveyance of the utility
system.
(2) A conveyance or award may be made under paragraph (1) only if the
Secretary concerned determines that the conveyance or award complies
with State laws, regulations, rulings, and policies governing the
provision of utility services. Such State laws, regulations, rulings,
and policies shall apply to the conveyee or awardee notwithstanding the
existence of exclusive federal legislative jurisdiction as to any
parcels of land served by the utility system.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 160--ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
* * * * * * *
2703. Environmental restoration accounts
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Obligation of Authorized Amounts.--Funds authorized for deposit
in an account under subsection (a) may be obligated or expended from the
account only in order to carry out the environmental restoration
functions of the Secretary of Defense and the
Secretaries of the military departments under this chapter and
under any other provision of law. Funds so authorized shall remain
available until expended.
(b) Obligation of Authorized Amounts.--(1) Funds authorized for
deposit in an account under subsection (a) may be obligated or expended
from the account only--
(A) to carry out the environmental restoration functions of the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments
under this chapter and under any other provision of law; and
(B) to relocate activities from defense sites, including sites
formerly used by the Department of Defense that are released from
Federal Government control, at which the Secretary is responsible for
environmental restoration functions.
(2) The authority provided by paragraph (1)(B) expires September 30,
2003. Not more than five percent of the funds deposited in an account
under subsection (a) for a fiscal year may be used for activities under
paragraph (1)(B).
(3) If relocation assistance under paragraph (1)(B) is to be provided
with respect to a site formerly used by the Department of Defense, but
now released from Federal Government control, the Secretary of Defense
or the Secretary of the military department concerned may use only fund
transfer mechanisms otherwise available to the Secretary. The Secretary
may not provide assistance under such paragraph for permanent relocation
from the affected site unless the Secretary determines that permanent
relocation is the most cost effective method of dealing with the
activities located at the affected site and notifies the Congress of the
determination before providing the assistance.
(4) Funds authorized for deposit in an account under subsection (a)
shall remain available until expended.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 169--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
* * * * * * *
2826. Limitations on space by pay grade
(a) In the construction, acquisition, and improvement of military
family housing units, the following are the space limitations for the
applicable numbers of bedrooms permitted for each pay grade:
Pay grade Number of bedrooms Net floor area (square feet)
O 7 and above 4 2,100
O 6 4 1,700
O 4 and O 5 4 1,550
3 1,400
O 1 through O 3; W 1 through W 4; and E 7 through E 9 5 1,550
4 1,450
3 1,350
2 950
1 through E 6 5 1,550
4 1,350
3 1,200
2 950
(b) The applicable maximum net floor area prescribed by subsection
(a) may be increased by 10 percent for the housing unit of an officer
holding a special command position (as designated by the Secretary of
Defense), for the housing unit of the commanding officer of a military
installation, and for the senior noncommissioned officer of a military
installation.
(c) The maximum net floor area prescribed by subsection (a) may be
increased in any case by 5 percent if the Secretary concerned determines
that the increase is in the best interest of the Government (1) to
permit award of a turnkey construction contract to the contractor
offering the most satisfactory proposal, or (2) to permit purchase,
lease, or conversion of housing units. An increase in the maximum net
floor area of a housing unit under subsection (b) when combined with an
increase in the maximum net floor area of such unit under this
subsection may not exceed 10 percent of the otherwise applicable
limitation prescribed by subsection (a).
(d) The applicable maximum net floor area prescribed by subsection
(a) may be increased by 300 square feet for a family housing unit in a
location where harsh climatological conditions severely restrict outdoor
activity for a significant part of each year, as determined by the
Secretary concerned pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary
of Defense. The regulations shall apply uniformly to the armed forces.
(e) In the case of the acquisition by purchase of military family
housing units for members of the armed forces in pay grades below pay
grade O 6, the applicable maximum net floor area prescribed by
subsection (a) may be increased by 20 percent if the Secretary concerned
determines that the purchase of larger units is cost effective when
compared to available units within the space limitations specified in
that subsection.
(f)(1) The Secretary concerned may waive the provisions of subsection
(a) with respect to a family housing unit leased in a foreign country if
a suitable family housing unit within the applicable maximum net floor
area prescribed by such subsection cannot be obtained.
(2) Subsection (a) does not apply to family housing units in foreign
countries constructed or acquired by the Secretary of State for
occupancy by members of the armed forces.
(g) The maximum net floor areas prescribed by this section apply to
family housing provided to civilian personnel based upon civilian pay
scale comparability with military pay grades, as determined by the
Secretary of Defense.
(h) In this section, the term ``net floor area'' means the total
number of square feet of the floor space inside the exterior walls of a
structure, excluding the floor area of an unfinished basement, an
unfinished attic, a utility space, a garage, a carport, an open or
insect-screened porch, a stairwell, and any space used for a
solar-energy system.
(i)(1) The Secretary concerned may waive the provisions of subsection
(a) with respect to military family housing units constructed, acquired,
or improved during the five-year period beginning on February 10, 1996.
(2) The total number of military family housing units constructed,
acquired, or improved during any fiscal year in the period referred to
in paragraph (1) shall be the total number of such units authorized by
law for that fiscal year.
2826. Limitations on space by pay grade
In the construction, acquisition, and improvement of military family
housing units, the Secretary concerned shall ensure that the room
patterns and floor areas are generally comparable to the room patterns
and floor areas of similar housing units in the locality concerned.
* * * * * * *
2828. Leasing of military family housing
(a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) (A) The Secretary of the Army may lease not more than eight
housing units in the vicinity of Miami, Florida, for key and essential
personnel, as designated by the Secretary, for the United States
Southern Command for which the expenditure for the rental of such units
(including the cost of utilities, maintenance, and operation, including
security enhancements) exceeds the expenditure limitations in paragraphs
(2) and (3). The total amount for all leases under this paragraph may
not exceed $280,000 per year, and no lease on any individual housing
unit may exceed $60,000 per year and the lease payments shall be made
out of annual appropriations for that year. A lease under this paragraph
may not exceed five years.
(B) At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Secretary of the Army
shall adjust the maximum amount provided for leases under subparagraph
(A) for the previous fiscal year by the percentage (if any) by which the
basic allowance for housing under section 403 of title 37 for the Miami
metropolitan area during the preceding fiscal year exceeded such basic
allowance for housing for the second preceding fiscal year.
(5) At the beginning of each fiscal year, the Secretary concerned
shall adjust the maximum lease amount provided for under paragraphs (2),
(3), and (4) paragraphs (2) and (3) for the previous fiscal year by the
percentage (if any) by which the Consumer Price Index for All Urban
Consumers, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, during the
preceding fiscal year exceeds such Consumer Price Index for the fiscal
year before such preceding fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IV--ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITY FOR ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF
MILITARY HOUSING
* * * * * * *
2885. Expiration of authority
The authority to enter into a contract under this subchapter shall
expire on February 10, 2001 2006.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Army
* * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 367--RETIREMENT FOR LENGTH OF SERVICE
* * * * * * *
3911. Twenty years or more: regular or reserve commissioned officers
(a) * * *
(b) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of the Army,
during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on September
30, 2001 December 31, 2001, to reduce the requirement under subsection
(a) for at least 10 years of active service as a commissioned officer to
a period (determined by the Secretary of the Army) of not less than
eight years.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 369--RETIRED GRADE
* * * * * * *
3961. General rule
(a) The retired grade of a regular commissioned officer of the Army
who retires other than for physical disability, and the retired grade of
a reserve commissioned officer of the Army who retires other than for
physical disability or for nonregular service under chapter 1223 of this
title, is determined under section 1370 of this title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 373--CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
Sec.
4021. Army War College and United States Army Command and General
Staff College: civilian faculty members.
* * * * * * *
4027. Civilian special agents of the Criminal Investigation
Command: authority to execute warrants and make arrests.
* * * * * * *
4027. Civilian special agents of the Criminal Investigation
Command: authority to execute warrants and make arrests
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of the Army may authorize any
Department of the Army civilian employee described in subsection (b) to
have the same authority to execute and serve warrants and other
processes issued under the authority of the United States and to make
arrests without a warrant as may be authorized under section 1585a of
this title for special agents of the Defense Criminal Investigative
Service.
(b) Agents To Have Authority.--Subsection (a) applies to any employee
of the Department of the Army who is a special agent of the Army
Criminal Investigation Command (or a successor to that command) whose
duties include conducting, supervising, or coordinating investigations
of criminal activity in programs and operations of the Department of the
Army.
(c) Guidelines for Exercise of Authority.--The authority provided
under subsection (a) shall be exercised in accordance with guidelines
prescribed by the Secretary of the Army and approved by the Secretary of
Defense and the Attorney General and any other applicable guidelines
prescribed by the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Defense, or
the Attorney General.
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 407--SCHOOLS AND CAMPS
Sec.
4411. Establishment: purpose.
* * * * * * *
4415. United States Army School of the Americas.
* * * * * * *
4415. United States Army School of the Americas
(a) The Secretary of the Army may operate the military education and
training facility known as the United States Army School of the
Americas.
(b) The School of the Americas shall be operated for the purpose of
providing military education and training to military personnel of
Central and South American countries and Caribbean countries.
(c) The fixed costs of operating and maintaining the School of the
Americas may be paid from funds available for operation and maintenance
of the Army.
(d) Tuition fees charged for personnel receiving military education
and training from the school may not include the fixed costs of
operating and maintaining the school.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Navy and Marine Corps
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 506--HEADQUARTERS, MARINE CORPS
Sec.
5041. Headquarters, Marine Corps: function; composition.
* * * * * * *
5045. Chief of Staff; Deputy and Assistant Chiefs of Staff.
5045. Deputy Commandants.
* * * * * * *
5041. Headquarters, Marine Corps: function; composition
(a) * * *
(b) The Headquarters, Marine Corps, is composed of the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The Chief of Staff of the Marine Corps.
(4) The Deputy Chiefs of Staff.
(5) The Assistant Chiefs of Staff.
(3) The Deputy Commandants.
(6) (4) Other members of the Navy and Marine Corps assigned or
detailed to the Headquarters, Marine Corps.
(7) (5) Civilian employees in the Department of the Navy assigned or
detailed to the Headquarters, Marine Corps.
* * * * * * *
5045. Chief of Staff; Deputy and Assistant Chiefs of Staff
There are in the Headquarters, Marine Corps, a Chief of Staff, not
more than five Deputy Chiefs of Staff, and not more than three Assistant
Chiefs of Staff, detailed by the Secretary of the Navy from officers on
the active-duty list of the Marine Corps.
5045. Deputy Commandants
There are in the Headquarters Marine Corps, not more than five Deputy
Commandants, detailed by the Secretary of the Navy from officers on the
active-duty list of the Marine Corps.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 513--BUREAUS; OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL
* * * * * * *
5143. Office of Naval Reserve: appointment of Chief
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Grade.--(1) * * *
(2) The Chief of Naval Reserve, while so serving, has a grade has the
grade of rear admiral, without vacating the officer's permanent grade.
However, if selected in accordance with section 12505 of this title, he
may be appointed in the grade of vice admiral.
* * * * * * *
5144. Office of Marine Forces Reserve: appointment of Commander
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)
* * * * * * *
(2) The Commander, Marine Forces Reserve, while so serving, has a
grade has the grade of major general, without vacating the officer's
permanent grade. However, if selected in accordance with section 12505
of this title, he may be appointed in the grade of lieutenant general.
* * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 555--ADMINISTRATION
Sec.
6011. Navy Regulations.
* * * * * * *
6035. Female members: congressional review period for assignment
to duty on submarines or for reconfiguration of submarines.
6035. Female members: congressional review period for
assignment to duty on submarines or for reconfiguration of submarines
(a) No change in the Department of the Navy policy limiting service
on submarines to males, as in effect on May 10, 2000, may take effect
until--
(1) the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress written notice of
the proposed change; and
(2) a period of 120 days of continuous session of Congress expires
following the date on which the notice is received.
(b) No funds available to the Department of the Navy may be expended
to reconfigure any existing submarine, or to design any new submarine,
to accommodate female crew members until--
(1) the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress written notice of
the proposed reconfiguration or design; and
(2) a period of 120 days of continuous session of Congress expires
following the date on which the notice is received.
(c) For purposes of this section--
(1) the continuity of a session of Congress is broken only by an
adjournment of the Congress sine die; and
(2) the days on which either House of Congress is not in session
because of an adjournment of more than three days to a day certain are
excluded in the computation of such 120-day period.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 571--VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT
* * * * * * *
6323. Officers: 20 years
(a)(1) * * *
(2) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of the Navy,
during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on September
30, 2001 December 31, 2001, to reduce the requirement under paragraph
(1) for at least 10 years of active service as a commissioned officer to
a period (determined by the Secretary) of not less than eight years.
* * * * * * *
PART III--EDUCATION AND TRAINING
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 605--UNITED STATES NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
Sec.
7041. Function.
* * * * * * *
7049. Defense industry civilians: admission to defense product
development program.
* * * * * * *
7049. Defense industry civilians: admission to defense product
development program
(a) Authority for Admission.--The Secretary of the Navy may permit
eligible defense industry employees to receive instruction at the Naval
Postgraduate School in accordance with this section. Any such defense
industry employee may only be enrolled in, and may only be provided
instruction in, a program leading to a masters's degree in a curriculum
related to defense product development. No more than 10 such defense
industry employees may be enrolled at any one time. Upon successful
completion of the course of instruction in which enrolled, any such
defense industry employee may be awarded an appropriate degree under
section 7048 of this title.
(b) Eligible Defense Industry Employees.--For purposes of this
section, an eligible defense industry employee is an individual employed
by a private firm that is engaged in providing to the Department of
Defense significant and substantial defense-related systems, products,
or services. A defense industry employee admitted for instruction at the
school remains eligible for such instruction only so long at that person
remains employed by the same firm.
(c) Annual Certification by the Secretary of the Navy.--Defense
industry employees may receive instruction at the school during any
academic year only if, before the start of that academic year, the
Secretary of the Navy determines, and certifies to the Committee on
Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives, that providing instruction to defense industry
employees under this section during that year--
(1) will further the military mission of the school;
(2) will enhance the ability of the Department of Defense and
defense-oriented private sector contractors engaged in the design and
development of defense systems to reduce the product and project lead
times required to bring such systems to initial operational capability;
and
(3) will be done on a space-available basis and not require an
increase in the size of the faculty of the school, an increase in the
course offerings of the school, or an increase in the laboratory
facilities or other infrastructure of the school.
(d) Program Requirements.--The Secretary of the Navy shall ensure
that--
(1) the curriculum for the defense product development program in
which defense industry employees may be enrolled under this section is
not readily available through other schools and concentrates on defense
product development functions that are conducted by military
organizations and defense contractors working in close cooperation; and
(2) the course offerings at the school continue to be determined
solely by the needs of the Department of Defense.
(e) Tuition.--The Superintendent of the school shall charge tuition
for students enrolled under this section at a rate not less than the
rate charged for employees of the United States outside the Department
of the Navy.
(f) Standards of Conduct.--While receiving instruction at the school,
students enrolled under this section, to the extent practicable, are
subject to the same regulations governing academic performance,
attendance, norms of behavior, and enrollment as apply to Government
civilian employees receiving instruction at the school.
(g) Use of Funds.--Amounts received by the school for instruction of
students enrolled under this section shall be retained by the school to
defray the costs of such instruction. The source, and the disposition,
of such funds shall be specifically identified in records of the school.
PART IV--GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 643--CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
Sec.
7472. Physical examination: employees engaged in hazardous occupations.
* * * * * * *
7451. Special agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service:
authority to execute warrants and make arrests.
* * * * * * *
7451. Special agents of the Naval Criminal Investigative
Service: authority to execute warrants and make arrests
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of the Navy may authorize any
Department of the Navy civilian employee described in subsection (b) to
have the same authority to execute and serve warrants and other
processes issued under the authority of the United States and to make
arrests without a warrant as may be authorized under section 1585a of
this title for special agents of the Defense Criminal Investigative
Service.
(b) Agents To Have Authority.--Subsection (a) applies to any employee
of the Department of the Navy who is a special agent of the Naval
Criminal Investigative Service (or any successor to that service) whose
duties include conducting, supervising, or coordinating investigations
of criminal activity in programs and operations of the Department of the
Navy.
(c) Guidelines for Exercise of Authority.--The authority provided
under subsection (a) shall be exercised in accordance with guidelines
prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy and approved by the Secretary of
Defense and the Attorney General and any other applicable guidelines
prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy, the Secretary of Defense, or
the Attorney General.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Air Force
* * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 867--RETIREMENT FOR LENGTH OF SERVICE
* * * * * * *
8911. Twenty years or more: regular or reserve commissioned officers
(a) * * *
(b) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of the Air
Force, during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on
September 30, 2001 December 31, 2001, to reduce the requirement under
subsection (a) for at least 10 years of active service as a commissioned
officer to a period (determined by the Secretary of the Air Force) of
not less than eight years.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 873--CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
Sec.
9021. Air University: civilian faculty members.
* * * * * * *
9027. Civilian special agents of the Office of Special
Investigations: authority to execute warrants and make arrests.
* * * * * * *
9027. Civilian special agents of the Office of Special
Investigations: authority to execute warrants and make arrests
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of the Air Force may authorize any
Department of the Air Force civilian employee described in subsection
(b) to have the same authority to execute and serve warrants and other
processes issued under the authority of the United States and to make
arrests without a warrant as may be authorized under section 1585a of
this title for special agents of the Defense Criminal Investigative
Service.
(b) Agents To Have Authority.--Subsection (a) applies to any employee
of the Department of the Air Force who is a special agent of the Air
Force Office of Special Investigations (or a successor to that office)
whose duties include conducting, supervising, or coordinating
investigations of criminal activity in programs and operations of the
Department of the Air Force.
(c) Guidelines for Exercise of Authority.--The authority provided
under subsection (a) shall be exercised in accordance with guidelines
prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force and approved by the
Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General and any other applicable
guidelines prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary
of Defense, or the Attorney General.
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 909--CIVIL AIR PATROL
Sec.
9441. Status: support by Air Force; employment.
9442. Assistance by other agencies.
9441. Status: support by Air Force; employment
(a) The Civil Air Patrol is a volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air
Force.
(b) To assist the Civil Air Patrol in the fulfillment of its
objectives as set forth in section 40302 of title 36, the Secretary of
the Air Force may, under regulations prescribed by him with the approval
of the Secretary of Defense--
(1) give, lend, or sell to the Civil Air Patrol without regard to
the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as amended
(40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.)--
(A) major items of equipment, including aircraft, motor vehicles,
and communication equipment; and
(B) necessary related supplies and training aids;
that are excess to the military departments;
(2) permit the use of such services and facilities of the Air Force
as he considers to be needed by the Civil Air Patrol to carry out its
mission;
(3) furnish such quantities of fuel and lubricants to the Civil Air
Patrol as are needed by it to carry out any mission assigned to it by
the Air Force, including unit capability testing missions and training
missions;
(4) establish, maintain, and supply liaison offices of the Air Force
at the National, State, and Territorial headquarters, and at not more
than eight regional headquarters, of the Civil Air Patrol;
(5) detail or assign any member of the Air Force or any officer or
employee of the Department of the Air Force to any liaison office at the
National, State, or Territorial headquarters, and at not more than eight
regional headquarters, of the Civil Air Patrol;
(6) detail any member of the Air Force or any officer or employee of
the Department of the Air Force to any unit or installation of the Civil
Air Patrol to assist in the training program of the Civil Air Patrol;
(7) in time of war, or of national emergency declared after May 27,
1954, by Congress or the President, authorize the payment of travel
expenses and allowances, in accordance with subchapter I of chapter 57
of title 5, to members of the Civil Air Patrol while carrying out any
mission specifically assigned by the Air Force;
(8) provide funds for the national headquarters of the Civil Air
Patrol, including funds for the payment of staff compensation and
benefits, administrative expenses, travel, per diem and allowances, rent
and utilities, and other operational expenses;
(9) authorize the payment of aircraft maintenance expenses relating
to operational missions, unit capability testing missions, and training
missions;
(10) authorize the payment of expenses of placing into serviceable
condition major items of equipment (including aircraft, motor vehicles,
and communications equipment) owned by the Civil Air Patrol;
(11) reimburse the Civil Air Patrol for costs incurred for the
purchase of such major items of equipment as the Secretary considers
needed by the Civil Air Patrol to carry out its missions; and
(12) furnish articles of the Air Force uniform to Civil Air Patrol
cadets without cost to such cadets.
(c) The Secretary may use the services of the Civil Air Patrol in
fulfilling the noncombat mission of the Department of the Air Force, and
for purposes of determining the civil liability of the Civil Air Patrol
(or any member thereof) with respect to any act or omission committed by
the Civil Air Patrol (or any member thereof) in fulfilling such mission,
the Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of the
United States.
(d)(1) The Secretary of the Air Force may authorize the Civil Air
Patrol to employ, as administrators and liaison officers, persons
retired from service in the Air Force whose qualifications are approved
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary and who request such
employment.
(2) A person employed pursuant to paragraph (1) may receive the
person's retired pay and an additional amount for such employment that
is not more than the difference between the person's retired pay and the
pay and allowances the person would be entitled to receive if ordered to
active duty in the grade in which the person retired from service in the
Air Force. The additional amount shall be paid to the Civil Air Patrol
by the Secretary from funds appropriated for that purpose.
(3) A person employed pursuant to paragraph (1) may not, while so
employed, be considered to be on active duty or inactive-duty training
for any purpose.
9442. Assistance by other agencies
The Secretary of the Air Force may arrange for the use by the Civil
Air Patrol of such facilities and services under the jurisdiction of the
Secretry of the Army, the Secretary of the Navy, or the head of any
other department or agency of the United States as the Secretary of the
Air Force considers to be needed by the Civil Air Patrol to carry out
its mission. Any such arrangements shall be made under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force with the approval of the
Secretary of Defense and shall be subject to the agreement of the other
military department or other department or agency of the United States
furnishing the facilities or services.
CHAPTER 909--CIVIL AIR PATROL
Sec.
9441. Status as federally chartered corporation; purposes.
9442. Status as volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force.
9443. Activities not performed as auxiliary of the Air Force.
9444. Activities performed as auxiliary of the Air Force.
9445. Funds appropriated for the Civil Air Patrol.
9446. Miscellaneous personnel authorities.
9447. Board of Governors.
9448. Regulations.
9441. Status as federally chartered corporation; purposes
(a) Status.--(1) The Civil Air Patrol is a nonprofit corporation that
is federally chartered under section 40301 of title 36.
(2) Except as provided in section 9442(b)(2) of this title, the Civil
Air Patrol is not an instrumentality of the Federal Government for any
purpose.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of the Civil Air Patrol are set forth in
section 40302 of title 36.
9442. Status as volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force
(a) Volunteer Civilian Auxiliary.--The Civil Air Patrol is a
volunteer civilian auxiliary of the Air Force when the services of the
Civil Air Patrol are used by any department or agency in any branch of
the Federal Government.
(b) Use by Air Force.--(1) The Secretary of the Air Force may use the
services of the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the noncombat programs and
missions of the Department of the Air Force.
(2) The Civil Air Patrol shall be deemed to be an instrumentality of
the United States with respect to any act or omission of the Civil Air
Patrol, including any member of the Civil Air Patrol, in carrying out a
mission assigned by the Secretary of the Air Force.
9443. Activities not performed as auxiliary of the Air Force
(a) Support for State and Local Authorities.--The Civil Air Patrol
may, in its status as a federally chartered nonprofit corporation and
not as an auxiliary of the Air Force, provide assistance requested by
State or local governmental authorities to perform disaster relief
missions and activities, other emergency missions and activities, and
nonemergency missions and activities. Missions and activities carried
out under this section shall be consistent with the purposes of the
Civil Air Patrol.
(b) Use of Federally Provided Resources.--(1) To perform any mission
or activity authorized under subsection (a), the Civil Air Patrol may
use any equipment, supplies, and other resources provided to it by the
Air Force or by any other department or agency of the Federal Government
or acquired by or for the Civil Air Patrol with appropriated funds,
without regard to whether the Civil Air Patrol has reimbursed the
Federal Government source for the equipment, supplies, other resources,
or funds, as the case may be.
(2) The use of equipment, supplies, or other resources under
paragraph (1) is subject to--
(A) the terms and conditions of the applicable agreement entered
into under chapter 63 of title 31; and
(B) the laws and regulations that govern the use by nonprofit
corporations of federally provided assets or of assets purchased with
appropriated funds, as the case may be.
(c) Authority Not Contingent on Reimbursement.--The authority for the
Civil Air Patrol to provide assistance under subsections (a) and (b) is
not contingent on the Civil Air Patrol being reimbursed for the cost of
providing the assistance. If the Civil Air Patrol requires reimbursement
for the provision of assistance under such subsections, the Civil Air
Patrol may establish the reimbursement rate at a rate less than the
rates charged by private sector sources for equivalent services.
(d) Liability Insurance.--The Secretary of the Air Force may provide
the Civil Air Patrol with funds for paying the cost of liability
insurance for missions and activities carried out under this section.
9444. Activities performed as auxiliary of the Air Force
(a) Air Force Support for Activities.--The Secretary of the Air Force
may furnish to the Civil Air Patrol in accordance with this section any
equipment, supplies, and other resources that the Secretary determines
necessary to enable the Civil Air Patrol to fulfill the missions
assigned by the Secretary to the Civil Air Patrol as an auxiliary of the
Air Force.
(b) Forms of Air Force Support.--The Secretary of the Air Force may,
under subsection (a)--
(1) give, lend, or sell to the Civil Air Patrol without regard to
the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C.
471 et seq.)--
(A) major items of equipment (including aircraft, motor vehicles,
computers, and communications equipment) that are excess to the military
departments; and
(B) necessary related supplies and training aids that are excess to
the military departments;
(2) permit the use, with or without charge, of services and
facilities of the Air Force;
(3) furnish supplies (including fuel, lubricants, and other items
required for vehicle and aircraft operations) or provide funds for the
acquisition of supplies;
(4) establish, maintain, and supply liaison officers of the Air
Force at the national, regional, State, and territorial headquarters of
the Civil Air Patrol;
(5) detail or assign any member of the Air Force or any officer,
employee, or contractor of the Department of the Air Force to any
liaison office at the national, regional, State, or territorial
headquarters of the Civil Air Patrol;
(6) detail any member of the Air Force or any officer, employee, or
contractor of the Department of the Air Force to any unit or
installation of the Civil Air Patrol to assist in the training programs
of the Civil Air Patrol;
(7) authorize the payment of travel expenses and allowances, at
rates not to exceed those paid to employees of the United States under
subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, to members of the Civil Air
Patrol while the members are carrying out programs or missions
specifically assigned by the Air Force;
(8) provide funds for the national headquarters of the Civil Air
Patrol, including--
(A) funds for the payment of staff compensation and benefits,
administrative expenses, travel, per diem and allowances, rent,
utilities, other operational expenses of the national headquarters; and
(B) to the extent considered necessary by the Secretary of the Air
Force to fulfill Air Force requirements, funds for the payment of
compensation and benefits for key staff at regional, State, or
territorial headquarters;
(9) authorize the payment of expenses of placing into serviceable
condition, improving, and maintaining equipment (including aircraft,
motor vehicles, computers, and communications equipment) owned or leased
by the Civil Air Patrol;
(10) provide funds for the lease or purchase of items of equipment
that the Secretary determines necessary for the Civil Air Patrol;
(11) support the Civil Air Patrol cadet program by furnishing--
(A) articles of the Air Force uniform to cadets without cost; and
(B) any other support that the Secretary of the Air Force determines
is consistent with Air Force missions and objectives; and
(12) provide support, including appropriated funds, for the Civil
Air Patrol aerospace education program to the extent that the Secretary
of the Air Force determines appropriate for furthering the fulfillment
of Air Force missions and objectives.
(c) Assistance by Other Agencies.--(1) The Secretary of the Air Force
may arrange for the use by the Civil Air Patrol of such facilities and
services under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Army, the
Secretary of the Navy, or the head of any other department or agency of
the United States as the Secretary of the Air Force considers to be
needed by the Civil Air Patrol to carry out its mission.
(2) An arrangement for use of facilities or services of a military
department or other department or agency under this subsection shall be
subject to the agreement of the Secretary of the military department or
head of the other department or agency, as the case may be.
(3) Each arrangement under this subsection shall be made in
accordance with regulations prescribed under section 9448 of this title.
9445. Funds appropriated for the Civil Air Patrol
Funds appropriated for the Civil Air Patrol shall be available only
for the exclusive use of the Civil Air Patrol.
9446. Miscellaneous personnel authorities
(a) Use of Retired Air Force Personnel.--(1) Upon the request of a
person retired from service in the Air Force, the Secretary of the Air
Force may enter into a personal services contract with that person
providing for the person to serve as an administrator or liaison officer
for the Civil Air Patrol. The qualifications of a person to provide the
services shall be determined and approved in accordance with regulations
prescribed under section 9448 of this title.
(2) To the extent provided in a contract under paragraph (1), a
person providing services under the contract may accept services on
behalf of the Air Force and commit and obligate appropriated funds as
necessary to perform the services.
(3) A person, while providing services under a contract authorized
under paragraph (1), may receive the person's retired pay and an
additional amount for such services that is not less than the amount
equal to the excess of--
(A) the pay and allowances that the person would be entitled to
receive if ordered to active duty in the grade in which the person
retired from service in the Air Force, over
(B) the amount of the person's retired pay.
(4) A person, while providing services under a contract authorized
under paragraph (1), may not be considered to be on active duty or
inactive-duty training for any purpose.
(b) Use of Civil Air Patrol Chaplains.--The Secretary of the Air
Force may use the services of Civil Air Patrol chaplains in support of
the Air Force active duty and reserve component forces to the extent and
under conditions that the Secretary determines appropriate.
9447. Board of Governors
(a) Governing Body.--The Board of Governors of the Civil Air Patrol
is the governing body of the Civil Air Patrol.
(b) Composition.--The Board of Governors is composed of 11 members as
follows:
(1) Four members appointed by the Secretary of the Air Force, who
may be active or retired officers of the Air Force (including reserve
components of the Air Force), employees of the United States, or private
citizens.
(2) Four members of the Civil Air Patrol, elected from among the
members of the Civil Air Patrol in the manner provided in regulations
prescribed under section 9448 of this title.
(3) Three members appointed or selected as provided in subsection
(c) from among personnel of any Federal Government agencies, public
corporations, nonprofit associations, and other organizations that have
an interest and expertise in civil aviation and the Civil Air Patrol
mission.
(c) Appointments From Interested Organizations.--(1) Subject to
paragraph (2), the members of the Board of Governors referred to in
subsection (b)(3) shall be appointed jointly by the Secretary of the Air
Force and the National Commander of the Civil Air Patrol.
(2) Any vacancy in the position of a member referred to in paragraph
(1) that is not filled under that paragraph within 90 days shall be
filled by majority vote of the other members of the Board.
(d) Chairperson.--(1) The Chairperson of the Board of Governors shall
be chosen by the members of the Board of Governors from among the
members of the Board eligible for selection under paragraph (2) and
shall serve for a term of two years.
(2) The position of Chairperson shall be held on a rotating basis,
first by a member of the Board selected from among those appointed by
the Secretary of the Air Force under paragraph (1) of subsection (b) and
then by a member of the Board selected from among the members elected by
the Civil Air Patrol under paragraph (2) of that subsection. Upon the
expiration of the term of a Chairperson selected from among the members
referred to in one of those paragraphs, the selection of a successor to
that position shall be made from among the members who are referred to
in the other paragraph.
(e) Powers.--(1) The Board of Governors shall, subject to paragraphs
(2) and (3), exercise the powers granted under section 40304 of title
36.
(2) Any exercise by the Board of the power to amend the constitution
or bylaws of the Civil Air Patrol or to adopt a new constitution or
bylaws shall be subject to approval by a majority of the members of the
Board.
(3) Neither the Board of Governors nor any other component of the
Civil Air Patrol may modify or terminate any requirement or authority
set forth in this section.
(f) Personal Liability for Breach of a Fiduciary Duty.--(1) The Board
of Governors shall, subject to paragraph (2), take such action as is
necessary to eliminate or limit the personal liability of a member of
the Board of Governors to the Civil Air Patrol or to any of its members
for monetary damages for a breach of fiduciary duty while serving as a
member of the Board.
(2) The Board may not eliminate or limit the liability of a member of
the Board of Governors to the Civil Air Patrol or to any of its members
for monetary damages for any of the following:
(A) A breach of the member's duty of loyalty to the Civil Air Patrol
or its members.
(B) Any act or omission that is not in good faith or that involves
intentional misconduct or a knowing violation of law.
(C) Participation in any transaction from which the member directly
or indirectly derives an improper personal benefit.
(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as rendering
section 207 or 208 of title 18 inapplicable in any respect to a member
of the Board of Governors who is a member of the Air Force on active
duty, an officer on a retired list of the Air Force, or an employee of
the United States.
(g) Personal Liability for Breach of a Fiduciary Duty.--(1) Except as
provided in paragraph (2), no member of the Board of Governors or
officer of the Civil Air Patrol shall be personally liable for damages
for any injury or death or loss or damage of property resulting from a
tortious act or omission of an employee or member of the Civil Air
Patrol.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a member of the Board of
Governors or officer of the Civil Air Patrol for a tortious act or
omission in which the member or officer, as the case may be, was
personally involved, whether in breach of a civil duty or in commission
of a criminal offense.
(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to restrict the
applicability of common law protections and rights that a member of the
Board of Governors or officer of the Civil Air Patrol may have.
(4) The protections provided under this subsection are in addition to
the protections provided under subsection (f).
9448. Regulations
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of the Air Force shall prescribe
regulations for the administration of this chapter.
(b) Required Regulations.--The regulations shall include the
following:
(1) Regulations governing the conduct of the activities of the Civil
Air Patrol when it is performing its duties as a volunteer civilian
auxiliary of the Air Force under section 9442 of this title.
(2) Regulations for providing support by the Air Force and for
arranging assistance by other agencies under section 9444 of this title.
(3) Regulations governing the qualifications of retired Air Force
personnel to serve as an administrator or liaison officer for the Civil
Air Patrol under a personal services contract entered into under section
9446(a) of this title.
(4) Procedures and requirements for the election of members of the
Board of Governors under section 9447(b)(2) of this title.
(c) Approval by Secretary of Defense.--The regulations required by
subsection (b)(2) shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of
Defense.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Reserve Components
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1007--ADMINISTRATION OF RESERVE COMPONENTS
* * * * * * *
10218. Army and Air Force Reserve technicians: conditions for
retention; mandatory retirement under civil service laws
(a) Separation and Retirement of Military Technicians ( Dual Status
).--(1) An individual employed by the Army Reserve or the Air Force
Reserve as a military technician (dual status) who after the date of the
enactment of this section October 5, 1999, loses dual status is subject
to paragraph (2) or (3), as the case may be.
(2) If a technician described in paragraph (1) is eligible at the
time dual status is lost for an unreduced annuity and is age 60 or older
at that time, the technician shall be separated not later than 30 days
after the date on which dual status is lost.
(3)(A) If a technician described in paragraph (1) is not eligible at
the time dual status is lost for an unreduced annuity or is under age 60
at that time, the technician shall be offered the opportunity to--
(i) reapply for, and if qualified be appointed to, a position as a
military technician (dual status); or
(ii) apply for a civil service position that is not a technician
position.
(B) If such a technician continues employment with the Army Reserve
or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status technician, the
technician--
(i) shall not be permitted, after the end of the one-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this subsection October 5,
2000, to apply for any voluntary personnel action; and
(ii) shall be separated or retired--
(I) in the case of a technician first hired as a military technician
(dual status) on or before February 10, 1996, not later than 30 days
after becoming eligible for an unreduced annuity and becoming 60 years
of age; and
* * * * * * *
(b) Non-Dual Status Technicians.--(1) An individual who on the date
of the enactment of this section October 5, 1999, is employed by the
Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status technician
and who on that date is eligible for an unreduced annuity and is age 60
or older shall be separated not later than six months after the date of
the enactment of this section April 5, 2000.
(2)(A) An individual who on the date of the enactment of this section
October 5, 1999, is employed by the Army Reserve or the Air Force
Reserve as a non-dual status technician and who on that date is not
eligible for an unreduced annuity or is under age 60 shall be offered
the opportunity to--
(i) reapply for, and if qualified be appointed to, a position as a
military technician (dual status); or
(ii) apply for a civil service position that is not a technician
position.
(B) If such a technician continues employment with the Army Reserve
or the Air Force Reserve as a non-dual status technician, the
technician--
(i) shall not be permitted, after the end of the one-year period
beginning on the date of the enactment of this subsection October 5,
2000, to apply for any voluntary personnel action; and
(ii) shall be separated or retired--
(I) in the case of a technician first hired as a technician on or
before February 10, 1996, and who on the date of the enactment of this
section October 5, 1999, is a non-dual status technician, not later than
30 days after becoming eligible for an unreduced annuity and becoming 60
years of age; and
(II) in the case of a technician first hired as a technician after
February 10, 1996, and who on the date of the enactment of this section
October 5, 1999, is a non-dual status technician, not later than one
year after the date on which dual status is lost.
(3) An individual employed by the Army Reserve or the Air Force
Reserve as a non-dual status technician who is ineligible for
appointment to a military technician (dual status) position, or who
decides not to apply for appointment to such a position, or who, within
six months of the date of the enactment of this section during the
period beginning on October 5, 1999, and ending on April 5, 2000, is not
appointed to such a position, shall for reduction-in-force purposes be
in a separate competitive category from employees who are military
technicians (dual status).
* * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1205--APPOINTMENT OF RESERVE OFFICERS
* * * * * * *
12005. Strength in grade: commissioned officers in grades
below brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half) in an active status
(a)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the authorized strength of the Army
and the Air Force in reserve commissioned officers in an active status
in each grade named in paragraph (2) is as prescribed by the Secretary
of the Army or the Secretary of the Air Force, respectively. A vacancy
in any grade may be filled by an authorized appointment in any lower
grade. Medical officers and dental officers shall be excluded in
computing and determining the authorized strengths under this
subsection.
* * * * * * *
12011. Authorized strengths: reserve officers on active duty
or on full-time National Guard duty for administration of the reserves
or the National Guard
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Whenever under section 527 of this title the President may
suspend the operation of any provision of section 523, 525, or 526 of
this title, the Secretary of Defense may suspend the operation of any
provision of this section. Any such suspension shall, if not sooner
ended, end in the manner specified in section 527 for a suspension under
that section.
(d) Upon a determination by the Secretary of Defense that such action
is in the national interest, the Secretary may increase the number of
officers serving in any grade for a fiscal year pursuant to subsection
(a) by not more than the percent authorized by the Secretary under
section 115(c)(2) of this title.
12012. Authorized strengths: senior enlisted members on active
duty or on full-time National Guard duty for administration of the
reserves or the National Guard
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Whenever under section 527 of this title the President may
suspend the operation of any provision of section 523, 525, or 526 of
this title, the Secretary of Defense may suspend the operation of any
provision of this section. Any such suspension shall, if not sooner
ended, end in the manner specified in section 527 for a suspension under
that section.
(d) Upon a determination by the Secretary of Defense that such action
is in the national interest, the Secretary may increase the number of
enlisted members serving in any grade for a fiscal year pursuant to
subsection (a) by not more than the percent authorized by the Secretary
under section 115(c)(2) of this title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1213--SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS, ASSIGNMENTS, DETAILS, AND DUTIES
* * * * * * *
12503. Ready Reserve: funeral honors duty
(a) * * *
(b) Service Credit.--A member ordered to funeral honors duty under
this section shall be required to perform a minimum of two hours of such
duty in order to receive--
(1) service credit under section 12732(a)(2)(E) of this title; and
(2) if authorized by the Secretary concerned, the allowance under
section 435 of title 37 or compensation at the rate prescribed in
section 206 of title 37.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1215--MISCELLANEOUS PROHIBITIONS AND PENALTIES
* * * * * * *
12552. Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans
Performance by a Reserve of funeral honors functions at the funeral
of a veteran (as defined in section 1491(h) of this title) may not be
considered to be a period of drill or training, but may be performed as
funeral honors duty under section 12503 of this title .
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1223--RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR SERVICE
* * * * * * *
12731. Age and service requirements
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) In the case of a person who completes the service requirements of
subsection (a)(2) during the period beginning on October 5, 1994, and
ending on September 30, 2001 December 31, 2001, the provisions of
subsection (a)(3) shall be applied by substituting ``the last six
years'' for ``the last eight years''.
12731a. Temporary special retirement qualification authority
(a) Retirement With at Least 15 Years of Service.--For the purposes
of section 12731 of this title, the Secretary concerned may--
(1) during the period described in subsection (b), determine to
treat a member of the Selected Reserve of a reserve component of the
armed force under the jurisdiction of that Secretary as having met the
service requirements of subsection (a)(2) of that section and provide
the member with the notification required by subsection (d) of that
section if the member--
(A) as of October 1, 1991 December 31, 2001, has completed at least
15, and less than 20, years of service computed under section 12732 of
this title; or
(B) after that date and before October 1, 2001 December 31, 2001,
completes 15 years of service computed under that section; and
* * * * * * *
12733. Computation of retired pay: computation of years of service
For the purpose of computing the retired pay of a person under this
chapter, the person's years of service and any fraction of such a year
are computed by dividing 360 into the sum of the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) One day for each point credited to the person under clause (B),
(C), or (D) of section 12732(a)(2) of this title, but not more than 60
days in any one year of service before the year of service that includes
September 23, 1996, and not more than 75 days in any subsequent year of
service. but not more than--
(A) 60 days in any one year of service before the year of service
that includes September 23, 1996;
(B) 75 days in the year of service that includes September 23, 1996,
and in any subsequent year of service before the year of service that
includes the date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2001; and
(C) 90 days in the year of service that includes the date of the
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
and in any subsequent year of service.
* * * * * * *
PART III--PROMOTION AND RETENTION OF OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE
ACTIVE-STATUS LIST
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1409--CONTINUATION OF OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-STATUS
LIST AND SELECTIVE EARLY REMOVAL
* * * * * * *
14701. Selection of officers for continuation on the reserve
active-status list
(a) Consideration for Continuation.--(1) Upon application, a reserve
officer A reserve officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps
who is required to be removed from the reserve active-status list under
section 14505, 14506, or 14507 of this title may, subject to the needs
of the service and to section 14509 of this title, be considered for
continuation on the reserve active-status list by a selection board
convened under section 14101(b) of this title.
* * * * * * *
14703. Authority to retain chaplains and officers in medical
specialties until specified age
(a) Retention.--Notwithstanding any provision of chapter 1407 of this
title and except for officers referred to in sections 14503, 14504,
14505, and 14506 of this title and under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) the Secretary of the Air Force may, with the officer's consent,
retain in an active status any reserve officer who is designated as a
medical officer, dental officer, veterinary officer, Air Force nurse, or
chaplain or who is designated as a biomedical sciences officer and is
qualified for service as a veterinarian, optometrist, or podiatrist. Air
Force nurse, Medical Service Corps officer, biomedical sciences officer,
or chaplain.
* * * * * * *
PART IV--TRAINING FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS AND EDUCATIONAL
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1606--EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED
RESERVE
* * * * * * *
16133. Time limitation for use of entitlement
(a) * * *
(b)(1) In the case of a person--
(A) who is separated from the Selected Reserve because of a
disability which was not the result of the individual's own willful
misconduct incurred on or after the date on which such person became
entitled to educational assistance under this chapter; or
(B) who, on or after the date on which such person became entitled
to educational assistance under this chapter ceases to be a member of
the Selected Reserve during the period beginning on October 1, 1991, and
ending on September 30, 2001 December 31, 2001, by reason of the
inactivation of the person's unit of assignment or by reason of
involuntarily ceasing to be designated as a member of the Selected
Reserve pursuant to section 10143(a) of this title,
the period for using entitlement prescribed by subsection (a) shall be
determined without regard to clause (2) of such subsection.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1609--EDUCATION LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
16302. Education loan repayment program: health professions
officers serving in Selected Reserve with wartime critical medical skill
shortages
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) The authority provided in this section shall apply only in the
case of a person first appointed as a commissioned officer before
January 1, 2001 January 1, 2002.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1611--OTHER EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Sec.
16401. Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program: officer
candidates pursuing degrees.
16401. Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program: college tuition
assistance program.
16401. Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program: officer
candidates pursuing degrees
16401. Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program: college
tuition assistance program
(a) Authority for Financial College Tuition Assistance Program.--The
Secretary of the Navy may provide financial assistance to an eligible
enlisted a member of the Marine Corps Reserve for expenses of the member
while the member is pursuing on a full-time basis at an institution of
higher education a program of education approved by the Secretary that
leads to--
(1) a baccalaureate degree in less than five academic years; or
(2) a doctor of jurisprudence or bachelor of laws degree in not more
than three four academic years.
(b) Eligibility.--(1) To be eligible for financial assistance under
this section, an enlisted a member of the Marine Corps Reserve must--
(A) be an officer candidate in a member of the Marine Corps Platoon
Leaders Class program and have successfully completed one six-week (or
longer) increment of military training required under that program;
(B) meet the applicable age requirement specified in paragraph (2);
(C) (B) be enrolled on a full-time basis in a program of education
referred to in subsection (a) at any institution of higher education;
and
(D) (C) enter into a written agreement with the Secretary described
in paragraph (3) (2).
(2)(A) In the case of a member pursuing a baccalaureate degree, the
member meets the age requirements of this paragraph if the member will
be under 27 years of age on June 30 of the calendar year in which the
member is projected to be eligible for appointment as a commissioned
officer in the Marine Corps through the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders
Class program, except that if the member has served on active duty, the
member may, on such date, be any age under 30 years that exceeds 27
years by a number of months that is not more than the number of months
that the member served on active duty.
(B) In the case of a member pursuing a doctor of jurisprudence or
bachelor of laws degree, the member meets the age requirements of this
paragraph if the member will be under 31 years of age on June 30 of the
calendar year in which the member is projected to be eligible for
appointment as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps through the
Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class program, except that if the member
has served on active duty, the member may, on such date, be any age
under 35 years that exceeds 31 years by a number of months that is not
more than the number of months that the member served on active duty.
(3) (2) A written agreement referred to in paragraph (1)(D) is an
agreement between the member and the Secretary in which the member
agrees--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Failure To Complete Program.--(1) A member An enlisted member who
receives financial assistance under this section may be ordered to
active duty in the Marine Corps by the Secretary to serve in an
appropriate enlisted grade for such period as the Secretary prescribes,
but not for more than four years, if the member--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
PART V--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1803--FACILITIES FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS
* * * * * * *
18232. Definitions
In this chapter:
(1) The term ``State'' means any of the States of the United States,
the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each
territory and possession of the United States and includes political
subdivisions and military units thereof and tax-supported agencies
therein.
(2) The term ``facility'' includes any (A) interest in land, (B)
armory or other structure armory, readiness center, or other structure,
and (C) storage or other facility normally needed for the administration
and training of any unit of the reserve components of the armed forces.
(3) The term ``armory'' means The terms ``armory'' and ``readiness
center'' mean a structure that houses one or more units of a reserve
component and is used for training and administering those units. It
includes a structure that is appurtenant to such a structure and houses
equipment used for that training and administration.
* * * * * * *
18236. Contributions to States; other use permitted by States
(a) * * *
(b) A contribution made for an armory or readiness center under
paragraph (4) or (5) of section 18233(a) of this title may not exceed
the sum of--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1990 AND 1991
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
PART A--FUNDING AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 112. ANNUAL REPORT ON B 2 BOMBER AIRCRAFT PROGRAM.
(a) Annual Reporting Requirement.--Not later than March 1 of each
year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed
Services of the Senate and the Committee on National Security of the
House of Representatives a report that sets forth the finding of the
Secretary (as of January 1 of such year) on each of the following
matters:
(1) Whether the performance milestones for the B 2 aircraft for the
previous fiscal year for both developmental test and evaluation and
operational test and evaluation (as contained in the Requirements
Correlation Matrix found in the user-defined Operational Requirements
Document (as contained in Attachment B to a letter from the Secretary of
Defense to Congress dated October 14, 1993)) have been met.
(2) Whether the B 2 aircraft has a high probability of being able to
perform its intended missions.
(3) Whether any proposed modification to the performance matrix
referred to in paragraph (1) will be provided in writing in advance to
the committees.
(4) Whether the cost reduction initiatives established for the B 2
program can be achieved (together with details of the savings to be
realized).
(5) Whether the quality assurance practices and fiscal management
controls of the prime contractor and major subcontractors associated
with the B 2 program meet or exceed accepted United States Government
standards.
(b) First Report.--The Secretary shall submit the first annual report
under subsection (a) not later than March 1, 1996.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
* * * * * * *
PART D--PROVISIONS RELATING TO SMALL AND SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESSES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 834. TEST PROGRAM FOR NEGOTIATION OF COMPREHENSIVE SMALL
BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLANS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Test Program Period.--The test program authorized by subsection
(a) shall begin on October 1, 1990, unless Congress adopts a resolution
disapproving the test program. The test program shall terminate on
September 30, 2000..
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
PART B--LAND TRANSACTIONS
SEC. 2811. LAND CONVEYANCE AT MARINE CORPS AIR STATION, EL
TORO, CALIFORNIA, AND CONSTRUCTION OF FAMILY HOUSING AT MARINE CORPS AIR
STATION, TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA.
(a) In General.--Subject to subsections (b) through (d), the
Secretary of the Navy may--
(1) convey to the County of Orange, California, or its designee, or
both, all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to
approximately 77 acres of real property, including improvements thereon,
consisting of three severable parcels at Marine Corps Air Station, El
Toro, California; and
(2) accept monetary consideration for such property and expend it
for the construction of additional military family housing units at
Marine Corps Air Station, Tustin, California and repair of roads, and
the development of Aerial Port of Embarkation facilities, at Marine
Corps Air Station, Miramar, California.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 32, UNITED STATES CODE
CHAPTER 1--ORGANIZATION
115. Funeral honors duty performed as a Federal function
(a) * * *
(b) Service Credit.--A member ordered to funeral honors duty under
this section shall be required to perform a minimum of two hours of such
duty in order to receive--
(1) service credit under section 12732(a)(2)(E) of title 10; and
(2) if authorized by the Secretary concerned, the allowance under
section 435 of title 37 or compensation at the rate prescribed in
section 206 of title 37.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 5--TRAINING
* * * * * * *
508. Assistance for certain youth and charitable organizations
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Authorized Services.--The services authorized to be provided
under subsection (a) are as follows:
(1) * * *
(2) Air transportation in support of Special Olympics or any other
youth or charitable organization designated by the Secretary of Defense.
* * * * * * *
(d) Eligible Organizations.--The organizations eligible to receive
services under this section are as follows:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(14) Reach For Tomorrow.
(14) (15) Any other youth or charitable organization designated by
the Secretary of Defense.
* * * * * * *
509. National Guard Challenge Program of opportunities for
civilian youth
(a) * * *
(b) Conduct of the Program.-- (1) The Secretary of Defense shall
provide for the conduct of the National Guard Challenge Program in such
States as the Secretary considers to be appropriate, except that Federal
expenditures under the program may not exceed $62,500,000 for any fiscal
year.
(2) The Secretary shall carry out the National Guard Challenge
Program using funds appropriated directly to the Secretary for the
program and nondefense Federal funds made available or transferred to
the Secretary by other Federal agencies to support the program. However,
the amount of funds appropriated directly to the Secretary of Defense
and expended for the program in a fiscal year may not exceed
$62,500,000.
* * * * * * *
(m) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe
regulations to carry out the National Guard Challenge Program. The
regulations shall address at a minimum the following:
(1) The terms to be included in the program agreements required by
subsection (d).
(2) The qualifications for persons to participate in the program, as
required by subsection (e).
(3) The benefits authorized for program participants, as required by
subsection (f).
(4) The status of National Guard personnel assigned to duty in
support of the program.
(5) The conditions for the use of National Guard facilities and
equipment to carry out the program, as required by subsection (h).
(6) The status of program participants, as described in subsection (i).
(7) The procedures to be used by the Secretary when communicating
with States about the program.
* * * * * * *
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1993
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE E--DEFENSE-WIDE PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 142. MH 47E/MH 60K HELICOPTER MODIFICATION PROGRAMS.
(a) Required Testing.--Notwithstanding the requirements of
subsections (a) (2) and (b) of section 2366 of title 10, United States
Code, and the requirements of subsection (a) of section 2399 of such
title--
(1) operational test and evaluation and survivability testing of the
MH 60K helicopter under the MH 60K helicopter
modification program shall be completed prior to full materiel
release of the MH 60K helicopters for operational use; and
(2) operational test and evaluation and survivability testing of the
MH 47E helicopter under the MH 47E helicopter modification program shall
be completed prior to full materiel release of the MH 47E helicopters
for operational use.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XLIV--PERSONNEL ADJUSTMENT, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING PROGRAMS
SUBTITLE A--ACTIVE FORCES TRANSITION ENHANCEMENTS
* * * * * * *
SEC. 4403. TEMPORARY EARLY RETIREMENT AUTHORITY.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) Active Force Drawdown Period.--For purposes of this section, the
active force drawdown period is the period beginning on the date of the
enactment of this Act and ending on October 1, 2001 December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE B--GUARD AND RESERVE TRANSITION INITIATIVES
SEC. 4411. FORCE REDUCTION TRANSITION PERIOD DEFINED.
In this subtitle, the term ``force reduction transition period''
means the period beginning on October 1, 1991, and ending on September
30, 2001 December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 4416. FORCE REDUCTION PERIOD RETIREMENTS.
(a) * * *
(b) Temporary Special Authority.--During the period referred to in
subsection (c), the Secretary concerned may grant a member of the
Selected Reserve under the age of 60 years the annual payments provided
for under this section if--
(1) as of October 1, 1991, that member has completed at least 20
years of service computed under section 1332 of title 10, United States
Code, or after that date and before October 1, 2001 December 31, 2001,
such member completes 20 years of service computed under that section or
section 12732;
* * * * * * *
TITLE XLIV--PERSONNEL ADJUSTMENT, EDUCATION, AND TRAINING PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE F--JOB TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 4463. PROGRAM OF EDUCATIONAL LEAVE RELATING TO CONTINUING
PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY SERVICE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Expiration.--The authority to grant a leave of absence under
subsection (a) shall expire on September 30, 2001] December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE
CHAPTER 3--BASIC PAY
* * * * * * *
205. Computation: service creditable
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the periods of service of a
commissioned officer appointed under section 12209 12203 of title 10
after receiving financial assistance under section 16401 of such title
that are counted under this section may not include a period of service
after January 1, 2000, that the officer performed concurrently as a
member an enlisted member of the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Class
program and the Marine Corps Reserve, except that service after that
date that the officer performed before commissioning (concurrently with
the period of service as a member of the Marine Corps Platoon Leaders
Class program) as an enlisted member on active duty or as a member of
the Selected Reserve may be so counted.
* * * * * * *
209. Members of precommissioning programs
(a) Senior ROTC Members in Advanced Training.-- (1) Except when on
active duty, a member of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps who
is selected for advanced training under section 2104 of title 10 is
entitled to a subsistence allowance of $200 a month monthly subsistence
allowance at a rate prescribed under paragraph (2) beginning on the day
he starts advanced training and ending upon the completion of his
instruction under that section, but in no event shall any member receive
such pay for more than 30 months.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe by regulation the
monthly rates for subsistence allowances provided under this section.
The rate may not be less than $250 per month, but may not exceed $600
per month. Subsistence
(3) A subsistence allowance under this section may not be considered
financial assistance requiring additional service within the meaning of
the third sentence of section 6(d)(1) of the Military Selective Act (50
U.S.C App. 456(d)(1)).
(b) Senior ROTC Members Appointed in Reserves.--Except when on active
duty, a cadet or midshipman appointed under section 2107 of title 10 is
entitled to a monthly subsistence allowance in the amount provided in
subsection (a) at a rate prescribed under subsection (a)(2). A member
enrolled in the first two years of a four-year program is entitled to
receive subsistence for a maximum of twenty months. A member enrolled in
the advanced course is entitled to subsistence as prescribed for a
member enrolled under section 2104 of title 10 as prescribed in
subsection (a).
(c) Pay While Attending Training or Practice Cruise.--Each cadet or
midshipman in the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps, while he is
attending training or practice cruises under chapter 103 of title 10 if
the training or cruise is of at least four weeks duration and must be
completed before the cadet or midshipman is commissioned, and each
applicant for membership in the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps,
while he is attending field training or practice cruises to satisfy the
requirements of section 2104(b)(6)(B) of title 10 for admission to
advanced training, is entitled, while so attending, to pay at the rate
prescribed for cadets and midshipmen at the United States Military,
Naval, and Air Force Academies under section 203(c) of this title.
(d) Members of Marine Corps Officer Candidate Program.--Except when
serving on active duty, a member who is enrolled in a Marine Corps
officer candidate program which requires a baccalaureate degree as a
prerequisite to being commissioned as an officer and who is not enrolled
in a program established under chapter 103 of title 10 or an academy
established under chapter 403, 603, or 903 of title 10 may be paid a
subsistence allowance at the same rate as that prescribed by subsection
(a), the monthly rate prescribed under subsection (a)(2) for a member of
the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps who is selected for advanced
training under section 2104 of title 10.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 5--SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS
Sec.
301. Incentive pay: hazardous duty.
* * * * * * *
309. Special pay: enlistment bonus.
* * * * * * *
323. Special pay: retention incentives for members qualified in
critical military skill.
* * * * * * *
301b. Special pay: aviation career officers extending period
of active duty
(a) Bonus Authorized.--An aviation officer described in subsection
(b) who, during the period beginning on January 1, 1989, and ending on
December 31, 2000, December 31, 2001, 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.
* * * * * * *
(j) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``aviation service'' means service performed by an
officer (except a flight surgeon or other medical officer) while holding
an aeronautical rating or designation or while in training to receive an
aeronautical rating or designation.
(2) The term ``operational flying duty'' has the meaning given such
term in section 301a(a)(6)(A) section 301a(a)(6)(B) of this title.
* * * * * * *
302. Special pay: medical officers of the armed forces
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) Reserve Medical Officers Special Pay.--(1) A reserve medical
officer described in paragraph (2) is entitled to special pay at the
rate of $450 a month for each month of active duty , including active
duty in the form of annual training, active duty for training, and
active duty for special work.
* * * * * * *
302a. Special pay: optometrists
(a) * * *
(b) Retention Special Pay.--(1) Under regulations prescribed under
section 303a(a) of this title, an officer described in paragraph (2) may
be paid the Secretary concerned may pay an officer described in
paragraph (2) a retention special pay of not more than $6,000 for any
twelve-month period during which the officer is not undergoing an
internship or initial residency training.
* * * * * * *
302c. Special pay: psychologists and nonphysician health care providers
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Nonphysician Health Care Providers.--The Secretary concerned may
authorize the payment of special pay at the rates specified in
subsection (b) to an officer who--
(1) is an officer in the Medical Services Corps of the Army or Navy,
a biomedical sciences officer in the Air Force, an officer in the Army
Medical Specialist Corps, an officer of the Nurse Corps of the Army or
Navy, an officer of the Air Force designated as a nurse, an officer in
the Coast Guard or Coast Guard Reserve designated as a physician
assistant, or an officer in the Regular or Reserve Corps of the Public
Health Service;
* * * * * * *
302d. Special pay: accession bonus for registered nurses
(a) Accession Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person who is a registered
nurse and who, during the period beginning on November 29, 1989, and
ending on December 31, 2000 December 31, 2001, executes a written
agreement described in subsection (c) to accept a commission as an
officer and remain on active duty for a period of not less than four
years may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary
concerned, be paid an accession bonus in an amount determined by the
Secretary concerned.
* * * * * * *
302e. Special pay: nurse anesthetists
(a) Special Pay Authorized.--(1) An officer described in subsection
(b)(1) who, during the period beginning on November 29, 1989, and ending
on December 31, 2000 December 31, 2001, executes a written agreement to
remain on active duty for a period of one year or more may, upon the
acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid
incentive special pay in an amount not to exceed $15,000 for any
12-month period.
* * * * * * *
(b) Covered Officers.--(1) * * *
(2) The Secretary of Defense may extend the special pay authorized
under subsection (a) to officers of the armed forces who serve in a
nursing specialty (other than as nurse anesthetists) that--
(A) is designated by the Secretary the Secretary of the military
department concerned as critical to meet requirements (whether such
specialty is designated as critical to meet wartime or peacetime
requirements); and
* * * * * * *
302f. Special pay: reserve, recalled, or retained health care officers
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Special Rule for Reserve Medical Officer.--While a reserve
medical officer receives a special pay under section 302 of this title
by reason of subsection (a), the officer shall not be entitled to
special pay under subsection (h) of that section.
(d) Exception.--While a reserve medical or dental officer receives a
special pay under section 302 or 302b of this title by reason of
subsection (a), the officer shall not be entitled to special pay under
section 302(h) or 302b(h) of this title.
* * * * * * *
302g. Special pay: Selected Reserve health care professionals
in critically short wartime specialties
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Agreement Authority.--No agreement under this
section may be entered into after December 31, 2000 December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
305a. Special pay: career sea pay
(a) Under regulations prescribed by the President, a member of a
uniformed service who is entitled to basic pay is also entitled, while
on sea duty, to special pay at the applicable rate under subsection (b).
(b) The monthly rates for special pay under subsection (a) are as
follows:
ENLISTED MEMBERS
Pay grade Years of sea duty
1 or less Over 1 Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 5 Over 6
4 $50 $60 $120 $150 $160 $160 $160
5 50 60 120 150 170 315 325
6 100 100 120 150 170 315 325
7 100 100 120 175 190 350 350
8 100 100 120 175 190 350 350
9 100 100 120 175 190 350 350
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Over Over Over Over Over Over Over
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
4 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160 $160
5 350 350 350 350 350 350 350
6 350 350 365 365 365 380 395
7 375 390 400 400 410 420 450
8 375 390 400 400 410 420 450
9 375 390 400 400 410 420 450
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---------
Over Over Over
---------
------------ --------- --------- --------- ---------
4 $160 $160 $160
5 350 350 350
6 410 425 450
7 475 500 500
8 475 500 520
9 475 520 520
WARRANT OFFICERS
Pay grade Years of sea duty
1 or less Over 1 Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 5 Over 6
W 1 $130 $135 $140 $150 $170 $175 $00
W 2 150 150 150 150 170 260 265
W 3 150 150 150 150 170 270 280
W 4 150 150 150 150 170 290 310
W 5 150 150 150 150 170 290 310
------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Over Over Over Over Over Over Over
------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
W 1 $250 $270 $300 $325 $325 $340 $360
W 2 265 270 310 340 340 375 400
W 3 285 290 310 350 375 400 425
W 4 310 310 310 350 375 400 450
W 5 310 310 310 350 375 400 450
------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Over Over Over
------------ -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
W 1 $375 $375 $375
W 2 400 400 400
W 3 425 450 450
W 4 450 500 500
W 5 450 500 500
COMMISSIONED OFFICERS
Pay grade Years of sea duty
Over 3 Over 4 Over 5 Over 6 Over 7 Over 8 Over 9
O 1 $150 $160 $185 $190 $195 $205 $215
O 2 150 160 185 190 195 205 215
O 3 150 160 185 190 195 205 215
O 4 185 190 200 205 215 220 220
O 5 225 225 225 225 280 245 250
O 6 225 230 230 240 255 265 280
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
Over Over Over Over Over Over Over
-------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- --------
O 1 $225 $225 $240 $250 $260 $270 $280
O 2 225 225 240 250 260 270 280
O 3 225 225 240 260 270 280 290
O 4 225 225 240 270 280 290 300
O 5 260 265 265 285 300 315 340
O 6 290 300 310 325 340 355 380
(c) Under regulations prescribed by the President, a member of a
uniformed service who is entitled to career sea pay under this section
who has served 36 consecutive months of sea duty (other than an enlisted
member in a pay grade above E 4 with more than five years of sea duty)
is entitled to a career sea pay premium of $100 a month for the
thirty-seventh consecutive month and each subsequent consecutive month
of sea duty served by such member.
(a) Availability of Special Pay.--A member of a uniformed service who
is entitled to basic pay is also entitled, while on sea duty, to career
sea pay at a monthly rate prescribed by the Secretary concerned, but not
to exceed $750 per month.
(b) Eligibility for Premium.--A member of a uniformed service
entitled to career sea pay under subsection (a) who has served 36
consecutive months of sea duty is also entitled to a career sea pay
premium for the 37th consecutive month and each subsequent consecutive
month of sea duty served by the member. The monthly amount of the
premium shall be prescribed by the Secretary concerned, but may not
exceed $350 per month.
(c) Regulations.--The Secretaries concerned shall prescribe
regulations to carry out this section. Regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of a military department shall be subject to the approval of
the Secretary of Defense.
(d) Definition of Sea Duty.--(1) In this section, the term ``sea
duty'' means duty performed by a member--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
307. Special pay: special duty assignment pay for enlisted members
(a) An enlisted member who is entitled to basic pay and is performing
duties which have been designated under subsection (b) as extremely
difficult or as involving an unusual degree of responsibility in a
military skill may, in addition to other pay or allowances to which he
is entitled, be paid special duty assignment pay at a monthly rate not
to exceed $275 $600. In the case of a member who is serving as a
military recruiter and is eligible for special duty assignment pay under
this subsection on account of such duty, the Secretary concerned may
increase the monthly rate of special duty assignment pay for the member
to not more than $375.
* * * * * * *
308. Special pay: reenlistment bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) No bonus shall be paid under this section with respect to any
reenlistment, or voluntary extension of an active-duty reenlistment, in
the armed forces entered into after December 31, 2000 December 31, 2001.
308a. Special pay: enlistment bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Termination of Authority.--No bonus shall be paid under this
section with respect to any enlistment or extension of an initial period
of active duty in the armed forces made after December 31, 2000
September 30, 2001.
308b. Special pay: reenlistment bonus for members of the
Selected Reserve
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Authority.--No bonus may be paid under this
section to any enlisted member who, after December 31, 2000 December 31,
2001, reenlists or voluntarily extends his enlistment in a reserve
component.
308c. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Selected Reserve
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any enlisted member
who, after December 31, 2000 December 31, 2001, enlists in the Selected
Reserve of the Ready Reserve of an armed force.
* * * * * * *
308d. Special pay: enlisted members of the Selected Reserve
assigned to certain high priority units
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Additional compensation may not be paid under this section for
inactive duty performed after December 31, 2000 December 31, 2001.
308e. Special pay: bonus for reserve affiliation agreement
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any person for a
reserve obligation agreement entered into after December 31, 2000
December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
308f. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Army
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) No bonus may be paid under this section with respect to an
enlistment in the Army after December 31, 2000 September 30, 2001.
* * * * * * *
308h. Special pay: bonus for reenlistment, enlistment, or
voluntary extension of enlistment in elements of the Ready Reserve other
than the Selected Reserve
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) A bonus may not be paid under this section to any person for a
reenlistment, enlistment, or voluntary extension of an enlistment after
December 31, 2000 December 31, 2001.
308i. Special pay: prior service enlistment bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Authority.--No bonus may be paid under this
section to any person for an enlistment after December 31, 2000 December
31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
309. Special pay: enlistment bonus
(a) Bonus Authorized; Bonus Amount.--A person who enlists in an armed
force for a period of at least two years may be paid a bonus in an
amount not to exceed $20,000. The bonus may be paid in a single lump sum
or in periodic installments.
(b) Repayment of Bonus.--(1) A member of the armed forces who
voluntarily, or because of the member's misconduct, does not complete
the term of enlistment for which a bonus was paid under this section, or
a member who is not technically qualified in the skill for which the
bonus was paid, if any (other than a member who is not qualified because
of injury, illness, or other impairment not the result of the member's
misconduct), shall refund to the United States that percentage of the
bonus that the unexpired part of member's enlistment is of the total
enlistment period for which the bonus was paid.
(2) An obligation to reimburse the United States imposed under
paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owed to the United States.
(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered less
than five years after the termination of an enlistment for which a bonus
was paid under this section does not discharge the person receiving the
bonus from the debt arising under paragraph (1).
(c) Relation to Prohibition on Bounties.--The enlistment bonus
authorized by this section is not a bounty for purposes of section
514(a) of title 10.
(d) Regulations.--This section shall be administered under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense for the armed forces
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense and by the Secretary
of Transportation for the Coast Guard when the Coast Guard is not
operating as a service in the Navy.
(e) Duration of Authority.--No bonus shall be paid under this section
with respect to any enlistment in the armed forces made before October
1, 2001, or after December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
312. Special pay: nuclear-qualified officers extending period
of active duty
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in the
case of officers who, on or before December 31, 2000 December 31, 2001,
execute the required written agreement to remain in active service.
* * * * * * *
312b. Special pay: nuclear career accession bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in the
case of officers who, on or before December 31, 2000 December 31, 2001,
have been accepted for training for duty in connection with the
supervision, operation, and maintenance of naval nuclear propulsion
plants.
312c. Special pay: nuclear career annual incentive bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) For the purposes of this section, a ``nuclear service year'' is
any fiscal year beginning before December 31, 2000 December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
323. Special pay: retention incentives for members qualified
in a critical military skill
(a) Retention Bonus Authorized.--An officer or enlisted member of the
armed forces who is serving on active duty and is qualified in a
designated critical military skill may be paid a retention bonus as
provided in this section if--
(1) in the case of an officer, the member executes a written
agreement to remain on active duty for at least one year; or
(2) in the case of an enlisted member, the member reenlists or
voluntarily extends the member's enlistment for a period of at least one
year.
(b) Designation of Critical Skills.--(1) A designated critical
military skill referred to in subsection (a) is a military skill
designated as critical by the Secretary of Defense, or by the Secretary
of Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not
operating as a service in the Navy.
(2) The Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Transportation
with respect to the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in
the Navy, shall notify Congress, in advance, of each military skill to
be designated by the Secretary as critical for purposes of this section.
The notice shall be submitted at least 90 days before any bonus with
regard to that critical skill is offered under subsection (a) and shall
include a discussion of the necessity for the bonus, the amount and
method of payment of the bonus, and the retention results that the bonus
is expected to achieve.
(c) Payment Methods.--A bonus under this section may be paid in a
single lump sum or in periodic installments.
(d) Maximum Bonus Amount.--A member may enter into an agreement under
this section, or reenlist or voluntarily extend the member's enlistment,
more than once to receive a bonus under this
section. However, a member may not receive a total of more
than $200,000 in payments under this section.
(e) Certain Members Ineligible.--A retention bonus may not be
provided under subsection (a) to a member of the armed forces who--
(1) has completed more than 25 years of active duty; or
(2) will complete the member's 25th year of active duty before the
end of the period of active duty for which the bonus is being offered.
(f) Relationship to Other Incentives.--A retention bonus paid under
this section is in addition to any other pay and allowances to which a
member is entitled.
(g) Repayment of Bonus.--(1) If an officer who has entered into a
written agreement under subsection (a) fails to complete the total
period of active duty specified in the agreement, or an enlisted member
who voluntarily or because of misconduct does not complete the term of
enlistment for which a bonus was paid under this section, the Secretary
of Defense, and the Secretary of Transportation with respect to members
of the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy,
may require the member to repay the United States, on a pro rata basis
and to the extent that the Secretary determines conditions and
circumstances warrant, all sums paid under this section.
(2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed under paragraph
(1) is for all purposes a debt owed to the United States.
(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered less
than five years after the termination of a written agreement entered
into under subsection (a) does not discharge the member from a debt
arising under paragraph (2).
(h) Annual Report.--Not later than February 15 of each year, the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Transportation shall submit to
Congress a report--
(1) analyzing the effect, during the preceding fiscal year, of the
provision of bonuses under this section on the retention of members
qualified in the critical military skills for which the bonuses were
offered; and
(2) describing the intentions of the Secretary regarding the
continued use of the bonus authority during the current and next fiscal
years.
(i) Termination of Bonus Authority.--No bonus may be paid under this
section with respect to any reenlistment, or voluntary extension of an
enlistment, in the armed forces entered into after December 31, 2001,
and no agreement under this section may be entered into after that date.
CHAPTER 7--ALLOWANCES
Sec.
401. Definitions.
402. Basic allowance for subsistence.
402a. Supplemental subsistence allowance for low-income members
with dependents.
* * * * * * *
411i. Travel and transportation allowances: parking expenses.
435. Funeral honors duty: allowance.
435 436. Per diem allowance for lengthy or numerous deployments.
* * * * * * *
402. Basic allowance for subsistence
(a) * * *
(b) Rates of Allowance Based on Food Costs.--(1) The monthly rate of
basic allowance for subsistence to be in effect for an enlisted member
for a year (beginning on January 1 of that year) shall be the amount
that is halfway between the following amounts, which are determined by
the Secretary of Agriculture as of October 1 of the preceding year:
(A) The amount equal to the monthly cost of a moderate-cost food
plan for a male in the United States who is between 20 and 50 years of
age.
(B) The amount equal to the monthly cost of a liberal food plan for
a male in the United States who is between 20 and 50 years of age.
(1) The monthly rate of basic allowance for subsistence to be in
effect for an enlisted member for a year (beginning on January 1 of that
year) shall be equal to the sum of--
(A) the monthly rate of basic allowance for subsistence that was in
effect for an enlisted member for the preceding year; plus
(B) the product of the monthly rate under subparagraph (A) and the
percentage increase in the monthly cost of a liberal food plan for a
male in the United States who is between 20 and 50 years of age over the
preceding fiscal year, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture
each October 1.
* * * * * * *
402a. Supplemental subsistence allowance for low-income
members with dependents
(a) Supplemental Allowance Authorized.--(1) The Secretary concerned
may increase the basic allowance for subsistence to which a member of
the armed forces described in subsection (b) is otherwise entitled under
section 402 of this title by an amount (in this section referred to as
the ``supplemental subsistence allowance'') designed to remove the
member's household from eligibility for benefits under the food stamp
program.
(2) The supplemental subsistence allowance may not exceed $500 per
month. In establishing the amount of the supplemental subsistence
allowance to be paid an eligible member under this paragraph, the
Secretary shall take into consideration the amount of the basic
allowance for housing that the member receives under section 403 of this
title or would otherwise receive under such section, in the case of a
member who is not entitled to that allowance as a result of assignment
to quarters of the United States or a housing facility under the
jurisdiction of a uniformed service.
(3) In the case of a member described in subsection (b) who
establishes to the satisfaction of the Secretary concerned that the
allotment of the member's household under the food stamp program,
calculated in the absence of the supplemental subsistence allowance,
would exceed the amount established by the Secretary concerned under
paragraph (2), the amount of the supplemental subsistence allowance for
the member shall be equal to the lesser of the following:
(A) The value of that allotment.
(B) $500.
(b) Eligible Members.--(1) Subject to subsection (d), a member of the
armed forces is eligible to receive the supplemental subsistence
allowance if the Secretary concerned determines that the member's
income, together with the income of the rest of the member's household
(if any), is within the highest income standard of eligibility, as then
in effect under section 5(c) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2014(c)) and without regard to paragraph (1) of such section, for
participation in the food stamp program.
(2) In determining whether a member meets the eligibility criteria
under paragraph (1), the Secretary--
(A) shall not take into consideration the amount of the supplemental
subsistence allowance payable under this section; but
(B) shall take into consideration the amount of the basic allowance
for housing that the member receives under section 403 of this title or
would otherwise receive under such section, in the case of a member who
is not entitled to that allowance as a result of assignment to quarters
of the United States or a housing facility under the jurisdiction of a
uniformed service.
(c) Application for Allowance.--To request the supplemental
subsistence allowance, a member shall submit an application to the
Secretary concerned in such form and containing such information as the
Secretary concerned may prescribe. A member applying for the
supplemental subsistence allowance shall furnish such evidence regarding
the member's satisfaction of the eligibility criteria under subsection
(b) as the Secretary concerned may require.
(d) Effective Period.--The eligibility of a member to receive the
supplemental subsistence allowance terminates upon the occurrence of any
of the following events, even though the member continues to meet the
eligibility criteria described in subsection (b):
(1) Payment of the supplemental subsistence allowance for 12
consecutive months.
(2) Promotion of the member to a higher grade.
(3) Transfer of the member in a permanent change of station.
(e) Reapplication.--Upon the termination of the effective period of
the supplemental subsistence allowance for a member, or in anticipation
of the imminent termination of the allowance, a member may reapply for
the allowance under subsection (c) if the member continues to meet, or
once again meets, the eligibility criteria described in subsection (b).
(f) Reporting Requirement.--Not later than March 1 of each year after
2001, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
specifying the number of members of the armed forces who received, at
any time during the preceding year, the supplemental subsistence
allowance. In preparing the report, the Secretary of Defense shall
consult with the Secretary of Transportation. No report is required
under this subsection after March 1, 2006.
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``Secretary concerned'' means the Secretary of Defense,
and the Secretary of Transportation, with respect to the Coast Guard
when it is not operating as a service in the Navy.
(2) The terms ``allotment'' and ``household'' have the meanings
given those terms in section 3 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C.
2012).
(3) The term ``food stamp program'' means the program established
pursuant to section 4 of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2013).
(h) Termination of Authority.--No supplemental subsistence allowance
may be made under this section after September 30, 2006.
403. Basic allowance for housing
(a) * * *
(b) Basic Allowance for Housing Inside the United States.--(1) The
Secretary of Defense shall determine the costs of adequate housing in a
military housing area in the United States for all members of the
uniformed services entitled to a basic allowance for housing in that
area. The Secretary shall base the determination upon the costs of
adequate housing for civilians with comparable income levels in the same
area. In determining what constitutes adequate housing for members, the
Secretary may not differentiate between members with dependents in pay
grades E 1 through E 4.
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), the monthly amount of a basic allowance
for housing for an area of the United States for a member of a uniformed
service is equal to the difference between--
(A) the monthly cost of adequate housing in that area, as determined
by the Secretary of Defense, for members of the uniformed services
serving in the same pay grade and with the same dependency status as the
member; and
(B) 15 percent of the national average monthly cost of adequate
housing in the United States, as determined by the Secretary, for
members of the uniformed services serving in the same pay grade and with
the same dependency status as the member.
(3) The rates of basic allowance for housing shall be reduced as
necessary to comply with this paragraph. The total amount that may be
paid for a fiscal year for the basic allowance for housing under this
subsection is the product of--
(A) the total amount authorized to be paid for such allowance for
the preceding fiscal year (as adjusted under paragraph (5)); and
(B) a fraction--
(i) the numerator of which is the index of the national average
monthly cost of housing for June of the preceding fiscal year; and
(ii) the denominator of which is the index of the national average
monthly cost of housing for June of the fiscal year before the preceding
fiscal year.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe the monthly amount of
the basic allowance for housing for a member of a uniformed service who
is entitled to the allowance in a military housing area in the United
States at a rate based upon the costs of adequate housing in the area
determined under paragraph (1).
(3) The total amount that may be paid for a fiscal year for the basic
allowance for housing under this subsection may not be less than the
product of--
(A) the total amount authorized to be paid for such allowance for
the preceding fiscal year; and
(B) a fraction--
(i) the numerator of which is the index of the national average
monthly cost of housing for June of the preceding fiscal year; and
(ii) the denominator of which is the index of the national average
monthly cost of housing for June of the second preceding fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
(5) In making a determination under paragraph (3) for a fiscal year,
the amount authorized to be paid for the preceding fiscal year for the
basic allowance for housing shall be adjusted to reflect changes during
the year for which the determination is made in the number, grade
distribution, geographic distribution in the United States, and
dependency status of members of the uniformed services entitled to the
allowance from the number of such members during the preceding fiscal
year.
(5) The Secretary shall establish a single monthly rate for members
of the uniformed services with dependents in pay grades E 1 through E 4
in the same military housing area. The rate shall be consistent with the
rates paid to members in pay grades other than pay grades E 1 through E
4 and shall be based on the following:
(A) The average cost of a two-bedroom apartment in that military
housing area.
(B) One-half of the difference between the average cost of a
two-bedroom townhouse in that area and the amount determined in
subparagraph (A).
(6) So long as a member of a uniformed service retains uninterrupted
eligibility to receive a basic allowance for housing within an area of
the United States, the monthly amount of the allowance for the member
may not be reduced as a result of changes in housing costs in the area,
changes in the national average monthly cost of housing, or the
promotion of the member.
* * * * * * *
(f) Ineligibility During Initial Field Duty or Sea Duty.--(1) * * *
(2)(A) * * *
(B) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, the
Secretary may authorize the payment of a basic allowance for housing to
a member of a uniformed service without dependents who is serving in pay
grade E 4 or E 5 and is assigned to sea duty. In prescribing regulations
under this subparagraph, the Secretary concerned shall consider the
availability of quarters for members serving in pay grade E 4 or E 5.
* * * * * * *
(m) Members Paying Child Support.--(1) A member of a uniformed
service with dependents may not be paid a basic allowance for housing at
the with dependents rate solely by reason of the payment of child
support by the member if--
(A) * * *
(B) the member is assigned to sea duty, and elects not to occupy
assigned quarters for unaccompanied personnel, unless the member is in a
pay grade above E 4 E 3.
* * * * * * *
404. Travel and transportation allowances: general
(a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
(2) In prescribing such conditions and allowances, the Secretaries
concerned shall provide that a member who is performing travel under
orders away from his designated post of duty and who is authorized a per
diem under clause (2) of subsection (d) shall be paid for the meals
portion of that per diem in a cash amount at a rate that is not less
than the rate established under section 1011(a) of this title for meals
sold to members. The preceding sentence shall not apply with respect to
a member on field duty or sea duty (as defined in regulations prescribed
under section 402(e) section 403(f)(3) of this title) or a member of a
unit with respect to which the Secretary concerned has determined that
unit messing is essential to the accomplishment of the unit's training
and readiness.
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) Under uniform regulations prescribed by the Secretaries
concerned and as provided in paragraph (2), a member who--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) is involuntarily separated from active duty during the period
beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on September 30, 2001 December
31, 2001,
* * * * * * *
(f)(1) * * *
(2)(A) * * *
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to a member--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(v) who is involuntarily separated from active duty during the
period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on September 30, 2001
December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
404a. Travel and transportation allowances: temporary lodging expenses
(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretaries concerned, a
member of a uniformed service who is ordered to make a change of
permanent station--
(1) from any duty station to a duty station in the United States
(other than Hawaii or Alaska);
(2) from a duty station in the United States (other than Hawaii or
Alaska) to a duty station outside the United States or in Hawaii or
Alaska; or
(3) in the case of an enlisted member who is reporting to the
member's first permanent duty station, from the member's home of record
or initial technical school to that first permanent duty station;
shall be paid or reimbursed for subsistence expenses actually incurred
by the member and the member's dependents while occupying temporary
quarters incident to that change of permanent station. In the case of a
change of permanent station described in paragraph (1) or (3), the
period for which such expenses are to be paid or reimbursed may not
exceed 10 days. In the case of a change of permanent station described
in paragraph (2), the period for which such expenses are to be paid or
reimbursed may not exceed five days and such payment or reimbursement
may be provided only for expenses incurred before leaving the United
States (other than Hawaii or Alaska).
(a) Payment or Reimbursement of Subsistence Expenses.--(1) Under
regulations prescribed by the Secretaries concerned, a member of a
uniformed service who is ordered to make a change of permanent station
described in paragraph (2) shall be paid or reimbursed for subsistence
expenses of the member and the member's dependents for the period
(subject to subsection (c)) for which the member and dependents occupy
temporary quarters incident to that change of permanent station.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies to the following:
(A) A permanent change of station from any duty station to a duty
station in the United States (other than Hawaii or Alaska).
(B) A permanent change of station from a duty station in the United
States (other than Hawaii or Alaska) to a duty station outside the
United States or in Hawaii or Alaska.
(C) In the case of an enlisted member who is reporting to the
member's first permanent duty station, the change from the member's home
of record or initial technical school to that first permanent duty
station.
(b) Payment in Advance.--The Secretary concerned may make any payment
for subsistence expenses to a member under this section in advance of
the member actually incurring the expenses. The amount of an advance
payment made to a member shall be computed on the basis of the
Secretary's determination of the average number of days that members and
their dependents occupy temporary quarters under the circumstances
applicable to the member and the member's dependents.
(c) Maximum Payment Period.--(1) In the case of a change of permanent
station described in subparagraph (A) or (C) of subsection (a)(2), the
period for which subsistence expenses are to be paid or reimbursed under
this section may not exceed 10 days.
(2) In the case of a change of permanent station described in
subsection (a)(2)(B)--
(A) the period for which such expenses are to be paid or reimbursed
under this section may not exceed five days; and
(B) such payment or reimbursement may be provided only for expenses
incurred before leaving the United States (other than Hawaii or Alaska).
(b) (d) Daily Subsistence Rates.--Regulations prescribed under
subsection (a) shall prescribe average daily subsistence rates for
purposes of this section for the member and for each dependent. Such
rates may not exceed the maximum per diem rates prescribed under section
404(d) of this title for the area where the temporary quarters are
located.
(c) (e) Maximum Daily Payment.--A member may not be paid or
reimbursed more that $110 a day under this section.
405. Travel and transportation allowances: per diem while on
duty outside the United States or in Hawaii or Alaska
(a) Without regard to the monetary limitation of this title, the
Secretaries concerned may authorize the payment of a per diem,
considering all elements of the cost of living to members of the
uniformed services under their jurisdiction and their dependents
including the cost of quarters, subsistence, and other necessary
incidental expenses, to such a member who is on duty outside of the
United States or in Hawaii or Alaska, whether or not he is in a travel
status. However, dependents may not be considered in determining the per
diem allowance for a member in a travel status.
(b) Housing cost and allowance may be disregarded in prescribing a
station cost of living allowance under this section.
405. Travel and transportation allowances: per diem while on
duty outside the United States or in Hawaii or Alaska
(a) Per Diem Authorized.--Without regard to the monetary limitation
of this title, the Secretary concerned may pay a per diem to a member of
the uniformed services who is on duty outside of the United States or in
Hawaii or Alaska, whether or not the member is in a travel status. The
Secretary may pay the per diem in advance of the accrual of the per
diem.
(b) Determination of Per Diem.--In determining the per diem to be
paid under this section, the Secretary concerned shall consider all
elements of the cost of living to members of the uniformed services
under the Secretary's jurisdiction and their dependents, including the
cost of quarters, subsistence, and other necessary incidental expenses.
However, dependents may not be considered in determining the per diem
allowance for a member in a travel status.
(c) Treatment of Housing Cost and Allowance.--Housing cost and
allowance may be disregarded in prescribing a station cost of living
allowance under this section.
406. Travel and transportation allowances: dependents; baggage
and household effects
(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a member of a uniformed
service who is ordered to make a change of permanent station is entitled
to transportation in kind, reimbursement therefor, or a monetary
allowance in place of the cost of transportation, plus a per diem, for
the member's dependents at rates prescribed by the Secretaries
concerned, but not more than the rate authorized under section 404(d) of
this title. The Secretary concerned may also reimburse the member for
mandatory pet quarantine fees for household pets, but not to exceed $275
per change of station, when the member incurs the fees incident to such
change of station.
(2)(A) * * *
(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to a member--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(v) who is involuntarily separated from active duty during the
period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on September 30, 2001
December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
(g)(1) Under uniform regulations prescribed by the Secretaries
concerned, a member who--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) is involuntarily separated from active duty during the period
beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on September 30, 2001 December
31, 2001,
* * * * * * *
407. Travel and transportation allowances: dislocation allowance
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Dislocation Allowance Rates.--(1) The amount of the dislocation
allowance to be paid under this section to a member shall be based on
the member's pay grade and dependency status at the time the member
becomes entitled to the allowance , except that the Secretary concerned
may not differentiate between members with dependents in pay grades E 1
through E 5 .
(2) The initial rate for the dislocation allowance, for each pay
grade and dependency status, shall be equal to the rate in effect for
that pay grade and dependency status on December 31, 1997, as adjusted
by the average percentage increase in the rates of basic pay for
calendar year 1998. Effective on the same date that the monthly rates of
basic pay for members are increased for a subsequent calendar year, the
Secretary of Defense shall adjust the rates for the dislocation
allowance for that calendar year by the percentage equal to the average
percentage increase in the rates of basic pay for that calendar year ,
except that the Secretary concerned may not differentiate between
members with dependents in pay grades E 1 through E 5.
* * * * * * *
411i. Travel and transportation allowances: parking expenses
(a) Reimbursement Authority.--The Secretary of Defense may reimburse
a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps described in
subsection (b) for expenses incurred by the member in parking a
privately owned vehicle being used by the member to commute to the
member's place of duty.
(b) Eligible Members.--A member referred to in subsection (a) is a
member who is--
(1) assigned to duty as a recruiter for any of the armed forces;
(2) assigned to duty with a military entrance processing facility of
the armed forces; or
(3) detailed for instructional and administrative duties at any
institution where a unit of the Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps
is maintained.
(c) Inclusion of Certain Civilian Employees.--The Secretary of
Defense may extend the reimbursement authority provided by subsection
(a) to civilian employees of the Department of Defense whose employment
responsibilities include performing activities related to the duties
specified in subsection (b).
* * * * * * *
414. Personal money allowance
(a) Allowance for Officers Serving in Certain Ranks or Positions.--In
addition to other pay or allowances authorized by this title, an officer
who is entitled to basic pay is entitled to a personal money allowance
of--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Allowance for Certain Naval Officers.--In addition to other pay
or allowances authorized by law, an officer who is serving in one of the
following positions is entitled to the amount set forth for that
position, to be paid annually out of naval appropriations for pay, and
to be spent in his discretion for the contingencies of his position--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Allowance for Senior Enlisted Members.--In addition to other pay
or allowances authorized by this title, a noncommissioned officer is
entitled to a personal money allowance of $2,000 a year while serving as
the Sergeant Major of the Army, the Master Chief Petty Officer of the
Navy, the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, the Sergeant Major of
the Marine Corps, or the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard.
* * * * * * *
415. Uniform allowance: officers; initial allowance
(a) Subject to subsection (b), an officer of an armed force is
entitled to an initial allowance of not more than $200 $400 as
reimbursement for the purchase of required uniforms and equipment--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
416. Uniform allowance: officers; additional allowances
(a) In addition to the allowance provided by section 415 of this
title, a reserve officer of an armed force, an officer of the Army or
the Air Force without specification of component, or a regular officer
of an armed force appointed under section 2106 or 2107 of title 10 is
entitled to not more than $100 $200 as reimbursement for additional
uniforms and equipment required on that duty, for each time that the
officer enters on active duty for a period of more than 90 days.
* * * * * * *
430. Travel and transportation: dependent children of members
stationed overseas
(a) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a
member of a uniformed service who--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) has a dependent child who is under 23 years of age attending a
school in the continental United States for the purpose of obtaining a
secondary or undergraduate college education for the purpose of
obtaining a formal education, may be paid the allowance set forth in
subsection (b) if he otherwise qualifies for such allowance.
(b)(1) A member described in subsection (a) may be paid a
transportation allowance for each unmarried dependent child, who is
under 23 years of age and is attending a school in the continental
United States for the purpose of obtaining a secondary or undergraduate
college education for the purpose of obtaining a formal education, of
one annual trip between the school being attended and the member's duty
station outside the continental United States and return. The allowance
authorized by this section may be transportation in kind or
reimbursement therefor, as prescribed by the Secretaries concerned.
However, the transportation authorized by this section may not be paid a
member for a child attending a school in the continental United States
for the purpose of obtaining a secondary education if the child is
eligible to attend a secondary school for dependents that is located at
or in the vicinity of the duty station of the member and is operated
under the Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978 (20 U.S.C. 921 et
seq.).
(f) In this section, the term In this section:
(1) The term ``continental United States'' means the 48 contiguous
States and the District of Columbia.
(2) The term ``formal education'' means the following:
(A) A secondary education.
(B) An undergraduate college education.
(C) A graduate education pursued on a full-time basis at an
institution of higher education (as defined in section 101 of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)).
(D) Vocational education pursued on a full-time basis at a
post-secondary vocational institution (as defined in section 102(c) of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002(c))).
* * * * * * *
435. Funeral honors duty: allowance
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Full Compensation.--Except for expenses reimbursed under
subsection (c) of section 12503 of title 10 or subsection (c) of section
115 of title 32, the allowance paid under this section is the only
monetary compensation authorized to be paid a member for the performance
of funeral honors duty pursuant to such section, regardless of the grade
in which the member is serving, and shall constitute payment in full to
the member.
435. 436. Per diem allowance for lengthy or numerous deployments
(a) Per Diem Required.--The Secretary of the military department
concerned shall pay a high-deployment per diem allowance to a member of
the armed forces under the Secretary's jurisdiction for each day on
which the member (1) is deployed, and (2) has, as of that day, been
deployed 251 days or more out of the preceding 365 days.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 19--ADMINISTRATION
* * * * * * *
1012. Disbursement and accounting: pay of enlisted members of
the National Guard
Amounts appropriated for the pay, under subsections (a), (b), and (d)
of section 206, section 301(f), section 402(b)(3) section 402(e), and
section 1002 of this title, of enlisted members of the Army National
Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United
States for attending regular periods of duty and instruction shall be
disbursed and accounted for by the Secretary of Defense. All such
disbursements shall be made for 3-month periods for units of the Army
National Guard or Air National Guard under regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of Defense, and on pay rolls prepared and authenticated as
prescribed in those regulations.
* * * * * * *
SECTION 503(C) OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1991
SEC. 503. TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES RELATING TO
MEMBERS INVOLUNTARILY SEPARATED.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Storage of Household Effects.--(1) The Secretary of a military
department shall exercise the authority provided by section 406 of title
37, United States Code, to provide nontemporary storage of baggage and
household effects for a period not longer than one year in the case of
individuals who are involuntarily separated during the period beginning
on October 1, 1990, and ending on September 30, 2001 December 31, 2001.
* * * * * * *
DEFENSE DEPENDENTS' EDUCATION ACT OF 1978
ADMINISTRATION OF DEFENSE DEPENDENTS' EDUCATION SYSTEM
Sec. 1403. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) The Director shall--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) perform such other functions as may be required or delegated by
the Secretary of Defense or the the Assistant Secretary of Defense
designated under subsection (a).
* * * * * * *
SCHOOL SYSTEM FOR DEPENDENTS IN OVERSEAS AREAS
Sec. 1407. (a) The Secretary of Defense shall establish and operate
a school system for dependents in overseas areas as part of the defense
dependents' education system.
* * * * * * *
(c) Continuation of Enrollment for Certain Dependents of Members of
the Armed Forces Involuntarily Separated.--(1) A member of the Armed
Forces serving on active duty on September 30, 1990, who is
involuntarily separated during the period beginning on October 1, 1990,
and ending on September 30, 2001 December 31, 2001, and who has a
dependent described in paragraph (2) who is enrolled in a school of the
defense dependents' education system (or a school for which tuition is
provided under subsection (b)) on the date of that separation shall be
eligible to enroll or continue the enrollment of that dependent at that
school (or another school serving the same community) for the final year
of secondary education of that dependent in the same manner as if the
member were still on active duty.
* * * * * * *
SECTION 811 OF THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF
1996
SEC. 811. FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION.
(a) In General.--With funds made available pursuant to subsection (c)--
(1) the Attorney General shall--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(F) increase personnel to support counterterrorism activities; and
(2) the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation may expand
the combined DNA Identification System (CODIS) to include Federal crimes
and crimes committed in the District of Columbia. ; and
(3) the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation shall expand
the combined DNA Identification System (CODIS) to include analyses of
DNA samples collected from members of the Armed Forces convicted of a
qualifying military offense in accordance with section 1563 of title 10,
United States Code.
* * * * * * *
SECTION 210304 OF THE VIOLENT CRIME CONTROL AND LAW ENFORCEMENT ACT OF
1994
SEC. 210304. INDEX TO FACILITATE LAW ENFORCEMENT EXCHANGE OF
DNA IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION.
(a) Establishment of Index.--The Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation may establish an index of--
(1) DNA identification records of persons convicted of crimes;
(2) analyses of DNA samples recovered from crime scenes;
(3) analyses of DNA samples recovered from unidentified human
remains; and
(4) analyses of DNA samples voluntarily contributed from relatives
of missing persons. ; and
(5) analyses of DNA samples collected from members of the Armed
Forces convicted of a qualifying military offense in accordance with
section 1563 of title 10, United States Code.
(b) Information.--The index described in subsection (a) shall include
only information on DNA identification records and DNA analyses that
are--
(1) * * *
(2) prepared by laboratories, and DNA analysts, that undergo, at
regular intervals of not to exceed 180 days, semiannual external
proficiency testing by a DNA proficiency testing program meeting the
standards issued under section 210303; and
* * * * * * *
(d) Expungement of Records of Military Offenders.--If the Director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation receives a notice transmitted under
section 1563(d)(2) of title 10, United States Code, the Director shall
promptly expunge from the index described in subsection (a) any DNA
analysis furnished under section 1563(d)(1) of such title with respect
to the person described in the notice.
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
* * * * * * *
SEC. 602. REFORM OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR SUBSISTENCE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Transitional Entitlement to Allowance.--
(1) Enlisted members.--
(A) Types of entitlement.--An enlisted member is entitled to the
basic allowance for subsistence, on a daily basis, of under one or more
of the following circumstances:
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
SEC. 603. CONSOLIDATION OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR QUARTERS,
VARIABLE HOUSING ALLOWANCE, AND OVERSEAS HOUSING ALLOWANCES.
(a) * * *
(b) Transition to Basic Allowance for Housing.--The Secretary of
Defense shall develop and implement a plan to incrementally manage the
rate of growth of the various components of the basic allowance for
housing authorized by section 403 of title 37, United States Code (as
amended by subsection (a)), during a
transition period of not more than six years eight years.
During the transition period, the Secretary may continue to use the
authorities provided under sections 403, 403a, 405(b), and 427(a) of
title 37, United States Code (as in effect on the day before the date of
the enactment of this Act), but subject to such modifications as the
Secretary considers necessary, to provide allowances for members of the
uniformed services.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 731. IMPROVEMENTS IN HEALTH CARE COVERAGE AND ACCESS FOR
MEMBERS ASSIGNED TO CERTAIN DUTY LOCATIONS FAR FROM SOURCES OF CARE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Temporary Authority for Managed Care Expansion to Members on
Active Duty at Certain Remote Locations.--(1) A member of the Armed
Forces uniformed services described in subsection (c) is entitled to
receive care under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the
Uniformed Services. In connection with such care, the Secretary of
Defense shall waive the obligation of the member to pay a deductible,
copayment, or annual fee that would otherwise be applicable under that
program for care provided to the members under the program. A dependent
of the member, as described in subparagraph (A), (D), or (I) of section
1072(2) of title 10, United States Code, who is residing with the member
shall have the same entitlement to care and to waiver of charges as the
member.
(2) A member or dependent of the member, as the case may be, who is
entitled under paragraph (1) to receive health care services under
CHAMPUS shall receive such care from a network provider under the
TRICARE program if such a provider is available in the service area of
the member.
* * * * * * *
(4) The Secretary of Defense shall consult with the other
administering Secretaries in the administration of this subsection.
(c) Eligible Members.--A member referred to in subsection (b) is a
member of the Armed Forces uniformed services on active duty who--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Duty Assignments Covered.--A duty assignment referred to in
subsection (c)(1) means any of the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Permanent duty as a full-time adviser to a unit of a reserve
component of the Armed Forces uniformed services.
* * * * * * *
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The terms ``uniformed services'' and ``administering
Secretaries'' have the meanings given those terms in section 1072 of
title 10, United States Code.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE C--OTHER MATTERS
SEC. 1221. DEFENSE BURDENSHARING.
(a) Efforts To Increase Allied Burdensharing.--The President shall
seek to have each nation that has cooperative military relations with
the United States (including security agreements, basing arrangements,
or mutual participation in multinational military organizations or
operations) take one or more of the following actions:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Increase its annual budgetary outlays for foreign assistance (to
promote democratization, governmental accountability and transparency,
economic stabilization and development, defense economic conversion,
respect for the rule of law and internationally recognized human rights,
and humanitarian relief efforts)) by 10 percent or to provide such
foreign assistance at an annual rate that is not less than one percent
of its gross domestic product, by September 30, 1999.
* * * * * * *
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
PART B--BONUSES AND SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAY
* * * * * * *
SEC. 614. EXTENSION OF SPECIAL PAY FOR NURSE ANESTHETISTS TO
OTHER NURSING SPECIALTIES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Implementation of Amendment.--The Secretary of Defense may not
implement subsection (b)(2) of section 302e of title 37, United States
Code (as added by subsection (a)), unless the Secretary submits to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives
a report--
(1) justifying the need of the departments for the authority
provided in such subsection; and
(2) describing the manner in which that authority will be implemented.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 617. RETENTION BONUS FOR OPTOMETRISTS.
(a) * * *
(b) Implementation of Amendment.--The Secretary of Defense may not
implement subsection (b) of section 302a of title 37, United States Code
(as added by subsection (a)), unless the Secretary submits to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives
a report--
(1) justifying the need of the military departments for the
authority provided in such subsection; and
(2) describing the manner in which that authority will be implemented.
* * * * * * *
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Health Care Services
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
SEC. 601. FISCAL YEAR 2000 INCREASE IN MILITARY BASIC PAY AND
REFORM OF BASIC PAY RATES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Reform of Basic Pay Rates.--Effective on July 1, 2000, the rates
of monthly basic pay for members of the uniformed services within each
pay grade are as follows:
COMMISSIONED OFFICERS\1\
Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States Code
Pay Grade 2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
O 10\2\ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
O 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
O 8 6,594.30 6,810.30 6,953.10 6,993.30 7,171.80
O 7 5,479.50 5,851.80 5,851.80 5,894.40 6,114.60
O 6 4,061.10 4,461.60 4,754.40 4,754.40 4,772.40
O 5 3,248.40 3,813.90 4,077.90 4,127.70 4,291.80
O 4 2,737.80 3,333.90 3,556.20 3,606.00 3,812.40
O 3\3\ 2,544.00 2,884.20 3,112.80 3,364.80 3,525.90
O 2\3\ 2,218.80 2,527.20 2,910.90 3,009.00 3,071.10
O 1\3\ 1,926.30 2,004.90 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10
----------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
----------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
O 10\2\ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
O 9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
O 8 7,471.50 7,540.80 7,824.60 7,906.20 8,150.10
O 7 6,282.00 6,475.80 6,669.00 6,863.10 7,471.50
O 6 4,976.70 5,004.00 5,004.00 5,169.30 5,791.20
O 5 4,291.80 4,420.80 4,659.30 4,971.90 5,286.00
O 4 3,980.40 4,252.50 4,464.00 4,611.00 4,758.90
O 3\3\ 3,702.60 3,850.20 4,040.40 4,139.10 4,139.10
O 2\3\ 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10
O 1\3\ 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10
----------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
----------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------
O 10\2\ $0.00 $10,655.10 $10,707.60 $10,930.20 $11,318.40
O 9 0.00 9,319.50 9,453.60 9,647.70 9,986.40
O 8 8,503.80 8,830.20 9,048.00 9,048.00 9,048.00
O 7 7,985.40 7,985.40 7,985.40 7,985.40 8,025.60
O 6 6,086.10 6,381.30 6,549.00 6,719.10 7,049.10
O 5 5,436.00 5,583.60 5,751.90 5,751.90 5,751.90
O 4 4,808.70 4,808.70 4,808.70 4,808.70 4,808.70
O 3\3\ 4,139.10 4,139.10 4,139.10 4,139.10 4,139.10
O 2\3\ 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10 3,071.10
O 1\3\ 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10 2,423.10
\1\Notwithstanding the pay rates specified in this table, the actual basic pay for commissioned officers in grades O 7 through O 10 may not exceed the rate of pay for level III of the Executive Schedule and the actual basic pay for all other officers, including warrant officers, may not exceed the rate of pay for level V of the Executive Schedule.
\2\Subject to the preceding footnote, while serving as Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Staff of the Army, Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Commandant of the Marine Corps, or Commandant of the Coast Guard, basic pay for this grade is calculated to be $12,441.00 $12,488.70 , regardless of cumulative years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States Code.
\3\This table does not apply to commissioned officers in the grade O 1, O 2, or O 3 who have been credited with over 4 years of active duty service as an enlisted member or warrant officer.
* * * * * * *
ENLISTED MEMBERS\1\
Years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States Code
Pay Grade 2 or less Over 2 Over 3 Over 4 Over 6
9\2\ $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7 1,765.80 1,927.80 2,001.00 2,073.00 2,147.70
6 1,518.90 1,678.20 1,752.60 1,824.30 1,899.30
5 1,332.60 1,494.00 1,566.00 1,640.40 1,714.50
4 1,242.90 1,373.10 1,447.20 1,520.10 1,593.90
3 1,171.50 1,260.60 1,334.10 1,335.90 1,335.90
2 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40
1 \3\ 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60
--------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -----------
Over 8 Over 10 Over 12 Over 14 Over 16
--------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -----------
9\2\ $0.00 $3,015.30 $3,083.40 $3,169.80 $3,271.50
8 2,528.40 2,601.60 2,669.70 2,751.60 2,840.10
7 2,220.90 2,294.10 2,367.30 2,439.30 2,514.00
6 1,973.10 2,047.20 2,118.60 2,191.50 2,244.60
5 1,789.50 1,861.50 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20
4 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90
3 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90
2 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40
1 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60
--------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -----------
Over 18 Over 20 Over 22 Over 24 Over 26
--------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ -----------
9\2\ $3,373.20 $3,473.40 $3,609.30 $3,744.00 $3,915.90
8 2,932.50 3,026.10 3,161.10 3,295.50 3,483.60
7 2,588.10 2,660.40 2,787.60 2,926.20 3,134.40
6 2,283.30 2,283.30 2,285.70 2,285.70 2,285.70
5 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20 1,936.20
4 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90 1,593.90
3 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90 1,335.90
2 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,127.40 1,123.20 1,127.40
1 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60 1,005.60
\1\Notwithstanding the pay rates specified in this table, the actual basic pay for enlisted members may not exceed the rate of pay for level V of the Executive Schedule.
\2\Subject to the preceding footnote, while serving as Sergeant Major of the Army, Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy, Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force, Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, or Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard, basic pay for this grade is $4,701.00 $4,719.00, regardless of cumulative years of service computed under section 205 of title 37, United States Code.
\3\In the case of members in the grade E 1 who have served less than 4 months on active duty, basic pay is $930.30.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Health Care Services
* * * * * * *
SEC. 703. PROVISION OF DOMICILIARY AND CUSTODIAL CARE FOR
CERTAIN CHAMPUS BENEFICIARIES.
(a) Continuation of Care.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) The Secretary may provide payment for domiciliary or custodial
care services provided to an eligible beneficiary for which payment was
discontinued by reason of section 1086(d) of title 10, United States
Code, and subsequently reestablished under other legal authority. Such
payment is authorized for the period beginning on the date of
discontinuation of payment for domiciliary or custodial care services
and ending on the date of reestablishment of payment for such services.
* * * * * * *
(e) Cost Limitation.--The total amount paid for services for eligible
beneficiaries under subsection (a) for a fiscal year (together with the
costs of administering the authority under that subsection) shall be
included in the expenditures limited by section 1079(a)(17)(B) of title
10, United States Code.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 706. HEALTH CARE AT FORMER UNIFORMED SERVICES TREATMENT
FACILITIES FOR ACTIVE DUTY MEMBERS STATIONED AT CERTAIN REMOTE
LOCATIONS.
(a) * * *
(b) Eligibility.--A member of the Armed Forces uniformed services (as
defined in section 1072(1) of title 10, United States Code) is eligible
for health care under subsection (a) if the member is a member described
in section 731(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1998 (Public Law 105 85; 111 Stat. 1811; 10 U.S.C. 1074 note).
* * * * * * *
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Miscellaneous Report Requirements and Repeals
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1035. REPORT ON ASSESSMENTS OF READINESS TO EXECUTE THE
NATIONAL MILITARY STRATEGY.
(a) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment
of this Act Not later than April 1 each year, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the
House of Representatives a report in unclassified form assessing the
effect of continued operations in the Balkans region on--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Matters To Be Included.--The Each report under subsection (a)
shall include the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Consultation.--In preparing the a report under this section, the
Secretary of Defense shall consult with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, the commanders of the unified commands, the Secretaries of the
military departments, and the heads of the combat support agencies and
other such entities within the Department of Defense as the Secretary
considers necessary.
* * * * * * *
STROM THURMOND NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--Officer Personnel Policy
* * * * * * *
SEC. 503. STREAMLINED SELECTIVE RETENTION PROCESS FOR REGULAR OFFICERS.
(a) Repeal of Requirement for Duplicative Board.--Section 1183 of
title 10, United States Code, is repealed.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 1182(c) of such title is
amended by striking out ``send the record of its proceedings to a board
of review convened under section 1183 of this title'' and inserting in
lieu thereof ``recommend to the Secretary concerned that the officer not
be retained on active duty''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 645. RECOVERY, CARE, AND DISPOSITION OF REMAINS OF
MEDICALLY RETIRED MEMBER WHO DIES DURING HOSPITALIZATION THAT BEGINS
WHILE ON ACTIVE DUTY.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Repeal of Obsolete Terminology.--Paragraph (1) of such section is
amended by striking out ``, or a member member of an armed force without
component,''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--Health Care Services
SEC. 701. DEPENDENTS' DENTAL PROGRAM.
(a) Premium Increase.-- (1) Section 1076a(b)(2) of title 10, United
States Code, is amended--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Limitation on Reduction of Benefits.--Section 1076a of such title
is further amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Health Care Services for Medicare-Eligible
Department of Defense Beneficiaries
* * * * * * *
SEC. 722. TRICARE AS SUPPLEMENT TO MEDICARE DEMONSTRATION.
(a) In General.--(1) * * *
(2) The Secretary shall commence the demonstration project not later
than January 1, 2000, and shall terminate the demonstration project not
later than December 31, 2002 December 31, 2003.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 723. IMPLEMENTATION OF REDESIGN OF PHARMACY SYSTEM.
(a) In General.--Not later than October 1, 1999 April 1, 2001, the
Secretary of Defense shall implement, with respect to eligible
individuals described in subsection (e) who reside in an area selected
under subsection (f), the redesign of the pharmacy system under TRICARE
(including the mail-order and retail pharmacy benefit under TRICARE) to
incorporate ``best business practices'' of the private sector in
providing pharmaceuticals, as developed under the plan described in
section 703.
(b) Collection of Premiums and Other Charges.--The Secretary of
Defense may collect from eligible individuals described in subsection
(e) who participate in the redesigned pharmacy system any premiums,
deductibles, copayments, or other charges that the Secretary would
otherwise collect from individuals similar to such individuals.
(b) Program Requirements.--The same coverage for pharmacy services
and the same procedures for cost sharing and reimbursement as are
applicable under section 1086 of title 10, United States Code, shall
apply with respect to the program required by subsection (a).
* * * * * * *
(d) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit two reports on the results
of the evaluation under subsection (c), together with the evaluation, to
the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on
National Security of the House of Representatives. The first report
shall be submitted not later than December 31, 2000 December 31, 2001,
and the second report shall be submitted not later than December 31,
2002 December 31, 2003.
(e) Eligible Individuals.--(1) An individual is eligible to
participate under this section if the individual is a member or former
member of the uniformed services described in section 1074(b) of title
10, United States Code, a dependent of the member described in section
1076(a)(2)(B) or 1076(b) of that title, or a dependent of a member of
the uniformed services who died while on active duty for a period of
more than 30 days, who--
(A) * * *
(B) is entitled to hospital insurance benefits under part A of title
XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c et seq.); and
(C) except as provided in paragraph (2), is enrolled in the
supplemental medical insurance program under part B of such title XVIII
(42 U.S.C. 1395j et seq.); and .
(D) resides in an area selected by the Secretary under subsection (f).
(2) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply in the case of an individual who
at the time of attaining the age of 65 lived within 100 miles of the
catchment area of a military medical treatment facility before April 1,
2001, has attained the age of 65 and did not enroll in the program
described in such paragraph.
(f) Areas of Implementation.--(1) The Secretary shall carry out the
implementation of the redesign of the pharmacy system under TRICARE in
two separate areas selected by the Secretary.
(2) The areas selected by the Secretary under paragraph (1) shall be
as follows:
(A) One area shall be an area outside the catchment area of a
military medical treatment facility in which--
(i) no eligible organization has a contract in effect under section
1876 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395mm) and no
Medicare+Choice organization has a contract in effect under part C of
title XVIII of that Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w 21); or
(ii) the aggregate number of enrollees with an eligible organization
with a contract in effect under section 1876 of that Act or with a
Medicare+Choice organization with a contract in effect under part C of
title XVIII of that Act is less than 2.5 percent of the total number of
individuals in the area who are entitled to hospital insurance benefits
under part A of title XVIII of that Act.
(B) The other area shall be an area outside the catchment area of a
military medical treatment facility in which--
(i) at least one eligible organization has a contract in effect
under section 1876 of that Act or one Medicare+Choice organization has a
contract in effect under part C of title XVIII of that Act; and
(ii) the aggregate number of enrollees with an eligible organization
with a contract in effect under section 1876 of that Act or with a
Medicare+Choice organization with a contract in effect under part C of
title XVIII of that Act exceeds 10 percent of the total number of
individuals in the area who are entitled to hospital insurance benefits
under part A of title XVIII of that Act.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 724. COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF
DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AND TRICARE PHARMACY REDESIGN.
Not later than March 31, 2003, the Comptroller General shall submit
to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on
National Security of the House of Representatives a report containing a
comprehensive comparative analysis of the FEHBP demonstration project
conducted under section 1108 of title 10, United States Code (as added
by section 721), the TRICARE Senior Supplement under section 722, the
demonstration project conducted under section 1896 of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395ggg), and the redesign of the TRICARE
pharmacy system under section 723. The comprehensive analysis shall
incorporate the findings of the evaluation submitted under section
723(c) and the report submitted under subsection (j) of such section
1108.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--Amendments to General Contracting Authorities,
Procedures, and Limitations
* * * * * * *
SEC. 802. DISTRIBUTION OF ASSISTANCE UNDER THE PROCUREMENT
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Technical Amendment.--Section 2415 of such title is amended by
striking out ``Defense Contract Administrative Administration Services''
and inserting in lieu thereof ``Department of Defense contract
administrative services''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1101. DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY
EXPERIMENTAL PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR TECHNICAL PERSONNEL.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Period of Program.--(1) The program authorized under this section
shall terminate at the end of the 5-year period referred to in
subsection (a).
(2) After the termination of the program--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) no period of service may be extended under subsection (c)(1)
subsection (c)(2).
* * * * * * *
SECTION 1896 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
MEDICARE SUBVENTION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR MILITARY RETIREES
Sec. 1896. (a) * * *
(b) Demonstration Project.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Duration.--The administering Secretaries shall conduct the
demonstration project during the 3-year period beginning on January 1,
1998 period beginning on January 1, 1998, and ending on December 31,
2003.
* * * * * * *
(6) Utilization review procedures.--The Secretary of Defense shall
develop and implement procedures to review utilization of health care
services by medicare-eligible military retirees and dependents under
this section in order to enable the Secretary of Defense to more
effectively manage the use of military medical treatment facilities by
such retirees and dependents.
* * * * * * *
(k) Evaluation and Reports.--
(1) Independent evaluation.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct an evaluation of the demonstration project, and
shall submit annual reports on the demonstration project to the
administering Secretaries and to the committees of jurisdiction in the
Congress. The first report shall be submitted not later than 12 months
after the date on which the demonstration project begins operation, and
the final report not later than 3\1/2\ 4\1/2\ years after that date. The
evaluation and reports shall include an assessment, based on the
agreement entered into under subsection (b), of the following:
(A) Any savings or costs to the medicare program under this title
resulting from the demonstration project.
* * * * * * *
(P) Which interagency funding mechanisms would be most appropriate
if the project under this section is made permanent.
(Q) The ability of the Department of Defense to operate an effective
and efficient managed care system for medicare beneficiaries.
(R) The ability of the Department of Defense to meet the managed
care access and quality of care standards under medicare.
(S) The adequacy of the data systems of the Department of Defense
for providing timely, necessary, and accurate information required to
properly manage the demonstration project.
SECTION 715 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1996
SEC. 715. TRAINING IN HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT AND
ADMINISTRATION FOR TRICARE LEAD AGENTS.
(a) Provision of Training.--Not later than six months after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall implement a
professional educational program to provide appropriate training in
health care management and administration--
(1) to each commander , deputy commander, and managed care
coordinator of a military medical treatment facility of the Department
of Defense and any other person who is selected to serve as a lead agent
to coordinate the delivery of health care by military and civilian
providers under the TRICARE program; and
(2) to appropriate members of the support staff of the treatment
facility who will be responsible for daily operation of the TRICARE
program.
(b) Limitation on Assignment Until Completion of Training.--No person
may be assigned as the commander, deputy commander, or managed care
coordinator of a military medical treatment facility or as a TRICARE
lead agent or senior member of the staff of a TRICARE lead agent office
until the Secretary of the military department concerned submits a
certification to the Secretary of Defense that such person has completed
the training described in subsection (a).
(b) (c) Report on Implementation.--Not later than six months after
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to Congress a report describing the
professional educational program implemented pursuant to this section.
SECTION 142 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1993
SEC. 142. MH 47E/MH 60K HELICOPTER MODIFICATION PROGRAMS.
(a) Required Testing.--Notwithstanding the requirements of
subsections (a) (2) and (b) of section 2366 of title 10, United States
Code, and the requirements of subsection (a) of section 2399 of such
title--
(1) operational test and evaluation and survivability testing of the
MH 60K helicopter under the MH 60K helicopter modification program shall
be completed prior to full materiel release of the MH 60K helicopters
for operational use; and
(2) operational test and evaluation and survivability testing of the
MH 47E helicopter under the MH 47E helicopter modification program shall
be completed prior to full materiel release of the MH 47E helicopters
for operational use.
* * * * * * *
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Women in the Service
* * * * * * *
SEC. 542. NOTICE TO CONGRESS OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN COMBAT
ASSIGNMENTS TO WHICH FEMALE MEMBERS MAY BE ASSIGNED.
(a) In General.--(1) Except in a case covered by subsection (b) or by
section 6035 of title 10, United States Code, whenever the Secretary of
Defense proposes to change military personnel policies in order to make
available to female members of the Armed Forces assignment to any type
of combat unit, class of combat vessel, or type of combat platform that
is not open to such assignments, the Secretary shall, not less than 30
days before such change is implemented, transmit to the Committees on
Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives notice of the
proposed change in personnel policy.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 845. AUTHORITY OF THE DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS
AGENCY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN PROTOTYPE PROJECTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Period of Authority.--The authority to carry out projects under
subsection (a) shall terminate at the end of September 30, 1999
September 30, 2004.
SECTION 1502 OF THE ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME ACT OF 1991
SEC. 1502. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this title:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(7) The term ``chief personnel officers'' means--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) the Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower of the Marine Corps.
(D) the Deputy Commandant of the Marine Corps with responsibility
for personnel matters.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 403 OF TITLE 36, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 403--CIVIL AIR PATROL
Sec.
40301. Organization.
* * * * * * *
40303. Membership.
40303. Membership and governing body.
* * * * * * *
40302. Purposes
The purposes of the corporation are to-- as follows:
(1) To provide an organization to--
(A) encourage and aid citizens of the United States in contributing
their efforts, services, and resources in developing aviation and in
maintaining air supremacy; and
(B) encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of
private citizens to the public welfare; .
(2) To provide aviation education and training especially to its
senior and cadet members; .
(3) To encourage and foster civil aviation in local communities; and .
(4) To provide an organization of private citizens with adequate
facilities to assist in meeting local and national emergencies.
(5) To assist the Department of the Air Force in fulfilling its
noncombat programs and missions.
40303. Membership
40303. Membership and governing body
(a) Membership.--Eligibility for membership in the corporation and
the rights and privileges of members are as provided in the constitution
and bylaws of the corporation.
(b) Governing Body.--The Civil Air Patrol has a Board of Governors.
The composition and responsibilities of the Board of Governors are set
forth in section 9447 of title 10.
* * * * * * *
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Navy Programs
* * * * * * *
SEC. 122. ARLEIGH BURKE CLASS DESTROYER PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Authority for Multiyear Procurement of 18 Vessels.--The Secretary
of the Navy is authorized, pursuant to section 2306b of title 10, United
States Code, to enter into multiyear contracts for the procurement of a
total of 18 Arleigh Burke class destroyers at a procurement rate of
three ships in each of fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and
2003 Arleigh Burke class
destroyers in accordance with this subsection and subsection
(a)(4), subject to the availability of appropriations for such
destroyers. Vessels authorized under this subsection shall be acquired
at a procurement rate of three ships per year in each of fiscal years
1998 through 2001 and up to three ships per year in each of fiscal years
2002 through 2005. A contract for construction of one or more vessels
that is entered into in accordance with this subsection shall include a
clause that limits the liability of the Government to the contractor for
any termination of the contract.
* * * * * * *
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle F--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1065. GEORGE C. MARSHALL EUROPEAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC
SECURITY STUDIES.
(a) Authority To Accept Foreign Gifts and Donations.--(1) The
Secretary of Defense may, on behalf of the George C. Marshall European
Center for Strategic Security Studies (in this section referred to as
the ``Marshall Center''), accept foreign gifts or donations in order to
defray the costs of, or enhance the operation of, the Marshall Center.
(2) Funds received by the Secretary under paragraph (1) shall be
credited to appropriations available for the Department of Defense for
the Marshall Center. Funds so credited shall be merged with the
appropriations to which credited and shall be available for the Marshall
Center for the same purposes and same period as the appropriations with
which merged.
(3) The Secretary of Defense shall notify Congress if the total
amount of money accepted under paragraph (1) exceeds $2,000,000 in any
fiscal year. Any such notice shall list each of the contributors of such
amounts and the amount of each contribution in such fiscal year.
(4) For purposes of this subsection, a foreign gift or donation is a
gift or donation of funds, materials (including research materials),
property, or services (including lecture services and faculty services)
from a foreign government, a foundation or other charitable organization
in a foreign country, or an individual in a foreign country.
(b) Marshall Center Participation by Foreign Nations.--(1)
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Defense may
authorize participation by a European or Eurasian nation in Marshall
Center programs if the Secretary determines, after consultation with the
Secretary of State, that such participation is in the national interest
of the United States.
(2) Not later than January 31 of each year, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to Congress a report setting forth the names of the foreign
nations permitted to participate in programs of the Marshall Center
during the preceding year under paragraph (1). Each such report shall be
prepared by the Secretary with the assistance of the Director of the
Marshall Center.
(a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Marshall Center Board of
Visitors'' means the Board of Visitors of the George C. Marshall
European Center for Security Studies
(c) (b) Exemptions for Members of Marshall Center Board of Visitors
From Certain Requirements.--(1) In the case of any person invited to
serve without compensation on the Marshall Center Board of Visitors, the
Secretary of Defense may waive any requirement for financial disclosure
that
SECTIONS 305 AND 306 OF H.R. 3425
(As enacted into law by section 1005(a)(5) of P.L. 106 113)
Sec. 305. Notwithstanding section 3324 of title 31, United States
Code, and section 1006(h) of title 37, United States Code, the basic pay
and allowances that accrues to members of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps,
and Air Force for the pay period ending on September 30, 2000, shall be
paid, whether by electronic transfer of funds or otherwise, no earlier
than October 1, 2000.
Sec. 306. The pay of any Federal officer or employee that would be
payable on September 29, 2000, or September 30, 2000, for the preceding
applicable pay period (if not for this section) shall be paid, whether
by electronic transfer of funds or otherwise, on October 1, 2000.
SECTION 1001 OF THE ACT OF NOVEMBER 29, 1999
AN ACT Making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes.
Sec. 1001. Paygo Adjustments. (a) Notwithstanding Rule 3 of the
Budget Scorekeeping Guidelines set forth in the joint explanatory
statement of the committee of conference accompanying Conference Report
No. 105 217, legislation enacted in this division by reference in the
paragraphs after paragraph 4 of subsection 1000(a) paragraph (5) of
section 1000(a), and the provisions of titles V, VI, and VII of the
legislation enacted in this division by reference in such paragraph (5),
that would have been estimated by the Office of Management and Budget as
changing direct spending or receipts under section 252 of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 were it included in an
Act other than an appropriations Act shall be treated as direct spending
or receipts legislation as appropriate, under section 252 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, but shall be
subject to subsection (b).
* * * * * * *
SECTIONS 8175 AND 8176 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT,
2000
Sec. 8175. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department
of Defense shall make progress payments based on progress no less than
12 days after receiving a valid billing and the Department of Defense
shall make progress payments based on cost no less than 19 days after
receiving a valid billing: Provided, That this provision shall be
effective only with respect to billings received during the last month
of the fiscal year.
Sec. 8176. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Department
of Defense shall make adjustments in payment procedures and policies to
ensure that payments are made no earlier than one day before the date on
which the payments would otherwise be due under any other provision of
law: Provided, That this provision shall be effective only with respect
to invoices received during the last month of the fiscal year.
SECTION 2905 OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACT OF 1990
SEC. 2905. IMPLEMENTATION.
(a) * * *
(b) Management and Disposal of Property.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4)(A) The Secretary may transfer real property and personal property
located at a military installation to be closed or realigned under this
part to the redevelopment authority with respect to the installation for
purposes of job generation on the installation. This paragraph also
applies to real property at the installation that is initially
transferred to another Federal agency as excess property under the
authority of this part, but is subsequently determined to be excess to
the needs of that agency, if--
(i) the excess property is adjacent to property that was conveyed to
the redevelopment authority with respect to the installation;
(ii) the acreage of the excess property is equal to less than 10
percent of the other acreage conveyed to the redevelopment authority;
and
(iii) the property has been screened for further Federal use as
provided in section 2696 of title 10, United States Code,
notwithstanding subsection (e)(3) of such section.
* * * * * * *
(G) The provisions of section 120(h) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42
U.S.C. 9620(h)) shall apply to any transfer of real property under this
paragraph.
(H)(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(G) The provisions of section 120(h) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42
U.S.C. 9620(h)) shall apply to any transfer of real property
under this paragraph.
* * * * * * *
SECTION 686 OF TITLE 14, UNITED STATES CODE
686. Assignment of members of the armed forces to housing units
(a) * * *
(b) Effect of Certain Assignments on Entitlement to Housing
Allowances.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), housing referred
to in subsection (a) shall be considered as quarters of the United
States or a housing facility under the jurisdiction of a uniformed
service for purposes of section 403(b) section 403(e) of title 37.
(2) A member of the armed forces who is assigned in accordance with
subsection (a) to a housing unit not owned or leased by the United
States shall be entitled to a basic allowance for quarters under section
403 of title 37, and, if in a high housing cost area, a variable housing
allowance under section 403a of that title a basic allowance for housing
under section 403 of title 37.
* * * * * * *
SECTION 405 OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND
EDUCATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
SEC. 405. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) References to Job Training Partnership Act Subsequent to Repeal.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) National defense authorization act for fiscal year 1993.--
(A) * * *
(B) Section 4461.--Section 4461(1) of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (10 U.S.C. 1143 note) is amended
by striking ``The Job Training Partnership Act of title Act or title''
and inserting ``Title''.
* * * * * * *
SECTION 224 OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954
Sec. 224. Communication of Restricted Data.--Whoever, lawfully or
unlawfully, having possession of, access to, control over, or being
entrusted with any document, writing, sketch, photograph, plan, model,
instrument, appliance, note, or information involving or incorporating
Restricted Data--
a. * * *
b. communicates, transmits, or discloses the same to any individual
or person, or attempts or conspires to do any of the foregoing, with
reason to believe such data will be utilized to injure the United States
or to secure an advantage to any foreign nation, shall, upon conviction,
be punished by a fine of not more than $500,000 $50,000 or imprisonment
for not more than ten years, or both.
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART III--EMPLOYEES
* * * * * * *
Subpart B--Employment and Retention
CHAPTER 31--AUTHORITY FOR EMPLOYMENT
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IV--EMPLOYMENT AND COMPENSATION FOR EMPLOYEES OF TEMPORARY
ORGANIZATIONS ESTABLISHED BY LAW OR EXECUTIVE ORDER
3161. Temporary organizations established by law or Executive order.
SUBCHAPTER IV--EMPLOYMENT AND COMPENSATION FOR EMPLOYEES OF TEMPORARY
ORGANIZATIONS IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ESTABLISHED BY LAW OR EXECUTIVE ORDER
3161. Temporary organizations established by law or Executive order
(a) Definition of Temporary Organization.--For the purposes of this
subchapter, the term ``temporary organization'' means an organization
such as a commission, committee, or board that is established by law in
the legislative or executive branches, or by Executive order in the
executive branch, for a specific period, which shall not exceed 5 years,
for the purpose of performing specific projects or studies.
(b) Hiring Authority.--Notwithstanding the provisions of chapter 51,
the head of a temporary organization may employ such numbers and types
of employees as required to perform the functions required of the
temporary organization. Employees may be appointed for a period of 5
years or the life of the temporary organization, whichever is less.
(c) Status of Positions and Appointments.--Positions of employment in
a temporary organization are excepted from the competitive service.
(d) Compensation.--(1) The basic pay of an employee of a temporary
organization may be set without regard to the provisions of chapter 51
or subchapter III of chapter 53, except that--
(A) basic pay for an executive level position (such as a
chairperson, member, or executive or staff director), and, in
exceptional cases, for senior staff shall be capped at the maximum rate
of basic pay established for the Senior Executive Service under
subchapter VIII of chapter 53; and
(B) basic pay for other staff may not exceed the maximum rate of
basic pay for GS 15 of the General Schedule.
(2) An employee whose rate of basic pay is set under paragraph (1)
shall be entitled to locality-based comparability payments, as provided
under section 5304.
(e) Travel Expenses.--An employee of a temporary organization,
whether employed on a full-time or part-time basis, may be entitled to
travel and transportation allowances, including per diem allowances,
authorized for employees under subchapter I of chapter 57, while
traveling away from the regular place of business of the employee in the
performance of services for the temporary organization,
career-conditional appointment, or the equivalent, who transfers to or
converts to an appointment in a temporary organization with the consent
of the head of the agency (or the designee of the agency head) in which
the employee was serving is entitled to be returned to a position of
like seniority, status, and pay (without grade or pay retention) as the
former position in the agency from which employed immediately preceding
employment with the temporary organization if--
(1) the employee is being separated from the temporary organization
for reasons other than misconduct, neglect of duty, or malfeasance; and
(2) the employee applies for return rights not later than 30 days
before the end of the employment in the temporary organization, or the
termination of the temporary organization, whichever is earlier.
(g) Procurement of Temporary and Intermittent Services.--The head of
the temporary organization may procure temporary and intermittent
services under section 3109(b).
(h) Acceptance of Volunteer Services.--(1) The head of a temporary
organization may accept volunteer services relating to the duties of the
temporary organization without regard to section 1342 of title 31,
including service as advisers, experts, members, or in other capacities
determined appropriate by the head of the temporary organization. The
head of the temporary organization--
(A) shall assure that all persons accepted as volunteers are
notified of the scope of the voluntary services accepted;
(B) shall supervise volunteers to the same extent as employees
receiving compensation for similar services; and
(C) shall ensure that volunteers have appropriate credentials or are
otherwise qualified to perform in the capacities for which they are
accepted.
(2) A person providing volunteer services under this subsection
shall be considered an employee of the Federal Government for the
purposes of chapters 73 and 81, chapter 171 of title
28, chapter 11 of title 18, and part 2635 of title 5 of the
Code of Federal regulations.
(i) Detailees.--Upon request of the head of the temporary
organization, the head of any department or agency of the United States
may detail, on a nonreimbursable basis, any personnel of the department
or agency to the temporary organization to assist in carrying out its
duties.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 35--RETENTION PREFERENCE, RESTORATION, AND REEMPLOYMENT
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--RETENTION PREFERENCE
* * * * * * *
3502. Order of retention
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) No authority under paragraph (1) may be exercised after September
30, 2001 September 30, 2005.
* * * * * * *
Subpart C--Employee Performance
CHAPTER 41--TRAINING
* * * * * * *
4107. Restriction on degree training
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b) subsections (b) and (c) of
this section, this chapter does not authorize the selection and
assignment of an employee for training, or the payment or reimbursement
of the costs of training, for--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b)(1) The regulations prescribed under section 4118 of this title
shall include provisions under which the head of an agency may provide
training, or payment or reimbursement for the costs of any training, not
otherwise allowable under subsection (a) subsections (a) or (c) of this
section, if necessary to assist in the recruitment or retention of
employees in occupations in which the Government has or anticipates a
shortage of qualified personnel, especially in occupations involving
critical skills (as defined under such regulations).
* * * * * * *
(c) With respect to an employee of the Department of Defense--
(1) this chapter does not authorize, except as provided in
subsection (b) of this section, the selection and assignment of the
employee for training, or the payment or reimbursement of the costs of
training, for--
(A) the purpose of providing an opportunity to the employee to
obtain an academic degree in order to qualify for appointment to a
particular position for which the academic degree is a basic
requirement; or
(B) the sole purpose of providing an opportunity to the employee to
obtain one or more academic degrees, unless such opportunity is part of
a planned, systematic, and coordinated program of professional
development endorsed by the Department of Defense; and
(2) any course of post-secondary education delivered through
classroom, electronic, or other means shall be administered or conducted
by an institution recognized under standards implemented by a national
or regional accrediting body, except in a case in which such standards
do not exist or would not be appropriate.
* * * * * * *
SECTION 1505 OF THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CONTROL ACT OF 1992
SEC. 1505. INTERNATIONAL NONPROLIFERATION INITIATIVE.
(a) Assistance for International Nonproliferation
Activities.--Subject to the limitations and requirements provided in
this section, the Secretary of Defense, under the guidance of the
President, may provide assistance to support international
nonproliferation activities.
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary of
Defense to provide assistance under this section terminates at the close
of fiscal year 2000] 2001.
SECTION 1206 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1996
SEC. 1206. REPORT ON ACCOUNTING FOR UNITED STATES ASSISTANCE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Comptroller General Assessment.--Not later than 30 90 days after
the date on which a report of the Secretary under subsection (a) is
submitted to Congress, the Comptroller General of the United States
shall submit to Congress a report giving the Comptroller General's
assessment of the report and making any recommendations that the
Comptroller General considers appropriate.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXI--ARMY
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2101. AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated pursuant to
the authorization of appropriations in section 2104(a)(1), the Secretary
of the Army may acquire real property and carry out military
construction projects for the installations and locations inside the
United States, and in the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Army: Inside the United States
State Installation or location Amount
Alabama Anniston Army Depot $3,550,000
* * * * * * *
Texas Fort Bliss $4,100,000
Fort Hood $32,500,000 $45,300,000
* * * * * * * ----------------------------
xl Total $768,781,000 $781,581,000
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, ARMY.
(a) In General.--Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for
fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1998, for military
construction, land acquisition, and military family housing functions of
the Department of the Army in the total amount of $2,098,713,000
$2,111,513,000 as follows:
(1) For military construction projects inside the United States
authorized by section 2101(a), $609,076,000 $622,581,000.
* * * * * * *
SECTION 204 OF THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION AMENDMENTS AND BASE CLOSURE
AND REALIGNMENT ACT
SEC. 204. IMPLEMENTATION.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Management and Disposal of Property.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4)(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(E) The Secretary may require any additional terms and conditions in
connection with a transfer under this paragraph as such Secretary
considers appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
This paragraph also applies to real property at the installation that is
initially transferred to another Federal agency as excess property under
the authority of this title, but is subsequently determined to be excess
to the needs of that agency, if--
(i) the excess property is adjacent to property that was conveyed to
the redevelopment authority with respect to the installation;
(ii) the acreage of the excess property is equal to less than 10
percent of the other acreage conveyed to the redevelopment authority;
and
(iii) the property has been screened for further Federal use as
provided in section 2696 of title 10, United States Code,
notwithstanding subsection (e)(2) of such section.
* * * * * * *
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2843. AUTHORITY FOR OXNARD HARBOR DISTRICT, PORT HUENEME,
CALIFORNIA, TO USE CERTAIN NAVY PROPERTY.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Restrictions on Use.--The agreement authorized under subsection
(a) shall require the District--
(1) to suspend operations under the agreement in the event Navy
contingency operations are conducted at the Center; and
(2) to use the property covered by the agreement in a manner
consistent with Navy operations conducted at the Center.
(d) Consideration.--(1) As consideration for the use of the property
covered by the agreement under subsection (a), the District shall pay to
the Navy an amount equal to the fair market rental value of the
property, as determined by the Secretary taking into consideration the
District's use of the property.
(2) The Secretary may include a provision in the agreement requiring
the District--
(A) to pay the Navy an amount (as determined by the Secretary) to
cover the costs of replacing at the Center any facilities vacated by the
Navy on account of the agreement or to construct suitable replacement
facilities for the Navy; and
(B) to pay the Navy an amount (as determined by the Secretary) for
the costs of relocating Navy operations from the vacated facilities to
the replacement facilities.
(c) Restrictions on Use.--The District's use of the property covered
by an agreement under subsection (a) is subject to the following
conditions:
(1) The District shall suspend operations under the agreement upon
notification by the commanding officer of the Center that the property
is needed to support mission essential naval vessel support requirements
or Navy contingency operations, including combat missions, natural
disasters, and humanitarian missions.
(2) The District shall use the property covered by the agreement in
a manner consistent with Navy operations at the Center, including
cooperating with the Navy for the purpose of assisting the Navy to meet
its through-put requirements at the Center for the expeditious movement
of military cargo.
(3) The commanding officer of the Center may require the District to
remove any of its personal property at the Center that the commanding
officer determines may interfere with military operations at the Center.
If the District cannot expeditiously remove the property, the commanding
officer may provide for the removal of the property at District expense.
(d) Consideration.--(1) As consideration for the use of the property
covered by an agreement under subsection (a), the District shall pay to
the Navy an amount that is mutually agreeable to the parties to the
agreement, taking into account the nature and extent of the District's
use of the property.
The Secretary may accept in-kind consideration under paragraph (1),
including consideration in the form of--
(A) the District's maintenance, preservation, improvement,
protection, repair, or restoration of all or any portion of the property
covered by the agreement;
(B) the construction of new facilities, the modification of existing
facilities, or the replacement of facilities vacated by the Navy on
account of the agreement; and
(C) covering the cost of relocation of the operations of the Navy
from the vacated facilities to the replacement facilities.
(3) All cash consideration received under paragraph (1) shall be
deposited in the special account in the Treasury established for the
Navy under section 2667(d) of title 10, United States Code. The amounts
deposited in the special account pursuant to this paragraph shall be
available, as provided in appropriation Acts, for general supervision,
administration, overhead expenses, and Center operations and for the
maintenance preservation, improvement, protection, repair, or
restoration of property at the Center.
* * * * * * *
(f) Use of Payment.--(1) In such amounts as is provided in advance in
appropriation Acts, the Secretary may use amounts paid under subsection
(d)(1) to pay for general supervision, administration, and overhead
expenses and for improvement, maintenance, repair, construction, or
restoration to the port operations area (or to roads and railways
serving the area) at the Center.
(2) In such amounts as is provided in advance in appropriation Acts,
the Secretary may use amounts paid under subsection (d)(2) to pay for
constructing new facilities, or making modifications to existing
facilities, that are necessary to replace facilities vacated by the Navy
on account of the agreement under subsection (a) and for relocating
operations of the Navy from the vacated facilities to replacement
facilities.
(g) (f) Construction by District.--The Secretary may authorize the
District to demolish existing facilities located on the property covered
by the agreement under subsection (a) and, consistent with the
restriction specified in subsection (c)(2), construct new facilities on
the property for joint use by the District and the Navy.
(h) (g) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary may require
such additional terms and conditions in connection with the agreement
authorized under subsection (a) as the Secretary considers appropriate
to protect the interests of the United States.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Other Matters
SEC. 2851. JOINT CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING FOR COMMISSARIES AND
NONAPPROPRIATED FUND INSTRUMENTALITY FACILITIES.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Exemption for Certain Leased Lands.--(1) Section 303 of title 49,
and section 138 of title 23, United States Code, shall not apply to any
approval by the Secretary of Transportation of the use by State Route
241 of parkland within Camp Pendleton that is leased by the State of
California, where the lease reserved to the United States the right to
establish rights-of-way.
(2) The Agency shall be responsible for the implementation of any
measures required by the Secretary of Transportation to mitigate the
impact of the Agency's use of parkland within Camp Pendleton for State
Route 241. With the exception of those mitigation measures directly
related to park functions, the measures shall be located outside the
boundaries of Camp Pendleton. The required mitigation measures related
to park functions shall be implemented in accordance with the terms of
the lease referred to in paragraph (1).
* * * * * * *
SECTION 6 OF THE NATIONAL MARITIME HERITAGE ACT OF 1994
SEC. 6. FUNDING.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Disposals of Vessels.--
(1) Requirement.--The Secretary of Transportation shall dispose of
all vessels described in paragraph (2)--
(A) by September 30, 2001 2006;
(B) in a manner that maximizes the return on the vessels to the
United States; and
(C) in accordance with subject to subparagraph (D), in accordance
with the plan of the Department of Transportation for disposal of those
vessels and requirements under sections 508 and 510(i) of the Merchant
Marine Act, 1936 (46 App. U.S.C. 1158, 1160(i)). ; and
(D) to the maximum extent possible, by scrapping outside of the
United States.
* * * * * * *
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE JOHN M. SPRATT, JR.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to add my voice
to those who have taken note of this, Chairman Spence's last markup as
chairman of our Committee. I have served in Congress and on the Armed
Services Committee since 1983. For all this time, Floyd Spence has been
my colleague in Congress and on this committee, and I would be remiss
not to note for the record my appreciation for his distinguished
service.
Since he was first elected in 1970, and since he served first as a
member of the committee and then as Chairman, Floyd Spence has been a
tireless advocate for the armed forces. As Chairman, he has always
conducted himself with grace, collegiality, and good humor, and has
presided over defense authorization bills that have consistently passed
with bipartisan support--an all too rare occurrence in Congress over the
past several years. I would like to commend our Chairman as we wrap up
the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act, and express my
admiration for the good work he has done.
The committee's markup of the Fiscal Year 2001 National Defense
Authorization Act was indeed a bipartisan bill, and I was happy to
support it. Nevertheless, I do have concerns with certain elements of
the bill, most of which I spoke to during our markup session.
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program
I remain concerned with certain provisions in H.R. 4205 relating to
the CTR program. The Chemical Weapons Destruction program request of $35
million is completely eliminated, and use of CTR funds for construction
of a fossil fuel energy facility in Russia, a necessary component of the
U.S. effort to reduce the production of weapons-usable plutonium, is
prohibited.
Progress toward construction of the chemical weapons destruction
facility has been slow, and I understand that Russia may not have put
forward an effort or funds commensurate with the U.S. level of effort,
but the construction of a facility to destroy these dangerous weapons of
mass destruction is an important element of our national security
strategy. I believe there are better ways to legislate improvements in
the chemical weapons de-militarization program than to discontinue
funding entirely, and hope that this issue can be addressed in
conference with the Senate.
I am also concerned that the committee chose to include a prohibition
on the use of CTR funds to construct a fossil fuel plant in Russia. If
the United States is to succeed in encouraging Russia to slow its
production of weapons-usable plutonium, we must be willing to consider
the concomitant need for electricity in Russia's nuclear cities. Their
need for electricity is currently met by the nuclear reactors whose
cores we have previously sought to convert; shutting them down will
automatically create a need for new source of energy. For the U.S. to
categorically refuse to assist with the construction of the alternative
source of energy is counterproductive to our goal of stopping plutonium
production.
Arms Control Provisions
I also have concerns about cuts in funding to the Arms Control
Implementation account of the Pentagon, although I appreciate the
Committee's willingness to work with me to mitigate the funding
limitations that were to be imposed on the Arms Control Implementation
programs. I still do not agree with the $11.5 million cut to this
important $219 million set of programs, but the most objectionable
aspects of the original proposed language--to narrowly target the cuts
at specific treaty compliance efforts--has been dropped.
The United States has the responsibility to fully implement all
treaties, such as the ABM Treaty and START I. Under the original
proposal, funds would have been eliminated from certain START I
compliance activities. This could have led to treaty violations. Also,
the funds to be deleted from the ABM compliance efforts would have
deprived the department of needed resources to be used in conducting
studies on ongoing weapon system development programs such as the
Airborne Laser. This would needlessly delay these programs and lead to
increased costs. While I still support the original budget request for
Arms Control Implementation and hope that this full funding level will
be agreed to in conference, I think the committee has moved in the right
direction in not trying to micro-manage these activities.
Airborne Laser
I appreciate the willingness of Rep. Weldon to address some of my
concerns regarding the transfer of the Airborne Laser (ABL) from the Air
Force to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). I had
planned to offer an amendment in committee to block the transfer, but
given Rep. Weldon's willingness to address some of my concerns and to
keep an open mind on the matter, I did not offer the amendment.
The committee believes the transfer will better ensure funding for
the ABL program, but I disagree. The BMDO budget is much smaller and
less flexible than the Air Force's. Moreover, BMDO has many difficult
technical problems to deal with in the next couple of years in
developing both a national missile defense and several theater missile
defense systems.
We are already transferring one challenging program to BMDO,
SBIRS-Low. I believe it is unwise to push another program on to BMDO at
this time, especially since the ABL deals with a number of very
different technologies than the other systems they are presently
managing. Let us allow them to remain focused on their core mission.
The Air Force still opposes the transfer. Gen. Michael Ryan, Air
Force Chief of Staff, wrote the committee on May 8th, stating that ABL
``was born in the Air Force, brought up in the Air Force, and deserves
to be fielded by the Air Force.'' I agree with Gen. Ryan, and although I
appreciate Rep. Weldon's good-faith efforts to reach a compromise, I
will continue my efforts to reverse the committee position during the
conference on the bill with the Senate.
START I Warhead Levels
Last year, the committee enacted a provision that prohibits DOD to go
below START-I force levels for strategic weapons until START II enters
into force. Part of the rationale for this prohibition was to encourage
the Russian Duma to ratify START II, which the Duma did this year, eight
years after it was negotiated and four years after Senate ratification.
Rep. Tom Allen offered an amendment in committee to strike this
prohibition and give the DOD flexibility to go below these levels or to
have a different mix of forces than the prohibition prescribes. The
Allen amendment was permissive in nature and did not mandate reductions.
Gen. Henry Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has testified
that the Department would like the flexibility to field the most
militarily useful and cost-effective force and opposes the prohibition.
Unfortunately, the committee rejected the Allen amendment. I believe
this is a mistake, and hope the committee will reconsider the issue
either on the House floor or in conference with the Senate.
FORMERLY UTILIZED SITES REMEDIAL ACTION PROGRAM
Although the committee added $4.5 billion to the President's budget
request for defense, several requested programs were cut. One of these
programs is the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program,
(``FUSRAP''). FUSRAP is a program to clean up sites that were
contaminated by the Manhattan project and other early atomic
energy-related activities by the government. The committee did not
authorize FUSRAP, presumably because it does not believe it should be
considered a defense activity. As I indicated in a statement in
committee, I will keep an open mind on the proper classification of this
program. However, simply not authorizing the funding is not the answer.
The committee should either work through the Budget Committees to
convince the Office of Management and budget to reclassify FUSRAP as a
non-defense program, or acknowledge the liability of the U.S. Government
for these contaminated sites and authorize their clean up.
NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE
Section 232 of the Chairman's mark is a non-binding ``Sense of the
Congress'' than urges the President to abide by H.R. 4, a bill that
states that the policy of the United States is to deploy a limited
national missile defense system. I was a co-author of the original House
version of this bill, and while I preferred the original version, I
supported the final bill as amended by the Senate and signed into law by
the President. I consider this ``Sense of the Congress'' to be
unnecessary, as the Administration is following a rational course about
deployment and is seeking to modify the ABM Treaty in order to deploy
without disrupting our relationship with Russia, but I do not object to
it. However, I believe the assertion in this section that ``An effective
National Missile Defense system is technologically feasible'' has yet to
be demonstrated.
First, we need to have many more tests of the system currently being
developed before we can declare it technologically feasible. Second,
this system is to counter a limited strike. It will not be able to
defend against a large strike or even the unauthorized launch of a
boatload of Russian SSBN's. To say an effective national missile defense
system is technologically feasible without any qualification is plainly
inaccurate.
John M. Spratt, Jr.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE STEVEN T. KUYKENDALL
Thank you Mr. Chairman for producing a bill that is fair and attempts
to balance the military's many legitimate needs with the limited funds
under the jurisdiction of this committee. I especially appreciate the
efforts of this committee to address health-care issues facing both our
active duty and retired veterans. The ramifications of not having
quality, accessible and affordable health care are far reaching. In
these days of economic prosperity, sustaining an all-voluntary military
force is challenging. Add to that a disgruntled population of retired
veterans, who have been an important recruitment vehicle in the past,
and sustaining appropriate levels of manning becomes nearly impossible.
Your willingness to address these difficult issues, in spite of the
enormous costs associated with these problems, stands as a testament to
all veterans, that this committee takes seriously veterans concerns, and
recognizes the role they continue to play in their service to this
country.
I applaud the leadership you have provided as this committee
determines what our future armed forces should look like. Modernization
is difficult when the only question is replacing old equipment with
similar new equipment. However, advances in technology and manufacturing
cause everyone in defense to revisit how we perform R&D and procurement
in a manner that keeps pace with advances in technology. As always, we
must provide our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines with modern
equipment, ensuring that they continue to succeed on today's
battlefield.
I fully support the objectives and provisions of this bill. However,
I remain concerned about the military abortion issue. Last year, I
introduced an amendment that corrects the disparity that exists
concerning access to abortion in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape
or incest. Currently, women in the military, both service members and
dependents, assigned overseas are not being afforded the same access to
medical treatment as we provide in other federal programs. These
military women should have the same medical treatment options that are
available to women who reside in the United States and in fact, receive
fewer health benefits than their male colleagues. This amendment which
prevailed at subcommittee during consideration of the FY00 Defense Bill,
remained in the bill through full committee and floor consideration. It
was dropped, regrettably during the House-Senate conference. I chose not
to offer this amendment again this year because there is no reason to
think the issue would be resolved differently--neither of the committees
has changed since last May. If we are serious about closing the gender
gap that exists in the service, this is one of the many issues we will
have to resolve.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON H.R. 4205, THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION BILL
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONVEYANCE FOR NON-BRAC FACILITIES
Although the bill as a whole is strong, I would like to call
attention to an important measure not included in this bill. This year,
I requested that this Committee establish fair procedures for
communities that, because of accidents of history, have lost military
installations and now cannot take advantage of a new Department of
Defense economic development program. Statutory language I proposed to
the Committee would allow no cost economic development conveyances for
military installations closed outside Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) processes, such as the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant (INAAP), a
facility in my district.
Last year, Congress gave BRAC communities a real boost by allowing
them to renegotiate special economic development conveyances (EDCs). I
believe it is only fair to extend that same consideration to other
facilities and their home communities. All communities deserve this
opportunity.
We all know losing a military installation can hurt the economy of a
community. All communities that lose military installations should be
able to reclaim the closed property at minimal expense and use it to
create jobs and industry.
In April of last year, the Clinton Administration requested that
Congress pass legislation authorizing the Department of Defense to
provide no cost EDCs to communities with BRAC installations. There was
an important condition attached. The communities have to use their
closed bases for economic development and job creation.
Although this Committee did not include the proposal in its Defense
Authorization bill, the Senate did. The EDC language remained in the
Conference report and passed the Congress in the FY 2000 National
Defense Authorization Act. The President subsequently signed it into
law. Section 2821(a) of the Act allows no cost conveyance at
installations closed or realigned under the base closure laws by
amending the Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990.
Communities are taking advantage of this opportunity. Kelly Air Force
Base is a BRAC facility near San Antonio, Texas. It is scheduled to
close next year. In March, Secretary Cohen visited Kelly Air Force Base
to announce the government had forgiven a debt of $103 million owed by
the Greater Kelly Development Authority. That action freed up millions
of dollars the community can now use to rebuild the industry lost when
the base was ordered closed.
There are non-BRAC installations that close and are conveyed using
procedures similar to those allowed for the conveyance of Kelly Air
Force Base. These old installations hold the same potential for economic
development and job creation--and the same challenges. Reduced activity
at these places has a profound effect on local economies, but last
year's legislation does not help non-BRAC installations.
I have such a site in my district, the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant.
Although there are 80 rent-paying tenants at INAAP, it is not yet a
profitable venture.
Section 2843 of Public Law 105 261, the Strom Thurmond National
Defense Authorization Act of 1999, provides for conveyance of 4,660
acres of the INAPP to a reuse authority.
This closure and the conveyance are outside of Base Realignment and
Closure procedures. Although my predecessor originally pursued no cost
conveyance, the language of the legislation calls on the reuse authority
to pay, in one lump sum, ``fair market value'' for the 4,660 acre parcel
at INAAP at the end of a 10-year period.
A no cost conveyance for INAAP would free up much needed funds to
help the reuse authority in Clark County push ahead with economic
development and make the facility more attractive to private industry.
This is one example, but I did not propose this language specifically
for my district. Facilities like the Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant in
Chattanooga, Tennessee fall into the same category. I want all former
military communities to be able to benefit from the fair deal we have
already given BRAC communities.
This is a good bill. It strengthens our national defense in numerous,
important ways. It boosts benefits for our fighting men and women. But I
urge the Committee to help create opportunities for communities that,
because of accidents of history, lost military installations but can't
take advantage of common sense legislation Congress has already passed.
It is nothing more than a simple matter of fairness.
Baron P. Hill.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES JOSEPH R. PITTS AND JOHN M. SPRATT,
JR.
ELECTRONIC WARFARE
Electronic warfare (EW) played a key role in the success of Operation
Allied Force last year. U.S. jamming aircraft, most notably the Navy's
EA 6B Prowler, provided continuous protection of all alliance aircraft
penetrating Yugoslav airspace. As a result, only two aircraft were lost
in 12,000 sorties, and the sole U.S. loss was directly attributable to
lack of EW coverage.
U.S. military supremacy in the twenty-first century promises to be
even more dependent upon control of the electromagnetic spectrum than it
was in the closing decades of the last century. The Kosovo operation
made clear that America's EW aircraft are a low-density/high-demand
asset in need of significant enhancements if they are to meet the demand
of a new century. Unfortunately, EW requirements have not received
focused attention in the Armed Services or the Congress. With this in
mind, we formed the EW Working Group last year to encourage awareness of
and support for EW capabilities. We have worked and consulted with the
Services, Members of Congress, and the defense industry to advance the
EW mission and identify key requirements.
We are very pleased that the FY 2001 National Defense Authorization
Act contains funding for several important EW priorities, specifically
the $23 million in upgrades for the EA 6B Prowler. The procurement of
124 AN/ASW 41 automatic flight control systems will provide automatic
speed, attitude, and altitude control capabilities for the Prowler,
which will increase mission capability, improve reliability, and reduce
maintenance. The Prowler fleet is overcommitted and aging fast, and
maintenance is frequently deferred. The Defense Authorization bill will
go a long way in restoring our Prowler fleet so that adequate EW
airborne jamming support can be provided to our Armed Forces aircraft.
We thank Chairman Spence for his leadership and the Members of the
Armed Service Committee for their support for EW assets and capabilities
in the Authorization bill. We look forward to working with Members of
the Committee in the future to assure that America's EW edge is
preserved.
Joseph R. Pitts.
John M. Spratt, Jr.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES UNDERWOOD, ABERCROMBIE, ORTIZ, ALLEN
AND REYES
We are disappointed that the Committee was not able to do more in
terms of reviewing the Department of Defense's over reliance on
outsourcing, privatization and commercial activities studies. By 2005,
the Department of Defense (DoD) expects to compete more than 200,000
jobs with savings pegged at approximately $11.2 billion. These estimates
are sheer mathematical conjuring. The Pentagon has long assumed these
savings. Indeed the individual services often do not even account for
the cost of performing the study, which in most cases comes from the O &
M accounts. These costs can include the paying of the cost-comparison
study itself as well as associated costs for voluntary separation
incentive pay, early retirement benefits, and general reductions in
forces (RiFs).
The zeal with which the DoD employs to invent savings has evolved
into the mythical search for the holy grail. The DoD has invested
heavily, both in manpower and funding, in order to implement outsourcing
endeavors and conduct public/private competitions, but these efforts may
never realize the anticipated savings.
In the coming weeks, the DoD will be announcing their intentions to
employ other means to convert work from the public sector to the private
sector. In an all but blessed initiative, the DoD has been encouraging
the military to look at alternatives to the traditional A 76
competitions, known as strategic sourcing. By their own admissions, the
DoD has utilized the A 76 process in lieu of base closure authority to
reap fiscal savings. While their arguments may raise some interesting
concerns, their premise is completely wrong.
No doubt, the DoD has been hamstrung by declining budgets and
increased operational demands. Indeed we appreciate the challenging
fiscal position that the DoD must contend with. Nevertheless, it seems
ill conceived to purely exploit savings from the hides of the civil
service workforce.
The Department has been fostering the notion that they are earnestly
devising better methods to perform tasks--the so-called
performance-based and results-based assessments. In reality though,
there is no accurate means to account for the type of savings that can
be reaped from the re-engineering of work tasks. This means that the
only verifiable method that the DoD can employ to immediately show
savings, is to contract out hundreds of positions. Systemically, this
may be creating a serious problem; the military, it seems, is risking
short term savings at the expense of long term readiness.
We are not opposed to savings or efficiency. In many instances we
recognize the colossal waste in the Pentagon as well as opportunities to
improve the methods of operating and maintaining our infrastructure.
However, what we are opposed to is when readiness and strategic
forethought take a back seat to fiscal aggressiveness. We need to think
hard when many of the military's rising stars earn Meritorious Service
Medals or Legion of Merits because they were able to save $300 million
by laying off a thousand employees.
It is important to remember that the first duty of the military is to
plan, prepare, fight and win our nation's wars. The military is not a
business and thus will not always have a balanced spreadsheet. The
Department's accountants cannot place a dollar figure on readiness. That
is a political and strategic decision that both the Congress and the
President must make. We hope that a more prudent and fiscally viable
approach to this intractable problem can be brokered out before the
Department's civilian workforce readiness erodes any further.
Robert A. Underwood.
Silvestre Reyes.
Neil Abercrombie.
Solomon P. Ortiz.
Thomas H. Allen.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
We regret the Committee's failure to repeal the statutory prohibition
on abortions in overseas military hospitals. If enacted, women stationed
overseas would be permitted to use their own funds to obtain abortion
services. No federal funds would have been used and health care
professionals who are opposed to performing abortions as a matter of
conscience or moral principle would not be required to do so.
This is an issue of fundamental fairness. Servicewomen and military
dependents stationed abroad do not expect special treatment, only the
right to receive the same legally protected medical services that women
in the United States receive. We had the opportunity to finally put a
stop to the misguided law that has endangered our servicewomen's lives
for far too long.
The Department of Defense, American Public Health Association, the
American Medical Women's Association, the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Planned Parenthood Federation
of America have all indicated their support for the amendment.
If we are to attract the best and brightest of our nation's young
people to our Armed Forces we must act to restore this fundamental
right. We cannot expect to attain our readiness and recruitment goals
when potential soldiers know they will not have the same right to access
to health care when they are stationed overseas.
It is our responsibility to restore the right of freedom of choice to
women serving overseas in our nation's Armed Forces. Members of the
military and their families already give up many freedoms and risk their
lives to defend our country. They should not have to sacrifice their
privacy, their health or their basic constitutional rights because of a
policy with no valid military purpose.
Loretta Sanchez.
Neil Abercrombie.
Lane Evans.
Patrick J. Kennedy.
Thomas H. Allen.
Ellen O. Tauscher.
Mike Thompson.
Adam Smith.
Robert E. Andrews.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
Vieques, Puerto Rico
In accordance with the Presidential Directives concerning Vieques,
Puerto Rico, federal and local law enforcement officers recently removed
the peaceful civil demonstrators who had been blocking the Navy's access
to the bombing range in Vieques.
As a result of this removal, the Navy has regained control and access
to the range. In fact, the U.S. Navy warplanes resumed training on the
Atlantic Fleet bombing range in Vieques using air-to-ground inert
ordnance.
We are disappointed that the Committee has amended this sensible
framework that could disrupt the process already underway, and further
polarize all parties involved. The directives ensure the safety of the
disfranchised U.S. citizens of Vieques and provide a sensible framework
that allows the Navy to continue its training operations.
The year-long peaceful civil disobedience on Vieques evidences the
turbulent history between the Navy and the U.S. citizens of Vieques, as
well as the overwhelming sentiments of frustration, self worth and
neglect by the American citizens of Puerto Rico.
Now that the two parties involved have come to agreement, it is this
Committee's responsibility to implement the Presidential Directives. The
directives offer the most effective resolution to the Vieques ordeal.
Namely to respond to the needs and concerns of the American citizens who
live in Vieques while meeting vital National security needs.
The President, the Navy and the Governor of Puerto Rico have all
stood by the Presidential Directives. It is now up to the House Armed
Services Committee and Congress to guarantee further fulfillment of the
Presidential Directives.
Very truly yours,
Loretta Sanchez.
Neil Abercrombie.
Ike Skelton.
Robert Underwood.
Robert A. Brady.
Patrick J. Kennedy.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
