64 635
2000
106 th Congress 2d Session
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Report
106 644
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001
REPORT
of the
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[to accompany h.r. 4576]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
June 1, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
C O N T E N T S
Bill Totals 1
Committee Budget Review Process 3
Committee Recommendations by Major Category 3
Active Military Personnel 3
Guard and Reserve Personnel 3
Operation and Maintenance 3
Procurement 3
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 4
Items of Special Committee Interest 4
Military Health Care and Medical Research Programs 4
Information Assurance and Computer Network Security 5
Ballistic Missile Defense Programs 6
Tactical Fighter Aviation Issues 7
Army Transformation 9
Forces to be Supported 14
Department of the Army 14
Department of the Navy 15
Department of the Air Force 16
TITLE I. MILITARY PERSONNEL 19
Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropria19
Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for Fiscal Year 19
Adjustments to Military Personnel Account 21
End Strength Adjustments
21
Unobligated/Unexpended Military Personnel Balances
21
Unfunded Requirements
21
Basic Allowance for Housing
22
Guard and Reserve Forces
22
Full-Time Support Strengths
22
Military Personnel, Army
23
Military Personnel, Navy
25
Active Navy Manning
27
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
27
Military Personnel, Air Force
29
Reserve Personnel, Army
31
Reserve Personnel, Navy
33
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps
35
Reserve Personnel, Air Force
37
Air Force Reserve Manning
39
National Guard Personnel, Army
39
Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams
41
Guard and Reserve Workyear Requirements
41
National Guard Personnel, Air Force
41
TITLE II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
45
Operation and Maintenance Overview
48
Real Property Maintenance
48
Depot Maintenance
49
Soldier Support Equipment
49
Junior ROTC
49
Field Maintenance and Logistical Support
50
War Reserve and Prepositioned Materiels
50
Headquarters and Administrative Expenses
50
Acquisition Program Growth
51
DFAS Program Growth
51
NATO and Overseas Staff Growth
51
Operation and Maintenance Budget Execution Data
51
Operation and Maintenance Reprogrammings
52
Public Transit Vouchers
53
Recruiting and Advertising
53
Operation and Maintenance, Army
53
Medium General Purpose Tents
57
Tactical Missile Maintenance
57
Military Ocean Terminal Bayonne (MOTBY)
58
Night Training Safety ``Light Sticks''
58
Distance Learning--CCCE
58
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
58
Navy Aviation Depot Maintenance Apprentice Program
61
Man Overboard Indicator
61
UNOLS
62
Naval Sea Cadet Program
62
USNS Hayes Relocation
62
Center for Civil-Military Relations
62
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
62
Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying Equipment (MOLLE)
64
Civilian Personnel Separation
64
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
64
C 5 Spare Parts
67
Air Force Cargo Distribution Hub
67
Displaying Retired Aircraft
68
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
68
Beryllium Work-Related Illnesses
70
DoD Schools
70
Family Advocacy
71
Youth Development and Leadership Program
71
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
71
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
73
Fort Worth Naval Air Station
75
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
75
NBC Defense Equipment
77
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
77
March Air Reserve Base
79
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
79
National Emergency and Disaster Information Center
81
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
81
C 130 Operations
83
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund
83
Budget Justification and Budget Execution Materials
83
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
83
Environmental Restoration, Army
84
Environmental Restoration, Navy
84
Environmental Restoration, Air Force
84
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide
84
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites
84
Nike Battery 55
85
Santa Clarita
85
Newmark
85
Depleted Uranium Environmental Restoration
85
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
85
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction
86
Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense
86
TITLE III. PROCUREMENT
87
Estimates and Appropriations Summary
87
Special Interest Items
89
Classified Programs
89
Communication Systems Upgrades
89
Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Vehicles
89
Aircraft Procurement, Army
89
Kiowa Warrior Live-Fire Testing
90
Ground Proximity Warning System
90
Missile Procurement, Army
93
Short Range Air Defense Modernization
93
Javelin
93
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
96
Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge
96
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
98
Ammunition Management
98
Sense and Destroy Armor Munition
99
Other Procurement, Army
101
Up-Armored High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles
103
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
107
Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS)
107
EP 3 Modernization
108
Weapons Procurement, Navy
110
Joint Stand-Off Weapon
110
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
113
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
115
Other Procurement, Navy
117
Aviation Requirement for Joint Tactical Terminals
118
Procurement, Marine Corps
122
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
125
15
126
C 17 Advance Procurement
126
15 Modifications
126
16 Modifications
127
Miscellaneous Production Charges
127
Missile Procurement, Air Force
131
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
133
Other Procurement, Air Force
135
Next Generation Small Loader
136
Procurement, Defense-Wide
139
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
142
Defense Production Act Purchases
142
Microwave Power Tubes
142
Information Technology
142
Information Assurance and Computer Network Security
143
Information Technology Oversight
144
Defense Joint Accounting System (DJAS)
144
Navy Marine Corps Intranet
144
Information Security Lessons Learned
145
Army High Performance Computing Research Center
145
Information Technology Center
146
National Guard Bureau Fiber Optic Study
146
Global Infrastructure Data Capture Program
146
TITLE IV. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
147
Estimates and Appropriation Summary
147
Special Interest Items
147
Classified Programs
147
Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan
147
Tactical Radios
148
Networking of Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance Assets
148
Joint Ejection Seat Program
148
Discoverer II
150
Use of Special Access-Like Security Measures to Protect Business
Sensitive Information
150
Budgeting for Operational Test
151
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
151
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
156
RDT&E Management Support
156
Rand Arroyo Center
156
Excalibur (XM 982)
156
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
161
DD 21 Next Generation Surface Combatant
165
Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP)
167
Network Centric Warfare (NCW)
167
Navy, Marine Corps Imagery Processing Exploitation
167
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV s)
168
Bone Marrow Registry
168
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
173
Radiation Hardened Electronics
176
Air Traffic Control, Approach, and Landing System
176
High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (HAE UAV)-Global Hawk
177
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
181
Arms Control Technology
184
High Performance Computing Program
185
National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA)
185
Still-Image Compression Standard
185
Competitive Practices
185
Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense
189
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
189
TITLE V. REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS
191
Defense Working Capital Funds
191
National Defense Sealift Fund
191
Ready Reserve Force
191
TITLE VI. OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
193
Defense Health Program
193
Special Interest Items
193
TRICARE Improvements
194
Transfer of Defense Health Program Funds
194
Anthrax Vaccine Program
195
Chiropractic Demonstration Program
195
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army
195
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense
196
DoD Support to Plan Colombia
196
Tethered Aerostat Radar System
197
Office of the Inspector General
197
TITLE VII. RELATED AGENCIES
199
National Foreign Intelligence Program
199
Introduction
199
Classified Annex
199
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and
Disability System Fund
199
Intelligence Community Management Account
200
Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance,
Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Fund
200
National Security Education Trust Fund
200
TITLE VIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS
203
Definition of Program, Project and Activity
203
House of Representatives Reporting Requirements
203
Changes in the Application of Existing Law
204
Appropriations Language
204
General Provisions
206
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
208
Transfer of Funds
210
Rescissions
211
Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)
211
Constitutional Authority
211
Comparison with the Budget Resolution
212
Five-Year Outlay Projections
212
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments
212
Full Committee Votes
212
Additional Views
224
106 th Congress
Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session
106 644
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001
June 1, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. Lewis of California, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
REPORT
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4576]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in
explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the
Department of Defense, and for other purposes, for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2001.
BILL TOTALS
Appropriations for most military functions of the Department of
Defense are provided for in the accompanying bill for the fiscal year
2001. This bill does not provide appropriations for military
construction, military family housing, civil defense, or nuclear
warheads, for which requirements are considered in connection with other
appropriations bills.
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for activities funded
in the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill totals $284,520,572,000
in new budget (obligational) authority. The amounts recommended by the
Committee in the accompanying bill total $288,512,800,000 in new budget
authority. This is $3,992,228,000 above the budget estimate and
$19,805,014,000 above the sums made available for the Department of
Defense for fiscal year 2000.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
COMMITTEE BUDGET REVIEW PROCESS
During its review of the fiscal year 2001 budget, the Subcommittee on
Defense held a total of 13 hearings during the period of February 2000
to March 2000. Testimony received by the Subcommittee totaled 1,408
pages of transcript. Approximately half of the hearings were held in
open session. Executive (closed) sessions were held only when the
security classification of the material to be discussed presented no
alternative.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS BY MAJOR CATEGORY
Active Military Personnel
The Committee recommends a total of $65,098,288,000 for active
military personnel, a net increase of $51,800,000 above the budget
request. The Committee supports the budget request which proposed a 3.7
percent pay raise for military personnel effective January 1, 2001. The
Committee also agrees with the authorized end strength as requested in
the President's budget, and has included $18,500,000 for additional Navy
recruiters and Navy force structure manning.
Guard and Reserve Personnel
The Committee recommends a total of $10,805,928,000, a net increase
of $50,750,000 above the budget request for Guard and Reserve personnel.
The Committee agrees with the authorized end strength as requested in
the President's budget for the Selected Reserve, and has included
$37,500,000 to provide for additional full-time support personnel for
the Army Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air Force Reserve, and Army
National Guard. The Committee has also included funds for the proposed
3.7 percent pay raise.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The Operation and Maintenance appropriation provides for the
readiness of U.S. forces as well as the maintenance of facilities and
equipment, the infrastructure that supports combat forces, and the
quality of life of service members and their families.
The Committee recommends $97,507,228,000, a net increase of
$1,227,115,000 above the fiscal year 2001 budget request. This increase
is driven primarily by the need to address shortfalls in funding for
infrastructure repairs and maintenance, depot level maintenance, basic
soldier support equipment, field level maintenance and logistical
support, and shortages of sustainment stocks. The Committee also
recommends reductions from the budget request as the result of fact of
life changes and management actions the Department of Defense should
undertake to streamline its operations.
PROCUREMENT
The Committee recommends $61,558,679,000 for programs funded in Title
III of the Committee bill, Procurement, a net increase of $2,292,076,000
to the fiscal year 2001 budget request. Included in these totals is
$2,452,551,000 for procurement of National Guard and Reserve equipment,
a net increase of $622,651,000 above the budget request.
Major programs funded in the bill include:
$183,371,000 for 17 UH 60 Blackhawk helicopters.
$709,454,000 for Apache Longbow modifications.
$372,248,000 for 3,754 Javelin anti-tank missiles.
$285,363,000 for 2,200 Hellfire missiles.
$188,689,000 for 66 MLRS launcher systems.
$440,689,000 for Bradley fighting vehicle industrial base sustainment.
$1,200,077,000 for the Medium armored vehicle family.
$338,422,000 for the Abrams tank upgrade program.
$2,818,533,000 for 42 F/A 18E/F fighter aircraft.
$1,128,592,000 for 16 Marine Corps V 22 aircraft.
$231,118,000 for 3 KC 130J aircraft.
$433,932,000 for 12 Trident II ballistic missiles.
$4,053,653,000 for the CVN 77 aircraft carrier.
$1,198,012,000 for 1 New Attack Submarine.
$2,703,559,000 for 3 DDG 51 Destroyers.
$348,951,000 for 1 ADC(X) ship.
$2,149,882,000 for 10 F 22 fighter aircraft.
$400,000,000 for 5 F 15 fighter aircraft.
$2,185,823,000 for 12 C 17 airlift aircraft.
$250,610,000 for 1 JSTARS aircraft.
$380,232,000 for C 135 modifications.
$219,848,000 for 9,098 JDAM munitions.
$2,357,943,000 for ammunition for all services.
$433,962,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense Organization programs.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
The Committee recommends $40,170,230,000 for programs funded in Title
IV of the Committee bill, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, an
increase of $2,307,829,000 to the fiscal year 2001 budget request. Major
programs funded in the bill include:
$614,041,000 for the Comanche helicopter.
$355,309,000 for the Crusader artillery program.
$706,000,000 for the Joint Strike Fighter program.
$257,274,000 for the DD 21 next generation destroyer.
$1,411,786,000 for F 22 development.
$145,313,000 for B 2 development.
$569,188,000 for the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) High.
$332,952,000 for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program.
$4,111,408,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense Organization programs.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE INTEREST
Military Health Care and Medical Research Programs
The Committee continues to emphasize support for and oversight of
defense health care and medical research programs. The Committee
recommends total funding for the Defense Health Program of
$12,143,029,000, an increase of $988,412,000 over the enacted fiscal
year 2000 level (a one year increase of nearly nine percent), and
$542,600,000 above the fiscal year 2001 budget request. In addition,
appropriations for other medical programs in this bill, funded in
accounts other than the Defense Health Program appropriation cited
above, are recommended to receive increases above the budget request
totaling nearly $400,000,000.
The funds provided above the budget request include $280,600,000 to
implement the health care enhancements recently approved by the House in
the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 (H.R. 4205),
which are targeted to achieve improved access to care for service
members, their dependents, and the retired military community. The
Committee bill also includes additions over the budget request totaling
$638,830,000 for medical research programs, including $175,000,000 for
the peer-reviewed breast cancer research program and $75,000,000 for the
peer-reviewed prostate cancer research program (both managed by the
Department of the Army).
Consistent with findings resulting from its fiscal year 2001 budget
review hearings, the Committee also recommends general provisions
intended to give the Department greater flexibility in the execution of
its managed care contracts, as well as requirements that the Secretary
of Defense more fully monitor and report to Congress on issues
associated with the execution of those contracts, in particular cost
growth in the TRICARE system.
Information Assurance and Computer Network Security
The fiscal year 2001 budget request generally accelerates the efforts
underway within the Department of Defense and the intelligence community
to take advantage of rapid advances in information technology. The
Committee, as in years past, supports such efforts as the DoD's
``Revolution in Military Affairs'' and ``Revolution in Business
Affairs'' which are largely premised on taking advantage of a growing
ability to move and process information.
However, as in society at large, the national security community's
growing use of such technology poses great vulnerabilities as well.
Events of recent weeks have only served to highlight this problem, with
the news dominated by acts by individual hackers committing computer
vandalism. The threats posed by such seemingly random acts--in
themselves real--pale in comparison to the potential dangers posed by
those who seek to damage American interests. The range of possibilities
runs from those attempting to discreetly break into systems to steal
information, to more active measures intended to destroy or disable
information networks in order to damage U.S. military and intelligence
capabilities, perhaps in connection with a real world conflict.
The Committee believes that a concerted, focused effort is needed to
protect key information systems, not only by those within the national
security community but at all levels of government. The Committee
commends the DoD for the efforts it has already initiated in this
regard, which among other things includes taking advantage of lessons
learned from the Year 2000 computer problem. Nevertheless, it is the
Committee's belief that much more needs to be done in this arena.
The Committee is well aware that the complexity of this problem does
not lend itself to a ``silver bullet'' solution. A more appropriate
response is a broad approach intended to create a ``defense-in-depth'',
with multiple levels of protection and avoidance of any single point of
failure. Drawing on testimony from experts in the Department of Defense,
the FBI, industry and academia, the Committee therefore recommends
increases over the budget request totaling $150,000,000, targeted at
addressing the most serious vulnerabilities in the Department's
information infrastructure.
These funds are directed towards specific objectives, including
increased monitoring of DoD networks; enhanced protection of military
communications; additional training for DoD personnel; and increasing
the Department's knowledge of its vulnerabilities. The funding
allocations include:
$36,000,000 to purchase hardware and software applications to monitor
computer networks for suspicious activity;
$35,000,000 for new digital secure phones to replace the outdated
STU-III;
$20,000,000 to ensure security capabilities are built into new cell
phones, rather than retrofitting them later at a significantly higher
cost;
$18,600,000 to accelerate the DoD's Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)
program;
$15,000,000 for information security awareness, education and training;
$12,100,000 for an effects-based evaluation of a computer network
attack on information systems and processes;
$10,300,000 for an assessment of the physical and cyber
vulnerabilities of militarily-critical DoD and commercial
infrastructures; and
$3,000,000 for additional basic (6.1) research into information
assurance.
Specific program details associated with this initiative are noted
throughout this report and are summarized in the Information Technology
section under Title III, Procurement. The Committee directs that those
information assurance program elements or projects receiving funds over
the budget request in the Committee report be designated as items of
congressional interest and shall be so noted on DD Form 1414 (this is to
include amounts requested in the budget request and the additional
funding cited above).
The Committee intends that this Information Assurance initiative be
the first step in a longer-term effort to increase programmed funding
for DoD's efforts towards securing its information systems and networks.
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a
report to the congressional defense committees with the fiscal year 2002
budget submission which provides details on the planned obligation of
these funds, as well as the funding proposed in the fiscal year 2002
budget for information assurance programs.
Ballistic Missile Defense Programs
In light of the growing threat posed to deployed U.S. military
forces, the citizens and territory of the United States, and our allies,
the Committee recommends a total of $4,555,370,000 for programs under
the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). This is a net
increase of $168,245,000 over the budget request, and $738,824,000 above
the amounts provided for fiscal year 2000.
Within this amount, the Committee recommends specific funding
allocations for certain key programs as shown below:
National Missile Defense:
$74,530,000
$1,740,238,000
Theater High-Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) RDT&E $549,945,000
Navy Theater-Wide RDT&E $512,671,000
Navy Area RDT&E $274,234,000
PAC-3:
$365,457,000
$81,016,000
International Cooperative Programs RDT&E $116,992,000
Tactical Fighter Aviation Issues
The Committee, as it noted in its report last year, remains concerned
about the developmental challenges and overall costs associated with the
current Department of Defense plans to modernize its tactical fighter
inventory. The Committee recognizes the need and justification for each
of the major ongoing tactical fighter modernization programs: the Navy's
F/A 18 E/F fighter; the Air Force's F 22 fighter; and the Marine
Corps/Air Force/Navy Joint Strike Fighter. Nevertheless, given the
current expense of each of these programs, and the growing share of the
DoD budget they will consume as they move from development into low-rate
and then full-scale production, the Committee believes it is absolutely
essential that the DoD insist on a rigorous testing and development
process as well as sound program and cost management for each program.
Absent such controls, the financial ``bow wave'' associated with
tactical fighter modernization, already immense, can only grow--which
could result in either reduced procurement objectives, putting even more
pressure on existing, aging assets; or the diversion of funds from other
critical defense needs.
The Committee's fiscal year 2001 recommendations for each of these
programs are summarized below.
F/A 18 E/F: The Committee recommends $2,818,553,000 for procurement
of 42 aircraft, the number of aircraft requested in the budget;
$101,068,000 in advance procurement, and $248,093,000 for research,
development, test and evaluation (the budgeted amounts).
F 22: The Committee recommends funding the budgeted amounts for
procurement of 10 aircraft ($2,149,882,000), advance procurement
($396,222,000), and research, development, test and evaluation
($1,411,786,000).
The Committee continues to believe it is essential the F 22 aircraft
receive adequate testing prior to a production decision. Unfortunately,
the F 22's flight test program continues to fall short of Air Force
projections. Between November 1999 and March 2000, the F 22 program lost
an additional nine flight test months. The Committee is especially
concerned about slips in static and fatigue testing, which are now both
more than a year behind schedule. In a related matter, the Committee has
become increasingly convinced that the congressionally-imposed F 22
development cost cap is forcing the Air Force to reduce or delay the
funding for, and planned scope of, testing in order to accommodate
continued cost growth on the F 22 development contract.
Responding to these concerns, the Committee has included two general
provisions. The first (Section 8116 of the Committee bill) restates the
criteria established in Public Law 106 79 (the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2000), which prohibits award of a low-rate
production contract for the F 22 until:
(1) first flight of an F 22 aircraft incorporating Block 3.0 software;
(2) certification by the Secretary of Defense that all Defense
Acquisition Board exit criteria for award of low-rate production has
been met; and
(3) submission of a report by the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation assessing the adequacy of the testing to date.
The Committee also proposes Section 8117, which replaces the
existing, individual statutory budget caps on F 22 development and
production with a single, overall cap for the entire program. This will
provide the Air Force greater flexibility to plan, budget, and execute a
sound testing and development program than is currently the case under
existing law.
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF): The Joint Strike Fighter is a critically
important program for the Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy. As currently
planned it will be the largest single defense acquisition program in the
history of the DoD. The Committee fully understands the integral part
that this program plays in all three Services' tactical fighter
modernization plans. It also believes that the JSF, should it live up to
its technological promise and cost goals, represents the best option for
replacing aging Navy and Marine Corps F/A 18 and AV 8B fighters, as well
as Air Force F 16s. In short, the Committee wants this program to
succeed.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request for JSF was premised on
completion of the program's concept demonstration/validation phase by
March 2001. By this date, the program was expected to be ready for
transition into engineering and manufacturing development (EMD), to be
conducted by one of the two competing contractor teams following a
``winner-take-all'' source selection decision. However delays in the
start of the JSF flight demonstration program, as well as technical
problems which may hinder demonstration of critical JSF design
characteristics, have made a March 2001 completion date for concept
demonstration increasingly unlikely.
Moreover, the Department of Defense has been actively assessing the
effects of the ``winner-take-all'' acquisition strategy on the defense
industrial base. It is possible that the Department may, in a matter of
weeks, announce a revised acquisition strategy involving some degree of
teaming or cooperation between what are currently two opposing
industrial teams, each with distinctly different design concepts,
hardware, subcontractors and vendor bases. Should such a revision to the
acquisition strategy occur, logic dictates that the JSF development
program and budget plan will require adjustments, perhaps even major
changes, to those currently assumed in the fiscal year 2001 budget
submission and the existing Future Years Defense Plan.
The Committee believes Congress must be in a position to carefully
consider, and respond if necessary, to any proposed revisions in the
JSF's acquisition strategy--especially in light of the potential
schedule and cost impacts. Additionally, the current JSF program
schedule and the fiscal year 2001 budget request both presume a source
selection and EMD contract award will be completed by March 2001. As
stated above, technical and schedule problems make it unlikely this
milestone will be met.
The Committee also notes that this projected March 2001 date is just
two months into the beginning of a new Administration and Congress. The
Committee believes there must be sufficient time for the next
Administration to formulate its own plans for the JSF in the context of
its own overall defense program. In this regard, a March 2001 decision
point involving a program of this importance is clearly unrealistic.
Therefore, the Committee recommends the following actions:
(1) The Committee bill includes total fiscal year 2001 funding for
the Joint Strike Fighter of $706,606,000, a net decrease of $150,000,000
from the budget request. Within this total the Committee has provided
$411,101,000 for concept demonstration, an increase of $150,000,000 over
the budget request; and $295,502,000 for engineering and manufacturing
development (EMD), a decrease of $300,000,000 from the budget request.
These changes have been allocated to the appropriate program elements in
the Navy and Air Force research, development, test and evaluation
accounts. The effect of these changes is to provide sufficient funding
to extend the concept demonstration/validation phase from March to June
2001; and to delay initiation of entry into the engineering and
manufacturing development phase of the JSF program by three months, from
March to June 2001.
(2) To ensure that Congress is kept apprised of the status of the JSF
program, the Committee bill includes a general provision (Section 8118)
which requires that 60 days following enactment of the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act, 2001, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
a report to the congressional defense committees describing what, if any
changes have been made to the JSF acquisition plan as a result of the
Secretary's review of the ``winner-take-all'' strategy. If applicable,
this report shall address any contemplated changes in the JSF
development schedule and funding profile resulting from a revised
acquisition strategy. The Secretary is also to report on a number of
issues regarding the technical progress made towards achieving planned
JSF performance characteristics.
(3) This provision also requires submission of a similar report from
the next Administration's Secretary of Defense by March 30, 2001, which
will provide Congress with updated information regarding the JSF
demonstration phase as well as a detailed explanation of the next
Administration's plans for this program. The provision also restricts
the obligation of funds for the EMD phase of the JSF program until June
1, 2001, and further conditions the release of funds on a certification
from the Secretary that the JSF EMD program has been fully funded by
each of the participating services in the Future Years Defense Plan.
Army Transformation
The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Department of the Army
marks the first year of a 12- to 15-year, $70 billion effort to
transform its Cold War legacy force--designed for a different era and a
different enemy--into a force built on speed, lethality, versatility,
survivability, and sustainability. This ambitious and far-reaching plan,
conceived less than a year ago, has become known as the ``Army
Transformation'' strategy.
Recent operations have clearly shown that, in the wake of a 40
percent reduction in personnel and a 37 percent reduction in buying
power over the last decade, and a weapons acquisition process which has
proven to be lacking in many respects, the Army cannot quickly deploy
its heavy forces, and is not optimally equipped or organized to meet the
changing demands placed on it in the post-Cold War era. The Army Chief
of Staff has described this problem succinctly: ``... our heavy forces
are too heavy and our light forces lack staying power. ''
In light of the clearly demonstrated need for the Army to reconfigure
itself, and the depth of the commitment to change exhibited by the Army
leadership, the Committee has made the issue of Army Transformation a
major focus of its deliberations in fashioning the fiscal year 2001
Defense Appropriations bill. The Committee took the following issues
into consideration.
Past Restructuring Initiatives. The Committee notes that ``Army
transformation'' is not a new idea. Especially since the end of the Cold
War, different Administrations and different Army leaders have
recognized the need for the Army to adapt to new and different threats.
Over the last decade, the Army has undertaken a variety of restructuring
initiatives, large and small. They include such efforts as the advanced
warfighting experiment process, ``Force XXI'', digitization, the ``Army
of Excellence'', the ``Army After Next'', and most recently the Strike
Force headquarters concept. Many of these initiatives have shown some
promise, but have regrettably failed to generate sufficient impetus to
bring about transforming change to the Army. The reasons for this are
varied, including prolonged research and development efforts or extended
and disjointed experimentation programs. Other efforts suffered from
lack of sufficient funding. None had sufficient momentum or budgetary
priority to be completed as originally envisioned.
The consequence of the Army's having failed in these attempts to make
significant changes were perhaps most pungently summed up by the
then-Deputy Secretary of Defense, John Hamre, who in August 1999 stated:
``If the Army only holds onto nostalgic versions of its grand past, it
is going to atrophy and die.''
The New ``Army Vision''. Within the past year, the Army has
responded to this challenge by devising a new strategy, intended to
provide in the near-term an enhanced capability to rapidly deploy combat
power, while laying the foundation for the creation of an ``objective''
force that is as lethal and survivable as its heavy forces but as
deployable, agile, and versatile as its light forces. The Army intends
to accomplish this through three major initiatives.
``Interim Force''. --The Army has initiated an aggressive program to
convert a selected number of brigades into 4,000 person interim brigade
combat teams (IBCTs, also referred to as ``new medium brigades''),
intended to bridge the gap between traditional heavy and light Army
forces. The fiscal year 2001 budget contains funding to begin this
process for the first such IBCT. The primary focus of the ``interim
force'' is to make the Army's light combat formations more lethal,
survivable, and tactically mobile. The transition to interim force
elements will also convert some heavy brigades into lighter and more
agile forces.
The IBCTs are specifically designed for employment as early entry
forces that can begin operations immediately upon departure from the
port of debarkation. The mobility goal is to deploy an entire interim
brigade by C 17 or C 130 aircraft to a theater twice as fast as a
mechanized brigade (approximately 96 hours with a dedicated airflow).
The Army intends this interim force to provide the National Command
Authority with a better-tailored and more effective capability for
smaller scale contingencies, such as past operations in Grenada,
Somalia, Haiti, or current operations in Kosovo. The Army also contends
that this force will improve American combat power for fighting major
theater wars (MTW), such as on the Korean peninsula, especially should
the Nation find itself confronted with a second MTW scenario.
The interim force concept, which is currently estimated to cost
around $600 to $900 million per brigade, centers on acquiring a family
of off-the-shelf, medium weight infantry carrier vehicles and a new
mobile armored gun system. Costs will be refined with the final
selection of interim armored vehicles later this summer.
The current Army budget funds an equipment acquisition profile of one
interim brigade combat team per fiscal year over the Future Years
Defense Plan. In testimony before the Committee, the Army Chief of Staff
made clear his view that it is preferable to implement the interim force
transition at a rate of two brigades per year. This is in order to
reduce the risk to U.S. forces, which in all likelihood will continue to
be ordered to undertake operations with equipment, organization, and
doctrine that is not optimized for many of the missions they will be
tasked with performing.
``Objective Force'' --While attempting to address immediate
operational needs through the rapid fielding of the interim brigades,
the fiscal year 2001 Army budget also proposes a major research and
development effort to support the design and eventual fielding of a new
medium weight ``objective force'', based on ``leap ahead'' technology,
and intended for deployment in the 2012 timeframe. This force will be
designed to deploy a combat-capable combined arms brigade anywhere in
the world in 96 hours, the remainder of the division 24 hours later, and
five divisions anywhere in the world in 30 days. Even though it would be
centered around a relatively lightweight (10 to 20 tons), advanced
technology Future Combat System vehicle, the Army believes the objective
force can be shaped and equipped to have the versatility,
sustainability, and lethality to fight and win a full spectrum of
conflicts ranging from small stability and support operations to
full-scale major regional wars.
Heavy Force Recapitalization.-- The third major element of the Army
strategy calls for ``recapitalization'' of its legacy heavy forces, to
ensure that the Army will continue to have the ability to generate
overwhelming heavy combat power to fight and win the Nation's wars. This
part of the plan is centered on further tank upgrades, revitalization of
helicopter assets, artillery upgrades, and enhanced situation awareness
(digitization) capabilities. It calls for modernizing III Corps, the 3rd
Infantry Division, selected Guard brigades, and other units not part of
the interim force. The Committee notes that even under the most
optimistic implementation timetables for the future ``objective force'',
it will be necessary to maintain the Army's heavy formations for at
least another two decades.
Committee Observations and Concerns:-- The Committee commends the
present Army leadership for devising a program that not only attempts to
learn lessons from past restructuring efforts, but also tries to
reevaluate and make fundamental changes to core organizational,
doctrinal, and institutional concepts. However, the Committee believes
that if this effort is to avoid the fate of previously well-intended
Army efforts, it will require a sustained level of commitment from the
Army, the Secretary of Defense, and Congress, a demonstrated dedication
to change and willingness to make tough choices, and a concerted effort
to make this a top Department of Defense priority.
Internal Army Transformation Needed.-- While laudatory of the Army
leadership's aggressive efforts over the past year to make its
transformation vision a reality, the Committee believes that the Army
must undertake a serious self-examination of how it is internally
organized and resourced to manage a complex and expensive undertaking
such as Transformation. The Committee has not been impressed with the
slow and protracted way in which the Army has historically developed and
acquired many of its major systems. For example, it will take 30 years
for the Army to develop and procure a new fleet of medium trucks, the
Comanche helicopter will be in development for nearly 20 years before it
is procured, and hundreds of millions were spent to develop the medium
Armored Gun System only to see the Army recommend its cancellation
immediately prior to procurement. Other examples abound. The Committee
has observed how any number of Army research and development programs
have displayed a lack of focus and relevance over the years, while there
have been a series of embarrassing design problems involving relatively
simple items such as trailer hitches and medium trucks.
Budget Priorities Must Shift As Well.-- The Army must also come to
grips with the need to make the hard budgetary choices needed to reorder
its internal priorities and to eliminate lower priority expenditures. It
is not unreasonable to require the Army to contribute a significant
portion of the total cost of the transformation effort from savings
derived from other desirable but lower priority Army
programs--especially those that after years of development have yet to
demonstrate success, are duplicative of existing capabilities, or
represent a ``Cold War'' mindset in terms of requirements and
operational utility.
The Committee is also puzzled by the actions of the Office of the
Secretary of Defense (OSD). The Committee notes that after issuing what
amounts to an ultimatum to the Army to transform itself, OSD did not
follow up its challenge with the resources necessary to properly and
robustly implement the transformation plan. Even though Army
transformation is a centerpiece of the President's fiscal year 2001
defense budget, the Administration proposed larger program increases for
both the Air Force and the Navy than for the Army. Indeed, the proposed
fiscal year 2001 budget cuts the Army's overall buying power by 1.5
percent.
The Committee takes no issue with the legitimacy of the Air Force and
Navy program increases, most of which meet valid needs and requirements.
But the Committee also believes that if the DoD and the next
Administration does not accord Army transformation the budgetary
priority it deserves, it will languish and eventually be homogenized
into the traditional Army structure along with many past initiatives,
producing only marginal long term effect.
Interim Force Implementation Issues.-- The Committee is concerned
about many aspects of the proposed ``off-the-shelf'' acquisition plan
the Army has initiated to equip the new interim brigades. But given Army
immediate operational requirements, and the well-demonstrated inability
of the Army acquisition system to quickly develop and field equipment,
the Committee believes this unconventional acquisition initiative must
be given a chance to succeed. Even then, the interim brigade acquisition
strategy cannot be allowed to become yet another drawn-out, overly
expensive program which collapses from its own weight.
The Committee is aware that some have called for slowing down the
fielding of the interim force to allow for a period of experimentation,
detailed platform demonstrations, and operational analysis. The
Committee believes that the Army shall, and must, take the necessary
steps to ensure that the equipment and operational tactics for the
interim force meet the warfighting needs of those commanders who may be
called upon to use this capability, as well as providing for the safety
of those soldiers who may be called upon to fight on behalf of the
Nation. On balance, given the Army's needs the Committee finds itself
supportive of the Army Chief of Staff's crisply stated vision for the
interim force: ``We intend to stand it up, organize it, equip it, train
it, pick it up, and lift it and use it, as opposed to study it.''
The Committee cautions the Army that it should be prepared to
demonstrate that it has given full and careful consideration to vehicle
cost in awarding upcoming IBCT vehicle production contracts. In
particular, the Committee will review how the Army has weighed such
costs against the benefits and desire of achieving commonality among all
medium combat vehicle types. The Committee expects the Army to follow a
``best value'' concept when evaluating bids and awarding IBCT contracts.
Committee Recommendations:
The Committee strongly supports the thrust of the Army leadership's
strategic vision to transform its Cold War legacy force to one that is
better tailored to conduct a full spectrum of operations with dominance,
speed, agility, lethality, and sustainability.
In addition, the Committee concurs with the Army leadership that the
greatly increased frequency of small-scale contingency operations over
the past decade, and the likely continuation of such missions in the
foreseeable future, justifies the need for establishing its interim
brigades more quickly than the ten-year timeframe currently proposed.
The Army believes that it can implement this force in half the time if
funds are available, and the Committee agrees that this is what should
be done. In addition, the Committee strongly supports the concept that
the interim force must not just be developed as a specialized force only
for small contingency operations, but as a ``full spectrum force''
capable of effective combat at all levels of conflict.
Therefore, after careful consideration, the Committee makes these
recommendations regarding the key aspects of the Army Transformation
strategy:
The Committee recommends fully funding the budget request of
$105,000,000 for the cornerstone of the ``objective force'', the Future
Combat Vehicle, and also provides an additional $46,000,000 over the
request to accelerate this effort.
The Committee bill fully funds the budget request of $646,077,000 to
develop and field interim armored vehicles for the first interim brigade
combat team--and provides additions above the budget request of
$150,000,000 for development costs, and $133,000,000 in procurement
accounts to completely test, equip and field the first IBCT.
In addition, the Committee provides an additional $800,000,000 in
procurement funding to equip a second IBCT, in accordance with the
Army's preferred rate of interim brigade implementation.
As stated above, the Committee believes that the Department of
Defense must increase the overall attention and priority it is giving to
the interim brigade transformation concept. The Committee bill therefore
contains a general provision (Section 8115) prohibiting the obligation
of any funds provided for the second IBCT, unless and until the
Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the fiscal year 2002
Department of Defense budget submission fully funds an additional two
IBCTs for fiscal year 2002, as well as in each of the succeeding years
of the Future Years Defense Plan until eight brigades are financed. The
Committee expects and directs the DoD to include adequate funding in
next year's budget request to meet the recommended pace of converting
two brigades per year.
Finally, a key aspect of the Army transformation process must be an
internal transformation, to revitalize and modernize its processes for
developing and acquiring major systems in a timely, efficient, and cost
effective manner. The Committee therefore directs the Secretary of the
Army to commission an independent organization (as discussed in the
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army portion of this report)
to review and make necessary recommendations to improve the Army's
management structure, procedures, requirements development and resource
allocation levels for its research and development, major systems
acquisition, and budget/fiscal analysis functions. This review shall
expressly compare the manner in which these functions are organized and
resourced by the other military services, and shall solicit the views
and recommendations for improving these functions from cognizant
officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of
Management and Budget, the Congress, and industry. This review shall be
completed no later than March 31, 2001, and a summary of the
recommendations and actions the Secretary plans to take in response to
those recommendations shall be transmitted to the congressional defense
committees by April 30, 2001.
FORCES TO BE SUPPORTED
Department of the Army
The fiscal year 2001 budget is designed to support active Army forces
of 10 divisions, 3 armored cavalry regiments, and reserve forces of 8
divisions, 3 separate brigades, and 15 enhanced National Guard brigades
(6 enhanced brigades will be aligned under 2 AC/ARNG integrated division
headquarters). These forces provide the minimum force necessary to meet
enduring defense needs and execute the National Military Strategy.
A summary of the major forces follows:
Fiscal year--
1999 2000 2001
Divisions:\1\ 1 1 1
------- ------- -------
Total 10 10 10
======= ======= =======
Non-division Combat units: 3 3 3
------- ------- -------
Total 3 3 4
======= ======= =======
Active duty military personnel, end strength (Thousands) 480 480 480
\1\Separate brigade is aligned to one of the light divisions.
\2\Selected Divisions will have the Interim Brigade Combat Teams (2 brigades undergoing transformation at Ft. Lewis, WA) within them.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
The fiscal year 2001 budget support battle forces totaling 316 ships
at the end of fiscal year 2001, the same as in fiscal year 2000. Forces
in fiscal year 2001 include 18 strategic submarines, 12 aircraft
carriers, 246 other battle force ships, 1,835 Navy/Marine Corps
tactical/ASW aircraft, 619 Undergraduate Training aircraft, 517 Fleet
Air Training aircraft, 254 Fleet Air Support aircraft, 404 Reserve
aircraft, and 472 aircraft in the pipeline.
A summary of the major forces follow:
Fiscal year--
1999 2000 2001
Strategic Forces 18 18 18
---------- ---------- ----------
SLBM Launchers 432 432 432
General Purpose 256 257 258
---------- ---------- ----------
Support Forces 25 25 25
---------- ---------- ----------
Mobilization Category A 18 16 15
---------- ---------- ----------
---------- ---------- ----------
Total Ships, Battle Force 317 316 316
Total Local Defense/Misc Force 162 165 155
Auxiliaries/Sea Lift Forces 138 143 132
Surface Combatant Ships 1 0 0
Coastal Defense 13 13 13
Mobilization Category B 10 9 10
Naval Aircraft: 4,100 4,115 4,101
---------- ---------- ----------
Naval Personnel:
Active:
Navy 373,046 371,800 372,000
Marine Corps 172,641 172,518 172,600
Reserve:
Navy 89,172 89,134 88,900
SELRES 73,297 74,124 74,251
TARS 15,875 15,010 14,649
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
The fiscal year 2001 Air Force budget is designed to support a total
active inventory force structure of 78 fighter and attack squadrons, 4
Air National Guard air defense interceptor squadrons and 12 bomber
squadrons, including B 2s, B 52s, and B 1s. The Minuteman and
Peacekeeper ICBM forces will consist of 605 active launchers.
A summary of the major forces follows:
Fiscal year--
1999 2000 2001
USAF fighter and attack (Active) 83 81 78
USAF fighter and attack (ANG and AFRC) 45 45 45
Air defense interceptor (ANG) 6 6 4
Strategic bomber (Active) 10 11 12
Strategic bomber (ANG and AFRC) 3 3 3
ICBM operational launch facilities/control centers 605 605 605
ICBM operational missile boosters 550 550 550
======== ======== ========
USAF Airlift Squadrons (Active): 15 15 12
-------- -------- --------
Total Airlift 26 26 23
======== ======== ========
Total Active Inventory 6,203 6,143 6,114
FY 1999 (Actual) FY 2000 Col/FY 2001 PB FY 2001 PB
Active Duty 360,590 357,900 357,000
Reserve Component 177,478 180,386 182,300
Air National Guard 105,715 106,678 108,000
Air Force Reserve 71,772 73,708 74,300
TITLE I
MILITARY PERSONNEL
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FUNDED BY MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request continues to make
military personnel programs a high priority. The budget request proposed
a 3.7 percent pay raise, effective January 1, 2001, included a
significant increase in funds for advertising and recruiting support,
expanded pays, bonuses and other retention incentives, recommended an
increase in the number of recruiters, and contained new initiatives to
improve the Services' ability to recruit and retain a quality force.
The Committee agrees with these personnel initiatives and recommends
increases over the budget for programs such as Basic Allowance for
Housing costs, Dislocation Allowance, enlistment and selective
reenlistment bonuses, recruiting and advertising, and additional
recruiters.
SUMMARY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
Fiscal year 2000 $73,894,693,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 75,801,666,000
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation 75,904,216,000
Change from budget request +102,550,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,904,216,000 for the
Military Personnel accounts. The recommendation is an increase of
$2,009,523,000 above the $73,894,693,000 appropriated in fiscal year
2000. These military personnel budget total comparisons include
appropriations for the active, reserve, and National Guard accounts. The
following tables include a summary of the recommendations by
appropriation account. Explanations of changes from the budget request
appear later in this section.
SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATION
[In thousands of dollars]
Account Budget Recommendation Change from request
Military Personnel: $22,198,457 $22,242,457 +$44,000
-------------- ----------------- -----------------------
Subtotal, Active 65,046,488 65,098,288 +51,800
============== ================= =======================
Reserve Personnel: 2,433,880 2,463,320 +29,440
National Guard Personnel: 3,747,636 3,719,336 -28,300
-------------- ----------------- -----------------------
Subtotal, Guard and Reserve 10,755,178 10,805,928 +50,750
============== ================= =======================
Total, Title I 75,801,666 75,904,216 +102,550
The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes a slight decrease of 618
end strength for the active forces and an increase of 1,556 end strength
for the selected reserve over fiscal year 2000 authorized levels.
The Committee recommends the following personnel levels highlighted
in the tables below.
Overall Active End Strength
Fiscal year 2000 estimate 1,382,218
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,381,600
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation 1,382,242
Compared with Fiscal year 2000 +24
Compared with Fiscal year 2001 budget request +642
Overall Selected Reserve End Strength
Fiscal year 2000 estimate 864,144
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 865,700
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation 866,934
Compared with Fiscal year 2000 +2,790
Compared with Fiscal year 2001 budget request +1,234
FY 2000 estimate Fiscal year 2001
Budget request Recommendation Change from request
Active Forces (end strength): 480,000 480,000 480,000
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------------
Total, Active Force 1,382,218 1,381,600 1,382,242 +642
================= ================ ================ =====================
Guard and Reserve (end strength): 205,000 205,000 205,300 +300
----------------- ---------------- ---------------- ---------------------
Total, Guard and Reserve 864,144 865,700 866,934 +1,234
ADJUSTMENTS TO MILITARY PERSONNEL ACCOUNT
Overview
End Strength Adjustments
The Committee recommends a personnel understrength reduction of
$138,400,000 to the budget request, as a result of a General Accounting
Office review of the fiscal year 2000 military personnel end strength
levels. The General Accounting Office has been examining the costs for
military pay and allowances to determine if the fiscal year 2001
requirements are correct. It has concluded, based on March 2000 end
strength projections, that the active and Reserve components will begin
fiscal year 2001 with approximately 3,200 fewer military personnel
on-board than budgeted. In addition, actual data shows active military
personnel on-board, by grade mix, is different than was requested in
last year's budget request. This means the fiscal year 2001 pay and
allowances requirements for personnel are incorrect and the budgets are
overstated. The Committee will continue to monitor the Services' end
strength levels as more current data becomes available.
Unobligated/Unexpended Military Personnel Balances
The Committee recommends a reduction of $96,000,000 to the budget
request, as a result of a General Accounting Office review of prior year
unobligated military personnel account balances. Generally the Services'
military personnel appropriations are obligated in the year of
appropriation, with the majority of the obligated balances being
disbursed within two years after being appropriated. However, all of the
funds obligated are not always expended, and those unexpended balances
are then transferred to the foreign currency account. Since the
Services' account data have shown a pattern of not spending all of their
appropriated funds, the Committee believes that the fiscal year 2001
military personnel budget request is overstated and can be reduced.
The Committee also believes the Services need to do a more
comprehensive job of reviewing their appropriations balances to ensure
that funds are properly obligated and expended, and if not, to adjust
their budget submissions accordingly.
Unfunded Requirements
The Committee recommends an increase over the budget request of
$250,550,000 for additional active duty and reserve component pays and
allowances to enhance enlisted recruiting, retention, and quality of
life initiatives for military personnel, as follows:
[Dollars in thousands]
Enlistment Bonuses $130,400
Selective Reenlistment Bonuses 33,000
AGR Pilot Bonus 12,400
College First Program 5,000
Basic Allowance for Housing 63,750
Dislocation Allowance 6,000
-----------
Total $250,550
Basic Allowance for Housing
The Committee recommends an increase over the budget request of
$63,750,000 for the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) program. The
budget recommended funds for a BAH initiative that will eliminate the
out-of-pocket housing costs being paid by military personnel. This
initiative will lower the average out-of-pocket costs for off-base
housing from the current 18.8 percent to 15 percent next year, and
eliminate them entirely by fiscal year 2005. The Committee recommends an
additional $30,000,000, to further reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses
for military personnel over the budget request.
In addition, the Committee recommends $33,750,000 to maintain housing
allowances at the 1999 levels during fiscal year 2001, in order to
protect service members from any further erosion of their housing
benefits in areas where the 2000 BAH rates had been decreased.
Guard and Reserve Forces
The Committee recognizes that Guard and Reserve forces are an
essential part of the total force having played an important role in
recent peacetime operations. Many of the skills needed for response to a
crisis reside in the Reserve components, guaranteeing the increased use
of Reservists in military operations other than war. The Committee
continues its support of the Guard and Reserve and recommends an
increase of $320,150,000 over the budget request for the personnel and
operation and maintenance accounts as shown below.
[Dollars in thousands]
Military Personnel +$50,750
Operation and Maintenance +269,400
------------
Total +$320,150
Full-Time Support Strengths
There are four categories of full-time support in the Guard and
Reserve components: civilian technicians, active Guard and Reserve
(AGR), non-technician civilians, and active component personnel.
Full-time support personnel organize, recruit, train, maintain and
administer the Reserve components. Civilian (military) technicians
directly support units, and are very important to help units maintain
readiness and meet the wartime mission of the Army and Air Force.
Full-time support end strength in all categories totaled 148,849 in
fiscal year 2000. The fiscal year 2001 budget request is 133,023 end
strength. The following table summarizes Guard and Reserve full-time
support end strengths:
GUARD AND RESERVE FULL-TIME END STRENGTHS
FY 2000 estimate Budget request Recommendation Change from request
Army Reserve: 12,804 12,806 13,106 +300
Navy Reserve TAR 15,010 14,649 14,649
Marine Corps Reserve 2,272 2,203 2,261 +58
Air Force Reserve: 1,134 1,278 1,336 +58
Army National Guard: 22,430 22,448 23,154 +706
Air National Guard: 11,157 11,148 11,148
Total: 64,807 64,532 65,654 +1,122
MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $22,006,361,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 22,198,457,000
Committee recommendation 22,242,457,000
Change from budget request +44,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,242,457,000 for
Military Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of
$236,096,000 above the $22,006,361,000 appropriated for fiscal year
2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Army
are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:
1100 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses 71,000
Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:
2450 Unemployment Benefits -2,100
Other Adjustments:
2770 Personnel Underexecution -24,900
2805 Basic Allowance for Housing 12,800
2815 BAH Out-of-Pocket Costs 10,200
2820 Dislocation Allowance 2,000
2825 Unobligated/Unexpended Fund Balances -25,000
MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY
MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $17,258,823,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 17,742,897,000
Committee recommendation 17,799,297,000
Change from budget request +56,400,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,799,297,000 for
Military Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of
$540,474,000 above the $17,258,823,000 appropriated for fiscal year
2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Navy
are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:
3900 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses 23,500
Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:
5250 Unemployment Benefits -1,400
Other Adjustments:
5610 Basic Allowance for Housing 4,300
5625 USS Houston manning 3,500
5630 Additional Recruiter Manning 15,000
5631 BAH Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs 9,500
5632 Dislocation Allowance 2,000
Active Navy Manning
The Committee recommends an increase of $18,500,000 over the
``Military Personnel, Navy'' budget request to provide additional
manpower costs for the required end strength associated with the
decision not to implement the fiscal year 2001 decommissioning of the
USS Houston submarine, and to increase the Navy's recruiter manning
levels from 4,500 to 5,000 total strength level.
MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $6,555,403,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 6,822,300,000
Committee recommendation 6,818,300,000
Change from budget request -4,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,818,300,000 for
Military Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of
$262,897,000 above the $6,555,403,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel,
Marine Corps are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:
6700 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses 4,000
6700 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses 4,000
Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:
7900 Unemployment Benefits -700
Other Adjustments:
8230 Personnel Underexecution -8,100
8255 Basic Allowance for Housing 1,500
8260 Marine Corps Execution Repricing -8,000
8265 BAH Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs 2,800
8270 Dislocation Allowance 500
MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $17,861,803,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 18,282,834,000
Committee recommendation 18,238,234,000
Change from budget request -44,600,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,238,234,000 for
Military Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of
$376,431,000 above the $17,861,803,000 appropriated for fiscal year
2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Air
Force are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:
9350 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses 7,500
9350 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses 29,000
Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:
10700 Unemployment Benefits -600
Other Adjustments:
11020 Personnel Underexecution -59,600
11080 Basic Allowance for Housing 12,100
11115 Unobligated/Unexpended Fund Balances -42,000
11120 BAH Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs 7,500
11125 Dislocation Allowance 1,500
RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $2,289,996,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 2,433,880,000
Committee recommendation 2,463,320,000
Change from budget request +29,440,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,463,320,000 for
Reserve Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of
$173,324,000 above the $2,289,996,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Army
are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 2: Other Training and Support:
11750 Administration and Support/Enlistment Bonuses 12,400
Other Adjustments:
12020 Full Time Support/AGRs 10,000
12045 JROTC Program 1,300
12055 College First Program 5,000
12060 Basic Allowance for Housing 740
RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,473,388,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,528,385,000
Committee recommendation 1,566,095,000
Change from budget request +37,710,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,566,095,000 for
Reserve Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of
$92,707,000 above the $1,473,388,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Navy
are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Other Adjustments:
12880 JROTC Program 600
12895 Basic Allowance for Housing 310
12900 CINC Active Duty for Training 13,400
12910 Annual Training 23,400
RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $412,650,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 436,386,000
Committee recommendation 440,886,000
Change from budget request +4,500,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $440,886,000 for Reserve
Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of
$28,236,000 above the $412,650,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel,
Marine Corps are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Other Adjustments:
13780 JROTC Program 300
13795 Personnel Underexecution -700
13800 Active Duty for Special Work 3,000
13805 Active Personnel Reserve Reassessment 1,900
RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $892,594,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 981,710,000
Committee recommendation 980,610,000
Change from budget request -1,100,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $980,610,000 for Reserve
Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $88,016,000
above the $892,594,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Air
Force are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Other Adjustments:
14610 Personnel Underexecution -8,100
14626 JROTC Program 1,200
14640 AGR Pilot Bonus 3,700
14645 RED HORSE Unit 400
14650 Additional Recruiter Manning 1,700
AIR FORCE RESERVE MANNING
The Committee recommends an increase over the request of $2,100,000
in ``Reserve Personnel, Air Force'' to provide additional personnel
costs required for the stand up of a new total force Rapid
Engineer-Deployable Heavy Operations-Repair Squadron Engineer (RED
HORSE) unit, and additional Reserve recruiter manning end strength.
NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $3,610,479,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 3,747,636,000
Committee recommendation 3,719,336,000
Change from budget request -28,300,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,719,336,000 for
National Guard Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of
$108,857,000 above the $3,610,479,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for National Guard
Personnel, Army are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 2: Other Training and Support:
15200 Administration and Support/Enlistment Bonuses 12,000
Other Adjustments:
15360 Personnel Underexecution -36,100
15390 Additional Full Time Support AGR 23,500
15420 Basic Allowance for Housing 1,300
15430 Unobligated/Unexpended Fund Balances -29,000
Weapons of Mass Destruction--Civil Support Teams
The Department of Defense has currently fielded 10 Weapons of Mass
Destruction Civil Support Teams. Last year, the Congress directed the
establishment and organization of an additional 17 teams, for a total of
27 teams. The stationing of these additional teams has already been
determined by the Department. However, the Committee believes that
should additional WMD teams be established by the Congress or the
Department in the future, priority should be given to states in the
Southwestern United States, and other areas which are experiencing
significant population increases.
Guard and Reserve Workyear Requirements
For the past several years, the Committee has asked the General
Accounting Office (GAO) to review the Reserve military personnel budget
requests. In the course of their review, the GAO found that the Army
National Guard has overstated the average number of military personnel
workyears budgeted because the inactive duty training participation
rates used to estimate the budget were overstated. Last year, the
Committee also directed the Secretary of Defense to ensure the Army
National Guard's accounting procedures for determining annual training
and schools and special training costs were properly coded, and that the
Army National Guard follow the Department's financial management
regulations. GAO has determined that the Army National Guard has not
corrected the accounting problems reported last year, and further found
that this accounting practice is also followed by the other Guard and
Reserve components. The Committee again directs the Secretary of Defense
to report to the Committee, by February 1, 2001, on its efforts to
ensure that accurate accounting information is used in preparing the
Reserve components budget submissions.
NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,533,196,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,627,181,000
Committee recommendation 1,635,681,000
Change from budget request +8,500,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,635,681,000 for
National Guard Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase
of $102,485,000 above the $1,533,196,000 appropriated for fiscal year
2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for National Guard
Personnel, Air Force are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Other Adjustments:
16120 Personnel Underexecution -900
16155 Basic Allowance for Housing 700
16160 AGR Pilot Bonus 8,700
TITLE II
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The fiscal year 2001 budget request for Operation and Maintenance is
$96,280,113,000 in new budget authority, which is an increase of
$4,045,344,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000. The
request also includes a $150,000,000 cash transfer from the National
Defense Stockpile Fund Transaction fund.
The accompanying bill recommends $97,507,228,000 for fiscal year
2001, which is an increase of $1,227,115,000 above the budget request.
In addition, the Committee recommends that $150,000,000 be transferred
from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction fund, as proposed in the
budget request.
These appropriations finance the costs of operating and maintaining
the Armed Forces, including the reserve components and related support
activities of the Department of Defense (DoD), except military personnel
costs. Included are pay for civilians, services for maintenance of
equipment and facilities, fuel, supplies, and spare parts for weapons
and equipment. Financial requirements are influenced by many factors,
including force levels such as the number of aircraft squadrons, Army
and Marine Corps divisions, installations, military personnel strength
and deployments, rates of operation activity, and the quantity and
complexity of equipment such as aircraft, ships missiles and tanks in
operation.
The table below summarizes the Committee's recommendations.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW
Despite increased funding proposed by the administration in the
fiscal year 2001 budget request, the Committee notes that there are
substantial unfunded requirements in the Operation and Maintenance
accounts that are critical to maintaining the readiness of U.S. armed
forces, enhancing the sustainability of such forces when they are
deployed, and improving the condition of the supporting infrastructure.
As in past years, the Committee requested that the Military Services
identify their top unfunded priorities for consideration during the
Committee's deliberations on the fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense
Appropriations bill. Once again, the Military Services have identified
significant shortfalls in the Operation and Maintenance accounts. In the
Committee's view, these shortfalls pose a serious risk to the near term
readiness of U.S. forces as well as the ability of these forces to
sustain combat operations once deployed. These shortfalls are evident in
a number of areas financed by the Operation and Maintenance accounts
including: maintenance of infrastructure; funding for depot-level
maintenance of weapons systems; field level equipment maintenance and
logistical support; recruiting, advertising and related programs; and
basic personnel support equipment such as cold weather gear, body armor,
naval shipboard accommodations, and minor equipment items to support
soldiers in the field. To correct these deficiencies, the Committee
recommends increased funding above the budget request in a number of
areas including those cited above.
The Committee also notes that there are areas in the Operation and
Maintenance accounts where savings can be achieved to free up resources
both for the readiness needs discussed above, and to make resources
available for more robust modernization programs. Given the need to
correct deficiencies in the Operation and Maintenance accounts in order
to enhance near term readiness and sustainability as well as weapons
modernization, the Committee believes it is imperative for the
Department of Defense to use its Operation and Maintenance funding as
efficiently as possible. Therefore, the Committee recommends certain
reductions based on fact-of-life considerations, as well as management
actions that the Department should under take to streamline activities
funded in the Operation and Maintenance accounts.
REAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
The Committee recommends an increase of $830,300,000 above the budget
request to slow the growth in the backlog of real property maintenance.
The Committee notes that despite modest increases proposed by the
administration for real property maintenance, the level of funding in
the fiscal year 2001 budget request falls far short of arresting the
growth in the backlog of such work. The budget justification materials
indicate an increase in the backlog of real property maintenance
workload of almost $1,600,000,000 from 2000 to 2001, and a total backlog
in 2001 of $27,200,000,000. Of this amount, the backlog for the Army is
over $16,000,000,000. To address this backlog, the Committee recommends
additional funding over the budget request to be distributed as follows.
Army $555,800,000
Navy 70,000,000
Marine Corps 47,000,000
Air Force 70,000,000
Defense-Wide 10,500,000
Army Reserve 30,000,000
Navy Reserve 15,000,000
Marine Corps Reserve 2,000,000
Air Force Reserve 10,000,000
Army National Guard 15,000,000
Air National Guard 5,000,000
DEPOT MAINTENANCE
The Committee recommends an increase of $343,202,000 above the budget
request for depot-level maintenance of weapons systems. The Committee
notes with concern that the budget proposes reducing funding available
for depot maintenance by over $700,000,000 from fiscal year 2000 levels
while allowing the backlog of such maintenance to increase to nearly
$1,200,000,000. To stem the growth in the backlog of depot maintenance,
the Committee recommends additional funding over the budget request to
be distributed as follows.
Army $54,402,000
Navy 181,200,000
Marine Corps 22,000,000
Air Force 29,100,000
Defense-Wide 10,000,000
Navy Reserve 10,000,000
Marine Corps Reserve 5,000,000
Air Force Reserve 15,000,000
Air National Guard 16,500,000
Soldier Support Equipment
The Committee recommends an increase of $66,150,000 above the budget
request for soldier support equipment. The Committee notes that there
remains a substantial backlog of basic troop support equipment such as
minor equipment needed to support soldiers in the field, cold weather
clothing, body armor, and materials to support shipboard accommodations
for sailors. To address these deficiencies, the Committee recommends
additional funding over the budget request to be distributed as follows.
Army $5,000,000
Navy 15,850,000
Marine Corps 21,300,000
Army Reserve 9,000,000
Army National Guard 12,000,000
Air National Guard 3,000,000
Junior ROTC
The Committee recommends an increase of $12,100,000 above the budget
request for the Junior ROTC program. Of this amount, $3,400,000 is for
the Reserve Personnel accounts, and $8,700,000 is for the Operation and
Maintenance accounts. The Committee notes that the Department of Defense
is nearly 800 units below authorized levels for the JROTC program, and
does not plan to reach the authorized levels until fiscal year 2006. In
order to accelerate this schedule, the Committee recommends additional
funding over the budget request to be distributed as follows.
Reserve Personnel, Army $1,300,000
Reserve Personnel, Navy 600,000
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps 300,000
Reserve Personnel, Air Force 1,200,000
Operation and Maintenance, Army 4,500,000
Operation and Maintenance, Navy 1,700,000
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps 700,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force 1,800,000
Field Maintenance and Logistical Support
The Committee recommends an increase of $60,800,000 above the budget
request to address deficiencies associated with field level equipment
maintenance, field logistics, and other logistical support programs. The
Committee notes that a number of these programs have routinely been
highlighted on the Services' unfunded lists and include programs such as
corrosion control, system sustainment and technical support, and
reliability and maintainability programs. To fully fund these programs,
the Committee recommends additional funding over the budget request to
be distributed as follows.
Army $20,000,000
Navy 20,500,000
Marine Corps 15,000,000
Air Force 5,300,000
War Reserve and Prepositioned Materials
The Committee recommends an increase of $60,000,000 above the budget
request to address deficiencies associated with war reserve and
pre-positioned materials stocks. The Committee notes that the Quarterly
Readiness Report to Congress has routinely highlighted vast shortfalls
in the stocks of such material which are critical to sustaining combat
operations. To address these shortfalls within the Marine Corps'
Maritime Prepositioning program and the Air Force readiness spares kits,
the Committee recommends additional funding over the budget request to
be distributed as follows. In addition, the Committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense
committees not later than January 31, 2001, in both classified and
unclassified form, which details specific shortfalls in war reserve
materials, prepositioned materials, and other stocks needed to sustain
combat operations as described in the Quarterly Readiness Report to the
Congress. This report shall include estimates for both the quantities
and types of material shortfalls, measures that DoD will take to
eliminate these shortfalls, and estimates of the cost to remedy these
shortfalls.
Marine Corps $15,000,000
Air Force 45,000,000
Headquarters and Administrative Expenses
The Committee recommends a reduction of $143,630,000 below the budget
request for headquarters and administrative activities. The Committee
supports the efforts of the Defense Authorization Committees to reduce
administrative expenses to the same degree that other elements of the
Armed Forces force structure have been reduced. In addition, the
Committee notes that the fiscal year 2001 budget justification materials
reflect substantial growth in headquarters activities for each of the
Services including staffing, supplies and materials, and vehicle leases
which do not appear justified in light of unmet readiness and
modernization needs discussed elsewhere in this report. Accordingly, the
Committee recommends the following reductions from the budget request.
Army $38,700,000
Navy 12,376,000
Air Force 75,000,000
Defense-Wide 17,554,000
Acquisition Program Growth
The Committee recommends a reduction of $54,481,000 below the budget
request as a result of acquisition program growth. While the Committee
has expressed its support for programs needed to provide logistical
support to the operating forces, the Committee is concerned about the
level of acquisition staffing growth proposed in the budget request.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends the following reductions from the
budget request.
Navy $45,681,000
Air Force 8,800,000
DFAS Program Growth
The Committee recommends a reduction of $47,111,000 below the budget
request as a result of program growth for the Defense Finance and
Accounting Service as reflected in the Operation and Maintenance
accounts. The Committee notes that this growth is, in part, the result
of a proposal to establish a European site for DFAS in the fiscal 2001
budget. However, the budget materials are unclear as to the ultimate
costs and benefits of this action. Accordingly, the Committee recommends
the following reductions from the budget request.
Army $19,590,000
Air Force 27,521,000
NATO and Overseas Staff Growth
The Committee recommends a reduction of $26,000,000 below the budget
request as a result of program growth for NATO and other European
headquarters elements. In light of readiness and modernization
shortfalls discussed elsewhere in this report, the Committee believes
that such growth is unwarranted, and recommends maintaining resource
levels for overseas headquarters elements at fiscal year 2000 levels.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends the following reductions from the
budget request.
Army $18,700,000
Navy 6,200,000
Air Force 1,100,000
Operation and Maintenance Budget Execution Data
The Committee directs the Department of Defense to continue to
provide the congressional defense committees with quarterly budget
execution data. Such data should be provided not later than forty-five
days past the close of each quarter of the fiscal year, and should be
provided for each O 1 budget activity, activity group, and subactivity
group for each of the active, defense-wide, reserve and National Guard
components. For each O 1 budget activity, activity group, and
subactivity group, these reports should include: the budget request and
actual obligations; the DoD distribution of unallocated congressional
adjustments to the budget request; all adjustments made by DoD during
the process of rebaselining the O&M accounts; all adjustments resulting
from below threshold reprogrammings; and all adjustments resulting from
prior approval reprogramming requests.
In addition, the Committee requires that the Department of Defense
provide semiannual written notifications to the congressional defense
committees which summarize Operation and Maintenance budget execution to
include the effect of rebaselining procedures, other below threshold
reprogrammings, and prior approval reprogrammings. The Committee further
directs that the Department of Defense provide the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations written notification 30 days prior to
executing procedures to rebaseline the Operation and Maintenance
accounts.
Operation and Maintenance Reprogrammings
The Committee directs that proposed transfers of funds between O 1
budget activities in excess of $15,000,000 be subject to normal, prior
approval reprogramming procedures. Items for which funds have been
specifically provided in any appropriation in this report using phrases
``only for'' and ``only to'' are Congressional interest items for the
purpose of the base for Reprogramming (DD form 1414). Each of these
items must be carried on the DD 1414 at the stated amount, or revised
amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically
addressed in the conference report. In addition, due to continuing
concerns about force readiness and the diversion of Operation and
Maintenance funds, the Committee directs the Department of Defense to
provide written notification to the congressional defense committees for
the cumulative value of any and all transfers in excess of $15,000,000
from the following budget activities and subactivity group categories:
Operation and maintenance, Army
Land Forces: Divisions, Corps combat forces, Corps support forces,
Echelon above corps forces, Land forces operations support; Land Forces
Readiness: Land forces depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Navy
Air Operations: Mission and other flight operations, Fleet air
training, Aircraft depot maintenance; Ship Operations: Mission and other
ship operations, Ship operational support and training, Intermediate
maintenance, Ship depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps
Expeditionary Forces: Operational forces, Depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Air Force
Air Operations: Primary combat forces, Primary combat weapons, Air
operations training, Depot maintenance; Mobility Operations: Airlift
operations, Depot maintenance, Payments to the transportation business
area; Basic Skills and Advanced Training: Depot maintenance; Logistics
Operations: Depot maintenance.
Further, the Department should follow prior approval reprogramming
procedures for transfers in excess of $15,000,000 out of the following
budget subactivities.
Operation and maintenance, Army
Depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Navy
Aircraft depot maintenance,
Ship depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps
Depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Air Force
Air Operations, Depot maintenance,
Mobility Operations, Depot maintenance,
Basic Skills and Advanced Training, Depot maintenance, and
Logistics Operations, Depot maintenance.
Public Transit Vouchers
The Committee is aware that executive order 13150, April 21, 2000,
establishes a public transportation fringe benefit for employees in the
National Capital Region (NCR). The Committee is interested in the
measures that the Secretary of Defense will take to implement this
benefit. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report, no later than December 31, 2000, to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations which delineates the measures that
the Department of Defense will take to implement Executive Order 13150,
and an estimate of the funding required to support this Executive Order.
Recruiting and Advertising
The Committee recommends an increase of $75,000,000 over the budget
request for active and reserve recruiting and advertising programs. The
Committee recognizes that the military services' recruiting efforts to
enlist high quality recruits is continuing to be difficult and provides
additional funds to help meet their recruiting goals. The Committee
further recommends that $2,000,000 of the funds provided are only for
the Joint Recruiting and Advertising Program for a pilot program aimed
at developing a partnership program involving DoD and athletic
associations at two sites to deliver recruitment messages to high school
students.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $19,256,152,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 19,073,731,000
Committee recommendation 19,386,843,000
Change from budget request +313,112,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,386,843,000 for
Operation and Maintenance, Army. The recommendation is an increase of
$130,691,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Army are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
250 M-Gator 3,000
550 JCS Exercises -11,000
550 Integrated Training Area Management 12,900
550 Modern Burner Unit 5,000
650 Depot Maintenance 50,000
650 Depot Maintenance Apprenticeship Program 4,402
750 NTC Airhead 2,000
750 Security Improvements-NTC Heliport 1,900
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
1300 Industrial Preparedness Growth -20,100
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
1850 Institutional Training-Specialized Skill Training 10,000
1850 Military Police School/MCTFT Joint Training 2,000
1850 Information Assurance: IT Training and Education 3,000
1950 DLI Classroom and Office Furnishings 2,500
1950 Defense Language Institute 2,000
1950 Monterey Regional Education Initiative 2,000
1950 Office Furnishings for DOIM Computer Center 1,500
1950 Joint Multi-Dimensional Education & Analysis System (NDU) 3,000
1950 Support to International Students 1,000
2000 Institutional Training-Training Support 10,000
2000 Distance Learning-CCCE 1,500
2000 Armor Officers Distance Learning 1,500
2200 Recruiting and Advertising 15,000
2400 JROTC 4,500
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
2800 Pulse Technology 5,000
2850 System Technical Support 20,000
2850 Supercomputing Work 6,000
2850 Logistics and Technology Project 1,000
3250 Claims Underexecution -40,000
3600 NATO Administrative Growth -12,400
3650 Administrative Cost Growth in Europe -6,300
Undistributed:
3710 Classified Programs Undistributed 7,000
3740 Memorial Events 700
3750 Real Property Maintenance 273,300
3780 Headquarters and Administration Growth -38,700
3825 DFAS Program Growth -19,590
3830 Chicago Military Academy 5,000
3835 Repairs at Fort Baker 6,000
3840 Clara Barton Center at Pine Bluff 1,500
3845 Defense Joint Accounting System -14,000
3846 WMD-Distance Learning Network 4,000
3847 WMD-Counter-Terrorism Training and Testing 7,000
MEDIUM GENERAL PURPOSE TENTS
Of the funds made available in Operation and Maintenance, Army the
Committee directs that $14,000,000 be made available only for the
purpose of meeting prospective requirements for modular general purpose
tents (M.G.P.T.) associated with wartime and other mobilizations as
described in the report accompanying the House Department of Defense
Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000.
TACTICAL MISSILE MAINTENANCE
Of the amount recommended for Operation and Maintenance, Army,
specifically depot maintenance, the Army will be funded with $48,300,000
to be applied to Army Tactical Missile Depot Maintenance requirements,
to include ground support equipment, at its organic public depots.
military ocean terminal bayonne (motby)
Of the funds provided in Operation and Maintenance, Army for real
property maintenance, $5,000,000 shall only be made available to the
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, only for
the stabilization of the South Berths at MOTBY.
night training safety ``light sticks''
The Committee believes that the number of night training accidents
may be reduced if soldiers were provided with small, inexpensive, low
light emitting, emergency signaling devices. Although chemiluminescent
devices are available though the defense supply system, they are a
discretionary item and not provided to the Army on a scheduled basis.
Accordingly, the Committee directs the Army to study the feasibility of
providing low-light, chemiluminescent, emergency lighting devices to
individual soldiers involved in tactical training.
distance learning--ccce
The Committee recommends $1,500,000 to enhance and expand the City
Colleges of Chicago Europe (CCCE) college degree and certificate program
for U.S. military service members.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $22,958,784,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 23,250,154,000
Committee recommendation 23,426,830,000
Change from budget request +176,676,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,426,830,000 for
Operation and Maintenance, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of
$468,046,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Navy are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
4600 Aviation Depot Maintenance 20,000
4650 Object Oriented Simulations/Reengineering Pilot Program 5,000
5000 Ship Depot Maintenance 142,000
5050 Berthing & Messing Barge 20,000
5400 JCS Exercises -1,000
5500 Man Overboard Indicator 2,850
5500 CINCUSNAVEUR Administrative Growth -1,500
5550 Reverse Osmosis Desalinators 1,000
5550 Surface Ship Calibration Support 4,000
5850 Arms Control -200
5950 CWIS Overhauls 4,000
5950 Mk 45 Mod 1 Maintenance 10,000
6220 Partnership for Rapid Innovation Pilot Project at Navy Region Northwest 10,000
6220 Portal Crane Maintenance, Rota 3,500
6220 NATO Administrative Cost Growth -4,700
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
6500 Ship Disposal Initiative 10,000
6500 Nuclear Submarine Inactivations (PSNS) 46,700
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
7200 Information Assurance: IT Training and Education 3,000
7300 NPS-Center for Civil Military Relations 1,245
7300 Joint Multi-Dimensional Education & Analysis System (Naval War College) 2,000
7300 Support to International Students 500
7300 Center for Non-Proliferation Studies, Monterey 4,000
7350 CNET 5,000
7350 Distance Learning--CNET 4,000
7700 JROTC 1,700
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
8550 Acquisition Management -8,318
8600 Acquisition Management -19,349
8600 Information Technology Center 7,000
8650 Acquisition Workforce -13,614
8650 Configuration Management Information System (to insert weapon systems data into the CMIS database) 15,000
8700 Acquisition Management -4,400
8700 Trident Sonar Manual Conversion 3,000
Undistributed:
9280 Classified Programs Undistributed -15,144
9320 Navy Environmental Leadership Program 5,000
9360 Headquarters and Administration Growth -12,376
9380 Contract and Advisory Services -14,061
9405 Civilian Personnel Underexecution -49,600
9410 Improved Shipboard Mattresses 13,000
9415 Defense Joint Accounting System -7,000
9420 Communications Program Growth -15,557
NAVY AVIATION DEPOT MAINTENANCE APPRENTICE PROGRAM
Of the funds available for Operation and Maintenance, Navy for
aviation depot maintenance, the Committee directs that $4,000,000 shall
be available only for apprentice programs to augment the civilian
workforce at the Navy's aviation maintenance depots.
MAN OVERBOARD INDICATOR
The Committee has provided an additional $2,850,000 for the
procurement, installation, training and verification, and maintenance of
a man overboard indicating system capable of active integration into a
shipboard Personnel Tracking and Monitoring System for two U.S. Navy
carrier battle groups as a field demonstration. This device should have
the capability for modification to include the PTMS characteristics as
discussed in the Secretary of the Navy's February 1999 Report to the
Congress.
UNOLS
Of the funds made available in Operation and Maintenance, Navy, the
Committee directs that $3,000,000 shall be made available only for the
purpose of funding backlogs in oceanographic research.
NAVAL SEA CADET PROGRAM
The Committee is aware that the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps has
maintained a youth training program in close cooperation with the Navy
for over forty years. In the interest of possible expansion of this
program, the Committee directs that the Secretary of the Navy provide a
report to the congressional defense committees, not later than December
31, 2000, which lists the benefits of this program to the Navy, and
identifies the financial, material and manpower resources that the Navy
should make available to the Naval Sea Cadet Corps in order to expand
this program.
USNS HAYES RELOCATION
The Committee is aware of plans by the Navy to relocate the research
vessel USNS Hayes. The Committee supports this initiative and urges the
Navy to expedite the relocation of this vessel.
CENTER FOR CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS
The Committee recommends $1,245,000 for the Naval Postgraduate School
to expand its Masters degree program to reach additional National Guard
officers by providing funds for student assistance, curriculum
development and distance learning support.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $2,808,354,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 2,705,658,000
Committee recommendation 2,813,091,000
Change from budget request +107,433,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,813,091,000 for
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an
increase of $4,737,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year
2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
10050 Initial Issue Gear 21,300
10050 ULCANS 10,000
10050 Lightweight Maintenance Enclosures 3,000
10050 Modular Command Post System 4,000
10050 Joint Service NBC Defense Equipment Surveillance 3,700
10100 Equipment Maintenance 8,500
10100 Corrosion Control 6,500
10150 Depot Maintenance 22,000
10200 Urban Warfare Training-Former George AFB Lease 1,500
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
10850 Information Assurance: IT Training and Education 3,000
11200 Recruiting and Advertising 8,100
11300 JROTC 700
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
11700 Servicewide Transportation Underexecution -2,000
Undistributed:
11990 MPS replenishment/replacement stocks 15,000
12015 Contract and Advisory Services -367
12020 Civilian Personnel Separation 2,500
modular lightweight load-carrying equipment (molle)
Of the funds provided in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps for
initial issue equipment, as discussed elsewhere in this report, the
Committee directs that $10,000,000 shall only be available for the
Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying equipment (MOLLE).
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL SEPARATION
Of the funds provided in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps, the
Committee directs that up to $2,500,000 shall be used only for civilian
separation pay and associated expenses at the Marine Corps Logistics
Base at Barstow, California.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $20,896,959,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 22,296,977,000
Committee recommendation 22,316,797,000
Change from budget request +19,820,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,316,797,000 for
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase
of $1,419,838,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
12650 Reverse Osmosis Desalinators 500
12775 Depot Maintenance--Operating Forces 15,000
12800 Air Force Battlelabs 4,000
13000 Tethered Aerostat Radar System 8,500
13100 TACCSF Theater Air Command and Control Simulation Facility 8,000
13150 JCS Exercises -12,200
13450 Eastern Missile Range Launch Facility Enhancements 10,000
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
13975 Depot Maintenance--Mobilization 14,100
Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:
14600 Information Assurance: IT Training and Education 3,000
14600 IT Workforce Re-Skilling--Aeronautical Systems Center 2,000
14700 Joint Multi-Dimensional Education & Analysis System (Air War College) 2,000
14700 Support to International Students 500
14950 Recruiting and Advertising 8,200
15150 JROTC 1,800
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
15350 Acquisition Management -8,800
15350 Engine Reliability & Maintainability Program 4,300
15900 Arms Control -6,900
15950 Manufacturing Technical Assistance Pilot Program 4,000
16000 Personnel Support Programs Underexecution -4,000
16100 William Lehman Aviation Center 500
16350 NATO & International Program Growth -1,100
Undistributed:
16450 Classified Programs Undistributed 35,574
16500 Readiness Spare Kits 45,000
16580 Headquarters and Administration Growth -75,000
16600 Contract and Advisory Services -4,633
16655 DFAS Program Growth -27,521
16660 Defense Joint Accounting System -7,000
C 5 SPARE PARTS
The Committee continues to harbor concerns about the persistent
shortages of spare and repair parts needed to support Air Force
aircraft. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Air
Force to report to the congressional defense committees 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.
AIR FORCE CARGO DISTRIBUTION HUB
The Committee is aware of available capacity at the Youngstown-Warren
Airport, home of the 910th Air Force Reserve Airlift Wing, that may be
employed by the Department of Defense for cargo shipments. Accordingly,
the Committee directs that the Commander of the Air Mobility Command
provide a report to the House Committee on Appropriations not later than
December 31, 2000, which assesses the feasibility of using
Youngstown-Warren Airport as a hub for the distribution of Department of
Defense cargo.
Displaying Retired Aircraft
The Committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to provide all
authorized assistance to defray the costs of demilitarization,
preparation, and transportation of a retired AT 38B aircraft for
purposes of putting the aircraft on public display at the Blue Grass
Airport in Lexington, Kentucky.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $11,489,483,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 11,920,069,000
Committee recommendation 11,803,743,000
Change from budget request -116,326,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,803,743,000 for
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is an
increase of $314,260,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year
2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 2: Mobilization:
17250 DLA--Generalized Emulation of Microcircuits 3,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
17775 Civil Military--Angel Gate Academy 4,200
17775 Civil Military--Youth Development and Leadership Program 500
17800 Classified and Intelligence -2,322
17900 DCAA--Pay rate Calculation -2,000
18000 DHRA--Joint Recruiting and Advertising Program 2,000
18050 DISA--Information Assurance: IT Training and Education 3,000
18200 DLA--Automated Document Conversion 20,000
18200 DLA--Security Locks 15,000
18500 DoDEA--Family Advocacy Program 4,000
18500 DoDEA--Math Program Skill Set Kits 600
18600 JCS--Headquarters Personnel Reduction -522
18650 OEA--Pico Rivera 2,000
18650 OEA--NAS Cecil Field 3,000
18700 OSD--Command Information Superiority Architectures (CISA) Program 5,000
18700 OSD--Headquarters Personnel Reduction -4,446
18700 OSD--Information Assurance: JCOATS IO 1,600
18700 OSD--Information Assurance: Critical Infrastructure Protection 10,300
18700 OSD--Energy Savings Performance Contracts 4,000
18700 OSD--CTMA: Depot Level Activities 10,000
18700 OSD--CTMA: Wearable Computers 850
18700 OSD--Special Subsistence Stipend 5,000
18820 WHS--Low priority programs -10,000
18860 Special Programs -200,000
Undistributed:
19020 Impact Aid Program 35,000
19070 Defense Agencies Headquarters Personnel Reduction -12,586
19160 Defense Joint Accounting System -13,500
BERYLLIUM WORK-RELATED ILLNESSES
Beryllium is a metal that has long been an important component of
nuclear explosives, aircraft, missiles and other weapons due to its
lightness and strength. The Administration has proposed a package of
compensation for the employees of contractors and vendors to the
Department of Energy who are suffering from chronic beryllium disease
and other work-related illnesses associated with the manufacture of
nuclear weapons. The Committee believes it would be prudent to have an
understanding of whether the use of beryllium in non-nuclear
applications for the Department of Defense has resulted in a similar
situation for the Defense workforce. The Committee bill directs (in
Section 8111 of the General Provisions) that the Secretary of Defense
submit a report to the congressional defense committees on
beryllium-related illnesses, to include information on incidences of
beryllium-related illnesses, potential costs of compensation of Defense
workforce employees for such illnesses, and whether such compensation is
justified or recommended by the Secretary of Defense.
DOD SCHOOLS
The Committee commends everyone involved in the DoD school system for
recent achievements that have placed it among the best performing
schools in our nation. The Secretary of Defense testified before the
Committee this year that the DoD school system is performing
``magnificently''. Maintaining, and where needed, improving the
education system supporting our military families must continue to be a
high priority for the DoD and Congress.
The Committee is concerned that the compensation and allowance
structure for DoD school teachers has evolved over time to a point where
there may be actual or perceived inequities for different personnel
stationed at the same location overseas. The Committee is also concerned
that teachers stationed overseas have to pay high out-of-pocket medical
costs for themselves and their dependents that would not apply if they
taught in the United States, and this has become a major disincentive
for preventative and follow-up health care. Either of these issues could
adversely impact the Department's ability to sustain its current level
of excellence in the military school system. The Committee, therefore,
directs that the Secretary of Defense submit a report to the
congressional defense committees by January 15, 2001 on DoD school
teacher compensation/allowances and fees for teacher/dependent medical
services. The report should include his recommendations and legislative
proposals, if appropriate, for improving the current compensation
system, removing inequities that may exist, and improving the access to
quality health care for military school teachers.
FAMILY ADVOCACY
The Committee recommends $4,000,000 over the budget request in the
Department of Defense Dependents Education account, only for
enhancements to Family Advocacy programs for at-risk youth such as
KidsPeace National.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND LEADERSHIP PROGRAM
The Committee recommends an increase of $500,000 over the budget
request for the Youth Developmental and Leadership program, only to
develop a safety net program to serve as the follow-up activity for the
program initiated under Public Law 105 174.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,469,176,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,521,418,000
Committee recommendation 1,596,418,000
Change from budget request +75,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,596,418,000 for
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve. The recommendation is an
increase of $127,242,000 above the $1,469,176,000 appropriated for
fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Army Reserve are shown below:
[IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
19640 Forces Readiness Operations Support/Integrated Training Area Management 700
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
20010 Recruiting and Advertising 12,000
Other Adjustments:
20110 Real Property Maintenance 30,000
20140 CINC Overseas Deployment Training 2,800
20145 Extended Cold Weather Clothing System 9,000
20150 Additional Full Time Support Technicians 20,500
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY RESERVE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $958,978,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 960,946,000
Committee recommendation 992,646,000
Change from budget request +31,700,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $992,646,000 for
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve. The recommendation is an
increase of $33,668,000 above the $958,978,000 appropriated for fiscal
year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Navy Reserve are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
21600 Ship Depot Maintenance 10,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
22300 Military Manpower and Personnel Management/Recruiting and Advertising 6,700
Other Adjustments:
22670 Real Property Maintenance 15,000
Fort Worth Naval Air Station
The Committee has provided additional funds for Real Property
Maintenance for the Navy Reserve and directs that $1,250,000 be provided
for demolition of selected buildings at the Fort Worth Naval Air
Station.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $138,911,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 133,959,000
Committee recommendation 145,959,000
Change from budget request +12,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $145,959,000 for
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve. The recommendation is
an increase of $7,048,000 above the $138,911,000 appropriated for fiscal
year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
23500 Operating Forces/Single Storage Site for NBC Equipment 1,800
23600 Real Property Maintenance 2,000
23650 Depot Maintenance 5,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
23850 Recruiting and Advertising 2,000
Other Adjustments:
24200 Increased Use of Guard and Reserve 1,200
NBC DEFENSE EQUIPMENT
The Committee recommends $1,800,000 over the budget request, only to
support the single site storage facility program in consolidating the
storage and management of nuclear, biological, and chemical defense
equipment.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE RESERVE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,782,591,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,885,859,000
Committee recommendation 1,921,659,000
Change from budget request +35,800,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,921,659,000 for
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The recommendation is an
increase of $139,068,000 above the $1,782,591,000 appropriated for
fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Air Force Reserve are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
24970 Depot Maintenance 15,000
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
25400 Recruiting and Advertising 4,000
Other Adjustments:
25600 Real Property Maintenance 10,000
25640 RED HORSE Unit 1,800
25645 Technician Pilot Retention Allowance 5,000
March Air Reserve Base
The Committee has provided additional funds for Real Property
Maintenance for the Air Force Reserve and directs that $2,000,000 be
provided for required roof repairs for hangars and support buildings at
March Air Reserve Base (ARB), and for navigational aids upgrades at
March Inland Port.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $3,161,378,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 3,182,335,000
Committee recommendation 3,263,235,000
Change from budget request +80,900,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,263,235,000 for
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard. The recommendation is an
increase of $101,857,000 above the $3,161,378,000 appropriated for
fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Army National Guard are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
26400 Base Operations/Integrated Training Area Management 2,400
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
26680 Information Management/NGB Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic Network 5,000
26740 Recruiting and Advertising 12,000
Other Adjustments:
26810 Additional Full Time Support Technicians 30,500
26870 Real Property Maintenance 15,000
26890 Extended Cold Weather Clothing System 12,000
26945 National Emergency and Disaster Information Center 1,000
26946 R 2000 Engine Flush Systems 3,000
NATIONAL EMERGENCY AND DISASTER INFORMATION CENTER
The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the National Emergency and
Disaster Information Center to support the National Guard's mission as
first responder to emergencies and the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
program. The Center would provide supporting functions in a number of
areas to include consequence management for WMD incidents, continuity of
operations, critical asset and infrastructure assurance, and disaster
response. The Committee understands that the Center will have the
capability to identify, analyze, and maintain a database of best
practices and lessons learned associated with the activities performed
by Guard personnel, such as the WMD Civil Support Teams. The Center
should be managed by the Adjutant General of an eastern Division state,
as determined by the National Guard Bureau, who will coordinate and
consult with other federal, state and local government agencies to
ensure effective and efficient operation of the Center.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $3,241,138,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 3,446,375,000
Committee recommendation 3,480,375,000
Change from budget request +34,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,480,375,000 for
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard. The recommendation is an
increase of $239,237,000 above the $3,241,138,000 appropriated for
fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following
program in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and
Maintenance, Air National Guard are shown below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:
27800 Real Property Maintenance 5,000
27850 Depot Maintenance 16,500
Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:
28100 Recruiting and Advertising 5,000
Other Adjustments:
28210 C 130 Operations 1,500
28240 National Guard State Partnership Program 1,000
28255 Extended Cold Weather Clothing System 3,000
28260 Laser Leveling 2,000
C 130 Operations
The Committee recommends a total of $1,500,000 over the budget
request for operation and maintenance costs to support operational
capabilities of the 125th Jacksonville, Florida C 130 unit.
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,722,600,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 4,100,577,000
Committee recommendation 4,100,577,000
Change from budget request
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,100,575,000 for the
Overseas Contingency Operations transfer Fund. The recommendation is an
increase of $2,377,977,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year
2000. The funding in this paragraph provides for ongoing DoD Operations
in Southwest Asia, Bosnia and Kosovo.
Budget Justification and Budget Execution Materials
The Committee notes the efforts of the Department of Defense to
comply with direction found in the fiscal year 2000 Department of
Defense Appropriations Act to establish justification books specifically
to support the contingency operations budget request. However, to fully
justify the budget request, the Committee directs that DoD include in
the fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Overseas Contingency
Operations Transfer Fund a budget justification exhibit which indicates
the appropriation accounts which underlie the requirements for the funds
requested in this account. This exhibit should indicate for each
appropriation account, for each service, and for each contingency the
amount of funds requested for this account.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $7,621,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 8,574,000
Committee recommendation 8,574,000
Change from budget request
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,574,000 for the
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The recommendation
is an increase of $953,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year
2000.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $378,170,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 389,932,000
Committee recommendation 389,932,000
Change from budget request
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $389,932,000 for
Environmental Restoration, Army. The recommendation is an increase of
$11,762,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $284,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 294,038,000
Committee recommendation 294,038,000
Change from budget request
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $294,038,000 for
Environmental Restoration, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of
$10,038,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $376,800,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 376,300,000
Committee recommendation 376,300,000
Change from budget request
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $376,300,000 for
Environmental Restoration, Air Force. The recommendation is a decrease
of $500,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE-WIDE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $25,370,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 23,412,000
Committee recommendation 23,412,000
Change from budget request
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,412,000 for
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is a
decrease of $1,958,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $239,214,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 186,499,000
Committee recommendation 196,499,000
Change from budget request +10,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $196,499,000 for
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites. The
recommendation is a decrease of $42,715,000 from the amount appropriated
in fiscal year 2000.
Nike Battery 55
The Committee understands that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has
discovered lead contamination on property that, prior to its transfer,
was used by the Department of the Army as a rifle range. Given that the
contamination has forced the local community to close the city's park,
interpretive center and whale watching site, the Committee encourages
the Army to address this problem as quickly and as completely as
possible.
Santa Clarita
The Committee is concerned about the environmental contamination of
the Porta Bella site, a former munitions manufacturing and testing
facility in Santa Clarita, California. The Committee requests that the
Army examine this issue and, if appropriate, begin the necessary
remediation.
Newmark
The Committee is concerned with the lack of progress the Army, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Justice, the City of
San Bernardino, and the State of California have made toward resolving
the litigation regarding groundwater contamination at the Newmark and
Muscoy Superfund site in California. The Committee encourages the
parties to continue their progress towards satisfactorily resolving the
litigation and to complete actions to fully characterize the groundwater
contamination and identify potential sources in order to protect this
valuable water supply. The Committee is interested in providing the
encouragement necessary to bring this issue to closure.
Depleted Uranium Environmental Restoration
The Committee understands that production of depleted uranium
penetrators at the Army's STARMET site ended in September 1999, yet
there is not an agreed-upon plan for environmental restoration of the
site as required by federal regulations and law. The Committee directs
the Under Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional
defense committees no later than November 23, 2000 which defines the
Army's responsibilities for environmental restoration of the site, if
any, and how the Army plans to meet them. The report shall identify
funding requirements for the restoration and how the Army has financed
them, as well as a detailed schedule for completion of all work.
OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $55,800,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 64,900,000
Committee recommendation 56,900,000
Change from budget request -8,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $56,900,000 for Overseas
Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid. The recommendation is an increase
of $1,100,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $460,500,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 458,400,000
Committee recommendation 433,400,000
Change from budget request -25,000,000
This appropriation funds the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction
activities of the Department of Defense.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Recommendation Change from request
Strategic Offensive Arms Elimination--Russia 152,800 162,800 +10,000
Weapons Storage Security--Russia 89,700 89,700
Weapons Transportation Security--Russia 14,000 14,000
Fissile Material Storage Facility--Russia 57,400 57,400
Fissile Material Processing and Packaging--Russia 9,300 9,300
Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium--Russia 32,100 32,100
Strategic Nuclear Arms Elimination--Ukraine 29,100 34,100 +5,000
BW Proliferation Prevention 12,000 12,000
Chemical Weapons Destruction--Russia 35,000 0 -35,000
Defense and Military Contacts 14,000 9,000 -5,000
Other Program Support 13,000 13,000
FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION
The Department recommended $458,400,000 for the Former Soviet Union
Threat Reduction programs. The Committee recommends $433,400,000, a net
decrease of $25,000,000. The Committee has recommended program changes
in accordance with the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act
(H.R. 4205).
QUALITY OF LIFE ENHANCEMENTS, DEFENSE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $300,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request
Committee recommendation 480,000,000
Change from budget request 480,000,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $480,000,000 for the
Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense account. The recommendation is an
increase of $180,000,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year
2000.
The Committee notes that the administration has not requested funds
for this account despite the substantial backlogs of real property
maintenance as noted elsewhere in this report. To address this backlog,
the Committee recommends additional funding of $480,000,000 above the
budget request, to be distributed as follows:
Army $282,500,000
Navy 70,000,000
Marine Corps 47,000,000
Air Force 70,000,000
Defense-Wide 10,500,000
TITLE III
PROCUREMENT
ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY
The fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense procurement budget request
totals $59,266,603,000. The accompanying bill recommends
$61,558,679,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of
$2,292,076,000 above the fiscal year 2001 budget estimate and is
$8,577,965,000 above the total provided in fiscal year 2000. The table
below summarizes the budget estimates and the Committee's
recommendations.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS
Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in the
project level tables or in paragraphs using the phrases ``only for'' or
``only to'' in this report are congressional interest items for the
purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD Form 1414). Each of these
items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated amount, or a
revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically
addressed in the conference report. These items remain special interest
items whether or not they are repeated in a subsequent conference
report.
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
Adjustments of the classified programs are addressed in a classified
annex accompanying this report.
COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS UPGRADES
Fielded military radios and communications equipment systems still
require upgrades and improvements, when cost effective, to improve
operational capability and dependability as well as reduce operations
and support costs. The Committee is aware of Military Standard 188 141A
which includes an approved miniaturized, multi-functional, digital
communications technology based on compressor and expander techniques
that dramatically improves quality of voice and data communications over
both wired and wireless networks. The Committee directs the Department
of Defense to continue to use this technology, when cost effective, to
upgrade and improve current communications systems, such as SINCGARS,
JTRS, ARC 190 and PRC 104.
BALLISTIC ENGINEERED ARMORED RESPONSE VEHICLES
The Committee is aware of the development of a Ballistic Engineered
Armored Response vehicle that may be able to enhance rescue and combat
readiness by providing armored transportation to as many as 12 14 units
and also provide the capacity to rescue 20 to 30 people during a combat
and rescue mission. The Committee directs the Department of Defense to
consider the desirability, utility, and cost effectiveness of such
vehicles for the services.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,451,688,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,323,262,000
Committee recommendation 1,547,082,000
Change from budget request +223,820,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of tactical and utility
airplanes and helicopters, including associated electronics, electronic
warfare, and communications equipment and armament, modification of
in-service aircraft, ground support equipment, components and parts such
as spare engines, transmissions gear boxes, and sensor equipment. It
also funds related training devices such as combat flight simulators and
production base support.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In Thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
UH 60 BLACKHAWK (MYP) 64,651 183,371 +118,720
TH 67 TRAINING HELICOPTER 0 18,000 +18,000
AH 64 MODS 18,516 52,616 +34,100
UH 60 MODS 3,021 15,021 +12,000
AIRBORNE AVONICS 60,042 63,042 +3,000
AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT 0 14,000 +14,000
AVIONICS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 0 14,000 +14,000
AIRBORNE COMMUNICATIONS 0 10,000 +10,000
KIOWA WARRIOR LIVE-FIRE TESTING
Live-fire testing legislation (10 U.S.C 2366) requires realistic
live-fire testing of major Department of Defense weapon systems. The
intent of the legislation is to conduct tests early in the production of
the weapon system in order to ensure adequacy of design and to allow
incorporation of design changes, if any, as a program moves into full
rate production. Since the waiver authority for this legislation is very
narrow, the DoD has concluded that it must do live-fire testing on the
Kiowa Warrior helicopter for the cost of approximately $6 million. Kiowa
Warrior entered production in 1992; the last production contract was
signed in fiscal year 1999 and deliveries will be completed this year.
Given that the Army does not plan on procuring additional Kiowa Warrior
aircraft and plans on retiring all of the Kiowa Warriors helicopters by
2013, the Committee strongly questions the need for conducting live fire
tests on the platform. The Committee directs that no funds may be spent
on live fire testing on the Kiowa Warrior, until the Commander-in-Chief
of the Joint Forces Command certifies that such tests must be conducted
to fulfill operational requirements for the aircraft.
GROUND PROXIMITY WARNING SYSTEM
The Committee is concerned about recent mishap rates in Army
aviation, particularly those that involve loss of life or aircraft, and
recognizes that many of these losses occurred as a result of controlled
flight into terrain (CFIT) caused by loss of situational awareness. The
Committee is aware that the FAA has mandated use of an electronic
warning device known as the Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) for
all passenger-carrying aircraft and that has resulted in a 93 percent
reduction in CFIT. The Committee is also aware that the Navy and the Air
Force are now installing GPWS on all aircraft, but the Army continues to
reject the use of this device. The Committee directs the Secretary of
the Army to report by April 1, 2001 on the viability of installing GPWS
on Army transport helicopters. The report shall include a cost analysis
of the latest generation of GPWS on a single circuit card and an
acquisition plan.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following
in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,322,305,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,295,728,000
Committee recommendation 1,240,347,000
Change from budget request -55,381,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of surface-to-air,
surface-to-surface, and anti-tank/assault missile systems. Also included
are major components, modifications, targets, test equipment and
production base support.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In Thousands of Dollars]
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
ARMY TACTICAL MSL SYS (ATACMS)--SYS SUM 15,044 102,044 +87,000
ATACMS BLKII SYSTEM SUMMARY 230,334 80,000 -150,334
MULTI PURPOSE INDV MUN (AP CY) 3,547 0 -3,547
STINGER MODS 21,838 33,338 +11,500
SHORT RANGE AIR DEFENSE MODERNIZATION
The fiscal year 2001 budget terminates the Stinger Block II program.
The Committee understands that the Army's decision to terminate Stinger
Block II was based not on new threat analysis or a change in
requirements. Instead, the program was used as a ``bill payer'' for Army
Transformation. The Committee is concerned because with the termination
of Stinger Block II, the Army budget includes no funds to modernize its
Army Short Range Air Defense (SHORAD) forces. The Committee does not
recommend funding for Stinger Block II, but has provided additional
funding for Stinger Block I to mitigate the risk to SHORAD forces in the
near-term.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit
no later than January 15, 2001 a comprehensive plan for the
modernization of the SHORAD force. The plan should include: an analysis
of the threat against the current, mid-term (Interim Brigade) and future
threat (Objective) forces, the alternatives for meeting the current and
emerging threat, the cost of each alternative, and the Army's plan to
fund SHORAD modernization to ensure that it is synchronized with the
Army's Transformation plan.
JAVELIN
The Army requested $372,248,000 for Javelin missiles. The Committee
recommends the budget request; however, the Committee also recommends
rescinding $150,000,000 of the $347,677,000 appropriated in fiscal year
2000 for Javelin.
Last year, the Army requested authorization to enter into a
multi-year contract for Javelin missiles. Since Javelin was experiencing
technical problems, the statement of the managers accompanying the
conference report on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000,
directed that the Army may only enter into a multi-year contract thirty
days after the Secretary of Defense certified that all outstanding
technical issues were resolved. Additionally, since the Anti-Armor
Weapons Master Plan did not sufficiently address congressional concerns,
the conference agreement also directed that the Army could not enter
into a Javelin multi-year contract until thirty days after the Secretary
of Defense certified that the planned procurement quantities for Javelin
are correct.
To date, the Secretary of Defense has not submitted the required
certification to proceed with a Javelin multi-year contract. As a
consequence, contract award has slipped by at least six months,
resulting in excess funding which the Committee proposes to rescind.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following
in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,586,490,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,874,638,000
Committee recommendation 2,634,786,000
Change from budget request +760,148,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of tanks; personnel and
cargo carriers; fighting vehicles; tracked recovery vehicles;
self-propelled and towed howitzers; machine guns; mortars; modification
of in-service equipment, initial spares; and production base support.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In Thousands of Dollars]
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
BRADLEY BASE SUSTAINMENT 359,389 440,689 +81,300
MEDIUM ARMORED VEHICLE FAMILY: MAVF 537,077 600,077 +63,000
IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88 MOD) 68,385 76,685 +8,300
AVLB SLEP 15,252 0 -15,252
ARMY TRANSFORMATION: MEDIUM ARMORED VEHICLE 0 +600,000
MACHINE GUN, 5.56MM (SAW) 0 +18,300
GRENADE LAUNCHER, AUTO, 40MM, MK19 3 11,835 14,335 +2,500
5.56 CARBINE M4 5,190 7,190 +2,000
wolverine--heavy assault bridge
The Army requested no funds for the Wolverine heavy assault bridge.
The Committee understands that the Army's decision to terminate
Wolverine was not based on a change in requirements, but rather on the
need to realign resources to support Army Transformation. In addition,
although the Congress appropriated $82,000,000 for Wolverine in fiscal
year 2000, the Committee understands that the Army does not intend to
use the funds for the purpose for which they were appropriated. The
Committee has included a General Provision, Section 8114, that directs
the Army to use the fiscal year 2000 funds to procure Wolverine.
Additionally, Section 8114 transfers $15,000,000 of unobligated fiscal
year 2000 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army funds
appropriated for the Grizzly minefield breacher program to the
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army appropriations,
only to procure additional Wolverine heavy assault bridges.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following
in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,204,120,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,131,323,000
Committee recommendation 1,227,386,000
Change from budget request +96,063,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition,
modification of in-service stock, and related production base support
including the maintenance, expansion, and modernization of industrial
facilities and equipment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In Thousands of Dollars]
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
CTG .50 CAL. ALL TYPES 10,646 20,646 +10,000
CTG CAL .50 API MK211 MOD 0 1,987 3,987 +2,000
CTG 25MM, ALL TYPES 57,780 66,380 +8,600
CTG 30 MM, ALL TYPES 9,517 14,517 +5,000
NONLETHAL WEAPONS CAPABILITY SET 8,397 10,397 +2,000
60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES 28,673 36,643 +7,970
CTG MORTAR 120MM ILLUM XM930 W/MTSQ FZ 0 5,600 +5,600
PROJ ARTY 155MM SADARM M898 14,907 0 -14,907
PROJ ARTY 155MM HE M107 35,178 45,178 +10,000
MODULAR ARTILLERY CHARGE SYSTEM (MACS) 27,432 37,432 +10,000
MINE AT M87 (VOLCANO) 0 20,000 +20,000
WIDE AREA MUNITIONS 7,284 12,284 +5,000
BUNKER DEFEATING MUNITION (BDM) 0 10,000 +10,000
ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES 152,767 158,567 +5,800
DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES 16,603 17,603 +1,000
GRENADES, ALL TYPES 20,260 24,760 +4,500
PROVISION OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 47,748 51,248 +3,500
AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT
While the Committee is disappointed with the Army's decision to
implement a Triad structure for ammunition management instead of vesting
responsibility in a single executive, the Committee directs the
Secretary of the Army to report back to the Committee within three
months of enactment, on the effectiveness of the Triad at managing
ammunition effectively and efficiently.
The Secretary should determine the effectiveness based on the
following metrics: percentage of procurement funds spent to purchase
hardware, especially precision munitions, compared to the amount spent
on administrative or overhead costs; a list of every decision made by
the Triad since its inception in September, 1998 including: date when an
issue was first raised, and ultimately resolved; the cost of that
decision in both dollars and manpower hours, either in anticipated
savings or increased expenditures; the number of decisions brought to
the attention of the Triad, and how many were unresolved and forwarded
to the superior officer; examples showing whether the Triad is meeting
the objectives for efficient development and production of precision
munitions set forth in objectives 1, 5 and 7 on page 16 of the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Study.
The report is also to include readiness measurements such as:
munition family life cycle time reductions; on-time delivery of quality
ammunition products to customers; reduction in backlog of delinquent
deliveries, and modernization of the production base. Performance
measurements such as: first time pass for first article product; first
time pass for lot acceptance testing; and first time pass for period
inspection. Warfighter and logistics support measurements such as:
horizontal technology insertion success; increased fill to Brigade
Combat Team munition requirements; and increased fill of war reserve
stockpile with precision munitions.
SENSE AND DESTROY ARMOR MUNITION
The Army requested $14,907,000 for Sense and Destroy Armor Munition
(SADARM). The Committee recommends no funds. The SADARM program, which
has been in development for almost twenty years and has cost almost two
billion dollars to date, has yet to pass an operational test.
The statement of the managers accompanying the conference report on
the Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 directed that none of the fiscal
year 2000 funds for SADARM may be obligated until Army's Operational
Test and Evaluation Command (now known as Army Test and Evaluation
Command) certified that SADARM had met its reliability requirement of 80
percent. Preliminary results from the most recent test in May indicate
that the 80 percent reliability requirement for SADARM was not met.
More importantly, the current Army outyear budget plan does not fund
SADARM production after fiscal year 2001, and no funding is provided for
the SADARM Product Improvement Program after fiscal year 2001. Since the
Army budget plan terminates the program and the system has not met its
reliability requirement, the Committee recommends no funding for SADARM.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following
in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $3,738,934,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 3,795,870,000
Committee recommendation 4,254,564,000
Change from budget request +458,694,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of: (a) tactical and
commercial vehicles, including trucks, semi-trailers, and trailers of
all types to provide mobility and utility support to field forces and
the worldwide logistical system; (b) communications and electronics
equipment of all types to provide fixed, semi-fixed, and mobile
strategic and tactical communication equipment; (c) other support
equipment such as chemical defensive equipment, floating and rail
equipment, generators and power units, material handling equipment,
medical support equipment, special equipment for user testing, and
non-system training devices. In each of these activities, funds are also
included for the modification of in-service equipment, investment spares
and repair parts, and production base support.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In Thousands of Dollars]
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
SEMITRAILER FB BB/CONT TRANS 22 1/2 T 12,135 5,035 -7,100
HI MOB MULTI-PURP WHLD VEH (HMMWV) 110,746 125,046 +14,300
FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) 438,256 475,556 +37,300
FIRETRUCKS & ASSOCIATED FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT 14,830 16,030 +1,200
FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) 166,119 191,119 +25,000
TRUCK, TRACTOR, LINE HAUL, M915/M916 42,989 44,589 +1,600
MODIFICATION OF IN SV EQUIP 28,910 36,910 +8,000
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (TAC VEH) 1,853 2,853 +1,000
COMBAT IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM 13,096 18,096 +5,000
SHF TERM 38,307 14,307 -24,000
SAT TERM, EMUT (SPACE) 3,475 13,475 +10,000
SMART-T (SPACE) 48,594 32,094 -16,500
GLOBAL BRDCST SVC GBS 9,286 0 -9,286
ARMY DATA DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (DATA RADIO) 32,675 66,875 +34,200
SINCGARS FAMILY 18,340 51,840 +33,500
CUS MOD PROGRAM (WIN T/T) 113,951 122,951 +9,000
SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM COMM/ELECTRONICS 4,374 19,374 +15,000
INFORMATION SYSTEM SECURITY PROGRAM-ISSP 54,374 75,374 +21,000
PENTAGON INFORMATION MGT AND TELECOM 65,412 17,262 -48,150
PROPHET GROUND (TIARA) 9,571 12,571 +3,000
TACTICAL EXPLOITATION OF NATIONAL CAPABILITIES 12,853 8,353 -4,500
SHORTSTOP 0 20,000 +20,000
FAAD GBS 24,188 27,188 +3,000
NIGHT VISION DEVICES 34,146 59,546 +25,400
MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS) 22,935 31,025 +8,090
STAMIS TACTICAL COMPUTERS (STACOMP) 40,015 40,015 0
STANDARD INTEGRATED CMD POST SYSTEM 35,971 47,471 +11,500
AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP 172,051 181,051 +9,000
RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATION SYSTEM (RCAS) 91,495 99,495 +8,000
GEN SMK MECH:MTRZD DUAL PURP M56 11,369 15,369 +4,000
RIBBON BRIDGE 15,669 29,169 +13,500
KIT, STANDARD TELEOPERATING 688 10,688 +10,000
LAUNDRIES, SHOWERS AND LATRINES 12,580 17,080 +4,500
DISTRIBUTION SYS, PET & WATER 0 3,000 +3,000
COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL 31,567 37,767 +6,200
ROLLER, VIBRATORY, SELF-PROPELLED (CCE) 4,671 11,671 +7,000
HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR 8,282 10,582 +2,300
DEPLOYABLE UNIVERSAL COMBAT EARTH MOVERS 14,146 24,346 +10,200
CONST EQUIP SLEP 1,986 16,986 +15,000
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (CONST EQUIP) 2,635 6,635 +4,000
SMALL TUG 0 9,000 +9,000
FLOATING CRANES 0 15,000 +15,000
GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP 85,886 90,886 +5,000
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (MHE) 1,231 3,731 +2,500
CTC INSTRUMENTATION SUPPORT 81,845 93,945 +12,100
TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM 91,937 104,937 +13,000
CLOSE COMBAT TACTICAL TRAINER 81,160 0 -81,160
MODIFICATION OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA 3) 28,008 31,008 +3,000
PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (OTH) 2,367 8,367 +6,000
ARMY TRANSFORMATION: OTHER SUPPORT EQUIP 0 0 +200,000
UP-ARMORED HIGH MOBILITY MULTI-PURPOSE WHEELED VEHICLES
The budget request includes no funds for Up-armored High Mobility
Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV). However, the Committee
understands that the Army has an unsatisfied requirement for Up-armored
HMMWV's. The Committee directs the Army to submit no later than July 10,
2000, a report which outlines the Army's acquisition objective for
Up-armored HMMWV's and the current inventory levels. The report is also
to include the funding required to alleviate the shortfall.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following
in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $8,662,655,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 7,963,858,000
Committee recommendation 8,179,564,000
Change from budget request +215,706,000
This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of aircraft and
related support equipment and programs; flight simulators; equipment to
modify in-service aircraft to extend their service life, eliminate
safety hazards, and improve their operational effectiveness; and spare
parts and ground support equipment for all end items procured by this
appropriation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
SH 60R 162,327 152,327 -10,000
UC 35 15,200 +15,200
KC 130J 154,818 231,118 +76,300
18 SERIES 212,614 200,214 -12,400
H 46 SERIES 16,556 21,556 +5,000
AH 1W SERIES 9,758 13,758 +4,000
H 53 SERIES 19,919 22,519 +2,600
SH 60 SERIES 21,088 39,088 +18,000
H 1 SERIES 2,642 16,642 +14,000
EP 3 SERIES 25,833 80,833 +55,000
P 3 SERIES 60,710 78,710 +18,000
S 3 SERIES 79,050 64,050 -15,000
2 SERIES 18,485 57,485 +39,000
SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 941,553 947,553 +6,000
Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS)
The Committee recommends a $27,000,000 reduction in F/A 18
procurement funding, the amount included in the request for the Advanced
Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS). ATARS did not have a
successful Operational Evaluation (OPEVAL) and was deemed ``not
operationally suitable'' due to reliability and availability shortfalls.
This situation will cause the Navy and the Marine Corps to
re-evaluate the ATARS program approved by Congress in fiscal year 2000
and should also result in a revision to the program presented in the
fiscal year 2001 budget request. The Congress provided the ATARS budget
request in fiscal year 2000, but prohibited the expenditure of 50
percent of the funds until completion of the OPEVAL. Despite the fact
that the OPEVAL is complete, the Navy has wisely put the program on hold
because it was not completely successful. This puts the Milestone III
decision in jeopardy and causes the Committee to believe that based on
the program presented in the fiscal year 2001 request, the requested
ATARS procurement funds are excess to the needs of the Navy.
The Committee recognizes that some may perceive this decision as
exacerbating the Marine Corps' un-met requirement for tactical
reconnaissance. However, faced with the lack of a clear approach to move
forward to a Milestone III decision and an unknown cost associated with
potential ATARS modifications that would meet the OPEVAL criteria, the
Committee's action is prudent.
The Committee directs the Navy to provide a recommendation on what it
will do to meet both the short-term and the long-term Marine Corps
requirement for tactical reconnaissance.
EP 3 Modernization
The Committee has provided a total of $61,000,000 for the Navy to
modify one P 3 to an EP 3 configuration, which meets a Navy priority
requirement by moving the modification from the fiscal year 2002 budget
plan to a fiscal year 2001 appropriation. This asset has been the
workhorse of the Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)
fleet and the Committee is pleased that the Navy has identified an
urgent need to increase its inventory of EP 3s. The urgency of course is
also due to the operational loss of four aircraft for various sensor
upgrades, a protracted process due in part to poor management on the
part of the Navy.
The Committee is concerned that the Navy is not adequately planning
or budgeting for a possible Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) for
the EP 3 to ensure the viability of the aircraft to 2025. Therefore, the
Committee directs the Navy to submit a report by January 15, 2001, which
identifies the outyear requirements for a SLEP of the EP 3, including
any requirement to replace sensors.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program
in fiscal year 2001.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,383,413,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,434,250,000
Committee recommendation 1,372,112,000
Change from budget request -62,138,000
This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of strategic
and tactical missiles, target drones, torpedoes, guns, associated
support equipment, and modification on in-service missiles, torpedoes,
and guns.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
DRONES AND DECOYS 10,000 +10,000
FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON 170,537 95,500 -75,037
MK 48 TORPEDO ADCAP MODS 38,926 44,926 +6,000
ASW RANGE SUPPORT 14,955 18,955 +4,000
CIWS MODS 964 5,964 +5,000
GUN MOUNT MODS 4,779 14,779 +10,000
JOINT STAND-OFF WEAPON
The Navy requested $171,624,000 for procurement of the Joint
Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW). The Committee recommends $149,523,000, a
decrease of $22,101,000.
Of the 636 JSOWs requested, the Navy plans to procure 150 of the
``JSOW B'' anti-armor variant. The JSOW B uses the BLU 108 submunition,
the same submunition used in the Air Force Sensor Fuzed Weapon in
production for several years. For a number of reasons, the Committee
believes that it is premature to significantly ramp up production of the
anti-armor variant. First, the Committee continues to be concerned that
DoD is acquiring too many anti-armor weapons and has failed to respond
adequately to Committee reporting requirements in this regard. The GAO
has observed that DoD is acquiring an anti-armor inventory that exceeds
levels achieved during the Cold War despite a vastly diminished threat.
Until DoD comes to grips with this mismatch between program and threat,
the Committee must make its own judgements in terms of reducing the
Department's anti-armor programs. Second, the JSOW B continues to suffer
from targeting limitations that prevent efficient use of the weapon
system until technologies such as sensor-to-shooter, advanced
electronically scanned arrays, and an improved Harm Targeting System are
available. In the meantime, the Navy and Air Force plan to use
exceedingly inefficient targeting ``work-arounds'' such as launching
weapons blindly into choke points hoping that moving armor happens to be
transiting at the exact time of weapon impact. Third, the Committee
notes that the Navy now recognizes the limited application of this
weapon as reflected by a 50 percent reduction in the requirement for the
JSOW B variant in its latest Non-Nuclear Ordnance Requirement (NNOR)
analysis completed after submission of the budget.
Fourth, as mentioned, the Air Force already has in its inventory the
Sensor Fuzed Weapon that uses the same submunition as the JSOW. Sensor
Fuzed Weapon is not a stand-off munition and therefore avoids some of
the targeting issues associated with JSOW. Though available, this weapon
was prohibited from use in Kosovo over fears of collateral damage.
Adding stand-off to this capability (i.e., JSOW) would only exacerbate
the potential for collateral damage. In summary, the Committee believes
it is premature to procure this weapon in large numbers until the issues
of targeting and requirements are resolved. Given these considerations,
the Committee recommends a reduction of 120 of the budgeted 150
anti-armor JSOW B variants, a decrease of $42,240,000. The Committee
further recommends an increase of 120 baseline JSOW A variants for an
additional $20,139,000. The Committee notes that the JSOW A variant
performed well in recent operations in Iraq and Kosovo. The Committee
has made similar adjustments to the Air Force JSOW program.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program
in fiscal year 2001.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $525,200,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 429,649,000
Committee recommendation 491,749,000
Change from Budget Request +62,100,000
This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, ammunition
modernization, and ammunition related material for the Navy and Marine
Corps.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS 63,157 73,157 +10,000
PRACTICE BOMBS 50,600 60,600 +10,000
AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES 39,293 45,793 +6,500
5.56 MM, ALL TYPES 23,456 26,456 +3,000
7.62 MM, ALL TYPES 2,039 3,039 +1,000
LINEAR CHARGES, ALL TYPES 40,945 44,945 +4,000
.50 CALIBER 7,637 8,637 +1,000
GRENADES, ALL TYPES 8,358 12,358 +4,000
ROCKETS, ALL TYPES 1,592 6,192 +4,600
ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES 322 18,322 +18,000
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program
in fiscal year 2001.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $7,053,454,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 12,296,919,000
Committee recommendation 12,266,919,000
Change from budget request -30,000,000
This appropriation provides funds for the construction of new ships
and the purchase and conversion of existing ships, including hull,
mechanical, and electrical equipment, electronics, guns, torpedo and
missile launching systems, and communication systems.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
NEW SSN 1,203,012 1,198,012 -5,000
CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS 703,441 698,441 -5,000
DDG 51 (MYP) 2,713,559 2,703,559 -10,000
LPD 17 1,489,286 1,479,286 -10,000
ADC(X) 338,951 348,951 +10,000
OUTFITTING 301,077 291,077 -10,000
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program
in fiscal year 2001.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $4,320,238,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 3,334,611,000
Committee recommendation 3,433,063,000
Change from budget request +98,452,000
This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of major
equipment and weapons other than ships, aircraft, missiles, and
torpedoes. Such equipment ranges from the latest electronic sensors for
updating naval forces to trucks, training equipment, and spare parts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
OTHER NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT 33,425 45,425 +12,000
STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP 6,206 21,206 +15,000
LCAC 3,559 -3,559
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION 58,851 60,851 +2,000
RADAR SUPPORT 25,000 +25,000
SSN ACOUSTICS 106,647 114,647 +8,000
UNDERSEA WARFARE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 847 2,847 +2,000
SONAR SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 5,000 +5,000
SHIPBOARD IW EXPLOIT 61,524 50,024 -11,500
NAVY TACTICAL DATA SYSTEM 10,000 +10,000
COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY 15,853 33,853 +18,000
SHALLOW WATER MCM 16,863 16,363 -500
OTHER TRAINING EQUIPMENT 21,390 28,390 +7,000
SURFACE IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS 4,000 +4,000
TADIX B 32 6,032 +6,000
EMI CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION 5,378 8,378 +3,000
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION 4,889 11,889 +7,000
SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS 252,695 206,606 -46,089
JEDMICS 12,000 +12,000
INFO SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) 46,563 66,563 +20,000
WEAPONS RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 15,125 26,225 +11,100
AVIATION LIFE SUPPORT 20,374 16,674 -3,700
NATO SEASPARROW 21,716 22,716 +1,000
RAM GMLS 37,309 36,809 -500
AEGIS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 36,848 36,848
SSN COMBAT CONTROL SYSTEMS 20,896 19,596 -1,300
CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE EQUIP 6,238 8,238 +2,000
EDUCATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 2,076 5,076 +3,000
ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 22,247 14,747 -7,500
Aviation Requirement for Joint Tactical Terminals
The Committee directs the Navy to review, and report by March 15,
2001, its requirement for aviation joint tactical terminals.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program
in fiscal year 2001.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,300,920,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,171,935,000
Committee recommendation 1,229,605,000
Change from budget request +57,670,000
This appropriation funds the procurement, delivery, and modification
of missiles, armament, communication equipment, tracked and wheeled
vehicles, and various support equipment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
RAPID ACQUISITION PROGRAM 4,930 0 -4,930
INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 11,960 17,960 +6,000
RADIO SYSTEMS 3,097 9,097 +6,000
COMM & ELEC INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT 80,564 82,564 +2,000
FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM 12,343 17,343 +5,000
5/4T TRUCK HMMWV (MYP) 124,448 149,448 +25,000
POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED 9,325 10,825 +1,500
COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 0 2,000 +2,000
MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP 36,311 48,411 +12,000
TRAINING DEVICES 0 3,000 +3,000
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program
in fiscal year 2001.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $8,228,630,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 9,539,602,000
Committee recommendation 10,064,032,000
Change from budget request +524,430,000
This appropriation provides for the procurement of aircraft, and for
modification of in-service aircraft to improve safety and enhance
operational effectiveness. It also provides for initial spares and other
support equipment to include aerospace ground equipment and industrial
facilities. In addition, funds are provided for the procurement of
flight training simulators to increase combat readiness and to provide
for more economical training.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
C 17 (MYP) 2,211,923 2,185,823 -26,100
C 130J 208,051 208,051 0
8C 260,610 250,610 -10,000
8C (AP CY) 0 40,000 +40,000
PREDATOR UAV 22,078 32,078 +10,000
B 2A 21,723 24,723 +3,000
B 52 8,425 20,425 +12,000
A 10 33,891 37,891 +4,000
T 3 (EFS) AIRCRAFT 1,949 0 -1,949
C 130 91,524 94,524 +3,000
C 135 328,232 380,232 +52,000
DARP 165,540 180,276 +14,736
OTHER AIRCRAFT 28,214 38,214 +10,000
16 POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT 25,464 37,464 +12,000
WAR CONSUMABLES 43,015 53,015 +10,000
DARP 98,410 136,674 +38,264
15
The Air Force requested no funds for additional F 15 aircraft. The
Committee recommends $400,000,000 for 5 additional F 15E aircraft. The
Committee understands that there are a number of potential F 15 foreign
military sales cases pending. The Committee strongly encourages the Air
Force to take all necessary action to expeditiously negotiate these
potential agreements.
C 17 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT
The Air Force requested $266,800,000 for advance procurement for 15
aircraft to be procured in fiscal year 2002. The Committee recommends
$207,800,000, a net decrease of $59,000,000. Subsequent to submission of
the budget, the Air Force identified a budgeting error and requested the
Committee increase C 17 advance procurement by $41,000,000 offset by a
like decrease to the C 17 full funding line-item, a ``net zero''
transfer. The Committee recommendation includes this transfer.
In addition, the Committee recommendation includes a reduction of
$100,000,000 based on revised Air Force advance procurement estimates.
The C 17 program is in the midst of a seven year multiyear contract.
Although the contract requires 15 aircraft be bought in fiscal year
2001, the Air Force budgeted for only 12 based on the assumption that
the British would acquire 3 aircraft. As the budget was submitted to
Congress, the British had not decided to acquire these aircraft, forcing
the Air Force and contractor to evaluate options to minimize the impact
of lower quantities of aircraft on the multiyear contract. The Air Force
and contractor found that by accelerating contract award dates and
manipulating payment schedules, the multiyear contract could be
maintained at the budgeted quantities. However, these actions also have
the effect of reducing the requirement for advance procurement. The
Committee recommendation adjusts the amount of advance procurement based
on a detailed advance procurement analysis provided by the Air Force.
15 modifications
The Air Force requested $258,247,000 for F 15 modifications. The
Committee recommends $305,647,000, an increase of $47,400,000. Of this
amount, $26,400,000 is only for integration of BOL IR countermeasures on
Air National Guard aircraft and $21,000,000 is only for additional
fighter datalink modifications. The F 15 fighter datalink is an example
of an information age modification that provides tremendous capability
at an inexpensive price. This $230,000 per aircraft modification to the
F 15C recently completed independent operational testing and was found
to make the F 15C four times better in air-to-air combat (in terms of
kill ratios) while providing a 30 percent increase in survivability--all
this without the aid of stealth or supercruise. Despite this, the Air
Force continues to fail to fund this inexpensive upgrade for 75 combat
coded F 15s. Consequently, the Committee finds it must once again
provide additional funds to ensure all combat coded F 15s benefit from
this highly leveraging modification.
F 16 MODIFICATIONS
The Committee observes that the Senate defense 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 units which
served in Operational Desert Storm.'' The Committee further observes
that the statement of managers accompanying the appropriations
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 non-deploying 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 conference
direction by providing Block 30 aircraft to the 174th Fighter Wing.
Subsequently, however, the Air Force reversed this action by replacing
the Block 30 aircraft with less capable Block 25 aircraft.
The Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide F 16
Block 40 aircraft, or later model F 16 aircraft, to Air National Guard
units deployed to Operation Desert Storm no later than first quarter
fiscal 2002. Section 8110 of the Committee bill prohibits obligation of
funds for F 16 modifications pending submission of a report by the
Secretary of the Air Force detailing the plan to assign these aircraft
as discussed above.
MISCELLANEOUS PRODUCTION CHARGES
The Air Force requested $398,474,000 for Miscellaneous Production
Charges. The Committee recommends $363,553,000, a reduction of
$34,921,000. Two years ago, the Navy initiated a next generation
infrared targeting pod program called ATFLIR and, according to the Air
Force, invited the Air Force to participate as a joint partner. The Air
Force declined at that time. Now, the Air Force plans to procure its own
next generation targeting pod, a potential billion dollar program.
Though the Air Force's requirements for a next generation pod are
similar to the Navy's, the planned acquisition strategy could lead the
service to procure a completely different pod. The Committee is
disappointed that the Navy and Air Force cannot work more closely
together to develop joint solutions to meet similar requirements. Joint
programs reduce costs through higher production rates, greater
commonality in software development, stand-up of single vs. multiple
depots, and more efficient spares procurements and management as well as
numerous other efficiencies. To ensure joint commonality in DoD's next
generation targeting pods, the Committee directs the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology, and the Commander in Chief of the Joint Forces Command to
review the Department's plans to acquire next generation targeting pods
(including pods that would be procured by Guard and Reserve components)
to ensure the requirements and acquisition approach appropriately
promote joint commonality. The Committee directs the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Technology, and the Commander in Chief of the Joint Forces Command to
report its findings and the steps taken to promote joint commonality to
the congressional defense committees no later than February 15, 2001.
The Committee fully supports Air Force acquisition of a next generation
targeting pod, but will not stand by and accept another lost opportunity
for joint commonality. Accordingly, the Committee recommends no funds
for an Air Force Advanced Targeting Pod until these issues are resolved
and the report directed above is submitted.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program
in fiscal year 2001.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $2,211,407,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 3,061,715,000
Committee recommendation 2,893,529,000
Change from budget request -168,186,000
This appropriation provides for procurement, installation, and
checkout of strategic ballistic and other missiles, modification of
in-service missiles, and initial spares of missile systems. It also
provides for operational space systems, boosters, payloads, drones,
associated ground equipment, non-recurring maintenance of industrial
facilities, machine tool modernization, and special program support.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQ BALLISTIC 42,308 11,508 -30,800
JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON 90,828 76,012 -14,816
MISSILE SPARES--REPAIR PARTS 44,026 42,354 -1,672
GLOBAL POSITIONING (SPACE) 196,937 162,596 -34,341
GLOBAL POSITIONING (SPACE) (AP CY) 13,404 17,404 +4,000
EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEH (SPACE) 287,996 275,996 -12,000
MEDIUM LAUNCH VEHICLE (SPACE) 55,939 43,081 -12,858
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program
in fiscal year 2001.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $442,537,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 638,808,000
Committee recommendation 638,808,000
Change from budget request
This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition,
modifications, spares, weapons, and other ammunition-related items for
the Air Force.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program
in fiscal year 2001.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $7,146,157,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 7,699,127,000
Committee recommendation 7,778,997,000
Change from budget request +79,870,000
This appropriation provides for the procurement of weapon systems and
equipment other than aircraft and missiles. Included are vehicles,
electronic and telecommunications systems for command and control of
operation forces, and ground support equipment for weapon systems and
supporting structure.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION 8,616 18,616 +10,000
INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIP 5,530 36,730 +31,200
AIR TRAFFIC CTRL/LAND SYS (ATCALS) 0 6,000 +6,000
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 58,663 52,663 -6,000
THEATER AIR CONTROL SYS IMPROVEMENT 15,431 14,997 -434
WEATHER OBSERV/FORECAST 33,515 28,115 -5,400
AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING EQUIP 74,771 84,771 +10,000
COMBAT TRAINING RANGES 26,003 31,003 +5,000
NAVSTAR GPS SPACE 9,112 2,212 -6,900
MILSATCOM SPACE 53,027 35,127 -17,900
TACTICAL C E EQUIPMENT 101,222 98,722 -2,500
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION 6,744 10,744 +4,000
MECHANIZED MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP 15,118 25,118 +10,000
FLOODLIGHTS 10,718 14,718 +4,000
BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT 15,171 22,171 +7,000
DARP RC 135 12,785 27,985 +15,200
NEXT GENERATION SMALL LOADER
The Air Force requested $24,144,000 for procurement of next
generation small loaders. The Committee recommends $11,544,000, a
reduction of $12,600,000. Both competitors for the Next Generation Small
Loader are foreign companies that have entered into licensing agreements
with U.S. companies to produce the loaders. Low rate production begins
with 13 units in fiscal year 2000 followed by 34 units in fiscal year
2001. Should the selected U.S. company encounter difficulty in the
production transition between foreign contractor and a new production
line, production delays and potential technical problems with the
loaders could result. The Committee believes it is appropriate to allow
adequate time to validate a new production line and adequately test the
loaders before significantly ramping up production in fiscal year 2001.
Accordingly, the Committee recommends deferring 21 loaders to fiscal
year 2002 resulting in a decrease of $12,600,000 to the budget request.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program
in fiscal year 2001.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $2,249,566,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 2,275,308,000
Committee recommendation 2,303,136,000
Change from budget request +27,828,000
This appropriation funds the Procurement, Defense-Wide activities of
the Department of Defense.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Recommended Change from request
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD 64,872 116,672 +51,800
DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM 19,399 32,399 +13,000
DEFENSE SUPPORT ACTIVITIES 82,863 87,863 +5,000
AUTOMATIC DOCUMENT CONVERSION SYSTEM 0 20,000 +20,000
ADVANCED SEAL DELIVERY SYSTEM 25,500 28,800 +3,300
SOF ORDNANCE ACQUISITION 25,978 31,978 +6,000
SOF INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS 32,309 35,309 +3,000
SOF SMALL ARMS & WEAPONS 11,829 33,449 +21,620
MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT 14,376 18,876 +4,500
INDIVIDUAL PROTECTION 108,725 111,725 +3,000
DECONTAMINATION 12,195 13,195 +1,000
COLLECTIVE PROTECTION 36,179 37,179 +1,000
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program
in fiscal year 2001.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $150,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request
Committee recommendation
Change from budget request
This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of tactical
aircraft and other equipment for the National Guard and Reserve.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
In all accounts throughout the bill, the Committee recommends a total
of $2,452,551,000 for procurement of National Guard and Reserve
equipment, a net increase of $622,651,000 above the budget request.
Consistent with the budget request and the House-passed National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 (H.R. 4205), the Committee
recommends no funding in the Procurement, National Guard and Reserve
Equipment account.
DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT PURCHASES
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $3,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request
Committee recommendation 3,000,000
Change from budget request +3,000,000
The Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. App. 2061, et seq.) authorizes
the use of Federal funds to correct industrial resource shortfalls and
promote critical technology items which are essential to the national
defense.
Microwave Power Tubes
The Committee recommends an increase of $3,000,000 only for microwave
power tubes. Microwave power tubes generate and amplify microwave energy
for applications in radar, electronic warfare, and telecommunications
systems. These devices are currently used in over 150 deployed weapon
systems. Microwave power tubes will be used in these and similar
applications for at least the next two to three decades since there are
no foreseeable replacement technologies. Therefore it is recommended
that the Department continue efforts to maintain and improve the
supplier base for microwave power tubes.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
The Department requested $19,994,906,000 for Information Technology.
The Committee recommends $20,245,256,000, an increase of $250,350,000 as
explained below:
[In thousands of dollars]
Operation and Maintenance, Army:
3,000
3,000
1,500
1,500
6,000
-14,000
Operation and Maintenance, Navy:
3,000
2,000
7,000
15,000
3,000
-7,000
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps:
3,000
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force:
3,000
2,000
2,000
-7,000
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide:
3,000
20,000
1,600
10,300
-13,500
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard:
5,000
Other Procurement, Army:
8,000
13,000
-48,150
5,000
4,000
8,000
12,000
Other Procurement, Navy:
8,000
12,000
Procurement, Marine Corps:
2,000
Other Procurement, Air Force:
8,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Procurement, Defense-Wide:
800
20,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army:
2,000
4,500
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy:
10,000
8,000
8,600
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force:
5,500
10,000
2,000
5,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide:
3,000
3,500
1,500
9,700
21,000
20,000
Total
+250,350
INFORMATION ASSURANCE AND COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
As discussed earlier in this report, the Committee recommends
providing an additional $150,000,000 over the budget request to address
the most critical information assurance and computer security
requirements identified by DoD. The Committee expects that the
Department will issue guidance to ensure that these funds are used in a
coordinated manner to support the Department's overall information
assurance strategy.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OVERSIGHT
Reports by the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG) and
the General Accounting Office (GAO) confirm that the Department of
Defense continues to have difficulty managing its information technology
programs. The Committee believes that the basic policies and procedures
necessary for sound oversight and program management are clearly
outlined in the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 and in supporting regulations.
Last year, the Committee explained in detail its concerns with the
Department's oversight process and made clear that compliance with the
Clinger-Cohen Act would be a prerequisite for funding any information
technology initiative. It is in that light that the Committee raises the
following two issues.
DEFENSE JOINT ACCOUNTING SYSTEM (DJAS)
Last year, when DJAS was submitted for Milestone I approval, the DoD
IG and the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) issued
warnings about the program's readiness for Milestone I approval and
about dramatic changes in its scope, cost and duration. In addition,
both the Air Force and the Navy withdrew from this ``joint'' program.
Despite these obvious warnings, the Department's Information Technology
oversight body (the IT OIPT) gave DJAS Milestone I and II approval,
without having a meeting to review the program.
The Congress explicitly rejected this approval as inconsistent with
the intent of the Clinger-Cohen Act and directed the Department to
conduct a proper Milestone review to determine if this program should
continue. The Committee understands that the program has continued to
move forward without a proper Milestone review and that the program is
still not compliant with the Clinger-Cohen Act. The Committee has
therefore removed all funding for this program in fiscal year 2001 and
directs that this program be terminated.
NAVY MARINE CORPS INTRANET
The Navy Marine Corps Intranet is a new initiative that involves
contracting out for the full range of the Department's information
technology services (such as lifecycle replacement of computers and
infrastructure, software updates and help desk support). At the cost of
several billion dollars over the next five years, it would be the
Department's single largest information technology initiative. However,
this proposal was not included in the Department's fiscal year 2001
budget.
The Committee has been supportive of efforts by the military services
that seek innovative solutions, and it is out of a desire to encourage
such innovation that the Committee is willing to consider this program
outside the normal budget process.
As with all information technology initiatives, the Navy must
demonstrate that NMCI is compliant with the Clinger-Cohen Act and that
it has a sound business case for making this investment. This
information is currently unavailable. However, the Navy has agreed to
provide this and other relevant information, per a March 8, 2000
Memorandum of Agreement with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence. The
Committee is pleased that ASD(C3I) and the Navy have agreed to this
oversight procedure. The Committee will therefore withhold judgment
until that information is available and ASD(C3I) has conducted a proper
review. The Committee encourages the Navy and ASD(C3I) to work together
to ensure that the review process is both thorough and timely.
INFORMATION SECURITY LESSONS LEARNED
In its April 10th report to Congress the Department outlines the
``lessons learned from the Year 2000 effort and their applicability to
information management and information security.'' Among the key lessons
learned was the importance of functional end-to-end testing, CINC
operational evaluations, contingency plans, continuity of operation
plans, a centralized system database, performance measures and timely
audits. The report's bottom line is ``Senior leadership must remain
engaged in information technology management'' if these lessons learned
are to be effectively implemented.
The Committee requests that the Department of Defense provide a
report, no later that November 15, 2000, outlining its efforts in
implementing these lessons learned. In particular, this report should
address the following questions:
1) How will the Department ensure continued senior level management
involvement? In particular, what will be the management forum and who be
the participants?
2) What performance measures are being used to track a system or
service's preparedness for a cyber attack?
3) How are cyber attacks being integrated into CINC operational
evaluations?
4) What guidance has been issued to ensure that contingency plans and
continuity of operation plans are maintained and updated for a cyber
attack?
5) What functional or end-to-end tests are planned to examine a
system's vulnerability to a cyber attack?
6) How will information assurance audits be integrated into this effort?
ARMY HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING RESEARCH CENTER
The Committee recognizes the unique value of the Army High
Performance Computing Research Center (AHPCRC). The Center's high
performance computing systems are used heavily by DoD's science and
technology community. AHPCRC researchers have made significant
contributions to computational science and defense technology. In
addition, the Center's outreach and educational programs have proven
valuable to the Army.
To ensure that the Center is adequately funded, the Committee has
added $9,750,000 to funds already budgeted for a total of $11,507,000
for the Center's activities. Of these funds, $6,000,000 is only for the
use, operation and maintenance of the Center's high performance
computing systems and networks; $1,500,000 is only for staff scientist
services to support Army research activities; $1,100,000 is only for
technology exchange programs with Army laboratories, outreach and
education programs, and management activities of the research program
and center, including publications, seminars and workshops; and
$2,907,000 is only for basic research at the Center's academic partner
institutions.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CENTER
The Committee recommends $7,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance,
Navy and $8,000,000 in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
only for continuing the human resources enterprise strategy in
accordance with past Committee direction. These funds shall be provided
to the Navy's Program Executive Office for Information Technology
(PEO/IT) for its enterprise software development Information Technology
Center (ITC).
NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU FIBER OPTIC STUDY
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only to continue the feasibility
study and engineering design of a Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic
Network (NDFON) for the National Guard. The Committee directs ASD(C3I)
to ensure this network makes maximum use of DISA networks and is
consistent with the Department's information architecture and policies.
GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE DATA CAPTURE PROGRAM
The Committee recommends $21,000,000 for the Global Infrastructure
Data Capture Program (GIDC) under the ASD(C3I) for the acquisition and
digital conversion of critical engineering and infrastructure data,
including related systems and technical information.
TITLE IV
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
The fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense research, development,
test and evaluation budget request totals $37,862,401,000. The
accompanying bill recommends $40,170,230,000. The total amount
recommended is an increase of $2,307,829,000 above the fiscal year 2001
budget estimate and is $2,564,670,000 above the total provided in fiscal
year 2000. The table below summarizes the budget estimate and the
Committee's recommendations.
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
Recapitulation
RDTE, Army 5,260,346 6,025,057 +764,711
RDTE, Navy 8,476,677 9,222,927 +746,250
RDTE, Air Force 13,685,576 13,760,689 +75,113
RDTE, Defense-Wide 10,238,242 10,918,997 +680,755
Developmental Test and Evaluation
Operational Test and Evaluation 201,560 242,560 +41,000
---------------- ------------------------ ---------------------
Grand total, RDTE 37,862,401 40,170,230 +2,307,829
SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS
Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in the
project level tables or in paragraphs using the phrases ``only for'' or
``only to'' in this report are congressional interest items for the
purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD Form 1414). Each of these
items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated amount, or a
revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically
addressed in the conference report. These items remain special interest
items whether or not they are repeated in a subsequent conference
report.
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
Adjustments of the classified programs are addressed in a classified
annex accompanying this report.
anti-armor weapons master plan
In the statement of the managers accompanying the conference report
on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1999, the DoD was
directed to provide an Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan with the fiscal
year 2000 budget request. The plan, which was delivered five months
late, did not address the concerns outlined in the statement. Therefore,
the fiscal year 2000 statement of the managers directed the Secretary of
Defense provide an in-depth analysis of Anti-Armor weapons with the
fiscal year 2001 budget submission. Four months after the budget
submission, the Committee has still not received the analysis. The DoD
has not requested an extension or given an explanation for not
delivering the plan on time. As a result, the Committee has recommended
reductions to several anti-armor weapon systems.
TACTICAL RADIOS
The Committee directs that no more than 25 percent of the funds
appropriated for research and development of any tactical radio program
may be obligated until the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command,
Control, Communications, and Intelligence certifies in writing to the
congressional defense committees that the development program meet
interoperability requirements, is not duplicative of other developmental
efforts and is fully funded in the budget.
NETWORKING OF INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, RECONNAISSANCE ASSETS
The Committee has heard a number of theoretical discussions about how
to better exploit the unique capabilities of Intelligence, Surveillance,
and Reconnaissance (ISR) and possibly national platforms, by
``networking'' these assets to provide a more complete intelligence
picture for tactical commanders. While the Navy has provided some
discussion of its Network Centric Warfare concept, the Committee is
concerned that none of the Services have a strategy to achieve
``networked'' intelligence from the various ISR and national platforms.
Furthermore, without a networked approach, it remains unclear to the
Committee if the intelligence currently gathered with these platforms
can be properly and timely exploited and disseminated to the tactical
commander, which calls into question the wisdom of simply buying more of
the same ``un-networked'' assets. It is possible that funds could be
better spent procuring items that fulfill a requirement to tie together
what is already in the inventory in order to more effectively provide
the tactical commanders with critical information.
Therefore, the Committee directs that each Service provide a report
no later than September 30, 2001, on its strategy to network ISR
platforms. The Committee is most interested in whether each Service has
a goal for such networking, a strategy to implement that goal, and a
specific plan for procuring or developing what is needed to execute the
strategy. Considering the necessity of multi-Service warfare, it would
be senseless to propose a networked ISR system which would not provide
the tactical commander with the ability to access all necessary
information. Therefore, coordination of these reports is essential and
required.
JOINT EJECTION SEAT PROGRAM
The Office of the Secretary of Defense has done a poor job of
responding to the concerns in the Committee's fiscal year 2000 report
(House Report 106 244) and the direction contained in the conference
report accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000.
The Committee understands that the Department agrees with the objectives
of the joint ejection seat program initiated by this Committee last
year, and agrees that the program is essential to address serious safety
concerns about military pilots and their ability to successfully survive
emergency ejections from disabled aircraft. Yet, no funds were included
in the fiscal year 2001 budget to continue this initiative, no response
has been provided to the reporting requirements in last year's
conference report, and the Department still chose to budget a
stand-alone K 36 ejection seat program outside the framework of the
joint program (even though K 36 is one of the candidates being
considered for the joint program). The Committee further understands
that a memorandum of agreement between the Navy and the Air Force
concerning operation of the joint program has not been consummated, and
also, is concerned that the staffing and decision-making in the program
to date is not joint at all, but rather is being driven by a single
service. The Committee views the joint ejection seat initiative as vital
to providing a safer and more cost-effective seat for the Joint Strike
Fighter, where about 3,000 new aircraft are envisioned, yet there is no
evidence that the Department has connected this program to the Joint
Strike Fighter in a meaningful way.
The Committee directs that no contract award for the joint ejection
seat program using funds provided in fiscal year 2000 be made until the
Secretary of Defense resolves all of the above issues and submits a
report to the congressional defense committees explaining how this was
done and submits a program plan for the Joint Ejection Seat Program as
required by last year's conference report. None of the funds in fiscal
years 2000 or 2001 may be obligated until the Secretaries of the Navy
and Air Force certify to the congressional defense committees that a
joint program office and supporting mechanism is in place to manage the
program in a manner which fairly meets both services' requirements. None
of the funds provided in this Act for the Joint Strike Fighter, or in
technology base program elements which support tactical aircraft, may be
used for development of an ejection seat other than those being
developed in the Joint Ejection Seat Program. The Committee has included
bill language under the heading ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Air Force'' to prohibit the use of any seat other than one
developed under the joint ejection seat program for the Joint Strike
Fighter. The Committee directs that these limitations be included on DD
Form 1414 for fiscal year 2001.
The fiscal year 2001 budget requests a total of $12,689,000 for the K
36 development program as a stand alone effort. The Committee
specifically denies this request with prejudice, which shall be noted on
DD Form 1414 for fiscal year 2001. Instead, the Committee recommends a
total of $24,289,000 in the Navy and in the Air Force only for the Joint
Ejection Seat Program which is the proper venue for competitive
consideration of the K 36 proposal. The Committee reiterates that the
objective of the Joint Ejection Seat Program is to completely qualify at
least two modern and safe ejection seats for the Joint Strike Fighter
and other future tactical aircraft applications.
DISCOVERER II
The Air Force, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the
National Reconnaissance Office collectively requested $130,000,000 for
the Discoverer II satellite technology demonstration program. The
Committee recommends no funding, a decrease of $130,000,000. The fiscal
year 2000 Defense Appropriations Act provided sufficient funding for the
Discoverer II program to conclude the phase I studies and analysis
portion of the program along with related risk reduction efforts. With
phase I now funded to completion, the Committee recommends that the
Discoverer II program be terminated.
The Committee makes this recommendation for the following reasons:
(1) Discoverer II has no documented requirement or concept of
operations; (2) the cost of the engineering and manufacturing
development phase of the program, which the program office estimates at
$702 million and which will in all likelihood exceed $1 billion, is of a
magnitude ordinarily associated with the development of fully
operational satellites and therefore unaffordable given the limited
operational benefits of a technology demonstration program; (3) the
Department has conducted no trade-off analysis between Discoverer II and
other systems and processes that could deliver ground moving target
indication data to warfighters; and, (4) the Department has failed to
analyze the impact a Discoverer II constellation would have on an
already overtaxed imagery processing, exploitation and dissemination
system.
Even if successful, there is no guarantee the Air Force could ever
build, launch, operate and maintain a Discoverer II constellation
without a substantial top line increase to its budget. By some estimates
the cost of a fully functional Discoverer II constellation could reach
$25 billion. In the face of other severe shortfalls in space and
aircraft modernization the Committee concludes that Discoverer II is of
low priority and recommends its termination.
The Committee discusses its recommendation more fully in the
classified annex to this report.
USE OF SPECIAL ACCESS-LIKE SECURITY MEASURES TO PROTECT BUSINESS
SENSITIVE INFORMATION
The Committee continues to be concerned that DoD is using security
measures similar to those used for Special Access Programs (SAPs) to
protect information associated with non-SAPs. Although DoD has made
progress in this area with respect to non-SAP classified activities, the
Committee notes that SAP-like security measures are being used to
protect contractor proprietary and competition sensitive information.
The Committee is especially concerned because it appears that SAP-like
security measures are applied inconsistently among programs with no
clear DoD-wide policy or procedures for sharing information with
Congress. In a number of instances, these security measures have
needlessly complicated congressional oversight and review of program
activities. The Committee notes that DoD's Office of Inspector General
has made similar observations with regard to the Air Force's Evolved
Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) (Report number D 2000 070, dated
December 30, 1999) and recommended that DoD form a working group to
develop guidance for security measures to protect business sensitive
information. The Committee directs the Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition and Technology to review DoD's guidance for using security
measures to protect business sensitive information, develop additional
guidance as necessary (including streamlined procedures for providing
information to Congress), and submit a report detailing the action taken
to the congressional defense committees no later than November 1, 2000.
BUDGETING FOR OPERATIONAL TEST
The Committee is concerned that the Military Departments are not
adequately budgeting for operational testing. The Committee understands
that severely constrained operational test budgets are forcing the
Services' operational test communities to focus reporting only on the
highest profile programs with small and medium sized programs proceeding
into production without formal reporting from the operational test
community. The Committee believes that this situation must be corrected
and fully expects the Military Departments to budget adequately to
ensure all programs benefit from an appropriate level of independent
operational testing.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $5,266,601,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 5,260,346,000
Committee recommendation 6,025,057,000
Change from budget request +764,711,000
This appropriation finances the research, development, test and
evaluation activities for the Department of the Army.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH CENTERS 54,365 55,365 +1,000
MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY 11,557 15,557 +4,000
SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC SURVIVABILITY 20,722 24,722 +4,000
MISSILE TECHNOLOGY 47,183 69,183 +22,000
ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 993 7,993 +7,000
MODELING AND SIMULATION TECHNOLOGY 30,479 32,479 +2,000
COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY 63,589 68,589 +5,000
(Note: Only for the integration of the voice interactive device into the smart truck's voice activated central processing computer) +3,000
WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY 33,761 48,761 +15,000
ELECTRONIC AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES 23,869 40,969 +17,100
NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY 20,465 25,465 +5,000
COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS 12,386 17,786 +5,400
HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY 15,786 19,486 +3,700
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY 13,994 54,494 +40,500
(Note: To demonstrate domestically produced residential PEM fuel cells in military facilities) +12,500
MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY 42,344 47,344 +5,000
WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY 24,659 28,159 +3,500
MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY 75,729 98,729 +23,000
WARFIGHTER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 15,469 17,469 +2,000
MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 16,512 254,192 +237,680
WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 29,738 59,738 +30,000
COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 148,114 162,114 +14,000
COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 21,505 28,505 +7,000
MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 3,072 6,072 +3,000
EW TECHNOLOGY 15,359 20,359 +5,000
NIGHT VISION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 33,341 46,141 +12,800
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 1,616 11,116 +9,500
ARMY MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION (DEM/VAL) 12,573 28,173 +15,600
TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER AMMUNITION 30,139 50,139 +20,000
ADVANCED TANK ARMAMENT SYSTEM (ATAS) 118,139 268,139 +150,000
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY DEM/VAL 4,897 14,897 +10,000
WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS--ADV DEV 28,679 36,179 +7,500
MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV 15,259 15,509 +250
TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLE (TUGV) 0 300 +300
TACTICAL EXPLOITATION OF NATIONAL CAPABILITIES--EMD 57,419 43,419 -14,000
BRILLIANT ANTI-ARMOR SUBMUNITION (BAT) 96,102 101,102 +5,000
JOINT SURVEILLANCE/TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM 17,898 26,898 +9,000
AVIATION--ENG DEV 7,104 12,104 +5,000
WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS--ENG DEV 22,505 30,505 +8,000
SENSE AND DESTROY ARMAMENT MISSILE--ENG DEV 52,848 0 -52,848
ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & CONTROL HARDWARE & SOFTWARE 33,420 39,420 +6,000
THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT 13,901 16,101 +2,200
CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION PROGRAM 15,410 15,410 0
ARMY TEST RANGES AND FACILITIES 119,657 129,657 +10,000
ARMY TECHNICAL TEST INSTRUMENTATION AND TARGETS 33,156 37,256 +4,100
SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY ANALYSIS 27,248 34,748 +7,500
DOD HIGH ENERGY LASER TEST FACILITY 14,521 35,521 21,000
TECHNICAL INFORMATION ACTIVITIES 25,749 30,499 +3,750
MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION, EFFECTIVENESS AND SAEFTY 11,276 14,776 +3,500
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE 0 3,000 +3,000
DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS AGAINST WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCT 0 3,000 +3,000
COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 99,423 112,823 +13,400
AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 95,829 97,829 +2,000
AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2,929 7.929 +5,000
DIGITIZATION 29,671 31,671 +2,000
FORCE TWENTY-ONE (XXI), WARFIGHTING RAPID ACQUISITION 6,021 0 -6,021
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM 8,140 20,440 +12,300
END ITEM INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES 57,906 81,906 +24,000
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
The Committee is concerned that the Army's current concept of
operations for its Tactical UAV (TUAV) appears shortsighted by not
addressing future UAV requirements. The Army has not adequately
addressed requirements for such things as longer range and more
versatile payload options. Therefore, the Committee directs the Army to
submit a report by June 15, 2001, which identifies UAV requirements not
met by the TUAV and its plan for meeting those requirements.
RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
RAND ARROYO CENTER
The Army requested $19,872,000 for the Rand Arroyo Center, the
Committee recommends the budget request. Of the budgeted amount,
$1,000,000 is only for the Center for Naval Analyses to conduct a study
of Army acquisition practices as discussed elsewhere in this report.
EXCALIBUR (XM 982)
The Army requested $31,805,000 for the development of the Excalibur
(XM 982) 155mm artillery round. The Committee recommends no funding. The
Excalibur development program, which began in 1998, was to have cost
approximately $50 million and be completed in 45 months. Today, the Army
estimates that Excalibur will spend 87 months, or seven years, in
development, and cost over $135 million dollars. Additionally, the
Committee believes that the Excalibur artillery round is not
synchronized with the Army plan for fielding the Interim Brigades. Given
the excessive cost growth, schedule delay and the fact that the
Excalibur round fielding will not be in sync with the Interim Brigades,
the Committee recommends no funds.
Although the Committee terminates the Excalibur program, the
requirement for an improved artillery projectile still exists. The
Committee directs the Army to provide, no later than July 10, 2000, a
report that outlines alternatives for meeting the Army's 155mm improved
artillery projectile requirement. The report is to include capabilities,
estimated development cost, production cost, and the schedule for each
alternative. The Committee directs that the Army consider the Trajectory
Correctable Munition as one of the alternatives.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following
in fiscal year 2001:
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, NAVY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $9,110,326,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 8,476,677,000
Committee recommendation 9,222,927,000
Change from budget request +746,250,000
This appropriation provides funds for the research, development, test
and evaluation activities of the Department of the Navy and the Marine
Corps.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
AIR AND SURFACE LAUNCHED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 37,966 52,966 +15,000
SHIP, SUBMARINE & LOGISTICS TECHNOLOGY 44,563 47,563 +3,000
COMMUNICATIONS, COMMAND AND CONTROL, INTELLIGENCE 79,905 91,905 +12,000
HUMAN SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY 30,939 38,139 +7,200
MATERIALS, ELECTRONICS AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY 68,076 92,026 +23,950
UNDERSEA WARFARE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY 52,488 53,388 +900
OCEANOGRAPHIC AND ATMOSPHERIC TECHNOLOGY 60,320 68,070 +7,750
UNDERSEA WARFARE WEAPONRY TECHNOLOGY 35,028 37,028 +2,000
DUAL USE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM 10,067 11,067 +1,000
AIR SYSTEMS AND WEAPONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 39,667 54,667 +15,000
SURFACE SHIP & SUBMARINE HM&E ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 37,432 68,232 +30,800
MARINE CORPS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION (ATD) 54,749 61,249 +6,500
MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT 10,110 94,110 +84,000
MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADV TECH DEV 26,988 42,988 +16,000
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND LOGISTICS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 24,002 39,002 +15,000
NAVY TECHNICAL INFORMATION PRESENTATION SYSTEM 49,506 49,506
[Note: Up to $2,000,000 is only for the continuation of the Center for Defense Technology and Education at the Naval post-graduate school.]
UNDERSEA WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 58,296 62,296 +4,000
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION 76,333 79,533 +3,200
C3 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 29,673 35,673 +6,000
ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 19,680 24,680 +5,000
TACTICAL AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 1,956 2,356 +400
SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER MINE COUNTERMEASURES 97,929 99,429 +1,500
SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO DEFENSE 11,000 +11,000
CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 148,952 152,952 +4,000
SHIPBOARD SYSTEM COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT 244,437 254,437 +10,000
ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 113,269 129,769 +16,500
SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED DESIGN 162 5,162 +5,000
COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION 32,966 65,966 +33,000
CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS 28,619 30,619 +2,000
MARINE CORPS ASSAULT VEHICLES 137,981 144,281 +6,300
MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM 23,216 25,216 +2,000
JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT 13,131 14,681 +1,550
COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT 119,257 179,257 +60,000
NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM 4,942 7,942 +3,000
NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY 11,000 +11,000
LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY 143,044 146,044 +3,000
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)--DEM/VAL 131,566 206,566 +75,000
SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/ENGINE 34,100 38,100 +4,000
OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT 24,393 38,393 +14,000
STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT 95,814 103,814 +8,000
MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT 69,946 79,946 +10,000
P 3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM 2,906 8,906 +6,000
TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM 57,817 60,817 +3,000
AIR CREW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 17,466 34,466 +17,000
EW DEVELOPMENT 97,281 133,781 +36,500
SC 21 TOTAL SHIP SYSTEM ENGINEERING 305,274 257,274 -48,000
AIRBORNE MCM 47,312 50,312 +3,000
SSN 688 AND TRIDENT MODERNIZATION 34,801 62,801 +28,000
NEW DESIGN SSN 207,091 212,091 +5,000
SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEM 20,492 26,492 +6,000
SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/LIVE FIRE T&E 62,204 72,204 +10,000
NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER RESOURCES 3,291 28,291 +25,000
JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION 26,151 29,151 +3,000
MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT 5,273 27,273 +22,000
DISTRIBUTED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM 20,710 35,710 +15,000
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)--EMD 295,962 145,962 -150,000
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 15,259 23,259 +8,000
MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT 40,707 44,707 +4,000
STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT--NAVY 8,056 6,056 -2,000
TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICES 949 10,949 +10,000
SEW SURVEILLANCE/RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT 12,694 7,694 -5,000
MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE SUPPORT 8,091 14,891 +6,800
STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS SYSTEM SUPPORT 42,687 54,687 +12,000
2 SQUADRONS 18,698 37,698 +19,000
INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM 16,928 27,928 +11,000
CONSOLIDATED TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 27,059 34,559 +7,500
HARM IMPROVEMENT 21,355 46,355 +25,000
MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS 96,153 107,153 +11,000
MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS 22,124 39,424 +17,300
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM 21,530 30,130 +8,600
TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES 113,052 129,052 +16,000
AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEM 4,759 15,759 +11,000
MANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS 27,479 65,079 +37,600
MODELING AND SIMULATION SUPPORT 9,106 12,106 +3,000
INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 59,626 69,626 +10,000
DD 21 Next Generation Surface Combatant
The Navy requested $305,274,000 for continued ship systems
engineering for the DD 21 surface combatant program. The Committee
recommends $257,274,000, a decrease of $48,000,000. The Committee
remains supportive of this program but has substantial reservations
concerning the Navy's current acquisition strategy for the DD 21. In the
name of innovation and in a departure from all previous new ship design
and development programs, the Navy has elected to give the industrial
teams competing for the DD 21 considerable latitude in determining the
ship's overall design and incorporation of subsystems--the theory being
that the contractors are free to propose ``best value'' solutions to the
Navy's operational requirements as long as certain key performance
parameters are met. While this approach is commendable in many ways, it
leaves open several questions which have yet to be addressed in an
adequate manner by the Navy. The questions are as follows:
Applicability of other Navy technology programs to the DD 21
program.-- The Office of Naval Research maintains a robust program for
surface ship technologies which are being developed in the name of the
DD 21 program. By some estimates there are 26 technology demonstration
projects totaling over $600,000,000 in the fiscal year 2001 budget
request which claim relevance to the DD 21 program. There is no
guarantee, however, that any of these technologies will find their way
onto the DD 21 platform since the development teams are free to choose
any technologies they want without input or insight from the Navy. If
this is the case, then it raises the question of whether all these
technology demonstrations are truly necessary.
Unique Integrated Logistics Support.-- The DD 21 will be the first
Navy ship to have a full service contractor. A full service contractor
has the opportunity to provide all maintenance and support services for
the ship class during its life cycle. The division of these support
services between the ultimate contractor and Navy support systems is an
issue to be proposed by the competing design teams as part of their
concept designs. The Committee is concerned that a full service
contractor may make decisions on logistics support of the DD 21 that
will limit the Navy's options when making ship operation and management
decisions. In the worst case the Navy may be forced to carry two
different shore infrastructures for integrated logistics support: a
traditional track for legacy ships and a separate track for the DD 21.
Additionally, this approach may create unintended conflicts between the
Navy's legacy supply organization and industry.
Interoperability.-- The DD 21 must have the ability to interact,
coordinate, and share information with other ships and units in a joint
task force. Its primary mission of land attack requires it to work with
U.S. Marine Corps and Army ground forces as well as with Allied forces.
It will also be expected to operate as part of a carrier battle group.
It is the Committee's understanding that the fleet can never attain
total system integration if there is a divergence in the hardware and
software that contractors are installing on the DD 21 and what the Navy
is installing on other ships. The DD 21 program is proposing to use
commercial off the shelf equipment and components to a greater degree
than the Navy has on prior ships. Again, the Committee is concerned that
due to the unique nature of the DD 21 acquisition strategy, the Navy is
not giving any direction or suggestions to the DD 21 design teams that
would reduce the risk of interoperability problems with the rest of the
fleet or other services.
Finally, the Committee's greatest concern is that the DD 21
acquisition strategy is precluding the use of innovative technologies
from small companies in the design of the ship. It is troublesome that
major design decisions for critical subsystems on the DD 21 are being
locked in without the benefit of an open consideration of the broadest
array of technologies possible. The Committee believes that in the name
of innovation, the Navy may actually be discouraging its practice.
The Committee therefore directs the Navy to prepare a report which
addresses these issues, as well as the following questions concerning
the DD 21 acquisition strategy:
(1) What is the proper role of the Navy in ensuring new technology
from the widest range of vendors is given fair consideration in the DD
21 source selection process?
(2) What mechanism or process is in place to introduce new technology
that isn't developed directly by present DD 21 design team members?
(3) How does the Navy differentiate between technology that impacts
the ship's initial design and requires an early milestone decision, and
technology that can be incorporated in mid or late stages of design?
(4) What is the optimal method for instilling competition among
technical approaches without incurring unacceptable cost growth?
The report should be submitted to the congressional defense
committees no later than March 15, 2001.
Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP)
The Committee has provided a total of $17,000,000 for risk reduction
and P3I initiatives for the SHARP program. The risk reduction efforts
are financed with an additional $5,000,000 to develop/upgrade the sensor
to an 18 inch lens and integrate an existing dual-band sensor into the
TARPS pod and $3,000,000 to develop an advanced focal plane array with
moving target indicator (MTI) for a smaller electo-optical framing
camera size. The Committee has also provided $9,000,000 for the
acquisition and evaluation of a small synthetic aperture radar (SAR)
within the TARPS CD program as a potential P3I for the SHARP program.
The Naval Research Lab is directed to continue funding other ongoing
projects in electro-optical framing at no less than the funding level of
fiscal year 2000.
The Committee has also provided $18,000,000 in additional funds for
the SHARP program to maintain its current and very aggressive deployment
schedule. DD Form 1414 shall show this as a special congressional
interest item.
Network Centric Warfare (NCW)
The Committee believes that existing and emerging technologies could
be used to enhance the dissemination of intelligence data through the
networking of various Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance
(ISR) and national platforms. The Committee directs the Navy to pursue a
study of technologies that would benefit the goal of Network Centric
Warfare.
Additionally, the Committee has provided a total of $9,000,000 for
NCW and a Naval Fires Network Demonstration. The Committee believes
these funds should be used in conjunction to develop the Naval Fires
Network Demonstrator, test the tactical dissemination of intelligence
for Time Critical Strike Capabilities on-board the E 2C, and refine the
NCW concept of operations.
Navy, Marine Corps Imagery Processing Exploitation
The Committee understands the need for close interoperability between
the Navy and the Marine Corps in the area of precision targeting,
imagery exploitation and amphibious operations. The Committee recognizes
that the schedules of related service intelligence programs present an
opportunity for greater coordination in this area, and recommends that
the Services consolidate their efforts into one coordinated plan to
ensure ground exploitation and precision targeting interoperability.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
The Committee is concerned that the Navy's current plans for use of
UAVs appear disjointed. Multiple organizations are developing multiple
plans and requirements with what appears to be little internal
communication about these plans and requirements. The Navy's recent UAV
studies contract, in conjunction with its recently announced contract
for a VTOL UAV, presents a confusing picture of the Navy's intentions.
Furthermore, despite obvious interest and continual questioning on
the part of the Committee, the Navy has not responded with information
which outlines its objectives or plans with respect to UAVs. While
recent risk reduction contracts for the ``multi-role endurance unmanned
aerial vehicle'' are for studies of how a UAV could potentially be
employed, this type of activity has not been clearly articulated to the
Committee. It is difficult for the Committee to help the Navy meet its
UAV requirements when they have not been presented.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Navy to submit a report by
December 15, 2000, which addresses all of its plans for unmanned aerial
vehicles. At a minimum, the report should address: (1) all identified
requirements; (2) requirements that remain un-met with the current UAV
contracts, especially any requirement for support of deep-strike
operations; and, (3) a description of the roles and responsibilities of
the various organizations within the Navy which claim jurisdiction over
UAV programs. The Navy should consider more centralized management of
the various UAV programs to ensure a coordinated approach to meeting
requirements.
Bone Marrow Registry
The Committee provides $34,000,000 to be administered by the C.W.
Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program, also known,
and referred to, within the Naval Medical Research Center, as the Bone
Marrow Registry. This DoD donor center has recruited 230,000 DoD
volunteers, and provides more marrow donors per week than any other
donor center in the Nation. The Committee is aware of the continuing
success of this life saving program for military contingencies and
civilian patients, which now includes 4,000,000 potential volunteer
donors, and encourages agencies involved in contingency planning to
include the C.W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research
Program in the development and testing of their contingency plans. DD
Form 1414 shall show this as a special congressional interest item, and
the Committee directs that all of the funds appropriated for this
purpose be released to the C.W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and
Research Program within 60 days of enactment of the Fiscal Year 2001
Defense Appropriations Act.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program
in fiscal year 2001.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, AIR FORCE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $13,674,537,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 13,685,576,000
Committee recommendation 13,760,689,000
Change from budget request +75,113,000
This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation activities of the Department of the Air Force.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 206,149 216,149 +10,000
MATERIALS 72,815 83,515 +10,700
AEROSPACE FLIGHT DYNAMICS 48,775 52,315 +3,540
HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED RESEARCH 62,619 63,019 +400
AEROSPACE PROPULSION 116,262 118,262 +2,000
AEROSPACE SENSORS 65,644 69,644 +4,000
HYPERSONIC TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM 0 5,000 +5,000
SPACE TECHNOLOGY 57,687 61,687 +4,000
COMMAND CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS 78,749 90,549 +11,800
ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR WEAPON SYSTEMS 21,678 48,928 +27,250
AEROSPACE PROPULSION SUBSYSTEMS INTEGRATION 34,440 35,440 +1,000
ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS 28,311 44,811 +16,500
FLIGHT VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY 2,445 7,645 +5,200
AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND POWER TECHNOLOGY 41,964 45,464 +3,500
CREW SYSTEMS AND PERSONNEL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY 12,479 19,479 +7,000
FLIGHT VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 13,184 18,184 +5,000
ELECTRONIC COMBAT TECHNOLOGY 25,882 27,882 +2,000
SPACE AND MISSILE ROCKET PROPULSION 24,283 28,283 +4,000
BALLISTIC MISSILE TECHNOLOGY 0 23,000 +23,000
ADVANCED SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGY 97,327 60,087 -37,240
ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 33,371 42,371 +9,000
SPACE-BASED LASER 63,216 35,000 -28,216
INFORMATION OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY 991 0 -991
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 129,538 204,538 +75,000
INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE (DEM/VAL) 24,488 15,788 -8,700
AIR FORCE/NATIONAL PROGRAM COOPERATION (AFNPC) 3,370 1,370 -2,000
INTEGRATED AVIONICS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 712 0 -712
B 1B 168,122 158,122 -10,000
B 2 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY BOMBER 48,313 145,313 +97,000
EW DEVELOPMENT 58,198 56,298 -1,900
MILSTAR LDR/MDR SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (SPACE) 236,841 241,841 +5,000
ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT 8,876 25,876 +17,000
AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT 668 0 -668
JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION 1,157 26,157 +25,000
LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS 14,758 26,358 +11,600
COMBAT TRAINING RANGES 12,559 16,559 +4,000
INTEGRATED COMMAND & CONTROL APPLICATIONS (IC2A) 214 0 -214
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER EMD 299,540 149,540 -150,000
RDT&E FOR AGING AIRCRAFT 14,204 29,204 +15,000
TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 191 0 -191
MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT 54,057 68,807 +14,750
INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVALUATION 28,238 33,238 +5,000
16 SQUADRONS 124,903 133,903 +9,000
15E SQUADRONS 61,260 68,860 +7,600
AF TENCAP 9,826 16,826 +7,000
COMPASS CALL 5,834 25,834 +20,000
JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM) 120,281 113,281 -7,000
JOINT SURVEILLANCE AND TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM 144,118 151,318 +7,200
USAF MODELING AND SIMULATION 17,624 18,624 +1,000
WARGAMING AND SIMULATION CENTERS 3,874 8,874 +5,000
INFORMATION WARFARE SUPPORT 1 0 -1
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM 7,212 25,703 +18,491
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) PLAN 200 0 -200
TACTICAL TERMINAL 238 0 -238
DEFENSE RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT ACTIVITIES (SPACE) 45,149 38,049 -7,100
NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (SPACE AND CONTROL) 250,197 261,097 +10,900
SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM (SPACE) 53,654 85,154 +31,500
DRAGON U 2 (JMIP) 27,546 31,546 +4,000
ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES 109,215 128,215 +19,000
AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS 136,913 143,913 +7,000
DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND SYSTEMS 21,330 25,830 +4,500
NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM (SPACE) 17,088 12,088 -5,000
SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES 1,109 2,109 +1,000
DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON IF) 1,515 4,515 +3,000
INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 53,082 57,582 +4,500
SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 32,258 42,258 +10,000
COMPUTER RESOURCES SUPPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CRSIP) 2,356 7,356 +5,000
RADIATION HARDENED ELECTRONICS
The Committee commends the Department of Defense for the
establishment of the Radiation Hardened Oversight Council and for the
initiatives recently taken to assure the availability of radiation
hardened microelectronics components. These components are essential to
meet the Department's unique requirements and are crucial to the success
of current and future national security systems. The investment strategy
directed by the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology
and Logistics will assure adequate funding to meet science & technology
and producibility needs from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2005.
It is imperative that this strategy is executed with the full
cooperation and participation of the Services and Agencies involved.
Not later than April 1, 2001, and annually thereafter, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the Congress a report on the implementation
of the Radiation Hardened Electronics Investment Strategy as directed by
the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics. The report will describe the degree of participation in the
strategy by the Services and Agencies involved and the impact of the
strategy on the availability of radiation hardened electronics
components needed to satisfy the Department's integrated and prioritized
requirements for national security systems.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, APPROACH, AND LANDING SYSTEM
The Air Force budgeted $18,093,000 for the air traffic control,
approach, and landing system. The Committee recommends $58,093,000, an
increase of $40,000,000 only for development of the mobile air traffic
control system. The Air National Guard operates tactical deployable air
traffic control systems developed in the 1950s, which provide 65 percent
of the total Air Force radar approach control capability for wartime and
contingency support. These units are no longer supportable and require
cannibalization and extensive maintenance to keep wartime-tasked units
at least marginally operational. There are no fully operational radars
in the Air National Guard due to age of equipment and lack of parts. The
Congress added funds in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to address this
urgent requirement, but the Air Force did nothing with these funds. The
Air Force proposes a new development program for both active and Guard
mobile air traffic control systems, which unfortunately does not result
in fielding equipment to Guard units on a timely basis. The additional
$40,000,000 recommended by the Committee consists of $10,000,000 only to
accelerate the development of the mobile air traffic control system and
$30,000,000 only to procure test asset/contingency mobile air traffic
control systems at no less than three Air National Guard locations
selected by the Director of the Air National Guard. The test assets are
intended to be the first three systems delivered to the government under
the development program, and should be used by Guard units to assist in
further development of the objective system. The Committee directs that
none of the funds in this Act for development of mobile air traffic
control systems for the Air Force and the Air National Guard may be
obligated until the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs
certifies to the congressional defense committees that the development
program meets schedule and performance requirements of Air National
Guard units and that the first three systems will be fielded only to
Guard units as test assets under the development program. The Committee
further directs that all funds provided for development of the mobile
air traffic control system are of special interest, and shall be so
designated on DD Form 1414. Reprogramming request FY 99 012PA is hereby
denied, and $8,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 and $2,000,000 in fiscal year
2000 other procurement funds are proposed for rescission elsewhere in
the bill.
HIGH ALTITUDE ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (HAE UAV)--GLOBAL HAWK
The Committee directs the Air Force to submit by March 15, 2001, a
report which addresses its plan for acquiring the Global Hawk UAV. The
report should address: (1) the cost of the program through the Future
Years Defense Plan (FYDP); (2) the schedule for development and
acquisition; (3) the total number of air vehicles scheduled for
acquisition; (4) the overall cost of the program; and, (5) the potential
of the air vehicle to exceed the $10 million cost cap previously imposed
by the Department.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program
in fiscal year 2001.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $9,256,705,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 10,238,242,000
Committee recommendation 10,918,997,000
Change from budget request +680,755,000
This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide activities of the Department of Defense.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Recommended Change from request
DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 90,415 100,415 +10,000
UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES 253,627 289,627 +36,000
+4,000
INFORMATION ASSURANCE +3,000
DEF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH 9,859 19,859 +10,000
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM 33,197 40,197 +7,000
SUPPORT TECHNOLOGIES--APPLIED RESEARCH 37,747 50,247 +12,500
MEDICAL FREE ELECTRON LASER 15,029 25,029 +10,000
HISPANIC SERVING INSTITUTIONS 5,000 +5,000
COMPUTING SYSTEMS AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY 376,592 335,592 -41,000
EXTENSIBLE INFORMATION SYSTEMS 69,282 49,282 -20,000
BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE 162,064 166,564 +4,500
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM 73,600 75,600 +2,000
INTEGRATED COMMAND AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 31,761 38,761 +7,000
MATERIALS AND ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY 249,812 259,312 +9,500
NUCLEAR SUSTAINMENT & COUNTERPROLIFERATION TECHNOLOGIES 230,928 225,428 -5,500
EXPLOSIVES DEMILITARIZATION TECHNOLOGY 8,964 23,164 +14,200
COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT 41,307 48,307 +7,000
SUPPORT TECHNOLOGIES--ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 93,249 123,249 +30,000
SPACE BASED LASERS (SBL) 74,537 58,000 -16,537
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM--ADVANCED DEV 46,594 49,344 +2,750
SPECIAL TECHNICAL SUPPORT 10,777 14,777 +4,000
ARMS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 52,930 69,930 +17,000
GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS 23,082 47,382 +24,300
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM 51,357 57,357 +6,000
COOPERATIVE DOD/VA MEDICAL RESEARCH 0 1,000 +1,000
ADVANCED ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES 191,800 211,800 +20,000
ADVANCED CONCEPT TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS 116,425 116,425
SENSOR AND GUIDANCE TECHNOLOGY 182,225 149,125 -33,100
PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT 35,108 26,107 -9,001
ADVANCED SENSOR APPLICATIONS PROGRAM 15,534 24,534 +9,000
NAVY THEATER WIDE MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM 382,671 512,671 +130,000
MEADS CONCEPTS--DEM/VAL 63,175 53,475 -9,700
BMD TECHNICAL OPERATIONS 270,718 292,718 +22,000
JOINT SERVICE EDUCATION AND TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT [Note: At the OSD Joint ADL co-laboratory.] 0 3,500 +3,500
JOINT ROBOTICS PROGRAM--EMD 11,553 16,553 +5,000
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 12,000 13,500 +1,500
GENERAL SUPPORT TO C3I 3,769 34,469 +30,700
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM 290,771 322,771 +32,000
DEFENSE IMAGERY AND MAPPING PROGRAM 74,975 103,975 +29,000
INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 7,090 9,090 +2,000
SPECIAL OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 7,360 10,360 +3,000
SPECIAL OPERATIONS TACTICAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 133,520 156,620 +23,100
SPECIAL OPERATIONS INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 3,022 9,022 +6,000
SOF OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS 87,071 95,071 +8,000
CCDOTT [Note: $15,000,000 is only for the Center for Commercial Deployment of Transportation Technologies from within funds available for RDT&E, Defense-Wide.] [15,000]
ARMS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
The proliferation of nuclear weapons continues to be one of the most
serious threats facing the U.S. today. A cornerstone of a strong nuclear
proliferation deterrent is an effective U.S. operational monitoring
capability. Developing such a capability requires a sustained and robust
seismic research program. The Committee directs that $12,000,000 shall
be available only for peer-reviewed basic and applied seismic research
specifically to address validated Air Force operational nuclear test
monitoring requirements. Of this amount, $4,000,000 shall be available
only for peer-reviewed applied seismic research and $8,000,000 shall be
available only for peer-reviewed basic seismic research.
The Committee also directs the Department to vigorously pursue
transition of the research results into operations. The Committee
further directs the Department to segregate the basic and applied
research funds for this program into clearly identifiable projects
within the 6.1 and 6.2 budget categories; and to improve integration of
the basic and applied components of the program. Further, the Committee
directs the Department to provide by December 1, 2000, a detailed report
to the Committee on the plan for obligating these funds.
HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING PROGRAM
The Committee remains very concerned about the health of the DoD's
High-Performance Computing Modernization Program (HPCMP). This program
is essential to DoD efforts to develop technologically superior weapons,
warfighting capabilities, and related systems. However, the program has
fallen behind in its primary mission to procure high performance
computing hardware for DoD production activities. Due to procurement
shortfalls, DoD lags behind industry, the Department of Energy, and the
National Science Foundation in supercomputing technology--eroding DoD's
ability to address its most technologically challenging projects. As a
step toward correcting this problem, the Committee has added $48,000,000
only for the procurement of high performance computing hardware, and
strongly urges DoD to address the procurement shortfalls in the fiscal
year 2002 budget.
NATIONAL IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY (NIMA)
Still-Image Compression Standard
The Committee directs NIMA to take the lead in developing an
integrated plan for transitioning imagery infrastructures to fully
exploit the opportunities provided by the soon to be ratified
Still-Image Compression Standard JPEG 2000.
Competitive Practices
The Committee anticipates that NIMA will pursue all avenues of fair
and open competition for the acquisition of technology, goods and
services.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program
in fiscal year 2001.
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
[Graphic Image Not Available]
DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $265,957,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request
Committee recommendation
Change from budget request
This appropriation funds the Developmental Test and Evaluation
activities of the Department of Defense.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends no funds, as proposed in the budget.
OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $31,434,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 201,560,000
Committee recommendation 242,560,000
Change from budget request +41,000,000
This appropriation funds the Operational Test and Evaluation
activities of the Department of Defense.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Recommended Change from request
CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT (CT) 121,401 147,401 +26,000
OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION 17,172 22,172 +5,000
LIVE FIRE TESTING 9,712 19,712 +10,000
OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE
The Department requested $201,560,000 for Operational Test and
Evaluation, Defense. The Committee recommends $242,560,000, an increase
of $41,000,000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program
in fiscal year 2001.
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
Operational Test & Eval, Defense--RDT&E Management Support: 121,401 147,401 +26,000
----------------- ------------------------ ----------------------
Total, Operational Test & Eval, Defense 201,560 242,560 +41,000
TITLE V
REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS
DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $90,344,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 916,276,000
Committee recommendation 916,276,000
Change from budget request
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $916,276,000 for the
Defense Working Capital Funds, the amount proposed in the budget. The
recommendation is an increase of $825,932,000 above the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 2000. The Committee notes that the increase
proposed in the budget realigns funding needed to support the Defense
Commissary system.
NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $717,200,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 388,158,000
Committee recommendation 400,658,000
Change from budget request +12,500,000
This appropriation provides funds for the lease, operation, and
supply of prepositioning ships; operation of the Ready Reserve Force;
and acquisition of ships for the Military Sealift Command, the Ready
Reserve Force, and the Marine Corps.
Ready Reserve Force
The Defense Department requested $258,000,000 for the Ready Reserve
Force. The Committee recommends $270,500,000, an increase of
$12,500,000. The additional funding provided by the Committee is only
for the Department of Defense to upgrade a ship for the Ready Reserve
Force that can also be used as a training ship for the Massachusetts
Maritime Academy cadets.
TITLE VI
OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $11,154,617,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 11,600,429,000
Committee recommendation 12,143,029,000
Change from budget request +542,600,000
This appropriation funds the Defense Health Program of the Department
of Defense.
SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS
Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in the
project level tables or in paragraphs using the phrases ``only for'' or
``only to'' in this report are congressional interest items for the
purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD Form 1414). Each of these
items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated amount, or a
revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically
addressed in the conference report. These items remain special interest
items whether or not they are repeated in a subsequent conference
report.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Budget request Recommended Change from request
Operation and Maintenance 11,244,543 11,525,143 +280,600
---------------- -------------- -----------------------
================ ============== =======================
Research and Development 65,880 327,880 +262,000
---------------- -------------- -----------------------
================ ============== =======================
Procurement 290,006 290,006 0
================ ============== =======================
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 11,244,543 11,525,143 +280,600
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 65,880 327,880 +262,000
PROCUREMENT 290,006 290,006 0
---------------- -------------- -----------------------
Total 11,600,429 12,143,029 +542,600
TRICARE IMPROVEMENTS
The Committee recommends increases over the budget request totaling
$280,600,000 to support several initiatives to improve the TRICARE
health care program. Consistent with action taken in the House-passed
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 (H.R. 4205),
these include additional funds to optimize the use of Military Treatment
Facilities (MTF) and improve TRICARE business practices ($134,000,000);
funding for the TRICARE Senior Pharmacy program ($94,000,000); a
reduction in the catastrophic cap for retired TRICARE beneficiaries
($32,000,000); reimbursement of certain travel payments for patients who
have a referral more than 100 miles away from their primary health care
facility ($15,000,000); improved claims processing ($3,600,000); and an
in-depth study on health care options for Medicare-eligible military
retirees ($2,000,000).
These initiatives should improve the TRICARE benefit for all military
families by improving access and quality of care. In particular, the
funding to optimize MTF usage and business practices should lead to
improved access for both active duty and retired military families.
Within the $134,000,000 recommended for this initiative, the Committee
directs that $85,500,000 be used to provide additional support staff to
primary care providers in the military direct care system, in accordance
with the House-passed authorization legislation.
In addition to these initiatives, by funding the authorized TRICARE
Senior Pharmacy program, the Committee bill would provide all
Medicare-eligible military retirees with access to prescription drugs
through various access points, including the national mail order
pharmacy; network and out-of-network pharmacies; and military
pharmacies. As a consequence, this should alleviate the disparity in
benefit between those military retirees over the age of 65 who have
access to pharmaceuticals because they have access to a military
treatment facility (or one that was recently closed), and those who do
not.
TRANSFER OF DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM FUNDS
The Committee directs that any funding made available for the Defense
Health Program, as well as any other Department of Defense activity,
shall not be transferred to another agency pursuant to Section 109 of
Public Law 103 317 unless a prior approval reprogramming for any such
transfer has been submitted to and approved by the congressional defense
committees.
ANTHRAX VACCINE PROGRAM
The Committee concurs with the findings of the Institute of Medicine
interim report on the anthrax vaccine and directs the Secretary of
Defense to: immediately submit all relevant research on the safety and
efficacy of the anthrax vaccine to peer-reviewed scientific journals for
publication; make this research available to the general public through
the AVIP website; and establish a statistically significant active
long-term monitoring program to document the relative safety of the
vaccine. The Committee is also concerned by continuing financial
difficulties and irregularities identified by the Inspector General and
the Defense Contract Audit Agency and directs the Department to
expeditiously implement adequate accounting measures.
The Committee is concerned by reports that the Department may seek
additional extraordinary contractual relief, beyond the $24.1 million
granted in 1999. The risk exposure of the Government as the principal
creditor is already at a maximum level and the contractor already
pledged all of its property, plant and equipment as collateral when
contractual relief was granted. Therefore the Secretary is directed to
notify the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed
Services 30 days prior to seeking further extraordinary contractual
relief under P.L. 85 804.
The Committee supports the ongoing work by the US Army Medical
Research Institute of Infectious Diseases to develop a second generation
anthrax vaccine that promises to be significantly more effective and
induce fewer adverse reactions. Accordingly, within available funds, the
Committee directs that $1 million be made available only to accelerate
the development of this vaccine. The Department is directed to report to
the Committee on Appropriations, by December 30, 2000, on its plans to
significantly accelerate the availability of this new vaccine as well as
any additional unfunded requirement associated with this goal.
CHIROPRACTIC DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
The Committee endorses the recently concluded Department study that
demonstrated that chiropractic care resulted in higher levels of patient
satisfaction, superior outcomes, fewer hospital stays, and an increase
in readiness due to a large reduction in lost duty days. The Committee
accepts the cost analysis of the Oversight Advisory Committee, and
concludes that the integration of chiropractic care on a direct access
and full scope of services basis will increase readiness and retention
and produce a net dollar savings for the Department.
CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, ARMY
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,029,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,003,500,000
Committee recommendation 927,100,000
Change from budget request -76,400,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Army requested $1,003,500,000 for Chemical Agents and Munitions
Destruction, Army. The Committee recommends $927,100,000, a decrease of
$76,400,000. The Committee directs that none of the reduction may be
applied against the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following
in fiscal year 2001:
[In Thousands of dollars]
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
xlChem Agents & Munitions Destruction, Army: 607,200 607,200 0
---------------- ----------------------- ---------------------
Total, Chem Agents & Munitions Destruction, Army 1,003,500 927,100 -76,400
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $847,800,000
Fiscal year 2001 request 836,300,000
Committee recommendation 812,200,000
Change from the budget request -24,100,000
This appropriation provides funds for Military Personnel; Operation
and Maintenance; Procurement; and Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the
Department of Defense.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Department of Defense requested $836,300,000 for Drug
Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities. The Committee recommends
$812,200,000, a reduction of $24,100,000.
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
Caper Focus +6,000
Puerto Rico ROTHR security +1,200
Southwest Border Fence +6,000
Southwest Border States Information System +6,000
Multi-Jurisdictional Counter-drug Task Force +4,000
Lake County HIDTA +1,000
Appalachian HIDTA +3,600
National Interagency Civil-Military Institute +2,000
Tethered Aerostat +10,000
National Counter-narcotics Training Center (Hammer) +4,000
Young Marines +1,500
Air National Guard Fighter Operations -5,000
Special Operations Forces Patrol Coastal -3,000
GBEGO-Mexico -3,000
Carribean support -3,000
T-AGOS Support -14,000
DoD Support to Plan Colombia -41,400
DOD SUPPORT TO PLAN COLOMBIA
The budget request included $41,400,000 for Department of Defense
Support to Plan Colombia. The Committee supports the Department's
participation in Plan Colombia and recommended funding the fiscal year
2001 request in the Fiscal Year 2000 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations bill (H.R. 3908) which passed the House on March 30,
2000.
Tethered Aerostat Radar System
The budget request included $32,089,000 to operate and modernize the
Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS). The Committee recommends
$42,089,000, an increase of $10,000,000. The Committee has also
recommended additional funding for TARS operations under Air Force
Operation and maintenance as discussed elsewhere in this report.
The US Customs Service, the North American Aerospace Defense Command,
and the US Southern Command share the joint requirement for critical
low-altitude radar surveillance of the Caribbean, the Gulf coast and
Southwestern approaches into US High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas.
The Committee is aware that the US Customs Service and the US Air Force
have differing views on the TARS operation and modernization program
which is the responsibility of the Air Force.
The Committee, therefore, directs that DD Form 1414 designate the
total amount of funds in all Department of Defense appropriations for
the operation and upgrade of the Tethered Aerostat Radar System as an
item of special Congressional interest and restricts obligation of funds
to no more that 50 percent of the amount provided in this act until the
following report and joint certification have been submitted.
The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
the Treasury to submit a report to the congressional defense committees
on the status of the Tethered Aerostat Radar System, and to jointly
certify that (1) the President's Budget for fiscal year 2002 and the
accompanying five year budget plan fully meet the operational and
modernization requirements of the US Customs Service, the US Southern
Command, and the North American Defense Command for counter-drug and
continental air defense missions and (2) the management responsibility
and corresponding funding have been allocated to the Department of
Defense and to the Department of the Treasury in a manner which best
facilitates the mission-effectiveness of the system.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $137,544,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 147,545,000
Committee recommendation 147,545,000
Change from budget request
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $147,545,000 for the
Office of the Inspector General, the amount proposed in the budget. The
recommendation is an increase of $10,001,000 above the amount
appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
TITLE VII
RELATED AGENCIES
NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
The National Foreign Intelligence Program consists of those
intelligence activities of the government which provide the President,
other officers of the Executive Branch, and the Congress with national
foreign intelligence on broad strategic concerns bearing on U.S.
national security. These concerns are stated by the National Security
Council in the form of long-range and short-range requirements for the
principal users of intelligence.
The National Foreign Intelligence Program budget funded in the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act consists primarily of resources
for the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency,
National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, National
Imagery and Mapping Agency, intelligence services of the Departments of
the Army, Navy and Air Force, Intelligence Community Management Staff,
and the CIA Retirement and Disability System Fund.
Classified Annex
Because of the highly sensitive nature of intelligence programs, the
results of the Committee's budget review are published in a separate,
detailed and comprehensive classified annex. The intelligence community,
Department of Defense and other organizations are expected to fully
comply with the recommendations and directions in the classified annex
accompanying the fiscal year 2001 Defense Appropriations bill.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM FUND
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $209,100,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 216,000,000
Committee recommendation 216,000,000
Change from budget request ..............
This appropriation provides payments of benefits to qualified
beneficiaries in accordance with the Central Intelligence Agency
Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees (P.L. 88 643). This statute
authorized the establishment of a CIA Retirement and Disability System
(CIARDS) for a limited number of CIA employees and authorized the
establishment and maintenance of a fund from which benefits would be
paid to those beneficiaries.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $216,000,000 for the Central Intelligence
Agency Retirement and Disability Systems Fund (CIARDS). The
recommendation is the same as the budget request and $6,900,000 above
the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $158,015,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 137,631,000
Committee recommendation 224,181,000
Change from budget request +86,550,000
This appropriation provides funds for the activities that support the
Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) and the Intelligence Community.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The budget included a request of $137,631,000 for the Intelligence
Community Management Account. The Committee recommends $224,181,000, an
increase of $86,550,000 above the request and $66,166,000 above the
amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000. Of the amount appropriated
under this heading, $33,100,000 is for transfer to the Department of
Justice for operations at the National Drug Intelligence Center. Details
of adjustments to this account are included in the classfied annex
accompanying this report.
PAYMENT TO KAHO'OLAWE ISLAND CONVEYANCE, REMEDIATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION FUND
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $35,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 25,000,000
Committee recommendation 25,000,000
Change from budget request
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000 for the
Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental
Restoration Fund, the amount proposed in the budget. The recommendation
is a decrease of $10,000,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal
year 2000.
NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION TRUST FUND
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $8,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 6,950,000
Committee recommendation 6,950,000
Change from budget request
The National Security Education Trust Fund was established to provide
scholarships and fellowships to U.S. students to pursue higher education
studies abroad and grants to U.S. institutions for programs of study in
foreign areas and languages.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $6,950,000 for the National Security
Education Trust Fund. The recommendation is the same as the budget
request and $1,050,000 less than the amount appropriated in fiscal year
2000.
TITLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The accompanying bill includes 118 general provisions. Most of these
provisions were included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act
for fiscal year 2000 and many have been included in the Defense
Appropriations Act for a number of years.
Actions taken by the Committee to amend last year's provisions or new
provisions recommended by the Committee are discussed below or in the
applicable section of the report.
DEFINITION OF PROGRAM, PROJECT AND ACTIVITY
For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985 (Public Law 99 177) as amended by the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100 119)
and by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (Public Law 101 508), the
following information provides the definitions of the term ``program,
project, and activity'' for appropriations contained in the Department
of Defense Appropriations Act. The term ``program, project, and
activity'' shall include the most specific level of budget items,
identified in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2001, the
accompanying House and Senate Committee reports, the conference report
and the accompanying joint explanatory statement of the managers of the
Committee on Conference, the related classified reports, and the P 1 and
R 1 budget justification documents as subsequently modified by
Congressional action.
In carrying out any Presidential sequestration, the Department of
Defense and agencies shall conform to the definition for ``program,
project, and activity'' set forth above with the following exception:
For Military Personnel and Operation and Maintenance accounts the
term ``program, project, and activity'' is defined as the appropriations
accounts contained in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act.
The Department and agencies should carry forth the Presidential
sequestration order in a manner that would not adversely affect or alter
Congressional policies and priorities established for the Department of
Defense and the related agencies and no program, project, and activity
should be eliminated or be reduced to a level of funding which would
adversely affect the Department's ability to effectively continue any
program, project, and activity.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The following items are included in accordance with various
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives:
CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the following statements are submitted describing the
effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which directly or
indirectly change the application of existing law.
Language is included in various parts of the bill to continue
on-going activities which require annual authorization or additional
legislation, which to date has not been enacted.
The bill includes a number of provisions which place limitations on
the use of funds in the bill or change existing limitations and which
might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing the
application of existing law.
The bill includes a number of provisions, which have been virtually
unchanged for many years, that are technically considered legislation.
The bill provides that appropriations shall remain available for more
than one year for some programs for which the basic authorizing
legislation does not presently authorize each extended availability.
In various places in the bill, the Committee has earmarked funds
within appropriation accounts in order to fund specific programs and has
adjusted some existing earmarking.
Those additional changes in the fiscal year 2001 bill, which might be
interpreted as changing existing law, are as follows:
Appropriations Language
Language has been amended in ``Operation and Maintenance, Army''
which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary
expenses, and the amount provided for transfer to the National Park
Service for infrastructure repair improvements at Fort Baker. Language
has been deleted concerning recovery of costs associated with
environmental restoration at government-owned, contractor-operated
facilities; for demolition and removal of Military Traffic Management
Command facilities; and concerning the transfer of funds to the
Presidential Commission on Holocaust Assets.
Language has been amended in ``Operation and Maintenance, Navy''
which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary
expenses.
Language has been amended in ``Operation and Maintenance, Air Force''
which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary
expenses; and which changes the amount earmarked for the William Lehman
Aviation Center.
Language has been amended in ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide'' which changes the amount available for emergency and
extraordinary expenses; changes the amount earmarked for security locks,
and changes the amount that the Secretary of Defense may transfer to
other accounts in this bill for purposes of classified activities.
Language has also been deleted concerning funds for intelligence
activities.
Language has been amended in ``Overseas Contingency Operations
Transfer Fund'' which allows for additional transfer authority to the
military personnel, procurement, and research, development, test and
evaluation accounts.
Language has been deleted in ``Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction''
which earmarked $25,000,000 for dismantling and disposal of nuclear
submarines.
Language has been included in ``Aircraft Procurement, Army'' which
earmarks funds for Army Reserve UH 60 aircraft.
Language has been amended in ``Other Procurement, Army'' which
changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement, and the
number of vehicles required for physical security of personnel.
Language has been deleted in ``Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy''
concerning specific program-level appropriations; and incremental
funding authority for the LHD 1 Amphibious Assault Ship.
Language has been amended in ``Other Procurement, Navy'' which
changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement; adds
language for the procurement of a passenger vehicle required for
physical security of personnel, and limits the purchase cost of the
vehicle.
Language has been amended in ``Procurement, Marine Corps'' which
changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement.
Language has been amended in ``Other Procurement, Air Force'' which
changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement; adds
language for the procurement of a passenger vehicle required for the
physical security of personnel, and limits the purchase cost of the
vehicle.
Language has been amended in ``Procurement, Defense-Wide'' which
changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement and the
number of passenger vehicles required for physical security of
personnel; and deletes language providing funds for electronic commerce
resource centers.
The appropriations paragraph for the ``National Guard and Reserve
Equipment'' account has been deleted which provided funds for Guard and
Reserve equipment.
Language has been deleted in ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Navy'' concerning Intercooled Recuperated Gas Turbine engine
technology.
Language has been amended in ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Air Force'' prohibiting the development of an ejection seat
for the Joint Strike Fighter other than that which is under development
in the Joint Ejection Seat Program.
Language has been deleted in ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Defense-Wide'' which earmarks funds for ballistic missile
defense programs.
The appropriations paragraph for ``Developmental Test and Evaluation,
Defense'' has been deleted which provided funds for the Director, Test
and Evaluation.
Language has been included in ``Operational Test and Evaluation,
Defense'' which makes funds available for the Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation to develop policy guidance and conduct other
oversight functions.
Language has been amended in ``Defense Working Capital Funds'' which
changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement.
Language has been included in ``Defense Health Program'' which
earmarks $10,000,000 for HIV educational activities undertaken in
connection with U.S. military training conducted in African nations.
Language has been deleted in ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense'' which earmarks funds for transfer to ``Military
Construction, Air Force'' in support of the U.S. Southern Command.
Language has been amended in ``Intelligence Community Management
Account'' which transfers $33,100,000 to the Department of Justice.
General Provisions
Section 8005 has been amended which increases the level of general
transfer authority for the Department of Defense.
Section 8008 has been amended to delete language providing multi-year
procurement authority for Longbow Apache, the Javelin missile, F/A 18
E/F, C 17 and F 16; and adds multi-year authority for Bradley fighting
vehicles, DDG 51 destroyers, UH 60 and CH 60 aircraft.
Section 8017 has been amended with regard to applicability to persons
with disabilities.
Section 8031 has been amended to change the number of staff years
that may be funded for defense studies and analysis by Federally Funded
Research and Development Centers.
Section 8053 has been amended to delete language earmarking funds for
a building demolition project.
Section 8054 has been amended to include language which rescinds
funds from the following programs:
(Rescissions)
Revised Economic Estimates:
2000 Appropriations:
Aircraft Procurement, Army: Inflation Savings $7,000,000
Missile Procurement, Army: Inflation Savings 6,000,000
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army: Inflation Savings 7,000,000
Procurement of Ammunition, Army: Inflation Savings 5,000,000
Other Procurement, Army: Inflation Savings 16,000,000
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force: Inflation Savings 32,700,000
Missile Procurement, Air Force: Inflation Savings 5,500,000
Other Procurement, Air Force: Inflation Savings 6,400,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army: Inflation Savings 19,000,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force: Inflation Savings 42,000,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide: Inflation Savings 33,900,000
Program-specific Reductions:
1998 Appropriations:
Under the heading, Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy: SSN 21 attack submarine program 74,000,000
1999 Appropriations:
Other Procurement, Army: R2000 Engine Flush System 3,000,000
Weapons Procurement, Navy: Tomahawk 22,000,000
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force: JSTARS (Contract savings) 12,300,000
Missile Procurement, Air Force: CALCM (Contract Savings) 20,000,000
Other Procurement, Air Force: RAPCON (Restructuring program) 8,000,000
2000 Appropriations:
Missile Procurement, Army: Javelin (Schedule slip) 150,000,000
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army: Command and Control Vehicle (Termination) 60,000,000
Other Procurement, Army: SMART T (Schedule slip) 29,000,000
Aircraft Procurement, Navy: F/A 18 E/F cost savings 6,500,000
Missile Procurement, Air Force: AMRAAM (Budget error) 6,192,000
Other Procurement, Air Force:
SMART T (Schedule slip)
12,000,000
RAPCON (Restructuring program)
2,000,000
DCGS Communications Segment Upgrade
6,000,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army:
WRAP (Unobligated balance)
10,000,000
Breacher (Program terminated)
42,000,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force: C 130 (Schedule slip) 30,000,000
Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Fund: Unused Balance 17,000,000
Section 8058 has been amended to substitute the phrase ``Combatant
Commands'' in place of ``Unified and Specified Commands'' concerning
reimbursement for Reserve Intelligence Personnel.
Section 8060 has been amended to delete language concerning secure
secretarial offices, support facilities, and the subway entrance to the
Pentagon.
Section 8085 has been included which reduces funds available for
several operation and maintenance accounts by $800,000,000 to reflect
working capital fund cash balance and rate stabilization adjustments.
Section 8087 has been amended to delete language concerning foreign
built cranes, and to add language modifying Buy American requirements.
Section 8089 has been amended to add language to reassess the
structure and content of the managed care support contract program.
Section 8092 has been amended which reduces funds available for
military personnel and operation and maintenance accounts by a total of
$537,600,000 due to favorable foreign currency fluctuations.
Section 8094 has been amended to revise the amounts earmarked to
maintain a total inventory of 94 B 52 aircraft.
Section 8095 has been amended to delete language requiring a DOD
Inspector General report on funding for the maintenance of flag officer
quarters.
Section 8096 has been amended to delete language which prohibited the
obligation of funds for the Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank program, and deletes
funds earmarked for the Air Directed Surface to Air Missile.
Section 8099 has been amended to revise the limitation on expenditure
of funds for information technology systems and to make the provision
applicable to the current fiscal year.
Section 8104 has been amended to provide $5,000,000 to evaluate a
standards and performance based academic model at DoD schools.
Section 8106 has been amended which requires the Secretary of Defense
to report by March 15, 2001 on health care contract liabilities.
Section 8107 has been included which supports civil requirements
associated with the Global Positioning System.
Section 8108 has been included which makes $115,000,000 of the funds
available in ``Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide'' available until
expended, and allows the Secretary of Defense to transfer such funds to
other federal activities.
Section 8109 has been included which reduces funds available for
military personnel and operation and maintenance accounts by a total of
$463,400,000 due to balances available in the ``Foreign Currency
Fluctuation, Defense'' account.
Section 8110 has been included which prohibits funds for aircraft
modifications until the Secretary of the Air Force submits a report on
Air National Guard F 16 aircraft.
Section 8111 has been included which requires a report on
work-related illnesses resulting from exposure to beryllium or beryllium
alloys.
Section 8112 has been included which earmarks funds from ``Operation
and Maintenance, Army'' for security enhancements to the heliport which
supports the National Training Center.
Section 8113 has been included which extends the authority for an
equipment center demonstration program.
Section 8114 has been included, which transfers $15,000,000
appropriated in fiscal year 2000 under ``Research, Development, Test and
Evaluation, Army'' for the Grizzly breacher mineclearing program to
``Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'' for
Wolverine heavy assault bridge program; and directs the Army to obligate
$97,000,000 from within available fiscal year 2000 funds for
``Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army'' for the
procurement of Wolverine heavy assault bridges.
Section 8115 has been included which makes the obligation of fiscal
year 2001 appropriations for equipment for a second interim brigade
combat team contingent on certain Secretary of Defense and Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation certifications.
Section 8116 has been included which requires completion of certain
testing of the F 22 aircraft prior to low-rate initial production.
Section 8117 has been included which amends existing cost caps for
the F 22 aircraft program.
Section 8118 has been included which requires certain reports on the
Joint Strike Fighter program, and places limitations on the obligation
of funds for the program.
APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the
accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:
Military Personnel, Army
Military Personnel, Navy
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
Military Personnel, Air Force
Reserve Personnel, Army
Reserve Personnel, Navy
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps
Reserve Personnel, Air Force
National Guard Personnel, Army
National Guard Personnel, Air Force
Operation and Maintenance, Army
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Environmental Restoration, Army
Environmental Restoration, Navy
Environmental Restoration, Air Force
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction
Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense
Aircraft Procurement, Army
Missile Procurement, Army
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
Other Procurement, Army
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Weapons Procurement, Navy
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Other Procurement, Navy
Procurement, Marine Corps
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Missile Procurement, Air Force
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
Other Procurement, Air Force
Procurement, Defense-Wide
Defense Production Act Purchases
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
Defense Working Capital Funds
National Defense Sealift Fund
Defense Health Program
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense
Office of the Inspector General
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund
Intelligence Community Management Account
Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and
Environmental Restoration Fund
National Security Education Trust Fund
Sec. 8104.
Sec. 8022.
TRANSFER OF FUNDS
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer of
funds provided in the accompanying bill.
The following table shows the appropriation affected by the transfers:
Appropriations to which transfer is made Amount Appropriations from which transfer is made Amount
Operation and maintenance, Army $50,000,000 National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund $150,000,000
Operation and maintenance, Navy 50,000,000
Operation and maintenance, Air Force 50,000,000
Intelligence Community Management Account 33,100,000 Dept. of Justice National Drug Intelligence Center 33,100,000
Transfers
Language has been included in ``Operation and Maintenance, Army'',
which provides for the transfer of $6,000,000 to the ``National Park
Service'' for improvements at Fort Baker.
Language has been included in ``Operation and Maintenance,
Defense-Wide'', which provides for the transfer of $10,000,000 to
certain classified activities.
Language has been included in ``Overseas Contingency Operations
Transfer Fund'', which provides for the transfer of funds out of this
account to other appropriation accounts.
Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, Army'',
which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account.
Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, Navy'',
which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account.
Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, Air
Force'', which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this
account.
Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration,
Defense-Wide'', which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into
this account.
Language has been included in ``Environmental Restoration, Formerly
Used Defense Sites'', which provides for the transfer of funds out of
and into this account.
Language has been included in ``Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug
Activities, Defense'', which transfers funds to other appropriations
accounts of the Department of Defense.
Ten provisions (Sections 8005, 8006, 8015, 8037, 8040, 8060, 8062,
8075, 8108, and 8114) contain language which allows transfers of funds
between accounts.
RESCISSIONS
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the
rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill:
Under the heading, Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1998/2002: SSN 21 attack submarine program $74,000,000
Other Procurement, Army 1999/2001 3,000,000
Weapons Procurement, Navy 1999/2001 22,000,000
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 1999/2001 12,300,000
Missile Procurement, Air Force 1999/2001 20,000,000
Other Procurement, Air Force 1999/2001 8,000,000
Aircraft Procurement, Army 2000/2002 7,000,000
Missile Procurement, Army 2000/2002 156,000,000
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army 2000/2002 67,000,000
Procurement of Ammunition, Army 2000/2002 5,000,000
Other Procurement, Army 2000/2002 45,000,000
Aircraft Procurement, Navy 2000/2002 6,500,000
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 2000/2002 32,700,000
Missile Procurement, Air Force 2000/2002 11,692,000
Other Procurement, Air Force 2000/2002 26,400,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army 2000/2001 71,000,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force 2000/2001 72,000,000
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide 2000/2001 33,900,000
Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Fund 17,000,000
COMPLIANCE WITH CLAUSE 3 OF RULE XIII (RAMSEYER RULE)
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 (new matter is printed in italics and
existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
section 8093 of the department of defense appropriations act, 2000
Sec. 8093. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise provided for the
Department of Defense in this or any other Act for any fiscal year may
be obligated or expended for design, manufacture, or procurement of a
nuclear-capable shipyard crane from a foreign source. Subsection (a)
does not apply to the limitation in the preceding sentence.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the rules of the House of
Representatives states that:
Each report of a committee on a bill or joint
resolution of a public character, shall include a statement
citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the
Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint
resolution.
The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report this
legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution
of the United States of America which states:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of Appropriations made by law . . .
Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this
specific power granted by the Constitution.
COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section
308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of
1974 (Public Law 93 344), as amended, which requires that the report
accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement
detailing how that authority compares with the reports submitted under
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from the Committee's
section 302(a) allocation.
[In millions of dollars]
302(b) allocation-- This bill--\*\
Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays
Discretionary 288,414 279,025 288,297 277,094
Mandatory 216 216 216 216
\*\Excludes scoring of the House-passed FY 2000 supplemental bill, which would increase budget authority by $113 million and increase outlays by $75 million.
FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS
In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget
and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93 344), as amended, the
following table contains five-year projections associated with the
budget authority provided in the accompanying bill.
[In millions of dollars]
Budget Authority in bill 288,513
2001 188,232
2002 59,380
2003 21,716
2004 9,045
2005 9,011
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget
and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93 344), as amended, no
new budget or outlays are provided by the accompanying bill for
financial assistance to State and local governments.
FULL COMMITTEE VOTES
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on
an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of
those voting for and those voting against, are printed below:
There were no recorded votes.
[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]
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
Often of the job of this Committee is to ask questions and to
question assumptions. That is especially true in a world of limited
financial resources. Last year the Committee produced a provocative
Defense bill which challenged many assumptions underlying defense budget
policy, particularly regarding tactical fighter aircraft and in
particular whether the F 22 aircraft was ready for production. This
year's bill is a disappointing return to a more business-as-usual
approach. In the context of the Congressional Republican leadership's
budget resolution, which proposes to increase defense but decimate the
operation of many other Federal agencies, this bill is not one that I
can support in its present form.
UNREASONABLE FUNDING LEVELS
The President's budget proposed a hefty increase of $15.8 billion, or
5.9 percent, over the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level for the
Department of Defense. This was done to pay for the President's military
pay raise and to meet his commitment of achieving a $60 billion annual
procurement level. But his budget balanced this hefty increase with
increases for education, national parks, law enforcement, health and
safety, environmental protection and other important non-Defense
programs. The Congressional leadership abandoned that balance in its
Budget Resolution by increasing the President's 5.9 percent increase for
defense programs funded in this bill by another $4 billion, by giving
away $175 billion over five years in tax cuts, and by making it all
appear to add up by cutting non-defense discretionary programs by $125
million below inflation over the next five years. The folly of this
approach becomes more clear with the passage of each domestic
appropriations bill that conforms to the budget resolution. That is
demonstrated vividly in the Legislative Appropriations bill which
proposes to dramatically reduce the number of Capitol police--an
inappropriate response to the well-documented need or increased security
to the public and for protection of the Capitol police force highlighted
by the tragic and senseless murder of two American heroes last year. It
is also demonstrated by the fact that Presidential initiatives to
strengthen education, health care, worker training, and science are
being eviscerated.
Adding $4 billion in the defense bill, beyond the hefty $15.8 billion
increase proposed by the President, appears very much to be a case of
political one-upmanship.
The President's budget fully funded the President's military pay
raise and met his commitment to an annual procurement level of $60
billion. It proposes significant growth in the number of F/A 18E/F, F
22, V 22, E 2, and KC 130J aircraft, fully funds the New Attack
Submarine and an aircraft carrier, and increases many other smaller
procurement and research programs. While Committee increases in other
programs will have positive effects within the Department of Defense,
many of them will not result in a near-term improvement in combat
readiness or enhance the near-term performance of any troops during
combat. In the context of the Republican leadership's budget resolution,
the Committee needs to take a more disciplined approach.
Reform
Last year, the Committee sent a strong message to the Pentagon in a
bipartisan and unanimous fashion that it is time to reorient its
spending priorities to meet a broader array of military budget
requirements in the 21st century. This means: (1) paying attention to
so-called ``asymmetrical'' threats like chemical and biological
terrorism, information warfare, smaller scale urban warfare, and cruise
missile defense and (2) bolstering conventional military capabilities
like airlift, sealift, electronic jamming, intelligence and
surveillance, and communications. Although the Committee includes a $150
million initiative for hacker-defense of DOD computer systems in this
bill, it is the lone example of where the Committee made any
follow-through on the priorities it set last year.
This Congress continues to dodge significant attempts at reform to
cut out wasteful military spending that everyone knows is widely
prevalent. The authorizing committees have again ignored the Secretary
of Defense's recommendation to conduct additional rounds of base
closures that ultimately could save the government over $20 billion. The
Congress has apparently grown comfortable with the status quo--operating
military bases that the Defense Department readily admits add little or
nothing to our national security.
Each year the General Accounting Office conducts studies which
indicate that many other opportunities exist for large military savings
through improved management. During the last year, the General
Accounting Office has reported that:
Material financial management deficiencies
identified at DOD, taken together, represent the single
largest obstacle that must be effectively addressed to achieve
an unqualified opinion on the U.S. government's consolidated
financial statements. DOD's vast operations (an estimated $1
trillion in assets, nearly $1 trillion in reported
liabilities, and a reported net cost of operations of $378
billion in fiscal year 1999) have a tremendous impact on the
government's consolidated reporting. To date, no major part of
DOD has yet been able to pass the test of an independent
audit. The lack of key controls and information not only
hampers DOD's ability to produce credible financial
statements, but impairs efforts to improve the economy and
efficiency of its operations.
For fiscal years 1996 1998, the Navy reported that
it had lost $3 billion of intransit inventory, including some
classified and sensitive items such as aircraft guided-missile
launchers, military night vision devices, and communications
equipment.
In the five years between fiscal years 1994 and
1998, defense contractors returned about $4.6 billion in
overpayments from the Department of Defense.
The Defense Department does not need an additional $4 billion above
the increase the President proposed. It could generate an equivalent
amount of buying power if it would simply reform some of its fundamental
management systems. Unfortunately, there are no initiatives in the
Committee's bill to facilitate that objective, and we continue to throw
good money after bad.
Tactical Aviation Programs
For too long, the Pentagon has resisted calls to restructure its
hyper-expensive tactical aircraft procurement plan to buy three separate
types of tactical aircraft costing in excess of $300 billion, even
though the traditional Cold War threats for which they were designed
have dissipated and new non-conventional threats are emerging. Last
year, the Committee made this issue a priority in its deliberations and
recommendations. A key point the Committee raised is whether or not the
threat will emerge which justifies this level of investment and in
particular whether it warrants production of the F 22 aircraft.
This bill largely returns to business-as-usual by essentially
``rubber-stamping'' the Pentagon's tactical aircraft program, and by
so-doing it ignores the key strategic policy question concerning the
future of defense tactical aircraft. The Committee's bill provides
growth in the Navy's F 18 program, allows the F 22 to enter production
even though it is not ready, and allows the Joint Strike Fighter to
enter a more advanced phase of
development whose cost is estimated to be about $20 billion
despite warnings from the General Accounting Office that this is
premature. The combination of these actions results in a contractual
quagmire from which the Pentagon and Congress will not be able to
extricate themselves. No new information has been found which suggests
that the threat to American tactical aviation is more formidable or
credible than a year ago.
f 22
This bill approves the budget request of almost $4 billion for the F
22 program in fiscal year 2001, of which $1.4 billion is for continued
development and testing and $2.1 billion is for production of 10
aircraft. During the past year the Congress has discovered that: (1) F
22 flight testing has not been conducted to the extent planned or
required; (2) static and fatigue testing are more than a year behind
schedule; (3) the Office of the Secretary of Defense estimates that F 22
production costs will be approximately $1 billion more than the Air
Force has budgeted per year ; and (4) the cost of the development
program continues to increase rather than stabilize.
The cost of the F 22 development program has doubled since 1985 to
$24 billion, and only 15 percent of the testing program has been
accomplished since the engineering manufacturing development program
began in 1991. Nevertheless, the Committee has approved the request of
$2.1 billion for F 22 production--without question.
The conference agreement last year on the F 22 aircraft prohibits a
production decision until the so-called ``block 3'' software is flight
rested in an actual F 22 aircraft (rather than in a surrogate test
aircraft). That testing is not scheduled to occur until the fall of next
year, at the earliest. It should be noted that the Air Force has to only
conduct a single flight test of the block 3 software to meet the
Congressional requirements and to allow the program to enter low rate
initial production. However, many flight test months are actually
required to determine with fidelity whether or not the software actually
works. The taxpayer should have some reasonable confidence that the
aircraft and its software actually works , prior to entering into
billions of dollars of production contracts; in this regard, the program
is no closer to being ready to enter into production than a year ago,
and may in fact be worse off. Three caution-flags have been raised on
this program that the Committee has chosen to ignore.
(1) The Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
testified before Congress this year and provided strong warnings that
the program continues to be in trouble. He noted that the F 22 test
program is proceeding much more slowly than in previous aircraft
development programs, and even these lagging testing schedules continue
to slip over time. Over the past three years, the F 22 has lost 49
flight test months that could have been available for testing--a
reduction of 20 percent in the available flight test months from
original plans.
To accommodate the loss of test time and to reduce test costs, the
Air Force has reduced flight test hours by 13 percent (580 flight test
hours). He testified in March:
Basically, not enough of the test program has been
completed to know whether or not significant development
problems remain to be corrected.
His testimony also revealed that the current test program does not
include any operational testing under adverse environmental conditions,
especially in rain and cold weather; the flight test aircraft cannot be
flown near thunderstorms to identify potential rain-induced problems or
to gather data on static discharge impact on the aircraft, a continuing
B 2 problem. Effective fire-suppression is mandatory to achieve a
survivable aircraft design, yet the Air Force now knows that the
aircraft's vulnerable area is 30 percent higher than the specification
calls for.
(2) The Committee's own Surveys and Investigations staff reported in
March 2000 that the decision to enter production in December 2000 is
premature. Fatigue-life testing and avionics testing are the two highest
risk areas in the program. Delaying the production decision would
significantly reduce the impact of those risks on the program while
concurrently providing more robust testing of the block 3 software. It
recommended to the Committee that the production decision not be made
until the third fatigue life test is completed, currently scheduled for
December 2001 (fiscal year 2002).
If the Committee had heeded these concerns, it would have eliminated
all F 22 production funds from this bill and saved $2.1 billion, while
also holding the Air Force's ``feet to the fire'' to ensure that it was
building aircraft that work.
(3) The General Accounting Office recently recommended that, in order
to meet industrial base concerns, the F 22 low rate production should
begin at no more than 6 aircraft per year until development and initial
operational test and evaluation are complete. This would allow the
program to avoid significantly expanding production capacity until after
operational
testing demonstrates the aircraft is suitable for its intended
mission. The risks of doing otherwise are: buying systems that will
require significant and costly modifications to achieve satisfactory
performance; accepting less capable systems than planned; or deploying
substandard systems to combat forces.
Had the Committee followed this modest recommendation, it could have
eliminated 4 aircraft and saved $828 million in just this year alone.
It is highly troubling that the Committee would approve $2.1 billion
for production of 10 F 22 aircraft in fiscal year 2001 given the strong
and clear warnings from three separate and credible organizations that
prove the program is not ready to go into production. This might be
understandable if F 22 were an isolated and unique anomaly in the Air
Force acquisition system, or if the threat were compelling. We know this
is not the case.
The only major weapon system the Air Force has delivered below cost
and on time during the last 20 years was its then-highly touted B 1
bomber program. The Air Force rushed into production for political
reasons, and got a fleet of aircraft whose performance defects were so
severe that the aircraft now have limited utility in combat because they
cannot adequately protect themselves.
The Air Force spent $4 billion on development of the Tri-Service
Standoff Attack Missile, which was subsequently terminated due to poor
cost, schedule, management, and performance issues.
The C 17 was estimated to cost about $42 billion for 210 aircraft,
but is now estimated to cost about $45 billion for only 134 aircraft.
The B 2 development contract more than doubled from its initial
target value of $9.4 billion to $21.1 billion currently.
Given the fact that the F 22 is clearly not ready to enter into
production, in the context of the Air Force's very poor track record of
developing its major weapon systems at the times or costs promised, it
is disturbing that the Committee would put $2.1 billion at risk by
allowing F 22 production to go forward at this time. The nation would be
better served by investing this $2.1 billion in education, law
enforcement, the environment, or other efforts to meet our international
responsibilities and allowing the F 22 technology to mature before we
spend really big money on it.
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
The Joint Strike Fighter, if carried to fruition as currently
envisioned by the Department of Defense, will be the largest program in
the Pentagon's weapons-purchasing plan for the next 20 years and perhaps
in history. The cost of developing and building almost 3,000 aircraft
could be over $200 billion.
In the early 1990s the Air Force testified that the cost goal for the
F 22 in constant dollars of that era was $35 million each. We now know
that the current estimated unit cost for the F 22 in real taxpayer
dollars is $113 million, which still is based on very optimistic
assumptions. This is almost double what today's F 15 aircraft cost.
The Joint Strike Fighter is in the same position as the F 22 was a
decade ago, and the Department of Defense is selling the program to
Congress on the assumption that unit costs will be around between $28 to
$38 million in constant dollars. The F 22 experience makes it hard to
believe such preliminary Joint Strike Fighter unit cost estimates. If
the unit costs are off, then the program could cost much more than $200
billion!
The fiscal year 2001 budget for the Joint Strike Fighter was premised
on ending the on-going $3 billion concept demonstration phase of the
program later this year and initiating the next phase of development
known as engineering manufacturing development on March 1, 2001 at a
currently estimated cost of about $20 billion. The Committee recommends
a three month delay (to June 1), but also allows engineering
manufacturing development to commence once certain reporting
requirements have been met.
The General Accounting Office issued a report on the Joint Strike
Fighter in May 200 which states:
Once the development phase beings, a large, fixed
investment in the form of human capital, facilities, and
materials is sunk into the program and any significant changes
will have a large, rippling effect on cost and schedule.
Beginning the engineering manufacturing development phase when
critical technologies are at a low level of maturity serves to
significantly increase program risk and the likelihood of
schedule delays, which in turn result in increased program
costs . . . When the competing contractors experienced design
problems and cost overruns, DOD restructured the program in a
manner that will provide less information than originally
planned prior to selecting between the two competing
contractors. Specifically, the program restructure moves away
from best commercial practices that were evident in the
original strategy, where technology was being developed ahead
of product. Instead, DOD's approach moves toward the
traditional practice of concurrently developing technologies
and products, which often raised cost-benefit issues as a
result of cost increases and schedule
delays as problems are encountered in technology development .
. . We make a recommendation that the Joint Strike Fighter program
office adjust its currently planned engineering and manufacturing
decision date of March 2001 to allow adequate time to mature critical
technologies to acceptable maturity levels before awarding the
engineering and manufacturing development contract.
The Committee is to be congratulated for a thoughtful recommendation
in this bill to delay engineering manufacturing development of the Joint
Strike Fighter by three months. However, the fiscally prudent course
would be to eliminate the remaining $295 million in the bill for fiscal
year 2001 Joint Strike Fighter engineering manufacturing development,
and to demand that the Department of Defense demonstrate that it has a
good understanding of the results of the $3 billion concept
demonstration program that is about to conclude, ensure that the best
acquisition strategy is in place to ensure future competition within the
aircraft industrial base, and respond to the common-sense concerns of
the General Accounting Office. Here again, the Committee has missed an
opportunity to save $295 million and apply these funds to more urgent
requirements at home and abroad.
NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE
The Committee's bill recommends $1.8 billion for national missile
defense. During the past few years the Congress had a very narrow focus
on only the technology issue: ``Does it work and how soon can we deploy
it?'' The Administration, in its upcoming negotiations with Russia, is
addressing national missile defense and the Anti-Ballistic Missile
treaty in a broader arms-control context aimed potentially at further
reductions to nuclear weapons.
In 1985, the Soviet Union had about 11,500 nuclear warheads--each of
which was estimated to have 20 to 30 times the power of the bomb dropped
on Hiroshima. Today, Russia has about 5,000 such warheads. The Congress
should be encouraging further reductions in global nuclear weapons, and
also examining the need for and timing of national missile defense
within a global arms-control context.
It is disappointing that the Congress in general, and this Committee
in particular, has given the Administration $1.8 billion for national
missile defense--without question. And there are plenty of questions:
Do we have better national security through deploying a limited
national defense system or by globally reducing nuclear weapons?
If we deploy a limited national missile defense system, are we simply
causing China to build more nuclear missiles aimed at our country?
If we deploy a national missile defense system, do we undermine our
ability to keep our allies like Britain, France, or Canada behind us on
other key security issues down the line?
Do our proposed national missile defense interceptors have inherent
anti-satellite capability, and in ``fixing'' the missile defense problem
are we inadvertently creating a global arms race for anti-satellite
weapons?
The Committee should be commended for paying attention to and
providing leadership on tactical aviation issues. But I am wondering why
we have done nothing but ``rubber stamp'' the budget request for
national missile defense? The arms-control issues related to national
missile defense must be adequately addressed eventually. It is my hope
that in the future the Committee and the Congress will focus on them in
a thoughtful way, and that we have a good understanding of the exact
consequences of what we are doing should the nation make the decision to
introduce a new class of weapons--national missile defense
interceptors--into the global inventory of weapons.
SUMMARY
There are many good things in the bill that I support, such as the
pay raise for the troops and improved health care benefits for both
active duty and retired personnel. The 7.4 percent increase to defense
spending proposed in this bill is excessive. If the Republican majority
were not insisting on slashing the President's future domestic requests
for strengthening education, health care, and science in order to
provide huge multiyear tax promises, an additional $4 billion would be
more defensible. But in this context, that is extremely difficult.
Unlike last year, the bill shows little evidence of making major choices
as we did last year with the F 22.
It is politically and economically irresponsible to the people whom
we represent to lead them to believe that our non-defense programs can
sustain huge reductions without threatening public health and safety,
and the economic prosperity on which the future of American families
depends. Our population will continue to grow, our economy and social
structures will continue to evolve and become more complex, and our
responsibilities as the world's economic superpower will be great. That
will require a more balanced effort to address our domestic and
international responsibilities than the Congress has provided in the
Appropriations bills it has produced so far. That should be the priority
for additional funding.
Dave Obey.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
