80-348
2002
107TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Report
[Graphic image not available]
JUNE 25, 2002- Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATI0NS BILL, 2003
80-348
2002
107TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Report
[Graphic image not available]
JUNE 25, 2002- 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
Page
Bill Totals
Accrual Funding of Retirement Costs and Post-Retirement Health Benefits
Committee Budget Review Process
Major Recommendations in the Committee Bill
Committee Recommendations by Major Category
Active Military Personnel
Guard and Reserve
Operation and Maintenance
Procurement
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
Forces to be Supported
Department of the Army
Department of the Navy
Department of the Air Force
TITLE I. MILITARY PERSONNEL
Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropriations
Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2003
Adjustments to Military Personnel Account
End Strength Adjustments
Program Growth
Selective Reenlistment Bonus
Unobligated Military Personnel Balances
Academy Study
Full-Time Support Strengths
Military Personnel, Army
Military Personnel, Navy
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
Military Personnel, Air Force
Reserve Personnel, Army
Realignment of Funds
Reserve Personnel, Navy
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps
Reserve Personnel, Air Force
National Guard Personnel, Army
National Guard Personnel, Air Force
TITLE II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Operation and Maintenance Overview
Recommendations to Address Shortfalls
Military Training
Civilian Pay
Government Purchase and Travel Cards
Ultralightweight Camouflage Nets
Strong and Ready Families
Contingency Operations Questionable Expenditures
Study of African Americans in the Armed Services
Firefighting and Emergency Response at DoD Installations
Unobligated Balances
Operation and Maintenance Budget Execution Data
Operation and Maintenance Reprogrammings
0-1 Reprogramming Approval Requirement
Classified Annex
Operation and Maintenance, Army
Online Technology Training Program
Camera Assisted Monitoring System--CAMS
Worker Safety Demonstration Program
Recruiting and Advertising
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
Center for Defense Technology and Education for the Military Services (CDTEMS)
Space and Naval Warfare Information Technology Center (SITC)
Improved Engineering Design Process
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
Depot Maintenance--Radars
Training and Support Facilities
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
CONUS Combat Air Patrol (CAP)
Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) Platform
Fairchild Air Force Base Museum Property
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
Armed Forces Information Service
George AFB
Norton AFB
GAVRT Project Expansion
Lewis Center for Educational Research
Legacy
DLAMP
Office of the Secretary of Defense
Connecticut Consortium for Aviation Technology (CCAT)
Charles Melvin Price Support Center
Child Care and Family Assistance Programs
Family Advocacy Programs
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
Grissom ARB Navy Reserve Center
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
Joint Training and Experimentation Project
Missouri Army National Guard
Massachusetts Military Reservation
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
Missouri Air National Guard
Key Field, Mississippi
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
Mount Umunhum
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction
Support for International Sporting Competitions, Defense
Defense Emergency Response Fund
TITLE III. PROCUREMENT
Estimates and Appropriations Summary
Special Interest Items
Classified Annex
Army Large Scale Contract Review
Aircraft Procurement, Army
UH-60L Blackhawk Flight Simulator
CH-47F Upgrade Program Restructure
Missile Procurement, Army
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
Program Executive Officer for Ammunition
Cancellation of Wide Area Munition (WAM) Program
Other Procurement, Army
Up-Armored HMMWVs
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
CH-60S Common Cockpit Multi-Year Procurement
Tactical Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)
Weapons Procurement, Navy
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
CVN-77 Integrated Warfare System (IWS)
SSGN Acquisition Strategy
DDG-51 Composite Structures
Other Procurement, Navy
Procurement, Marine Corps
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
F-22 Raptor
Incremental Funding of the C-17
Predator B Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)
Global Hawk High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (HAEUAV)
E-8 Joint Stars
Missile Procurement, Air Force
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
Other Procurement, Air Force
Procurement, Defense-Wide
Technical Assistance Program
Advanced Seal Delivery System
Defense Imagery and Mapping Agency
Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3)
National Guard and Reserve Equipment
Defense Production Act Purchases
Information Technology
Transfers from the Defense Emergency Response Fund
Navy Marine Corps Intranet
Information Technology Budget Exhibits
Information Technology Network Consolidation
GIG Bandwidth Expansion
Integration Software Technology
Defense Integrated Military Human Resource System
Command and Control Systems
Army Information Systems
Information Assurance
Space and Naval Warfare Information Technology Center (SITC)
Courseware for IT Managers
Army Knowledge Online
USMC Continuity of Operations Plan
Configuration Management Information Systems
Reserve Component Automated System (RCAS)
Financial Management Modernization Pilots
TITLE IV. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
Estimates and Appropriation Summary
Special Interest Items
Classified Annex
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Road Map
Future Testing Requirements
Network Centric-Warfare
Evolutionary Acquisition and Spiral Development
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
Crusader
Comanche
Brilliant Anti-Armor Technology (BAT) and BAT P3I Submunition Program
Army MEMS Technology Development Acceleration
Future Combat System Materials Technology
Proposed Transfer of Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3) and Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) to the Army
Pseudo folliculitis Barbe (PFB)
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
Navy Venture Organization
Advanced Integrated Electronic Warfare System (AIEWS)
Nonlinear Dynamics Stochastic Resonance
Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)
Vertical Take-Off and Landing Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle-Rescission
Open/Converged Architecture for Naval Fires Network
Tactical Control System (TCS) and the Joint Operational Test Bed (JOTBS)
Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM)/Quickbolt
Bone Marrow Registry
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
Bioreactor Environmental Initiative
Global Hawk High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (HAEUAV)
Network-Centric Collaborative Targeting (NCCT)
Transformational Wideband MILSATCOM
SBIRS High
MILSTAR
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
Chemical and Biological Defense Program Homeland Security Initiative
Historically Black and Hispanic Serving Institutions Science
Technical Studies, Support and Analyses
Portable Radiation Search Tool
Polymer Based Chemical and Biological Sensors
Micro Electrical Mechanical Systems (MEMS) for Rolling Element Bearings
Laser Additive Manufacturing Initiative
Engineered Pathogen Identification and Countermeasure Program
Blast Resistant Construction Evaluation Program
Active Sensors for Components Development for Advanced Tactical Systems
Spin Electronics
USNR Information Infrastructure Continuity of Operations
Challenge Program
Missile Defense Overview
Sea Based Terminal
Sea Based Boost/Space Based Kinetic Energy
Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS)
Patriot Advanced Capability--3 (PAC-3)
Theater High Altitude Area Defense
Russian-American Observation Satellites Program (RAMOS)
SPY-1 Solid State Radar
Missile Defense Reporting and Reprogramming Requirements
Advanced Tactical Laser Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD)
Underwater Systems Advanced Development
Defense Imagery and Mapping Agency
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
Information Assurance Testing
TITLE V. REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS
Defense Working Capital Funds
National Defense Sealift Fund
Maritime Preposition Force (Future)--MPF(F)
Strategic Sealift Capacity
T-5 Tanker Buyout
TITLE VI. OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
Defense Health Program
Reprogramming
Military Medical Treatment Facility (MTF) Optimization
Defense Health Program Underexecution
Healthcare Quality Initiatives Review Panel
Shared BL-3 Biocontainment Research Facility
American University of Beirut
North Chicago Veterans Administration Medical Center and Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, Illinois
Environmental Medical Unit
Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Early Detection Research
Army Peer-Reviewed Prostate Cancer Research
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army
Access Road Engineering Studies
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense
Southern Command Reconnaissance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Counter-Drug Initiative
National Guard State Plans
Transit Zone Maritime Patrol Aircraft
T-AGOS
Classified Annex
Office of the Inspector General
TITLE VII. RELATED AGENCIES
National Foreign Intelligence Program
Introduction
Classified Annex
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
TITLE VIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Definition of Program, Project and Activity
Center for Military Recruitment Assessment and Veterans Employment
Navy Marine Corps Intranet
Pentagon Reconstruction
TITLE IX. COUNTER-TERRORISM AND DEFENSE AGAINST WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
Counter-Terrorism and Operational Response Transfer Fund
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Changes in the Application of Existing Law
Appropriations Language
General Provisions
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
Transfer of Funds
Rescissions
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule)
Constitutional Authority
Comparison with the Budget Resolution
Five-Year Outlay Projections
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments
Additional Views
2d Session
107-532
--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2003
[To accompany H.R. 5010]
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, 2003.
BILL TOTALS
Appropriations for most military functions of the Department of Defense are provided for in the accompanying bill for the fiscal year 2003. 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 2003 budget request for activities funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill totals $366,794,095,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. This total includes $10,000,000,000 requested as a contingency amount relating to the ongoing war on terrorism. Under the President's budget, these funds were proposed to be appropriated in a lump sum, and would be made available to the extent specified in subsequent official budget requests by the President to Congress. The Committee notes that the Administration has yet to provide any specific request or budget justification for these funds. Pending receipt of any such request or budget amendment, the Committee has deferred action on this $10,000,000,000 appropriation.
Putting aside the amounts requested for this contingency fund, the President's fiscal year 2003 budget request for activities funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill totals $356,794,095,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The amounts recommended by the Committee in the accompanying bill total $354,712,914,000 in new budget authority. This is $2,081,181,000 below the budget estimate ($12,081,181,000 if the $10,000,000,000 contingency fund is included), and $33,843,567,000 above the sums made available for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002. 1
[Footnote]
[Footnote 1: The fiscal year 2003 budget request was adjusted to not include $3,412,561,000, the proposed cost to cover the accrued cost related to retirement benefits of Civil Service Retirement System employees and retiree health benefits for all civilian employees.]
ACCRUAL FUNDING OF RETIREMENT COSTS AND POST-RETIREMENT HEALTH BENEFITS
The President's budget included a legislative proposal under the jurisdiction of the House Committee on Government Reform to charge to individual agencies, starting in fiscal year 2003, the fully accrued costs related to retirement benefits of Civil Service Retirement System employees and retiree health benefits for all civilian employees. The budget request also included an additional dollar amount in each affected discretionary account to cover these accrued costs.
Without a discussion of the merits of this legislative proposal, the Committee has reduced the dollar amounts of the President's request shown in the `Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority' and other tables in this report to exclude the accrual funding proposal. The Committee makes this recommendation because the disposition of the legislative proposal is unclear at this time. Should the proposal be adopted by Congress and enacted into law, the Committee will make appropriate adjustments.
The Committee further notes that administration proposals requiring legislative action by the authorizing committees of Congress are customarily submitted in the budget as separate schedules apart from the regular appropriation requests. Should such a proposal be enacted, a budget amendment formally modifying the President's appropriation request for discretionary funding is then transmitted to the Congress.
The Committee is concerned that this practice, which has worked effectively for both Congress and past administrations, was not followed for this accrual funding proposal. In this case, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) decided to include accrual amounts in the original discretionary appropriations language request. These amounts are based on legislation that has yet to be considered and approved by the appropriate committees of Congress. This led to numerous misunderstandings both inside and outside of Congress of what was the `true' President's budget request. The Committee believes that, in the future, OMB should follow long-established procedures with respect to discretionary spending proposals that require legislative action.
COMMITTEE BUDGET REVIEW PROCESS
During its review of the fiscal year 2003 budget request, the Subcommittee on Defense held a total of eight hearings during the period of February 2002 to June 2002. Testimony received by the Subcommittee totaled 824 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.
MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE COMMITTEE BILL
Ballistic Missile Defense.--The Committee bill provides $7.4 billion for ballistic missile defense, $74 million less than the President requested. This includes full funding for the Ground based midcourse program and the Block 2004 test bed. In addition, the Committee has provided additional funding to support near term theater missile defense, including adding $64 million for the Arrow program and $95 million for the PATRIOT Advanced Capability-3. Reductions were taken primarily from the Sea Based Terminal program, a legacy of the terminated Navy area program; the RAMOS cooperative program, for which there is no signed agreement; and the Airborne Laser.
Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities.--The Committee bill fully supports intelligence-related programs including funds requested for anti-terrorism activities.
The Committee has also supported the Administration's request for additional research on and acquisition of unmanned aerial vehicles. The Committee has fully supported the Air Force and Navy development efforts associated with the Global Hawk UAV, including additional funds to implement the Air Force's plan for overall program cost reductions. The Committee has also included funds for the acquisition of additional Predator B systems as well as an I-GNAT system for the Army to begin concept of operations testing for its objective Tactical UAV system.
Military Personnel and Defense Health Program.--The Committee bill fully funds the proposed pay raise of 4.1 percent for military personnel and targeted pay raises of up to 6.5 percent for mid-grade officers and noncommissioned officers. In addition it supports the budget request to continue to reduce service members' out-of-pocket housing expenses from 11.3 percent to 7.5 percent in fiscal year 2003. The Committee bill recommends a reduction of $354 million to the budget request for the Defense Health Program (DHP) due to reduced demand forecasts for services provided by the DHP. The Committee bill also increases military-related medical research and other initiatives by over $600 million.
Readiness Accounts.--The Committee bill fully supports the Department's request for training and readiness funding. It provides full funding for proposed increases in land forces training, tank training miles and the Air Force and Navy Flying Hour Program, as well as ship operations. The Committee bill also supports a $1.8 billion increase in funding for base support operations and for sustainment, modernization and restoration of real property. The Committee bill also provides $400 million over the budget request for individual soldier and marine equipment, unit tactical equipment, training and support facilities, renovation of barracks and dining facilities, depot maintenance and other readiness and training items.
Strategic Mobility.--The Committee bill fully supports the Administration's request to meet our military's strategic mobility requirements. This includes $3.7 billion for the procurement of 12 C-17 transports, including language directing the Air Force to fully fund the acquisition of 15 C-17s in fiscal year 2004; approval of the Administration's request for multiyear authority to acquire 40 CC-130Js and 24 KC-130Js; and finally, $89 million for the reengining of 3 additional KC-135E tankers.
Crusader.--The Committee bill approves the Administration's recommendation to terminate the Crusader program and to realign fiscal year 2003 funding to accelerate Army development of a number of precision munitions and related technologies. The Committee bill also provides an increase of $173,000,000 over the amended budget for the follow-on Objective Force-Indirect Fire system, in order to ensure that such a system can be delivered no later than fiscal year 2008.
Shipbuilding.--The Committee bill supports the budget request for all major shipbuilding programs requested by the Department, with the exception of the LHD-8, while recommending some minor reductions due to program execution issues. The Committee bill has also provided a net addition of $250 million to the budget request for the CVN-77 aircraft carrier program to restore warfighting capability improvements that had been deferred by the Navy.
Space Programs.--The Committee has recommended a number of reductions to DoD Space programs due to fact of life schedule delays, unwarranted cost growth and under-execution to include reductions of: $95 million to AEHF Advanced Procurement, $80 million to Wideband Communications, $100 million to the Titan heavy lift launcher, and $70 million to the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS)--High program.
Chemical/Biological Programs.--The Committee bill has fully funded the President's budget request for the Chemical and Biological Defense Program to include $420,000,000 for a homeland security initiative. This proposal would fund the establishment of a Center for Biological Counterterrorism at the U.S. Army Medical Research and Material Command, the establishment and deployment of a fully operational biological surveillance system in the National Capital Region and one other urban location, and an initial operational surveillance capability in 2 additional urban areas.
In addition, the Committee has supported funding to demonstrate and provide effective protection from chemical and biological agent attack at various military installations across the nation. The `CONUS Pilot Protection Project' will procure an integrated suite of highly effective chemical and biological sensors and support equipment to be installed and demonstrated at nine installations during fiscal year 2003.
Defense Transformation.--The Committee has supported and accelerated the transformational objectives of the Department by:
(a) Increasing funding for Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations and Quick Reaction Special Projects to speed up the transition of tools for the warfighter from concept and design to operational prototypes in the field.
(b) Providing funding to expand the bandwidth capacity of the Global Information Grid to 10 gigabytes, transforming the way information and intelligence can be gathered and shared by the national security community.
(c) Directing the Department of the Navy to examine the benefits of adopting commercial venture capital practices for the more rapid inclusion of cutting edge technologies in major Navy system acquisition programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS BY MAJOR CATEGORY
ACTIVE MILITARY PERSONNEL
The Committee recommends a total of $79,168,541,000 for active military personnel, a decrease of $687,224,000 below the budget request. The Committee supports the budget request which proposed a 4.1 percent pay raise for military personnel effective January 1, 2003, and targeted pay raises of up to 6.5 percent for mid-grade officers and noncommissioned officers. The Committee also agrees with the authorized end strength as requested in the President's budget.
GUARD AND RESERVE
The Committee recommends a total of $14,256,293,000 a decrease of $135,800,000 below the budget request for Guard and Reserve personnel. The Committee has also included funds for the proposed 4.1 percent pay raise. The Committee agrees with the authorized end strength as requested in the President's budget for the Selected Reserve.
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 $114,780,366,000, a net increase of $9,732,722,000 above the fiscal year 2002 appropriated amount. The Committee has supported improvements in funding for tactical flying hour programs, land forces training, ship operations, depot maintenance, base support operations, and maintenance and repair of real property. The Committee has added to the budget request a number of items critical to the welfare and readiness of service members, and also items contributing to the management efficiency of the services. Finally, the Committee recommends reductions from the budget request as a result of fact of life changes and management actions the Department of Defense should undertake to improve its operations.
PROCUREMENT
The Committee recommends $70,285,272,000 for programs funded in title III procurement accounts.
Major programs funded in the bill include:
$242,561,000 for 16 UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopters.
$387,061,000 for CH-47 Cargo Helicopter Modifications.
$865,781,000 for Apache Longbow Advanced Procurement.
$223,052,000 for 1478 Javelin missiles.
$457,053,000 for Bradley Fighting Vehicle Base Sustainment.
$772,031,000 for Interim Armored Vehicles.
$376,268,000 for M1 Abrams Upgrades.
$681,373,000 for Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles.
$3,076,233,000 for 44 F/A-18 E/F Fighter aircraft.
$1,025,660,000 for 11 MV-22 aircraft.
$279,155,000 for 15 MH-60S helicopters.
$267,851,000 for 5 E-2C Hawkeye Early Warning aircraft.
$585,916,000 for 12 Trident II ballistic missiles.
$664,820,000 for Tomahawk Missiles.
$250,000,000 for the CVN-77 Integrated Warfare System.
$1,490,652,000 for 1 New Attack Submarine.
$2,273,002,000 for DDG-51 Destroyers.
$596,492,000 for 1 LPD-17 Amphibious Assault Ship.
$4,090,434,000 for 23 F-22 Fighter aircraft.
$2,694,140,000 for 12 C-17 Airlift aircraft.
$3,665,454,000 for ammunition for all services.
$536,670,000 for Missile Defense Agency programs.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
The Committee recommends $57,754,286,000 for programs funded in Title IV Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation accounts. Major Programs funded in the bill include:
$885,508,000 for the DD-(X) development program.
$420,109,000 for V-22 development.
$3,471,168,000 for development of the Joint Strike Fighter.
$844,783,000 for Advanced EHF Military Satellite Communications.
$627,266,000 for F-22 Fighter Engineering and Manufacturing Development.
$265,327,000 for B-2 Bomber Technology Upgrades.
$744,927,000 for the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS)--High.
$354,743,000 for Endurance Unmanned Vehicles
$6,820,786,000 for Missile Defense Agency programs.
FORCES TO BE SUPPORTED
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
The fiscal year 2003 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--
2001 2002 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Divisions: 1
Airborne 1 1 1
Air Assault 1 1 1
Light 2 1 2 2
Infantry 0 0 0
Mechanized 4 4 4
Armored 2 2 2
Total 10 10 10
Non-division Combat units:
Armored Cavalry Regiments 3 3 3
Separate Brigades 1 2 1 1
Total 3 3 3
Active duty military personnel, end strength (Thousands) 480 480 480
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
The fiscal year 2003 budget supports battle forces totaling 308 ships at the end of fiscal year 2003, including 18 strategic submarines, 12 aircraft carriers, 237 other battle force ships, 1,628 Navy/Marine Corps tactical/ASW aircraft, 696 Undergraduate Training aircraft, 460 Fleet Air Training aircraft, 349 Fleet Air Support aircraft, 408 Reserve aircraft, and 453 in the pipeline.
A summary of the major forces follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
2001 2002 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Forces 18 18 18
Submarines 18 18 18
SLBM Launchers 432 432 432
General Purpose 258 257 249
Aircraft Carriers 12 12 12
Surface Combatants 108 108 102
Submarines (Attack) 55 54 54
Amphibious Warfare Ships 38 38 37
Combat Logistics Ships 34 34 33
Mine Warfare 11 11 11
Support Forces 25 25 25
Mobile Logistics Ships 2 2 2
Support Ships 23 23 23
Mobilization Category A (Reserve) 15 15 16
Surface Combatants 8 8 11
Amphibious Ships 1 1 0
Mine Warfare 6 6 5
Total Ships, Battle Force 316 315 308
Total Local Defense/Misc Force 177 166 165
Auxiliaries/Sea Lift Forces 137 140 141
Coastal Defense 13 13 13
Mobilization Category B 10 10 10
Surface Combatants 0 0 0
Mine Warfare Ships 10 10 10
Support Ships 0 0 0
Naval Aircraft:
Primary Authorized (Plus Pipe) 4,272 4,260 4,276
Authorized Pipeline 477 465 453
Tactical/ASW Aircraft 1,622 1,621 1,628
Fleet Air Training 460 474 460
Fleet Air Support 358 344 349
Training (Undergraduate) 683 691 696
Reserve 411 403 408
Naval Personnel:
Active:
Navy 377,810 376,000 375,700
Marine Corps 172,934 172,600 175,000
Reserve:
14,811 14,572 73,228 14,572
2,261 2,261 37,297 2,268
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
The fiscal year 2003 Air Force budget is designed to support active, guard, and reserve forces, including 86 combat coded fighter and attack squadrons and 9 combat coded strategic bomber squadrons. The Minuteman, Peacekeeper and ICBM forces stand at 588 launch facilities and 533 missile boosters. The budget also supports our critical airlift mission, including 22 active duty airlift squadrons. To accomplish the Air Force mission, the 2003 budget supports 358,800 Total Force endstrength.
A summary of the major forces follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
2001 2002 2003
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAF Fighter and Attack Squadrons (Active, ANG, AFRC)* 88 88 86
Active 46 46 45
ANG 37 37 36
AFRC 5 5 5
Strategic Bomber Squadrons (Active) 9 9 8
Strategic Bomber Squadrons (ANG & AFRC) 3 3 1
Flight Test Units (DT and OT units w/assigned jets) 11 11 11
Fighter 8 8 8
Bomber 3 3 3
ICBM Operational Launch Facilities/Control Centers 605 605 588
ICBM Missile Inventory 550 550 533
USAF Airlift Squadrons (Active):
Strategic Airlift Squadrons 11 12 12
Tactical Airlift Squadrons 10 10 10
Total Airlift Squadrons 21 22 22
Total Active Inventory 6,282 5,903 5,851
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
Endstrength FY2001 Col FY2002 PB FY2002 PB FY2003 PB
------------------------------------------------------------
Active Duty 353,571 358,800 359,000
Reserve Component 183,354 183,100 182,200
Air National Guard 108,485 108,400 106,600
Air Force Reserve 74,869 74,700 75,600
------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I
MILITARY PERSONNEL
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FUNDED BY MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
The President's fiscal year 2003 budget request continues to make military personnel its first priority through increased funding for military pay, housing allowances and overall quality of life programs.
The budget request proposed a 4.1 percent across the board pay raise, effective January 1, 2003 for all service members. In addition, the budget request also proposed targeted pay raises of up to 6.5 percent for mid-grade officers and noncommissioned officers. This increase is on top of the average 6.9 percent basic pay increase that went into effect in January 2002. Fiscal year 2003 will be the fourth year the pay structure for military personnel is being revised to address pay shortfalls in grades that are experiencing significant retention issues, and also to improve the pay of military personnel compared to private sector pay.
The budget request includes funding for Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) in order to continue to reduce the service members' out-of-pocket housing expenses from 11.3 percent to 7.5 percent in fiscal year 2003. The Committee supports the enhancements to military pay and increased housing benefits for fiscal year 2003.
SUMMARY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 $82,056,651,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 94,247,858,000
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation 93,424,834,000
Change from budget request -823,024,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $93,424,834,000 for the Military Personnel accounts. The recommendation is an increase of $11,368,183,000 above the $82,056,651,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2002. 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.
[In thousands of dollars]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account Budget Recommendation Change from request
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel:
Army $27,079,392 26,832,217 -247,175
Navy 22,074,901 21,874,395 -200,506
Marine Corps 8,558,887 8,504,172 -54,715
Air Force 22,142,585 21,957,757 -184,828
Subtotal, Active 79,855,765 79,168,541 -687,244
Reserve Personnel:
Army 3,398,555 3,373,455 -25,100
Navy 1,927,152 1,897,352 -29,800
Marine Corps 557,883 553,983 -3,900
Air Force 1,243,904 1,236,904 -7,000
National Guard Personnel:
Army 5,128,988 5,070,188 -58,800
Air Force 2,135,611 2,124,411 -11,200
Subtotal, Guard and Reserve 14,392,093 14,256,293 -135,800
Total, Title I 94,247,858 93,424,834 -823,024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2003 budget request includes an increase of approximately 2,300 end strength for the active forces and a slight increase of 100 end strength for the selected reserve over fiscal year 2002 authorized levels.
The Committee recommends the following levels highlighted in the tables below.
OVERALL ACTIVE END STRENGTH
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 estimate 1,387,400
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 1,389,700
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation 1,389,700
Compared with Fiscal year 2002 +2,300
Compared with Fiscal year 2003 budget request -0-
----------------------------------------------------------
OVERALL SELECTED RESERVE END STRENGTH
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 estimate 864,658
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 864,558
Fiscal year 2003 recommendation 864,558
Compared with Fiscal year 2002 -100
Compared with Fiscal year 2003 budget request -0-
--------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2002 estimate Fiscal year 2003--
Budget request Recommendation Change from request
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Forces (end strength):
Army 480,000 480,000 480,000
Navy 376,000 375,700 375,700
Marine Corps 172,600 175,000 175,000
Air Force 358,800 359,000 359,000
Total, Active Force 1,387,400 1,389,700 1,389,700
Guard and Reserve (end strength):
Army Reserve 205,000 205,000 205,000
Navy Reserve 87,000 87,800 87,800
Marine Corps Reserve 39,558 39,558 39,558
Air Force Reserve 74,700 75,600 75,600
Army National Guard 350,000 350,000 350,000
Air National Guard 108,400 106,600 106,600
Total, Guard and Reserve 864,658 864,558 864,558
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENTS TO MILITARY PERSONNEL ACCOUNT
OVERVIEW
END STRENGTH ADJUSTMENTS
The Committee recommends appropriations necessary to support the military personnel end strength levels proposed in the President's budget request. This action is recommended without prejudice as it pertains to the question of increasing active duty personnel strength to the higher levels contained in the House-passed Department of Defense Authorization bill.
The Committee takes this position in light of the considerable uncertainty regarding the funding needed in fiscal year 2003 to finance the military personnel accounts, in large measure because of ongoing operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The DoD is likely to incur additional unbudgeted personnel-related costs necessary to prosecute the Global War on Terrorism, from actions such as the stop-loss program and the continued mobilization of Guard and Reserve personnel. The Committee also is aware of ongoing internal Department of Defense studies focusing on realignment of military workloads and functions, which may result in more personnel being made available for essential missions, but could be costly to implement.
In light of these unresolved policy questions regarding end strength levels, and the uncertainty of overall funding requirements, the Committee believes it best to await further resolution of these issues, and for the Department of Defense to submit a supplemental appropriations request or reprogramming action as necessary to address any additional fiscal year 2003 military personnel-related funding needs once these requirements are solidified.
PROGRAM GROWTH
The Committee recommends a decrease of $186,810,000 to the budget request for the following programs due to program growth. A reduction to these compensation programs would maintain these programs at last year's level of funding.
| [Dollars in thousands] | |
| Unemployment Compensation | -$27,910 |
| Selective Reenlistment Bonus Program | -49,000 |
| $30,000 Lump Sum Bonus | -28,700 |
| Critical Skills Accession Bonus | -18,300 |
| Critical Skills Retention Bonus | -38,900 |
| Enlistment Bonus Program | -24,000 |
| Total | -186,810 |
SELECTIVE REENLISTMENT BONUS
The Committee recommends a decrease of $49,000,000 to reduce the Army and Navy Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) program for initial payments based on a General Accounting Office (GAO) review of the Services' budget requests and the recent trends in SRB program obligations and expenditures.
The Services rely on the SRB program to encourage enlisted service members in critical occupations to remain in the military. Following DoD's downsizing in the early and mid 1990s, the services increasingly relied on the SRB program to help retain servicemembers in an expanding range of occupations. Since the program guidance for the SRB program was rescinded in 1996, and is still not available, the Services' administer their own programs with limited OSD oversight.
Recently, concerns have been raised that the program has grown beyond its original intent. It appears the program is now being applied broadly to address aggregate retention problems, rather than targeting critical military specialties that impact readiness. For example, in fiscal year 2002, the Navy and Air Force expect to provide bonuses to 43 and 51 percent of their reenlistees, respectively.
Overall, the cost of the SRB program has increased significantly, with the services' budget requests rising from $247,000,000 for fiscal year 1996 to over $750,000,000 for fiscal year 2003, an increase of over 200 percent. Part of this increase is the result of the services over executing their programs. By spending more than was requested, the services incurred higher than expected commitments to make anniversary payments in future years, which in turn has raised the overall cost of the program.
The Committee believes that with limited OSD guidance and oversight of this program, a reassessment of the program is warranted to ensure it is being managed efficiently. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Committee by March 31, 2003 on (1) the effectiveness of the SRB program in correcting retention shortfalls in critical occupations, (2) its replacement program guidance, and how that guidance will ensure that the program targets only critical specialties that impact readiness, (3) the steps DoD will take to match program execution with appropriated funding, (4) an evaluation of the process the services use to administer the program, and (5) the advantages and disadvantages of paying bonuses as a single lump sum payment.
The Committee directs the Comptroller General to review and assess the DoD report and to report the results of that assessment to the Committee not later than June 1, 2003.
UNOBLIGATED MILITARY PERSONNEL BALANCES
The Committee recommends a reduction of $145,000,000 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 large unexpended balances, the Committee believes that the fiscal year 2003 military personnel budget request is overstated and can be reduced.
ACADEMY STUDY
The Committee is aware of recent studies that have illustrated a number of troubling trends at the military service academies. Most recently, studies by the Air Force Personnel Center and the Air Force Academy have shown significant increases in admissions of cadets below academic minimums and equally significant increases in admissions of recruited athletes, with those below academic minimums less likely to graduate, become pilots, have technical degrees, or become senior leaders. Data also suggests cause for concern with admissions from the preparatory schools. The Committee believes that the `whole person' admissions criteria should not be a substitute for graduating highly qualified future leaders.
The Committee directs the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review DoD's oversight of its military service academies and preparatory schools, including strategic plans and the metrics used to track and assess academy performance and results; produce the results of internal academy and personnel center studies conducted regarding academy admission trends, quality issues, and morale; conduct an independent analysis of how groups of academy students differ in their admission criteria or waivers, performance and treatment at the academy, and in their military career progression; and, conduct a survey of student and faculty perceptions of various aspects of student life at the academies. The report shall be submitted to the Committee on Appropriations by March 31, 2003.
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 strengths in all categories totaled 149,406 in fiscal year 2002. The fiscal year 2003 budget request is 149,877 end strength. The following table summarizes Guard and Reserve full-time support end strengths:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2002 estimate Budget request Recommendation Change from request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Reserve:
AGR 13,406 13,588 14,070 +482
Technicians 7,344 7,344 7,594 +250
Navy Reserve: TAR 14,811 14,572 14,572
Marine Corps Reserve: AR 2,261 2,261 2,261
Air Force Reserve:
AGR 1,437 1,498 1,498
Technicians 9,819 9,911 9,911
Army National Guard:
AGR 23,698 23,768 24,562 +794
Technicians 25,215 25,215 25,702 +487
Air National Guard:
AGR 11,591 11,697 11,697
Technicians 22,772 22,845 22,845
Total:
AGR/TAR 67,204 67,384 68,660 +1,276
Technicians 65,150 65,315 66,052 +737
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $23,752,384,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 27,079,392,000
Committee recommendation 26,832,217,000
Change from budget request -247,175,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $26,832,217,000 for Military Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $3,079,833,000 above the $23,752,384,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
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: | |
| 800 Basic Pay/CT-FP DERF Transfer--CINC Protective Services Detail | 963 |
| 825 Retired Pay Accrual/CT-FP DERF--Transfer CINC Protective Services Detail | 264 |
| 1100 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses | -24,000 |
| 1100 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses | -26,000 |
| 1200 Separation Pay/$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus | -2,900 |
| 1250 Social Security Tax/CT-FP DERF--Transfer CINC Protective Services Detail | 73 |
| Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs: | |
| 2450 Unemployment Benefits | -5,375 |
| 2600 Special Compensation for Severely Disabled Retirees. | -20,200 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 2770 Legislative Proposals Not Adopted | -9,300 |
| 2780 DHP Accrual Reestimate | -110,700 |
| 2790 Unobligated Balances | -50,000 |
MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $19,551,484,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 22,074,901,000
Committee recommendation 21,874,395,000
Change from budget request -200,506,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $21,874,395,000 for Military Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of $2,322,911,000 above the $19,551,484,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Navy are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Pay and Allowances of Officers: | |
| 3400 Separation Pay/$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus | -4,500 |
| Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel: | |
| 3900 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonus | -23,000 |
| 4000 Separation Pay/$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus | -17,400 |
| Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs: | |
| 5250 Unemployment Benefits | -6,773 |
| 5420 Special Compensation for Severely Disabled Retirees | -10,433 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 5590 Legislative Proposals Not Adopted | -3,000 |
| 5600 DHP Accrual Reestimate | -85,400 |
| 5610 Unobligated Balances | -50,000 |
MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $7,345,340,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 8,558,887,000
Committee recommendation 8,504,172,000
Change from budget request -54,715,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,504,172,000 for Military Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $1,158,832,000 above the $7,345,340,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Marine Corps are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Pay and Allowances of Officers: | |
| 6200 Separation Pay/$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus | -900 |
| Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel: | |
| 6400 Basic Pay/CT-FP DERF Transfer--CINC Security Force Personnel | 600 |
| 6800 Separation Pay/$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus | -2,200 |
| Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs: | |
| 7900 Unemployment Benefits | -9,015 |
| 8040 Special Compensation for Severely Disabled Retirees | -2,900 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 8250 Legislative Proposals Not Adopted | -300 |
| 8260 DHP Accrual Reestimate | -40,000 |
MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $19,724,014,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 22,142,585,000
Committee recommendation 21,957,757,000
Change from budget request -184,828,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $21,959,757,000 for Military Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $2,233,743,000 above the $19,724,014,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Air Force are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Pay and Allowances of Officers: | |
| 8750 Special Pays/High Deployment Per Diem Allowances | -383 |
| 8750 Special Pays/Critical Skills Accession Bonus | -18,300 |
| 8750 Special Pays/Critical Skills Retention Bonus | -38,900 |
| 8850 Separation Pay/$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus | -800 |
| Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel: | |
| 9350 Special Pays/High Deployment Per Diem Allowances | -1,898 |
| Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs: | |
| 10700 Unemployment Benefits | -6,747 |
| 10840 Special Compensation for Severely Disabled Retirees | -20,400 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 11070 Legislative Proposals Not Adopted | -14,600 |
| 11080 DHP Accrual Reestimate | -82,800 |
RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $2,670,197,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 3,398,555,000
Committee recommendation 3,373,455,000
Change from budget request -25,100,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,373,455,000 for Reserve Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $703,258,000 above the $2,670,197,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Army are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Unit and Individual Training: | |
| 11250 Pay Group A Training/Realignment to BA 2 | -7,500 |
| 11250 Pay Group A Training/Annual Training Participation Rates | -37,500 |
| Budget Activity 2: Other Training and Support: | |
| 11700 Special Training/Realignment from BA 1 | 7,500 |
| 11750 Administration and Support/CT-FP DERF Transfer--Threat Force Protection Condition Bravo | 31,000 |
| 11750 Administration and Support/CT-FP DERF Transfer--Transfer to Other Procurement, Army | -10,000 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 11980 Additional Full-Time Support | 11,500 |
| 11990 DHP Accrual Reestimate | -20,100 |
REALIGNMENT OF FUNDS
The Committee recommends that $7,500,000 of Budget Activity one funds for `Reserve Personnel, Army' be realigned to Budget Activity two programs based on a General Accounting Office review which determined that annual training obligations contained costs for schools and special training.
RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $1,654,523,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 1,927,152,000
Committee recommendation 1,897,352,000
Change from budget request -29,800,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,897,352,000 for Reserve Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of $242,829,000 above the $1,654,523,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Navy are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 12850 Legislative Proposals Not Adopted | -100 |
| 12860 DHP Accrual Reestimate | -9,700 |
| 12870 Unobligated Balances | -20,000 |
RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $471,200,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 557,883,000
Committee recommendation 553,983,000
Change from budget request -3,900,000
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $553,983,000 for Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $82,783,000 above the $471,200,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
The adjustment to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps is shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 13740 DHP Accrual Reestimate | -3,900 |
RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $1,061,160,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 1,243,904,000
Committee recommendation 1,236,904,000
Change from budget request -7,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,236,904,000 for Reserve Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $175,744,000 above the $1,061,160,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
The adjustment to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Air Force is shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 14610 DHP Accrual Reestimate | -7,000 |
NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $4,041,695,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 5,128,988,000
Committee recommendation 5,070,188,000
Change from budget request -58,800,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,070,188,000 for National Guard Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $1,028,493,000 above the $4,041,695,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
The adjustments to the budget activities for National Guard Personnel, Army are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Unit and Individual Training: | |
| 14800 Pay Group A Training/Annual Training Participation Rates | -18,000 |
| 14800 Pay Group A Training/Support Costs | -10,000 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 15390 Additional Full-Time Support | 28,400 |
| 15400 DHP Accrual Reestimate | -34,200 |
| 15410 Unobligated Balances | -25,000 |
NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $1,784,654,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 2,135,611,000
Committee recommendation 2,124,411,000
Change from budget request -11,200,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,124,411,000 for National Guard Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $339,757,000 above the $1,784,654,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
The adjustment to the budget activities for National Guard Personnel, Air Force is shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 16120 DHP Accrual Reestimate | -11,200 |
TITLE II
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The fiscal year 2003 budget request for programs funded in Title II of the Committee bill, Operation and Maintenance, is $131,676,367,000 in new budget authority, which is an increase of $26,628,723,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
The accompanying bill recommends $114,780,366,000 for fiscal year 2003, which is an increase of $9,732,722,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2002. These appropriations finance the costs of operating and maintaining the Armed Forces, including the reserve components and related support activities of the Department of Defense (DoD), except military personnel costs. Included are pay for civilians, services for maintenance of equipment and facilities, fuel, supplies, and spare parts for weapons and equipment. Financial requirements are influenced by many factors, including force levels such as the number of aircraft squadrons, Army and Marine Corps divisions, installations, military personnel strength and deployments, rates of operational activity, and the quantity and complexity of equipment such as aircraft, ships, missiles and tanks in operation.
The table below summarizes the Committee's recommendations.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW
The Administration's budget request represents an increase of more than $26,000,000,000 over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level in Title II, Operation and Maintenance. However, after removing from the discussion those funds requested for supporting the continuation of the War Against Terrorism, and inflation, the normalized presentation shows there is very little real increase. The requested funding would sustain flying hour programs at approximately the fiscal year 2002 level, increase Army and Marine Corps ground forces training slightly, and increase ship depot maintenance to over 95 percent of requirement. Requested funding for base operations, and sustainment, restoration and modernization of real property assets supports program growth of over $1,800,000,000 and guards against the need to potentially divert critical mission readiness funds to support infrastructure readiness. Substantial amounts in the services' base operating accounts were requested to continue improvement in facilities security, based on anti-terrorism and force protection assessments.
In Title II of the bill, the Committee has fully supported the requested anti-terrorism and force protection funding. The Committee fully supports the Administration's requested increases in land forces training, ship depot maintenance, sustainment of real property, and professional development and education of military and civilian members of the Department of Defense. The Committee also has supported fully, much needed improvements in family support programs, addressing long standing deficiencies that have become more acute with the prosecution of the War on Terrorism.
The Administration requested $19,460,616,000 in the Defense Emergency Response Fund to support efforts by the Department of Defense to respond to, or protect against, acts or threatened acts of terrorism against the United States. Of that amount, $10,000,000,000 would only be available if a subsequent official budget request, designating the amount of the request as essential to respond or protect against acts or threatened acts of terrorism, is transmitted by the President to the Congress. As explained elsewhere in this report, the Administration has yet to submit any specific request or budget justification for these funds. Pending receipt of any such request or budget amendment, the Committee has deferred action on this $10,000,000,000, appropriation.
As regards the remaining $9,460,616,000 requested in the Defense Emergency Response Fund, budget justification materials identified the specific programs, as well as line items and appropriations accounts, to which the Department planned to transfer funds for obligation. Therefore, rather than provide funding for these items in the Defense Emergency Response Fund, appropriations for those items and amounts approved by the Committee are found in the appropriations accounts and line items identified by the Department.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS SHORTFALLS
Despite the positive trend in operation and maintenance funding requested for fiscal year 2003, testimony by the services' leadership and briefings by key staff members indicate that serious shortfalls remain. The funding requested for fiscal year 2003 will not address many critical funding shortfalls in areas such as facilities restoration and modernization, training enablers, aging equipment, spare parts, communications and computers. Funding for ship depot maintenance has been improved, but remains less than the full requirement. Army depot maintenance is rated at only 72 percent of requirement and the Air Force assesses depot maintenance as 84 percent funded.
The Committee has provided over $400,000,000 in additional operating account funding to assist in addressing many of the Department's shortfalls, including increases for individual soldier and marine field equipment, small all terrain vehicles, general purpose tents, training and support facilities, barracks and dining facilities renovation, civilian workforce safety, educational programs and distance learning, anti-corrosion programs to extend the service life of vehicles and equipment, weapons systems depot maintenance, and apprenticeship programs to ensure a stable depot workforce in the future
As has been the practice in the past, the Committee has identified spending that does not directly support readiness and has moved those funds to accounts that more directly support readiness goals.
MILITARY TRAINING
The people of America expect our military forces to demonstrate combat readiness in order to deter aggression by potential adversaries, and when called, to fight and win the Nation's wars. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines deserve to be armed with the best weapons, and provided the best logistical support possible. But achieving the fullest potential combat capability depends in large part on tough, realistic training. The extent to which training facilities are the proper size, to permit the full spectrum of training activities and environments, with state-of-the-art data collection and diagnostics routinely available, directly impacts the ability of military units to achieve and maintain readiness for combat.
In April 2002, the General Accounting Office reported on a variety of constraints to meeting training requirements faced by non-CONUS combat units. The GAO reported that units have the most difficulty in meeting training requirements for maneuver, live fire events, and night and low altitude flying. The report noted that units employ workarounds to adjust training events for constraints that are encountered, but that such workarounds can result in practicing tactics that would be less than optimal in actual combat. Additionally, units that are based in locations remote from larger and better equipped training areas must deploy more often, at additional cost, and involving more time away from home station and family, than for units with access to quality training facilities at home station. The GAO report also noted that a fragmented approach to negotiating acceptable training parameters with civil authorities could result in one military service agreeing, without coordination, to training limitations that may be completely unacceptable to another service.
The Committee appreciates the work accomplished by the General Accounting Office in its study of non-CONUS training facilities and training limitations, and believes that an expanded effort, addressing the full spectrum of military training requirements and facilities, worldwide, is needed. The Committee bill includes a general provision that directs the Secretary of Defense to establish an advisory committee to provide a report on the status of training facilities for activities ranging from basic training to joint and combined forces operations, to the congressional defense committees not later than July 31, 2003. The report shall address such matters as training facility accessibility, limitations and restrictions on training, and the impacts of growing commercial and residential development. The report shall detail DoD procedures to achieve efficiencies, retain access to needed training facilities, and ensure coordination between military services, regional military commands, and international training partners. The report shall detail the coordination and cooperation between military officials and local civilian officials in balancing the requirements of quality military training and the concerns of the communities impacted by such training. Specific instances of non-availability of adequate training facilities and the performance of the readiness reporting systems in identifying such situations should be included. The report should address the adequacy of both active and reserve component training facilities, and should address requirements, opportunities, and impediments to expanding training facilities and improving access to those facilities.
CIVILIAN PAY
The Committee has fully funded the budget request for a 2.6 percent pay increase for civilian employees of the Department of Defense. The Committee understands that the Department of Defense may implement an increase in pay that is greater than 2.6 percent, and directs that any increase above 2.6 percent will be accommodated within funds available to the DoD.
GOVERNMENT PURCHASE AND TRAVEL CARDS
In its report accompanying the fiscal year 2002 defense appropriations bill, the Committee expressed serious concerns about the management of the Department of Defense Purchase Card program. In July 2001 testimony before Congress, the General Accounting Office identified numerous internal control weaknesses in the Purchase Card Program based on reviews in two Navy Department organizations, including: (1) policies governing the issuance of purchase cards were ineffective, leading to proliferation of card holders; (2) employees were not sufficiently trained on the use of the purchase card, and employees did not follow established procedures; (3) approximately 2,600 account numbers were compromised, a partial list was found at a college library, and at least 30 accounts received fraudulent charges; (4) internal reviews and audits were ineffective; (5) efforts to maximize rebates were ineffective; (6) easily pilfered items that were acquired using purchase cards were often missing from organizational property records; and (7) many items were purchased for personal use, including laptop computers, clothing, an air conditioner and jewelry.
The Committee was most concerned that supervisors who were responsible for reviewing and certifying that purchases made with the card were for proper purposes, in many cases failed to fulfill their responsibilities, thus allowing unnecessary and fraudulent purchases.
In March of 2002, the General Accounting Office testified before Congress regarding follow-up work to determine if the appropriate corrections had been made in the administration of the Purchase Card Program. The General Accounting Office concluded that internal controls in the Navy organizations reviewed continued to be ineffective. The GAO reported a cultural resistance to change in the internal control environment, and that card holders and supervisors continued to rationalize questionable purchases.
The Committee notes that the Department of Defense has had similar difficulties in managing its Travel Card Program, forcing the banks that provide the travel cards to write off tens of millions of dollars in bad debts by service members.
The Committee is dismayed by the slow response within the Department of Defense to such serious instances of waste, abuse and mismanagement. Following the General Accounting Office's March 2002 testimony, the Department of Defense announced the formation of a task force that would examine credit card management deficiencies. The DoD effort would pursue and punish wrong doers and identify needed administrative and possibly legislative remedies. Considering the sums of money involved and the huge number of DoD purchase/travel card-holders, this involvement by senior management is long overdue. The Committee is hopeful that subsequent reviews of the DoD purchase and travel card programs will indicate that proper management controls are in place and functioning.
The accompanying bill includes a general provision that reduces the total amount available in Operation and Maintenance by $97,000,000 to reflect savings due to improved management and supervision of DoD purchase and travel card programs. Additionally, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than March 31, 2003 which details policy and procedural changes that have been implemented, including the Departments method of ensuring and evaluating compliance with regulations governing the purchase and travel card programs.
ULTRALIGHTWEIGHT CAMOUFLAGE NETS
The fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act, Public Law 107-117, included a general provision to clarify the use of operation and maintenance funds to purchase ultralightweight camouflage systems as unit spares in order to hasten modernizing the inventory of camouflage screens to state-of-the-art protection standards. The authority was contingent on certification by the Secretary of the Army, that compared to the screening system that could then be purchased with operation and maintenance funds, the ultralightweight camouflage system is technically superior against multi-spectral threat sensors; less costly per unit; and provides improved overall force protection. In May 2002 the Secretary of the Army provided that certification. The accompanying bill includes a general provision making permanent the authority for the use of operation and maintenance funds of the Armed Forces for the purchase of ultralightweight camouflage net systems as unit spares.
STRONG AND READY FAMILIES
The Committee appreciates the strong support provided to the Armed Forces of the United States by military families. Leaders and supervisors throughout the military recognize this fact as well and make every effort to support military families. The military chaplains in all branches of our armed forces strive to assist military families as those families face the challenges inherent in military life, including frequent relocations, and frequent absences of the military member due to training or combat deployment. Chaplains have developed programs to assist military families to grow stronger. However, military staff judge advocates have indicated that current guidelines, regulations and laws do not establish clear authority for the use of appropriated funds to pay for soldiers and immediate family members meals, lodging, transportation, conference or retreat fees, training materials and supplies while participating voluntarily, in command sponsored--chaplain lead training, retreats, and conferences. The accompanying bill includes a general provision that clarifies the legal ambiguity surrounding the use of appropriated funds in supporting military chaplains programs for strong and ready families.
CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS QUESTIONABLE EXPENDITURES
The Committee is committed to providing the necessary funding for contingency operations that the military forces of the United States are directed to undertake. In order to ensure all required funds are available to the armed forces, the Committee relies on information provided by the administration, both in estimating resources required, and in evaluating the adequacy of provided funding as operations are executed. In May 2002 the General Accounting Office reported, based on an analysis of costs claimed by selected Army and Air Force units during fiscal years 2000 and 2001, that while most contingency operations expenditures were appropriate, over $100,000,000 were spent on questionable items that were not incremental costs of operations, for equipment that was already available in theater, and for frivolous items including cappuccino machines, golf memberships, and decorator furniture.
The Committee appreciates that the services are working aggressively to ensure that contingency operations cost reports are accurate and that duplicative and frivolous expenses are avoided. In recognition of improved contingency cost allocation, the Committee has reduced funding available in Title II as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
| Army | $50,000 |
| Air Force | 50,000 |
STUDY OF AFRICAN AMERICANS IN THE ARMED SERVICES
The Committee recognizes the contributions that African Americans have made to the defense of our Nation from before revolutionary times to the present. The Committee believes however, that a single exhaustive study, detailing specific aspects of African Americans in the military has yet to be produced. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than June 30, 2003 to accurately depict the role of African Americans throughout the various branches of the military. The comprehensive study should explore such issues as recruitment, branch participation, awards and decorations, military rank, treatment of African American enlistees, and promotions.
FIREFIGHTING AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE AT DOD INSTALLATIONS
The Committee is concerned that the level of fire and emergency response protection at domestic military installations may not meet minimum safety standards for staffing, equipment and training. Substantial shortcomings are outlined in the Department of Defense Fire and Emergency Services Strategic Plan that has been submitted to the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Safety and Occupational Health. The Committee believes the security of our military bases is an essential component of both defense and homeland security, and directs the Deputy Under Secretary for Installations and Environment to assure that adequate resources are provided to implement the Strategic Plan and bring installations into compliance with minimum fire protection standards, including Department of Defense Instruction 6055.6.
UNOBLIGATED BALANCES
The Committee has adjusted amounts available in service and Defense-Wide operation and maintenance accounts for fiscal year 2003 to allow for the impact of amounts left unobligated in operation and maintenance accounts at the end of prior fiscal years and the effect of such underobligations on estimated future requirements. The Committee has reduced funding for unobligated balances as follows.
[In thousands of dollars]
| Army | $50,000 |
| Navy | 82,000 |
| Marine Corps | 8,000 |
| Air Force | 33,000 |
| Defense-Wide | 25,000 |
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 Operation and Maintenance 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 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 the 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 DD1414 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 operation 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 Skill and Advance 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.
0-1 REPROGRAMMING APPROVAL REQUIREMENT
The Committee is concerned about the Department's efforts to undermine Congressional intent with regard to specific program reductions taken in the Committee's report. While the Committee does not object to the Department's common practice of below threshold reprogramming to address pricing increases (such as fuel, inflation, foreign currency, etc.) and emerging requirements, the Committee does object when the Department restores funding to programs that have been specifically reduced by Congress as shown in annual Committee reports. The Committee directs that all funding reductions to programs and activities in Operation and Maintenance appropriations, other than those related to pricing, are made with prejudice and shall be so shown on DD Form 1414 for fiscal year 2003 and subsequent fiscal years for Operation and Maintenance appropriations. Increases to such programs and activities may be requested from the congressional defense committees subject to normal prior approval reprogramming procedures.
CLASSIFIED ANNEX
Adjustments of the classified programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $22,335,074,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 23,961,173,000
Committee recommendation 23,942,768,000
Change from budget request -18,405,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,942,768,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $1,607,694,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Army are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: | |
| 250 All Terrain Military Utility Vehicles | 4,100 |
| 250 Hydration on the Move System, Including Chem/Bio Sys | 2,000 |
| 250 Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying Equipment (MOLLE) | 6,000 |
| 250 Modular General Purpose Tent System (MGPTS) | 2,000 |
| 450 Camera Assisted Monitoring System (CAMS) | 8,000 |
| 550 Continuity of Operations DERF--Alt Nat Cmd Ctr | 44,000 |
| 550 Continuity of Operations DERF--CONUS Support | 2,000 |
| 550 CT/FP DERF--Physical Security Equipment | 76,900 |
| 550 CT/FP DERF--Physical Security Equipment trans to OPA | -76,900 |
| 550 ITAM Program at Army NTC | 1,500 |
| 550 Corrosion Prevention and Control Program at Corpus Christi Army Depot and Fort Hood | 3,000 |
| 550 Daggett Airport Fire Station | 1,000 |
| 750 Training and Support Facilities--Continue Road and Facilities Improvements at NTC, Fort Irwin | 7,000 |
| 800 Airborne Barracks--Ft. Benning, Georgia | 4,000 |
| 850 CT/FP DERF--Personnel | 9,400 |
| 950 Nuclear Posture Review DERF--Info Systems Sec | 15,000 |
| Budget Activity 3: | |
| 1850 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Army Lang Pgm TIARA | 19,500 |
| 1850 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Contr Linguists TIARA | 9,400 |
| 1850 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Contract Linguists Interrogation | 5,000 |
| 1850 Military Police Multijurisdictional Counterdrug Task Force Training (MCTFT) Joint Training | 2,000 |
| 1900 Air Battle Captain Program | 2,000 |
| 2000 Defense Language Institute (DLI) LangNet | 1,000 |
| 2050 DoD Monterey Bay Center Furniture and Equip | 1,000 |
| 2100 Restoration and Modernization of Dining Facilities | 4,500 |
| 2350 Online Technology Training Pilot Program | 1,000 |
| 2450 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--PE0135197 | 2,300 |
| Budget Activity 4: | |
| 2650 Continuity of Operations DERF--CONUS Support | 2,000 |
| 2650 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Battle Space Character | 2,000 |
| 2650 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Sec & Invest Acts | 10,000 |
| 2650 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Sec and Invest Acts | 1,000 |
| 2750 Servicewide Transportation | -18,000 |
| 2800 Pulse Technology--Army Battery Management Program | 4,500 |
| 2850 Automatic Identification Technology/Radio Frequency Identification (AIT/RFID) Program at Sierra Army Depot | 2,000 |
| 2850 Electronic Maintenance System (EMS)/Point-to-Point Wiring and Signal Tracing | 2,000 |
| 2850 Logistics and Technology Program | 1,000 |
| 3000 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Critical Infrastructure Protection | 600 |
| 3000 Administration | -17,000 |
| 3050 Continuity of Operations DERF--CONUS Support | 5,000 |
| 3050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Collaboration Planning/Enablers | 2,500 |
| 3050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--CONUS Support | 500 |
| 3050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Info Syst Sec Program | 4,600 |
| 3050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Info Syst Sec Program | 1,700 |
| 3050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Info Syst Sec Program | 1,500 |
| 3050 Servicewide Communications | -22,000 |
| 3050 Army Information Systems | -6,000 |
| 3050 Army Enterprise Architecture | -6,000 |
| 3050 C4 Requirements for PACOM--Transfer to procurement | -6,000 |
| 3100 Manpower Management | -10,000 |
| 3150 Chaplain--Building Strong and Ready Families Program | 1,000 |
| 3200 Other Service Support | -10,000 |
| 3350 Worker Safety Pilot Program expansion at Fort Bragg, NC and Watervilet, NY | 5,000 |
| 3400 Army Chapel Renovation Matching Funds Program | 4,000 |
| Undistributed: | |
| 3710 Classified Programs Undistributed DERF | 5,994 |
| 3720 Memorial Events | 800 |
| 3930 Travel of Persons | -14,000 |
| 3940 TRADOC Transformation | -15,000 |
| 3950 FECA Surcharge | -8,799 |
| 3960 Unobligated Balance | -50,000 |
| 3970 CONOPS Costs | -50,000 |
ONLINE TECHNOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAM
The Committee recommends an additional $1,000,000 only for the Army to procure commercial off-the-shelf web-based technology training software.
CAMERA ASSISTED MONITORING SYSTEM (CAMS)
The Committee commends the Army for use of CAMS (Camera Assisted Monitoring System) to support security efforts within the Army, and recommends an additional $8,000,000 for the Army Material Command only for CAMS. The Committee also believes that the application of the proven, cost-effective CAMS technology will enhance the capabilities of deployed forces to conduct peacekeeping and other global contingency operations.
WORKER SAFETY DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
The Committee understands that the Army has identified installations with high incidences of worker injuries that could benefit immediately from the contractor services being provided at Ft. Bragg and Watervliet Arsenal as part of DoD's Worker Safety Demonstration Program. The Committee therefore recommends an additional $5,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army, to be used at installations selected by the Army to provide the following contractor services:
--a safety assessment at the selected installations to determine the level of safety management systems in place.
--development of a training program and data system to assist the development of a cultural change with respect to safety.
RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING
The Committee continues to support the Army's recruiting and advertising campaign to ensure the Army achieves its recruiting goals. The Committee directs that no less than $9,000,000 of the total funds provided in this Act for Army advertising efforts in Operation and Maintenance, Army be used to maintain existing production efforts directed toward certain audiences, including Hispanic recruits.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $26,876,636,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 28,697,235,000
Committee recommendation 29,121,836,000
Change from budget request 424,601,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $29,121,836,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of $2,245,200,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Navy are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: | |
| 4500 Sea Sparrow Test Set Upgrade | 5,000 |
| 4600 Computer Automatic Tester and Radar Communication Automatic Test Equipment (CAT/RADCOM) | -10,000 |
| 4900 Continuity of Operations DERF--Various | 5,000 |
| 4900 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Cryptologic Direct Support | 2,000 |
| 5050 Apprentice, Engineering Technician and CO-OP Program Naval Undersea Warfare Center Keyport | 2,000 |
| 5050 Apprentice, Engineering Technician and CO-OP Program IMF Bangor | 700 |
| 5050 Improved Engineering Design Process | 8,000 |
| 5500 Continuity of Operations DERF--Office of Navy Intelligence Data Backup | 2,000 |
| 5500 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Various | 2,000 |
| 5500 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--classified | 1,000 |
| 5500 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Analysts | 3,000 |
| 5500 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--SCI GCCS I3 | 3,800 |
| 5500 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--GENSER GCCS I3 | 5,400 |
| 5500 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--JDIS/LOCE/CENTRIX | 5,300 |
| 5500 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--CMMA | 1,500 |
| 5500 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--CMMA | 22,500 |
| 5500 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--JWICS Connectivity | 5,500 |
| 5550 Manual Reverse Osmosis Desalinator Testing, Repair and Replacement | 1,000 |
| 5550 Central Command Deployable HQ Spares & Tech Supt | 4,500 |
| 5850 CT/FP DERF--Strat Security Forces & Technicians | 7,000 |
| 5950 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Pioneer | 6,000 |
| 5950 Mark 45 Gun, 5' Depot Overhauls | 3,000 |
| 6210 CT/FP DERF--Site Improvement | 219,200 |
| 6210 Homeland Security | 2,500 |
| 6210 NAS North Island Facility Renovation Project | 3,000 |
| 6220 CT/FP DERF--Security Forces and Technicians | 143,096 |
| 6220 CT/FP DERF--Law Enforcement | 32,573 |
| 6220 CT/FP DERF--Management and Planning | 1,712 |
| 6220 CT/FP DERF--Shipyard Security Forces and Tech | 28,000 |
| 6220 Homeland Security DERF--Base Support Services | 38,500 |
| 6220 Critical Asset Vulnerability Assessment, Navy Region NW | 1,500 |
| 6220 Northwest Environmental Resource Center | 6,000 |
| 6220 Combating Terrorism Data Base Sys (CDTS) Remote Data Repository | 2,000 |
| Budget Activity 2: | |
| 6500 Ex-Oriskany Ship Disposal Project | 4,000 |
| 6600 Homeland Security--Medical Operations | 4,000 |
| Budget Activity 3: | |
| 7000 ROTC Unit Operating Costs | 2,000 |
| 7200 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Pre-deploy Training | 1,000 |
| 7200 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Imagery Training Init | 1,000 |
| 7350 Center for Defense Technology and Education for the Military Services (CDTEMS) | 1,500 |
| 7350 CNET Distance Learning | 4,000 |
| 7350 Prototype System for Embedded Training and Performance Supt--CNET | 1,000 |
| 7350 Navy Learning Network Program CNET | 3,000 |
| 7600 Continuing Education Distance Learning | 1,860 |
| 7700 Naval Sea Cadet Corps | 1,000 |
| 7820 CT/FP DERF--Site Improvement | 42,000 |
| 7830 CT/FP DERF--Security Forces and Tech | 1,500 |
| 7830 Fire Fighter Protective Eqpt Maint Pilot, Puget Sound Fed Fire Dept, NW Region | 500 |
| Budget Activity 4: | |
| 8000 CT/FP DERF--HQ Management and Planning | 1,600 |
| 8000 Administration | -6,000 |
| 8250 Continuity of Opns DERF--Various/ONI Data Backup | 7,000 |
| 8250 CT/FP DERF--HQ Management and Planning | 3,920 |
| 8250 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Computer Network Def | 3,800 |
| 8250 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Enclave Boundary | 1,200 |
| 8250 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Intrusion Detection | 1,140 |
| 8250 Servicewide Communications | -12,000 |
| 8500 Servicewide Transportation | -1,000 |
| 8550 Planning, Engineering and Design | -15,000 |
| 8550 Stainless Steel Sanitary Space System | 3,500 |
| 8600 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Acquisition and PM | 11,000 |
| 8600 Acquisition and Program Management | -16,000 |
| 8600 Space and Naval Warfare Info Tech Center (SITC) | 3,000 |
| 8650 Air Systems Support | -16,000 |
| 8650 Configuration Management Info System (CMIS) | 4,000 |
| 8700 Advanced Technical Information Support | 2,900 |
| 8800 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Carryon Cryptologic Sys | 500 |
| 9000 Continuity of Operations DERF--Various/Navy Criminal Investigations | 2,000 |
| 9000 CT/FP DERF--Intel Security & Invest Matters | 3,500 |
| 9000 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--HUMINT | 3,700 |
| 9000 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Counter Surveillance and Law Enforcement | 5,000 |
| 9220 CT/FP DERF--Site Improvement | 13,000 |
| 9230 NAS Jacksonville and NAS Mayport Anti-Corrosion Init | 2,000 |
| Undistributed: | |
| 9280 Classified Programs Undistributed DERF | 13,064 |
| 9390 Travel of Persons | -9,000 |
| 9400 Legislative Proposals Not Adopted | -2,100 |
| 9410 Non-NMCI IT Savings | -120,000 |
| 9420 FECA Surcharge | -14,764 |
| 9440 Unobligated Balance | -82,000 |
CENTER FOR DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND EDUCATION FOR THE MILITARY SERVICES (CDTEMS)
The Committee recommends an additional $1,500,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Navy only for the Naval Postgraduate School Center for Defense Education and Technology for the Military Services. CDTEMS is transforming education for military officers so they are significantly better prepared to meet future military challenges. The three institutes created by CDTEMS--Information Superiority and Innovation, Defense Systems Engineering and Analysis, and Virtual Environments and Simulation--are on the cutting edge of subsystems integration, streamlining the acquisition process, and designing requirements for total ship integration.
SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CENTER (SITC)
The Committee has provided an additional $3,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Navy, only for operational support and infrastructure needs at the SITC. The Committee directs the Department of the Navy to conduct enterprise level reengineering and web-enabling of legacy systems, and portal integration efforts at the SITC.
IMPROVED ENGINEERING DESIGN PROCESS
The Committee recommends an additional $8,000,000 only for the Department of the Navy to demonstrate the Improved Engineering Design Process using the Advanced Digital Logistics Integrated Data Capture and Analysis (ADLIDCA) system.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $2,931,934,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 3,310,542,000
Committee recommendation 3,579,359,000
Change from budget request +268,817,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,579,359,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $647,425,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
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 Continuity of Operations DERF--Continuity of Intel | 1,000 |
| 10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Interim Small Unit Remote Sensor (I-SURSS) | 700 |
| 10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Tactical Remote Sensor System (TRSS) | 1,000 |
| 10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Technical Control and Analysis Center (TCAC) | 500 |
| 10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Radio Reconnaissance Equipment Program | 200 |
| 10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Topographic Production Capability | 700 |
| 10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--MCIA Analytic Supt | 2,400 |
| 10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--TEG | 1,000 |
| 10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--TROJAN Lite | 1,500 |
| 10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--ISR | 2,900 |
| 10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--FLAMES/CESAS | 2,000 |
| 10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Computer Network Def | 2,000 |
| 10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Secure Wireless | 800 |
| 10050 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Deployed Security Interdiction Devices | 700 |
| 10050 Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying Eqpt (MOLLE) | 5,000 |
| 10050 Modular General Purpose Tent System (MGPTS) | 2,000 |
| 10150 Depot Maintenance of Radar Systems | 5,000 |
| 10200 CT/FP DERF--Physical Security Equipment | 228,000 |
| 10200 CT/FP DERF--CINC AT/FP Staffs | 3,200 |
| 10200 CT/FP DERF--Physical Security Upgrades | 10,000 |
| 10200 Training and Support Facilities | 16,500 |
| Budget Activity 4: | |
| 11800 Continuity of Operations DERF--Site R | 1,000 |
| Undistributed: | |
| 11980 Travel of Persons | -10,000 |
| 11990 FECA Surcharge | -1,283 |
| 12000 Unobligated Balance | -8,000 |
DEPOT MAINTENANCE--RADARS
The Committee is aware of the continuing backlog of executable but unfunded depot maintenance requirements for critical radar systems. The Committee recommends an additional $5,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps only for depot level maintenance of radar systems.
TRAINING AND SUPPORT FACILITIES
The Committee recommends an additional $16,500,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps of which $12,000,000 is provided only for mission critical requirements at the Marine Air-Ground Task Force Training Center, and $4,500,000 is provided only for the seismic retrofit of buildings at Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $26,026,789,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 26,772,768,000
Committee recommendation 27,587,959,000
Change from budget request +815,191,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $27,587,959,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $1,561,170,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: | |
| 12600 CONUS Combat Air Patrol DERF--CAP | 1,200,000 |
| 12600 CONUS Combat Air Patrol DERF--Changed Alert Posture | -678,000 |
| 12600 Unmanned Aerial Vehicles DERF--Predator O&M | 9,000 |
| 12600 F-16 Distributed Mission Training System | 10,000 |
| 12700 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Computer Network Def | 3,500 |
| 12850 CT/FP DERF--AEF Force Prot Certification Tng | 10,200 |
| 12850 CT/FP DERF--WMD 1st Responder | 46,000 |
| 12900 CT/FP DERF--AT/FP Facilities Upgrades | 99,585 |
| 12900 Wright-Patterson AFB Dormitory Renovation | 2,500 |
| 13000 CT/FP DERF--Geo Reach/Geo Base | 25,800 |
| 13000 Nucler Posture Review DERF--Info Warfare Support | 5,000 |
| 13000 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Defense Recon Supt | 68,630 |
| 13000 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Defense Recon Trans | -68,600 |
| 13100 Continuity of Ops DERF--Nat'l Abn Cmd Ctr | 10,000 |
| 13100 Continuity of Ops DERF--Aircraft Comms Mods | 3,600 |
| 13100 Continuity of Ops DERF--Helicopter Support, National Capital Region | 700 |
| 13100 Continuity of Ops DERF--Comms Sys Operators Tng | 500 |
| 13100 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Commercial Imagery | 2,000 |
| 13200 CT/FP DERF--CENTCOM PSD and Forward HQ | 700 |
| 13200 CT/FP DERF--CINC AT/FP Staff | 5,500 |
| 13200 Nuclear Posture Review DERF--Mgt HQ STRATCOM | 1,250 |
| 13200 Nuclear Posture Review DERF--Info Warfare Supt | 4,000 |
| 13200 Nuclear Posture Review DERF--Tactical Deception | 1,000 |
| 13200 Nuclear Posture Review DERF--Mgt HQ STRATCOM | 1,000 |
| 13200 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Critical Infrastructure Protection | 400 |
| 13200 Management Supt for Air Force Battle Labs | 5,000 |
| 13250 Continuity of Ops DERF--Combat Air Intel Sys | 2,300 |
| 13250 Continuity of Ops DERF--Special Purpose Comms | 2,000 |
| 13250 Continuity of Ops DERF--Tactical Info Program | 5,000 |
| 13250 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--SEP classified | 1,200 |
| 13250 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--DCGS Architecture | 3,000 |
| 13250 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Integrated Broadcast Service | 100 |
| 13250 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--IBS Smart Pull Tech | 100 |
| 13550 Continuity of Ops DERF--Recon Supt Activities | 10,000 |
| Budget Activity 2: | |
| 13900 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Critical Infrastructure Protection | 1,800 |
| 14050 CT/FP DERF--AEF Force Protection Certification Training | 4,800 |
| 14050 CT/FP DERF--WMD 1st Responder | 21,850 |
| 14050 Combined Air Crew System Tester (CAST) | 5,000 |
| 14100 CT/FP DERF--AT/FP Facility Upgrades | 57,254 |
| Budget Activity 3: | |
| 14500 CT/FP DERF--AT/FP Facility Upgrades | 16,341 |
| 14800 CT/FP DERF--WMD 1st Responder | 1,150 |
| Budget Activity 4: | |
| 15450 Servicewide Transportation | -2,000 |
| 15500 CT/FP DERF--AEF Force Protection Certification Tng | 2,900 |
| 15500 CT/FP DERF--WMD 1st Responder | 4,600 |
| 15550 CT/FP DERF--AT/FP Facilities Upgrades | 3,976 |
| 15650 Administration | -7,000 |
| 15700 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Modernization, Sustainment and Dev | 4,900 |
| 15700 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Modernization, Sustainment and Dev | 1,700 |
| 15700 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Intrusion Detect Sys | 1,500 |
| 15700 Servicewide Communications | -9,000 |
| 15750 Personnel Programs | -5,000 |
| 15950 Other Servicewide Activities | -16,500 |
| 16100 William Lehman Aviation Center | 750 |
| 16150 NAIC Foreign Materials Facility | 1,000 |
| 16150 Conformable Lithography System AFIT Wright-Patterson AFB | 1,000 |
| 16250 Nuclear Posture Review DERF--Security and Investigative Activities | 2,000 |
| 16250 Sec, Comms & Info Opns DERF--Def Security Serv | 5,000 |
| Undistributed: | |
| 16410 Classified Programs DERF--Undistributed | 17,422 |
| 16540 Travel of Persons | -15,000 |
| 16580 FECA Surcharge | -8,717 |
| 16590 Aeronautical System Center Enterprise Infostructure Prototype | 6,500 |
| 16600 Threat Representation and Validation (TR&V) | 1,000 |
| 16610 Classified NAIC Operationalizing MASINT | 4,500 |
| 16620 Information Assurance Initiative for Air Force Materiel Command | 1,500 |
| 16630 Unobligated Balances | -33,000 |
| 16640 CONOPS Costs | -50,000 |
CONUS COMBAT AIR PATROL (CAP)
The protective Continental United States (CONUS) Combat Air Patrol (CAP) initially provided twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week patrol over Washington, DC, New York City and certain other key geographic sites. The amount estimated to continue the CONUS CAP in the DERF account was $1,200,000,000. Adjustments in the execution of the CONUS CAP flying hour program requirements, including strip alert capabilities, have significantly reduced the cost estimate for the CONUS CAP. The revised estimate for the CONUS CAP is $522,000,000. The Committee has provided that amount directly in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force.
COMBAT SEARCH AND RESCUE (CSAR) PLATFORM
The accompanying bill provides that of the funds made available in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, not less than $2,000,000 shall be made available for the deployment of Air Force active duty and Reserve CSAR air crews to the United Kingdom to participate in an Interfly program to train, operate, evaluate and exchange operational techniques and procedures on the EH101. The Air Force has identified mission deficiencies with the current CSAR platform for future requirements, which include mission reaction time, inadequate range, insufficient cabin space, poor survivability, insufficient situational awareness, and inadequate adverse weather capability. Following the Interfly program, the Secretary of the Air Force shall report to the congressional defense committees on the suitability of this aircraft as the future CSAR platform.
FAIRCHILD AIR FORCE BASE MUSEUM PROPERTY
The Committee is aware of the closing of the Fairchild Air Force Base Heritage Museum and the request to transfer artifacts to the Northwest Museum of Arts and Culture (MAC). Whenever possible, the Committee believes that the utmost consideration should be given to the preservation of local historical interests when the Department of Defense closes museums. Within existing statute and regulation, the Secretary of the Air Force is directed to exercise maximum discretion in order to maintain a historically significant collection of artifacts in Spokane, Washington.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $12,773,270,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 14,169,258,000
Committee recommendation 14,850,377,000
Change from budget request +681,119,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $14,850,377,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is an increase of $2,077,107,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: | |
| 17050 TJS--Combating Terrorism Readiness Initiative Fund (Transfer from DERF) | +12,000 |
| 17050 TJS--JCS Exercise Program | -10,937 |
| 17100 SOCOM--Hydration on the Move (CamelBak) | +1,000 |
| Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: | |
| 17400 Classified Programs | -6,869 |
| 17460 DAU--DCMS/IT Organizational Composition Research | +1,000 |
| 17460 DAU--Distance Learning and Performance | +3,500 |
| 17480 DHRA--DLAMP | -19,155 |
| 17480 DHRA--JRAP | -24,250 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 17750 Civil Military Program--Challenge Program | +2,500 |
| 17775 Classified Program (Transfer from DERF) | +137,770 |
| 17775 Classified Program (Change to DERF) | +143,208 |
| 17775 Classified Programs | +100,008 |
| 17850 DFAS--Financial Operations (Transfer from DERF) | +5,900 |
| 17850 DFAS--Financial Operations (Transfer from DERF) | +500 |
| 17875 DHRA--Critical Infrastructure Protection (Transfer from DERF) | +500 |
| 17875 DHRA--Civilian Personnel Data System | -20,000 |
| 17900 DISA--Secure Voice Teleconferencing System (Transfer from DERF) | +2,500 |
| 17900 DISA--Defense Conferencing Enhancement Program (Transfer from DERF) | +8,900 |
| 17900 DISA--DISA Continuity of Operations (Transfer from DERF) | +2,500 |
| 17900 DISA--Bandwidth Expansion (Transfer from DERF) | +7,600 |
| 17900 DISA--Information Assurance (Transfer from DERF) | +500 |
| 17900 DISA--On-site administrators for primary sites (Transfer from DERF) | +3,400 |
| 17900 DISA--IA, Intell/Coalition Encrp (CWAN) (Transfer from DERF) | +5,000 |
| 17900 DISA--IA, Intell/Coalition Encrp (CFBL) (Transfer from DERF) | +1,600 |
| 17900 DISA--IA Computer Network Defense (Transfer from DERF) | +3,500 |
| 17900 DISA--On-site administrators for primary sites (Transfer from DERF) | +3,000 |
| 17900 DISA--White House Communications (Transfer from DERF) | +3,000 |
| 17900 DISA--Wireless Priority Service Program | -37,000 |
| 19725 DLA--Critical Infrastructure Protection (Transfer from DERF) | +600 |
| 17925 DLA--Information Technology Network Consolidation | -10,000 |
| 18300 DODEA--Enhanced Force Protection (Transfer from DERF) | +24,200 |
| 18300 DODEA--GAVRT Project Expansion | +3,000 |
| 18300 DODEA--Lewis Center for Educational Research | +4,050 |
| 18300 DODEA--Family Support Services | +6,000 |
| 18050 DSS--Critical Infrastructure Protection (Transfer from DERF) | +500 |
| 18075 DTRA--Chemical & Biological Defense Capabilities Assessment | +1,000 |
| 18075 DTRA--Unconventional Nuclear Threat | +40,000 |
| 18100 OEA--George AFB | +2,500 |
| 18100 OEA--Norton AFB | +3,000 |
| 18100 OEA--Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal | +5,000 |
| 18100 OEA--Philadelphia Naval Business Center | +7,000 |
| 18100 OEA--Cecil Field | +5,000 |
| 18100 OEA--Charles Melvin Price Support Center | +2,000 |
| 18100 OEA--East Bay Conversion and Reinvestment Commission Pilot | +1,000 |
| 18100 OEA--CCAT | +4,000 |
| 18100 OEA--Hunters Point NSY | +2,000 |
| 18125 OSD--OSD Continuity of Operations (COOP) (Transfer from DERF) | +18,000 |
| 18125 OSD--NCR COOP (Transfer from DERF) | +10,500 |
| 18125 OSD--NICP Reserve Support (Transfer from DERF) | +4,000 |
| 18125 OSD--NICP Reserve Support (Transfer from DERF) | +4,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Hard and Deeply Buried Targets (Transfer from DERF) | +3,050 |
| 18125 OSD--CIP--Biological Agent Security (Transfer from DERF) | +2,000 |
| 18125 OSD--CIP--Nuclear Security Command and Control (Transfer from DERF) | +400 |
| 18125 OSD--CIP Technology & Consequence Management (Transfer from DERF) | +6,600 |
| 18125 OSD--Information Operations (Transfer from DERF) | +25,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Concept Plan (Transfer from DERF) | +10,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Information Operations (Transfer from DERF) | +32,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Information Operations (Transfer from DERF) | +1,500 |
| 18125 OSD--Information Operations (Transfer from DERF) | +6,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Horizontal Fusion Analysis (Transfer from DERF) | +2,000 |
| 18125 OSD--CENTRIX (Transfer from DERF) | +14,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Classified (Transfer from DERF) | +9,500 |
| 18125 OSD--Classified Programs (Change to DERF) | +52,600 |
| 18125 OSD--Program Growth | -15,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Management Headquarters | -11,100 |
| 18125 OSD--Information Technology Network Consolidation | -10,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Legacy System Under-execution | -1,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Legacy--CSS Alabama | +600 |
| 18125 OSD--Middle East Regional Security Issues Program | +1,500 |
| 18125 OSD--ADUSD (MPP&R) Wearable Computers--Existing Program | +4,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities (CTMA) | +7,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic Network Feasibility Study | +2,500 |
| 18150 SOCOM--Combat Development Activities (Transfer to DERF) | +7,000 |
| 18150 SOCOM--Combat Development Activities--Classified (Change to DERF) | +16,000 |
| 18200 TJS--Critical Infrastructure Protection (Transfer from DERF) | +300 |
| 18200 TJS--CINC for Homeland Security (Transfer from DERF) | +41,000 |
| 18200 TJS--Other Combating Terrorism Initiatives (Transfer from DERF) | +1,459 |
| 18200 TJS--Vulnerability Assessments, AT/FP requirements (Transfer from DERF) | +400 |
| 18200 TJS--Program Growth | -12,000 |
| 18200 TJS--Counter Terrorism Analysis Method for Adaptive Threats | +1,000 |
| 18200 TJS--NDU XXI | +4,000 |
| 18225 WHS--Classified Program (Transfer from DERF) | +28,000 |
| 18225 WHS--Information Technology Network Consolidation | -10,000 |
| Undistributed: | |
| 19010 Impact Aid | +35,000 |
| 19110 Travel Savings | -11,260 |
| 19210 FECA Reduction | -6,455 |
| 19220 Unobligated Balance | -25,000 |
ARMED FORCES INFORMATION SERVICE
The Committee directs the Armed Forces Information Service to provide to any Member of Congress or staff requesting access, the same remote access capability (from access points without `.gov' or `.mil' domains) currently available to DoD employees to the web-based Current News service.
GEORGE AFB
The Committee recommends an additional $2,500,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide only for the structural improvements of leasable buildings at the former George AFB.
NORTON AFB
The Committee recommends an additional $3,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide only for rehabilitation and structural repairs of leasable buildings at the former Norton AFB.
GAVRT PROJECT EXPANSION
The Committee recommends an additional $3,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide only for the rehabilitation of an additional GAVRT antenna.
LEWIS CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
The Committee has included an additional $4,050,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide for the Lewis Center for Educational Research for staffing, curriculum development, research, coordination and logistical support to enhance DoD teacher training.
CCAT
The Committee recommends an additional $4,000,000 in Operations and Maintenance, Defense-Wide only for technology and related economic/community adjustment activities to establish and implement the Connecticut Consortium for Aviation Technology.
CHARLES MELVIN PRICE SUPPORT CENTER
The Committee recommends an additional $2,000,000 in Operations and Maintenance, Defense-Wide only for rehabilitation and structural repairs and upgrades at the former Charles Melvin Price Support Center.
LEGACY
Within available funds, the Committee strongly encourages the Department to consider restoration of Lincoln Cottage on the grounds of the Armed Forces Retirement Home in Washington, DC.
DLAMP
The Committee continues to be concerned about the Defense Leadership and Management Program (DLAMP). During fiscal year 2002, the Department has attempted to restructure the DLAMP. However, the final outcome of the restructure is still very unclear and the full costs of the program are currently undefined. Additionally, the Committee is troubled that the DLAMP is paying for a 201 room hotel and conference complex in Southbridge, Massachusetts that it is not using. The Committee has adjusted funding for DLAMP accordingly.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
The Committee recommends a reduction in the number of personnel located within the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). This reduction is based on the Secretary's own initiative to reduce the number of headquarters personnel. While the fiscal year 2003 budget for management headquarters reflects a Defense-wide civilian personnel reduction, the Office of the Secretary of Defense was not included in the reduction. Accordingly, the Committee has reduced funding for management headquarters civilians within the OSD.
CHILD CARE AND FAMILY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
The Committee recommends an increase of $6,000,000 above the budget request for Child Care and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The Department is providing child care for Reservists called to duty, and offering extended operating hours at child development centers to support personnel working longer hours. In addition, the EAP program provides family support services to all Reserve component forces. The additional funds will help support the increased child care and family demands for those deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.
FAMILY ADVOCACY PROGRAMS
The Committee is aware of the recent Navy ruling against using Operation and Maintenance funds to augment support of the Family Advocacy Programs that are centrally funded with Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide appropriations. The Committee's intent in funding the core family programs centrally with OSD is to ensure consistent oversight and management of the family programs. The Committee believes that the Services should be allowed to supplement these programs with Operation and Maintenance funds in order to tailor their programs to meet their unique requirements.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $1,771,246,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 1,880,110,000
Committee recommendation 1,976,710,000
Change from budget request +96,600,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,976,710,000 for Operation and maintenance, Army Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $205,464,000 above the $1,771,246,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
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/Controlled Humidity Preservation | 4,000 |
| 19650 Land Forces System Readiness/Homeland Security DERF Transfer--Enhanced Secure Communications | 5,900 |
| 19650 Land Forces System Readiness/Homeland Security DERF Transfer--Enhanced Secure Communications | 25,600 |
| 19680 Base Support/CT-FP DERF Transfer--Access Control Program | 33,800 |
| 19680 Base Support/Homeland Security DERF Transfer--Enhanced Secure Communications | 30,700 |
| 19680 Base Support/CT-FP DERF Transfer--Installation Security | 2,900 |
| 19680 Base Support/DERF Transfer to Other Procurement, Army | -16,700 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 19990 Servicewide Communications/Homeland Security DERF Transfer--Enhanced Secure Communications | 2,400 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 20160 Additional Military Technicians | 8,000 |
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY RESERVE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $1,003,690,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 1,159,734,000
Committee recommendation 1,239,309,000
Change from budget request +79,575,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,239,309,000 for Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $235,619,000 above the $1,003,690,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: | |
| 21200 Aircraft Depot Maintenance. | 5,000 |
| 22030 Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization/CT-FP DERF Transfer--Physical Security Site Improvement. | 68,777 |
| 22030 Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization/Grissom Navy Reserve Center Renovation | 550 |
| 22040 Base Support/CT-FP DERF Transfer--Management and Planning | 61 |
| 22040 Base Support/CT-FP DERF Transfer--Management and Planning | 187 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 22350 Servicewide Communications/DERF Transfer--Continuity of Operations | 5,000 |
GRISSOM ARB NAVY RESERVE CENTER
The Committee recommends an increase of $550,000 above the budget request in operation and maintenance Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization funds only for renovation of a Navy Reserve Center building at Grissom Air Reserve Base, Indiana, in order to meet security and operational requirements.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $144,023,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 185,532,000
Committee recommendation 189,532,000
Change from budget request +4,000,000
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $189,532,000 for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $45,509,000 above the $144,023,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
The adjustment to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve is shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 24200 Initial Issue | 4,000 |
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE RESERVE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $2,024,866,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 2,135,452,000
Committee recommendation 2,165,604,000
Change from budget request +30,152,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,165,604,000 for Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $140,738,000 above the $2,024,866,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
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 | 5,000 |
| 25000 Base Support/CT-FP DERF Transfer--WMD First Responders Program | 14,950 |
| 25050 Facilities Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization/CT-FP DERF Transfer--Facility Upgrades | 6,202 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 25300 Administration/Command Server Consolidation | 4,000 |
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $3,768,058,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 4,049,567,000
Committee recommendation 4,231,967,000
Change from budget request +182,400,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,231,967,000 for Operation and maintenance, Army National Guard. The recommendation is an increase of $463,909,000 above the $3,768,058,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
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: | |
| 26360 Azure Blue Cannon Bore Cleaning System | 1,000 |
| 26420 Base Operations Support/CT-FP DERF Transfer--Physical Security Equipment | 350,000 |
| 26420 Base Operations Support/Homeland Security DERF Transfer--Long-Haul Communications | 86,200 |
| 26420 Base Operations Support/Homeland Security DERF Transfer--General Communications | 48,500 |
| 26420 Base Operations Support/DERF Transfer to Other Procurement, Army | -340,000 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 26680 Information Management/Interoperable Automation Continuity of Operations | 1,000 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 26820 Angel Gate Academy | 2,000 |
| 26830 National Emergency and Disaster Information Center | 3,000 |
| 26890 Joint Training and Experimentation Program | 4,000 |
| 26940 Rural Access to Broadband Technology | 2,500 |
| 26960 Additional Military Technicians | 11,300 |
| 26970 National Guard Global Education Project | 500 |
| 26980 All Terrain Military Utility Vehicle | 3,100 |
| 26990 Northeast Center for Homeland Security Feasibility Study | 1,500 |
| 27000 Courseware to Educate IT Managers | 2,000 |
| 27010 Information Assurance | 1,500 |
| 27030 WMD Response Element Advanced Laboratory Integrated Training and Indoctrination | 2,000 |
| 27050 Cold Weather Clothing | 300 |
| 27060 Louisiana NG Terrorism Training | 2,000 |
JOINT TRAINING AND EXPERIMENTATION PROJECT
The Committee recommends an increase of $4,000,000 above the budget request only to continue the California National Guard Joint Training and Experimentation Project.
MISSOURI ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
The Committee recommends an increase of $300,000 above the budget request only for cold weather clothing for the 135th Signal Battalion of the Army National Guard stationed in St. Joseph, Missouri.
MASSACHUSETTS MILITARY RESERVATION
The Committee recommends an increase of $1,500,000 above the budget request only for the development of a master plan and feasibility study for the Northeast Center for Homeland Security at the Massachusetts Military Reservation.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $3,988,961,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 4,062,445,000
Committee recommendation 4,113,010,000
Change from budget request +50,565,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,113,010,000 for Operation and maintenance, Air National Guard. The recommendation is an increase of $124,049,000 above the $3,988,961,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
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 Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization/CT-FP DERF Transfer--Facility Upgrades | 38,015 |
| 27800 Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization/Key Field Facility Renovation | 2,000 |
| 27850 Depot Maintenance | 5,000 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 28160 National Guard State Partnership Program | 1,000 |
| 28170 Project Alert | 2,750 |
| 28250 Surveying Training Systems | 1,000 |
| 28260 Instrument Landing System at Rickenbacker ANG Base | 500 |
| 28270 Cold Weather Clothing | 300 |
MISSOURI AIR NATIONAL GUARD
The Committee recommends an increase of $300,000 above the budget request only for cold weather clothing for the 139th Airlift Wing of the Air National Guard stationed in St. Joseph, Missouri.
KEY FIELD, MISSISSIPPI
The Committee recommends an increase of $2,000,000 above the budget request in operation and maintenance Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization funds only for repair of the operations and training facility at Key Field in Meridian, Mississippi.
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $50,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 50,000,000
Committee recommendation
Change from budget request -50,000,000
--------------------------------------------
The Committee has fully funded the Administrations request for support of ongoing DoD operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. These operations are no longer contingency events, and such continuing operations have been funded in the regular appropriations accounts lines as requested by the Administration. As these operations are now accounted for in the budget development process, contingency funds are not needed and the Committee has reallocated $50,000,000 from the Overseas Contingency Operations Fund to more urgent priorities.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $9,096,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 9,614,000
Committee recommendation 9,614,000
Change from budget request
-------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,614,000 for the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The recommendation is an increase of $518,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $389,800,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 395,900,000
Committee recommendation 395,900,000
Change from budget request
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $395,900,000 for Environmental Restoration, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $6,100,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $257,517,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 256,948,000
Committee recommendation 256,948,000
Change from budget request
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $256,948,000 for Environmental Restoration, Navy. The recommendation is a decrease of $569,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $385,437,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 389,773,000
Committee recommendation 389,773,000
Change from budget request
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $389,773,000 for Environmental Restoration, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $4,336,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE-WIDE
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $23,492,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 23,498,000
Committee recommendation 23,498,000
Change from budget request
--------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,498,000 for Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is an increase of $6,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $222,255,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 212,102,000
Committee recommendation 212,102,000
Change from budget request
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $212,102,000 for Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites. The recommendation is a decrease of $10,153,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002.
MOUNT UMUNHUM
The Committee encourages the Department to consider Mount Umunhum in San Jose, California for funding under the Formally Used Defense Site (FUDS) program
OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $49,700,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 58,400,000
Committee recommendation 58,400,000
Change from budget request
--------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $58,400,000 for Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid. The recommendation is an increase of $8,700,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002.
FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $403,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 416,700,000
Committee recommendation 416,700,000
Change from budget request
---------------------------------------------
This appropriation funds the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction activities of the Department of Defense.
The President's budget requested $416,700,000 for this activity in Title II. Funding for this appropriation has been transferred from Title IX of the Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act.
SUPPORT FOR INTERNATIONAL SPORTING COMPETITIONS, DEFENSE
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $15,800,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 19,000,000
Committee recommendation 19,000,000
Change from budget request
--------------------------------------------
This appropriation funds the Support for International Sporting Competitions, Defense for logistical and security support for international sporting competitions (including pay and non-travel related allowances only for members of the Reserve Components of the Armed Forces called or ordered to active duty in connection with providing such support). These funds are to remain available until expended, in order to provide support for future events.
DEFENSE EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $3,395,600,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 19,460,616,000
Committee recommendation 0
Change from budget request -19,460,616,000
------------------------------------------------
For activities funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, the Administration requested $19,460,616,000 in the Defense Emergency Response Fund to support efforts by the Department of Defense to respond to, or protect against, acts or threatened acts of terrorism against the United States. Of that amount, $10,000,000,000 would only be available if a subsequent official budget request, designating the amount of the request as essential to respond or protect against acts or threatened acts of terrorism, is transmitted by the President to the Congress. As explained elsewhere in this report, the Administration has yet to submit any specific request or budget justification for these funds. Pending receipt of any such request or budget amendment, the Committee has deferred action on this $10,000,000,000 appropriation.
As regards the remaining $9,460,616,000 requested in the Defense Emergency Response Fund, budget justification materials identified the specific programs, as well as line items and appropriations accounts, to which the Department planned to transfer funds for obligation. Therefore, rather than provide funding for these items in the Defense Emergency Response Fund, appropriations for those items and amounts approved by the Committee are found in the appropriations accounts and line items identified by the Department.
TITLE III
PROCUREMENT
ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY
The fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense procurement budget request totals $67,220,034,000. The accompanying bill recommends $70,285,272,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of $3,065,238,000 above the fiscal year 2003 budget estimate and is $9,420,324,000 above the total provided in fiscal year 2002. The table below summarizes the budget estimates and the Committee's recommendations.
SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS
Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in the project level tables or items in paragraphs using the phrase `only for' or `only to' in this report are congressional interest items for the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD 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 ANNEX
Adjustments of the classified programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.
ARMY LARGE SCALE CONTRACT REVIEW
Given some of the contractual problems that have occurred during large program contracts in previous years, the Committee believes that large scale contracts should be reviewed by competent outside counsel.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $1,984,391,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 2,061,027,000
Committee recommendation 2,214,369,000
Change from budget request +153,342,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation finances acquisition of tactical and utility airplanes and helicopters, including associated electronics, electric warfare of in-service aircraft, ground support equipment, components and parts such as spare engines, transmission 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]
UH-60L BLACKHAWK FLIGHT SIMULATOR
The budget request contains $153,361,000 for the procurement of 12 UH-60L Blackhawk utility helicopters for the Army National Guard (ARNG), but includes no funds for a UH-60L full motion simulator. The Blackhawk is the Army's primary utility helicopter for air assault, general support and aero medical evacuation missions. The Committee is aware that the national command authority's rapid reaction force 18th Airborne Corps has a requirement for one additional UH-60L Blackhawk full motion simulator and that this simulator is not planned to be budgeted for until fiscal year 2005. However, aviation units from this Corps are currently deployed in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and must maintain the highest levels of readiness and training as a rotational alert force. Accordingly, the Committee recommends an additional $15 million for one UH-60L Blackhawk full motion simulator for the 18th Airborne Corps.
CH-47F UPGRADE PROGRAM RESTRUCTURE
The bill provides an additional $45,000,000 to the budget request of $382,061,000 to support the restructuring of the CH-47F helicopter upgrade program. The CH-47F Chinook helicopter will be the main heavy lift helicopter of the Future Combat System and the Objective Force. Upgrading the CH-47 `D' model to an `F' model will extend airframe life by at least 20 years, replace the analog cockpit with a digital cockpit, modernize communications and navigation equipment, reduce vibration, and reduce aircraft tear down and build-up for strategic airlift by 65 percent.
Given the critical importance of this helicopter to the Army, the Committee believes this program should receive top budgetary priority in which the entire fleet of 465 helicopters should be upgraded instead of only 72 percent of the Army fleet (337 helicopters) under the current plan. The Committee also believes the current procurement strategy should be restructured to obtain more cost-effective production rates for this aircraft, from the current planned rate of 36 helicopters per fiscal year to 48 per year, which the Committee believes could save over $1,000,000 per helicopter.
The current upgrade plan also presents many operational difficulties for the Army that should be avoided. For instance, under the current plan, the 128 CH-47 `D' models that would not be upgraded would be assigned to National Guard and Reserve units for call-up on an as needed basis. Pilots of `D' models will not be qualified to fly `F' models without additional, costly, and time-consuming training. By having both active and reserve pilots qualified on one model, mobilization of Guard and Reserve units will be seamless. One common aircraft will also greatly reduce the Army's logistics burden and save considerable sums for a common set of spare parts, and standardized system fixes that apply to the whole fleet. In addition, all CH-47F models will have a digital as opposed to analog cockpit, which will allow interoperability within and across the services and enable the use of tranformational technolgies.
The additional $45,000,000 is intended to faciliate the transition to the most economically efficient program of at least 48 helicopters per year once full production is initiated. The bill provides that these funds may only be committed if the Secretary of the Army certifies to the congressional defense committees, not later than June 30, 2004, that the program has been restructured to upgrade all CH-47 aircraft in the Army fleet.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $1,079,330,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 1,642,296,000
Committee recommendation 1,112,772,000
Change from budget request -529,524,000
-----------------------------------------------
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]
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.
PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $2,193,746,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 2,248,558,000
Committee recommendation 2,248,358,000
Change from budget request -200,000
-----------------------------------------------
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]
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $1,200,465,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 1,159,426,000
Committee recommendation 1,207,560,000
Change from budget request +48,134,000
-----------------------------------------------
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]
PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICER FOR AMMUNITION
The Committee commends the Army for establishing a Program Executive Officer (PEO) for Ammunition as part of its larger effort to streamline its acquisition organization and processes. Ammunition represents perhaps the most critical component of an effective Army, providing needed lethality for our soldiers in the field. However, for decades the Army's ammunition management system was fragmented and inefficient. Repeated studies, as well as this Committee, have recognized the need to substantively reform the ammunition management process; to manage it as a major acquisition system with a single manager responsible for all programmatic and fiscal control. The Committee strongly encourages the Army to continue moving forward with the expeditious implementation of a PEO for Ammunition.
CANCELLATION OF WIDE AREA MUNITION (WAM) PROGRAM
The Committee recommends no additional funds to continue development or procurement of the Wide Area Munition and directs that this program be cancelled. The WAM and Advanced WAM, a smart, autonomous top attack anti-tank/anti-vehicle munition, was developed as a Cold War weapon to counter massed Soviet armor. It is theoretically supposed to use acoustic and seismic sensors in its ground platform to detect vehicles, classify potential targets, and then automatically launch an infrared detecting submunition or `sublet' over the top of the selected target. Even though this munition has been in development since 1986 and over $330,000,000 has been expended for its development, the Army has yet to demonstrate the ability to satisfy even minimally acceptable operational performance requirements.
According to the Department of Defense Inspector General, the key WAM performance parameters for range, engagement of heavy wheeled targets, and success rate in conditions of rain and snow have yet to be demonstrated. Key performance characteristics that have not been met include: tactical engagement of any of the designated targets at maximum range, engagement of multiple targets in any environment or a single target on other than level ground, and engagement of non-tank targets (e.g., wheeled vehicles) in any environment at any range. The self-destruct function, a key safety and operational feature, has yet to be demonstrated. Additionally, operational tests have been conducted with non-production representative munitions and inert warheads in contravention of Army test policy.
The Army has also been unable to come close to achieving WAM cost targets of $11,110 per unit. Under a low rate production contract, the Army procured over 100 WAM systems at a cost of over $200,000 apiece under a conditional material release for the 82nd Airborne Division. Even if the Army achieves its inventory objective of more than 33,000 munitions, it would miss the unit cost objective by a factor of five. With a dwindling target set, less than successful acquisition milestone achievements and high unit cost, the Committee believes the remaining $230,000,000 programmed for WAM acquisition in the future years should be applied to upgrading the remaining 28 percent of the CH-47 helicopter fleet that is not currently in the Army upgrade plan.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $4,183,736,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 5,168,453,000
Committee recommendation 6,017,380,000
Change from budget request +848,927,000
-----------------------------------------------
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 systems; (b) communications and electronics equipment of all types to provide fixed, semi-fixed, and mobile strategic and tactical communication equipment; (c) other support 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]
UP-ARMORED HMMWVS
The Committee notes that the M1114 Up-armored High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) is a key program for U.S. armed forces. This vehicle has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to protect U.S. personnel in hostile environments such as Haiti, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that the Army request funds for fiscal year 2004, and subsequent years, to support an annual fielding rate of 720 vehicles per year with the objective of complete fielding to Army forces by fiscal year 2008.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $7,938,143,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 8,203,955,000
Committee recommendation 8,682,655,000
Change from budget request +478,700,000
-----------------------------------------------
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]
CH-60S COMMON COCKPIT MULTI-YEAR PROCUREMENT
The Committee notes that the CH-60S helicopter is being procured under two separate acquisition plans. The basic air vehicle is being procured under a cost effective multi-year contract, while the CH-60S cockpit avionics and other components are being procured on an annual basis. The Navy may be able to realize additional costs savings through a multi-year procurement of the aircraft cockpit equipment as well. The Committee urges the Department of the Navy to thoroughly examine the business case for multi-year procurement of the MH-60S helicopter cockpits and if warranted by the analysis, submit a request for multi- year procurement of said cockpits as part of the fiscal year 2004 budget request.
TACTICAL INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE (ISR)
The Committee understands that the Navy may be considering a plan to terminate its long-standing tactical aircraft intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) program. The Navy's concerns about the value of the product to the overall mission planning process, as well as its ability to fund future program requirements, has generated an interest in terminating a number of tactical ISR programs after fiscal year 2003, particularly the F/A-18E/F Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP).
The Committee would not agree with such a recommendation and remains committed to the necessity of continuing ISR missions conducted by tactical aircraft. The Committee believes that the Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP), when it is deployed, will provide a unique opportunity for sharing of ISR data, a critical component of network centric warfare. The cost savings for terminating this particular program cannot outweigh the important contributions for expanding the availability of `high demand/low density' ISR collection and distribution sensors and platforms.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Navy to continue funding the Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP) in the fiscal year 2004 and future years budgets. Should the Navy determine that other tactical ISR sensors do not provide sufficient value to mission planners or are of significantly high maintenance costs, the Committee would certainly consider a termination proposal for these systems.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $1,429,592,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 1,832,617,000
Committee recommendation 2,384,617,000
Change from budget request +552,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
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]
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $461,399,000
Fiscal Year 2003 budget request 1,015,152,000
Committee recommendation 1,167,130,000
Change from Budget Request +151,978,000
----------------------------------------------
This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, ammunition modernization, and ammunition related material for the Navy and Marine Corps.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $9,490,039,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 8,191,194,000
Committee recommendation 8,127,694,000
Change from budget request -63,500,000
-----------------------------------------------
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]
CVN-77 INTEGRATED WARFARE SYSTEM (IWS)
The CVN-77 is to be the last Nimitz-class carrier acquired and operated by the Navy before transitioning to the CVN(X) next generation aircraft carrier class. As originally envisioned, the CVN-77 was to be a bridge to the future as one of three transformational carriers designed to evolve the Navy towards more modern ship designs. It was to have an integrated warfare system (IWS) featuring a new phased array radar being developed by the DD-21 program, enhanced self defense capabilities, advanced displays, programmable communications suites, and open system architectures to provide an easily upgradable base for future technology insertion and product improvement efforts. With the termination of the DD-21 program and restructure as the DD-(X), it became apparent that the existing development schedules for the Multi-function radar (MFR) and Volume Search Radar (VSR) systems would no longer meet the construction schedule requirements of the CVN-77. The Navy had a modern technological alternative available in the form of a derivative of the AEGIS SPY-1 Radar coupled with the MFR, but instead chose to replace the MFR/VSR systems with legacy rotating radar equipment originally developed over 30 years ago and currently out of production. Additionally, in an effort to not create prior year shipbuilding costs for the CVN-77, the Navy chose to delete a substantial amount of the technology improvement work that was to be accomplished in the IWS. Instead of the previously cited warfighting capability improvements that were to be fielded on the CVN-77, the Navy has decided to launch the last Nimitz class carrier into the 21st century with vintage radars, basic self-defense capabilities, isolated decision centers, non-integrated displays, generation old computer processors and stove-piped communications systems. This decision not only deprives the fleet of significant warfighting improvements that could be obtained today, but in the Committee's belief, unnecessarily increases the technological risk and total cost to the CVN(X) program, thus negating any short term cost savings benefit derived from severely limiting the CVN-77 IWS development effort. The Committee is also concerned that under the Navy proposal, it is not apparent where legacy radar systems would be obtained for reconditioning and installation on the CVN-77, or what the impact would be to other Navy shipbuilding programs that could potentially receive these assets. It is also apparent that the Navy has not adequately factored in the costs of maintaining out of production parts for the legacy systems they had hoped to use on the CVN-77. Finally, the Committee believes that the presently proposed `flexible island' design change would generate unnecessary costs and that it would be actually more efficient to design a flexible island that accommodates the change of one phased array radar system to another, rather than from a rotating to a phased array radar system.
The Navy is to be applauded for it's recent sensitivity towards and management of prior year shipbuilding costs. The Secretary's efforts to bring long needed discipline to this fiscal practice is appreciated and supported by the Committee. However, the Committee believes that in the case of the CVN-77 IWS, the most cost effective course is to include as much warfighting capability on the ship as possible today, not at a post launch availability date far beyond present budgetary horizons. The Committee therefore has provided an additional $250,000,000 over the fiscal year 2003 budget request for the CVN-77 only to reinstate the original work content of the IWS contract. It is the Committee's sense that the Navy should pursue a phased array radar solution for the CVN-77, whether it is a variant of the AEGIS SPY-1 radar or an acceleration of the MFR/VSR system to be installed on the DD-X.
The Committee also strictly prohibits the obligation of any funds in the fiscal year 2003 budget request for the development of a CVN-77 IWS contract data package that does not include a phased array radar system, enhanced self defense capability, advanced display systems and an open system architecture configured to optimize future technology insertion and product improvement upgrades. Elsewhere in this report the Committee has recommended a reduction of $25,000,000 for development of the CVN(X) contract data package as premature, until the Navy clearly establishes a coherent risk reduction path from the CVN-77 to the CVN(X). The Department of the Navy is directed to provide a report to the House Appropriations Committee no later than February 15, 2003 which details the new acquisition strategy for the CVN-77 IWS to include a detailed discussion of the reinstated program's, cost, schedule, and technical and contractual milestones.
SSGN ACQUISITION STRATEGY
The Committee remains strongly supportive of the effort to convert and modernize four SSBN nuclear missile submarines to perform tactical and surveillance missions. The Committee is convinced that these assets which were otherwise to be retired, will prove to be a vital capability for the Navy in future contingencies.
One of the compelling features of this program was the relatively straight-forward and cost-effective process of converting existing submarines to be capable of carrying up to 150 Tomahawk missiles. The economic and operational benefits of carrying out this conversion for 4 vice 2 boats as proposed by the Navy became apparent to Congress during the fiscal year 2002 defense budget cycle. Accordingly, additional funding was provided to initiate a 4 boat program in fiscal year 2002. The Navy is to be commended for identifying funding in its future years defense program to ensure that a 4 boat SSGN capability becomes a reality. The Committee has concerns, however, that the Navy maybe pursuing an unnecessarily complex acquisition strategy for the SSGN program which could affect its future affordability. The Committee believes that it is imperative that the SSGN program be managed to ensure that cost and schedule goals are achieved.
The SSGN conversion program is comprised of standard submarine refueling and overhaul activities, but also includes elements of a new design and a first time installation of new equipment. It will also necessarily involve system integration efforts and design/installation interfacing. The Committee urges the Navy to optimize the proven historical capabilities of public and private shipyards, as well as look to other successful design/build processes and other conversion programs for SSBN such as the recent conversions to the D-5 missile, as it goes forward with an acquisition strategy for the SSGN program. The Committee therefore directs the Navy to submit a report to the Appropriations Committee no later February 15, 2003 on the overall acquisition strategy for the SSGN program to include consideration of a prime systems integrator for all design, manufacturing, and conversion activities for the SSGN program and an arrangement that maximizes the utilization of available skilled workforces and infrastructure at each public shipyard to include the minimization of crew transfers and maximization of production learning curves.
DDG-51 COMPOSITE STRUCTURES
The Committee directs the Department of the Navy to conduct an analysis of the cost and performance effectiveness of including composite louvers in the baseline design for DDG-51 class ships under the current multi-year buy beginning with ships appropriated in fiscal year 2002. If warranted by the analysis, the Committee urges the Navy to begin budget and acquisition planning to procure and install composite louvers on present and future flights of DDG-51 ships starting with the post-delivery availability of ships scheduled for delivery in 2003 and 2004. The Navy is directed to provide a report on its analysis to the House Appropriations Committee no later than February 15, 2003.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $4,270,976,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 4,347,024,000
Committee recommendation 4,631,299,000
Change from budget request +284,275,000
-----------------------------------------------
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]
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $995,442,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 1,288,383,000
Committee recommendation 1,369,383,000
Change from budget request +81,000,000
----------------------------------------------
This appropriation funds the procurement, delivery, and modification of missiles, armaments, communication equipment, tracked and wheeled vehicles, and various support equipment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $10,567,038,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 12,067,405,000
Committee recommendation 12,492,730,000
Change from budget request +425,325,000
------------------------------------------------
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]
F-22 RAPTOR
Since the submission of the fiscal year 2002 President's budget, the total program cost of the F-22 Raptor has increased by $5,957,000,000. The expected start date for Dedicated Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (DIOT&E) has formally slipped by eight months even after 31 percent of the test points remaining before DIOT&E were dropped or deferred. In production, aircraft 4008 and 4009 were delivered, on average, 12 months behind schedule.
Despite these schedule delays, the fiscal year 2003 budget request recommends increasing the production of F-22s from 13 planes in fiscal year 2002 to 23 planes in fiscal year 2003. Because of the risk of costly retrofits, increasing the number of planes purchased before the completion of operational testing adds significant risk, and potentially significant cost, to the program. Overlapping operational testing and developmental testing further increases program risk. The DoD Directive 5000 series recommends that the number of planes purchased in Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) be held below 10 percent of the total production quantity. The Air Force's current proposal for the F-22 would purchase in LRIP one-third of its total production quantity.
If the F-22 program stays on its latest schedule and begins DIOT&E in April of 2003, 17 percent of its total buy will be ordered before DIOT&E even begins. However, over the nine month period from June of last year to March of this year, the Air Force projected it would `burn down' about 3,000 flight science test points. In execution, the Air Force actually `burned down' less than half that many. At this rate of progress, the General Accounting Office estimates that the Air Force will be ready to begin DIOT&E in March of 2004. The Air Force will have ordered 25 percent of the total F-22 production goal by then.
The Committee is willing to increase the production of F-22 aircraft as the budget proposes, provided the Secretary of Defense has fully evaluated these risks. The bill includes a provision requiring that, prior to ordering more than 16 additional F-22 aircraft, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics submits to the congressional defense committees a cost-benefit analysis comparing the cost advantages of increasing aircraft production at this time to the potential cost of retrofiting production aircraft once operational test and evaluation has been completed. The bill also requires that the Under Secretary certify to the Congress that the costs of retrofits for fixes discovered during developmental and operational testing will be absorbed within the current projected total program cost. Finally, the language directs the Under Secretary to certify that the proposed production rate is the lowest risk and lowest cost solution, or else to submit to the Congress a revised production plan.
The Committee is concerned that the lack of stability in the Department's estimates of the F-22 program's costs and schedule may have other negative consequences for the long term cost of the program. The Committee therefore recommends fencing the funds available for the producability improvement program in order to ensure that this critical long term cost reduction effort is not cut in order to cover additional cost growth.
The Committee approves the F-22 procurement budget request of $4,621,068,000 in full and recommends bill language to accomplish these objectives.
INCREMENTAL FUNDING OF THE C-17
The Air Force has adopted a budgeting approach for the C-17 that delays the need to request $1,500,000,000 in budget authority until 2007 and 2008. Instead of following the traditional method of requesting funding equal to the cost of the planes being built, the Air Force has matched its funding request to when payments are due to the contractor. The Air Force calls this change `transformation'. The proper term is incremental funding and it is inconsistent with DoD fiscal policy. Although the planes are delivered on the same schedule and at the same cost under either approach, incremental funding allows programs to push off onto future years costs that should be covered now.
Last year, when the Congress was considering multiyear procurement authority for the C-17, the Air Force sought bill language specifically authorizing this new approach. The Congress approved the multiyear, but denied the Air Force's request for special authority. Nevertheless, the Air Force proceeded with the incremental funding and reinterpreted the regulations as permitting this approach. For example, while the DoD Financial Management Regulations (FMR) define Advance Procurement as being for `long leadtime items', the Air Force believes that this can be interpreted to apply to any component of the aircraft or even to final assembly. While the FMR calls for advance procurement to be `relatively low' compared to the cost of the end item, the Air Force proposal would, in some cases, fund half of the cost of the airplane with advanced procurement. The Air Force position is not consistent with any reasonable interpretation of the FMR.
Therefore, the Committee has included bill language requiring that the fiscal year 2003 C-17 Advance Procurement be used to support the acquisition in fiscal year 2004 of 15 C-17 aircraft (the planned production rate) and directs the Air Force to include the funds to complete the purchase of those 15 C-17s in its 2004 budget submission.
The Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to restructure the outyear funding for the C-17 program to bring it into compliance with the proper use of advance procurement as defined in the FMR. The Committee is fully supportive of the C-17 program and the multiyear procurement of 60 additional airplanes and directs that these changes be implemented in a manner that would not adversely affect the cost or delivery of these planes.
PREDATOR B UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV)
The Predator UAV continues to demonstrate its versatility in meeting the deployed operational requirements of the warfighting CINCs. Its reliability and combat mission successes have provided significant opportunities in a number of military operations.
With the increased use of UAVs to support ongoing operations, the roles and missions of the Predator UAV system are quickly expanding. The need for greater stand-off reconnaissance, targeting and variable weapons delivery capability will continue to drive the requirement for upgrades to existing systems and the development of new systems.
The Predator B UAV, which is operational today, has the ability to meet a large number of the future reconnaissance, targeting, and weapons delivery requirements. Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2003 budget request does not include a request for the procurement of additional Predator B aircraft. Therefore, the Committee has provided an increase of $26,000,000 for the Air Force to acquire six additional Predator B prop jet aircraft, including spare parts, to augment the current inventory of aircraft.
The Committee believes that the Predator B UAV may well satisfy reconnaissance, targeting and weapons delivery requirements of the Navy. Therefore, the Committee directs the Air Force and the Navy to establish a Joint Program Office for the Predator B. This Joint Program Office would manage the development of requirements, program management, acquisition support, testing and training.
GLOBAL HAWK HIGH ALTITUDE ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (HAEUAV)
The fiscal year 2003 budget request included $41,000,000 for advance procurement for the Global Hawk High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, the Committee recommends $32,625,000, a reduction of $8,375,000.
The Committee makes this recommendation due to the availability of funds in fiscal year 2002 for advance procurement for four aircraft that will be procured in fiscal year 2003 although only three aircraft were included in the 2003 budget request. When consideration is given to the appropriation for advance procurement in fiscal year 2002 and the Committee's recommendation for 2003, the Air Force has sufficient funds for both the 2002 and 2003 advance procurement requirement.
E-8 JOINT STARS
The President's budget requests $279,268,000 for one additional E-8C JOINT STARS. This would bring the Department's inventory to 17 airplanes. However, the Department has not requested any funding for the advanced procurement of an 18th aircraft, nor has it provided the funds that would be required to shutdown the production line. The Committee therefore directs the Department to decide whether or not they want another JOINT STARS and to submit a reprogramming providing the funding needed to implement that decision.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $2,989,524,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 3,575,162,000
Committee recommendation 3,185,439,000
Change from budget request -389,723,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides for procurement, installation, and checkout of strategic ballistic and other missiles, modification of in-service missiles, and initial spares for missile systems. It also provides for operational space systems, boosters, payloads, drones, associated ground equipment, non-recurring maintenance of industrial facilities, machine tool modernization, and special program support.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE
----------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $866,644,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 1,133,864,000
Committee recommendation 1,290,764,000
Change from budget request +156,900,000
----------------------------------------------
This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, modifications, spares, weapons, and other ammunition-related items for the Air Force.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $8,085,863,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 10,523,946,000
Committee recommendation 10,622,660,000
Change from budget request +98,714,000
-----------------------------------------------
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 operational forces, and ground support equipment for weapon systems and supporting structure.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $2,389,490,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 2,688,515,000
Committee recommendation 3,457,405,000
Change from budget request +768,890,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation funds the Procurement, Defense-Wide activities of the Department of Defense.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The Committee has provided $1,200,000 for the Department of Defense Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business to execute the DoD Technical Assistance Program. This program provides critical training and technical assistance services to minority institutions to help them more effectively compete for Department of Defense funding opportunities.
ADVANCED SEAL DELIVERY SYSTEM
The Special Operations Command requested $21,804,000 for procurement of the Advanced Sea, Air, Land (SEAL) Delivery System (ASDS) and $34,730,000 in advanced procurement for a second ASDS. The Committee recommends $23,504,000 for procurement, of which $12,000,000 is recommended to procure Lithium Ion Polymer Batteries, and no funds for advanced procurement.
The ASDS is a manned combatant mini-submarine used for the clandestine delivery of Special Operations Forces personnel and weapons and will provide an important improvement over the current SEAL delivery system. The first ASDS has encountered significant cost and schedule problems and there are important unresolved issues identified last year by the Committee which continue to require more RDT&E funding. Since the budget was submitted, the Special Operations Command has wisely decided to restructure this program and is delaying the procurement of the second ASDS until the technical problems have been resolved. The Committee recommends additional funding above the budget request for the ASDS in the RDT&E program addressed elsewhere in this report.
DEFENSE IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY
Funds for the Defense Imagery and Mapping Agency have been transferred to the National Foreign Intelligence Program in an effort to improve appropriations oversight and management efficiency. Further details are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.
PATRIOT ADVANCED CAPABILITY--3 (PAC-3)
The President's budget request includes $471,670,000 for the procurement of 72 PAC-3 missiles in Missile Procurement, Army. The Committee recommends moving these funds to Procurement, Defense-Wide and providing an increase of $65,000,000 only for the procurement of 24 additional missiles in 2003, the acquisition of long lead items for 72 missiles in 2004 or some combination of the above. The Committee further directs that these funds are available only to support a budget request for 144 missiles in 2004.
Last year, the Administration requested funds to upgrade the facilities that produce the PAC-3 so that by 2004 the facility could support a production rate of 12 missiles per month and by 2006 a production rate of 20 missiles per month. The Congress supported the Administration's request and directed the Department to begin producing these additional missiles as soon as possible. This year the Department of Defense proposes to transfer the program from the Missile Defense Agency to the Army, but with only enough funds to buy 6 missiles per month in 2004 and increasing to only 12 missiles per month in 2006. At this production rate, the Army would not be able to achieve its inventory objective until 2019. Given the Administration's commitment to missile defense, the Committee is disappointed that the Department would transfer this program to the Army with such a significant shortfall. The Committee believes that theater missile defense is too high a priority to be transferred in this way. Therefore the Committee recommends moving procurement funding for the PAC-3 back to Procurement, Defense-Wide and directs that the Department not transfer the PAC-3 procurement program to the Army until it has included enough funds in the Program Objective Memorandum for this program to support a production rate of 20 missiles per month and a total purchase of at least 2,200 missiles.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $699,130,000
Fiscal year 2003 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
The budget request includes $2,603,597,000 to equip National Guard and Reserve units in Procurement accounts for each of the Armed Services and no funding in National Guard and Reserve Equipment. The Committee is aware of the indispensable contributions members of the Guard and the Reserves make to our national security and has added $222,880,000 in additional funding above the request within the regular appropriation accounts to allow them to more adequately perform their missions. These missions continue to grow in scope as the Department uses Guard and Reserve forces to help deal with increased foreign deployments and to respond to terrorists threats to our homeland security. The Committee has amended bill language proposed in the budget for these purposes to insure that not less than the amounts identified are provided to the National Guard and Reserve components.
DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT PURCHASES
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $40,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 73,057,000
Committee recommendation 73,057,000
Change from request
--------------------------------------------
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. The Department requested $73,057,000 for Defense Production Act Purchases in fiscal year 2003. The Committee recommends $73,057,000, the amount of the budget request.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
The Department requested $17,909,943,000 for Information Technology. The Committee recommends $17,664,945,000 a decrease of $244,998,000 as explained below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Operation and Maintenance, Army: | |
| C4 Requirements for PACOM--Transfer to procurement | -6,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Navy: | |
| CMIS | 4,000 |
| SPAWAR IT Center | 3,000 |
| Non-NMCI Information Technology | -120,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Air Force: | |
| ASC Enterprise InfoStructure Prototype | 6,500 |
| AFMC/SC Information Assurance Initiative | 1,500 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide: | |
| Civilian Personnel Data System | -20,000 |
| DLA, Information Technology Network Consolidation | -10,000 |
| DSMC/IT Organizational Composition Research | 1,000 |
| OSD, Information Technology Network Consolidation | -10,000 |
| DISA, Wireless Priority Service | -37,000 |
| Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic Network Feasibility Study | 2,500 |
| ADUSD (MPP&R) Wearable Computers [Note: Only for the existing program and initial deployment.] | 4,000 |
| Counter Terrorism Analysis Methods for Adaptive Threats | 1,000 |
| WHS, Information Technology Network Consolidation | -10,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve: | |
| Command Server Consolidation | 4,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard: | |
| Courseware to Educate IT Managers | 2,000 |
| Information Assurance [Note: Only for a collaborative information assurance effort with SEI.] | 1,500 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard: | |
| National Guard Global Education Project | 500 |
| Project Alert | 2,750 |
| Interoperable Automation Continuity of Operations | 1,000 |
| Other Procurement, Army: | |
| Information Systems reduction | -41,000 |
| C4 Requirements for PACOM | 6,000 |
| Global Combat Support System | -10,000 |
| Army Knowledge Online | 5,000 |
| National Guard Courseware Development | 3,000 |
| Automated Maintenance Records Technology | 4,500 |
| Other Procurement, Navy: | |
| USNR Information Infrastructure COOP | 3,000 |
| JEDMICS Security Solution | 7,000 |
| JEDMICS Type 1 Network Security Solution | 7,000 |
| USMC Continuity of Operations | 7,000 |
| Other Procurement, Air Force: | |
| REMIS | 2,500 |
| Point of Maintenance Initiative | 1,500 |
| Procurement, Defense-Wide: | |
| OSD Information Technology Consolidation | -2,000 |
| WHS Information Technology Consolidation | -2,000 |
| Bandwidth Expansion Contract Cost Savings | -25,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army: | |
| Global Combat Support System | -20,000 |
| Armament Systems Network IA Center | 4,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy: | |
| Deployable Joint Command and Control | -39,772 |
| Web Centric Network Warfare | 8,000 |
| JEDMICS | 3,000 |
| SPAWAR Information Technology Center | 6,000 |
| Distance Learning IT Center | 15,000 |
| CAST Upgrade--CACCTUS Intelligent Tutor System | 4,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force: | |
| Global Combat Support System | -6,000 |
| Financial Management Information Systems Development | -21,326 |
| Enterprise Data Warehouse | 4,000 |
| Information Management for Crisis Response | 6,000 |
| World Infrastructure Support Environment | 6,000 |
| ILIAD | 3,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide: | |
| Center for Computer Security | 300 |
| National Guard Multi-Media Security Technology | 2,500 |
| Data Standards for the Integrated Digital Environment | 1,000 |
| DMS Data Warehouse Solution | 1,000 |
| Advanced Distributed Learning Prototypes | 4,000 |
| Standard Procurement System | -2,500 |
| Financial Management System Improvement [Transfer to Defense Working Capital Fund] | -60,000 |
| Protection of Vital Data | 8,000 |
| Computer Science and Internet Security Degree Program | 750 |
| Global Infrastructure Data Capture | 9,000 |
| Joint Analytical Model Improvement Program | -4,000 |
| Global Command and Control System Review | -8,700 |
| Picket Fence | 2,000 |
| SOF Integrated Command and Control System | 4,000 |
TRANSFERS FROM THE DEFENSE EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND
In addition to the amounts indicated above, $3,554,800,000 has been transferred from amounts requested in the Defense Emergency Response Fund as explained below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| CINC Homeland Security | $215,000 |
| White House Communications | 3,000 |
| Continuity of Operations--DoD | 534,000 |
| Virtual Pentagon | 214,000 |
| Security, Communications & Information Operations | 2,588,800 |
NAVY MARINE CORPS INTRANET
The Committee agrees with the Navy's intent of transitioning to an Enterprise Architecture with its Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI); however, the Committee is concerned over the Navy's consideration of the significant legacy applications challenge and the pace at which the Navy is seeking to proceed. The NMCI program has been unstable since its inception in fiscal year 1999 because of the Navy's decision to circumvent the requirements of the Clinger-Cohen Act and other DoD acquisition guidelines. The designation of a single command authority to oversee program management pursuant to Public Law enacted last year has been a driving force in getting the program back on track.
Unfortunately, while significant progress has been made in establishing the beginnings of the network, the initial rollout has demonstrated not only the magnitude of this undertaking, but the previously unforeseen challenges it presents. The Committee has heard repeatedly from the Navy, the contractor, and the claimants that failure to identify the existence of tens of thousands of legacy applications, and how or whether they could operate on the network, has severely inhibited transitioning. If unneeded applications are not phased out, those remaining for tactical operations and other uses must be: (1) made secure in order to be accommodated on the NMCI network, or (2) handled separately on a terminal outside of NMCI. The Committee is concerned that this problem has limited the current state of the networks capabilities to such a degree that the system has significantly impacted operations. At one test center the dependence on legacy applications which are not currently on NMCI is so fundamental that more than fifty percent of the workstations require more than one computer--an NMCI terminal and a legacy terminal. It is evident at the test site that seats have not been `cut over' but merely cut in half. While this problem exists, the Navy has proceeded with additional seat orders for additional locations, creating the potential for this crisis to grow exponentially.
The Committee believes strongly that for NMCI to ultimately succeed, progress must be at a more moderately measured pace and with far greater emphasis on understanding the networks capabilities and limitations. Customer test and evaluation has been performed by the contractor to the satisfaction of the Department so as to permit the order of an additional 100,000 seats. However, the Committee is greatly concerned about the relevancy of the testing to the realistic operational environment of the Navy, the independence of the testing, and the sufficiency of the NMCI workstation sample tested. While the contractor testing report concludes that the system is ready for widespread deployment, excerpts from the report are indicative of this questionable conclusion and clearly demonstrate the shortcomings of the testing. The report states that `Some business processes were not well defined for the testers, limiting the effectiveness of the scenario; other business was not fully represented in the test site population, rendering an end-to-end look impossible. Still other business processes were straightforward but did result in complicated, extensive test procedures with numerous steps, and many business processes required a combination of NMCI and legacy applications, making an end-to-end test wholly on the NMCI system problematic at best'. If the NMCI cannot be adequately tested, then the very results upon which the inadequate tests are based must be questioned. While independent operational test and evaluation is now planned for June 2003, it will not occur until over 75 percent or approximately 310,000 of the 411,000 NMCI seats have been ordered and at which time an estimated 100,000 seats will have been fully transitioned to the network. If the history of this program is any indication, significant problems are likely to be discovered when the system is subjected to rigorous operational test and evaluation. Any solutions will have to be deployed to a far greater population on the network, and at greater cost, than if this testing occurred earlier in the fielding of the system.
The Committee notes that authorization has been proposed in other legislation to extend the contract for NMCI with the contractor an additional two years to address delays in transitioning seats to the NMCI environment. This additional time allows a unique opportunity for the program to evaluate its current status, initiate a comprehensive effort to address legacy applications at sites where seats have been transitioned and undergo additional testing. The Committee believes it would be most beneficial for the Navy and NMCI if additional seat orders were delayed as part of this contract extension pending independent operational test and evaluation. Therefore, the Committee has included a general provision that prohibits the Navy from ordering additional seats above the current 160,000 authorized by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and requires that operational test and evaluation be conducted once there has been a full transition of not less than 20,000 workstations to the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet and the network is robust enough so as to perform adequate testing. The Committee believes that the delay in seat orders that will result will also provide the Navy and the contractor much needed time to address the legacy application problems which will arise from the order of the first 160,000 seats. Furthermore, the Committee expects that like the Marine Corps, by limiting equipment refreshment and using smart lease arrangements as systems prepare to convert to NMCI, the Navy will achieve savings until seat orders are resumed. Accordingly, the Committee has reduced the funding request for non-NMCI information technology.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY BUDGET EXHIBITS
The Committee directs that in preparing the IT Capital Investment Exhibit (IT-300s) for major programs, information provided in the exhibit include the following; (1) The total amount of funds, by program element or sub activity group, appropriated and obligated for prior fiscal years; (2) A specific breakout of such information for the two preceding fiscal years, and an estimate for the current fiscal year; and (3) Funds, by program element or sub activity group, for the budget request.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY NETWORK CONSOLIDATION
The Committee believes that the Department of Defense must be more effective in eliminating unneeded legacy systems and consolidating the large number of disparate networks that are maintained. The Committee would cite the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Washington Headquarters Service and the Defense Logistics Agency as examples of organizations that could achieve significant savings through better efforts in this regard. Accordingly, the Committee has reduced information technology funding for these organizations due to savings from anticipated consolidation.
GIG BANDWIDTH EXPANSION
The Committee strongly supports the proposal to expand bandwidth on the Global Information Grid to 10 gigabytes for certain mission critical bases and installations both in the United States and OCONUS. However, the Committee believes that with the current state of the telecommunications market the Defense Information Systems Agency will be in a strong position to contract for this enormous undertaking at increased savings to the government and the taxpayer than estimated at the time the request was submitted. Accordingly, the Committee has reduced the request for the Global Information Grid bandwidth expansion in anticipation of these contract savings.
INTEGRATION SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY
As information systems have become increasingly complex, acquisition officials should take steps to enable systems to communicate better with each other to realize much of their untapped value. The Committee recommends that officials should give every consideration to available integration software technology where enterprise architecture and tools can be used to accomplish integration across disparate systems, software applications, and databases, particularly where that technology is already incorporated in the software applications to be integrated, instead of costly customization to integrate systems by manual software coding. The Committee recommends that acquisition strategies should include evaluation of potential savings through the use of such tools.
DEFENSE INTEGRATED MILITARY HUMAN RESOURCE SYSTEM
The Committee is extremely concerned about coordination between the Navy, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, and the Defense Human Resources Agency in the joint development and implementation of this single integrated personnel and pay system. The three organizations submitted three separate budget exhibits with little or no coordination among them and with incorrect funding justification in one. While the program has received a substantial increase in the Future Year Defense Plan, the Committee will find it difficult to continue to support increases in the program until the three organizations demonstrate greater coordination and ability to meet milestone schedules.
COMMAND AND CONTROL SYSTEMS
The budget request included $39,772,000 for Navy Deployable Joint Command and Control (DJC2) and $15,604,000 for the Defense Information Systems Agency's Global Command and Control System (GCCS). The Committee has provided no funding for Navy DJC2, and reduced funding for GCCS by $8,700,000. The Committee is concerned about the proliferation of command and control systems throughout the services. While existing systems serve an essential role in our military, the continued research and development of these systems lacks coordination. Funding has been requested for DJC2 as the potential follow on to GCCS, while additional development funds are also being requested for the GCCS. The Committee has provided no funding for DJC2, and limited funds for GCCS only to ongoing programs until more information is provided by the Department of Defense as to the direction and future of these two command and control systems.
ARMY INFORMATION SYSTEMS
The budget request included $279,000,000 for Army Information Systems, an increase of $114,000,000 over the fiscal year 2002 level, or 69 percent. The Committee notes that if fully funded, this request would equal 224 percent growth since fiscal year 2001. In addition, $250,000,000 has been requested and funded in this bill for the Defense Emergency Response Fund for activities funded in this account. The Committee has transferred $6,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance funding requested for C4 requirements for U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) to this account and reduced funding by $41,000,000. The Committee expects that the requirements for PACOM will be addressed within the funds made available.
INFORMATION ASSURANCE
The Committee has included $1,500,000 for a collaborative information assurance effort with the Software Engineering Institute.
SPACE AND NAVAL WARFARE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CENTER (SITC)
The Committee has provided $3,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Navy, and $6,000,000 in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, only for continuing development, integration, fielding, and maintenance at the SITC. The Committee encourages the Department of the Navy to fully utilize all the capabilities of the SITC to conduct enterprise level reengineering and web-enabling of the legacy systems, and portal integration efforts.
COURSEWARE FOR IT MANAGERS
The Committee has provided $2,000,000 for the development and delivery of courses of instruction in information systems, information security, mobile computing, and geographical information systems. The courseware will be used to educate defense information technology managers in collaborative working groups using an advanced distance learning system with high-end computing workstations.
ARMY KNOWLEDGE ONLINE
The Committee recommends an increase of $5,000,000 for Army Knowledge Online. Funding is provided to implement the Data Storage Infrastructure, including a synchronous replication capability that mirrors data to a remote location in real time so outages do not impact mission critical operations required during a natural or man-made disaster.
USMC CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS PLAN
The Committee recommends $7,000,000 in Other Procurement, Marine Corps, for data storage infrastructure to provide remote site mirroring of information to facilitate protection, recovery and guaranteed availability of critical data sources.
CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS
The Committee recommends an additional $4,000,000 for the Configuration Management Information Systems (CMIS) to support continued assembly of the CMIS database with the additional Type/Model/Series data required to support the Maintenance Planning effort and process. The maintenance planning activity in this up-tempo operations environment is of critical importance to the warfighter and is of the utmost significance in conducting safe and successful missions.
RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATED SYSTEM PROGRAM GUIDANCE
The Committee has strongly supported the Reserve Component Automated System (RCAS) for many years. More than ten years ago the Committee directed that the management of existing RCAS programs be moved from the Army to the National Guard Bureau due to continuing management difficulties. The Committee is pleased with the progress that RCAS has made under the auspices of the National Guard Bureau and continues to support this direction. The Committee directs the centralized management of this critical capability continue under the Chief of the National Guard Bureau. The Committee notes that funding has been programmed for fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2007 to assure that this support continues and that the long-deferred renovation of the equipment provided by RCAS begins. The Committee fully supports this funding in fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2007 and directs that both the procurement and the operation and maintenance RCAS funds be allocated in their entirety to the Chief of the National Guard Bureau only for the centralized system management of RCAS capabilities. Moreover, the Committee anticipates the National Guard Bureau will extend and expand the scope of RCAS capabilities to meet all of its information and communication needs in the future, especially in light of the efforts to safeguard our homeland while continuing support of the vital military missions of the Guard.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT MODERNIZATION PILOTS
The Committee encourages the Department of Defense to proceed with the implementation of pilot programs on financial management modernization in order to perform real time tests and applications, and identify potential challenges and problems that need to be factored into the design and implementation of the planned financial management enterprise system.
TITLE IV
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
The fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense research, development, test and evaluation budget request totals $53,702,299,000. The accompanying bill recommends $57,754,286,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of $4,051,987,000 above the fiscal year 2003 budget estimate and is $8,832,645,000 above the total provided in fiscal year 2002. The table below summarizes the budget estimate and the Committee's recommendations.
SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS
Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in the project level tables or items in paragraphs using the phrase `only for' or `only to' in this report are congressional interest items for the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD 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 ANNEX
Adjustments of the classified programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV) ROAD MAP
The Committee is aware that there are a variety of recommendations for how best to use unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). The Committee is encouraged by the number of missions which the Services have identified that could be accomplished by UAVs, suggesting that the concept of unmanned vehicles has finally caught the imagination of the leadership within the Department of Defense.
The Committee is, however, concerned that the growing enthusiasm may well lead to a situation in which there is no clear path toward the future of UAVs. The Committee does not believe that transfer of missions to UAVs should be executed without thorough review and comprehensive planning.
Therefore, the Committee directs that each Service submit a report by March 1, 2003 that provides an updated `UAV roadmap.' This report should address how the Service will pursue the employment of current UAVs, as well as its future plans for the development of UAVs in support of both the ISR and attack missions.
FUTURE TESTING REQUIREMENTS
The Committee notes that the fiscal year 2003 budget request for several of the research, development, test and evaluation appropriations, includes large increases in both personnel and facilities expenses at Department of Defense test ranges. In the same appropriations, there are budget increases to support an expansion in modeling and simulation capabilities for applicability to testing. Budget increases for these dual and potentially competing methods for testing leads the Committee to believe that there is little coordination on how best to address future integrated testing requirements.
While the Committee fully supports the requirements for testing and has repeatedly emphasized that the Services must conduct a rigorous program of testing weapons systems in the course of development, it is possible that this can be accomplished with a better mix of range time and modeling and simulation techniques. The Committee believes that by more effectively addressing how best to invest in both test ranges and modeling and simulation, the Department could enhance and make more efficient, the testing process.
The Secretary of Defense is requested to provide a report, not later than May 1, 2003, to the House Appropriations Committee that would address these issues. The report should provide an analysis of the capabilities of the test ranges (including potential investment in new equipment) and the capabilities of modeling and simulation techniques, recommend a more effective mix of these two methods of testing, and propose a five-year plan of integrated investment for both ranges and modeling and simulation techniques.
NETWORK CENTRIC-WARFARE
The Committee believes that the overall interests of the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community would be best served by quickly moving to a network-centric environment. The Committee believes that significant benefits would accrue from this move including: a more effective use of the data currently being collected; a more efficient or effective use of current and planned platforms; an ability to better use and protect resources--both human and financial; and, the unifying means required for transforming our Forces.
Network-Centric Warfare Programs
The Services have initiated a number of programs designed to move toward a network-centric solution for sharing of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) data. The overall goal of these programs is to provide for timely exploitation and dissemination of ISR data to the tactical commanders.
The Committee has been supportive of these programs but understands that it is difficult for `network solutions' to compete with the acquisition of additional platforms. The Services, while lending voice to the need for a network-centric warfare approach, have been able to provide only limited funding for their network-centric projects in the fiscal year 2003 budget request. Therefore, the Committee has provided an additional $28,000,000 for specific projects already included in the President's budget request, to continue the development and deployment of these projects.
The backbone of the Department's efforts to enhance data dissemination as part of its network-centric approach is the Army Distributed Common Ground Station (DCGS). The Committee has provided an additional $10,000,000 for this program in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army appropriation. The Committee directs the Army use these funds to continue planned upgrades to and deployments of the system, especially those systems supporting the U.S. Central Command.
The Navy's Naval Fires Network (NFN) project is funded in the Land Attack Technology program in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy appropriation. The Committee has provided an additional $10,000,000 for this program. The Committee directs that the Navy use these funds to continue architecture design, study and initiate a design for a Joint Fires Center, improve training devices, support major Fleet exercises, and incorporate the UAV Tactical Control System functionality into the NFN system.
The Air Force Network Centric Collaborative Targeting (NCCT) project is funded in the Manned Reconnaissance program in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force appropriation. The Committee has provided an additional $8,000,000 for this program. The Committee directs the Air Force to use these funds to support NCCT efforts in connection with the multi-mission command and control aircraft (MC2A) project and continue development and deployment of the system.
Data Management
To advance a network-centric environment with all of its attendant advantages, the Committee recognizes the need for several key capabilities, which would be implemented within the Department's Global Information Grid:
1. There must be a network that users trust and on which they can depend. The inherent design and implementation of the network must significantly reduce or eliminate long-standing impediments to widespread use. Most importantly, the network must have sufficient bandwidth to support on-demand low latency access to data and must incorporate appropriate assurance measures.
2. Tools must be provided to support the use of data to create situational awareness and enable users to properly evaluate the information. These tools must support access to raw and processed data and information sources, must include capabilities for creating the most current `picture' for a user on-demand, and allow for collaboration with other users on-demand, and again, without regard for time and place.
3. Key to a net-centric environment is data. Mechanisms and processes must be in place to enable data and information collectors and creators to post and maintain data and information as authoritative sources. Users must trust the data and have the capability to pull it on demand from these authoritative sources. The approach to data and information must allow for migration by current systems, intuitive search and retrieval methods, compatibility with the tools described above, and appropriate security provisions.
The Committee directs the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense to develop an approach to ensure data that can be used for all sources and users. The CIO should submit a report to the Committee by February 15, 2003, that would describe how best to resolve the issues associated with `trusted data.'
EVOLUTIONARY ACQUISITION AND SPIRAL DEVELOPMENT
While the Committee is supportive of the Department's efforts in pursuing evolutionary acquisition and spiral development, it has found that many programs lack a clear understanding of these terms and how they affect program management. The Services have used the terms `evolutionary acquisition' and `spiral development' interchangeably, interpreted the terms in non-standard ways, and have potentially applied the terms inappropriately to systems currently under development.
According to the DoD Directive 5000 series, `Evolutionary Acquisition' is the process of developing and testing an initial, military useful capability (Block 1) while planning for subsequent development of increments of additional capability (Blocks 2, 3 and beyond). This is distinct from `Spiral Development', which is an iterative process for refining requirements within an increment or block. Neither of these approaches provides an automatic waiver from existing DoD regulations.
The Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to ensure that budget justification material uses these terms correctly and that project descriptions identify when programs using this approach have been given a waiver from any DoD 5000 series requirement.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $7,106,074,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 6,820,333,000
Committee recommendation 7,447,160,000
Change from budget request +626,827,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation finances the research, development, test and evaluation activities of the Department of the Army.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
CRUSADER
On May 29, 2002, the Administration proposed an amendment to the fiscal year 2003 budget request reflecting the decision to terminate the Crusader artillery system program. The budget amendment also proposed reallocating the $475,609,000 originally proposed in the fiscal year 2003 President's Budget for the Crusader program to accelerate development of a next generation Objective Force--Indirect Fire artillery system, and to accelerate development of precision cannon projectiles and rocket systems.
Despite the work of the last 8 years costing roughly $2 billion to develop the Crusader system, the Administration has concluded that the nature and role of artillery support should change in the future due to a `different strategic context,' and that the Army should place greater emphasis on precision and mobility. The Committee is troubled by many aspects of the process which resulted in this decision, in particular the apparent failure to fully consult with the senior Army military leadership as final recommendations were being devised.
In this case, the Department has chosen to accept the risk of giving up a superior rate of fire (an increase from 3 rounds per minute to 10-12 rounds per minute) and range (from 30 kms to 40 kms) in return for acceleration of other technologies that offer the potential of greater accuracy and deployability. The Committee notes that this new approach accepts more risk for American ground forces if the planned improvements in precision munitions do not come to fruition. However, the Committee also recognizes that the Army's own transformation plan centering on the Future Combat System (FCS) of the Objective Force does not include the Crusader system. Since the Army has moved up planned fielding of the initial variants of the FCS to the 2008 timeframe, the overlap between the planned 2008 first unit equipped (FUE) date of the Crusader and the new FCS timetable make the Crusader obsolete by the Army's own definition. Accordingly, with some degree of trepidation over the risk inherent in this new plan, the Committee approves the Administration's recommendation to terminate the Crusader program.
With the acknowledged gaps in the Army's heavy artillery firepower compared to potential adversaries and the termination of the Crusader system, the Committee believes that the Department must turn expeditiously to developing new indirect fire systems to ensure that the Army will have sufficient firepower to support the Objective Force in the 2008 timeframe. The Committee is aware that the Crusader program achieved major technological advances to meet the Army's indirect fire requirements, and firmly believes that these technologies must be retained and integrated into emerging Objective Force platforms. Examples include a liquid cooled cannon, ammunition autoloader mechanism, digital fire control and targeting computers, and a glass cockpit. In addition, simulation and design facilities and a cadre of highly skilled engineers and technical personnel have been assembled during the development of the Crusader program which cannot be fully replaced if this team is disassembled. In the Committee's view, the technical team and facilities should be retained to further develop an organic indirect fire cannon artillery system for the Army's Objective Force.
The budget amendment provides $195,500,000 to migrate Crusader-based technologies to support Objective Force--Indirect Fire requirements. Despite this funding, the Committee recognizes and agrees with the prevailing view that the migration of Crusader technologies will not succeed in the absence of a suitable platform to support both the physical demands of the cannon, and to meet Army Objective Force mobility requirements. Accordingly, the Committee recommends a total of $368,500,000, for Objective Force--Indirect Fire, an increase of $173,000,000 above the budget amendment, to provide for integrating cannon technologies with a suitable platform, and munitions, and to ensure that such a system can be delivered not later than fiscal year 2008.
The bill contains a general provision, Sec. 8121, which earmarks Army research and development funds for the foregoing purposes, and provides that the Army shall enter into a standard acquisition contract (that is subject to the availability of appropriated funds in this and future years) to leverage technologies developed with the $2,400,000,000 invested in fiscal year 2002 and prior years under the Crusader program, the Future Scout and Cavalry System program, the Composite Armored Vehicle program, and other Army development programs in order to develop and field a Non-Line of Sight (NLOS) Objective Force artillery system and Resupply Vehicle variants of the Future Combat System by 2008. The Committee strongly recommends that any contract the Army enters into for this purpose be consistent with the following guidelines, and provide for:
- --Maturation of key Crusader designs and technologies to permit timely transfer to variants of the Future Combat System;
- --Full development and testing of a Non-Line of Sight Objective Force artillery system and Resupply Vehicle systems, including mission equipment (such as armaments, ammunition handling, crew compartment, survivability suite, accuracy suite) and major assemblies (such as chassis, drive train, suspension, vehicle electronics, and software);
- --Minimization of contract termination costs; and
- --Full coordination and synchronization with parallel Army Future Combat System Concept and Technology Development efforts to ensure commonality of critical component parts and systems for all Future Combat System platform variants.
The Committee is also aware that the Army has assembled a program management staff responsible for developing artillery systems. The Committee expects that this office will lead the effort to migrate Crusader technologies, and to develop the Objective Force artillery system. The Committee expects that this office will work in close coordination with the Army Future Combat System program manager. Accordingly, the Committee has aligned funding for the migration of Crusader technologies to the Objective Force within the current artillery systems--demonstration/validation program line. The Committee directs that the Army establish a new project within this program to reflect both the termination of Crusader, and the inception of NLOS.
In addition to technologies developed in the Crusader program, the Committee supports accelerating the development of a range of precision munitions and related technologies. For this purpose, the Committee recommends a total of $305,109,000, of which $280,109,000 is to accelerate systems as proposed in the fiscal year 2003 budget amendment, $15,000,000 is to accelerate the high-g MEMS precision guidance effort as described elsewhere in this report, and $10,000,000 is to conduct an evaluation of the Future Scout and Cavalry Vehicle prototypes. The table below summarizes these recommendations.
| (In thousands of dollars) | |
| Netfires System Technology | 57,000 |
| Netfires C4ISR Technology | 57,509 |
| Precision Guided Mortar Munition (PGMM) | 10,800 |
| Excalibur Artillery Projectile | 48,300 |
| Paladin upgrades | 7,500 |
| Guided MLRS Unitary | 45,000 |
| HIMARS Product Improvement | 10,000 |
| Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) | 4,000 |
| Combat Vehicle Improvement Program (ACCE) | 28,600 |
| TUAV--Target Location Error | 11,400 |
| MEMS Technology Development Acceleration | 15,000 |
| Future Scout and Cavalry Vehicle demonstration | 10,000 |
| Total | 305,109 |
The table below provides a summary of the Committee's recommendations for the fiscal year 2003 budget amendment.
CRUSADER BUDGET AMENDMENT SUMMARY
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget amendment changes FY 2003 amended budget request Committee recommended Change from request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Artillery Systems--Dem/Val PE 0603854A: Crusader termination and migration of cannon technologies, and platform and munitions integration -246,465 5,200 373,700 368,500
Objective Force--Indirect Fires 195,500
Technology Integration 173,000
Armored Systems Modernization PE 0604645A 310,009 369,869 174,369 -195,500
Netfire System Technology 57,000
Netfire C4ISR Technology 57,509
Objective Force--Indirect Fires 195,500 -195,500
Weapons and Munitions Adv Dev PE 0603802A: Includes Precision Guided Mortar Munition (PGMM) 10,800 38,561 38,561
Excalibur/TCM PE 0604814A: Includes Excalibur artillery projectile development 48,300 119,188 119,188 0
Artillery Systems EMD PE 0604854A -221,644 29,732 29,732 0
Crusader Termination -229,144
Paladin Upgrades 7,500
MLRS Product Improvement Program PE 0603778A: Includes Guided MLRS Unitary and HIMARS 55,000 112,825 112,825 0
Advanced Field Artillery Tactical Data System (AFATDS) PE 0203726A 4,000 42,161 42,161 0
Combat Vehicle Improvement Program 0203735A: Includes Abrams engine program (ACCE) 28,600 83,065 83,065 0
Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles PE 0305204A: Includes TUAV--Tareget Location Error 11,400 57,879 57,879 0
Subtotal--Budget Amendment reductions -475,609
Subtotal--Budget Amendment increases 475,609
Total 0 858,480 1,031,480 173,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMANCHE PROGRAM
The Committee notes that the RAH-66 Comanche has been under development for almost two decades at a cost of over $6,000,000,000 to date. It has just completed its sixth major program restructuring in almost 20 years. The Committee is greatly concerned that this program appears to be another on the growing list of Army acquisition programs that has experienced cost growth, schedule delays and requirements creep, without achieving any level of operational capability. The Committee notes that the integration of communication and reconnaissance, auto-targeting and weaponry has simply added to the delays and cost, proving to be a far greater technical challenge than initially anticipated. The Committee now understands that yet further modifications will be necessary beyond Block II (engine improvement) to achieve the rate of ascent requirements originally specified. The history of this program raises anew the question of whether the Army acquisition process is capable of managing and delivering major new combat systems.
The Committee is deeply concerned that the Comanche program is not delivering its intended product after years of delay and numerous missed deadlines. The Committee's full support for this program is now in jeopardy unless the Army can show marked progress over the next fiscal year. The Committee strongly encourages the Army to begin reviewing potential low cost alternatives to supplant an intermediary solution to the reconnaissance and attack requirements originally developed for Comanche.
BRILLIANT ANTI-ARMOR TECHNOLOGY (BAT) AND BAT P3I SUBMUNITION PROGRAM
The Committee notes that the Brilliant Anti-Armor (BAT) Submunition has been under development for almost two decades at a cost of nearly $1,900,000,000 to date. The Committee is greatly concerned that this system appears to be another on the growing list of precision smart munitions that under-perform against Army requirements while costing 5 to 10 times more per round than was predicted. First conceived as a Cold War weapon to counter massed Soviet armor in the Fulda Gap, the BAT submunition is envisioned to be a smart, autonomous top attack anti-armor munition, intended to provide deep attack interdiction against armored combat vehicles. The BAT P3I is expected to deliver enhanced target acquisition capability and an improved warhead.
The results of BAT operational tests have been mixed, and two low rate production contracts combined with a lengthy pre-planned product improvement (P3I) have yet to provide the Army with a reliable smart submunition. The Committee notes that the addition of a millimeter wave and infrared (IR) seeker has simply added to the complexity and cost, proving to be a far greater technical challenge than initially anticipated. The Committee now understands that yet further modifications are necessary (automatic target recognition) to achieve the level of effectiveness intended against moving or stationary armed combat vehicles, hot or cold stationary targets, surface-to-surface missile transporter erector launchers, and multiple rocket launchers.
The current cost of a BAT submunition is over $200,000 per unit. The current cost of a BAT P3I submunition is approaching $400,000 per unit. The intended delivery system for the BAT and BAT P3I submunitions is the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS). The ATACMS Block II missile will carry 13 BAT submunitions, and its current per unit cost is approximately $1.5 million. Even if the Army is able to increase its inventory objectives, BAT unit cost will still be $100,000.
Given the present and predicted unit cost, the dwindling target set, and a technology that still requires greater maturation at the concept level despite the investment of $1,900,000,000, the Committee has reduced the Army research and development budget request for BAT and BAT P3I from $190,293,000 to $38,100,000 to return this system to the science and technology base for further development. Funds shall be used only to continue seeker integration and necessary testing activities.
ARMY MEMS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ACCELERATION
The Committee recommends an additional $15,000,000 to continue an initiative to accelerate joint Army-Navy efforts to drive down the cost of precision guided munitions, including both missiles and cannon-fired projectiles, by developing a much cheaper inertial guidance system using high-g MEMS technology and producing an anti-jam, `ultra-deeply-coupled GPS/INS hardware/software system' to better blend the GPS and INS data. This has great potential to lower costs of precision-guided weapons of all types and to counter GPS jamming. The Committee notes that this is the second year of a substantial increase over the budget request for this high value program. Given the renewed emphasis on precision guided munitions for the Army, the Committee expects this program to be robustly funded in the fiscal year 2004 DoD budget request, and in the Future Years' Defense Program (FYDP).
FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY
The Committee notes that the Army has committed to a significant acceleration of the Future Combat System. A critical aspect of the program's success will be the development of new materials technologies to address both the weight and survivability. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that $4,000,000 of the funds made available in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army be available for the Advanced Materials Processing (AMP) for Future Combat Systems initiative to employ new technologies and materials for the Army.
PROPOSED TRANSFER OF PATRIOT ADVANCED CAPABILITY-3 (PAC-3) AND MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM (MEADS) TO THE ARMY
The President's budget request proposed transferring the PAC-3 and MEADS systems to the Army. On further review, the Administration has recommended keeping the research, development, test and evaluation portions of these programs with the Missile Defense Agency. The Committee supports that recommendation and has returned these funds to the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide account.
PSEUDOFOLLICULITIS BARBE (PFB)
The Committee is concerned about the skin disease Pseudofolliculitis Barbe (PFB) and its disproportionate impacts on African American military personnel. The Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) is directed to report to the Congress by February 1, 2003 ourlining a plan of action to initiate research into more effective treatments and control of this problem.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, NAVY
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $11,498,506,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 12,496,065,000
Committee recommendation 13,562,218,000
Change from budget request +1,066,153,000
------------------------------------------------
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]
NAVY VENTURE ORGANIZATION
The Department of the Navy's research and acquisition community historically has had great difficulty in transitioning innovative technologies from government research organizations and the commercial marketplace to active development and procurement programs. Due to the constraints of internal planning and budgeting processes, and the stifling legacy of `programs of record', new Navy systems are often fielded with a high degree of technological obsolescence, as risk averse program managers frequently decline to take calculated chances to incorporate the latest technological advances in the systems they are charged with delivering to warfighters. This is primarily due to the fact the Navy acquisition system as presently configured, provides significant disincentives to those who would try to accomplish such objectives.
In the dynamic environment of today's global economy, technological advances in all fields grow at unparalleled rates. New products appear continuously and markets form almost as quickly. In such a climate it is imperative that the Navy create capabilities to actively scan the marketplace and rapidly exploit newly emerging technologies regardless of source, whether it be Navy labs, other governmental research organizations, or the commercial market.
The Committee believes that the Navy research, development, and acquisition community needs to take a fresh look at how these technological innovations can be rapidly incorporated into Navy systems in all mission areas. Processes modeled after commercial venture capital practices or the Central Intelligence Agency's In-Q-Tel organization should be closely examined to see whether they could be applicable to help the Navy more rapidly introduce innovative technologies into their system acquisition processes. The Committee therefore directs the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition, and the Director of the Office of Naval Research to jointly prepare a report for the Committee which examines whether the Navy could benefit from establishing a pilot venture capital fund to enable program managers to take advantage of higher risk technology developments in a rapid fashion without fear of penalty to their existing programs. As a part of this report the Committee would expect that the Central Intelligence Agency's In-Q-Tel organization, and other existing commercial venture business models be studied for possible approaches to this issue. The Committee further directs that this report should be provided no later than April 15, 2003.
ADVANCED INTEGRATED ELECTRONIC WARFARE SYSTEM (AIEWS)
The Committee remains supportive of the original goals of the AIEWS program which was intended to address the Navy's critical operational requirement to improve surface ship self-defense capability and replace legacy systems of limited capability. Since the termination of the AIEWS program due to cost and performance issues, the Navy has begun to formulate an acquisition strategy that focuses on phased upgrades to the present SLQ-32 electronic warfare system. The Committee notes that past attempts to modernize the SLQ-32 system have been less than successful and hopes that the Navy does not simply repeat past mistakes.
It is the sense of the Committee that in any future upgrade to the SLQ-32 system, open system processing architectures and commercial off the shelf (COTS) components should be utilized to the fullest extent possible. The Committee therefore, directs the Department of the Navy to submit an acquisition plan to the Committees on Appropriations which details modernization plans for the SLQ-32 based upon these objectives to include strategies for periodic technology refresh and product improvement processes no later than January 15, 2003.
NONLINEAR DYNAMICS STOCHASTIC RESONANCE
The Committee has provided $3,500,000 above the request, to continue nonlinear dynamics stochastic resonance development efforts. This effort has been funded in this manner for a number of years to explore alternatives in support of the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) mission. The Committee directs the Navy to submit a report by March 15, 2003 that describes the requirement for this research and the specific ways in which this research has been incorporated into the ASW mission.
BROAD AREA MARITIME SURVEILLANCE (BAMS) UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV)
The budget request included $152,000,000 for the Navy's Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) concept exploration and experimentation. As part of the Defense Emergency Response Fund, the Navy requested an additional $28,300,000 for the continued development of the concept of operations, the development of requirements and systems for the Signals Intelligence (SIGINT) and Electronics Intelligence (ELINT) missions, and the integration of necessary systems to provide for control of the UAV from aircraft carriers, large deck amphibious ships and Navy Command ships. The Committee has provided the funds as requested.
The Committee believes that the efforts funded with this total $180,300,000, support similar Navy requirements for manned reconnaissance as well as similar missions and requirements of the other Services, especially the U.S. Air Force. The Committee directs the Navy to consider the applicability of all of its BAMS development efforts to other Navy systems and missions, and to share development, test, and other data with the other Services as appropriate.
Despite its obvious support of the Navy's planned BAMS concept exploration and experimentation, the Committee is concerned about the lack of specificity and documentation provided thus far by the Navy. It appears the Navy continues to refine its plans for Phase I concept exploration, which is the basis for the fiscal year 2003 budget request, as well as the Phase II follow on development and testing program. Therefore, the Committee directs that the Navy submit, by February 1, 2003, a detailed report on the BAMS UAV program. At a minimum, the Committee directs that the report address the total program objective, the operational requirements documentation, the spiral development and testing milestone plan, the applicability of Department of Defense acquisition regulations, the training and support requirements, and the basing strategies for the system.
The Committee also notes that the Navy has indicated that despite its plan to spend $24,000,000 on two air vehicles that would be delivered in 2005, the Air Force has not made a firm commitment to that delivery schedule. The Committee directs the Air Force to ensure that the air vehicles and other support equipment necessary for the Navy to proceed with the BAMS UAV program, is provided in accordance with the current schedule. The Committee also directs the Navy and the Air Force to provide an explanation for the requirement to include $11,400,000 in Air Force program management and aircraft tooling costs within the $139,400,000 that the Navy has budgeted for the acquisition of Global Hawk.
VERTICAL TAKE-OFF AND LANDING TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE--RESCISSION
In fiscal year 2002, Congress provided a total of $5,000,000 for a Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance (MPR) Study in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy appropriation for the VTUAV. The Committee has included a rescission of $2,000,000 from outstanding balances associated with this study.
The intent of the $5,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 was a study of the concept of operations for the employment of the Global Hawk UAV in conjunction with other assets for MPR missions. Considerating the $180,300,000 fiscal year 2003 request for a Navy version of the Global Hawk UAV for the MPR mission, the Committee believes that the study has been overtaken by events and is no longer needed.
OPEN/CONVERGED ARCHITECTURE FOR NAVAL FIRES NETWORK
The Committee is aware that the Navy is exploring options for the development of an open architecture for Naval Fires Network (NFN) that will provide a `converged architecture' to allow for multiple service participation. In addition, the Committee understands that the Navy desires to ensure interoperability with the other Services and is awaiting the outcome of two upcoming military exercises before establishing specific interoperability requirements. The Committee supports the Navy's approach and has provided $2,000,000 to support the design of an open architecture to support NFN.
TACTICAL CONTROL SYSTEM (TCS) AND THE JOINT OPERATIONAL TEST BED (JOTBS)
The Committee has provided an additional $4,500,000 for the Tactical Control System (TCS) for modifications necessary for TCS to receive sensor data from a variety of UAVs, including the Global Hawk. The Committee fully supports the TCS program and believes the Navy must fully fund this requirement in the future.
The Committee has also provided an additional $7,000,000 for the Joint Operational Test Bed (JOTBS) for enhancements necessary for JOTBS to accommodate multiple UAVs. Considering the link between JOTBS and TCS, the Committee believes that the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Naval Warfare (N7/N78), which sponsors TCS, be designated the Navy program sponsor for JOTBS.
ADVANCED ANTI-RADIATION GUIDED MISSILE (AARGM)/QUICKBOLT
The Committee supports the Navy's Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile budget request and believes that this weapon, begun as a Small Business Innovative Research initiative, has the potential to satisfy a critical military requirement for lethal suppression of enemy air defenses. The Navy requested $48,700,000 for the AARGM program. These funds may be used to maintain the industrial base prior to acquisition milestone completion and to initiate System Development and Demonstration efforts after the acquisition milestone is accomplished. The Committee encourages the Air Force to consider participation in this program.
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 more than 300,000 DoD volunteers, and provides more marrow donors per week than any other donor center in the Nation. Earlier this year, the 1,000th service member donated marrow through this donor center to save a life. The Committee is aware of the continuing success of this national and international life saving program for military contingencies and civilian patients, which now includes 4,600,000 potential volunteer donors, and encourages agencies involved in contingency planning to continue 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 2003 Defense Appropriations Act.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2003.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, AIR FORCE
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $14,669,931,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 17,564,984,000
Committee recommendation 18,639,392,000
Change from budget request +1,074,408,000
------------------------------------------------
This appropriation finances 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]
BIOREACTOR ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVE
The Committee recommends $2,500,000 only to continue a bioreactor environmental technology research and development initiative to treat military and industrial wastewaters and protect water supplies that could be attacked by biological or chemical terrorism.
GLOBAL HAWK HIGH ALTITUDE ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (HAEUAV)
The Committee is very pleased that the Air Force is aggressively pursuing cost reduction initiatives in an effort to reduce the overall cost of this system. To help the Air Force achieve a reduction in the overall cost of Global Hawk, the Committee has provided an additional $7,000,000 for `producability initiatives' such as tooling enhancements and improvements and special test equipment.
The Committee believes a major factor in the cost of this system is the development of short-term and longer-term sensor packages that would be integrated into the vehicle. The Committee believes that the development of these packages is crucial to the success of the Global Hawk as a system. Therefore, the Committee has moved funds from within the Global Hawk program and other research efforts into a new line called `Advanced Payload Development and Support,' and has provided a total of $84,000,000 for this effort. It is the Committee's intent that within these funds, the development of the High Band Subsystem (HBSS) will continue at the budget request level of $54,000,000.
The Committee believes that the efforts funded with this total $84,000,000, support similar Air Force requirements for manned reconnaissance as well as similar missions and requirements of the other Services, especially the U.S. Navy. The Committee directs the Air Force to consider the applicability of all of its Global Hawk payload development efforts to other Air Force systems and missions, and to share development, test, and other data with the other Services as appropriate.
The Committee believes that the Air Force has taken into consideration the total cost of the system and may be considering an option that would adopt a concept of using multiple vehicles to carry different payload packages. This would produce the same effect as one vehicle with multiple sensor packages without the significant costs of integration and cooling and power upgrades necessary to accommodate multiple sensors. This approach may provide the best alternative for reaching the desired goal at an earlier date and at a reduced total cost.
The Committee directs the Air Force to submit a report by May 1, 2003, that describes the total Global Hawk program objective, the final spiral development and testing milestone plan, the applicability of DoD acquisition regulations, and the training and support requirements.
NETWORK-CENTRIC COLLABORATIVE TARGETING (NCCT)
The Committee is supportive of the Air Force Network-Centric Collaborative Targeting (NCCT) program and has provided an additional $8,000,000 to advance this effort in fiscal year 2003.
The Committee believes that the Air Force approach must be consistent with the networking approaches of the Army and the Navy, as well as other networking approaches of the Air Force. Therefore, the Committee requests the Air Force submit a report by February 1, 2003, that describes the planned development and testing of the NCCT system, as well as its applicability and interoperability with the Army's Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS), the Navy's Naval Fires Network system, and the Air Force's ISR Battle management system.
TRANSFORMATIONAL WIDEBAND MILSATCOM
The Air Force requested $195,000,000 for the Transformational Wideband MILSATCOM program. The Committee recommends $115,000,000, a decrease of $80,000,000 reflecting the anticipated delay of the planned 4th quarter award of the system definition (phase b) contract. The Committee is very supportive of this program, seeing it as potentially one of the most transformational programs funded in the budget. However, the current schedule is likely unexecutable given the need to carefully refine requirements prior to award of the phase b system definition contract. DoD's recent experience with the Advanced EHF satellite, the replacement to MILSTAR, vividly demonstrates the challenges associated with the requirements definition process, even in `simple cases' in which we are updating an existing capability. DoD's recent experience with SBIRS High highlights the dangers of failing to refine requirements prior to full development. Consequently, the Committee recommends a reduction of $80,000,000, reflecting the probability that the requirements process (as well as other elements of the normal acquisition process) will drive the planned 4th quarter 2003 award of the Transformational Wideband system definition contract into fiscal year 2004.
SBIRS HIGH
The Air Force requested $814,927,000 for the SBIRS High program. The Committee recommends $744,927,000, a reduction of $70,000,000. In fiscal year 2002, the Air Force plans to spend $105,000,000 on ground system development. In fiscal year 2003, the Air Force plans to almost triple this amount with a request of $270,000,000. The Committee believes that this increase is not executable in a single year and that significant funds would carry forward into fiscal year 2004. Accordingly, the Committee recommends a reduction of $70,000,000, which still presents the Air Force with a significant challenge of doubling the level of effort on ground system development.
MILSTAR
The Air Force requested $148,936,000 for MILSTAR. The Committee recommends $98,936,000, a reduction of $50,000,000. The Committee notes that the last MILSTAR satellite is currently scheduled for a November 2002 launch, but funding has been budgeted through September 2003. The Committee believes that the $148,936,000 budgeted is excessive, especially given the few anomalies experienced in our most recent MILSTAR launch in January 2002.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $15,415,275,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request $16,598,863,000
Committee recommendation 17,863,462,000
Change from budget request +1,264,599,000
------------------------------------------------
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]
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM HOMELAND SECURITY INITIATIVE
The budget request includes $385 million in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funding for expansion of the Chemical and Biological Defense program to address homeland security. The Committee has significant concerns about the ability of the Department to execute such a large increase, particularly in areas that involve the awarding of research grants for biological counter-terrorism. It remains to be seen whether there is a large enough pool of academicians and a sufficient research infrastructure to absorb these resources. In addition, the President's proposal to establish a Department for Homeland Security, which would likely oversee these funds, creates further uncertainties.
Despite these reservations, the Committee strongly believes in the need to focus increased efforts in biological counter-terrorism and has fully funded the request. The Committee directs that the program provide quarterly reports on the execution of this funding during fiscal year 2003. These reports should indicate amounts executed for all elements of the requested increase for the CBD homeland security initiative.
HISTORICALLY BLACK AND HISPANIC SERVING INSTITUTIONS SCIENCE
The Committee has combined funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities Science with funding the Committee has provided for Hispanic Serving Institutions under a new program element to be called Historically Black and Hispanic Serving Institutions Science. The Committee recommends $21,970,000 for activities under this new program, an increase of $8,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee directs that the Department combine organizational, functional and grant awarding activities of the two programs under one organization and expects the Department to submit future budget requests under this new program element and combined structure.
TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT AND ANALYSES
The Committee recommends a reduction of $11,500,000 to the request for Technical Studies, Support and Analyses. As our nation continues to fight the war against terrorism, these activities must become a lower priority for the Department of Defense than they might otherwise have been in the past. As such, these resources are better spent on programs directly supporting the warfighter and helping in the frontline defense of our national security.
PORTABLE RADIATION SEARCH TOOL
The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for commercially available off the shelf nuclear detection technology to provide enhanced security for United States military facilities and United States military personnel, both domestically and abroad.
POLYMER BASED CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL SENSORS
The Committee is supportive of the Department's efforts to explore potential avenues of science and technology to assure the rapid development and deployment of chemical and biological solid-state sensors having the fidelity of currently available laboratory instrumentation. In support of this, the Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the purpose of developing polymer-based chemical and biological sensors.
MICRO ELECTRICAL MECHANICAL SYSTEMS (MEMS) FOR ROLLING ELEMENT BEARINGS
The Committee has included $3,000,000 for Micro Electrical Mechanical Systems (MEMS) for the development of a one-chip solution for the determination of temperature, vibration, strain and angular rotation in a rolling element bearing.
LASER ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING INITIATIVE
The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the Laser Additive Manufacturing Initiative to develop a domestic supplier base for military and commercial applications.
ENGINEERED PATHOGEN IDENTIFICATION AND COUNTERMEASURE PROGRAM
The Committee recognizes the growing potential of a future biological attack on our armed forces or civilian population and is concerned that the time required to develop, test and deploy an antidote can take from seven to fifteen years. A previously unknown pathogen can have devastating effects, as tragically demonstrated by the Spanish Flu pandemic that in 1918 and 1919 killed over 20 million people worldwide. To continue efforts to counter the biological attack threat posed by engineered pathogens, the Committee recommends $7,000,000 for the Engineered Pathogen Identification and Countermeasure Program formally known as Bug To Drug Identification and Countermeasures Program.
BLAST RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION EVALUATION PROGRAM
The Committee strongly supports the interagency program to develop, test, and apply advanced composite blast resistant technologies to United States military and civilian structures. Given the urgency of related national security concerns, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency should move expeditiously to complete the ongoing computer simulation and field blast testing already underway.
ACTIVE SENSORS FOR COMPONENTS DEVELOPMENT FOR ADVANCED TACTICAL SYSTEMS
The Committee has provided $4,000,000 for the continuation of the current OSDC3I research initiative for developing those materials necessary in the production of components for the active sensors aboard Advanced Tactical Systems.
SPIN ELECTRONICS
The Committee is aware that DARPA's spin electronics program has the potential to produce a whole new generation of electronic devices, with performance far greater than what is achievable with conventional electronics. The committee is also aware that because spin electronics design and manufacturing are compatible with existing semiconductor infrastructures, it promises to reach maturation well ahead of other known nanoelectronics technology approaches, which would require new infrastructures. Accordingly, the Committee has transferred $15,000,000 from the nanotechnology related funding requested in PE 0601103D8Z (University Research Initiatives) and added it to PE 0601101E (Defense Research Sciences) to augment existing and planned spin electronics programs and accelerate the development of this important new generation of electronics technology.
USNR INFORMATION INFRASTRUCTURE CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS
The Committee has provided $5,000,000 for the deployment of a data storage infrastructure to modernize the information systems of the Naval Reserve Command and provide for the remote mirroring of information at NAVRESFOR Headquarters, to the NAVRESFOR Emergency Operations Center.
CHALLENGE PROGRAM
The fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act provided $12,500,000 for the further development and rapid insertion of innovative SBIR technologies as competitive alternatives to defense acquisition program technologies and required a report to be submitted to the congressional defense committees identifying the technologies selected. The Committee notes that the DoD has taken no noticeable action on this program. The Committee directs that the DoD Office of Technology Transition expedite the solicitation and implementation of SBIR Phase 3 technologies for this program and directs that a report to the congressional defense committees be submitted by April 15, 2003, on plans for program implementation, expansion, and expected expenditure of funds. The Committee provides an additional $15,000,000 for expansion of the program allocating not more than $500,000 for program management and oversight.
MISSILE DEFENSE OVERVIEW
The President's budget requested $7,430,956,000 in fiscal year 2003 for programs managed by the Missile Defense Agency, a decrease of $275,043,000 from the amount provided in fiscal year 2002. Although the President's budget proposed to shift $740,234,000 to the Army, for reasons addressed earlier in this report, the Committee recommends retaining all of these funds in the Missile Defense Agency. The Committee recommends $7,357,456,000 for ballistic missile defense, a decrease of $73,500,000 from the President's request as detailed below.
SEA BASED TERMINAL
The President's budget included a request for $90,000,000 for sea based terminal defense. The Administration has yet to present a final plan for how it would use these funds. In preliminary discussion the Department has recommended using some of these funds to conduct limited testing with the SM-2 Block IV missile and to extend the capabilities of the SM-3 missile. However, the Department terminated the Navy Area program because it did not believe that the SM-2 Block IV missile could provide a capability that was worth the cost. The Department has not demonstrated that this new approach would be an improvement. With regard to the SM-3 missile, the Department is still conducting preliminary tests to examine its performance against medium range theater ballistic missiles and may curtail development of this missile to pursue a larger and faster sea based missile. Until these basic issues are resolved it is premature to begin adding requirements to the system. Therefore, the Committee denies this request.
SEA BASED BOOST/SPACE BASED KINETIC ENERGY
In fiscal year 2002 the Department began examining several new concepts for destroying ballistic missiles to include sea based and space based kinetic energy solutions that would destroy a target in the boost stage. Despite their limited development, the President's budget request proposes increasing funding for sea-based boost from $30,601,000 to $89,639,000 and for space-based boost from $23,842,000 to $54,393,000, tripling and doubling their funding respectively. More surprisingly, the Missile Defense Agency has set aside $4,200,000,000 over the next five years to further examine just these two concepts. In contrast, the Missile Defense Agency was unwilling to program the extra $700,000,000 over the same period that would allow the Army to rapidly field the PAC-3, the United States military's only near term defense against theater ballistic missiles. The Committee fails to understand the Department enthusiasm for starting new research projects and its lack of enthusiasm for procuring those systems they have already developed. The Committee therefore recommends $69,639,000 for sea-based boost, and $44,393,000 for space-based boost. The Committee expects the Department to correct the imbalance between research and procurement in its next budget submissions.
MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM (MEADS)
The Administration is in the middle of a three-year multi-national effort to develop the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). The Committee directs the Department not to enter into any follow on agreement without the prior approval of the congressional defense committees.
PATRIOT ADVANCED CAPABILITY--3 (PAC-3)
The President's budget requested $150,819,000 for research and development of the PAC-3 missile. The Committee recommends $180,819,000, an increase of $30,000,000, only for additional testing in fiscal year 2003. The Committee is concerned about the performance of the PAC-3/PAC-2 system during operational testing. Although many of the problems were not related to the actual PAC-3 missile that was being tested, the equipment will be fielded as a system and needs to be successfully tested as a system. In addition, the Committee is concerned that decisions made during the preparation for these tests unnecessarily added risk and delay to the program, this included building only a limited number of targets, insufficient testing of the launchers before a test and failure to have additional PAC-3 missiles in the launchers during testing.
Because of the high priority of fielding a near-term theater ballistic missile defense, the Committee expects the Department to take the necessary steps, including using the targets from the terminated Navy Area program, to ensure a robust testing schedule. These additional tests should include non-engagement tests of the launcher, ripple fire engagements and multiple simultaneous engagements of theater ballistic missiles.
THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE
The Committee is concerned that the testing program for the Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program may repeat the mistakes of the PAC-3 program. The Committee expects the Department to conduct extensive pre-intercept testing, to test the THAAD system with multiple missiles in the launcher and to take the necessary steps to ensure that enough targets and missiles will be available to conduct additional tests as needed. The Committee directs the Missile Defense Agency to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, no later than February 28, 2003 outlining the THAAD testing program and the additional steps it is taking to ensure a robust testing program. To support that effort the Committee recommends fully supporting the President's Budget request, including the request for 10 additional instrumented test missiles.
RUSSIAN-AMERICAN OBSERVATION SATELLITES PROGRAM (RAMOS)
The budget requests $69,130,000 for the Russian-American Observation Satellites Program. The Committee understands that last year the United States submitted a proposal to the Russian government for the implementation of this program and that the Russian government has yet to respond. The Committee therefore denies this request, but will reconsider this issue in conference should the two governments sign a Memorandum of Agreement.
SPY-1 SOLID STATE RADAR
The Committee directs that the entire budget amount for the SPY-1 Solid State Radar is provided only for S-band development.
MISSILE DEFENSE REPORTING AND REPROGRAMMING REQUIREMENTS
In the Statement of Managers accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2002, the House and Senate conferees identified special interest projects in the missile defense program and agreed to specific requirements for budget justification material and reprogrammings. The Committee is pleased with the Department's compliance with that direction and expects the Department to continue to follow those guidelines in the future.
ADVANCED TACTICAL LASER ADVANCED CONCEPT TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION (ACTD)
The budget request includes $55,500,000 for the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) to begin a new SOCOM ACTD to demonstrate the military utility of operating an Advanced Tactical Laser from a C-130 aircraft. The Committee recommends $16,000,000, a reduction of $39,500,000. The budget justification materials presented to the Committee for this program lacked sufficient detail to justify such a large increase for a new effort for which the Special Operations requirements are still undefined; for which cost, schedule and performance parameters are still being developed; and for which insufficient funds are currently programmed in the Future Year Defense Program. The Committee has a long history of support for Special Operations Gunship development and procurement and has provided $161,978,000 for AC-130 gunship programs addressed elsewhere in this Bill.
UNDERWATER SYSTEMS ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT
The budget request includes $12,151,000 to continue testing and product improvement efforts on the first Advanced SEAL Delivery System (ASDS). The Committee recommends $34,651,000 an increase of $22,500,000. The Committee continues to be deeply concerned that this program has been plagued by continuing acoustic and power problems and has adjusted the funding levels to correspond with the restructured program the Special Operations Command has developed. The additional funding provided by the Committee includes $10,300,000 to resolve problems with batteries, acoustics, and a valve/reservoir redesign. The Committee agrees to provide the funding necessary to implement this restructured plan based on assurances from the Special Operations Command that this system remains a critical requirement for Special Operations forces and that this plan will resolve the outstanding developmental issues.
DEFENSE IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY
Funds for the Defense Imagery and Mapping Agency have been transferred to the National Foreign Intelligence Program in an effort to improve appropriations oversight and management efficiency. Further details are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.
OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $231,855,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 222,054,000
Committee recommendation 242,054,000
Change from budget request +20,000,000
---------------------------------------------
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]
INFORMATION ASSURANCE TESTING
The Committee directs that each Combatant Command and Service ensure that robust C4ISR functionality is included annually within at least one of its major exercises. The Committee further directs that an operational evaluation of interoperability and information assurance be conducted during these exercises. The operational test community with the NSA and appropriate information warfare centers shall assist in the planning, conduct and evaluation of the interoperability and information assurance aspects of these exercises. The Committee further directs that the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation establish a process using OT&E of the systems on his oversight list and exercises conducted by Combat Commands and the Services to monitor the Department's on-going efforts to improve interoperability and information assurance. The results shall be included in the Director's annual report to Congress. The Committee has provided an additional $9,000,000 to initiate this effort. The Committee directs DoD to fully fund this effort in future budget submissions.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.
TITLE V
REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS
DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $1,312,986,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 1,499,656,000
Committee recommendation 1,832,956,000
Change from budget request +333,300,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,832,956,000 for the Defense Working Capital Funds. The recommendation is an increase of $519,370,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $432,408,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 934,129,000
Committee recommendation 944,129,000
Change from budget request +10,000,000
---------------------------------------------
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.
MARITIME PREPOSITION FORCE (FUTURE)--MPF(F)
The Committee notes that the budget request includes initial funding for the MPF(F) program in the five year defense profile. The Committee believes that the MPF(F) is a key transformational element in Marine Corps plans to develop the capability to provide highly flexible, operational and logistics support capability from a totally sea-based operation. This transformation will require material and personnel handling capabilities that do not exist in today's MPF ships, but may already be resident in the commercial marine industry. The Committee therefore urges the Department of the Navy to begin budgetary planning as rapidly as possible to fund a prototype program to demonstrate the availability and adaptability of the requisite commercial technologies necessary to accomplish significant risk reduction for the MPF(F) program. The prototype program should include but not be limited to an examination of the option to use an LMSR ship asset from the Ready Reserve Fleet as a test platform for such technologies.
STRATEGIC SEALIFT CAPACITY
The Committee recommends an additional $10,000,000 to the $25,000,000 already reserved under the National Defense Sealift Fund appropriation account to accelerate the introduction of next-generation high-speed sealift ships, including ships that are commercially viable and militarily useful, such as FastShip vessels, to support the Navy's global military sealift requirements. This additional amount is to be subject to the same terms and conditions as the initial $25,000,000. The Committee reiterates its expectation that the Navy will work with other federal agencies using interagency agreements, economy act procedures, or other mechanisms to provide loan guarantees to enable United States shipbuilders to construct these ships.
T-5 TANKER BUYOUT
The Committee approves the Military Sealift Command's (MSC) proposal to acquire five T-5 tanker ships presently being leased for worldwide fuel resupply. Additionally, the Committee directs the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition to certify to the House Appropriations Committee that the present level of readiness and efficiency attained in the current operations of these tankers will be maintained under any new operating contract that is awarded as a consequence of the new acquisition strategy.
TITLE VI
OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $18,391,194,000
Fiscal year 2003 request 14,579,997,000
Committee recommendation 14,600,748,000
Change from budget request +20,751,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation funds the Defense Health Program of the Department of Defense.
REPROGRAMMING
The Committee continues to harbor concerns as expressed in the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Act regarding the potential diversion of funds from the DoD military medical treatment facilities (MTFs) to pay for contractor-provided medical care. To limit such transfers within the Defense Health Program operation and maintenance account, the Committee directs that the Department of Defense shall continue to follow prior approval reprogramming procedures for transfers with a cumulative value in excess of $25,000,000 into the Private Sector Care activity group.
In addition, the Committee directs that the Department of Defense shall provide budget execution data for all of the operation and maintenance budget activities as well as the procurement and research, development, test and evaluation accounts of the Defense Health Program. Such budget execution data shall be provided quarterly to the congressional defense committees through the DD-COMP(M) 1002.
MILITARY MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITY (MTF) OPTIMIZATION
The Committee recommends $25,000,000 only for the Army Surgeon General to continue the optimization of military medical treatment facilities (MTFs) as outlined in the report accompanying the House version of the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. Of this amount, the Army Surgeon General may direct up to $10,000,000 to requirements related to maintenance and renovation of the MTFs. In addition, the Committee expects that the Army will include funds to continue this initiative in the budget request submitted to the Congress for fiscal year 2004 and in the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP).
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM UNDEREXECUTION
The Committee recognizes that recent, substantial changes in the Defense Health Program (DHP) required DoD to prepare its fiscal year 2002 budget estimates based on the maximum possible usage levels. Such rates have not materialized and, as a result, the DHP will not obligate all the operation and maintenance funding appropriated for fiscal year 2002. Accordingly, the Committee recommends a reduction of $354,000,000 to the fiscal year 2003 budget request, and directs the Department of Defense to use its authority to carry over up to two percent of its operation and maintenance funding from fiscal year 2002 into fiscal year 2003.
HEALTHCARE QUALITY INITIATIVES REVIEW PANEL
In the Fiscal Year 1998 Emergency Supplemental (PL 105-174), this Committee chartered the DoD Healthcare Quality Initiatives Review Panel (HQIRP) as a Federal Advisory Committee `to assess whether all reasonable measures have been taken to ensure that the Military Health Services System delivers healthcare services in accordance with consistently high professional standards.' The Committee commends both the Panel for its report and the DoD for its implementation of some of the recommendations contained in the report. The Committee urges DoD officials to continue implementing HQIRP recommendations with particular attention to (1) strengthening the integration between DoD's Centralized Credentials Quality Assurance System (CCQAS) with the Department of Veterans Affairs' VETPRO, (2) refining the criteria used to designate Centers of Excellence (COE) in the military, and (3) developing a uniform, integrated system for evaluating cases resulting in claims.
SHARED BL-3 BIOCONTAINMENT RESEARCH FACILITY
The Committee is concerned about the shortage of BL-3 biocontainment facilities in the U.S. that are necessary to fight the war on terrorism. The Committee recommends provides $500,000 for the Army Health Facility Planning Agency to perform a feasibility study to examine the requirements, detailed cost, critical design features, possible construction timetable, operating procedures, and life cycle costs to establish a shared U.S. Department of Agriculture/U.S. Army Biosafety Level-3 research facility.
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT
The Committee directs the Department of Defense to investigate and analyze the health care and medical research capabilities of the American University of Beirut and, in consultation with the University, to prepare a report for the Committee no later than December 31, 2002 on the benefits of a cooperative effort in health care and medical research between the Department of Defense and the American University of Beirut.
NORTH CHICAGO VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER AND NAVAL HOSPITAL, GREAT LAKES, ILLINOIS
The Committee directs that any future health care facility be jointly proposed and operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the United States Navy and shall be reported to Congress within 30 days of such proposal.
ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICAL UNIT
Congress appropriated $1,650,000 for the purpose of conducting research on health effects of low level exposure to hazardous chemicals. The Committee requests a report on the status of this research from the US Army Medical Research Command by January 1, 2003.
PEER-REVIEWED BREAST CANCER EARLY DETECTION RESEARCH
The Committee recognizes that current research has questioned the efficacy of mammography as an early breast cancer detection tool, and has provided $10,000,000 in additional funds to investigate and develop new imaging techniques aimed at early detection of breast cancer. The Committee directs the administrators of this program to focus these funds on the development of new imaging techniques aimed at early detection of breast cancer.
ARMY PEER-REVIEWED PROSTATE CANCER RESEARCH
The Committee recognizes the important contributions that the Army has made in the area of prostate cancer research and recommends that the U.S. Army Medical Command use the funds appropriated in the accompanying bill to continue its effort in research and to support clinical trials.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL ADJUSTMENTS
[In thousands of dollars]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation and Maintenance 14,234,041 13,916,791 -317,250
In-House Care 3,999,451 4,036,201 37,750
Madigan Army Medical Trauma Center 1,000
White River Junction-Fort Ethan Allen Community Out Patient Clinic 500
Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program 3,000
Amputee Care Center of Excellence at Walter Reed 3,000
Vaccine Healthcare Center Network at Walter Reed 3,000
Shared BL-3 Biocontainment Research Facility 500
Optimization 25,000
Betances Health Center (Note: Only to support the restoration of health care services at Betances Community Health Center (a federally qualified health center) lost due to the September 11 terrorist attack) 500
Chiropractic Initiative 750
Private Sector Care 7,159,674 6,805,674 -354,500
TRICARE cost estimates -354,500
Consolidated Health Care Support 809,548
Information Management 666,709
Management Activities 221,786
Education and Training 350,092
Base Operations/Communications 1,081,651
Procurement 278,742 283,743 5,001
Deployable Medical Systems (DEPMEDS) (Note: Only for the Army Reserve) 5,001
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 67,214 400,214 333,000
Chronic Mylogenous Leukemia Research 5,000
Comprehensive Breast Care Project (CBCP) (Note: Only for the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences to continue on-going efforts among Walter Reed Army Medical Center, an appropriate non-profit medical foundation, and a rural primary health care center.) 15,000
Coronary and Prostate Disease Reversal Program (Note: Only for the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences to continue on-going effort among Walter Reed Army Medical Center, an appropriate non-profit medical foundation, and a rural primary health care center.) 6,000
HIV Research Program 9,000
Hyperaric Oxygen Therapy for Cerebral Palsy 1,000
Military Complementary & Alternative Medicine (Mil-Cam) 2,000
Neuroscience Research (Note: Only for coordinated effort among DOD medical treatment facilities, the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, a primary healthcare center, with funding management accomplished by the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.) 7,000
Ovarian Cancer Research Program 10,000
Peer Reviewed Breast Cancer Imaging Research 10,000
Post-Polio Syndrome (Note: Only for a coordinated effort among the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, an appropriate non-profit medical foundation, and a primary health care system, with funding management accomplished by the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.) 4,000
Periscopic Surgery Research Project 3,000
Army Peer-Reviewed Prostrate Cancer Research Program 85,000
Army Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program 150,000
Nursing Telehealth Reseach Program 3,000
Veterans Collaborative Care Model Program 2,000
Global HIV/AIDS Prevention 10,000
Muscular Dystrophy Research 4,000
Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC) Research (Note: Only for Tuberous Sclerosis Complex research to better understand the role and function of proteins produced by the TSC1 and TSC2 tumor suppressor genes.) 4,000
U.S. Military Cancer Institute at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences. 3,000
Operation and Maintenance 14,234,041 13,916,791 -317,250
Procurement 278,742 283,743 5,001
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation 67,214 400,214 333,000
Total 14,579,997 14,600,748 20,751
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $1,105,557,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 1,490,199,000
Committee recommendation 1,490,199,000
Change from budget request
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation funds the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction activities of the Department of Army.
ACCESS ROAD ENGINEERING STUDIES
Of the funds available to the Department of Defense for research, development, test and evaluation within the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army account, the Committee directs that $5,000,000 shall be available only to continue work to improve emergency access and evacuation infrastructure at Tooele Depot and Pine Bluff Arsenal. Of these funds, $2,500,000 shall be available for each facility.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2003.
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES DEFENSE
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $842,581,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 848,907,000
Committee recommendation 859,907,000
Change from budget request +11,000,000
---------------------------------------------
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 $848,907,000 for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities. The Committee recommends $859,907,000, an addition of $11,000,000.
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| SOUTHCOM Reconnaissance UAV Counter-drug Initiative | +15,100 |
| Young Marines | +1,500 |
| National Counter-narcotics Training Center, Hammer | +1,000 |
| Indiana National Guard Counter-drug Activities | +1,000 |
| Nevada National Guard CD Raid Counter-drug Program | +2,000 |
| Tennessee National Guard Counter-drug Activities | +1,000 |
| Kentucky National Guard Counter-drug Activities | +1,000 |
| Northeast Counter-drug Training Center | +8,000 |
| Florida National Guard Counter-drug Port Initiative | +2,500 |
| Southwest Border Fence | +6,700 |
| Multi-jurisdictional Counter-drug Task Force Training | +5,000 |
| Southwest Anti-drug Border States Initiative | +5,000 |
| Tethered Aerostat Radar System at Morgan City, LA | +4,000 |
| C-26 Counter-drug Electro Optical Sensor Upgrades | +6,200 |
| Tethered Aerostat Radar System Procurement | -5,000 |
| DEA Support | -1,300 |
| Transit Zone Maritime Patrol Aircraft | -9,000 |
| Riverine Training Deployments | -1,000 |
| TAC OPS Support | -1,800 |
| T-AGOS | -13,000 |
| Classified | -17,900 |
SOUTHERN COMMAND RECONNAISSANCE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV) COUNTER-DRUG INITIATIVE
The Committee recommends $15,100,000 for an initiative in the Southern Command area of responsibility to provide unarmed UAVs for counter-drug missions. Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets play a key role in the effort to halt the cultivation, production, and transportation of drugs in the Source zone and they are in short supply particularly with the demands of the DoD elsewhere in the world. There are a variety of UAVs which could provide ISR capability more economically and effectively than is present in the region today and the Committee urges the Commander in Chief of U.S. Southern Command to act expeditiously on this initiative.
NATIONAL GUARD STATE PLANS
The budget request includes $167,722,000 for the National Guard State Plans Programs. The Committee has provided the requested amount and has provided an additional $33,400,000 in programs where it has identified specific critical shortfalls. The Committee is concerned that even with the additional resources it is providing, this program may still be underfunded. In fact, according to the DoD the current force structure of the National Guard Counter-drug State Plans program would have to be reduced by 385 personnel in fiscal year 2003 if the Congress funds it at the amount requested in the budget. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, in consultation with the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, to submit a report to the defense committees not later than 60 days after enactment of this Act which reviews the extent to which the National Guard is used to conduct the National Drug Control Strategy. This report should identify the level of resources required for the National Guard to meet the goals of the National Drug Control Policy from within the Department of Defense and from the other Agencies of Federal, State, and Local Governments which benefit from National Guard Counter-drug participation.
TRANSIT ZONE MARITIME PATROL AIRCRAFT
The budget request includes $9,000,000 for Transit Zone Maritime Patrol Aircraft to provide two turnkey, contractor-owned, operated, and maintained aircraft for maritime surveillance. The Committee recommends no funding for this program. The Committee questions the advisability of using scarce DoD counter-drug resources to enter into this new program. This program would provide only a marginal increase in additional air assets in the Transit Zone which could be provided by existing DoD assets or the assets of other Agencies when the mission does not require the unique capabilities of the DoD.
T-AGOS
The budget request includes $17,445,000 to operate two T-AGOS ships to support transit zone operations. The Committee recommends $4,445,000 and further recommends that these assets be transferred to a more useful DoD or homeland security mission. The once valuable T-AGOS program now provides diminished Counter-drug operational value due to the lack of Transit Zone air threats and has outlived its usefulness as a collection asset.
CLASSIFIED ANNEX
The Committee recommendation does not reflect a reduction to the classified program. The Committee's recommendation reflects a transfer of $17,900,000 from this appropriation to an appropriation in support of classified activities. For additional information, please refer to the classified annex that accompanies this report.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $152,021,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 157,165,000
Committee recommendation 157,165,000
Change from budget request
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $157,165,000 for the Office of the Inspector General. The recommendation is an increase of $5,144,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
TITLE VII
RELATED AGENCIES
NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PROGARM
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 2003 Defense Appropriations bill.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM FUND
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $212,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 212,000,000
Committee recommendation 212,000,000
Change from budget request 0
---------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides payments of benefits to qualified beneficiaries in accordance with the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1965 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 $212,000,000 for the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Systems Fund (CIARDS).
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $160,429,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 147,754,000
Committee recommendation 162,254,000
Change from budget request +14,500,000
---------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides funds for the activities that support the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) and the Intelligence Community.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Administration requested $147,754,000 for the Intelligence Community Management Account. The Committee recommends $162,254,000, an increase of $14,500,000 from the amount requested and $1,825,000 above the amount appropriated under this heading in fiscal year 2002. Of the amount appropriated under this heading, $34,100,000 is for transfer to the Department of Justice for operations at the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC). Details of adjustments to this account are included in the classified annex accompanying this report.
PAYMENT TO KAHO'OLAWE ISLAND CONVEYANCE, REMEDIATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FUND
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $67,500,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 25,000,000
Committee recommendation 25,000,000
Change from budget request 0
--------------------------------------------
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 $42,500,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2002.
NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION TRUST FUND
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $8,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request 8,000,000
Committee recommendation 8,000,000
Change from budget request 0
-------------------------------------------
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 $8,000,000 for the National Security Education Trust Fund. The recommendation is the same as the request and the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2002.
TITLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The accompanying bill includes 122 general provisions. Most of these provisions were included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002 and many have been included in the Defense Appropriations Act of 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, 2003, the accompanying House and Senate Committee reports, the conference report and the accompanying joint explanatory statement of the managers of the Committee in 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 exceptions:
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.
CENTER FOR MILITARY RECRUITMENT ASSESSMENT AND VETERANS EMPLOYMENT
Section 8115 of the accompanying bill provides for a grant of $4,000,000 to the non-profit Center for Military Recruitment Assessment and Veterans Employment for the purpose of establishing a new center to improve the ability of military veterans to find high quality employment opportunities in the construction industry. The Committee believes excellent employment opportunities exist for military job seekers in the construction industry, which is expected to have a critical workforce shortage in the years ahead. This industry presently does not have a consistent way to communicate with, assess military training for apprenticeship placement, or to recruit on a systematic basis military job seekers and veterans. The Committee believes establishment of a service to inform and match military job seekers and veterans with available apprenticeships and training programs will benefit both military veterans and the construction industry. The Committee expects that this center will have a goal of recruiting approximately 500,000 men and women from the military veteran community over the next five years and that this center will be financially supported on an equal basis by a broad segment of the construction industry.
NAVY MARINE CORPS INTRANET
A new general provision (Sec. 8118) has been included that prohibits the Navy from ordering additional seats above the current 160,000 authorized by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and requires that operational test and evaluation be conducted once there has been a full transition of not less than 20,000 workstations to the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet and the network is robust enough so as to perform adequate testing.
PENTAGON RECONSTRUCTION
A new general provision (Sec. 8120) has been included which amends Section 305(a) of the Emergency Supplemental Act, 2002 (Division B of Public Law 107-117; 115 Stat. 2300). The amendment adds to the provision the authority for the Department to transfer $305,000,000 from the Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund to the Defense Emergency Response Fund to reimburse only for the reconstruction costs of the Pentagon Reservation. The Committee expects these funds be transferred only to the appropriate category within the Defense Emergency Response Fund that executes Pentagon reconstruction and recovery (Category 8--Pentagon Repair/Upgrade).
TITLE IX
COUNTER-TERRORISM AND DEFENSE AGAINST WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
COUNTER-TERRORISM AND OPERATIONAL RESPONSE TRANSFER FUND
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2002 appropriation $478,000,000
Fiscal year 2003 budget request
Committee recommendation
Change from budget request
---------------------------------------------
FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION
Funding for the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction activities of the Department of Defense has been included in Title II, Operation and Maintenance.
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 2003 bill, which might be interpreted as changing existing law, are as follows:
APPROPRIATIONS LANGUAGE
Language has been deleted in `Operation and Maintenance, Army' which earmarks funds for improvements at Fort Baker, and language has been amended which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses.
Language has been amended in `Operation and Maintenance, Navy' which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses.
Language has been included in `Operation and Maintenance, Air Force' which earmarks funds for Air Force aircrews to operate and evaluate the United Kingdom's Royal Air Force EH-101 helicopters, and which amends language which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses.
Language has been deleted in `Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide' which earmarks funds for the Middle East Regional Security Issues program. Language has been included which earmarks funds for expenses related to certain classified activities and which increases the ceiling on the investment unit cost of items purchased with operation and maintenance funds.
The appropriations account `Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund' has been deleted.
The appropriations account `Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction' was moved to title II of this bill, and language had been deleted which earmarks funds for the dismantling and disposal of nuclear submarines and submarine reactor components.
Language has been included in `Aircraft Procurement, Army' which provides that not less than $225,675,000 of funds available shall be for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve, and which earmarks funds only to support a restructured CH-47F helicopter upgrade program.
Language has been included in `Missile Procurement, Army' which provides that not less than $168,580,000 of funds available shall be for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.
Language has been included in `Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army' which provides that not less than $40,849,000 of funds available shall be for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.
Language has been included in `Procurement of Ammunition, Army' which provides that not less than $124,716,000 of funds available shall be for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve.
Language has been included in `Other Procurement, Army' which provides that not less than $1,129,578,000 of funds available shall be for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve, and amends language which changes the number and price limitations of passenger motor vehicles required for physical security of personnel and the number of vehicles for replacement only.
Language has been included in `Aircraft Procurement, Navy' which provides that not less than $19,644,000 of funds available shall be for the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve.
Language has been included in `Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps' which provides that not less than $18,162,000 of funds available shall be for the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve.
Language has been included in `Other Procurement, Navy' which provides that not less than $19,869,000 of funds available shall be for the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve, and amends language which changes the number and price limitations of passenger motor vehicles required for physical security of personnel and the number of vehicles for replacement only.
Language has been included in `Procurement, Marine Corps' which provides that not less than $253,724,000 of funds available shall be for the Marine Corps Reserve, and amends language which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement only.
Language has been included in `Aircraft Procurement, Air Force' which provides that not less than $312,700,000 of funds available shall be for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve; includes language which earmarks funds only for the producibility improvement program related to the F-22 aircraft program, and provides funds for the advance procurement of 15 C-17 aircraft.
Language has been included in `Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force' which provides that not less than $120,200,000 of funds shall be available for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.
Language has been included in `Other Procurement, Air Force' which provides that not less than $167,600,000 of funds available shall be for the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve, and amends language which changes the number and price limitations of passengers motor vehicles required for physical security of personnel and the number of vehicles for replacement only.
Language has been included in `Procurement, Defense-Wide' which amends language which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles purchased for replacement only.
Language has been included in `Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy' concerning Special Operation Forces requirements for the V-22 aircraft.
Language has been deleted in `Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide' which provided a waiver for the Missile Defense Agency.
Language has been deleted in `Defense Production Act Purchases' which provides funding for the development of affordable production methods and a domestic supplier for military and commercial processible rigid-rod materials.
The appropriations account `National Guard and Reserve Equipment' has been deleted.
Language has been amended in `Defense Working Capital Funds' which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles required for replacement only, and includes language for the purchase of passenger motor vehicles for the Defense Logistics Agency.
Language has been amended in `National Defense Sealift Fund' which changes the amount available to finance the cost of constructing additional sealift capacity.
Language has been amended in `Defense Health Program' which earmarks not less than $10,000,000 for HIV/AIDS prevention programs.
Language has been included in `Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense' which allows for the transfer of funds back to the appropriation if not necessary for the purposes provided.
Language has been included in `Intelligence Community Management Account' which provides document and computer exploitation of Federal, State, and local law enforcement activity associated with counter-drug, counter-terrorism, national security investigations and operations, and language has been amended that earmarks $34,100,000 for the National Drug Intelligence Center
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 8005 has been amended which increases the level of general transfer authority for the Department for Defense.
Section 8008 has been amended to delete language providing multiyear procurement authority for UH-60 and C-17 aircraft, and adds multiyear authority for C-130 aircraft.
Section 8027 has been amended which deletes language allowing the Department to incur obligations in anticipation of reimbursement from any funds available to DoD.
Section 8029 has been amended deleting language that reduces the total amount appropriated in this Act for FFRDCs, and changes the number of staff years that may be funded for defense studies and analysis.
Section 8040 has been amended to delete language exempting certain classified activities in `Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide' from the investment item unit cost limitations.
Section 8050 has been amended to include language which rescinds $192,932,000 from the following programs:
| (Rescissions) | |
| 2002 Appropriations: | |
| Aircraft Procurement, Army: ATIRCM | $3,000,000 |
| Missile Procurement, Army: | |
| Stinger | 5,150,000 |
| Avenger Mods | 10,000,000 |
| TOW Fire and Forget | 13,200,000 |
| Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army: Command and Control Vehicle (C2V) | 9,500,000 |
| Procurement of Ammunition, Army: | |
| RADAM | 19,000,000 |
| Volcano | 6,500,000 |
| Procurement, Marine Corps: ITV | 4,682,000 |
| Aircraft Procurement, Air Force: B-2 EHF SATCOM | 23,500,000 |
| Missile Procurement, Air Force: | |
| MALD | 8,900,000 |
| JSOW-B | 18,000,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army: Medical Area Network Virtual Technologies (MANVT) | 2,500,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy: VTUAV | 2,000,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force: B-1B DSUP | 67,000,000 |
Section 8082 has been amended which reduces funds available for military personnel and operation and maintenance accounts by $615,000,000 due to favorable foreign currency fluctuations.
Section 8088 has been amended to include language which requires Chief Information Officer certification of compliance with Clinger-Cohen Act.
Section 8095 has been amended which deletes an earmark concerning the ASIP program the cost-sharing agreement between the Department of Defense and the Israeli Department of Defense, and includes language which continues development of Arrow production in the United States.
Section 8097 has been amended which reduces the amount available in `Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide' for transfer to other activities of the Federal Government.
Section 8099 has been amended which provides $2,000,000 for the Fisher House Foundation, Inc.
Section 8100 has been amended which reduces funds available for operation and maintenance by $51,000,000 to reflect savings in advisory and assistance services.
Section 8101 has been amended which allows for the transfer of $644,899,000 to fund increases in the cost of prior year shipbuilding programs.
Section 8103 has been amended which reduces funds available for operation and maintenance by $97,000,000 due to improvements in the use of Government purchase cards.
Section 8104 has been amended which makes permanent the authority to provide funds for the purchase of ultra lightweight camouflage net systems as unit spares.
Section 8105 has been amended which makes permanent the authority to transfer $20,000,000 of unobligated balances in `Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army' to a current year account only for the continuation of the Army Venture Capital Funds demonstration.
Section 8109 has been included which allows for the transfer from the Defense Cooperation Account to such appropriations or funds of the DoD as the Secretary shall determine.
Section 8110 has been included which provides authority to make payments into the Department of Defense Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund from the military personnel accounts.
Section 8111 has been included which provides for congressional defense committee notification before the initiation of a new start program.
Section 8112 has been included which reduces funds available for operation and maintenance by $470,000,000 for Working Capital Fund cash balance and rate stabilization adjustments.
Section 8113 has been included which reduces funds available for operation and maintenance by $475,000,000 for excess funded carryover.
Section 8114 has been included which prohibits the obligation of funds for the purpose of transferring the Medical Free Electron Laser Program for the DoD to any other government agency.
Section 8115 has been included which provides for $4,000,000 in `Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard' only for a grant to the Center for Military Recruitment, Assessment and Veterans Employment.
Section 8116 has been included which allows operation and maintenance funds to be used to assist in building and maintaining a strong family structure.
Section 8117 has been included which creates a `Commission on Adequacy of Armed Forces Training Facilities'.
Section 8118 has been included which places limitations on additional NMCI contract work stations.
Section 8119 has been included which prohibits acquisition of more than 16 F-22 aircraft until a risk assessment has been provided to the congressional defense committees.
Section 8120 has been included that allows for the transfer of funds from the Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund to the Defense Emergency Response Fund.
Section 8121 has been included which allows for the termination of Crusader Artillery System and the transition to other artillery systems.
Section 8122 has been included which prohibits the transfer of funds to any department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States Government established after the date of the enactment of this Act.
The `Counter-Terrorism and Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction' appropriation has been deleted.
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:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency program Last year of authorization Authorization level Appropriations in last year of authorization Appropriations in this bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel, Army 2002 ( 1 ) 23,752,384 26,832,217
Military Personnel, Navy 2002 ( 1 ) 19,551,484 21,874,395
Military Personnel, Marine Corps 2002 ( 1 ) 7,345,340 8,504,172
Military Personnel, Air Force 2002 ( 1 ) 19,724,014 21,957,757
Reserve Personnel, Army 2002 ( 1 ) 2,670,197 3,373,455
Reserve Personnel, Navy 2002 ( 1 ) 1,654,523 1,897,352
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps 2002 ( 1 ) 471,200 553,983
Reserve Personnel, Air Force 2002 ( 1 ) 1,061,160 1,236,904
National Guard Personnel, Army 2002 ( 1 ) 4,041,695 5,070,188
National Guard Personnel, Air Force 2002 ( 1 ) 1,784,654 2,124,411
Operation and Maintenance, Army 2002 20,653,241 22,335,074 23,942,768
Operation and Maintenance, Navy 2002 26,461,299 26,876,636 29,121,836
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps 2002 2,872,524 2,931,934 3,579,359
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force 2002 25,598,767 26,026,789 27,587,959
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide 2002 11,949,586 12,773,270 14,850,377
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve 2002 1,824,146 1,771,246 1,976,710
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve 2002 1,000,050 1,003,690 1,239,309
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve 2002 142,853 144,023 189,532
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve 2002 2,029,866 2,024,866 2,165,604
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard 2002 3,705,359 3,768,058 4,231,967
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard 2002 3,967,361 3,988,961 4,113,010
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund 2002 2,844,226 50,000 0
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 2002 9,096 9,096 9,614
Environmental Restoration, Army 2002 389,800 389,800 395,900
Environmental Restoration, Navy 2002 257,517 257,517 256,948
Environmental Restoration, Air Force 2002 385,437 385,437 389,773
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide 2002 23,492 23,492 23,498
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites 2002 230,255 222,255 212,102
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid 2002 49,700 49,700 58,400
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction 2002 403,000 0 416,700
Support for International Sporting Competitions, Defense 2002 15,800 15,800 19,000
Defense Emergency Response Fund n/a 0 0 0
Aircraft Procurement, Army 2002 2,075,372 1,984,391 2,214,369
Missile Procurement Army 2002 1,086,968 1,079,330 1,112,772
Procurement of Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army 2002 2,348,145 2,193,746 2,248,358
Procurement of Ammunition, Army 2002 1,187,233 1,200,465 1,207,560
Other Procurement, Army 2002 4,027,374 4,183,736 6,017,380
Aircraft Procurement, Navy 2002 8,323,147 7,938,143 8,682,655
Weapons Procurement, Navy 2002 1,484,321 1,429,592 2,384,617
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps 2002 466,907 461,399 1,167,130
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 2002 9,370,972 9,490,039 8,127,694
Other Procurement, Navy 2002 4,282,471 4,270,976 4,631,299
Procurement, Marine Corps 2002 1,014,637 995,442 1,369,383
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 2002 10,789,167 10,567,038 12,492,730
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force 2002 881,844 866,644 1,290,764
Missile Procurement, Air Force 2002 3,222,636 2,989,524 3,185,439
Other Procurement, Air Force 2002 8,196,021 8,085,863 10,622,660
Procurement, Defense-Wide 2002 2,279,482 2,389,490 3,457,405
National Guard and Reserve Equipment 2002 0 699,130 0
Defense Production Act Purchases 2002 0 40,000 73,057
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army 2002 6,675,325 7,106,074 7,447,160
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy 2002 10,784,264 11,498,506 13,562,218
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force 2002 14,407,187 14,669,931 18,639,392
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide 2002 14,372,640 15,415,275 17,863,462
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense 2002 221,355 231,855 242,054
Defense Working Capital Funds 2002 1,951,986 1,312,986 1,832,956
National Defense Sealift Fund 2002 636,566 432,408 944,129
Defense Health Program 2002 17,898,969 18,391,194 14,600,748
Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction, Army:
Operation and maintenance 2002 789,020 739,020 974,238
Procurement 2002 164,158 164,158 213,278
Research, development, test, and evaluation 2002 200,379 202,379 302,683
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense 2002 820,381 842,581 859,907
Office of the Inspector General 2002 152,021 152,021 157,165
CIA Retirement & Disability System Fund 2002 212,000 212,000 212,000
Intelligence Community Management Account 2002 152,776 160,429 162,254
Transfer to Dept of Justice 2002 27,000 (42,752) (34,100)
Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation and Environmental Restoration Fund 2002 25,000 67,500 25,000
National Security Education Trust Fund 2002 8,000 8,000 8,000
Sec. 8005 2002 2,500,000 (2,000,000) (2,500,000)
Sec. 8021 2002 0 8,000 8,000
Sec. 8035 2002 19,000 19,000 29,730
Sec. 8038 2002 3,362 3,362 1,000
Sec. 8050 2002 0 -531,475 -192,932
Sec. 8082 2002 0 -240,000 -615,000
Sec. 8087 2002 0 8,000 10,000
Sec. 8099 2002 0 1,700 2,000
Sec. 8100 2002 0 -1,650,000 -51,000
Sec. 8103 2002 0 -100,000 -97,000
Sec. 8105 2002 0 0 17,000
Sec. 8109 2002 0 0 5,000
Sec. 8112 2002 0 0 -470,000
Sec. 8113 2002 0 0 -475,000
Sec. 8115 2002 0 0 4,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
TRANSFERS
Language has been included in `Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide' which provides for the transfer of funds relating to classified activities.
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, Formally 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.
Language has been included in `Intelligence Community Management Account' which provides for the transfer of funds to the Department of Justice for the National Drug Intelligence Center.
Twelve provisions (Sections 8005, 8006, 8015, 8035, 8038, 8059, 8070, 8097, 8101, 8105, 8109, 8120) 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.
| Aircraft Procurement, Army 2002/2004 | $3,000,000 |
| Missile Procurement, Army 2002/2004 | 28,350,000 |
| Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army 2002/2004 | 9,500,000 |
| Procurement of Ammunition, Army 2002/2004 | 25,500,000 |
| Procurement, Marine Corps 2002/2004 | 4,682,000 |
| Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 2002/2004 | 23,500,000 |
| Missile Procurement, Air Force 2002/2004 | 26,900,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army 2002/2003 | 2,500,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy 2002/2003 | 2,000,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force 2002/2003 | 67,000,000 |
STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding:
The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program's success in developing and attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations.
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 (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 305 OF THE EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL ACT, 2002
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
SEC. 305. (a) During the current fiscal year, $475,000,000 of appropriations provided in this Act shall be transferred to the Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund only to reconstruct the Pentagon Reservation and for related activities as a result of the events of September 11, 2001. From amounts transferred to the Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund pursuant to the preceding sentence, not to exceed $305,000,000 may be transferred to the Defense Emergency Response Fund, but only in the amounts necessary to reimburse that fund (and the category of that fund designated as `Pentagon Repair/Upgrade') for expenses charged to that fund (and that category) between September 11, 2001 and January 10, 2002, for reconstruction costs of the Pentagon Reservation. Funds transferred to the Defense Emergency Response Fund pursuant to this section shall be available only for reconstruction, recovery, force protection, or security enhancements for the Pentagon Reservation.'
* * * * * * *
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. This information follows:
(In millions of dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------
302b allocation This bill 1
Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary 354,447 346,110 354,446 338,718
Mandatory 276 275 276 275
----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
| (Millions) | |
| Budget Authority | 354,722 |
| Outlays: | |
| 2003 | 1 239,277 |
| 2004 | 78,853 |
| 2005 | 24,085 |
| 2006 | 6,871 |
| 2007 and beyond | 4,528 |
| 1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority. |
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.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. NORMAN D. DICKS
CRISIS IN DEFENSE PROCUREMENT
With this bill, the committee achieved the best balance of meeting the full range of our defense obligations that it could given the top line constraints imposed by the Budget Committee and the Republican leadership. The committee's recommendation of $70,285,272,000 for defense procurement is an increase of $9,420,324,000 over the amount approved for fiscal year 2002, and it is an increase of $3,065,238,000 over the President's budget request. However, despite the committee's best efforts, it has not changed the fundamental fact that the Defense Department procurement budget is in crisis.
Numerous reputable studies performed in the last several years have affirmed this growing crisis. Even the most conservative analysis conducted by the Congressional Budget Office has found that the procurement budget needs to be increased to at least $94 billion in order to sustain the military force structure that has now been ratified in the Quadrennial Defense Review. Other credible outside studies have reached estimates of over $120 billion. DOD's own studies on procurement needs, performed by the individual Services and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, show a requirement for $100-$110 billion. The Navy has testified to Congress that it faces a procurement shortfall of $10 billion a year, and CBO estimates that including the Marine Corps this shortfall is $12 billion. The Air Force has told Congress of a shortfall of $14 billion, and the Army has a shortfall estimated by CBO at $5 billion a year.
The effects of this crisis are all too visible in the procurement programs and in the condition of military equipment and service maintenance budgets. The cost and length of individual procurement programs have reached absurdity as buy quantities are reduced to minimum levels driving up unit costs. Drawn out procurement programs mean that average equipment ages are increasing rapidly. The average age of Air Force aircraft has increased by 24% in the last decade. Navy aircraft average age has increased 21% since 1990. The average age of Army helicopters has increased 12% since 1990. These increases have occurred even as force structure is reduced and the oldest equipment is retired. Furthermore, the current rate of procurement of Navy ships will lead to a fleet of only 230 ships by 2030.
The impact on operation and maintenance budgets is severe. The number of maintenance hours required for each aircraft flying hour is skyrocketing. For example, the Air Force had a 293% increase in the number of maintenance hours per flying hour on the F-15E from 1992 to 1999. The Navy experienced a 227% increase in the number of maintenance hours per flying hour on the F-14 in the same period. The direct effect is a dramatic increase in the Air Force budget for flying hours, more than 45% above inflation in the last five years. And the Navy's cost of Aviation Depot Level Repairables increased 68% between 1996 and 1999.
The President's proposed $48 billion increase for defense spending contained only a $7.6 billion increase for procurement. That means that despite the crisis in procurement spending, if the committee had accepted the President's budget recommendation, growth in procurement funds for fiscal year 2003 would have been slower than the growth in the overall defense budget. The fiscal year 2003 budget request follows the first Bush defense budget in which procurement was actually lower than the last defense budget of the Clinton Administration. Most important, the size of the shortfall in procurement funding is more than 4 times the increase proposed for procurement in the President's FY03 budget.
The credibility of studies by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, CBO and the other higher estimates are strongly reinforced by a consideration of the historical patterns of defense spending. The current budget for procurement is less than half what it was at the peak of the Reagan years in 1985 when considered in constant dollars. Operations and maintenance spending, on the other hand, now exceeds the peak of the Reagan years even though our military force structure is about one-third smaller. As a result, procurement, which was 25% of the defense budget in 1980 under President Carter, and 34% in 1985, is now only 19% of the budget. This historically low level is inadequate for sustaining our current force structure, let alone for transforming the military into a 21st Century fighting force.
There remains one more chance this year to begin addressing the crisis in procurement when the Department of Defense requests and the committee considers the $10 billion contingency fund for FY03. This fund must begin the process of modernizing our oldest military equipment. The longer we delay in facing up to this problem, the greater the cost of the solution and the more severe the crisis in both condition and quantity of the systems that we ask our military to use in our nation's defense. We owe it to our men and women in uniform and to the entire nation to step up to this crisis in procurement and commit ourselves to provide the sustained level of resources that will solve it.
NORM DICKS.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE MARTIN OLAV SABO
While the bipartisan spirit with which the Committee has developed a wise and workable future Army artillery program gratifies me, I remain deeply concerned over the Defense Department's determination to terminate the Crusader next-generation artillery program.
Three Defense Secretaries, three Secretaries of the Army, and three Army Chiefs of Staff have testified before Congress that the lives of U.S. soldiers are at risk due to the Army's outdated artillery.
Twelve nations outrange the Army's existing Paladin artillery cannon, including the so-called `axis of evil.' Twenty-eight nations are now developing artillery that will outperform the Paladin, which was first designed in the 1950s. Under the Administration's proposal to cancel Crusader, Paladin would continue in service until at least 2032--at which time its basic design will be 80 years old.
The Army has expressed deep concern that the Paladin chassis cannot perform for this long, or be modified satisfactorily to fire the precision munitions now being developed that the Administration places so much faith in. Further, the Paladin's lack of mobility and range is a handicap for the Army's transformation strategy based on speed and more widely dispersed forces.
The Crusader program was on track to give the U.S. one of the world's fastest and most accurate artillery systems in order to support and protect U.S. troops in battle. Its prototype gun and automatic reloading system has already fired over 6000 rounds in the Arizona desert demonstrating the capability of firing ten rounds a minute out to a range of 40 kilometers compared to 30 kilometers for Paladin.
When completed, Crusader would have moved twice as fast as Paladin, had three times its rate of fire, and sixty percent fewer crewmembers. At $10 million per system, Crusader would have cost less than one Blackhawk helicopter or two M1-A2 Abrams tank upgrades.
The Department's desire to terminate Crusader seems to stem from a view that artillery warfare is obsolete, and that air-delivered precision weapons and the development of new precision artillery shells to be fired by Paladin are adequate substitutes.
However, for certain artillery missions, such as suppression of enemy forces and denial of terrain, a high volume and rate of fire are more important than precision. Our soldiers also tell us of the limitations of close air support that have little to do with better precision--weather, timing, availability of aircraft, target identification, munitions loading and reloading, air-ground communications, smoke and confusion, imperfect intelligence and modern surface to air missiles. The Army has argued convincingly that our soldiers still need cannons, like Crusader, to provide lifesaving close support on a minute's notice, 24 hours a day, in all weather.
In lieu of Crusader, the Department proposed to accelerate development of precision weapons such as Excalibur, NetFires, and Guided MLRS. However, that recommendation was not accompanied by thorough cost and capabilities analysis of these high-risk programs. To make matters worse, there is serious risk that relying
solely on these alternatives would cost far more than Crusader, without providing equal capability.
In the case of Excalibur, the physics of putting sensitive guidance systems in an artillery shell are extremely challenging, and there is no guarantee that the technical hurdles can be overcome. Excalibur is currently projected to cost $220,000 per round for the first 9,000 rounds. The Guided MLRS is projected to cost between $55,000-$65,000 per round. These costs compare to about $250 to buy a standard 155mm high explosive artillery round. NetFires is still in a very early conceptual stage of development, and the projected per unit cost for its munitions is roughly $125,000.
Despite the breezy optimism we have heard that these technical risks and costs can be overcome, the Pentagon's record of fielding new technology on schedule and on budget is horrendous.
Recognizing the importance of maintaining a robust Army artillery development program, the Committee has worked hard to provide more money to accelerate and transfer the best elements of crusader artillery technology to Objective Force Artillery and Resupply systems for the Future Combat System program, while accelerating the development of a range of compatible precision munitions and related technologies.
Under this plan, the Army will develop and field, by 2008, a first-rate artillery system to protect U.S. combat troops. To achieve this goal in this short period, the Committee recognizes that more money and a strict program schedule will be required. In addition, it will be critical to retain the fine technical team that produce the artillery technology breakthroughs under the Crusader program.
It is my hope that the Department will join the Committee in promoting this Non-Line of Sight artillery solution as the best course to transform the Army and protect American soldiers in combat in the near term.
MARTIN O. SABO.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. NORMAN D. DICKS AND HON. CHET EDWARDS
THE GAMBLE ON CRUSADER
The Administration's recent decision to terminate the Crusader artillery system is a decision fraught with risk. Risk that we hope will not end up costing soldiers' lives.
The Crusader self-propelled howitzer has been under development for the last eight years. This program is running under budget and on schedule with fielding of the first new howitzer set for 2008. The Crusader has been considered by the Army to be its highest priority acquisition program, because it would rectify the one glaring operational weakness that endangers the Army's battlefield success--heavy artillery support.
Currently, our Army is outgunned in heavy artillery by at least 12 different countries (including all 3 countries in the so-called `Axis of Evil')--a situation the Crusader would rectify. It is estimated that as many as 40 countries could soon have artillery systems that out-range the Army's current howitzer--the Paladin--and that 28 countries are developing artillery-delivered high precision munitions to complement these systems. Clearly, most other countries around the world plan on making high performance heavy artillery a mainstay of their military force for some time to come.
Last month, the Administration took the highly unusual step of deciding to cancel the Crusader program in the middle of the budget cycle. This action was taken without consultation with the Army's military leadership, and over their strong substantive objection. This decision will fundamentally alter the role that U.S. heavy artillery will play in future battles, yet we have seen very little evidence of any serious analytical effort to support this radical departure from the Army's accepted doctrine.
The Administration has essentially made a giant strategic bet on behalf of our land forces that the combination of future advances in precision cannon and rocket munitions (as distinguished from precision bombs and missiles) combined with hoped for perfection of real time target identification and selection technology (based on ubiquitous `24/7' all weather surveillance capabilities) will supplant the need to replace the Army's outdated Paladin howitzer with a system that shoots farther and faster.
This decision depends upon unproven technology and unproven tactics--betting that more traditional lethality and combat overmatch capabilities can be replaced by precision and speed. It is a decision that--as the Army's vaunted `Crusader talking points' said--`could put soldiers' lives at risk' if the Department's hypothetical assumptions about how and where future wars will be fought turn out to be wrong.
What is somewhat puzzling to us in that the Army's artillery upgrade plan that the Secretary of Defense has now rejected calls for improvements in both areas--lethality and precision. The Army's Crusader plan that was devised in the last Administration and endorsed in the first two Bush Administration budgets called for fielding the new world-class Crusader howitzer by 2008 giving the U.S. Army an artillery system that is operationally and technologically superior to any artillery system in the world. The second part of the Army's plan was to perfect and field the GPS-guided Excalibur projectile to shoot from the Crusader within 3 to 5 years after the Crusader was in the force. The combination of Crusader and Excalibur would give the Army a truly devastating capability to support its soldiers--combining unprecedented accuracy with vastly superior rate of fire and range.
The Army had a prudent and affordable plan that recognized the possibility that developing precision-guided cannon projectiles and rocket systems is a difficult task that may end up falling short of expectations. Contrary to popular wisdom, precision-guided cannon and rocket systems are not perfected yet. Shooting sensitive high-tech precision guidance systems out of cannons exerts several hundred times the G-forces exerted on air-delivered precision-guided bombs and missiles such as JDAM or Tomahawk, and the cost that contractors propose charging to overcome these factors is very high at the current time. For instance, the Army's published plans call for paying $222,000 per round for the first 9,417 Excalibur projectiles when and if they are perfected. This is 7 times greater than the Secretary of Defense' target price of $33,000 per round, and many experts question whether this target price will ever be achieved. It seems the Army had a very prudent plan--both from a warfighting perspective and from a development and cost risk perspective--that the Secretary of Defense summarily and unilaterally rejected.
So what is the Army left with under the Administration's new plan? In essence, the Army will be left with the outdated Paladin howitzer that sits on a 40-year-old chassis design that has already been upgraded six different times. The Paladin of the future will continue to shoot standard 155mm ammunition at low rates of fire and at substandard ranges as well as the new Excalibur precision projectile if it can be perfected, if the Paladin chassis can be shown to withstand the additional forces generated by firing this new round.
Whether the Excalibur works or not, the Administration now plans on keeping the Paladin in the force until 2032 when the Future Combat System will finally phase it out.
The Administration explains that the risk of keeping the Paladin is acceptable because the greater precision and range of Excalibur rounds and the projected availability of fire support systems such as Guided MLRS and air-delivered precision munitions can cover the existing indirect fire support shortfall. Aside from the issues of bad weather, responsiveness, and ability to support the close fight, this new plan discounts many of the traditional roles of artillery that depend upon volume of fire over accuracy--such as fire to suppress enemy attacks, and cover fire to protect friendly troop movements or to protect sectors of a battlefield. Rate of fire is completely discounted as a priority under the new plan.
It does not overstate the case to say that Army military leaders do not support this plan--they see too much risk. While the Administration points to skirmishes in Afghanistan to support its bet on precision, many of our military leaders worry about the potential major battles that could erupt in Korea or other theaters where mechanized forces will determine the outcome. A high level Defense Department official echoed these exact concerns just 3 months ago when discussing the Crusader:
Unless we want to have no new artillery facing North Korea's artillery, we need something. We have to remember, it's not just a matter or fighting on horseback with satellites and B-52s as we did in Afghanistan. We still face Kim Jung-II in North Korea. We still face Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We face others who use conventional weapons and the question then becomes do you want to modernize those or do you not- Dov Zakheim, Comptroller, Department of Defense. Comments on The News House With Jim Lehrer March 18, 2002.
The Crusader decision also signals a troubling change of direction about how we will equip and fight our future force. Over the last several decades there has been a consensus that we should take maximum advantage of America's Scientific and technological strength to field military systems and devise military strategy and tactics to achieve decisive `combat overmatch' capabilities against any potential opponent. General Michael E. Ryan, former Air Force Chief of Staff, succinctly summed up the combat overmatch philosophy as follows:
I'm not interested in fair fights. What I'm interested in is a 100 to nothing score, not 51-49.
This philosophy has proven its worth--not only does it save American lives on the battlefield, but it is an effective way to win the peace. Our vastly superior military capabilities cause potential adversaries to think twice before confronting us or our allies militarily, which contributes significantly to world peace and stability. This was not always the case, and we must continue to work at keeping this edge.
Of all the military services, it is perhaps most important for the Army to continue with the philosophy of `combat overmatch' through superior technology. Unlike the Air Force and the Navy, we have a small Army compared to other countries. Currently, eight other armies in the world outnumber our Army. We make up for this with superior people, superior leadership, and superior technology, but numbers still matter if we let our technological edge slip.
It is disturbing that the Defense Department seems willing to rest on the laurels of past administrations and go back to a philosophy of `just enough,' The Crusader would provide US military personnel with the best technology in the world that meets a know deficiency of a military service that American industry has shown it can deliver on time and on budget. The Crusader system is a state-of-the-art heavy artillery system that has already produced 7 new patents from its new technology. Over 6,000 test rounds have already been fired and the system is meeting or exceeding range, rate-of-fire, and reliability requirements by all accounts.
It is simply hard to understand why a system that meets the biggest Army warfighting deficiency is being scrapped.
If the President persists in demanding the termination of the Crusader, the weaknesses of the outdated Paladin (with or without the Excalibur projectile) make it imperative that we expedite the development and fielding of the Objective Force next generation artillery system. American soldiers do not deserve to continue to endure the risks of substandard artillery support. This deficiency must be eliminated as quickly as possible.
We therefore support the Committee position of adding $173 million to the $195 million budget request for development of the Objective Force artillery system in order to field a new system by 2008. This would accelerate the Army's old schedule by four to six years. This acceleration is possible only if the Army uses the existing Crusader engineering team and leverages the technology advances garnered with the Army's $2 billion investment that has already been spent on Crusader development.
Following are some of the detailed answers received from DOD to our specific questions on the Crusader that have been raised in the course of this debate.
1. How does the Crusader compare to other top foreign systems? Why don't we simply buy one of those systems?
A comparison of the most advanced artillery systems in the global marketplace available to our allies shows why the Army believes the Crusader is a superior artillery system. The Crusader delivers more firepower is more mobile, protects its crew better weighs less, uses fewer crewmembers, and is the only system that can be fully networked on the battlefield.
COMPARISON OF MODERN SELF-PROPELLED HOWITZERS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crusader (U.S.) Paladin (U.S.) G6 (S. Africa) AS90 (U.K.) PzH2000 (Germany)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max Range (km) * 40 30 30 37.4 37.4
Max Rate of Fire * 10 to 12/Minute. Indefinitely 4/minute for 3 3/minute 6/minute for 3 6-8 minute for 3
Crew Size (howitzer + resupply veh) 3 + 3 4 + 4 6+resupply crew 5+resupply crew 5+resupply crew
Curb Wt. (ton) 40 27 52 46.3 54+
Combat Wt. (ton) 50 32 55.6 50.7 60.3
Horsepower 1500 440 520 660 991
Projectile Qty. 48 39 45 58 60
Accuracy 96m @ 30km 232m@30km Unknown 246m@30km 200m@km
Simultaneous rounds on target (MRSI Capability) 4-10 rounds N/A Unknown Unknown 2-6 rounds
Highway Speed (km/hr) * 67 60 85 52 62.5
X-Country Speed (km/hr) * 48 27 30 25 45
NBC Macro Protection Yes No No No No
Resupply Vehicle Yes/Automated Yes/Manual No No No
U.S. Command & Control Yes Yes/Not All No No No
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. How Much Does Crusader Cost?
A two-vehicle Crusader system (howitzer and resupply vehicle) could be procured for about $10.01 million (recurring production costs, FY 01 constant dollars) which is about 70% of the cost of one Army Blackhawk helicopter. In budget terms, the total procurement cost of $7 billion for 480 systems (another $4 billion is for development) is substantial in and of itself, but in terms of the total Defense budget the Army's planned average appropriation level of about $1 billion per year represents about one percent of the Army's annual budget, and about 3 tenths of one percent of the annual Defense Department budget. The total cost of the entire Crusader procurement is less than one year's worth of research for the missile defense program.
3. How much are the new Excalibur and guided MLRS munitions expected to cost, and how does that compare to standard 155mm ammunition?
Excalibur. The latest February 12, 2002 Army estimate pegged the future Excalibur program acquisition cost for the first 9,417 unitary projectiles at $222,000 per round, or a total cost of $2.1 billion. The Army could purchase nearly half of the entire Crusader fleet (209 out of 480 systems) for the cost of the first 10,000 rounds of Excalibur ammunition. The Administration's target unit cost for Excalibur unitary is $33,000 per round for 200,000 rounds, a seven-fold decrease compared to the current price, for a total cost of $6.6 billion. In addition, the Administration plans on buying an additional 40,264 Excalibur senior-fused (infra-red sensing skeet bomblets) projectiles at $96,000 per round, for a total cost of $3.9 billion. The past Army track record in precision/smart munitions programs (SADARM, MSTAR, BAT, WAM, Copperhead) does not support this cost reduction assumption. But assuming the Army can attain these `best cost' estimates, the cost of the first 200,000 rounds of Excalibur unitary and 40,000 rounds of Excalibur sensor-fused projectiles would cost $10.5 billion, more than one and half times the total cost of the Crusader procurement ($7 billion). If the $33,000 `best cost' estimate for Excalibur unitary cannot be reached and the price can be reduced by only 50% to say, $100,000 per round, the total cost for Excalibur unitary projectiles skyrockets to over $20 billion in order to attain the Army's initial 200,000-unit inventory objective. In any case, it would require annual appropriations of well over $1 billion per year in order to finance the Excalibur production rate efficiencies used as the basis for the target cost estimate--something that is unprecedented for one type of round of Army ammunition. It is also expected that the Army Excalibur inventory objective over time would increase well above 200,000 units.
Guided MLRS. The latest Army estimates peg the expected cost of Guided MLRS unitary rockets at $65,000 per unit. Assuming that the Army would fire a minimum of two rockets per target, the cheapest `kill' cost for a truck or a tank using guided MLRS would be $130,000. Each salvo of 12 MLRS rockets would cost $780,000 for unitary warheads (equivalent to the cost of 3,250 155mm projectiles).
Non-precision 155mm HE ammunition. The Army's most recent purchase of M107 HE 155mm projectiles was $240 per round for 155,000 rounds. M795 HE rounds are estimated to cost between $500 and $770 per round.
Inventory. The Army has an inventory of over 4.2 million 155mm HE rounds already paid for. There are no Excalibur projectiles or Guided MLRS rockets in the current inventory.
4. The Army has the best tank, the best infantry fighting vehicle, and the best attack helicopter in the world. Why has the Army operated so long with an inferior heavy artillery system?
During the late 1970's and 1980's the Army introduced new families of fighting systems that included the Abrams tank, Bradley fighting vehicle, air defense systems and helicopters such as Apache and Blackhawk. Due to fiscal constraints and diverging priorities in the mid 80's, the field artillery was forced to skip a generation of cannon modernization.
During that time period, the Army developed the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) to satisfy its deficiency in deep attack and Paladin was developed as an interim solution for its cannon deficiencies. Consequently, Paladin was a simple product improvement to the old M 109 that lacked mobility, lethality, and survivability. Because if the limitations of the chassis, Paladin lacks the potential or significant product improvement.
5. Can indirect cannon fire support missions be accomplished by greater investment in other systems--aircraft, missiles, and rockets?
U.S. ground forces have traditionally required a mix of rocket, missile and cannon systems to meet their fire support requirements. Cannons have historically provided close support to the maneuver arms on a 24-hour all weather basis. Although the unique characteristics that made cannon systems ideal for this mission are becoming less distinct as the capabilities of precision and smart munitions are improved, several distinct characteristics are like to remain.
Flexibility and responsiveness. Flexibility and responsiveness are probably the cannon's hallmark. The close combat environment demands the ability to rapidly accommodate change. Cannon systems are more responsive to rapidly changing battle conditions because they carry a readily available quantity and variety of munitions and can rapidly change from on type of munition to another as required. Cannons reload by individual rounds vice pods for rockets/ missiles. Rocket/missile pods can only accommodate one type of munition at a time. Often, the type of rocket/missile pod loaded may not be the optimum munition required for the specific target. Fires and effects coordinators then face what can be a dilemma. They must either search for launchers loaded with the correct munition, fire the launcher loaded with the less than optimum munition, or direct reload. Launcher reload operations can take approximately 7-20 minutes, making them less than ideal in a time critical situation. Aircraft carry limited amounts and types of munitions and must land to reconfigure or replenish their load. Aircraft reload cycles are generally much longer than missile and rocket systems. Army data indicated that a Crusader battalion could provide 130 tons of munitions in one hour, and 900 rounds in close support before the first aircraft sorties arrives on station.
Continuous Fires. Cannon systems are more capable of providing continuous fires (fires without gaps over a period of time) than are rocket/missile launchers and aircraft. With an actively cooled cannon, and fully automated rearm and resupply provided by Crusader resupply vehicles, the capability to provide continuous fires is greatly enhanced. Cannons have the capability to shift from target to target quickly--a matter of seconds in many cases. While launches do well in providing massed fires, there can often experience unacceptable gaps for reloading operation in sustaining fires.
Employment in Proximity to Friendly Forces. Providing fires in close proximity to friendly forces is an essential fire support task in the close fight. The minimum safe distance as measured by bursting radius is considerably smaller for cannons compared to existing rocket/missile systems. Final protective fires and `danger close' missions end up placing fires extremely close to friendly forces. The smaller bursting radius of cannon munitions enables the `echelonment of fires' whereby the infantry uses a succession of cannon and mortar systems interchangeably to maximize the coverage of fires until they must be shifted or lifted.Close fires require accuracy, responsiveness, timely delivery, and `controlled' (or limited) effects (burst radius), to reduce risk to supported forces. Cannon artillery can be employed much closer to our forces and is an absolute necessity in the close support role since it can be employed in all weather, in all terrain, day or night. Weather can severely hamper close air support. For instance, during the Kosovo air campaign, 56% of sorties were aborted due to weather. Of those sorties executed, 33% were adversely affected by weather, resulting in less than half of the targets being effectively engaged.
Sustainability. Accordingly to the Army, the logistical footprint for cannons is generally smaller than for rocket/missile launchers based on ammunition weight and cube size.
Cost of Munitions. Cannon munitions have historically been less expensive than rockets or missiles on a per-unit cost basis, and they provide a larger family of munitions to select from the deal with battlefield dynamics. Compared to the expected range of cost for new precision guided cannon and rocket munitions, the cost per round of non-precision 155mm cannon projectiles is cheaper on the order of 140-925 to one (see #3 above).
6. Will there be a void in indirect fire support with out Crusader?
Possibly. According to the requirement that was developed by the Army and approved by the Joint Requirements Council of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Paladin was judged to be not mobile enough to keep up with our mechanized force in a maneuver-dominated fight. The Army is also concerned that the Paladin's range and rate-of-fire limitations prevent it from providing the required counter-fire `umbrella' for our forces. In addition to the significant increase in mobility, range, and rate-of-fire, Crusader provides the responsive, continuous fires and mobility required for fast moving close combat operations. Its automated ammunition handling and resupply system combined with an actively cooled cannon provide accurate sustained fires where needed in the required volume. Crusader interoperability with Joint and all Army command and control networks assures that effects are delivered when needed; providing direct link capability to any platform on the battlefield.
7. How old is Paladin and how much longer would it need to be in the force if Crusader is cancelled? Can Paladin be upgraded to meet many of the Crusader requirements?
The M109 series howitzer design began in the mid-1950s and entered service in 1961. Paladin is the sixth modification to the M109 design--no Paladins are new howitzers. While maintaining virtually the same chassis, engine, transmission, and basic suspension, the Paladin's weight has grown by one third from 24 tons to 32 tons. The armament system has grown from a 24 caliber cannon with a range of 14 kilometers to a 39 caliber cannon with a range of 30 kilometers.
The Crusader was planned to remain in the force beyond 2032. If Crusader is not available and the M109 series howitzer must be continued in its place, it is probable that it too would be in the field in 2032. This would mean that the M109 series howitzer would be in the field 70 years after it initially entered service. The soldiers in 2030 could be fighting with the same howitzer used by their great grandfathers.
The Army evaluated the prospect of improving Paladin during the Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis completed for Crusader's Milestone 1 decision and the Congressional report delivered in December 2000. The analysis shows that to attain Crusader's rate-of fire (10-12 RPM), cross country mobility (39-48 KPH) and firing range (40-50 KM), Paladin would require an automated ammunition handling system, increased horsepower, improved suspension, and a cooled 56 caliber cannon. Paladin lacks sufficient growth capacity in the chassis to allow these improvements. To strengthen the chassis to withstand these stresses would require replacing or significant design changes in the hull structure, hydraulics, engine, transmission and suspension sub-systems.
8. Is Crusader rate of fire oversold because it can't be resupplied at high enough rates? What is the logistical plan to resupply Crusader during maximum rates of fire?
Ammunition resupply has been an issue that has plagued artilleryman for years. Because Crusader has a fully automated resupply system, it allows a 300% improvement
in resupply operations. The key to successfully achieving this new resupply requirement will be the fielding of fully automated resupply vehicles (RSVs) that can rearm a Crusader howitzer with 48 rounds and refuel it in 10 minutes--a 50% improvement. One technique employs two resupply vehicles (RSV's) per howitzer battery in the vicinity of the firing area to conduct rearming and refueling, two RSVs in hide areas with full loads of ammunition, and two RSVs uploading at the Logistics Resupply Point. Other methods may be employed, depending on the individual tactical situation, and considerations of distances that have to be traveled between the locations. The introduction of the wheeled RSV gives the commander enhanced flexibility to conduct resupply operations depending on the threat. For example, when facing a high counter fire threat, the commander could deploy the tracked resupply vehicles forward providing maximum protection for the crew while using the wheeled vehicles to upload and transport ammunition in the less vulnerable rear positions and transfer the ammunition to the tracked carriers. In a law counter fire threat, the commander could also deploy the wheeled vehicles forward maximizing through put of ammunition. The automatic resupply and cannon autoloader capability is a major technological leap forward for the Army, which has never had this capability before.
9. What force structure was sacrificed in anticipation of fielding Crusader? Will structure be added back if Crusader is terminated? What will that cost?
In anticipation of the increased firepower and productivity of the Crusader system, the Army reduced force structure in both maneuver and fire support units by 25 percent in the mid-1990s. The Army reduced Paladin and all other cannon battalions from three batteries of eight howitzers (3x8) to three batteries of six howitzers (3x6). MLRS battalions were also reduced to 3 batteries of 6 launchers each (down from 8 or 9 launchers each). at the same time, Army tactics were changed to take full advantage of the speed of its tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, the Crusader, and other situation awareness capabilities, increasing the planned battle space for Army forces by over 200 percent. Termination of the Crusader will necessitate a reexamination of Army force structure, tactics, techniques, and procedures.
10. What are remaining development and cost risks of the Crusader?
The Army has testified that it rates the Crusader program a moderate to low risk for technical performance, cost, and schedule. The software build for Crusader is on schedule and within cost estimates. The range and rate-of-fire key performance parameters are being demonstrated with the first prototype vehicle at Yuma Proving Grounds and the resupply and mobility are on schedule for demonstration in 2002. Over 6,000 test firings have shown the Crusader to be 142% more accurate to date than Paladin. Accuracy improvements come from:
- A new projectile tracking system that removes meteorological errors;
- Percision pointing with electric drives;
- Thermal management
- Muzzle velocity management;
- On-board projectile weighting;
- Inertial reference unit coupled to GPS to null out position errors.
The program has been focusing significant effort on building the reliability of the system in order to remove soldiers from the technical and manual operational aspect of fighting a weapon system.
11. How much does the Crusader weigh and what can carry it?
The Crusader howitzer was redesigned several years ago to reduce its weight from 60 tons to 40 tons. Under the Army's current plan, Crusader artillery would be either prepositioned or moved by sea as part of a counterattack corps. If needed, Crusader systems could be airlifted on C-17 or C-5B aircraft. Deployments by airlift would most likely entail a battery of 3 Crusader systems to meet special contingencies. Crusader airlift ranges would be:
| Nautical | |
| Miles | |
| C-17: | |
| 2 howitzers (84 tons) | 2,276 |
| 1 howitzer and 1 resupply vehicle (w) (73 tons) | 2,782 |
| C-5B: | |
| 2 howitzers (84 tons) | 3,200 |
| 1 howitzer and 1 resupply vehicle (w) (73 tons) | 3,500 |
Norm Dicks.
Chet Edwards.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
