94-301
2004
108TH CONGRESS 2d Session
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Report
[Graphic image not available]
JUNE 18, 2004- Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2005
94-301
2004
108TH CONGRESS 2d Session
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Report
[Graphic image not available]
JUNE 18, 2004- 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 | 1 | |
| Committee Budget Review Process | 4 | |
| Introduction | 4 | |
| Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Request | 4 | |
| Budget Amendment for Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan | 5 | |
| Unfunded Demands | 5 | |
| Committee Views | 5 | |
| Major Recommendations in the Committee Bill | 6 | |
| Committee Recommendations by Major Category | 9 | |
| Military Personnel | ||
| 9 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance | ||
| 9 | ||
| Procurement | ||
| 9 | ||
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation | ||
| 10 | ||
| Other Items of Interest Funded in the Bill | ||
| 11 | ||
| Reprogramming, Withholding, and `Taxing' Appropriated Funds | 11 | |
| Security and Financial Reviews Regarding Iraqi National Congress | 14 | |
| Forces to be Supported | 14 | |
| Department of the Army | ||
| 14 | ||
| Department of the Navy | ||
| 15 | ||
| Department of the Air Force | ||
| 16 | ||
| TITLE I. MILITARY PERSONNEL | 17 | |
| Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropriations | ||
| 17 | ||
| Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2005 | ||
| 17 | ||
| Adjustments to Military Personnel Account | ||
| 19 | ||
| Overview | ||
| 19 | ||
| End Strength Adjustments | ||
| 19 | ||
| Accuracy of Obligations | ||
| 20 | ||
| Personnel Strengths | ||
| 20 | ||
| Guard and Reserve Workyear Requirements | ||
| 20 | ||
| Military Technicians Cost Avoidance | ||
| 21 | ||
| Budget Justification Documents for Military Personnel | ||
| 21 | ||
| Reimbursement of Citizenship Fees | ||
| 21 | ||
| Full-Time Support Strengths | ||
| 22 | ||
| Military Personnel, Army | ||
| 22 | ||
| Military Personnel, Navy | ||
| 25 | ||
| Military Personnel, Marine Corps | ||
| 28 | ||
| Military Personnel, Air Force | ||
| 31 | ||
| Reserve Personnel, Army | ||
| 34 | ||
| Reserve Personnel, Navy | ||
| 36 | ||
| Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps | ||
| 38 | ||
| Reserve Personnel, Air Force | ||
| 40 | ||
| National Guard Personnel, Army | ||
| 42 | ||
| National Guard Personnel, Air Force | ||
| 44 | ||
| TITLE II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE | 47 | |
| Operation and Maintenance Overview | ||
| 49 | ||
| Recommendations to Address Shortfalls | ||
| 50 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance Budget Exhibits | ||
| 50 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance Budget Execution Data | ||
| 51 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance Reprogrammings | ||
| 51 | ||
| Availability of Funds | ||
| 52 | ||
| Civilian Pay | ||
| 52 | ||
| Unobligated Balances | ||
| 53 | ||
| Reduction to Administration and Servicewide Activities | ||
| 53 | ||
| Base Operations Support | ||
| 53 | ||
| Civilian Pay Overstatement | ||
| 53 | ||
| Military to Civilian Conversions | ||
| 54 | ||
| Working Capital Fund Cash | ||
| 54 | ||
| Transportation Working Capital Fund | ||
| 54 | ||
| Other Contracts | ||
| 54 | ||
| Contract Offsets | ||
| 55 | ||
| Civilian Separation Incentive | ||
| 55 | ||
| Fort Ticonderoga | ||
| 55 | ||
| Presidio of San Francisco | ||
| 55 | ||
| Corrosion Control | ||
| 55 | ||
| Joint Professional Military Education Level One | ||
| 56 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Army | ||
| 57 | ||
| Online Technology Training Program | ||
| 62 | ||
| Philadelphia Military Academies | ||
| 62 | ||
| Vehicle Integrated Primary Electrical Resource | ||
| 62 | ||
| Virtual Reality Spray Paint Simulator System and Training Program | ||
| 62 | ||
| Fort Monmouth Telecommunications Infrastructure | ||
| 62 | ||
| Controlled Humidity Program | ||
| 62 | ||
| One Soul: Holocaust Education Exhibit | ||
| 62 | ||
| Sense and Respond Logistics | ||
| 63 | ||
| Integrated Digital Environments Information Portal | ||
| 63 | ||
| Army Knowledge Online | ||
| 63 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Navy | ||
| 63 | ||
| Knowledge Management and Decision Support System | ||
| 67 | ||
| Local Situational Assessment, NAS Lemoore | ||
| 68 | ||
| CDTEMS | ||
| 68 | ||
| Single Torpedo Maintenance Facility | ||
| 68 | ||
| Navy Region Southeast Integrated Safety Management System | ||
| 68 | ||
| NAS North Island | ||
| 68 | ||
| Global Hawk Maritime Demonstration | ||
| 69 | ||
| DoD NOAA Facility Clean-Up | ||
| 69 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps | ||
| 69 | ||
| Marine Corps Mountain/Cold Weather Clothing and Equipment | ||
| 72 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Air Force | ||
| 72 | ||
| F-15E Oxygen Concentrator Reliability Improvement Program | ||
| 76 | ||
| Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) | ||
| 76 | ||
| Air Show Study | ||
| 77 | ||
| Threat Representation and Validation | ||
| 77 | ||
| Heavy Outsized Airlift Capacity | ||
| 77 | ||
| B-1 Aircraft Regeneration | ||
| 77 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide | ||
| 78 | ||
| Passive RFID Prototype Project | ||
| 82 | ||
| Norm Mineta Internship Immersion Program | ||
| 82 | ||
| Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities (CTMA) | ||
| 82 | ||
| George AFB | ||
| 82 | ||
| Norton AFB | ||
| 82 | ||
| Lewis Center for Educational Research | ||
| 82 | ||
| Environmental Remediation of Unexploded Ordnance | ||
| 83 | ||
| Building Protection | ||
| 83 | ||
| Victim Advocates | ||
| 83 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve | ||
| 83 | ||
| US Army Reserve Command IT Consolidation | ||
| 87 | ||
| Controlled Humidity Protection | ||
| 87 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve | ||
| 87 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve | ||
| 90 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve | ||
| 92 | ||
| 932nd Airlift Wing | ||
| 94 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard | ||
| 94 | ||
| Homeland Operational Planning System | ||
| 97 | ||
| AVCRAD Replacement Equipment | ||
| 97 | ||
| Advanced Starting Systems | ||
| 97 | ||
| Infantry Helmet Liner Retrofit | ||
| 97 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard | ||
| 97 | ||
| Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Account | ||
| 100 | ||
| United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces | ||
| 100 | ||
| Environmental Restoration, Army | ||
| 100 | ||
| Environmental Restoration, Navy | ||
| 101 | ||
| Environmental Restoration, Air Force | ||
| 101 | ||
| Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide | ||
| 101 | ||
| Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites | ||
| 101 | ||
| DeWitt Center | ||
| 101 | ||
| Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid | ||
| 102 | ||
| Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Account | ||
| 102 | ||
| TITLE III. PROCUREMENT | 103 | |
| Estimates and Appropriations Summary | ||
| 103 | ||
| Special Interest Items | ||
| 105 | ||
| Reprogramming Guidance for Acquisition Accounts | ||
| 105 | ||
| Classified Annex | ||
| 105 | ||
| Multiyear Procurement Contracts | ||
| 105 | ||
| Ground Forces Recapitalization | ||
| 107 | ||
| Aircraft Procurement, Army | ||
| 108 | ||
| Comanche Termination and Budget Amendment | ||
| 110 | ||
| Missile Procurement, Army | ||
| 113 | ||
| Line of Sight Anti-Tank (LOSAT) | ||
| 115 | ||
| Hellfire | ||
| 115 | ||
| Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army | ||
| 118 | ||
| Stryker | ||
| 120 | ||
| Procurement of Ammunition, Army | ||
| 123 | ||
| Ammunition Industrial Base | ||
| 125 | ||
| M169 Cartridge Casing Production | ||
| 125 | ||
| Hydra Rocket | ||
| 125 | ||
| Other Procurement, Army | ||
| 129 | ||
| Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV) | ||
| 134 | ||
| Rapid Equipping Force (REF) | ||
| 134 | ||
| Integrated Communications Navigation Identification Avionics (ICNIA) | ||
| 134 | ||
| Aircraft Procurement, Navy | ||
| 141 | ||
| Ongoing Program Review | ||
| 145 | ||
| EA-18G Advance Procurement | ||
| 145 | ||
| MH-60R | ||
| 145 | ||
| EA-6B Series | ||
| 146 | ||
| Improved Capabilities (ICAP III) Program | 146 | |
| F/A-18 Advanced Tactical Reconnaissance System (ATARS) | ||
| 146 | ||
| F/A-18 LITENING Pod Downlink Development Program for AV-8B | ||
| 147 | ||
| F/A-18 LITENING Pod Advanced Targeting (AT) | ||
| 147 | ||
| Naval Air Systems Command Metrology and Calibration Program | ||
| 147 | ||
| Operational Flight Trainer Simulation Initiative | ||
| 147 | ||
| Weapons Procurement, Navy | ||
| 152 | ||
| Northwest Undersea Range | ||
| 154 | ||
| Pioneer Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Product Improvement Program (PIP) | ||
| 154 | ||
| Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps | ||
| 157 | ||
| Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy | ||
| 162 | ||
| Shipbuilding Issues | ||
| 164 | ||
| DDG-51 Guided Missile Destroyer--Advance Procurement | ||
| 164 | ||
| DDG-51 Guided Missile Destroyer--Modernization Program | ||
| 165 | ||
| Other Procurement, Navy | ||
| 167 | ||
| CVN Propeller Replacement Program | ||
| 172 | ||
| TRIDENT Modifications | ||
| 172 | ||
| Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV) Program | ||
| 172 | ||
| Performance-Centric Mission Essential Content Delivery | ||
| 172 | ||
| Serial Number Tracking System | ||
| 173 | ||
| Physical Security Equipment | ||
| 173 | ||
| Procurement, Marine Corps | ||
| 180 | ||
| Aircraft Procurement, Air Force | ||
| 188 | ||
| F/A-22 Raptor | ||
| 191 | ||
| F/A-22 Independent Cost Estimate | ||
| 191 | ||
| C-17 Aircraft | ||
| 191 | ||
| C-17 Interim Contractor Support | ||
| 193 | ||
| Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund | ||
| 193 | ||
| Global Hawk | ||
| 193 | ||
| C-130 Gunship Link 16 | ||
| 194 | ||
| Missile Procurement, Air Force | ||
| 198 | ||
| Joint Air-To-Surface Standoff Missile | ||
| 200 | ||
| Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle | ||
| 200 | ||
| Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force | ||
| 204 | ||
| General Purpose Bombs | ||
| 206 | ||
| Other Procurement, Air Force | ||
| 208 | ||
| Theater Air Control System Improvement | ||
| 211 | ||
| Procurement, Defense-Wide | ||
| 216 | ||
| SOF Rotary Wing Upgrades | ||
| 219 | ||
| Advanced Seal Delivery System (ASDS) | ||
| 219 | ||
| Miscellaneous Equipment | ||
| 219 | ||
| Vulnerability Management Strategy | ||
| 219 | ||
| National Guard and Reserve Equipment | ||
| 224 | ||
| Defense Production Act Purchases | ||
| 224 | ||
| Information Technology | ||
| 224 | ||
| Information Technology and Business Management Modernization Program | ||
| 226 | ||
| Navy Converged Enterprise Resource Planning | ||
| 227 | ||
| U.S. Army Reserve Command IT Consolidation | ||
| 227 | ||
| TITLE IV. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION | 229 | |
| Estimates and Appropriation Summary | ||
| 229 | ||
| Reprogramming Guidance for Acquisition Accounts | ||
| 231 | ||
| Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) | ||
| 231 | ||
| Preserving Growth Potential for the F-35 | ||
| 233 | ||
| F-35 Program Management | ||
| 234 | ||
| Joint Unmanned Combat Aerial System (JUCAS) | ||
| 234 | ||
| Special Interest Items | ||
| 235 | ||
| Classified Annex | ||
| 236 | ||
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army | ||
| 236 | ||
| Future Combat System | ||
| 253 | ||
| Non Line of Sight Cannon (NLOS-C) | ||
| 254 | ||
| Theater Support Vessel | ||
| 254 | ||
| Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) | ||
| 255 | ||
| Patriot PAC-3/Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) | ||
| 255 | ||
| Land Warrior and Future Force Warrior | ||
| 256 | ||
| Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS)--Unitary | ||
| 256 | ||
| Nuclear Monitoring | ||
| 257 | ||
| Defense Language Institute | ||
| 257 | ||
| Arizona Telemedicine Program | ||
| 257 | ||
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy | ||
| 264 | ||
| Bone Marrow Registry | ||
| 287 | ||
| Naval Hospital Great Lakes and North Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical Center | ||
| 287 | ||
| DD(X) | ||
| 287 | ||
| Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) | ||
| 288 | ||
| Amphibious Assault Ship--LHA Replacement | ||
| 289 | ||
| Advanced Hybrid Stored Energy Devices | ||
| 290 | ||
| Blast Resistant Anechoic Sprayable Elastomeric Coatings | ||
| 290 | ||
| Cutting Tools for Aerospace Materials | ||
| 290 | ||
| Low-Power Mega Performance UAV Processing Engines | ||
| 290 | ||
| Center for Critical Infrastructure Protection | ||
| 290 | ||
| High Performance Sandwich Panel Construction Techniques | ||
| 291 | ||
| Project M | ||
| 291 | ||
| Intelligent Systems Consortium (ISC) Initiative | ||
| 291 | ||
| Cascading Vehicles Concept for Advanced Littoral Operations | ||
| 291 | ||
| Review of Multiple Missile Systems | ||
| 291 | ||
| Disruptive Technology Opportunities Fund (DTOF) | ||
| 292 | ||
| Supply Chain Practices for Affordable Navy Systems (SPANS) | ||
| 292 | ||
| Center for Coastline Security Technology | ||
| 293 | ||
| Joint Operational Test Bed (JOTBS) | ||
| 293 | ||
| Nano-Imprint at Manufacturing Scale (NIMS) | ||
| 293 | ||
| Composite Ceramic Unmanned Underwater Vehicle | ||
| 293 | ||
| AH-1Y/UH-1Z Tailboom | ||
| 293 | ||
| CV-22 Osprey | ||
| 294 | ||
| VXX Helicopter Program | ||
| 294 | ||
| Navy Converged Enterprise Resource Planning | ||
| 294 | ||
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force | ||
| 302 | ||
| Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) High | ||
| 312 | ||
| Space Based Radar | ||
| 312 | ||
| E-10A Multi-Mission Command and Control Aircraft | ||
| 314 | ||
| Bomber Development | ||
| 315 | ||
| Airborne Electronic Attack | ||
| 316 | ||
| Bomber Tactical Data Links | ||
| 316 | ||
| National Aerospace Leadership Initiative | ||
| 317 | ||
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide | ||
| 326 | ||
| Comparative Genomics for National Security Goals | ||
| 337 | ||
| Operationally Responsive Satellite | ||
| 337 | ||
| Chemical and Biological Defense Program | ||
| 337 | ||
| California Manufacturing Technology Center (CMTC) | ||
| 337 | ||
| Defense Acquisition Challenge Program | ||
| 337 | ||
| Business Management Modernization Program | ||
| 338 | ||
| Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) Summary | ||
| 338 | ||
| Aegis Missile Defense Program | ||
| 340 | ||
| BMDS Operation and Maintenance | ||
| 340 | ||
| Integrated Flight Test--13C (IFT-13C) | ||
| 340 | ||
| Advanced Multipurpose Microdisplay System | ||
| 341 | ||
| Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense | ||
| 347 | ||
| TITLE V. REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS | 351 | |
| Defense Working Capital Funds | ||
| 351 | ||
| Defense Working Capital Funds Reduction | ||
| 351 | ||
| National Defense Sealift Fund | ||
| 351 | ||
| Maritime Pre-Positioning Force (Future) | ||
| 351 | ||
| TITLE VI. OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS | 353 | |
| Defense Health Program | ||
| 353 | ||
| Defense Health Program--Reprogramming | ||
| 357 | ||
| Walter Reed Army Medical Center--Amputee Patient Care Program | ||
| 357 | ||
| Landstuhl Army Medical Center | ||
| 357 | ||
| Army Fisher Houses | ||
| 358 | ||
| Third-Party Collections | ||
| 358 | ||
| Mental Health Services | ||
| 358 | ||
| Limited Access to Military Treatment Facilities in Rural Areas | ||
| 359 | ||
| Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army | ||
| 359 | ||
| Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense | ||
| 361 | ||
| Volume Test Site for Point Sensors | ||
| 361 | ||
| Tethered Aerostat Program | ||
| 361 | ||
| Hemispheric Radar System | ||
| 361 | ||
| Office of the Inspector General | ||
| 362 | ||
| TITLE VII. RELATED AGENCIES | 363 | |
| National Foreign Intelligence Program | ||
| 363 | ||
| Classified Annex | ||
| 363 | ||
| Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund | ||
| 363 | ||
| Intelligence Community Management Account | ||
| 364 | ||
| Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Fund | ||
| 364 | ||
| National Security Education Trust Fund | ||
| 364 | ||
| TITLE VIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS | 365 | |
| Definition of Program, Project, and Activity | ||
| 365 | ||
| TITLE IX. ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS | 367 | |
| Chapter 1 | Submission of Budget Amendment | |
| 367 | ||
| Committee Recommendations | ||
| 368 | ||
| Reporting Requirements | ||
| 369 | ||
| Abuse of Prisoners | ||
| 370 | ||
| INC Financial Review | ||
| 370 | ||
| Military Personnel | ||
| 371 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance | ||
| 372 | ||
| Iraq Freedom Fund | ||
| 372 | ||
| Procurement | ||
| 372 | ||
| Miscellaneous Procurement | ||
| 374 | ||
| Vehicle Force Protection | ||
| 375 | ||
| Defense Working Capital Funds | ||
| 376 | ||
| Defense Health Program | ||
| 376 | ||
| Outsourcing Oversight of Defense Contracts | ||
| 377 | ||
| Chapter 2 | Department of State | |
| 377 | ||
| Administration of Foreign Affairs | ||
| 377 | ||
| Diplomatic and Consular Programs | ||
| 377 | ||
| Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance | ||
| 378 | ||
| Chapter 3 | Bilateral Economic Assistance | |
| 378 | ||
| Funds Appropriated to the President | ||
| 378 | ||
| United States Agency for International Development | ||
| 378 | ||
| International Disaster and Famine Assistance | ||
| 378 | ||
| Department of State | ||
| 378 | ||
| Migration and Refugee Assistance | ||
| 378 | ||
| General Provisions--This Title | ||
| 379 | ||
| HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS | 381 | |
| Changes in the Application of Existing Law | ||
| 381 | ||
| Appropriations Language | ||
| 381 | ||
| General Provisions | ||
| 383 | ||
| Appropriations Not Authorized by Law | ||
| 387 | ||
| Transfer of Funds | ||
| 388 | ||
| Rescissions | ||
| 389 | ||
| Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule) | ||
| 389 | ||
| Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives | ||
| 393 | ||
| Constitutional Authority | ||
| 393 | ||
| Comparison With the Budget Resolution | ||
| 393 | ||
| Five-Year Outlay Projections | ||
| 394 | ||
| Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments | ||
| 394 | ||
| Additional Views | ||
| 408 |
2d Session
108-553
--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2005
[To accompany H.R. 4613]
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, 2005.
BILL TOTALS
Appropriations for most military functions of the Department of Defense are provided for in the accompanying bill for the fiscal year 2005. 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 2005 budget request for activities funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill totals $417,807,305,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. This amount includes $392,807,305,000 requested on February 3, 2004, as part of the President's overall fiscal year 2005 budget submission, and $25,000,000,000 requested in a budget amendment on May 12, 2004.
The amounts recommended by the Committee in the accompanying bill total $416,153,100,000 in new budget authority for the Department of Defense. This includes $25,000,000,000 for incremental costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. 1
[Footnote] This total is $47,458,539,000 above the sums made available for the Department of Defense in fiscal year 2004. 2
[Footnote] An additional $780,300,000 has been provided in title IX of the bill, for emergency funding requirements of the Department of State.
[Footnote 1: If the bill is enacted before October 1, 2004, these amounts for Iraq and Afghanistan will be considered fiscal year 2004 budget authority.]
[Footnote 2: This amount does not include $62,906,554,000 in fiscal year 2004 supplemental appropriations and rescissions provided in Public Laws 108-106 and 108-199.]
COMMITTEE BUDGET REVIEW PROCESS
During its review of the fiscal year 2005 budget, the Subcommittee on Defense held a total of nine hearings during the period of February 2004 to May 2004. Testimony received by the Subcommittee totaled 771 pages of transcript. Approximately half of the hearings were held in open session. Executive (closed) sessions were held only when the security classification of the material to be discussed presented no alternative.
INTRODUCTION
The Committee's consideration of the fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense Appropriations bill has been shaped by the need to carefully examine and balance the formidable array of challenges confronting America's armed forces.
The Nation is at war on multiple fronts. Military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the broader global war on terrorism have made it imperative that the Department of Defense and the Congress respond by providing the necessary resources to support our deployed forces. These demands are far from trivial--the situation in Iraq coupled with these other operations have led to the largest mobilization in decades.
It is clear that these deployments, especially Operation Iraqi Freedom, will remain the focus of our armed forces for some time. It is also becoming clearer with each passing day that these operations are generating great strains on the current force, in terms of both manning and equipment. The Committee is deeply concerned that these stresses are creating many near- and mid-term challenges which have yet to be fully factored into Department of Defense plans and budgets.
While looking to address these immediate and mid-term concerns in this legislation, the Committee also is mindful of the need to provide for the longer-term investments required to ensure the viability of the U.S. military in the future.
FISCAL YEAR 2005 BUDGET REQUEST
The President's fiscal year 2005 defense budget submitted in February 2004 was largely a `peacetime budget', as the Administration initially announced it intended to request funds for war-related costs through the supplemental appropriations process.
Accordingly, this budget reflected the Administration's emphasis on strongly supporting improved pay and benefits for service members, and increases in peacetime training and readiness accounts. In the acquisition arena, the budget request gave continued priority to developing new generations of ground combat vehicles, ships and aircraft, many of which embrace so-called `defense transformation'--be it in technology, acquisition scheme, or operational employment. The budget also reflected the need to address emerging threats by proposing increased funding for intelligence, the development of missile defenses and counters to chemical and biological attacks, and a series of other transformational technologies including new satellites and unmanned aircraft.
BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR OPERATIONS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN
As originally submitted, the fiscal year 2005 request did not include funds to support the ongoing costs resulting from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Funds for these operations were to be requested at the beginning of 2005 in a supplemental appropriations request. The situation in theater has evolved, however, and as a result, on May 12, 2004, the President submitted a budget amendment for the Department of Defense, requesting $25,000,000,000 for incremental operational costs associated with Iraq and Afghanistan operations. These appropriations are intended to serve as a funding bridge until early next year when a fiscal year 2005 supplemental request will be submitted to cover the remaining costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan operations, as well as the global war on terrorism.
UNFUNDED DEMANDS
Largely due to timing, the Committee notes that the President's budget does not include funding to address two major emerging requirements, both centered on the nation's ground forces.
First, at roughly the same time the budget was submitted the Army announced the most ambitious restructuring of its combat formations in decades. This reorganization, known as `modularity', will transform the structure of Army divisions to create additional combat relevant units, centered on brigades. This plan will not just lead to a more flexible, deployable Army, but by creating additional combat formations, it should contribute to the reduction of stress on our troops resulting from the high operational tempo of recent years. The Army is moving rapidly to institute this new structure, but no funds for this initiative were requested in the fiscal year 2005 budget.
Second, the fiscal year 2005 budget, prepared last year, does not address the new set of recapitalization challenges confronting all the services--but particularly the Army and Marine Corps--as a result of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. As stated in recent congressional testimony by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
`The equipment that we leave is being used very hard, more than we've ever used in peacetime. So as we look at future budgets . . . we have to program in . . . the ability to fix this equipment if it can be fixed through depot, or replaced, if it has to be replaced.'
The Committee concurs.
COMMITTEE VIEWS
Thus, the biggest challenge the Committee faced this year was to seek a balance between these competing imperatives. The Committee's priorities are to sustain current operations, readiness, and force well-being; ensure our forces' ability to respond to other potential conflicts in the not-too-distant future; and use our limited resources to proceed surely, but effectively, with military transformation.
To meet these objectives, the Committee finds itself largely in agreement with many aspects of the overall direction of the Administration as reflected in the fiscal year 2005 budget. Amending the budget to provide for early fiscal year 2005 operational costs of Iraq and Afghanistan is both prudent and necessary. Also, the Committee has long stressed the need for adequate funding for military pay, quality of life, and readiness programs, and supports these priorities as requested in the President's budget.
As for the Department's acquisition programs, in general the Committee believes that many of the `transformational' programs under development are worthy objectives, both playing to American advantages and future threat environments. These programs stress the use of modern information technology and manufacturing techniques to produce more agile, flexible, and lethal combat platforms and systems. After thorough examination, however, the Committee has concluded that a consistent theme runs through many of these programs, as proposed in the fiscal year 2005 budget--namely, the development programs are currently too aggressive and optimistic in terms of research, testing, and production profiles. The Committee believes that a more measured `transition to transformation' is in order, especially in the areas of Naval surface combatants and Army combat vehicles.
Finally, the Committee believes it imperative to begin now a meaningful program that addresses what will surely be the long-term need to refurbish and rebuild our ground forces. There is no question that the combination of combat losses and extraordinary rates of operational tempo make this necessary, as is the need to deal with strain on certain elements of the domestic industrial base, for items such as ammunition.
For its future budgets, the Committee believes the Department must confront the reality that its ongoing contingency operations must lead to some serious rethinking of its needs, and the budgets and programs to meet them. The Department would be wise to step back and take a broad look at the changed circumstances now confronting the military--as the Committee has done--to develop a balanced, effective fiscal plan and program for the coming years.
MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE COMMITTEE BILL
To meet near-term needs, the Committee provides funds to:
- Support continued operations in Iraq and Afghanistan;
- Fight the Global War on Terrorism;
- Maintain readiness; and
- Fully fund military pay, benefits, and medical programs.
For the mid-term the Committee bill:
- Initiates a program to recapitalize our ground forces;
- Supports continued production of major platforms such as the Virginia class submarine, the C-17, C-130, and V-22 transports, and the F/A-18 and F/A-22 fighters;
- Supports the initial deployment of national missile defenses and continued investment in theater missile defenses; and
- Makes recommendations on certain programs that will allow the Department to `transition to transformation'.
For the long-term, the Committee supports the Department's efforts to transform, but makes appropriate adjustments to programs that have `come too far, too fast'.
A more detailed summary of major programs follows:
Fiscal Year 2005 Operational Costs- The Committee bill proposes $25,000,000,000 in title IX to defray operational costs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Within this amount, the Committee provides funding for added manpower requirements stemming from these operations and the increases in end strength approved by the House in its consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. This amount also includes over $14 billion for operation and maintenance; addresses critical force protection requirements such as Up-armored HMMWVs and individual body armor; and provides funding in support of the Army brigade restructuring initiative, as it applies to units which will be rotating into theater.
Ground Forces Recapitalization- The Committee bill provides increases over the budget request totaling $2.2 billion for the Army and Marine Corps. Of this amount, some $330 million is directed to the Guard and Reserve component. This recapitalization package includes--
- $1.3 billion for combat vehicles--including procurement of equipment for an additional Stryker brigade combat team ($950 million) above that programmed in the budget;
- $503 million for helicopters;
- $390 million for trucks and other support vehicles; and
- $52 million for the ammunition production base.
These recommendations begin the process of restocking our ground forces' fleets, recognizes the `transformational' character of the Army's restructuring/modularity process, and provides a more robust transitional force for the Army on the path to transformation.
Military Personnel and Medical Programs- The Committee bill fully funds the military pay raises proposed in the President's budget, and also supports the request for Basic Allowance for Housing, eliminating service members' average out-of-pocket housing expenses from 3.5 percent to zero in fiscal year 2005. Nearly $18 billion is recommended for the Defense Health Program, an increase of $2.2 billion over fiscal year 2004, and funding for military-related medical research and related initiatives is increased by nearly over $900 million over requested levels.
Readiness Accounts.--The Committee bill provides the requested levels of funding for land forces training, tank training miles, helicopter flying hours, ship steaming days, Air Force and Navy flying hour programs.
Missile Defense Program.--The Committee bill recommends $9.7 billion for missile defense programs, an increase of over $632 million from fiscal year 2004 levels and a net decrease of $458 million from the budget request. This amount includes $4.4 billion for ground-based midcourse missile defense, in support of fielding a national missile defense initial operational capability in the autumn of 2004 as proposed by the President. For theater missile defense, the Committee has provided $938 million for production, modification and continued development of Patriot PAC-3 missiles and the next generation MEADS systems.
Chemical and Biological Defense Initiatives.--The Committee bill provides nearly $1.7 billion for procurement and development of chemical and biological defenses under the Defense-Wide appropriations, with additional funding for mobile chemical agent detection, air contaminant monitoring systems, early warning and detection programs, and miniature chemical and biological detectors.
Future Combat System.--The Committee bill provides $2.9 billion, an increase over fiscal year 2004 of $1.2 billion and a decrease of $324 million to the budget request. The Committee bill fully funds the requested amount for the Non Line of Sight Cannon (NLOS-C) and directs its fielding by not later than 2010.
Shipbuilding Programs.--The Committee bill provides a total of $10.2 billion for shipbuilding procurement and has fully funded amounts requested for fiscal year 2005 production ships, including one Virginia-class submarine, one Trident SSGN conversion, and three DDG-51 destroyers. An additional $225 million is allocated towards a DDG-51 modernization program and for procurement of an additional DDG-51 in the future.
As for future ship development, the Committee recommends $953 million for the next-generation CVN-21 carrier; $409 million for the Littoral Combat Ship, an addition of $57 million over the request; and a total of $1.2 billion for the DD(X) program, a reduction of $248 million from the request owing to a decision to defer construction of the first DD(X) ship.
Major Aviation Programs.--The Committee makes the following recommendations:
Army: The Committee approves termination of the RAH-66 Comanche program and redistributes funding to other Army aviation programs, as proposed by the Army, and adds $463 million over the request for additional Blackhawk and Chinook helicopters.
Navy/Marine Corps: Funding is provided for 42 F/A-18 fighters, 8 Marine Corps V-22's and 2 E-2C surveillance aircraft as requested in the budget.
Air Force: The Committee recommends $3.6 billion for 24 F/A-22 fighters, and adds $158 million to the C-17 program to procure 15 aircraft, one over the request. The Committee proposes $100 million for a `Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund', to be used for the eventual acquisition of KC-767 tankers. $100 million is added for continued development of the B-2 and a next-generation bomber program.
Joint Strike Fighter.--The Committee bill recommends $4.4 billion, an increase of $116 million from fiscal year 2004 levels, for the Joint Strike Fighter development program. This amount represents a net decrease of $204 million from the request reflecting schedule slips. Funds are added for design work on the STOVL variant of this aircraft.
Space Programs.--The Committee bill provides $560 million for the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS-High), an increase of $91 million over the request; and provides $520 million for Enhanced Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) procurement. Development funding for the Advanced Wideband System and Mobile User Objective System programs is reduced, owing to concerns regarding technical maturation, risk reduction, and likely expenditure rates. Funding for the Space Based Radar program is reduced to $75 million, with direction to return this effort back to the technology development phase.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS BY MAJOR CATEGORY
MILITARY PERSONNEL
In title I, the Committee recommends a total of $104,191,558,000 for active, Reserve and Guard military personnel costs, a reduction of $620,000,000 from the fiscal year 2005 budget request and $5,737,877,000 over the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004.
The Committee supports the budget request proposal of a 3.5 percent pay raise for military personnel effective January 1, 2005, as well as the proposal to eliminate the remaining 3.5 percent out-of-pocket housing costs.
The Committee has funded the end strength levels as requested in the President's budget request for active duty and Selected Reserve personnel. Funds in title IX of the bill provide additional funds for the increased end strength resulting from ongoing contingency operations, and those levels approved by the House in its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
In title II of the bill, the Committee recommends a total of $120,568,274,000 for Operation and Maintenance support to the Service elements and other Department of Defense entities, a reduction of $1,306,315,000 from the fiscal year 2005 budget request and $4,653,397,000 over the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004.
The Committee's recommendation fully funds the President's request for readiness training in flying hours, ship steaming and ground forces operational tempo training. Requests for unit and depot level maintenance program funding have been fully supported. Transformational initiatives, including the Army's Flight School XXI and the Navy's Fleet Response Plan have been fully supported.
In addition, the Committee's recommendation includes an increase of $500,000,000 in additional operating account funding to address many of the Department's funding shortfalls. Increased funding has been included for individual soldier and Marine field equipment, small all terrain vehicles, general purpose tents and mobility shelters, training and support facilities, joint training capabilities, training on urbanized terrain, military and civilian workforce safety, education programs, and distance learning.
PROCUREMENT
In title III of the bill, the Committee recommends a total of $77,354,791,000 for procurement of equipment, an increase of $2,692,474,000 over the fiscal year 2005 budget request and $2,698,744,000 over the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004.
Major program initiatives include:
$2,441,900,000 for Guard and Reserve equipment
$406,937,000 for 39 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters
$1,039,450,000 for CH-47 helicopter modifications
$654,460,000 for Apache Longbow modifications
$489,253,000 for 108 Patriot missiles
$245,378,000 for Bradley Fighting Vehicle sustainment
$1,855,074,000 for Stryker Brigades
$457,692,000 for High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV)
$610,664,000 for Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles (FMTV)
$212,538,000 for Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles (FHTV)
$2,907,456,000 for 42 F/A-18 E/F Fighter aircraft
$846,571,000 for 8 Navy V-22 aircraft and $305,581,000 for 3 Air Force V-22 aircraft
$241,792,000 for 9 UH-1Y/AH-1Z helicopters
$295,595,000 for 15 MH-60S helicopters
$134,555,000 for 4 airlift aircraft
$329,558,000 for 14 trainer aircraft
$58,835,000 for H-53 modifications
$160,970,000 for P-3 modifications
$967,613,000 for spares and repair parts for Navy and Marine Corps aircraft
$256,196,000 for 293 Tactical Tomahawk missiles
$1,994,754,000 for Navy weapons
$1,581,143,000 for 1 Virginia Class submarine
$469,226,000 for the last SSGN conversion
$3,444,950,000 for 3 DDG-51 Guided Missile Destroyers
$966,559,000 for 1 LPD-17 Class ship
$132,696,000 for AAV7A1 Product Improvement Program
$235,545,000 for 155MM Lightweight Towed Howitzer
$3,603,769,000 for 24 F-22 Raptor aircraft
$23,023,000 for modifications to F-117 stealth fighter-bombers to maintain a fleet of 51 aircraft
$2,671,079,000 for 15 C-17 tactical airlift aircraft
$202,178,000 for 3 Global Hawk High Altitude UAVs
$186,609,000 for 13 Predator Medium Altitude UAVs
$100,000,000 for tanker replacement and the establishment of a Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund
$769,171,000 for 11 C-130J airlift aircraft
$234,103,000 for Air Force aircraft spares and repair parts
$519,997,000 for 3 Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles
$3,840,199,000 for procurement of ammunition for all Services
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
In title IV of the bill, the Committee recommends a total of $68,946,512,000 for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation programs, an increase of $1,174,224,000 over the fiscal year 2005 budget request and $3,728,628,000 over the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004.
Major program initiatives include:
$2,873,653,000 for the Future Combat System including $497,643,000 for the Non Line of Sight Cannon (NLOS-C)
$141,600,000 for the Theater Support Vessel (TSV)
$4,367,927,000 for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35 program
$710,401,000 for the Joint Unmanned Combat Aerial System (JUCAS) program
$1,182,785,000 for the DD(X) next generation Guided Missile Destroyer
$409,080,000 for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)
$237,969,000 for the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV)
$132,389,000 for the UH-1Y/AH-1Z development
$253,164,000 for V-22 Osprey development and test flights
$557,398,000 for the VXX Executive helicopter replacement program
$50,000,000 for future bomber development
$458,860,000 for development of E-10A and MP-RTIP radar
$50,000,000 for improvements to the B-2 bomber
$344,538,000 for continued development of F/A-22 capability
$674,836,000 for the Advanced Wideband System (AWS) Satellite
$612,049,000 for the Advanced EHF Satellite
$599,488,000 for the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) High Satellite
$307,668,000 for the National Polar-Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite
OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST FUNDED IN THE BILL
$1,694,338,000 for the Chemical Biological Defense Program
$8,688,772,000 for the programs of the Ballistic Missile Defense Agency
REPROGRAMMING, WITHHOLDING, AND `TAXING' APPROPRIATED FUNDS
In recent years, the Committee has become increasingly troubled with practices of the Department of Defense (DoD) which involve the withholding and redirection of appropriated funds from activities provided for by the Congress. Recent developments with respect to the research, development, test and evaluation appropriations are of special concern. The following discussion addresses how DoD executes the movement of a significant level of appropriated funds among programs through mechanisms such as reprogramming funds, withholding funds, and charging `taxes' on funds that pass through the control of various departmental organizations.
Reprogrammings.--This is the process by which DoD formally transfers funds from one program or activity--as approved in an appropriations act and delineated in a committee report--to another program or activity. The Congress understands there are instances in which DoD should be allowed to make such funding shifts, and this has manifested itself in the provision of transfer authority in appropriations acts and the establishment of reprogramming guidelines by the congressional defense committees. These guidelines include setting both dollar thresholds and `item of special interest' designations, under which DoD is obliged to seek the prior approval of the congressional defense committees before executing the movement of funds. An above-threshold reprogramming (ATR) requires approval of the congressional defense committees. A below-threshold reprogramming (BTR) does not, except in limited instances, include any requirement for congressional notification or approval.
In both fiscal years 2003 and 2004, the Committees on Appropriations temporarily raised the threshold for a BTR movement of funds. The new BTR guidance was raised to $20,000,000 for procurement (P-1 items) and $10,000,000 for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (R-1 items), with current direction stating that the threshold shall be the specific dollar limitation ($20,000,000 for procurement and $10,000,000 for RDT&E) or 20 percent of the line, whichever is less.
The Committee believes these reprogramming guidelines provide sufficient management flexibility for DoD, but is concerned that the guidelines are not applied consistently within the Department. Indeed, the Committee has observed increased use of BTRs by both the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the military services in a manner which is often inconsistent and in clear violation of congressional intent. Especially troubling is evidence suggesting below threshold reprogrammings have been used to initiate new start development programs without congressional notification.
Program Funding Withholds.--Withheld funds are those funds appropriated to, but not released to, programs for some portion of their availability period. Withholds are executed at the OSD and Service level, and are often justified when a program is experiencing programmatic issues or when congressional adjustments require additional information. These amounts should be released for expenditure to the programs for which the funds were appropriated when either OSD or the service involved is confident the program can proceed.
`Taxes'.--The term `taxes' refers euphemistically to amounts directed by either Departmental or Service entities to be set aside from amounts appropriated to programs, in order to be used for another purpose. Examples of taxes include reductions and redirection of funds resulting from statutory requirements, including those mandated to meet Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) requirements, or `across-the-board' reductions applied in response to explicit direction in appropriations acts. However, according to a General Accounting Office (GAO) review, program managers do not apply statutory taxes in an equitable manner. Further, these items are not separately identified in budget documentation in support of each Research, Development, Text and Evaluation (RDT&E) appropriation request. It is therefore impossible to determine if the Department is properly executing the requirements of the law.
The Committee has also learned that other, so-called `non-statutory taxes', are being increasingly applied to programs by OSD or the Services, in order to generate funds to accommodate shortfalls in other programs or fund new requirements. GAO has informed the Committee that in both 2003 and 2004 program managers anticipated they would be required to set aside two to three percent of a program's appropriation to pay for taxes. Some of the amounts set aside as taxes are used to initiate new programs or new research that has not been presented to Congress, and for which an appropriation has not been approved.
The routine use of BTRs, withholds, and taxes is increasing and becoming more widespread, affecting nearly every program. Of particular concern is that the scope and the impact of their use are not readily visible to the Committee, and in some cases, not visible to OSD or Service headquarters. Moreover, according to GAO the use of these mechanisms can have a substantial impact on the funding levels for specific programs, and in some cases lead to a major redirection of a program after the appropriation has been enacted. There have been instances in which cumulatively, more than 10 percent of funding for a particular program has been shifted to other purposes.
The Department of Defense claims these mechanisms are necessary tools to effectively manage its acquisition-related appropriations. The Committee recognizes the need for the Department to have some flexibility to meet emergencies, react to unexpected opportunities, and make the most efficient use of funds. However, too much flexibility can encourage unrealistic budgeting and inefficient management practices, blur accountability, and weaken oversight. For example many program managers seek funding in excess of program requirements, to mitigate the financial impact of these mechanisms against their programs. The Committee concludes that while these actions may indeed provide flexibility, they constitute a terrible business practice and encourage poor management habits within the Department.
In addition, the lack of visibility into changes in appropriated funding levels for programs is of great concern. Current requirements for financial reports to the Committee provide information that is often late, inaccurate, and non-specific. Moreover, in many instances the Department does not have adequate internal systems for management tracking and analysis of this information. It is telling that while the DoD continually presses the Congress generally and the Committee specifically for more flexibility in the management of appropriated funds, it cannot provide itself or the Committee adequate and timely information on the current use or impact of such fiscal management mechanisms.
Most importantly, the Committee is concerned that the extensive use of these practices, coupled with a failure to provide adequate visibility into their use and impact, substantially increases the risk that the Department of Defense may be circumventing the intent of the Congress.
Committee Recommendation
Regarding so-called `non-statutory' taxes, the Committee believes that the two-to-three percent level noted by GAO in recent years has been assumed in the amounts requested in the fiscal year 2005 budget. Budgeting for amounts in anticipation that they will be redirected to other programs is not acceptable. Therefore, the Committee bill includes section 8020, which reduces the fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation appropriations (Title IV of the committee bill) by $685,000,000. This reduction shall be applied to each budgeted program element, project and activity. Appropriations made to programs in direct support of the National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP) are exempt from the application of section 8020.
Further, the Committee directs the Department of Defense to end the practice of setting aside funds--taxing appropriations made for particular programs--without a statutory requirement to do so. The amounts appropriated in 2005 for each program designated in the appropriate tables in this report shall not be altered by any departmental entity through the application of non-statutory taxes or set asides.
Finally, in order to determine the application of statutory taxes, the Committee directs that future budget requests include a separate identification of the amount of an RDT&E appropriation request that will be set aside as a tax to fulfill each statutory requirement.
Reporting Requirements
By February 1, 2005, the Secretary of Defense is directed to provide the Committee--
- (a) Timely and complete data, by RDT&E program element, on the use of the Department's current flexibility mechanisms, including withholds, reprogrammings (i.e., actual BTRs as well as ATRs) and taxes during fiscal year 2004, as of September 30, 2004, and
- (b) A proposal for reporting fiscal year 2005 data to the Committee on the BTRs and ATRs executed to funds appropriated for procurement and RDT&E programs, by program element, as part of the Accounting Report 1002 process, or some other method that provides regular and timely information.
Also, the Committee believes that not later than 90 days after enactment of the Department of Defense Appropriation Act, 2005, the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) should establish a working group of members of the Senior Executive Service with extensive experience in financial management and budgetary execution. This group should work to develop alternative and improved methods for providing visibility, flexibility, accountability, and oversight (both internal to the Department and to the Congress) in the management of research and development appropriations. This group should provide, through the Office of the Secretary of Defense, an interim and final report on the alternatives and methods explored, including the advantages and disadvantages of each, and provide recommendations for the establishment of new guidelines for the Department of Defense.
SECURITY AND FINANCIAL REVIEWS REGARDING IRAQI NATIONAL CONGRESS
The Committee is gravely concerned about recent allegations of security compromises associated with members of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), who may have provided highly sensitive U.S. intelligence information to a foreign government. Additional allegations of financial improprieties have been brought to light from recent Iraqi justice system proceedings. In the portion of this report dealing with funds provided for title IX, the Committee directs that the Office of Management and Budget provide a comprehensive report addressing all sources of funding and other support provided to the INC between 1998 and the current fiscal year. Further direction to the Intelligence Community regarding these matters is included in the classified annex accompanying this report.
FORCES TO BE SUPPORTED
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
The fiscal year 2005 budget request is designed to support active Army forces of 10 divisions, 2 armored cavalry regiments, 2 separate brigades, 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. The Army is in the process of converting to a modular brigade based force. At end state, the active Army force will contain 43-48 maneuver Units of Action. The Army National Guard will transition to 33 Units of Action and 1 Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT).
A summary of the major forces follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2003 2004 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Divisions:
Airborne 1 1 1
Air Assault 1 1 1
Light 2 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 2
Separate Brigades 1 1 2
Total 4 4 4
Active duty military personnel, end strength (thousands) 480.0 480.0 482.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
The fiscal year 2005 budget request supports battle forces totaling 292 ships at the end of fiscal year 2004, including 18 strategic submarines, 12 aircraft carriers, 226 other battle force ships, 1,614 Navy/Marine Corps tactical/ASW aircraft, 729 Undergraduate Training aircraft, 479 Fleet Air Training aircraft, 296 Fleet Air Support aircraft, 378 Reserve aircraft and 443 in the pipeline.
A summary of the major forces follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Type Fiscal year
2003 2004 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Forces: 18 18 18
Submarines 18 18 18
General Purpose: 245 241 238
Aircraft Carriers 12 12 12
Surface Combatants 98 94 91
Submarines (Attack) 54 55 55
Amphibious Warfare Ships 36 35 36
Combat Logistics Ships 34 34 33
Mine Warfare 11 11 11
Support Forces: 21 21 21
Mobile Logistics Ships 2 2 2
Support Ships 19 19 19
Mobilization Cat. A (Reserve) 14 15 15
Surface Combatants 8 9 9
Amphibious Warfare Ships 0 0 0
Mine Warfare 6 6 6
Total Ships, Battleforce 298 295 292
Auxiliaries/Sea Lift Forces: 159 160 157
Coastal Defense 13 13 8
Maritime Preposition 17 17 17
Fast Sealift/Other 12 12 12
Ready Reserve Force/LMS RORO 79 79 79
Naval Fleet Aux Force 38 39 41
Naval Aircraft:
Primary Authorized (plus Pipe) 4,062 4,175 4,100
Authorized Pipeline 437 460 443
Tactical/ASW Aircraft 1,680 1,623 1,614
Fleet Air Training 470 484 479
Fleet Air Support 329 332 296
Training (Undergraduate) 745 727 729
Reserve 409 385 378
Naval Personnel:
Active:
Navy 382,235 373,800 365,900
Marine Corps 177,779 175,000 175,000
Reserve:
14,384 14,152 69,248 14,578
2,261 2,261 37,339 2,261
-----------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
The fiscal year 2005 Air Force budget request is designed to support active, guard, and reserve forces, including 87 combat coded fighter and attack squadrons and 8 combat coded strategic bomber squadrons. The ICBM force maintains 605 launch facilities with 500 Minuteman missiles, with the Peacekeeper missile force completing deactivation. The budget also supports our critical airlift mission, including 22 active duty airlift squadrons. To accomplish the Air Force mission, the 2005 budget supports a Total Force end strength of 542,600.
A summary of the major forces follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2003 2004 2005
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Major Forces:
USAF Fighter and Attack Squadrons (Active, ANG, AFRC) 86 88 87
Active 45 45 46
ANG 36 37 36
AFRC 5 6 5
Strategic Bomber Squadrons (Active) 8 8 7
Strategic Bomber Squadrons (AFRC) 1 1 1
Flight Test Units (DT and OT units with assigned aircraft) 11 12 12
Fighter 8 9 9
Bomber 3 3 3
ICBM Operational Launch Facilities/Control Centers 605 605 605
ICBM Missile Inventory 533 516 500
USAF Airlift Squadrons (Active):
Strategic Airlift Squadrons 12 14 13
Tactical Airlift Squadrons 10 10 9
Total Active Airlift Squadrons 22 24 22
Total Air Force Aircraft Inventory 5,851 5,854 5,776
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------
Endstrength FY 2003 PB FY 2004 PB FY 2005 PB
----------------------------------------------------
Active Duty 375,062 359,300 359,700
Reserve Component 182,891 182,830 182,900
Air National Guard 108,137 107,030 106,800
Air Force Reserve 74,754 75,800 76,100
----------------------------------------------------
TITLE I
MILITARY PERSONNEL
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FUNDED BY MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
The President's fiscal year 2005 budget request continues to increase funding for military pay, housing allowances, recruiting and retention programs, and overall quality of life programs for active duty and Guard and Reserve personnel.
The budget request proposed an increase in basic pay for all personnel by 3.5 percent, effective January 1, 2005, and proposed eliminating the remaining 3.5 percent out-of-pocket housing costs for military members. The Committee supports the enhancements to recruiting, retention, military pay and increased housing benefits for fiscal year 2005.
SUMMARY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 $98,453,681,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 104,811,558,000
Fiscal year 2005 recommendation 104,191,558,000
Change from budget request -620,000,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $104,191,558,000 for the Military Personnel accounts. The recommendation is an increase of $5,737,877,000 above the $98,453,681,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2004. 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.
The fiscal year 2005 budget request includes a net decrease of 7,500 end strength for the active forces and a decrease of approximately 2,400 end strength for the Selected Reserve over fiscal year 2004 authorized levels.
The Committee recommends the following levels highlighted in the tables below.
OVERALL ACTIVE END STRENGTH
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 estimate 1,390,500
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 1,383,000
Fiscal year 2005 recommendation 1,383,000
Compared with Fiscal year 2004 -7,500
Compared with Fiscal year 2005 budget request
----------------------------------------------------------
OVERALL SELECTED RESERVE END STRENGTH
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 estimate 863,330
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 860,900
Fiscal year 2005 recommendation 860,900
Compared with Fiscal year 2004 -2,430
Compared with Fiscal year 2005 budget request
--------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2004 estimate Fiscal year 2005
Budget request Recommendation Change from request
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Forces (end strength):
Army 482,400 482,400 482,400
Navy 373,800 365,900 365,900
Marine Corps 175,000 175,000 175,000
Air Force 359,300 359,700 359,700
Total, Active Force 1,390,500 1,383,000 1,383,000
Guard and Reserve (end strength):
Army Reserve 205,000 205,000 205,000
Navy Reserve 85,900 83,400 83,400
Marine Corps Reserve 39,600 39,600 39,600
Air Force Reserve 75,800 76,100 76,100
Army National Guard 350,000 350,000 350,000
Air National Guard 107,030 106,800 106,800
Total, Guard and Reserve 863,330 860,900 860,900
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENTS TO MILITARY PERSONNEL ACCOUNT
OVERVIEW
END STRENGTH ADJUSTMENTS
The Committee recommends the requested end strength levels as proposed in the budget. The Committee is aware that unprecedented retention levels and stop loss policies associated with the Global War on Terrorism have had an influence on the Services' end strength, causing them to exceed their mandated active duty end strength levels. Thus, the Services anticipate ending fiscal year 2004 significantly above their authorized end strength levels. The Committee has provided additional funds for the active duty military personnel accounts in title IX of the bill to address these additional manpower expenses.
ACCURACY OF OBLIGATIONS
The Committee recommends a reduction of $499,700,000 to the budget request, based on a General Accounting Office (GAO) analysis of prior year unexpended military personnel account balances. Even though some Services and components have improved the annual certification of the accuracy of present and prior year obligation balances, not all of the funds obligated are expended, and those unexpended balances are not always identified in the annual review certification process. Because the Services' and components' accounting data continue to show a pattern of under spending their appropriated funds, the Committee believes that the fiscal year 2005 military personnel budget request is overstated and can be reduced.
The Committee continues to believe the Services can improve their appropriations balance review below the budget activity level to ensure that funds are properly obligated and expended for the purposes appropriated. The Committee again directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that all the Services and Guard and Reserve components strengthen the annual review and certification process by including a review of the accuracy of prior year obligations below the budget activity level.
PERSONNEL STRENGTHS
Because military personnel strengths are the foundation upon which the military personnel budget is built, it is vital that budget justification documents accurately reflect expected monthly strengths by rank. Without monthly strength information to use for the overview of work years, the Committee will not be able to assess the accuracy of the Services' personnel budget requests, as the General Accounting Office has found over the last several years. The Committee, therefore, again directs the Services to provide an annual budget justification exhibit, which displays the expected monthly personnel strengths by pay grades. The Committee further directs the Services to provide the requested exhibit in support of the fiscal year 2005 budget request for use in budget deliberations. This exhibit should also include the projected monthly strength of Guard and Reserve personnel mobilized in support of the Global War on Terrorism, broken out by officer and enlisted.
GUARD AND RESERVE WORKYEAR REQUIREMENTS
The Committee recommends a reduction of $55,000,000 to the budget request for Guard and Reserve workyear requirements. For a number of years, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has found that the Guard and Reserve components overstate, in many cases, the average strength of military personnel budgeted. This occurs when the budgeted positions are not manned, and when the Guard and Reserve components overstate inactive duty training (IDT) and annual training (AT) participation rates they use to estimate their budgets. In the past, the Committee has directed the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Guard and Reserve components determine their participation rates based on the actual number of personnel participating in training, determined by the number of personnel paid.
Last year, the Committee directed the Department to report on the determination of Reserve components participation rates. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs provided a report in early March 2004, which provided a summary of how the Guard and Reserve components determine participation rates for selected training activities, and notes some progress by some components in developing more accurate participation rates. However, the report does not indicate how the Office of the Secretary of Defense plans to ensure that participation rates accurately reflect the percentage of personnel actually being paid for training. GAO has found that this determination can be made using pay data to confirm the number of personnel being trained. Additionally, because of the many ways in which personnel are supporting the Global War on Terrorism and the relationships, direct and indirect, to individual and unit training requirements, it is important that accurate participation rates be used to assure that funding is provided where it is needed. Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure that all Guard and Reserve components use participation rates in the budget based on the number of personnel paid for training.
MILITARY TECHNICIANS COST AVOIDANCE
The Committee recommends a reduction of $221,400,000 to the budget request based on a General Accounting Office (GAO) analysis of actual mobilization data for approximately 8,300 Army and Air Force Guard and Reserve military (civilian) technicians mobilized in support of the Global War on Terrorism. To the extent that mobilization continues in fiscal year 2005, funds required in the Operation and Maintenance accounts for military technicians' compensation and related benefits can be reduced since these full-time support personnel are being covered by the Military Personnel appropriations accounts.
BUDGET JUSTIFICATION DOCUMENTS FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL
The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to include in congressional justification materials for the services military personnel budget requests an exhibit of the Summary of Price and Program Changes (PB-31D), similar to that provided in the Operation and Maintenance budget exhibits. The Committee directs the Department to standardize the format of the PB-31D for all military personnel accounts to provide subactivity group, line item level of detail beginning with the budget justification materials for fiscal year 2006, and thereafter.
REIMBURSEMENT OF CITIZENSHIP FEES
The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to identify each member or former member of the Armed Forces who, during the period beginning July 3, 2002, and ending October 1, 2004, applied for naturalization under the authority of section 328 or 329 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1439, 1440), and to use funds made available under Title I of this Act to reimburse the member for any fees paid by the member for filing the application for naturalization or for the issuance of a certificate of naturalization upon being granted citizenship, other than the portion of any such fee required to be paid to a State rather than the United States.
FULL-TIME SUPPORT STRENGTHS
There are four categories of full-time support in the Guard and Reserve components: civilian technicians, active Guard and Reserve (AGR), non-technician civilians, and active component personnel.
Full-time support personnel organize, recruit, train, maintain and administer the Reserve components. Civilian (Military) technicians directly support units, and are very important to help units maintain readiness and meet the wartime mission of the Army and Air Force.
Full-time support end strength in all categories totaled 154,956 in fiscal year 2004. The fiscal year 2005 budget request is 156,674 end strength. The following table summarizes Guard and Reserve full-time support end strengths:
GUARD AND RESERVE FULL-TIME END STRENGTHS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2004 estimate Budget request Recommendation Change from request
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Reserve:
AGR 14,374 14,970 14,970
Technicians 7,844 8,094 8,094
Navy Reserve:
TAR 14,384 14,152 14,152
Marine Corps Reserve:
AR 2,261 2,261 2,261
Air Force Reserve:
AGR 1,660 1,900 1,900
Technicians 9,991 9,954 9,954
Army National Guard:
AGR 25,599 26,476 26,476
Technicians 26,189 26,676 26,676
Air National Guard:
AGR 12,191 12,225 12,225
Technicians 23,240 23,306 23,306
Total:
AGR/TAR 70,469 71,984 71,984
Technicians 67,264 68,030 68,030
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $28,247,667,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 29,723,472,000
Committee recommendation 29,507,672,000
Change from budget request -215,800,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $29,507,672,000 for Military Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $1,260,005,000 above the $28,247,667,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
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: | |
| 1050 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses | -6,300 |
| Undistributed: | |
| 3200 Unobligated Balances | -209,500 |
MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $23,217,298,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 24,459,957,000
Committee recommendation 24,416,157,000
Change from budget request -43,800,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,416,157,000 for Military Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of $1,198,859,000 above the $23,217,298,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Navy are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel: | |
| 7350 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses | -9,800 |
| Undistributed: | |
| 9550 Unobligated Balances | -34,000 |
MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $8,971,897,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 9,595,902,000
Committee recommendation 9,591,102,000
Change from budget request -4,800,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,591,102,000 for Military Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $619,205,000 above the $8,971,897,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
The adjustment to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Marine Corps is shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel: | |
| 12400 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses | -4,800 |
MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $22,910,868,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 24,510,811,000
Committee recommendation 24,291,411,000
Change from budget request -219,400,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $24,291,411,000 for Military Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $1,380,543,000 above the $22,910,868,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Air Force are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel: | |
| 17300 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses | -48,000 |
| Undistributed: | |
| 19620 Unobligated Balances | -171,400 |
RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $3,568,725,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 3,733,590,000
Committee recommendation 3,719,990,000
Change from budget request -13,600,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,719,990,000 for Reserve Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $151,265,000 above the $3,568,725,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Army are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Undistributed: | |
| 23900 Unobligated Balances | -11,500 |
| 23950 Reserves Cost Avoidance | -2,100 |
RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $2,002,727,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 2,171,632,000
Committee recommendation 2,108,232,000
Change from budget request -63,400,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,108,232,000 for Reserve Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of $105,505,000 above the $2,002,727,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Navy are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Undistributed: | |
| 25300 Unobligated Balances | -48,400 |
| 25370 Reserves Cost Avoidance | -15,000 |
RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $571,444,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 654,973,000
Committee recommendation 653,073,000
Change from budget request -1,900,000
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $653,073,000 for Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $81,629,000 above the $571,444,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
The adjustment to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps is shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Undistributed: | |
| 26600 Unobligated Balances | -1,900 |
RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $1,288,088,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 1,464,050,000
Committee recommendation 1,451,950,000
Change from budget request -12,100,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,451,950,000 for Reserve Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $163,862,000 above the $1,288,088,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Air Force are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Undistributed: | |
| 27900 Unobligated Balances | -10,300 |
| 27910 Reserves Cost Avoidance | -5,400 |
| 27930 932nd Airlift Wing Personnel | 3,600 |
NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $5,500,369,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 5,950,729,000
Committee recommendation 5,915,229,000
Change from budget request -35,500,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,915,229,000 for National Guard Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $414,860,000 above the $5,500,369,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
The adjustments to the budget activities for National Guard Personnel, Army are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Undistributed: | |
| 29350 Unobligated Balances | -10,500 |
| 29410 Reserves Cost Avoidance | -25,000 |
NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $2,174,598,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 2,546,442,000
Committee recommendation 2,536,742,000
Change from budget request -9,700,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,536,742,000 for National Guard Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $362,144,000 above the $2,174,598,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
The adjustments to the budget activities for National Guard Personnel, Air Force are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Undistributed: | |
| 30550 Unobligated Balances | -2,200 |
| 30600 Reserves Cost Avoidance | -7,500 |
TITLE II
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The fiscal year 2005 budget request for programs funded in Title II of the Committee bill, Operation and Maintenance, is $121,874,589,000 in new budget authority, which is an increase of $5,959,712,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
The accompanying bill recommends $120,568,274,000 for fiscal year 2005, which is an increase of $4,653,397,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2004. 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 President's fiscal year 2005 budget request represents a $5,959,712,000 increase above fiscal year 2004 in Title II, Operation and Maintenance, exclusive of supplemental funding provided for continuation of military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Administration's initial request did not include funding for the continuation of the war on terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. An amendment to the fiscal year 2005 budget request was provided to the Committee on May 12, 2004, which asked for $25,000,000,000 in additional funds to support ongoing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism for the first few months of fiscal year 2005. Funding for these purposes is addressed in Title IX of the Committee bill. In that title, the Committee has provided $14,335,400,000 to ensure that funds are available to support the operating costs of the services, including purchase of all necessary soldier protection equipment. The funds provided in Title IX will support continuation of operations well into fiscal year 2005, and will ensure that critical base operating, and maintenance accounts need not be diverted to support the war effort.
The budget request for normal peacetime funding in Title II, Operation and Maintenance would sustain flying hours, ship steaming and ground operating tempo at approximately fiscal year 2004 levels. Navy Operation and Maintenance supports 292 ships, 12 Carrier Strike Groups and 12 Expeditionary Strike Groups. The Navy's Fleet Response Plan, begun in fiscal year 2004, expands in 2005, with the goal of increasing availability of Naval assets for duty worldwide. Requested funding for ship operations and maintenance increases by $600,000,000 in fiscal year 2005. The Air Force flying hour program provides the funding necessary to maintain basic flying skill and pilot development and production, and to provide trained aircrews to joint forces combatant commanders through ten aerospace expeditionary forces. The budget request fully supports the Army's ground and aviation training programs including a gradual increase in the number of battalion rotations at ground combat training centers. Army Flight School XXI implementation continues, and increased base operations funding reduces the risk of funds being diverted from critical training accounts to base support activities during the year of execution.
The budget request supports increasing facilities sustainment from 94 percent in fiscal year 2004 to 95 percent in fiscal year 2005. Funding is included to support a pay increase of one and one half percent for civilian employees. And the budget request included $572,000,000 to convert 10,070 positions from performance by military personnel to performance by civilian personnel.
In Title II of the bill, the Committee has supported programs for readiness training in flying hours, ship steaming and ground forces optempo training. Maintenance programs have been fully funded as requested. Army depot maintenance annual funding increases by $35,000,000 and is on track to achieve optimal funding by fiscal year 2007. Ship depot maintenance is increased by $412,000,000 with budgeted inductions increasing from 72 to 90. Funding for Air Force depot maintenance increases by $296,000,000. Robust support for anti-terrorism and force protection funding has been continued. The Committee has fully supported the Army's Flight School XXI program and the Navy's Fleet Response Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO ADDRESS SHORTFALLS
Despite the continuation of robust funding in operation and maintenance accounts requested for fiscal year 2005, testimony by the Services' leadership and briefings by key staff members indicate that a certain degree of risk has been taken in some areas. The Army flying hour program is based on historical execution levels of 13.1 hours, per crew, per month, however, the Army maintains the goal of achieving 14.1 hours, per crew, per month. The Air Force assumes a lower fiscal year 2004 flying hour cost, based on fiscal year 2002 execution.
The Committee has provided over $500,000,000 in additional operating account funding to assist in addressing many of the Department's shortfalls. Increased funding has been included for individual soldier and Marine field equipment, small all terrain vehicles, general purpose tents and mobility shelters, training and support facilities, joint training capabilities, foreign language training, training on urbanized terrain, military and civilian safety, education programs, and distance learning.
As has been the practice, the Committee has identified spending that does not directly support readiness and has moved those funds to programs that more directly support readiness goals.
Funding for repair and restocking of much of the equipment used in Afghanistan and Iraq in fiscal year 2004 is not included in the administration's budget request. Much of the Army equipment that was drawn from pre-positioned sets for the war against Iraq will not be returned to pre-positioned stocks in fiscal year 2005 and will continue in service in Iraq. Much of the Marine Corps' pre-positioned equipment used in Operation Iraqi Freedom I, and which was being repaired and returned to pre-positioned sets, has been issued for service in Operation Iraqi Freedom II. Title IX of the accompanying bill includes funds for depot level and unit level maintenance of pre-positioned equipment sets and for repair of equipment in those units that have rotated from duty in Iraq back to home stations.
Technical and tactical solutions to soldier safety and personal security battlefield challenges continue to evolve. The Committee has provided additional funding to address shortfalls in this area in Title IX of the accompanying bill. Increased and improved body armor for individual soldiers and Marines is fully funded, including for those soldiers in the new combat units being formed by the Army.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET EXHIBITS
The Summary of Price and Program Changes (PB-31D) exhibits as submitted by the Army and Air Force for fiscal year 2005 provide the level of detail necessary to assist the Committee in reviewing the budget request. The various summaries of price and program changes provided for other operation and maintenance appropriations accounts are presented in less detail and specificity, and have proven to be much less helpful in understanding the justification material provided. The Committee directs the Department of Defense to standardize the format of the PB-31D for all operation and maintenance accounts to provide subactivity group, line item level of detail, as the Army and Air Force provided for fiscal year 2005, beginning with the budget justification materials for fiscal year 2006, and thereafter.
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 for 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 of Representatives 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 the phrases `only for' and `only to' are Congressional interest items for the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD form 1414). Each of these items must be carried on the DD 1414 at the stated amount, or revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. In addition, due to continuing concerns about force readiness and the diversion of Operation and Maintenance funds, the Committee directs the Department of Defense to provide written notification to the congressional defense committees for the cumulative value of any and all transfers in excess of $15,000,000 from the following budget activities and subactivity group categories:
Operation and maintenance, Army
Operating Forces: Divisions, Corps combat forces, Corps support forces, Echelon above Corps support forces, Land forces operations support, Land forces systems readiness, and Land forces depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Navy
Operating Forces: Mission and other flight operations, Fleet air training, Aircraft depot maintenance, Mission and other ship operations, Ship operational support and training, Ship maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps
Operating Forces: Operational forces, Depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Air Force
Operating Forces: Primary combat forces, Primary combat weapons, Air operations training, Depot maintenance; Mobilization: Airlift operations, Depot maintenance, Payments to the transportation business area; Basic Skill and Advanced Training: Depot maintenance; Logistics Operations: Depot maintenance.
Further, the Department should follow prior approval reprogramming procedures for transfers in excess of $15,000,000 out of the following budget subactivities:
Operation and maintenance, Army
Depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Navy
Aircraft depot maintenance,
Ship 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.
AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS
The budget request proposed that all operation and maintenance funding be made available for obligation for two years as opposed to one year. The proposed change was intended to provide increased flexibility in managing operational funds. The Committee bill maintains one-year availability for all operation and maintenance funds. The Committee believes that funds provided for current operational expenses and readiness of the armed forces should be promptly obligated for the purposes and programs for which appropriated.
CIVILIAN PAY
The Committee has fully funded the budget request for a 1.5 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 1.5 percent, and directs that any increase above 1.5 percent will be paid from within funds available to the DoD.
UNOBLIGATED BALANCES
The Committee has adjusted amounts available in service operation and maintenance accounts for fiscal year 2005 to account for amounts left unobligated in operation and maintenance accounts at the end of prior fiscal years and the effect of such under-obligations on estimated future requirements. The Committee has reduced funding for unobligated balances as follows.
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Army | $80,000 |
| Navy | 86,000 |
| Marine Corps | 8,000 |
| Air Force | 71,000 |
| Defense-Wide | 55,100 |
| Army Reserve | 8,800 |
| Navy Reserve | 7,000 |
| Marine Corps Reserve | 1,500 |
| Air Force Reserve | 7,900 |
| Army National Guard | 21,900 |
| Air National Guard | 17,900 |
| Defense Health Program | 50,000 |
REDUCTION TO ADMINISTRATION AND SERVICEWIDE ACTIVITIES
The Committee has adjusted amounts available in service operation and maintenance accounts for fiscal year 2005 to reflect improved efficiency in providing for administrative and servicewide activities in the military departments. The Committee has reduced funding for operation and maintenance as follows.
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Army | $88,000 |
| Navy | 91,600 |
| Marine Corps | 17,200 |
| Air Force | 138,400 |
BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT
Spending for Base Operations Support increased substantially above the cost of inflation. The Committee has reduced by $86,000,000 the amount provided for operation and maintenance for unjustified growth in base operations as follows.
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Army | $28,000 |
| Navy | 15,000 |
| Air Force | 43,000 |
CIVILIAN PAY OVERSTATEMENT
The Committee has reduced the total amount available in Title II by $91,900,000 to correct for overstatement of requirements for civilian pay. The Committee has reduced funding for overstated operation and maintenance civilian pay requirements as follows.
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Army | $66,100 |
| Navy | 13,300 |
| Air Force | 12,500 |
MILITARY TO CIVILIAN CONVERSIONS
The Committee has reduced the total amount available in Title II by $176,900,000 to more accurately reflect the actual rate of conversion of selected military billets to performance by civilian personnel, including both federal employees and contractor employees. The Committee has reduced overstated amounts for operation and maintenance for civilian pay and contract support as follows.
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Army | $80,000 |
| Navy | 19,300 |
| Marine Corps | 29,100 |
| Air Force | 48,500 |
WORKING CAPITAL FUND CASH
The Committee bill accompanying this report includes a general provision, Section 8098, that reduces the total amount available in Title II by $316,000,000 to reflect cash balance and rate stabilization adjustments in the Department of Defense Working Capital Funds. The reduction designated for Navy includes $59,000,000 proposed for the purchase of aircraft engines by the Navy Working Capital Fund based on a proposed revision to Section 8040. The proposed change to Section 8040 was not adopted and the funding for Navy aircraft engines was restored in `Aircraft Procurement, Navy'. The Committee has reduced funding for the services' operation and maintenance accounts as follows.
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Navy | $150,000 |
| Air Force | 166,000 |
TRANSPORTATION WORKING CAPITAL FUND
The Committee bill accompanying this report includes a general provision, Section 8110, that reduces the total amount available in Title II by $967,200,000 to correct for excess cash balances that have accumulated in the Transportation Working Capital Fund due to increased business within United States Transportation Command in support of military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, as follows.
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Air Force | $967,200 |
OTHER CONTRACTS
The Committee bill accompanying this report includes a general provision, Section 8089, that reduces the total amount available in Title II by $300,000,000 to correct for overstatement of requirements for miscellaneous and other contracts. The Committee has reduced funding for overstated operation and maintenance as follows.
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Army | $66,700 |
| Navy | 77,900 |
| Marine Corps | 6,100 |
| Air Force | 149,300 |
CONTRACT OFFSETS
The Committee bill accompanying this report includes a general provision, Section 8119, that reduces the total amount available in Title II by $100,000,000 to correct for amounts available to the Department of Defense as the Department and the Internal Revenue Service cooperate in levying offsets for DoD contractors' federal tax debt. The Committee has reduced funding for operation and maintenance as follows.
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Army | $22,000 |
| Navy | 26,000 |
| Marine Corps | 2,000 |
| Air Force | 50,000 |
CIVILIAN SEPARATION INCENTIVE
The Committee has reduced the total amount available in Title II by $55,100,000 to correct for amounts requested in excess of requirements for incentives for early retirements in the civilian workforce. The Committee has reduced funding for operation and maintenance as follows.
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Navy | $14,400 |
| Air Force | 40,700 |
FORT TICONDEROGA
The Committee bill accompanying this report includes a general provision, Section 8101, which provides an additional $2,000,000 to be available only for the purpose of making a grant to the Fort Ticonderoga Association for the renovation of the King's Warehouse at Fort Ticonderoga, New York. The renovation will provide a winterized facility for year round use that will include classrooms, workshops, a hands-on teaching gallery and auditorium, an expanded educational program, and accessibility for handicapped persons.
PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO
The Committee bill accompanying this report includes a general provision, Section 8101, that provides an additional $2,500,000 to be available only for the purpose of making a grant to The Presidio of San Francisco Trust to provide for the research, planning, and design of the restoration of the parade ground at the Main Post, the Presidio of San Francisco, California to support the development of the Presidio as a site for public education about the impact of the military on American life.
CORROSION CONTROL
In July of 2003, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported on efforts within the Department of Defense to reduce corrosion and control costs. Although the Department of Defense has been attacking the corrosion problem for many years, and the Congress has added funding for corrosion prevention and control, the finding of the study was that the Department and the military services do not have an effective approach to prevent and mitigate corrosion.
Corrosion attacks military equipment and infrastructure. It increases costs, shortens the potential service life of equipment, and increases safety risks. The GAO report cited studies, which estimated the annual cost of corrosion for military systems at between $10 billion and $20 billion. Aircraft losses have been attributed to corroded electrical contacts and corrosion related cracks in landing gear. Uncontrolled corrosion forces the premature replacement of equipment such as heating and air-conditioning units, aircraft hangars, pre-positioned equipment sets, and fuel storage facilities.
The Department and the military services have achieved some successes in prevention and mitigation of corrosion, but communication within and between the services has been poor. The Department lacks an effective system for sharing anti-corrosion success stories. An overall approach to corrosion control has been absent. Central oversight of anti-corrosion information, technology, and program management, including budget review, requires renewed energy and focus by the leadership within the Department of Defense. The GAO study notes that corrosion control projects frequently are assigned low funding priorities compared to current operations and training, or maintenance and repair projects that offer more immediate results. Additionally, guidance on corrosion prevention and mitigation generally does not extend to non-major weapons systems and infrastructure programs.
The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than April 1, 2005, describing the Department's current status and planned improvements in (1) the collection and analysis of data on corrosion costs, readiness implications and safety data; (2) the development and promulgation of clearly defined, outcome-oriented objectives and performance measures; (3) the level of resources required and budgeted to accomplish the objectives; and (4) the oversight mechanism that coordinates and oversees corrosion prevention and mitigation efforts among the defense agencies and military services.
JOINT PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION LEVEL ONE
In the report accompanying the Committee's Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004 (House Report 108-187), the Committee expressed concern over the confusion and lack of standardization regarding service member access to senior service college level educational opportunities. The Committee continues to support rigorous Joint Professional Military Education for all components of the Armed Forces, and believes that a clearly defined requirement for achieving level one credit is essential. Sadly, the Department of Defense has been unresponsive in addressing issues of standardization and equal access for members of the various components. The Committee directed the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 2004, on the requirement for Joint Professional Military Education Level One, and the various alternatives for attaining that level of military education. The report, now more than two months past due, is still in review by the Department of Defense. The Committee is frustrated with the Department's apparent lack of enthusiasm for addressing the issue of equal access for the components of the Armed Forces to Joint Professional Military Education opportunities. The Committee provides substantial funding each year to support military professional development and education, and will continue to exercise careful oversight of the use of funds appropriated for this purpose. The Department of Defense is urged to complete the required report and to submit it to the congressional defense committees.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $25,029,346,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 26,133,411,000
Committee recommendation 25,820,311,000
Change from budget request -313,100,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,820,311,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $790,965,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Army are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: | |
| 250 Advanced Combat Helmet | 1,000 |
| 250 Ultra Lightweight Camouflage Net System (ULCANS) | 5,000 |
| 250 Modular General Purpose Tent System (MGPTS) | 4,000 |
| 250 Tactical Operations Centers (ELAMS/MECCS) for USASOC and 4th Infantry Division | 6,000 |
| 400 Modernized Equipment Support Cost Unjustified Growth | -10,000 |
| 400 Leak Proof Transmission Drip Pans | 3,000 |
| 450 Rotational Training Unjustified Cost Growth | -10,000 |
| 600 Tactical Exploitation System | -4,000 |
| 600 Vehicle Integrated Primary Electrical Resource | 3,500 |
| 750 Base Operating Support Unjustified Growth | -28,000 |
| 750 Renewal of Sunshine Road Ammunition Transportation Route, Fort Benning | 4,000 |
| 750 Upgrade Telecommunications Infrastructure, Fort Monmouth | 2,000 |
| 800 Rock Island Arsenal Wash Bay | 100 |
| 800 Rock Island Arsenal Laser Cutting Machine | 600 |
| 800 Rock Island Arsenal Titanium Welding Cell | 300 |
| Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: | |
| 1650 ROTC Cadre and Support Costs Unjustified Growth | -9,000 |
| 1850 Satellite Communications for Learning (SCOLA), DLI Foreign Language Center | 3,000 |
| 1850 Virtual Reality Spray Paint Simulator System and Training Program | 3,000 |
| 1850 Video Interactive Training and Assessment System | 2,000 |
| 1850 Military Police MCTFT Joint Training | 1,000 |
| 1900 Air Battle Captain ROTC Helicopter Flight Training | 2,000 |
| 1950 Leadership for Leaders at CGSC/CAL and KSU | 1,000 |
| 2000 Training Support and Doctrine Development Unjustified Growth | -20,000 |
| 2000 Training Instrumentation for Air and Missile Defense Units, Fort Bliss | 7,000 |
| 2000 DLIFLC Global Language On-line Support System (GLOSS) Project | 2,800 |
| 2000 DLIFLC Persian-Farsi Curriculum Development--Semester 2 | 2,300 |
| 2350 Online Technology Training Program, Fort Lewis | 2,000 |
| 2400 Philadelphia Military Academies | 1,000 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 2650 Security Programs Classified | 4,000 |
| 2800 NATO 9T AGM Batteries | 2,500 |
| 2800 Pulse Technology--Army Battery Management Program | 4,000 |
| 2800 Integrated Digital Environments Pilot Program for Army Aviation Fleet Logistics Management | 2,000 |
| 2850 Integrated Digital Environments (IDE) PEO Ground Combat Systems | 1,000 |
| 2850 Sense and Respond Logistics | 4,000 |
| 2850 Controlled Humidity Preservation Program, Soft Portable Tunnels | 1,000 |
| 3000 OASA (Civil Works) Headquarters Funding transfer to Energy and Water Subcommittee | -2,500 |
| 3050 Army Knowledge Online (AKO) | 4,000 |
| 3200 One Soul: Holocaust Education Exhibit | 1,000 |
| 3200 Memorial Day | 900 |
| 3650 Center for Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance | 1,000 |
| Undistributed: | |
| 3730 Repairs at Fort Baker | 2,500 |
| 3790 Unobligated Balances | -80,000 |
| 4100 Administration and Servicewide Activities | -88,000 |
| 4110 Civilian Pay Overstatement | -66,100 |
| 4130 Military to Civilian Conversions | -80,000 |
ONLINE TECHNOLOGY TRAINING PROGRAM
The Committee recommends an additional $2,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army only to continue the Fort Lewis Online Technology Training Pilot Program.
PHILADELPHIA MILITARY ACADEMIES
The Committee recommends an additional $1,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army only to support the School District of Philadelphia for the establishment of the Philadelphia Military Academies Junior ROTC Program.
VEHICLE INTEGRATED PRIMARY ELECTRICAL RESOURCE
The Committee recommends an additional $3,500,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army only for operational testing of an under-hood power system.
VIRTUAL REALITY SPRAY PAINT SIMULATOR SYSTEM AND TRAINING PROGRAM
The Committee recommends an additional $3,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army only for a collaborative effort for the Army and Pine Technical College Virtual Reality Simulator System and Training Program.
FORT MONMOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE
The Committee recommends an additional $2,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army only to engineer and install upgraded communications infrastructure at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, including replacing obsolescent cable plant by extending underground service via copper and fiber optic media to all Fort Monmouth buildings from the new fiber ring.
CONTROLLED HUMIDITY PROGRAM
The Committee recommends an additional $1,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army only to augment the use of Controlled Humidity Program Soft Portable Tunnels as currently used in Italy to include low water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) material as described in MIL-P-58102, Type II, and MIL-C-58104 by the Department of the Army, to enhance cost avoidance and support rapid storage space requirements and relocation capabilities for fielded equipment.
ONE SOUL: HOLOCAUST EDUCATION EXHIBIT
The Committee recommends an additional $1,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army only to complete the development of a Holocaust education exhibit and place the exhibit in the certified Army Museums at Army installations across the country. The United States Army played a prominent role in liberating Nazi concentration camps at the end of World War II. The Afikim Foundation's `One Soul: Holocaust Education Exhibit' presents the history and lessons of the Holocaust in a thought-provoking and intimate manner.
SENSE AND RESPOND LOGISTICS
The Committee recommends an additional $4,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army only to support Army Sense and Respond Logistics for transition to a net-centric logistics command and control decision support capability.
INTEGRATED DIGITAL ENVIRONMENTS INFORMATION PORTAL
The Committee recommends an additional $1,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army only for the Program Executive Officer (PEO) Ground Combat Systems (GCS) at TACOM to expand the current PEO GCS eBusiness Portal technologies for the benefit of all ground combat system program managers and in support of the Army Transformation strategy.
ARMY KNOWLEDGE ONLINE
The Committee recommends an additional $4,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army only for a disaster recovery capability, including data storage management services, to support Army Knowledge Online.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $28,146,658,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 29,789,190,000
Committee recommendation 29,570,090,000
Change from budget request -219,100,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $29,570,090,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of $1,423,432,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Navy are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: | |
| 4560 Publications Costs and Maintenance Trends Analysis Unjustified Growth | -20,000 |
| 4560 Navy Air Logistics Data Analysis | -10,000 |
| 4560 Knowledge Management and Decision Support System | 6,000 |
| 4650 Naval Aviation Depot (NADEP) Support of the FRP | 2,000 |
| 4650 Simulation Modeling Analytical Support System (SMASS) Program | 1,000 |
| 4650 CAT & RADCOM Test Program Sets Life Extension Program | 6,000 |
| 4650 Navy Converged ERP Program Reduction | -7,500 |
| 4850 Pier-side and Organizational Maintenance U.S.S. Eisenhower | 15,000 |
| 5050 Single Torpedo Maintenance Facility | 1,500 |
| 5050 Engineering Technician, Apprentice, Co-op Program, NUWC Keyport | 1,500 |
| 5050 Improved Engineering Design Process | 1,500 |
| 5500 Excessive Growth for JFCOM and PACOM | -25,000 |
| 5550 Manual Reverse Osmosis Desalinator (MROD) Testing, Repair and Replacement | 1,000 |
| 5950 Unsupported Requirements Global Hawk UAV | -10,000 |
| 6210 Toledo Shipyard Improvement Plan | 2,500 |
| 6220 Base Operating Support Unjustified Growth | -15,000 |
| 6220 Naval Integrated Security System, Naval Station San Diego | 4,000 |
| 6220 Navy Region Northwest--Navy Shore Infrastructure Transformation (NSIT) | 6,500 |
| 6220 Navy Region Southeast--Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) Completion | 4,500 |
| 6220 Combating Terrorism Database System (CDTS) Remote Data Repository (RDR) Project | 2,000 |
| Budget Activity 2: Mobilization: | |
| 6500 Ship Disposal Program | 1,000 |
| Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: | |
| 7200 Near Pier-Side Tactical and Simulation Training | 2,000 |
| 7200 Blended Learning Initiative | 1,000 |
| 7300 Navy Advanced Education Demonstration Project | 1,000 |
| 7300 Center of Excellence for Learning Technology (CELT) | 1,000 |
| 7300 Center for Defense Technology and Education for the Military Services (CDTEMS) | 5,000 |
| 7600 Continuing Education Distance Learning | 1,000 |
| 7700 Naval Sea Cadet Corps | 1,000 |
| 7700 Naval Junior ROTC Marine Science Research Program | 2,000 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 8550 Stainless Steel Sanitary Spaces | 4,000 |
| 8600 Active Data-Rich RFID AIT for Navy In-Transit Visibility Infrastructure | 3,000 |
| 9000 Local Situational Assessment Segment, NAS Lemoore | 6,000 |
| 9000 Navy Integrated Security System (NISS) | 4,000 |
| 9000 Security Programs Classified | 6,000 |
| Undistributed: | |
| 9440 Unobligated Balances | -86,000 |
| 9550 Administration and Servicewide Activities | -91,600 |
| 9570 Civilian Pay Overstatement | -13,300 |
| 9580 Military to Civilian Conversion | -19,300 |
| 9590 Civilian Separation Incentive | -14,400 |
KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM
The Committee recommends an additional $6,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Navy only to implement and sustain a spiral development transformation through well-defined processes for capitalizing on best practices and integrating lessons learned across the Naval Aviation Enterprise. The funding will support design, development, and sustainment of a knowledge management and decision support architecture that facilitates a culture of self-sustaining, knowledge-sharing, collaborative communities.
LOCAL SITUATIONAL ASSESSMENT, NAS LEMOORE
The Committee recommends an additional $6,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Navy only to fund the Local Situational Assessment Segment operating system at the Naval Air Station (NAS) Lemoore to support anti-terrorist force protection at the base by providing an integrated open architecture backbone LSAS, Smart Fence and Smart Gate capability system.
CDTEMS
The Committee recommends an additional $5,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Navy only for the Center for Defense Technology and Education for the Military Services (CDTEMS). CDTEMS leverages Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) expertise to assist deployed US forces to win the Global War on Terrorism. Based on insights gained by NPS students while deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and other operational theaters, and by the Special Operations Command and other program sponsors, CDTEMS conducts research and education programs that directly increase the effectiveness of US Joint and Combined operations. CDTEMS supported programs include the Center for Post-Conflict Reconstruction, the Field Experimentation Program, the Maritime Domain Protection Project, and the Regional Security Education Program. The additional funding will support these programs and will provide for research aimed at applying other emerging technologies to war fighting and counter-terrorism needs.
SINGLE TORPEDO MAINTENANCE FACILITY
The Committee recommends an additional $1,500,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Navy only to virtually connect and coordinate torpedo maintenance activities in the same fashion as the Navy's Single Shipyard Concept. Torpedo maintenance activities are currently spread across several facilities. This effort would link these activities together to maximize their efficiency.
NAVY REGION SOUTHEAST INTEGRATED SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The Committee recommends an additional $4,500,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Navy only to complete the Integrated Safety Management System (ISMS) project in the Navy's Southeast Region (8 sites) and expand it into the remaining six sites in the Southeast Region (total of 14 sites).
NAS NORTH ISLAND
The Committee directs that of the funds made available in Operation and Maintenance, Navy, $5,000,000 is only to complete the renovation of buildings 10 and 11 at NAS North Island.
GLOBAL HAWK MARITIME DEMONSTRATION
The budget includes $10,000,000 to support operational costs of exercise participation for the Global Hawk High Altitude (HAE) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV). The Committee has eliminated this request based on the view that the Navy's cost of operating and maintaining its single Global Hawk asset would be far greater than the benefit gained from exercise participation.
The Air Force has a program that supports the acquisition, fielding, and operation of a large number of Global Hawk UAVs and the Committee believes that a more cost effective solution would be to add the Navy's Global Hawk UAV to the Air Force inventory. Therefore, the Committee directs the Navy to transfer its Global Hawk UAV asset to the Air Force within 60 days of enactment of this Act.
DOD-NOAA FACILITY CLEAN-UP
The Committee urges the Department of Defense to consult with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and to enter into such memoranda of understanding as are necessary to make use of NOAA's expertise and experience in fulfilling its responsibilities for clean-up on Vieques Island.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $3,440,323,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 3,632,115,000
Committee recommendation 3,605,815,000
Change from budget request -26,300,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,605,815,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $165,492,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
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 All Purpose Environmental Clothing System (APECS) | 10,000 |
| 10050 Marine Corps Mountain/Cold Weather Clothing and Equipment | 1,000 |
| 10050 Modular General Purpose Tent System (MGPTS) | 3,000 |
| 10050 EMI Hardened Fluorescent Stringable Tent Lighting System | 4,000 |
| 10050 Range Enhancements for JNTC MOUT Facility at Twentynine Palms | 15,000 |
| 10100 Life Cycle Sustainment Software Maintenance Unjustified Growth | -3,000 |
| 10100 Transportation CLS Replacement and Ammunition Rework Unjustified Growth | -2,000 |
| 10100 NATO 9T AGM Batteries | 2,500 |
| 10100 Pulse Technology--USMC Battery Management Program | 1,000 |
| 10200 Base Operating Support Unjustified Growth | -5,000 |
| 10200 Defense Motor Vehicle Safety Demonstration Program | 1,000 |
| 10350 Contract Maintenance and Training Exercise Unjustified Growth | -1,000 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 11850 MCLB Albany Sewer Line Replacement | 1,500 |
| Undistributed: | |
| 12010 Unobligated Balances | -8,000 |
| 12050 Administration and Servicewide Activities | -17,200 |
| 12055 Military to Civilian Conversions | -29,100 |
MARINE CORPS MOUNTAIN/COLD WEATHER CLOTHING AND EQUIPMENT
The Committee recommends an additional $1,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps, only for the purchase of Marine Corps Mountain/Cold Weather clothing and equipment for Marine Corps operational forces, including exhale/custom fit technology gloves, as well as All Purpose Environmental Clothing System (APECS), sunglasses, canteens, sleeping bags, gaiters, and cold weather assault climbers kits.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $26,904,731,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 28,471,260,000
Committee recommendation 27,994,110,000
Change from budget request -477,150,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $27,994,110,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $1,089,379,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
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 Maintain 52 F-117 Aircraft | 7,900 |
| 12600 Forward Osmosis Water Filtration Devices | 1,000 |
| 12600 F-15E Oxygen Concentrator Reliability Improvement Program | 1,000 |
| 12600 Combat Air Systems Activities, 480th Intel Squadron | -9,000 |
| 12750 JNTC Distributed Mission Operations Unjustified Growth | -15,000 |
| 12775 Transfer to O&M, Air National Guard | -39,300 |
| 12800 Air Operations Centers Unjustified Growth | -10,000 |
| 12850 Fairchild AFB Force Protection Rail Relocation | 500 |
| 13000 C3I Operations and Sustainment Unjustified Growth | -27,000 |
| 13100 Engineering, Installation Support, and Expanded Space Operations School Unjustified Growth | -30,000 |
| 13100 Contaminant Air Processing System (CAPS) | 2,000 |
| 13200 Management Support for Air Force Battle Labs | 5,000 |
| 13400 Maintenance and Upkeep of Rocket Engine Test Stands at Edwards AFB | 3,500 |
| 13690 Repair Jump Tower at Kirtland AFB | 600 |
| Budget Activity 2: Mobilization: | |
| 13850 Joint Combined Aircrew System Tester (JCAST) | 4,000 |
| 13975 Transfer to O&M Air National Guard | -39,500 |
| Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: | |
| 14600 Pavement Equipment Operator Course Consolidation, Whiteman Air Force Base | 2,500 |
| 14650 AWACS Communications Training | 1,000 |
| 14750 Geospatial Distant Learning and Higher Education Development | 1,000 |
| 15100 Online Technology Training Program McChord AFB | 1,000 |
| 15100 Online Technology Training Program Nellis AFB | 1,000 |
| 15100 Online Technology Training Program MacDill AFB | 2,000 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 15400 Engine Health Management Data Repository Center | 2,000 |
| 15550 Wright-Patterson AFB Civil Engineering Critical Infrastructure Data Set Development | 1,000 |
| 15950 Joint Personnel Recovery Agency | 2,000 |
| 16000 Demonstration Project for Contractors Employing Persons with Disabilities | 1,000 |
| 16100 William Lehman Aviation Center | 750 |
| 16100 Defense Installation Spatial Data Infrastructure (DISDI) | 6,000 |
| Undistributed: | |
| 16630 Unobligated Balances | -71,000 |
| 16710 Administration and Servicewide Activities | -138,400 |
| 16720 Base Operations Support | -43,000 |
| 16730 Civilian Pay Overstatement | -12,500 |
| 16780 Military to Civilian Conversions | -48,500 |
| 16790 Civilian Separation Incentive | -40,700 |
F-15E OXYGEN CONCENTRATOR RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The Committee recommends an additional $1,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, only to procure and install MSOGS upgrade kits for the F-15E fleet. The Committee understands that the depot developed and qualified upgrade kit will increase oxygen system reliability to near the life of the aircraft.
DEFENSE INSTALLATION SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (DISDI)
The Committee recommends an additional $6,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, only to expand the successful USAF Geobase program to improve military installation management throughout DoD.
AIR SHOW STUDY
The Committee directs that of the funds made available in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force, $1,000,000 be used only for the purposes described in Section 1072 of the House-passed National Defense Authorization Bill for fiscal year 2005.
THREAT REPRESENTATION AND VALIDATION
The independent validation of threat models and simulators is critical to ensuring war-fighter preparedness and survivability. The Committee has assisted the Air Force in accomplishing the threat modeling and simulation validation being conducted by the National Air and Space Intelligence Center (NAIC) for several years. The Committee understands that although the NAIC Threat Representation and Validation program was to be divested in fiscal year 2004, that it has been reinstated. Further, the Committee understands that this will consist of reinstating six government positions in fiscal year 2004 and funding for fiscal year 2005 to support the positions until the program can be inserted into the fiscal year 2006 to 2011 Program Objective Memorandum (POM) cycle. The Committee considers this a critical program and believes it in the best interest of the Air Force to maintain this important capability, and to ensure that it is included in the fiscal year 2006 to 2011 POM.
HEAVY OUTSIZED AIRLIFT CAPACITY
The Committee is aware of the on-going Mobility Capabilities Study and the probability that the current 54.5 MTM/day requirement will increase. The Committee, like the Air Force, recognizes the value of filling whatever heavy, outsized lift requirement is validated with the most cost effective fleet structure to include better use of the Civilian Reserve Air Fleet. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide the congressional defense committees no later than March 31, 2005, an assessment of options to introduce a U.S. owned, heavy, outsized airlift capability into the CRAF based on potential commercial uses of commercialized versions of U.S. heavy outsized cargo aircraft without the need for government investment or substantial involvement.
B-1 AIRCRAFT REGENERATION
The fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations Act provided $17,100,000 in procurement aircraft modification funding to regenerate additional B-1 aircraft previously planned for retirement. The Air Force has indicated this funding is sufficient to modify and increase the force structure by 7 aircraft, to a fleet total of 67. For fiscal year 2005, the Air Force has advised the Committee it will operate the total B-1 fleet of 67 aircraft from within funds available to the Air Force.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $16,226,841,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 17,494,076,000
Committee recommendation 17,346,411,000
Change from budget request -147,665,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,346,411,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is an increase of $1,119,570,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
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--CJCS Exercise Program | -50,000 |
| 17100 SOCOM--Completion of Knowledge Superiority for Transitional Warfighter | 2,000 |
| 17100 SOCOM--Decreased Airlift requirements | -10,000 |
| Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: | |
| 17480 DHRA--DLAMP Program Growth | -5,000 |
| 17480 DHRA--Joint Advertising Market Research and Studies Program | 10,000 |
| 17610 NDU--Continuing Education | 2,000 |
| 17610 NDU--NDU Integrated Strategic Education | 1,000 |
| 17610 NDU--Joint Staff Infrastructure | 1,600 |
| 17610 NDU--Commissioned Officer Education Assistance | 1,000 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 17750 CMP--Outdoor Odyssey | 500 |
| 17875 DHRA--Defense Business Fellows | -4,400 |
| 17875 DHRA--Business Systems | -2,000 |
| 17900 DISA--Program Growth | -50,000 |
| 17900 DISA--Transaction Monitoring Improvement Project | 1,000 |
| 17925 DLA--Passive RFID Prototype Project | 2,000 |
| 17925 DLA--Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities | 15,000 |
| 17975 DODEA--Lewis Center for Educational Research | 3,000 |
| 17975 DODEA--Family Advocacy Program | 20,000 |
| 17975 DODEA--Program for Citizen-Soldier Support | 3,000 |
| 17975 DODEA--Office of the Victim Advocate | 3,000 |
| 17975 DODEA--Professional Development Project--Instruction for Dyslexic Students | 1,900 |
| 17975 DODEA--Internet Safety and Education | 1,000 |
| 18050 DSS--Unjustified Program | -50,000 |
| 18075 DTRA--Export Control Database | 1,300 |
| 18100 OEA--David's Island--Fort Slocum Remediation | 4,000 |
| 18100 OEA--McClellan AFB--Sewer Remediation | 4,000 |
| 18100 OEA--George AFB | 2,000 |
| 18100 OEA--Norton AFB | 5,000 |
| 18100 OEA--Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal | 6,000 |
| 18100 OEA--Cecil Field | 2,000 |
| 18100 OEA--March Joint Powers Authority--Arnold Heights Reuse Project | 3,000 |
| 18100 OEA--Hunters Point Naval Shipyard | 3,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Public Affairs | -11,500 |
| 18125 OSD--BMMP | -7,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Net Assessment | -4,000 |
| 18125 OSD--BMMP Domains | -15,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Logistics System Modernization | -4,000 |
| 18125 OSD--DOD CIO | -5,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Readiness and Range Initiative | -10,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Training Transformation | -5,000 |
| 18125 OSD--OSD Contract and Support | -5,000 |
| 18125 OSD--OSD Study Program | -4,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Comptroller Initiatives | -6,500 |
| 18125 OSD--Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy | -7,500 |
| 18125 OSD--Middle East Regional Security Program | 2,500 |
| 18125 OSD--Study on Internet and Wireless Technology | 1,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Center for Foreign Language Study | 1,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Command Information Superiority Architectures | 1,000 |
| 18125 OSD--National Strategic Seaport Model | 3,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Military Leadership and Rule of Law Program | 1,000 |
| 18125 OSD--National Dedicated Fiber Optic Network Program | 2,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Norm Mineta Internship Immersion Program | 3,000 |
| 18125 OSD--Clinic for Legal Assistance to Service Member | 750 |
| 18125 OSD--Information Technology Organizational Composition Project | 2,000 |
| Undistributed: | |
| 19010 Impact Aid | 35,000 |
| 19020 Other Programs | 12,785 |
| 19042 Unobligated Balances | -55,100 |
PASSIVE RFID PROTOTYPE PROJECT
The Committee recognizes the critical importance of ensuring that needed material is provided to operating field units, particularly in the combat theater, in the most efficient manner possible. The Committee provides $2,000,000 for continued expansion of a passive RFID implementation in which Defense officials, working with defense suppliers and providers of RFID and bar code technology to combine efforts to accelerate integration of this needed technology into the supply chain management process.
NORM MINETA INTERNSHIP IMMERSION PROGRAM
The Committee has included a new proviso under this heading to establish an academically-oriented internship and immersion program to allow undergraduate students at colleges and universities with high concentrations of Asian-American Pacific Islander economically disadvantaged students to participate in Washington-based internships at the Department of Defense and other defense-related agencies. The Secretary shall coordinate the administration of this program with the non-profit Washington Center for Internships and Academic Seminars and shall designate this program hereafter as the `Norm Mineta Internship Immersion Program,' in honor of the former Member of the U.S. House of Representatives from California.
COMMERCIAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES (CTMA)
The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities (CTMA) only to continue the existing program including not less than $3,000,000 for operating costs of the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences.
GEORGE AFB
The Committee recommends an additional $2,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide only for ongoing water distribution and other infrastructure improvements at the former George AFB.
NORTON AFB
The Committee recommends an additional $5,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide only for ongoing hangar repair, electrical supply delivery, tower improvements and contaminated water supply treatment at the former Norton AFB.
LEWIS CENTER FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
The Committee has included an additional $3,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide for the Lewis Center for Educational Research for staffing, curriculum development, research, coordination and logistical support to enhance Department of Defense teacher training.
ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION OF UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE
The costs and duration of cleanup and remediation of unexploded ordnance at current and former facilities remains a significant problem confronting the Department of Defense. The Committee notes that a 2003 report of the Defense Science Board (DSB) and a 2003 audit by the General Accounting Office (GAO) both express concerns with the lack of a comprehensive plan by the Department of Defense regarding this issue. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department of Defense to provide to the congressional defense committees by April 1, 2005, a comprehensive plan and cost estimates associated with remediation of unexploded ordnance and environmental restoration; a program restructuring to improve efficiency, management and organization of the munitions response program; and a projected schedule for identifying, prioritizing and remediation of all known munitions response sites as recommended by the DSB and the GAO.
BUILDING PROTECTION
The Committee is aware of actions taken by federal and municipal agencies and schools to install perforated steel window barriers to protect building occupants from security threats and natural disasters, including intruders, potential explosives use, and hurricanes. Many of these facilities are located in areas subject to high winds and severe weather. The Committee requests that the Deputy Under Secretary for Defense (Installations and Environment) provide the Committee, no later than January 31, 2004, a listing of domestic and overseas installations that would benefit from window barrier protection, including the number of school and housing-related buildings on each installation.
VICTIM ADVOCATES
The Committee recommends an increase of $3,000,000 above the budget request to enhance the Department of Defense's victim advocate programs. Given the potential for domestic violence arising from the heightened stress our military members and families face in connection with the ongoing Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, the Committee believes a military-wide set of standard protocols for responding to sexual misconduct and domestic violence cases must be developed. As such, these additional funds are to be used by the Office of the Secretary of Defense to initiate a program to standardize response protocols among the military services that ensure access to treatment services, reduce bureaucratic hurdles for victims and survivors, and remove barriers to reporting these types of violence cases. The Committee intends to work with the Department as it develops a program for implementing this initiative.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $1,998,609,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 2,008,128,000
Committee recommendation 1,976,128,000
Change from budget request -32,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,976,128,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve. The recommendation is a decrease of $22,481,000 below the $1,998,609,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Undistributed: | |
| 20180 All Terrain Military Utility Vehicles | 5,500 |
| 20190 Military Technicians Cost Avoidance | -34,200 |
| 20200 Controlled Humidity Protection | 4,000 |
| 20220 Unobligated Balances | -8,800 |
| 20230 Army Reserve IT Consolidation | 1,500 |
US ARMY RESERVE COMMAND IT CONSOLIDATION
The Committee recommends an increase of $1,500,000 above the budget request only for the Army Reserve to achieve a continuity of operations capability for its mission critical information technology systems by replicating mission critical data between Peachtree City, Georgia and San Antonio, Texas.
CONTROLLED HUMIDITY PROTECTION
The Committee recommends an increase of $4,000,000 above the budget request for implementation of the Controlled Humidity Protection program for critical equipment storage for the U.S. Army Reserve 99th Regional Readiness Command. These funds are made available to enhance the deployment and mobility of Army Reserve forces and supplies.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY RESERVE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $1,172,921,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 1,240,038,000
Committee recommendation 1,233,038,000
Change from budget request -7,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,233,038,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $60,117,000 above the $1,172,921,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
The adjustment to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve is shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Undistributed: | |
| 22680 Unobligated Balances | -7,000 |
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $173,952,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 188,696,000
Committee recommendation 187,196,000
Change from budget request -1,500,000
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $187,196,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $13,244,000 above the $173,952,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
The adjustment to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve is shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Undistributed: | |
| 24150 Unobligated Balances | -1,500 |
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE RESERVE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $2,179,388,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 2,239,790,000
Committee recommendation 2,227,190,000
Change from budget request -12,600,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,227,190,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $47,802,000 above the $2,179,388,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Undistributed: | |
| 25660 Military Technicians Cost Avoidance | -35,400 |
| 25665 932nd Airlift Wing Operations and Training | 8,300 |
| 25680 Unobligated Balances | -7,900 |
| 25682 932nd Airlift Wing Site Activation | 16,600 |
| 25692 932nd Airlift Wing Technicians | 5,800 |
932ND AIRLIFT WING
The Committee has included additional funding under this heading, as well as `Reserve Personnel, Air Force' and `Aircraft Procurement, Air Force', to support mission operations, training, mission transition, and sustainment at the 932nd Airlift Wing at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $4,340,581,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 4,440,686,000
Committee recommendation 4,376,886,000
Change from budget request -63,800,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,376,886,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard. The recommendation is an increase of $36,305,000 above the $4,340,581,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Undistributed: | |
| 26830 National Emergency and Disaster Information System | 3,500 |
| 26890 Joint Training and Experimentation Program | 5,000 |
| 26940 Rural Access to Broadband Technology | 4,000 |
| 26970 National Guard Global Education Project | 500 |
| 27090 National Response Center WMD Facility | 1,000 |
| 27100 Adv Emergency Medical Response Training Program | 2,500 |
| 27110 Homeland Operational Planning System | 8,000 |
| 27140 Advanced Information Technology Services (C4ISR) | 1,000 |
| 27310 Military Technician Cost Avoidance | -94,600 |
| 27341 National Guard Motor Pool Parts Tracking System | 2,000 |
| 27345 Unobligated Balances | -21,900 |
| 27350 ERP for Army Guard Installations | 1,000 |
| 27360 Omega 36 Battle Effects Simulator | 3,000 |
| 27365 Regional Geospatial Service Center | 1,000 |
| 27370 AVCRAD Replacement Equipment | 3,000 |
| 27381 Community Emergency Response/Info Analysis Center | 2,500 |
| 27382 Tactical Operations Center (ELAMS/MECCS) | 1,500 |
| 27383 Strategic Biodefense Initiative | 10,000 |
| 27384 Advanced Starting Systems | 500 |
| 27385 Infantry Helmet Liner Retrofit (BLISS Kit) | 2,500 |
| 27386 District of Columbia NG Tuition Assistance | 200 |
HOMELAND OPERATIONAL PLANNING SYSTEM
The Committee recommends an increase of $8,000,000 above the budget request only for execution by the Homeland Operational Planning System (HOPS) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in support of the California National Guard.
AVCRAD REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT
The Committee recommends an increase of $3,000,000 above the budget request to replace equipment and property deployed with the Connecticut Army National Guard's 1109th Aviation Classification Repair Activity Depot (AVCRAD).
ADVANCED STARTING SYSTEMS
The Committee recommends an increase of $500,000 above the budget request only for the California National Guard to test, evaluate, and procure reverse polarity protected Jump Starters with coil-cord control systems.
INFANTRY HELMET LINER RETROFIT
The Committee recommends an increase of $2,500,000 above the budget request only for Oregon and California National Guard use for Retrofit of Kevlar Helmet Suspension System.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $4,431,216,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 4,422,838,000
Committee recommendation 4,438,738,000
Change from budget request +15,900,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,438,738,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard. The recommendation is an increase of $7,522,000 above the $4,431,216,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2005:
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: | |
| 27700 Mission Support Operations/Surveying Systems | 1,000 |
| 27850 Depot Maintenance/Transfer from active duty | 78,800 |
| Undistributed: | |
| 28160 National Guard State Partnership Program | 1,000 |
| 28290 Military Technicians Cost Avoidance | -57,200 |
| 28310 IT Consolidation | 3,000 |
| 28320 Unobligated Balances | -17,900 |
| 28330 Extended Cold Weather Clothing System | 1,000 |
| 28340 LRC 21 Laptop Mission Trainers | 1,500 |
| 28350 AATTC Mobility Equipment and Training | 500 |
| 28360 Senior Scout Mission | 2,000 |
| 28375 Automatic Flight Following System | 2,000 |
| 28380 District of Columbia NG Tuition Assistance | 200 |
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER ACCOUNT
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $5,000,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 30,000,000
Committee recommendation 5,000,000
Change from budget request -25,000,000
--------------------------------------------
The Committee has fully funded the budget 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 $25,000,000 from the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Account to more urgent priorities.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $10,333,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 10,825,000
Committee recommendation 10,825,000
Change from budget request 0
--------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,825,000 for the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The recommendation is an increase of $492,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $396,018,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 400,948,000
Committee recommendation 400,948,000
Change from budget request 0
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $400,948,000 for Environmental Restoration, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $4,930,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $256,153,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 266,820,000
Committee recommendation 266,820,000
Change from budget request 0
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $266,820,000 for Environmental Restoration, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of $10,667,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $384,307,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 397,368,000
Committee recommendation 397,368,000
Change from budget request 0
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $397,368,000 for Environmental Restoration, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $13,061,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE-WIDE
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $24,081,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 23,684,000
Committee recommendation 26,684,000
Change from budget request +3,000,000
--------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $26,684,000 for Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is an increase of $2,603,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004.
The adjustment to the budget for Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide is shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Perchlorate Destruction by UV Catalyzed Iron Reaction | 3,000 |
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $284,619,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 216,516,000
Committee recommendation 216,516,000
Change from budget request 0
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $216,516,000 for Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites. The recommendation is a decrease of $68,103,000 below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004.
DEWITT CENTER
The Committee is aware of the important environmental cleanup activities at the DeWitt Center, a formerly used defense site in California. The Committee expects the Army to provide adequate funding to complete cleanup requirements at this site in a timely manner.
OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $59,000,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 59,000,000
Committee recommendation 59,000,000
Change from budget request 0
--------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $59,000,000 for Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid.
FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION ACCOUNT
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $450,800,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 409,200,000
Committee recommendation 409,200,000
Change from budget request 0
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $409,200,000 for Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Account. The recommendation is a decrease of $41,600,000 below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004.
TITLE III
PROCUREMENT
ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY
The fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense procurement budget request totals $74,662,317,000. The accompanying bill recommends $77,354,791,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of $2,692,474,000 above the fiscal year 2005 budget estimate and is $2,698,744,000 above the total provided in fiscal year 2004. 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 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.
REPROGRAMMING GUIDANCE FOR ACQUISITION ACCOUNTS
The statement of the managers accompanying conference report on the Continuing Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2003 (H.R. 108-10) temporarily raised the reprogramming thresholds for procurement, and research and development funds appropriated to the Department of Defense to $20,000,000 and $10,000,000, respectively. The statement of the managers accompanying conference report on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2004 (H.R. 108-283) clarified this guidance indicating that approved below threshold reprogramming limitations are the specific dollar threshold allowed for fiscal year 2003, or 20 percent, whichever is less.
The Committee believes that these guidelines provide sufficient management flexibility for the Department of Defense. However, the Committee has some concerns that these guidelines are not being consistently applied within DoD. Therefore, the Committee directs that these guidelines be extended for fiscal year 2005 with the following clarifications. The dollar thresholds, $20,000,000 for procurement funds, and $10,000,000 for research, development, test and evaluation are cumulative. Therefore, if the combined values of transfers into or out of a procurement (P-1) or research and development (R-1) line exceed the identified threshold, the Department of Defense must submit a prior approval reprogramming. The Department shall continue to follow the limitation that prior approval reprogramming are set at either the specific dollar threshold or 20 percent of the procurement or research and development line, whichever is less. In addition, guidelines on the application of prior approval reprogramming procedures for congressional special interest items are established elsewhere in this report.
CLASSIFIED ANNEX
Adjustments to the classified programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.
MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS
In the Aircraft Procurement, Air Force section of this report the Committee discusses how the Air Force ignored the law and the express intent of Congress by using the current multiyear contract for the C-17 aircraft as a vehicle to support an incremental funding strategy. In so doing, it also has inappropriately committed the government to potential Anti-Deficiency Act violations and unfunded liability costs running in the hundreds of millions of dollars in the event a follow-on contract for this program is not entered into by a date certain, or if certain production levels are not agreed to.
Regrettably, the Committee has learned the Air Force has also entered into a similar multiyear contract for the C-130J aircraft. The current production profile includes three aircraft whose manufacture has been approved in the absence of a fully funded appropriation for this purpose. In addition, in this contract the contractor has received a commitment on behalf of the government by the Air Force that the annual production rate will be sustained at 16 aircraft from 2007 through 2009, between Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps purchases and potential foreign sales. Failure to achieve this rate will significantly increase the cost per plane to the Air Force, representing a contingent liability the government is obliged to pay. At present, current projections suggest this rate will not be met, with shortfalls of 4 aircraft each in 2007 and 2008 and 6 aircraft in 2009. If these projections hold, the Air Force and the taxpayer will foot the bill. In effect, the Air Force has permitted itself to become a de facto sales agent for this program, putting it in a position to insist that other elements of the Department of Defense and the Congress help it find a way to fund this production profile or pay significant penalties.
The Committee realizes that properly administered multiyear procurements can result in significant savings. However, the multiple abuses of sound contracting principles and fiscal responsibility by the Air Force in these instances cannot and will not become a model for future multiyear acquisitions. Accordingly, the Committee has recommended several modifications to section 8008 of this bill, and the Committee directs these requirements be met before future multiyear production contracts can be entered into:
(1) Multiyear contracts must follow full funding policies and not be used as vehicles for incrementally funding procurement;
(2) Contract cancellation ceilings may not include recurring manufacturing costs of unfunded units;
(3) Contract payments may not be made in advance of projected manufacturing costs (to include purchase of materials) for funded units;
(4) Advance procurement funds may not be used to pay the costs of normal fabrication and assembly of unit components. The use of these funds should be restricted to long-lead items, economic-order-quantity buys, and the one-time non-recurring costs of improving manufacturing capabilities;
(5) Advance procurement funds are limited to no more than 10 percent of total procurement costs; and
(6) Regular procurement funds for units should be requested for the appropriate fiscal year to be obligated to pay for normal fabrication and assembly of funded units and components.
The Committee also takes exception to the Air Force's use of a unique provision in the current C-17 multiyear contract that allows the contractor to add charges to the fixed price contract if a follow-on contract is not awarded. The amended general provision further directs that no new multiyear contracts provide for such a price adjustment.
The Committee directs that not later than 90 days after enactment of this legislation, the Secretary of Defense submit a report to the congressional defense committees explaining how applicable Departmental regulations and policy guidance have been amended to comply with this guidance.
GROUND FORCES RECAPITALIZATION
The Committee has repeatedly heard Department of Defense officials describe how the intensity of operations and the hostile environment in Iraq are taking a toll on U.S. military equipment. The Committee understands that one to two months' worth of operations in Iraq is equivalent to roughly one year's worth of peacetime activity. Our military also has suffered the loss of substantial amounts of equipment in combat operations. Moreover, the demands of Operation Iraqi Freedom have strained certain elements of the domestic industrial base. For example, DoD would face serious difficulty if asked to surge beyond current rates of ammunition production. Yet, the Committee notes that the fiscal year 2005 DoD budget request neither provides for the replacement of equipment lost in combat nor allocates funds to enhance our strained industrial base.
The Committee believes that a bold initiative at this time is necessary to ensure our military ground forces remain capable now and for the immediate future. Accordingly, the Committee recommends a total of $2,233,200,000 above the budget request in order to replace or overhaul Army and Marine Corps combat and tactical vehicles, acquire Stryker combat vehicles necessary to support the accelerated fielding of Stryker Brigade Combat Teams, replace helicopters lost in combat, and make improvements to the ammunition industrial base.
The Committee believes this is an essential first step. The Department of Defense, however, must continue this effort and respond--through clear planning and sustained financial commitments--to the need to recapitalize our ground forces. Thus, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide to the congressional defense committees, not later than February 15, 2005, a report detailing near term and long-term ground forces' equipment refurbishment, replacement, and recapitalization requirements. This report should include estimates of the cost, production requirements, and timelines needed to meet these requirements, and also, detail the extent to which the fiscal year 2006 budget submission and the Future Years Defense Plan provides for meeting these needs.
The table below outlines the Committee's recommendations.
| ($ thousands) | |
| Aircraft Procurement, Army: | |
| UH-60L--12 Aircraft Guard | 127,200 |
| CH-47--8 Aircraft Active | 336,000 |
| Total--Aircraft Procurement, Army | 463,200 |
| Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army: | |
| Bradley ODS+ | 134,000 |
| Bradley Integrated Modernization Program | 40,000 |
| Stryker--Additional Brigade | 900,000 |
| Stryker--Fieldling Costs | 50,000 |
| Total--Weapons and Tracked Combat | |
| Vehicles, Army | 1,124,000 |
| Procurement of Ammunition, Army: | |
| Radford AAP | 16,000 |
| Holston AAP | 3,500 |
| Lake City AAP | 22,400 |
| Kansas and Lone Star AAP | 10,000 |
| Total--Procurement of Ammunition, Army | 51,900 |
| Other Procurement, Army: | |
| HMMWV M1113--Active | 50,000 |
| HMMWV M1113--Guard & Reserve | 65,000 |
| HMMWV Recapitalization A0 to A2 | 39,000 |
| FMTV--Active | 45,000 |
| FMTV--Reserve | 60,000 |
| HEMTTs all variants--Active | 45,000 |
| HEMTTs all variants--Guard & Reserve | 50,000 |
| Palletized Load System--Active | 10,000 |
| Palletized Load System--Reserve | 10,000 |
| M915 Tractor--Guard | 15,000 |
| Total--Other Procurement, Army | 389,000 |
| Aircraft Procurement, Navy: | |
| CH-53--T64 Engine Government Reliability Improvement | 40,000 |
| Total--Aircraft Procurement, Navy | 40,000 |
| Procurement, Marine Corps: | |
| AAV RAM/RS Upgrades | 74,100 |
| LAV (Components) | 25,300 |
| HIMARS | 5,600 |
| Lightweight 155mm Howitzer | 60,100 |
| Total--Procurement, Marine Corps | 165,100 |
| Grand Total--Ground Forces Recapitalization | 2,233,200 |
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY
This appropriation finances acquisition of tactical and utility airplanes and helicopters, including associated electronics, electronic warfare equipment for 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 RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,107,941,000 for Aircraft Procurement, Army. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee's recommendations.
COMANCHE TERMINATION AND BUDGET AMENDMENT
The Committee supports the Department of Defense decision to terminate the RAH-66 Comanche helicopter program. This decision will free up the resources needed to make sweeping improvements in a number of the Army's aviation programs. For example, the Army indicates funding required for the development and construction of 122 Comanche aircraft through fiscal year 2011 is sufficient to provide for roughly 800 other aircraft. The Committee notes that this decision should help meet both the immediate needs of the Army associated with the Global War on Terrorism as well as needs associated with the Army's brigade restructure (modularity) initiative.
Accordingly, the Committee's recommendations incorporate the vast majority of the recommendations in the fiscal year 2005 Comanche budget amendment. However, there are two instances within Aircraft Procurement, Army where the Committee has reservations. The budget amendment proposed establishing two new aircraft programs including a replacement for the Kiowa Warrior armed reconnaissance helicopter, and a new light utility helicopter. While the Committee realizes the potential utility of these aircraft, the Committee notes that there is no program of record to support the proposed level of funding in either case. Similarly, the Committee notes that the Army has not initiated new start notifications to date in fiscal year 2004. As a result, the Committee recommends reducing funding for the Kiowa Warrior replacement by $12,000,000 below the amended budget request, and reducing funding for the new light utility helicopter by $22,000,000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005.
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $1,505,462,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 1,398,321,000
Committee recommendation 1,327,000,000
Change from budget request -71,321,000
-----------------------------------------------
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 RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,327,000,000 for Missile Procurement, Army. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee's recommendations.
LINE OF SIGHT ANTI-TANK (LOSAT)
The budget requested $86,321,000 for the LOSAT program, an increase of $43,089,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $15,000,000, a reduction of $71,321,000. The Committee recommends that the Army terminate this program, and that the remaining balance of $15,000,000 be used to meet termination costs. In the Committee's view, the Army has not made a long-term commitment to fielding LOSAT as evident in the fact that the Army plans to acquire only 435 missiles, and ends the program at the conclusion of the current Low Rate Initial Production run. Recognizing that several other anti-armor systems are already fielded and available to light forces, the Committee believes the Army should focus its resources on acquiring robust inventories of these systems as well as meeting prospective recapitalization needs.
HELLFIRE
The Committee understands that the Army intends to procure Hellfire II missiles with different warhead configurations based on experience in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that fiscal year 2005 funding available for the Hellfire missile may be used to procure any mix of warhead variants in order to best meet the Army's operational needs.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005.
PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $1,857,054,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 1,639,695,000
Committee recommendation 2,773,695,000
Change from budget request +1,134,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
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 RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,773,695,000 for Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee's recommendations.
STRYKER
The budget requested $905,074,000 for the Stryker program, an increase of $84,953,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $1,855,074,000, an increase of $950,000,000. The Committee notes that the Army has enjoyed considerable success both in the development and fielding of the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCTs), and in the deployment of a Stryker Brigade in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Committee also understands that additional SBCTs, above the six currently programmed, may play an important role in Department of Defense plans to revise the overseas basing of U.S. forces.
In order to accelerate the fielding of the SBCTs, and support future basing decisions, the Committee recommends an increase of $950,000,000 above the budget request. This amount should provide for both the additional Strykers necessary to outfit one brigade above that requested in the fiscal year 2005 budget, and for some of the ancillary costs associated with standing up an additional SBCT and basing the associated vehicles. To give the Committee better insight into the Army's long range plans for the Stryker Brigades, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, concurrent with submission of the fiscal year 2006 budget request, on plans to program and budget for additional SBCTs above the six currently planned. The report should address plans for the types of brigades under consideration (whether infantry, cavalry or other), plans for basing such units, required support equipment needed to round out these units, and the adjustments made or needed to the Army's budget to support these plans.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $1,387,759,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 1,556,902,000
Committee recommendation 1,608,302,000
Change from budget request +51,400,000
------------------------------------------------
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 RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,608,302,000 for Procurement of Ammunition, Army. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee's recommendations.
AMMUNITION INDUSTRIAL BASE
The budget requested $40,746,000 for the Provision of Industrial Facilities program, a decrease of $18,324,000 below the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $103,646,000, an increase of $62,900,000 above the request. The list of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2005 prepared by the Chief of Staff of the Army indicates that the Army is experiencing shortages of certain small caliber ammunition. These shortages are driven both by operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Army's brigade restructuring (modularity) initiative. The Committee has provided additional funding for these requirements, as described elsewhere in this report, but also notes that Army ammunition plants will be hard pressed to fill these shortfalls given the current state of production facilities. Accordingly, $51,900,000 of the increase provided in this program is for the purpose of improving the condition, efficiency and output of selected Army ammunition plants. This initiative is part of the Committee's effort to recapitalize ground forces, as described elsewhere in this report.
Of this amount, $16,000,000 is for the Radford Army Ammunition Plant (AAP) to begin replacing acid and associated propellant production lines. $22,400,000 is available to modernize the small caliber ammunition production facilities at the Lake City AAP. $3,500,000 is available to increase production of the explosive compounds RDX and HDX at the Holston AAP. Finally, $10,000,000 is available to improve the high volume load, assemble, and pack (LAP) facilities at the Lone Star and Kansas AAPs. The funding provided for this purpose should be divided equally between the two facilities.
M169 CARTRIDGE CASING PRODUCTION
The Committee believes that it is in the best interest of the Department to fund a modernization upgrade for the U.S.-based manufacturing equipment for the 40mm high velocity M169 cartridge case to mitigate risk. The Department of Defense is strongly encouraged to allocate the necessary funds to upgrade the 40mm manufacturing capability to support future requirements.
HYDRA ROCKET
The amended budget requested $164,689,000 for the Hydra Rocket program, an increase of $122,708,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $121,689,000, a reduction of $43,000,000. The Army's original budget request for fiscal year 2005 provided only $14,300,000 for the Hydra Rocket program. Thus, compared to the February budget submit, the Committee recommendation provides for an increase of $107,389,000 in fiscal year 2005. The Committee notes with some concern that the Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) accompanying the original budget submit reflected no funding for the Hydra Rocket program beyond fiscal year 2006. Accordingly, the Committee encourages the Army to take measures in future budget submissions to stabilize the level of funding for this program.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $4,774,452,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 4,240,896,000
Committee recommendation 4,868,371,000
Change from budget request +627,475,000
------------------------------------------------
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 RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,868,371,000 for Other Procurement, Army. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee's recommendations.
TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (TUAV)
The budget requested $100,456,000 for the TUAV program, an increase of $26,692,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $109,231,000, an increase of $8,775,000 for the procurement of additional Shadow 200 TUAVs. The Committee directs that the Army use these funds to acquire additional TUAVs for transfer to the Marine Corps. Additional discussion on this subject is provided in the `Weapons Procurement, Navy' section of this report.
RAPID EQUIPPING FORCE (REF)
The Committee recognizes that the Rapid Equipping Force initiative requires a degree of flexibility to rapidly respond to emerging needs identified in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. To facilitate this objective, the Committee recommends that funding appropriated in Other Procurement, Army--Other Support Equipment (OPA3) for REF may be used to fulfill requirements in both the OPA3 and Other Procurement, Army--Communications and Electronics (OPA2) budget activities. In addition, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report to the congressional defense committees not later than March 1 and October 1 each year on REF funding execution.
INTEGRATED COMMUNICATIONS NAVIGATION IDENTIFICATION AVIONICS (ICNIA)
Of the funds requested in the amended budget request for fiscal year 2005, the Committee directs that funds originally requested for ICNIA shall be used only to continue this program, and for no other purpose. The Committee expects that the Department of Defense will continue to program and budget for planned ICNIA development in fiscal year 2006 and future budget requests.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $9,110,848,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 8,767,867,000
Committee recommendation 8,841,824,000
Change from budget request +73,957,000
------------------------------------------------
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 aircraft operational effectiveness, and spare parts and ground support equipment for all end items procured by this appropriation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,841,824,000 for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee recommendation.
ONGOING PROGRAM REVIEW
The Committee is aware that the Navy's senior leadership has initiated a series of discussions focused on how best to transition from today's force to the `transformational' force of the future. In general, these discussions have focused on the most efficient and effective methods of addressing combat losses as well as bridging potential gaps in operational capability until new systems are available for use.
The Committee recognizes that current operations have caused the Navy to re-evaluate the timeframe in which it can maintain its warfighting capability with existing technology. The plan of just two short years ago was to maintian aircraft and certain ship classes at existing levels, while anticipating the delivery of transformational systems such as the Joint Strike Fighter and Littoral Combat Ship. Ongoing operations as well as schedule slips for some major weapons systems require the Navy to consider a period of transition. This period of transition may include replacement of combat losses with the next generation of equipment, such as the V-22, unplanned upgrades to the F/A-18 series aircraft, and adjusting production levels to achieve the most productive ratios.
The Committee does not believe the Navy nor the Department of Defense as a whole can abandon the drive to transformation. However, it is apparent that ongoing operational tempo requires an adjustment to original plans and that a `transition to transformation' may be the best way to maintain and improve capability. The Committee is encouraged that the Navy has initiated such planning and believes that future budget requests should support this effort.
EA-18G ADVANCE PROCUREMENT
The Committee recommends eliminating the request for EA-18G Advance Procurement. The recommendation is based on the Committee's view that the Navy should conduct additional testing prior to acquisition and therefore the fiscal year 2005 advance procurement request is premature.
The Committee is concerned with the Navy's decision to press an Initial Operating Capability (IOC) for the EA-18G with funds generated by a truncated pre-System Development and Demonstration (SDD) and the decommissioning of two EA-6B squadrons. The Committee believes that pursuing such an aggressive schedule places additional risk on the EA-18G development effort. The Committee believes that to reduce program risk additional pre-SDD tests should be conducted to allow for necessary modifications to systems transitioning from the EA-6B to the FA-18G prior to entering SDD.
MH-60R
The Committee recommends a reduction of $54,400,000 from the request for acquisition of MH-60R aircraft, a reduction of $9,400,000 from the request for advance procurement for future MH-60R aircraft, and a reduction of $18,200,000 for MH-60R initial spares.
The Committee notes that in fiscal year 2004, Congress provided $339,518,000 for the acquisition of six MH-60R helicopters. The Navy submitted, and the Committee approved, two reprogrammings that transferred fiscal year 2004 funds from acquisition and initial sparing of two helicopters to other Navy requirements. This reduced the fiscal year 2004 acquisition from six to four helicopters.
The fiscal year 2005 budget includes a request of $338,491,000 for the acquisition of eight MH-60R helicopters. The Committee believes that it will be too great a challenge to double the production level from four to eight helicopters in a single year. Therefore, the Committee recommends a more modest production rate of six aircraft and has reduced the acquisition request by $54,400,000 and the initial spares request by $18,200,000 to accommodate this reduced production rate.
In addition, the Congress provided $46,217,000 in advance procurement for eight helicopters in fiscal year 2004. Based on the Committee's recommendation to reduce this production rate to six helicopters, the funds provided in fiscal year 2004 can be used for advance procurement requirements for the fiscal year 2006 planned acquisition and $9,400,000 of the fiscal year 2005 advance procurement requirements is therefore in excess of need.
EA-6B SERIES
IMPROVED CAPABILITIES (ICAP III) PROGRAM
The Committee recommends eliminating the request for the EA-6B Improved Capabilities--ICAP III--system modification program.
The Committee notes that the Navy has reprogrammed and placed on hold all funds appropriated for ICAP III in fiscal year 2004 based on developmental delays in the program. The Committee recommendation takes into account anticipated additional delays in the program in 2005 due to an estimated slip in the Milestone III decision from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005 based on limited availability of aircraft for testing, as well as continued software development issues.
If the Navy determines that the ICAP III program has stabilized and the fiscal year 2005 schedule will be executed as planned, the Committee would consider a reprogramming request to restore all or a portion of this recommended reduction.
F/A-18 ADVANCED TACTICAL RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEM (ATARS)
The Committee recommends an additional $5,000,000 for the continued conversion of the ATARS recorders to solid-state device technology.
The Committee notes that during discussions of requirements for the fiscal year 2004 Emergency Supplemental, the Marine Corps indicated its intent to fully budget for this requirement in the fiscal year 2005 budget request. The Committee is disappointed that despite its stated intention to include funds for this requirement in the 2005 budget, the Marine Corps failed to do so.
The Committee directs the Marine Corps to fully fund the remaining requirement for the ATARS recorder upgrades in the fiscal year 2006 budget request. The Committee notes that despite the fact that the Marine Corps has known of this requirement for many years and that Congress has provided funds above the budget request for this upgrade in each of the last three years, the Marine Corps has never budgeted funds to accommodate the upgrade. The Committee believes the Marine Corps should re-prioritize its budget request to ensure full funding of this program.
F/A-18 LITENING POD DOWNLINK DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR AV-8B
The Committee recommends a total of $3,000,000 for the AV-8B LITENING Pod Downlink Development Program (LPDD) for an advanced video downlink to improve the detection, identification, and targeting capability of the LITENING Pod ISR targeting system. Of this amount, $2,000,000 is provided in Aircraft Procurement, Navy and $1,000,000 is provided in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, AV-8B Engineering Development.
F/A-18 LITENING POD ADVANCED TARGETING (AT)
The Committee recommends an additional $5,000,000 to initiate the procurement of LITENING Pod AT for the Marine Corps aviation asset, the F/A-18D. The Committee notes this is not the targeting pod program of record for this aircraft, but the Marine Corps sought to add money above the President's request in order to field an advanced targeting pod in a more timely manner than the program of record, the Advanced Targeting Forward Looking Infrared (ATFLIR) pod.
The Committee directs the Marine Corps to fully fund the acquisition, integration, and installation for the remainder of the LITENING Pod AT requirement, stated to be a total 60 pods for 72 F/A-18D's, in the fiscal year 2006 and future budgets. The Committee believes the Marine Corps should re-prioritize its budget request to ensure full funding of this program.
NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND METROLOGY AND CALIBRATION PROGRAM
The Committee recommends an increase of $1,000,000 for the Naval Air Systems Command Metrology and Calibration Program. The increasing complexity of weapons platforms, weapons systems, and operational systems, especially in terms of the electronic subsystems and components, has given added importance to the Navy's test, monitoring and diagnostic capability and the need for improved measurement assurance.
The Navy's Metrology and Calibration (METCAL) Program was established over 40 years ago to provide needed assurance by standardizing calibration procedures and processes, ensuring traceability of measurements from the prime weapon system to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and reducing the occurrence of wrong test decisions. The METCAL program provides the facilities, equipment, personnel, and procedures to ensure the proper calibration of the Navy's test equipment.
OPERATIONAL FLIGHT TRAINER SIMULATION INITIATIVE
The Committee recommends an additional $25,000,000 to establish an Operational Flight Trainer Simulation Initiative. Within this amount, the Navy should pursue the upgrade or purchase of at least one Level `D' P-3 Operational Flight Trainer (OFT).
The Committee believes the Navy should aggressively pursue the introduction of advanced simulation into flight training curriculum. The addition of advanced Level `D' simulation or Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approved simulators, would greatly enhance the existing flight training programs of the F/A-18 as well as the P-3. The Committee believes that the use of these training devices would support the life extension programs of various aircraft, especially the P-3, by using simulation to reduce flight hours on operational aircraft.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in this bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005:
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $2,095,784,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 2,101,529,000
Committee recommendation 1,993,754,000
Change from budget request -107,775,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of strategic and tactical missiles, target drones, torpedoes, guns, associated support equipment, and modification of in-service missiles, torpedoes, and guns.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,993,754,000 for Weapons Procurement, Navy. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee recommendation.
NORTHWEST UNDERSEA RANGE
The Committee recommends an additional $3,500,000 for support of the Pacific Northwest Undersea Range. These funds will provide essential refurbishments and upgrades to systems for undersea range tracking, underwater targets, underwater recovery, communication, navigation safety, and shore-based computing. Additionally, these funds support range craft modernization and upgrades, as well as improvements to range infrastructure.
PIONEER UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV) PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (PIP)
The Committee recommends eliminating the request for the Pioneer UAV PIP program, a reduction of $8,775,000. The Committee has increased funding for the acquisition of the Army's Shadow 200 UAV and directs the Army to increase the production rate of this UAV and transfer the assets to the Marine Corps (see discussion under `Other Procurement, Army' portion of this report).
The Committee believes that while it may not meet all of the Marine Corps UAV requirements, the Shadow 200 can meet a majority of these requirements and that, at least in the short term, would provide significant improvement in situational awareness for the Marine Corps. The Committee notes that the Marine Corps Pioneer (UAV) ground station is compatible with the Shadow 200, so additional investment in ground station requirements is not required.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in this bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005:
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $934,905,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 858,640,000
Committee recommendation 885,340,000
Change from budget request +26,700,000
---------------------------------------------
This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, ammunition modernization and ammunition related material for the Navy and Marine Corps.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $885,340,000 for Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee recommendation.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in this bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005:
SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $11,467,623,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 9,962,027,000
Committee recommendation 10,189,327,000
Change from budget request +227,300,000
------------------------------------------------
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 RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,189,327,000 for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee recommendation.
SHIPBUILDING ISSUES
The Committee remains deeply troubled by the lack of stability in the Navy's shipbuilding program. Often both the current year and outyear ship construction profile is dramatically altered with the submission of the next budget request. Programs justified to Congress in terms of mission requirements in one year's budget are removed from the next. This continued shifting of the shipbuilding program promotes confusion and frustration throughout both the public and private sectors. Moreover, the Committee is concerned that this continual shifting of priorities within the Navy's shipbuilding account indicates uncertainty with respect to the validity of requirements and budget requests in support of shipbuilding proposals.
This state of affairs reached a new level during consideration of this year's request when officials in the Navy actively pursued changing the President's budget request to accommodate an alternative option for the LHA Replacement program. That the LHA(R) was subject to re-structure is not surprising. Indeed, the Committee had proposed elimination of this program in fiscal year 2004 based on the inability of the Navy to adequately justify the program. However, this out of cycle proposal for a new ship class (tantalizingly presented to the press before Congress was provided with information) simply highlights the overall instability of the shipbuilding program.
The Committee further notes that documentation submitted with budgetary proposals is often lacking in specifics regarding total program requirement (number of ships to be constructed), total program cost, and detailed expenditure plans. This lack of information makes it difficult for Congress to weigh options for funding programs throughout the Department of Defense. Furthermore, it obscures the impact of current decisions on future budgetary requirements. The Committee requests that future budget documentation include sufficient information to allow for informed decisions.
Perhaps most troubling, the Committee believes the Navy's shipbuilding strategy is focused on replacing a current class of ship with a more technologically advanced version of the same class--without adequate review of the underlying requirement, fiscal realities, nor consideration of all alternatives for meeting operational needs. The inventory of Navy ships displays an astounding level of complexity. Within a class of ships there are a variety of models with various levels of technology aboard. Managing technological and war-fighting capability baselines for each class of ship, let alone the entire Fleet, requires a significant investment of funds to maintain the various upgrades, spare parts and training requirements. The Committee believes the Navy should consider a thorough review of its entire shipbuilding profile, to establish a consistent underlying requirement for new construction coupled with a focus on a streamlined approach to upgrades and modernization efforts.
DDG-51 GUIDED MISSILE DESTROYER--ADVANCE PROCUREMENT
The Committee recommends an increase of $125,000,000 to initiate advance procurement of materiel necessary for the construction of an additional DDG-51 Guided Missile Destroyer in the 2006 or 2007 budget.
This recommendation is based on the Committee's view that the additional system development and testing required for the DD(X), the next generation destroyer, will lead to a delay in the Initial Operating Capability of the DD(X). With this delay, the Committee believes operational requirements of the Navy necessitate the construction of at least one more DDG-51.
The Committee expects the Navy to fully fund the construction of this DDG-51 in a future budget request.
DDG-51 GUIDED MISSILE DESTROYER--MODERNIZATION PROGRAM
The Committee recommends an increase of $100,000,000 to initiate a DDG-51 Modernization program. These funds shall be used by the Navy to accelerate modernization of in-service DDG-51 Guided Missile Destroyers that emphasizes increased warfighting capability, reduced total ownership cost, and expanded use of open architecture.
The Committee notes that in its recent report to Congress, `DDG-51 Class Guided Missile Destroyer Modernization Plan,' the Navy indicates that modernization would be initiated with the oldest DDGs. The Committee understands the desire of the Navy to maintain a highly capable DDG fleet until 2047, but believes further analysis should be conducted to determine the most cost-efficient manner of increasing mission capability of the Navy. The Committee directs the Navy to re-evaluate this plan for modernization, taking into account a cost-benefit analysis of executing a modernization effort on the oldest of the DDG-51 Class.
The Committee requests the Navy submit by March 1, 2005, a detailed plan to execute a multi-year DDG-51 modernization effort, initiated with the Committee's recommended increase. The plan should address each element of the modernization plan, the cost-benefit of the element, and the implementation of the plan by hull number.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in this bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005:
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $4,941,098,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 4,834,278,000
Committee recommendation 4,980,325,000
Change from budget request +146,047,000
-----------------------------------------------
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 updates naval forces, to trucks, training equipment, and spare parts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,980,325,000 for Other Procurement, Navy. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee recommendation.
CVN PROPELLER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM
The Committee recommends an additional $2,000,000 only for the procurement and installation of CVN propeller replacements.
The Committee understands that the Navy has designed a new propeller for new and in-service aircraft carriers to meet operational, endurance, and readiness requirements of today's fleet. The CVN propeller replacement program is to outfit the in-service aircraft carriers with the new design rather than replace eroded propellers with refurbished ones of the old design. These additional funds will allow the Navy to pursue this propeller replacement program in a more timely manner. The Committee urges the Navy to fund this requirement in future budget requests.
TRIDENT MODIFICATIONS
The Committee recommends an increase of $8,200,000 for a portion of the TRIDENT modification program. The Committee also recommends appropriations language under `Other Procurement, Navy' to provide authority to use procurement funds for modifications associated with force protection and security enhancements.
The Committee directs that the fiscal year 2006 budget be submitted in accordance with this funding mechanism and that the appropriate budget documentation provide a separate line detailing the current and future financial requirements for the modifications.
UNMANNED UNDERSEA VEHICLE (UUV) PROGRAM
The Committee recommends eliminating the request for procurement of the Long-term Mine Reconnaissance System (LMRS) Unmanned Undersea Vehicle (UUV), a reduction of $61,235,000. The Committee understands that the Navy is pursuing a complete restructure of this program and the funding requested for the procurement of two ship sets of LMRS will not be executed in fiscal year 2005, and is, therefore, in excess of need.
The Committee strongly supports the need for a robust UUV program. The Committee believes many missions currently performed by expensive manned systems, especially those associated with intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) preparation of the battlespace, could be more effectively performed by UUVs. The Committee encourages the Navy to aggressively pursue a UUV program that increases capability and expands the mission flexibility of the platforms.
The Committee also directs the Navy to review the program management of the UUV program. The Committee believes that institutional reluctance has contributed to delays in the transition of UUVs to operational status in support of fleet requirements. While technological challenges are not insignificant in this program, it appears these challenges are not quickly resolved, exacerbating other program delays and increasing costs.
PERFORMANCE-CENTRIC MISSION ESSENTIAL CONTENT DELIVERY
The Committee recommends an additional $1,000,000 for performance-centric mission essential content delivery to provide the Shipboard Non-Tactical Application Delivery Interface System (SNADIS) with a specific capability to provide performance-centered content delivery to the evolving shipboard mobile computing environment. The Committee believes this will improve overall capability and readiness of the warfighter by providing a direct link to critical resources on demand.
SERIAL NUMBER TRACKING SYSTEM
The Committee recommends an additional $4,000,000 to continue the implementation of the Serial Number Tracking System (SNTS) in the areas of Shipboard Automated Configuration Management and Calibrated Equipment Management. An initiative using modern commercial off-the-shelf automatic identification and data collection (AIDC) technologies to address critical supply and maintenance needs in the Navy, the SNTS program is yielding significant improvements in productivity and effectiveness.
PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT
The Committee recommends fully funding the request of $194,214,000 for Physical Security Equipment. The Committee notes that a majority of this request is associated with equipment to meet anti-terrorism and force protection requirements.
The Committee believes that without a centralized authority for establishing overall requirements for anti-terrorism and force protection, equipment purchases may be duplicative and ineffective. The Committee believes the Navy should centralize decision-making authority for all anti-terrorism and force protection requirements to ensure the Fleet-wide application of standards of protection levels, standardization of equipment, approval of technological improvements, and standardization of training.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in this bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005:
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $1,165,727,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 1,190,103,000
Committee recommendation 1,462,703,000
Change from budget request +272,600,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation funds the procurement, delivery, and modification of missiles, armaments, communication equipment, tracked and wheeled vehicles, and various support equipment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,462,703,000 for Procurement, Marine Corps. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee's recommendations.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005:
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $12,086,201,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 13,163,174,000
Committee recommendation 13,289,984,000
Change from budget request +126,810,000
------------------------------------------------
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 RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,289,984,000 for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee's recommendations.
F/A-22 RAPTOR
The budget requested $4,156,956,000 for procurement of 24 F/A-22 aircraft, an increase of $11,578,000 and 2 aircraft over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends purchase of 24 aircraft, as requested, and provides $4,126,956,000 for that purpose. The amount provided is a reduction of $30,000,000 from the request. The Committee strongly supports and, therefore, expects that ongoing efforts to implement lean-manufacturing techniques and production improvements will continue to lead to cost reductions in the program.
F/A-22 INDEPENDENT COST ESTIMATE
The Committee notes that several significant decision points regarding continued production of the F/A-22 lay in the not-so-distant future. The program recently entered into Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E), which is scheduled to conclude in the fall. Following completion of IOT&E, the Department will consider whether to grant authority for the program to enter full rate production, whether and when to request multiyear procurement authority, and as a subtext to all of this, whether there is a need to increase the production cost cap established under authorization law.
The Committee believes this is the appropriate point in the program to recalibrate F/A-22 cost models using the latest information on current and projected costs. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition Technology and Logistics to sponsor a new comprehensive F/A-22 independent cost estimate (ICE), to be conducted by a federally financed research and development center (FFRDC) with demonstrated competence in this area in coordination with the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). This analysis should: (1) determine appropriate estimates of unit costs and validate unit cost models and related assumptions based on the latest projections of production efficiencies; (2) identify optimal yearly production profiles that can be financed under the budgetary framework contained in the 2005 Future Years Defense Plan; and (3) determine appropriate estimates of remaining non-recurring development, test, and acquisition program oversight costs. The Committee expects that the FFRDC will be allowed to both contract the services of a private sector audit entity experienced in industry costing techniques, and coordinate the execution and review of this ICE with the DCAA. The Committee expects the F/A-22 prime contractor to provide full access and cooperation with this analytical effort to the FFRDC, DCAA, and any private sector agency involved under rules and procedures that adequately protect the confidentiality of proprietary financial data and manufacturing techniques. This ICE is to be transmitted to the congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 2005.
C-17 AIRCRAFT
The budget requested $2,512,479,000 for the procurement of 14 C-17 aircraft, an increase of $369,907,000 and 3 aircraft over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $2,671,079,000, an increase of $158,600,000 and one additional aircraft above the request.
The Committee is extremely displeased by the Air Force's continued use of a flawed and irresponsible financial strategy for the C-17 multiyear procurement contract. In fiscal year 2003, the Air Force proposed a budget request it referred to as `transformational'. The Committee, however, saw it for what it was--an incremental financing scheme that abused the political support for this program and flaunted acquisition regulations and standard practices. In that year, the Congress provided full funding for all 15 aircraft, and directed the Air Force to fully fund the same number in fiscal year 2004.
Unfortunately, for fiscal year 2004 and now with the fiscal year 2005 Defense budget request, the Air Force has continued its financial sleight-of-hand on the C-17 program. Based on a recently concluded investigation by the Committee's Surveys and Investigations staff, the Committee learned the Air Force is using a combination of advance procurement funding and exorbitant cancellation ceilings to keep the contractor to a production schedule which has as many as 5 aircraft at any given time in the production line for which funds have not been appropriated. Not once in the past has the Committee indicated its approval for using advance procurement funding to proceed with production of aircraft for which full appropriations have not been approved. Nor is the Committee aware of any change in Department of Defense (DoD) fiscal policy or regulations that would permit this. As both DoD and Office of Management and Budget financial officials put it to Committee investigators, the Air Force had `pushed the envelope'. And, in the Committee's view, the `envelope' has been pushed too far.
Moreover, the Air Force also included a provision in the second C-17 multiyear procurement contract that assumes additional funding for aircraft will be approved following the end of the contract. Otherwise, the Department will be liable to pay the contractor significant termination costs. This contingent liability places a burden not just on the current Congress, but on the next Congress as well, and could be interpreted as a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act.
In order to prevent such future financial chicanery on the part of the Air Force or any other military service, the Committee includes a new general provision that significantly amends authority carried in past Defense Appropriations acts regarding multiyear procurement contracts. This provision is discussed elsewhere in this report. With regard to the current funding shortfall in fiscal year 2005, the Committee has added an additional $158,600,000 and one aircraft. Bill language is also included in the Aircraft Procurement paragraph directing that funds provided are for the procurement of 15 aircraft in fiscal year 2005, that advance procurement funds are provided for the procurement of 15 aircraft in fiscal year 2006, and that the Secretary of the Air Force shall fully fund the procurement of 15 aircraft in fiscal year 2006. In placing this requirement upon the Air Force,the Committee would note the commitment of the Secretary of the Air Force, during a public hearing on this matter, to work with the Committee to `set it right'. The Committee anticipates that the Secretary will do just that.
C-17 INTERIM CONTRACTOR SUPPORT
The budget requested $945,560,000 for C-17 Interim Contractor Support (ICS), an increase of $17,933,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $786,960,000, a reduction of $158,600,000.
In the preceding part of this report, the Committee expresses its displeasure with the funding strategy the Air Force has employed to execute the C-17 program. That strategy has resulted in an incremental funding scheme for the C-17 that the Committee finds unacceptable. In order to fully fund 15 aircraft in fiscal year 2005, the budget request must be amended to provide for one additional aircraft and $158,600,000. Therefore, the Committee provides increased funding for one additional C-17 in fiscal year 2005, and reduced funding in this account by a like amount.
The Committee finds it puzzling that the Air Force refuses to fully fund aircraft in production, yet the fiscal year 2005 request for C-17 ICS includes funding of $176,000,000 in new capability block upgrades and improvements to the existing fleet. In budget justification materials, the Air Force identifies $114,000,000 of this amount as needed to address unfunded requirements. The Committee wishes to send a very clear message--it considers full funding of the aircraft in production to be this program's number one unfunded requirement. Once the Air Force understands this message and provides the resources needed to bring this program in line with a traditional, fully funded procurement program, the Committee will entertain any funding requests for new capability to the existing fleet.
TANKER REPLACEMENT TRANSFER FUND
In section 8121 of the Committee bill, the Committee provides $100,000,000 to establish the `Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund'. The establishment of this fund reflects the Committee's intent that the Air Force proceed apace with replacing its fleet of aging aerial refueling aircraft with KC-767 tankers. As such, the funds provided under section 8121 may be used to implement the current tanker replacement program-of-record, as approved in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 and amended by the House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization bill for Fiscal Year 2005.
The Committee notes, however, that the fluid nature of the situation surrounding this program prohibits a definitive allocation of funds for specific activities. Thus, the Committee provides the Secretary of the Air Force with the authority to allocate these funds to Air Force operation and maintenance, procurement, or research and development accounts, allowing the Air Force to quickly implement acquisition or modification plans once the situation is clarified. The provision requires the Secretary of the Air Force to notify the congressional defense committees of the service's intent to transfer funds under this heading 15 days prior to any transfer.
GLOBAL HAWK
The budget request included $287,768,000 for the procurement of four RQ-4B Global Hawk High Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, an increase of $89,865,000 above the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. In response to the Committee's direction for the Navy to transfer to the Air Force one Global Hawk currently in production for the Navy, the Committee has provided $202,178,000, a reduction of $85,590,000 and one aircraft below the request.
The Committee is concerned with the Air Force strategy to accelerate the Global Hawk program. The compressed schedule results in a highly concurrent development, test and production cycle for the B model. Compared to its predecessor, the RQ-4A, which has extensive testing and operational experience, the RQ-4B model is heavier; incorporates a new wing, fuselage, and vertical tail; requires essentially all new manufacturing drawings, new tooling and changed production processes; and has a 50 percent greater payload capacity to carry advanced sensors still in development. The Air Force strategy is to start producing the RQ-4B in 2004 without prototyping, and eventually procure 13 air vehicles and long lead items on 7 more before the design is tested and full-rate production approved.
The Committee believes that the resulting production schedule is overly ambitious and that development of the B model is over cost and behind schedule. Accordingly, the Committee has reduced advance procurement funding by $21,300,000 for 2 fiscal year 2006 aircraft. The funding provided is sufficient to maintain the fiscal year 2006 production of the RQ-4B at the fiscal year 2005 level of 4 aircraft.
C-130 GUNSHIP LINK 16
The budget request includes $11,700,000 in the C-130 aircraft modification line to develop, procure, and install combined Link 16, beyond Line-of-Sight Tactical Data Information Link Joint (TADIL-J) and gateway growth potential for Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) AC-130 aircraft. The Committee believes that requesting funds to initiate a new development program in the Aircraft Procurement account is misunderstanding the general distinctions between procurement funds and development funds. The Committee is supportive of the entire AFSOC community and the outstanding job they have done in battles in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the larger Global War on Terrorism. In support of the AFSOC mission, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to establish the necessary development program for this new capability and to include a request for this program in the fiscal year 2006 budget submission.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005:
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $4,165,633,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 4,718,313,000
Committee recommendation 4,425,013,000
Change from budget request -293,300,000
-----------------------------------------------
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 RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,425,013,000 for Missile Procurement, Air Force. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee's recommendations.
JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE
The budget requested $148,161,000 for the procurement of 360 Joint Air-To-Surface Standoff Missiles (JASSMs), an increase of $63,161,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $139,861,000, a reduction of $8,300,000 and 57 missiles below the request.
The Committee previously expressed concern about the results of an Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) conducted between April 2002-February 2004. A final report from the Director of Operational Testing and Evaulation on the results of the IOT&E found that JASSM is operationally effective but not operationally suitable. The basis for this finding was that JASSM could hit its target set, but required more missiles than expected due to poor missile reliability. The report included additional issues of concern about the missile including cumbersome mission planning, supportability problems, fuel leak detector needs and contractor warranty requirements.
The Committee is aware there are appealing aspects to the existing JASSM production contract, including attractive pricing at higher rates of production, but believes these are of little value when the end product continues to be malfunctioning missiles en route to targets. The Committee wants to see the JASSM program succeed, but it will closely monitor efforts to address the issues identified in the IOT&E report. The Air Force and the contractor must take immediate action to improve JASSM reliability, such as conducting a robust fuze improvement program, and fixing the mission planning software and interface/throughput problems. These corrections then must be verified through additional operational testing. Failure to do so will cause the Committee to reconsider its support for this program through its fiscal year 2005 and future budget deliberations.
EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE
The Air Force requested $610,997,000 for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program, an increase of $1,687,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $519,997,000, a decrease of $91,000,000 from the request. The Air Force has requested this adjustment to help offset new cost growth in the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) High program.
The Committee is concerned the current acquisition approach of maintaining two EELV contractors may be ill advised in the new space launch environment facing the United States. The two contractor acquisition strategy is based largely on the desire to maintain `assured access to space' as well as the desire to retain a measure of competition. The strategy was adopted in the late 1990s when numerous commercial launches were projected for the future. These failed to materialize, however, leaving the government as the primary launch customer. Now, both contractors routinely complain about losing money on the EELV program. At the same time, launch costs for United States Government payloads have soared.
The Committee agrees the United States must maintain assured access to space. Ironically, the current two contractor approach may actually jeopardize this objective. The Air Force argument for two contractors largely involves the problem of a particular launch vehicle being grounded pending investigation of a launch failure. With two contractors, the Air Force argues launches could in theory be shifted to the second vendor. The Committee recognizes the possible value of such a back-up capability, but wonders whether this approach is practical given the two year lead-time required to buy launch vehicles from the second vendor.
There are other factors to be considered. For example, given the extraordinarily high cost and importance of satellite payloads, the Committee believes it is wiser to invest in launch reliability than launch back-up. The Committee is concerned that by maintaining two `standing armies' without adequate funding, the government could inadvertently be motivating the contractors to cut corners in a way that could hurt launch reliability. Also, with few available launches divided between two contractors, contractor personnel are not able to maintain as high a level of proficiency, again potentially adversely affecting reliability. Put simply, the Committee believes fully funding one contractor may be a wiser approach to assured access than the current approach of underfunding two contractors.
The Committee understands the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology has directed that an update to the Space Launch Modernization Plan of 1994 be completed by November 2004. The Committee directs that this update include a thorough analysis of the issue of two versus one EELV contractors relative to launch reliability, and that this report be submitted to the congressional defense committees upon completion. The Committee believes upcoming lot buys of EELV should be minimized pending recommendations made in the report.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005:
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $1,262,725,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 1,396,457,000
Committee recommendation 1,346,557,000
Change from budget request -49,900,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, modifications, spares, weapons, and other ammunition-related items for the Air Force.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,346,557,000 for Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee's recommendations.
GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS
The budget request included $266,500,000 for procurement of General Purpose Bombs, an increase of $98,655,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $236,589,000, a decrease of $29,900,000 below the request. Justification materials included and justified an amount of only $261,608,000. Accordingly, the Committee has reduced funding by $4,900,000. Funding has been further reduced by an additional $35,000,000, noting that this program received $54,700,000 in supplemental funding to reconstitute following operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. An increase over the fiscal year 2004 request of $65,000,000 is provided to meet current requirements. The Committee has also included an additional $10,000,000 above the request for the GBU-27A/B, Enhanced Paveway III.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005:
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $11,558,799,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 13,283,557,000
Committee recommendation 13,199,607,000
Change from budget request -83,950,000
------------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides for the procurement of weapon systems and equipment other than aircraft and missiles. Included are vehicles, electronic and telecommunications systems for command and control of operational forces, and ground support equipment for weapon systems and supporting structure.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,199,607,000 for Other Procurement, Air Force. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee's recommendations.
THEATER AIR CONTROL SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT
The Committee has reduced funding for the Theater Air Control System Improvement by $15,800,000 for the Battle Control System Mobile (BCS-M) Block 20 production development upgrades. The Committee fully supports this effort. However, the schedule for this program indicates that the upgrades will undergo development and testing throughout fiscal year 2005, and that production is not scheduled to begin until fiscal year 2006.
In addition, the fiscal year 2004 contract was actually awarded six months later than indicated by the 2005 budget justification. The request has been reduced accordingly to allow completion of the development and test efforts.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005:
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $3,709,926,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 2,883,302,000
Committee recommendation 3,028,033,000
Change from budget request +144,731,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides funds for the procurement, production, and modification of equipment, supplies, materials, and spare parts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,028,033,000 for Procurement, Defense-Wide. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee's recommendations.
SOF ROTARY WING UPGRADES
The Committee recommends $454,272,000, an increase of $7,000,000, only for Infrared Engine Suppression kits for MH-47 helicopters. The Committee is aware of the substantial enhancement these kits provide for engine infrared signature and encourages the Army to equip its CH-47 helicopters with Infrared Suppression Kits.
ADVANCED SEAL DELIVERY SYSTEM (ASDS)
The budget request for the Advanced Seal Delivery System (ASDS) included $5,864,000 for procurement and $34,921,000 for advance procurement for the second ASDS, an increase of $8,861,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $13,264,000 for ASDS procurement and no funding for ASDS 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 United States Special Operations Command has recently, and in the Committee's view, prudently decided to delay procurement of the second system until a new battery is developed and tested and improvements are made to the Environmental Control Unit. The Committee has a long history of concerns about this program and has provided substantial funding for a new battery as well as other improvements to the system. The Committee compliments USSOCOM for its recognition that important improvements must be made prior to procuring the next system. The Committee recommendation is consistent with the new Capability Assurance Plan developed by USSOCOM to assure future systems meet the requirements and expectations of the Special Operations forces who will use the ASDS.
MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT
The Committee recommends $19,830,000, including an increase of $1,500,000, only for AN/PVS-21 Low Profile Night Vision Goggles. The Committee recommends that the Special Operations Command complete the procurement of ruggedized, heads-up display capable, see-through binocular vision, commercial-off-the-shelf, low profile night vision goggle systems for the Naval Special Warfare Boat Operators and their associated crewmembers.
VULNERABILITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
The Committee is aware that new technology providing a vulnerability management solution is nearing completion of the evaluation process by the National Institute of Standards and Technology so as to receive Common Criteria evaluation at EAL3. This appliance-based technology runs a hardened operating system and communicates through encryption using digital certificates for authentication and by performing the Continuous Monitoring requirement specified by NIST SP 800-37, Section 2.7. In an effort to better prove its effectiveness in meeting vulnerability standards of the Department of Defense, the Committee has provided $5,000,000 to the Department to demonstrate this technology.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005:
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $400,000,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 0
Committee recommendation 0
Change from the budget request 0
---------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides funds for procurement of equipment for the National Guard and Reserve.
The budget request includes $1,963,500,000 to equip National Guard and Reserve units in Procurement accounts for each of the Services. The Committee is aware of the indispensable contributions members of the Guard and Reserve make to our national security and has added $477,900,000 in additional funding above the request within the regular appropriation accounts, and an additional $100,000,000 for National Guard and Reserve Equipment within a separate appropriation (Title IX) to support continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT PURCHASES
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $78,016,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 9,015,000
Committee recommendation 27,015,000
Change from budget request +18,000,000
--------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $27,015,000 for the Defense Production Act Purchases appropriation.
The Committee directs that within funds appropriated: (1) $2,000,000 be used only for a radar systems project to develop affordable production processes and a domestic supplier of transmit/receive modules for phased arrays; (2) $2,000,000 be used only for the Facility for Military Lens System Fabrication and Assembly; (3) $2,000,000 be used only for a flexible aerogel material supplier initiative to develop affordable production methods and a domestic supplier for aerogels; (4) $4,000,000 be used only to perform a preliminary plant design, review permitting issues, and develop a five-year plan to build a modern plant for domestic supply of beryllium; (5) $4,000,000 be used only for the development of a domestic supplier of the Read Out Integrated Circuit (ROIC) infrared sensors; (6) $2,000,000 be used only for development of a domestic supplier of semiconductor `mask' capability; and (7) $2,000,000 be used only for the development of a thermal battery industrial base infrastructure.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
The Department requested $28,717,579,000 for Information Technology, an increase of $475,769,000 over the fiscal year 2004 budget. The Committee recommends $28,221,131,000, a decrease of $496,448,000 as explained below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Operation and Maintenance, Army: | |
| Army Knowledge Online | $4,000 |
| Virtual Reality Spray Paint Simulator and Training Program | 3,000 |
| Integrated Digital Environments Pilot Program for Army Aviation Fleet Logistic | 2,000 |
| Online Technology Training Program at Ft. Lewis | 2,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Navy: Navy Converged ERP | -7,500 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Air Force: | |
| Geospatial Distant Learning | 1,000 |
| Online Technology Training Program at McChord AFB | 1,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide: | |
| BMMP | -7,000 |
| BMMP Domains | -15,000 |
| Command Information Superiority Architectures Program | 1,000 |
| DISA Program Growth | -50,000 |
| DoD CIO | -5,000 |
| Export Control Database | 1,300 |
| Information Technology Organizational Composition Project | 2,000 |
| Study on the Impact of Internet and Wireless Technology on Military Life | 1,000 |
| Transaction Monitoring Improvement Project | 1,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve: U.S. Army Reserve Command IT Consolidation | 1,500 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard: | |
| C4ISR Integration | 1,000 |
| ERP for Army Guard Installation | 1,000 |
| National Guard Global Education | 500 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard: Air National Guard IT Consolidation | 3,000 |
| Other Procurement, Army: | |
| Advanced Information Technology Services (AITS) | 5,500 |
| Satellite Multi-Modal Collaborative Crisis & Training Network for MN Army Guard | 1,000 |
| Other Procurement, Navy: | |
| Digital Stores Management System (DSMS) | 5,000 |
| Technological Data Knowledge Management in an Integrated Data Environment (TDKM-IDE) | 5,000 |
| Procurement, Marine Corps: USMC COOP | 4,000 |
| Other Procurement, Air Force: CITS | -60,000 |
| Procurement, Defense-Wide: | |
| AHPCRC--Supercomputer Procurement | 7,000 |
| BMMP Domain Systems Procurement | -30,248 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army: | |
| Distributed Scalable C2 Communication System | 1,000 |
| FREEDOM Software Environment | 1,000 |
| Global Anti-Terrorist Activity Analysis Capability at the INSCOM Information Dominance Center | 3,000 |
| MVMNT Program for Simulation Based Operation | 2,000 |
| Online Contract Document Management | 1,000 |
| Section 8096--IT Reduction | -60,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy: | |
| Navy Converged ERP | -27,500 |
| Smart Integrated Data Environment (SIDE) | 1,000 |
| USMC LAV Integrated Digital & Collaboration Environment Service Net | 2,000 |
| Web-based Technology Insertion for Expeditionary Warfare Testbed | 1,000 |
| Section 8096--IT Reduction | -29,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force: | |
| Advanced Course in Engineering Cyber Security | 2,000 |
| Center for Information Assurance Security | 2,000 |
| Command & Control Service Level Management | 5,000 |
| ESC NORTHCOM Deployment Planning | 1,000 |
| Information Assurance for Reengineering and Enabling Technologies | 3,000 |
| Net-Centric Information Visualization Services | 3,000 |
| Worldwide Infrastructure Security Environment (WISE) | 4,000 |
| Section 8096--IT Reduction | -72,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide: | |
| Advanced Processing and Prototyping Center--Sematech | 5,000 |
| Army High Performance Computing Research Center | 15,000 |
| BMMP | -45,000 |
| Center for Secure Telecommunications | 2,000 |
| Data Intensive High Performance Computing | 3,000 |
| High Performance Computer Prototype--Naval Research Lab | 5,000 |
| Internet Protocol Version 6 | 1,500 |
| JITC Information Assurance Trend/Metric Analysis Support | 2,500 |
| NASEC Through Wall Radar Imaging | 3,000 |
| Net Centric Warrior Training (NetCWT) | 3,000 |
| Net Centricity Program Growth | -70,000 |
| Rapid Acquisition Incentive Program Growth | -10,000 |
| Section 8096--IT Reduction | -109,000 |
| Defense Health Program: Financial Information Systems Excessive Program Growth--All Other Office Automation (TMA) | -25,000 |
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND BUSINESS MANAGEMENT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM
The budget requested $28,717,579,000 for the Information Technology programs, an increase of $475,769,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $28,221,131,000, a decrease of $496,448,000.
The Committee commends the Department of Defense for its ongoing effort to modernize its business information systems. While acknowledging the accomplishments of the Department, the Committee is greatly concerned about how the Business Management Modernization Program (BMMP) is being administered. BMMP was initiated in July 2001 with a goal of developing a Department-wide business enterprise architecture as a part of the Secretary of Defense's transformation goals. Since implementation, Congress has appropriated over $300,000,000 for BMMP, yet the General Accounting Office (GAO) reports no significant changes in the Department of Defense's business architecture or its investment in existing and new systems.
In the May 2004 review of the BMMP, GAO found that the Department had only fully implemented two of the over twenty-four recommendations from earlier reviews. The recommendations that have yet to be accomplished include BMMP instituting key architecture management best practices, such as assigning accountability and responsibility for directing, overseeing and approving the architecture. Additionally, GAO found that BMMP continues to lack effective control over investments in information technology programs resulting in billions of dollars being spent on the development and modernization of programs that may be duplicative or interoperable with other Department of Defense systems.
Included within the requested $28,717,579,000 for Information Technology is $235,700,000,000 for BMMP, Domain Owners and Domain Systems procurement. Additionally, $2,716,737,000 is requested for the development and modernization of new or existing information technology systems. Based on previously discussed concerns, the Committee has adjusted amounts available for BMMP and for information technology development and modernization in the research, development, test and evaluation accounts for fiscal year 2005 to be applied as follows:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, BMMP | -$7,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide, BMMP Domains | -15,000 |
| Procurement, Defense-wide, BMMP Domains Procurement Systems | -30,248 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, IT | -60,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, IT | -29,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, IT | -72,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, BMMP | -45,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, IT | -109,000 |
NAVY CONVERGED ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING
The budget requested $100,000,000 for Navy Converged Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), an increase of $100,000,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $65,000,000, a decrease of $35,000,000.
The Navy Converged Enterprise Resource Planning program is a proposed new start planning to reinvent and standardize Navy business processes for acquisition, financial and logistics operations by converging four existing ERP pilots saving nearly $795,000,000 across the Future Years Defense Plan. While the Committee commends the Navy for this effort, the Committee is concerned with the planned schedule for the program. In 1999, the Navy implemented four separate ERP pilots focused on the management of programs, Warfare Center, maintenance activities and finance obligating over $1,000,000,000 from within the Navy Working Capital Fund and Operation and Maintenance, Navy. The new program proposes to combine the four existing pilots into one program using lessons learned during the last five years with a Milestone C decision planned during the second quarter of fiscal year 2006. This schedule for convergence seems overly aggressive and potentially unobtainable. Accordingly, the Committee has reduced the program as follows:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Operation and Maintenance, Navy, 1A6A | -$7,500 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy | -27,500 |
U.S. ARMY RESERVE COMMAND IT CONSOLIDATION
The Committee recommends an increase of $1,500,000 only for the Army Reserve to achieve a continuity of operations capability for its mission critical information technology systems by replicating mission critical data between Peachtree City, Georgia and San Antonio, Texas.
TITLE IV
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
The fiscal year 2005 Department of Defense research, development, test and evaluation budget request totals $67,772,288,000. The accompanying bill recommends $68,946,512,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of $1,174,224,000 above the fiscal year 2005 budget estimate and is $3,728,628,000 above the total provided in fiscal year 2004. The table below summarizes the budget estimate and the Committee's recommendations.
REPROGRAMMING GUIDANCE FOR ACQUISITION ACCOUNTS
As described elsewhere in this report, the Committee has continuing concerns about DoD practices on the reprogramming of funds. Accordingly, the Committee directs that the following guidelines be applied for the reprogramming of funds provided in this bill. For transfers greater than $20,000,000 for procurement funds, and $10,000,000 for research, development, test and evaluation funds, DoD must follow normal, prior approval reprogramming procedures. The Committee further directs that these thresholds are cumulative. Therefore, if the combined value of transfers into or out of a procurement (P-1) or research and development (R-1) line exceed the identified threshold, the Department of Defense must submit a prior approval reprogramming following normal prior approval procedures. The Department shall also observe the limitation that prior approval reprogrammings are set at either the specific dollar threshold or 20 percent of the procurement or research and development line, whichever is less. In addition, guidelines on the application of prior approval reprogramming procedures for congressional special interest items are established elsewhere in this report.
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (F-35)
The budget included a total request of $4,571,927,000 for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35 program, an increase of $320,183,000 over the 2004 appropriated level. The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $4,367,927,000 for the F-35, a reduction of $204,000,000 from the fiscal year 2005 request and an increase of $116,183,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriated level.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as currently conceived offers significant benefits in war-fighting capability, logistics support, and affordability for the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and the program's international partners. For example, the development program is focused on maintaining commonality of the variants, offering a major opportunity for the Department to reduce the life-cycle costs of its future air forces. In addition, the current estimated cost of the F-35 production unit is substantially less than other aircraft, of critical importance as the Department of Defense must replace large numbers of older aircraft and achieve a much needed recapitalization of its air forces. The Committee believes the stated goal of this program--the development and construction of an affordable next-generation fighter aircraft--is what the Department must deliver.
Concerns about the excessive weight of the aircraft during the initial part of the Systems Development and Design (SDD) phase have been heightened by internal discussions, studies, and congressional inquiries. For example, results presented at the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) indicated an excess of approximately 2,400 pounds greater than the stated weight requirement. This has led to a decision to postpone the Critical Design Review (CDR) for the airframe, with the stated plan to first identify opportunities to reduce weight through trade offs, including a review of performance requirements and the option of re-designing the airframe. The Committee supports these steps, as well as the appointment of an Independent Review Team (IRT) to conduct a thorough review of the F-35 program.
The Committee understands that while a formal report of the IRT findings has not been released, initial findings indicate that the weight of this aircraft, particularly the Short Take Off Vertical-Landing (STOVL) variant, may be greater than previously recognized. Initial findings also suggest that current funding levels for the JSF are insufficient to execute the program as currently configured.
The Committee is concerned about the impact, if any, these new findings may have on program cost, schedule, and ultimately the successful transition to production of all three F-35 variants. Moreover, the Committee notes the timeframe to address potential program changes based on the IRT findings may occur after Congress has finalized consideration of the fiscal year 2005 budget. This is of concern to the Committee because of the potential that the funds appropriated for JSF in fiscal year 2005 may be executed in a manner inconsistent with detail provided in support of the 2005 request.
The Committee believes that should the Department of Defense determine that alterations in stated performance requirements or aircraft design are essential for continuation of this program, it must present such changes and associated alterations in budgetary and schedule requirements to Congress. Therefore, of the total funding provided for the F-35, the Committee directs that $1,357,927,000 may not be obligated or expended until the Department of Defense submits to the congressional defense committees a detailed report on its plan to implement findings of the Independent Review Team (IRT) and the impact this plan will have on the JSF program, schedule, and cost. The Committee directs that the Department provide the Committee a summary of the IRT findings by not later than July 1, 2004, and that the Department provide, by January 15, 2005, a detailed report highlighting all JSF budgetary and programmatic changes from the budget request that will be implemented during fiscal year 2005.
Other adjustments to the budget request are as follows:
An increase of $52,000,000 to the $404,000,000 request for airframe Engineering Activity. This recommendation is based on the Committee's understanding that ongoing and future airframe weight analysis studies and options are not fully accommodated within the current budget request and therefore additional funds are required.
A reduction of $98,000,000 to the $820,000,000 request for the F-135 engine development program. This recommendation is based on the Committee's view that the F-135 engine development program should be re-aligned so that it coincides with the revised aircraft development program based on the budget proposal to add one year to the System Design and Development (SDD) program. The Committee understands that fewer flight test engines than originally planned are required for the flight test program at this point in time.
A reduction of $120,000,000 to the $1,099,000,000 request for airframe Manufacturing, Tooling, and Materials, deferring that funding related to developing a manufacturing process, tooling process, and the purchase of materiel for production-configuration aircraft. This recommendation is based on the Committee's understanding that ongoing and future studies may yield a production-configuration aircraft that is different from the preliminary-design aircraft. Therefore, funding for these activities is requested in advance of need. This recommendation fully funds requirements for the A-1 (Conventional Take Off and Landing) and B-1 (Short Take Off and Vertical Landing) first flight aircraft.
A reduction of $50,000,000 to the overall funding request based on a history of Navy and Air Force reprogramming actions that have continually reduced previously appropriated funds for the JSF program.
Finally, the Committee recommends a $12,000,000 increase to the F-35 program for an initiative, described in the next section of this report, to pursue emerging technologies that will help preserve future growth potential for the F-35 by providing additional weight savings.
PRESERVING GROWTH POTENTIAL FOR THE F-35
Anticipating that the F-35 will remain in the inventory until well into this century, and that its missions will expand over time, the Committee believes the Department must redouble its efforts to examine both short- and long-term alternatives for reducing the weight of the aircraft. An excessive fixation on more traditional options, such as re-design of the airframe and engine, may unnecessarily add significant time and cost to the F-35's development program, as well as the ability to successfully seek product improvements to the aircraft over time.
The Committee believes the Department should pursue alternative technologies which have proven successful in reducing aircraft component weight, particularly in avionics and weapons systems, and integrate these technologies into future upgrades of the F-35. The Committee understands there are several emerging technologies now available for this purpose, which just a few years ago were promising but not sufficiently mature to warrant consideration. These technologies offer significant reductions in weight, power consumption, volume, thermal related issues, and cost while increasing performance and Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF). Several defense programs have adopted these technologies and a few have received the DoD Value Engineering Award or have been selected for exploitation in the newly created DoD CHALLENGE Program.
The Committee believes it necessary to establish, separate from the existing F-35 development contract, an initiative to pursue such alternative technologies. This initiative should focus on developing emerging technologies that produce lightweight, extremely efficient avionics and weapons systems, and then transitioning these technologies into the F-35 program at the appropriate time, potentially as a part of a future block upgrade.
The Committee has provided an additional $12,000,000 to implement this initiative. These funds shall be used by the F-35 program manager to take a `clean sheet' look at these emerging technologies to determine the best opportunity to eliminate weight from the F-35 avionics and weapons system, including mission systems, and demonstrate these technologies through a Systems Integration Laboratory and flight test environment. Furthermore, the program manager shall evaluate the risk and cost of completing the technology effort and determine the appropriate point at which to `cut in' the technology with the F-35 architecture.
The Department shall report back to the Committee no later than January 15, 2005, on its plan to implement this initiative. This plan shall address the specific goals of weight reduction, the initial set of technologies that the Department will pursue, the criteria used to select and then test these technologies, and an initial plan for transitioning such technologies into the F-35 architecture.
F-35 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
The Committee is concerned that the current structure of transitioning the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) program acquisition responsibility contributes to program instability and excessive overhead costs.
The management of the Joint Program Office (JPO) transitions among the Services with each Service having Program Management responsibility at established intervals. Acquisition Executive responsibilities also transition at established intervals between the Navy and the Air Force. The Committee believes these shifts in management and responsibilities, while well-intended, contribute to program delays, instability, duplicative management staff, and increased overhead costs. In addition, this circumstance makes it difficult for both senior DoD officials and Congress to exercise optimal oversight of the F-35 program.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review and revise the management oversight of the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) program by November 15, 2004. The Committee believes DoD should retain the practice of transitioning the JPO management team between Service personnel, but the management responsibilities should not be transitioned between acquisition executives of each Service. The Committee believes management of program acquisition should remain with one Service, and that the U.S. Navy, due to its significant investment in two variants of the F-35, should be assigned all of the acquisition executive oversight responsibilities for the Joint Strike Fighter (F-35) program.
JOINT UNMANNED COMBAT AERIAL SYSTEM (JUCAS)
The budget included a total request of $710,401,000 for the Joint Unmanned Combat Aerial System (JUCAS) program, an increase of $381,652,000 over the 2004 appropriated level. The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $710,401,000, the amount requested, for the JUCAS program. However, the proposed allocation of these funds has been adjusted to emphasize the near-term development and demonstration of unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) for the Air Force and the Navy.
The Committee recommends $449,617,000, an increase of $165,000,000 over the budget request, for the JUCAS Advanced Technology Development and Risk Reduction program (program element 0603400D8Z). These funds are for completion and demonstration of the X-45A technology demonstrator and to continue development and demonstration of the X-45C and the Navy's X-47B demonstrator systems. The Committee believes the Department should aggressively pursue and fully fund the development and demonstration of these technologies to meet the stated requirements of the Air Force and the Navy.
The Committee recommends $260,784,000, a reduction of $162,089,000 from the budget request, for the JUCAS Advanced Component and Prototype Development program (program element 0604400D8Z). These funds support the effort of achieving a joint operational assessment in the 2007-2009 timeframe, and the development of a JUCAS common operating system. The Committee supports the Department's efforts in these areas, but believes a more pressing requirement for the JUCAS program is the development of an affordable weapons system which provides versatile combat capability to augment manned forces.
The Committee recommends no appropriation, a reduction of $2,911,000 from the budget request, for the Air Force support to the Joint Program Office (program element 0207256F).
The Committee directs the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to submit a report to the Committee, within 90 days of enactment of the fiscal year 2005 Defense Appropriations Act, detailing the fiscal year 2005 program and budgetary changes implemented as a result of the Committee's recommendation. The Committee also directs the Department to submit, by July 1, 2004, a copy of the April 2004 memo from Acting Undersecretary of the Department of Defense for Acqusition, Technology and Logistics (AT&L) to the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which addresses issues associated with the JUCAS program.
The Committee supports the recommendations made by the Senate Armed Services Committee, in Senate Report 108-260, to establish an Executive Committee to provide guidance and recommendations to the JUCAS Program Office. The Committee believes this will encourage support for the JUCAS program throughout the Department of Defense.
To ensure the Department has considered all options available with respect to unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) technologies for this mission, the Committee directs DARPA to conduct an analysis of currently available UAVs that could potentially meet the JUCAS requirement. The Committee believes current systems and technology may prove effective in accomplishing aspects of prospective JUCAS missions. Early identification of these programs will present DARPA and the Services with a more robust array of options for pursuing future operations with unmanned aerial systems, while helping DARPA focus its development efforts towards addressing those mission areas which remain unique challenges.
SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS
Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in the project level tables or 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.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $10,363,941,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 9,266,258,000
Committee recommendation 10,220,123,000
Change from budget request +953,865,000
------------------------------------------------
This appropriation finances the research, development, test and evaluation activities of the Department of the Army.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,220,123,000 for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee's recommendation.
FUTURE COMBAT SYSTEM
The fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Future Combat System (FCS) totals $3,198,098,000, including $2,700,455,000 in program element 0604645A, Armored Systems Modernization, and $497,643,000 in 0604647A, Non Line of Sight Cannon (NLOS-C). In addition, the Army budget requests funding for nearly 150 complementary systems necessary for the successful development and fielding of FCS. In total, the funding for this program represents well over one-third of the total Army research and development budget request.
The Committee recommends a total of $2,873,653,000 for fiscal year 2005, a reduction of $324,445,000 from the requested amount. $248,000,000 of this reduction is from program overhead. The Committee notes that the budget request includes both multiple layers of management reserve, as well as over $100,000,000 for the purpose of program withholds and other `taxes' contrary to normal budget practices. The remaining $76,445,000 of the reduction is from termination of the Non Line of Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS). The Committee is aware that NLOS-LS is comprised of three elements including the Loiter Attack Munition (LAM), the Precision Attack Munition (PAM) and a Command Launch Unit (CLU). The Committee directs the Army to cease development of all aspects of this system. With respect to LAM, the Committee is aware that it is essentially an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) with a 30-minute dwell time. Testing thus far has proven unsuccessful, and the Committee notes that other UAV platforms are being developed elsewhere in the FCS program. Concerning PAM, the Committee notes that this system has the same mission profile as the already fielded Guided Multiple Launch Rocket System (GMLRS). The Committee also notes that GMLRS has significantly greater range and payload than PAM as well as comparable accuracy. The Committee has provided additional resources to accelerate development and fielding of the GMLRS-Unitary as described elsewhere in this report.
In the statement of the managers accompanying conference report on the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations Act, the Congress recommended that the Army organize the budget request for both the FCS common elements and platforms to better justify the program. In execution of fiscal year 2004 funding, the Army developed an entirely different funding distribution--one which provided management flexibility, but failed to provide relevant information about financial requirements for FCS along the lines of the program's basic structure. In addition, the Committee recently learned that the Army and the FCS Lead System Integrator (LSI) had planned to make major revisions to funding levels within the Army-proposed structure prior to congressional action on the fiscal year 2005 budget request. In some cases, these changes were on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars, thus calling into question the validity of the materials submitted in support of the fiscal year 2005 budget request.
As expressed in fiscal year 2004, the Committee remains concerned that this program lacks adequate justification to warrant the requested funding. Accordingly, the Committee directs that the Army adhere to the following funding structure in execution of appropriations provided for fiscal year 2005, and in preparation of the fiscal year 2006 budget request.
| 0604645A: Armored Systems Modernization | $2,376,010,000 |
| --System of Systems (SoS) Program Management, Engineering, Software, Test and Evaluation | 1,572,610,000 |
| --Sustainment | 53,600,000 |
| --UAV Reconnaissance & Sensors | 154,200,000 |
| --Unmanned Ground Vehicles | 137,100,000 |
| --Non Line of Sight Launch System (NLOS-LS) | 0 |
| --Manned Ground Vehicles | 429,000,000 |
| --Unattended Ground Sensors | 29,500,000 |
| 0604647A: Non Line of Sight Cannon (NLOS-C) | 497,643,000 |
| Total: | 2,873,653,000 |
The projects identified within program element 0604645A, Armored Systems Modernization, are congressional special interest items for the purpose of prior approval reprogrammings as discussed elsewhere in this report. In addition, the Committee reminds the Army that the cumulative value of transfers into or out of these program elements are subject to the same reprogramming guidelines applicable to all other Research, Development, Test and Evaluation funded programs.
NON LINE OF SIGHT CANNON (NLOS-C)
The Committee recognizes that NLOS-C is an integral part of the Future Combat System (FCS) and is being managed on the same development timelines as FCS. While this timeline is potentially subject to change at either the Milestone B update scheduled for November 2004, or the Preliminary Design Review scheduled for April 2005, the Committee is aware that the current plan for FSC fielding, to include NLOS-C, is fiscal year 2010. Therefore, as explained in section 8100 of the Committee bill, the Committee expects that the Army will program and budget to field NLOS-C in fiscal year 2010. To this end, the Committee directs that the Army field NLOS-C in compliance with the definition of weapon system fielding as expressed in Army Regulation 700-142.
As noted elsewhere in the report, the budget request includes $497,643,000 for NLOS-C. The Committee recognizes that $93,686,000 of the funding requested in program element 0604647A is requested explicitly for the purpose of developing unique mission equipment. Accordingly, the Committee directs that this amount is a congressional special interest item for the purpose of prior approval reprogrammings.
THEATER SUPPORT VESSEL
The budget requested $89,151,000 for the Logistics and Engineering Equipment program, an increase of $763,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $165,051,000, an increase of $75,900,000 above the request. Of the amount requested within this program element, the Army includes $65,380,000 for the Theater Support Vessel (TSV) program. Fiscal year 2005 is the first year in which funding has been requested to construct such a vessel. The Committee notes that the total cost of this vessel is approximately $141,600,000, and the Army had planned to incrementally fund its construction over the course of fiscal years 2005 through 2007. The Committee firmly believes that the Department should fully fund major investment items and accordingly has added sufficient funding in the fiscal year 2005 bill to complete this vessel.
In addition to concerns about incremental funding, the Committee is also concerned about the extent to which the Army's TSV concept has been rationalized with Navy Sealift and Afloat Basing programs, as well as Marine Corps sealift requirements. Given the Navy and Marine Corps plans in this regard, the Committee believes that the Army must ensure that the design and construction of the TSV is compatible with Navy plans and programs. Accordingly, the Committee directs that none of the funds provided for the TSV program may be obligated or expended until the Secretaries of the Army and Navy jointly provide a report to the congressional defense committees addressing the following issues:
- --The Army requirements for the Theater Support Vessel (TSV) including number of vessels to be constructed;
- --The relationship between the Navy Afloat Basing concept and TSV requirements including measures to ensure that these programs are compatible;
- --The relationship between Army and Marine Corps requirements for intra-theater sealift; and,
- --The plans for funding the TSV program including amounts included in the Future Years Defense Program, and a summary of DoD deliberations on whether to fund this program through the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF) or by other means in future budget submissions.
JOINT TACTICAL RADIO SYSTEM (JTRS)
The Committee recognizes that the Future Combat System (FCS) is on a very aggressive development timeline, and that this timeline is dependent upon successful development of nearly 150 complementary systems. Among the most critical of these complementary systems is the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) which will provide a foundation for the C4ISR network required to link soldiers, platforms, and sensors. The Committee has concerns about the maturity of JTRS, especially about JTRS Cluster 5 which is necessary for manportable applications, and applications requiring small form/fit radios. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Army to provide a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than February 1, 2005, listing specific FCS elements that require JTRS Cluster 5 including, but not limited to, manportable systems, and systems requiring small form/fit radios such as unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned ground vehicles and unattended sensors. The report shall provide a detailed description of the JTRS Cluster 5 development timeline and explain how this timeline fits into the FCS development timeline. The report shall also explain the DoD mitigation strategy in the event that JTRS Cluster 5 development fails to keep pace with the FSC program schedule.
PATRIOT PAC-3/MEDIUM EXTENDED AIR DEFENSE SYSTEM (MEADS)
In April 2003, the Department of Defense Acquisition Executive signed an Acquisition Decision Memorandum (ADM) directing the merger of the Patriot PAC-3 and MEADS programs, and assigned management, programming and budgeting responsibilities to the Army. In the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations Act, the Congress expressed its support for this course of action and directed the Army to submit a plan for combining these programs. In the fiscal year 2005 budget request, the programs remain separate entities. While management may reside within a single Army major command, the budget request is presented as though nothing about the programs had changed. Further, it is not clear whether the amounts requested for the PAC-3/MEADS program have been rationalized to improve either funding or programmatic efficiencies. While the Committee still supports the merged PAC-3/MEADS program under Army cognizance, the Committee believes there have been unnecessary delays in realigning program funding. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to develop a plan to merge these programs as directed by the April 2003 ADM, and provide a report to the congressional defense committees on this plan not later than February 15, 2005.
LAND WARRIOR AND FUTURE FORCE WARRIOR
In the report accompanying the House version of the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations bill, the Committee expressed concern about the Land Warrior program with respect to both its failure in developmental testing, and the instability in its design. In the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations Act, the conferees expressed a similar view reducing overall funding for this program and providing funding in research and development rather than in procurement. In fiscal year 2005, the Committee notes that the Army proposes funding for two conceptually similar programs including Land Warrior and Future Force Warrior. The budget request includes a total of $183,127,000. The Committee believes the Army should combine the resources of these programs to better focus program requirements and development efforts. Accordingly, the Committee recommends reducing overall funding by $20,000,000 below the budget request, and directs the Army to merge the funding and management of the Land Warrior and Future Force Warrior programs.
GUIDED MULTIPLE LAUNCH ROCKET SYSTEM (GMLRS)--UNITARY
The budget requested $97,422,000 for the Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Product Improvement program, an increase of $12,853,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $112,422,000, an increase of $15,000,000. The Committee has provided an additional $15,000,000 to accelerate development and fielding of the GMLRS-Unitary munition to U.S. forces in high-risk locations by fiscal year 2006. The Committee directs that this amount is a congressional special interest item for the purpose of prior approval reprogrammings. Based on the present demonstrated capability, the Committee believes the Army should field out of the existing GMLRS-DPICM production line a limited quantity of not less than 450 GMLRS-Unitary munitions (consisting of a 200 lb. warhead and multi-mode fuze). This limited capability would, if fielded as described above, place in the hands of both Army and Marine Corps commanders, nearly two years earlier than planned, a precision, lethal, all-weather munition that reduces collateral damage and unexploded ordnance, and is capable of engaging targets of opportunity in both urban and open terrain in a timely manner.
NUCLEAR MONITORING
In the fiscal year 2005 budget request, the Army includes funding for the Nuclear Arms Control Technology--Sensor Network Monitoring project in the same program element as the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS). In the Committee's view, this project represents a distinct entity for which the budget request should be presented separately; not buried in a larger, unrelated program. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to establish an appropriate account to program and budget for this program beginning with the fiscal year 2006 budget request, and report to the congressional defense committees not later than March 1, 2005 on these plans.
DEFENSE LANGUAGE INSTITUTE
In the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations Act, the conferees recommended the Department of Defense establish a separate program element code within Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, and begin funding research and development activities related to the Defense Language Institute. The Committee notes that neither of these actions are reflected in the Army budget request for fiscal year 2005. To initiate this work, the Committee recommends an increase of $2,500,000 above the budget request, and directs that the Army establish a separate program element to program and budget for this activity.
ARIZONA TELEMEDICINE PROGRAM
The Committee is encouraged by the accomplishments of the Arizona Telemedicine Program and its multidisciplinary clinical program in conjunction with the Army, the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and Health and Human Services. DoD is strongly encouraged to continue its work with this program.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, NAVY
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $15,146,383,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 16,346,391,000
Committee recommendation 16,532,361,000
Change from budget request +185,970,000
------------------------------------------------
The appropriation provides funds for the research development, test and evaluation activities of the Department of the Navy, which includes the Marine Corps.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $16,532,361,000 for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee recommendation.
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 330,000 DoD volunteers, and provides more marrow donors per week than any other donor center in the Nation. Over 1,500 service members and other DoD volunteers from this donor center have provided marrow to save the lives of patients. 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 over 5,300,000 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 2005 Defense Appropriations Act.
NAVAL HOSPITAL GREAT LAKES AND NORTH CHICAGO VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER
The Committee is pleased with the progress made in developing a comprehensive resource sharing initiative between Naval Hospital Great Lakes and the North Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The Committee continues to expect a proposal for design planning and construction of a new joint ambulatory care center in fiscal year 2006. The Committee also expects the design proposal to include a physical connection between the new joint ambulatory care center and the existing VA Medical Center.
DD(X)
The budget included a request of $1,431,585,000 for the next generation guided missile destroyer, the DD(X) program, an increase of $367,198,000 over the 2004 appropriated level. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,182,785,000 for the DD(X), a reduction of $248,800,000 from the fiscal year 2005 request and an increase of $118,398,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriated level.
The Committee believes the DD(X) development schedule does not provide sufficient time for the proper maturation and testing of transformational technologies prior to initiating construction of the first ship, presenting a potential `rush to failure.' According to the Navy's schedule, detailed design drawings necessary for the construction of the ship will not be completed prior to the award of this initial construction contract. It is the Committee's view that it is not prudent to proceed with the construction of a ship without first completing detailed design drawings and concluding basic testing of the technologies that will be integrated into the ship. According to the General Accounting Office, none of the twelve critical technologies for DD(X) will reach maturity prior to entering product development. Further, based on the Navy's schedule, land-based testing of two critical technologies will not be complete prior to the conclusion of the Critical Design Review (CDR).
Accordingly, the Committee recommends eliminating the $221,000,000 requested for the first increment for construction of the first DD(X) ship. This recommendation is based on the Committee's judgment that the highly concurrent, extremely aggressive DD(X) development program does not support a fully informed acquisition decision in fiscal year 2005, making a request for construction funding premature. The Committee believes that additional time for development prior to the construction contract award will provide time for the program to stabilize and for the maturation and testing of critical technologies.
The Committee also recommends a reduction of $43,800,000 from the $191,400,000 requested for Critical Design Review (CDR), scheduled for the last quarter of fiscal year 2005. This recommendation reflects the Committee's conclusion that the CDR schedule must slip in order to complete land-based testing of critical components of the leading technologies prior to completion of CDR. The Committee directs the Navy to extend the time frame for the CDR to ensure that land-based testing has been completed on all twelve DD(X) critical technologies prior to the completion of CDR.
Finally, the Committee recommends an increase of $13,000,000 only for the completion of the DD(X) alternative engine construction and its delivery to the Navy for testing, an increase of $1,000,000 for Floating Area Networks, and an increase of $2,000,000 for smart ships that anticipate and manage.
LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP (LCS)
The budget included a request of $352,089,000 for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program, an increase of $187,018,000 over the 2004 appropriated level. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $409,089,000 for the LCS, an increase of $57,000,000 over the fiscal year 2005 request and an increase of $241,018,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriated level.
The Committee remains impressed with the Navy's initiative in pursuing the LCS program, which promises to address significant operational gaps in Navy capability while presaging new ways of developing and fielding technology to the Fleet. The Committee has agreed to the Navy's request to fund construction of LCS in the research, development, test and evaluation appropriation, recognizing the Navy's desire to more readily accommodate potential changes to the program. The Committee approves this request because it views the Flight 0 ship as a prototype of a completely new class of ship. Once the Navy has completed and tested the prototype, it should proceed with the preliminary design and construction of the first Flight 1 ship.
The Committee recommendation includes increasing the budget request for the construction of the first Flight 0 LCS by $107,000,000, fully funding this construction effort at $214,000,000. The fiscal year 2005 request included only $107,000,000 for the first increment of the LCS construction. Budget documentation indicates the Navy plans to request an additional $107,000,000 for the second and final increment for the first ship in fiscal year 2006. The Committee strongly opposes incremental funding of ship construction and therefore has provided a total of $214,000,000 in 2005 for construction of the first LCS, fully funding the construction requirement in one year.
The Committee recommendation reduces the LCS request by $50,000,000 for Phase I pre-design/concept studies for the development of a request for proposal for the preliminary design of the Flight 1 ship. This recommendation is based on the Committee's judgment that the preliminary design of the first Flight 1 ship should commence after test and evaluation of the Flight 0 prototype to avoid potential costly re-design efforts.
AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHIP--LHA REPLACEMENT
The budget includes a request of $44,180,000 for the amphibious assault ship (LHA) replacement, the LHA(R) program. The Committee recommends no appropriation for the LHA(R), a reduction of $44,180,000 from the fiscal year 2005 request based on the uncertainty of proceeding with the LHA(R) program of record.
In its fiscal year 2004 recommendations, the Committee eliminated funding for LHA(R), only to be persuaded by the Navy that the program of record was achievable. However, after submission of the fiscal year 2005 budget, the Navy determined that the LHA(R) program required a major restructure. Owing to the overall cost of the LHA(R) program, coupled with relatively little gain in capability, the Navy now apparently advocates an alternative option based on modifications to the LHD-8 configuration. Funding and justification for this option has not been included in the President's request, nor has a budget amendment been submitted which formally changes the program of record and the amounts requested for fiscal year 2005. Moreover, the Navy's new plan presumes designing a ship that would alter the amphibious nature of the LHA, and then, proposing an incrementally funded construction program. It is unclear at this time whether this option would be the design and construction of the first in a new class of ships, or a single ship for this mission.
While the Committee supports Marine Corps requirements for a new amphibious assault ship, the Committee strongly believes that more time is required to fully assess the appropriate way ahead, including a thorough review of requirements and the likely availability of funding. This review should emphasize fielding operational capability--not just the development and construction of a new ship--consistent with projected warfighting requirements and the availability of budget resources.
Should the Navy and Marine Corps determine that the re-structure of the LHA(R) program is the way ahead for the future, a fully funded program for design and construction of a ship to meet this requirement should be included in a future budget request. The Committee will not support a proposal which suggests that construction be incrementally funded.
The Committee notes that Congress provided $64,100,000 in fiscal year 2004 for the LHA(R) program of record, that will potentially be replaced by the alternative option of a modified LHD-8. Since these funds remain available through fiscal year 2005, the Navy may use the funds appropriated in fiscal year 2004 for the LHA(R) for costs associated with the development and design of an alternative option.
ADVANCED HYBRID STORED ENERGY DEVICES
The Committee recommends an additional $3,000,000 for the development and demonstration of advanced rechargeable hybrid stored energy devices using the MDA SBIR/STTR developed nano-composite carbide, nitride and metal alloy materials technologies. These materials are considerably lighter, more capable, safer, and more affordable than current state-of-the-art thermal batteries used on most naval munitions. Application of these technologies could significantly increase the operational capability and reduce the life cycle costs of all current and future naval air weaponry.
BLAST RESISTANT ANECHOIC SPRAYABLE ELASTOMERIC COATINGS
The Committee recommends an additional $2,000,000 to develop new blast resistant materials for coating ship hulls. The Committee supports the Navy's recommendation to improve platform protection for naval vessels by improving the capability to suppress explosions and control damage through the development of a liquid spray applied unique material with blast mitigation properties.
CUTTING TOOLS FOR AEROSPACE MATERIALS
The Committee recommends an additional $5,000,000 for a multi-phased program to develop, produce, and test several new monolithic and composite ceramic materials for aerospace fabrication. The Committee believes this will help the Department address the manufacturing difficulties and machining problems of composite materials for aerospace platforms.
LOW-POWER MEGA PERFORMANCE UAV PROCESSING ENGINES
The Committee recommends an additional $4,000,000 for an advanced processor suitable for the mission requirements of unmanned aerial vehicles. Specifically, the Committee believes that mission requirements require the need to address the overwhelming data throughput requirements of UAV and the need to enhance on-board sensor processing capabilities. Recent technology advances in sensor processing platforms include advances in multi-threaded, massively parallel processing systems on chips, enabling low-power, affordable commercial-off-the-shelf engines to provide a computing platform for advanced processing requirements.
CENTER FOR CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION
The Committee recommends an additional $8,000,000 for the Center for Critical Infrastructure Protection (CCIP) to develop for the Unified Combatant Commands, particularly the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), innovative technology solutions and methodologies for protecting critical infrastructure including the sustained operation of our nation's ports, protection of our merchant shipping systems, and assured access to the national industrial base.
The CCIP will investigate mission critical elements of protection from risk assessment, surveillance and communications techniques, and security technologies addressing the unique threats associated with critical infrastructure protection. The technologies developed by CCIP will create innovative security solutions such as sensors, intelligent cargo containers, visualization, and other situational awareness mechanisms for securing the nation's critical infrastructure that supports uninterrupted joint force protection.
HIGH PERFORMANCE SANDWICH PANEL CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES
The Committee recommends an additional $5,000,000 to promote the development and qualification of advanced steel sandwich panels for the construction of U.S. Navy ships. The Committee supports the Navy's effort to design, develop, and implement high-performance steel sandwich panel construction techniques in order to improve quality and performance and to lower procurement costs for U.S. Navy ships.
PROJECT M
The Committee recommends an additional $2,500,000 for Project M, a shock and vibration mitigation technology program. The Committee believes that this shock and vibration mitigation technique could transition to shock mitigating systems aboard high-speed ships and crafts, including those employed by Navy Special Warfare forces. The additional funds will enable the Navy to complete the producibility engineering of the new shock mitigation system, address interface requirements and investigate technology applications to naval aviation and other platforms.
INTELLIGENT SYSTEMS CONSORTIUM (ISC) INITIATIVE
The Committee recommends an additional $3,000,000 only to accelerate the Intelligent Systems Consortium (ISC) Initiative. The Committee understands that the Navy has identified a requirement to focus on the development of intelligent shipboard electro-mechanical devices in support of the all-electric ship concept, reduced manning requirements, and future sea-basing requirements. The ISC Initiative is a consortium of Navy, academic, Federal laboratory, and industry partners formed to pursue development of product concepts and design to meet these naval requirements.
CASCADING VEHICLES CONCEPT FOR ADVANCED LITTORAL OPERATIONS
The Committee recommends an additional $5,000,000 to initiate the Cascading Vehicles Concept for Advanced Littoral Operations from the SEALION medium-range maritime platform. The Committee believes that this initiative is not an alternative to the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) envisioned by the Navy to conduct littoral operations, but rather a supporting technology demonstration initiative.
REVIEW OF MULTIPLE MISSILE SYSTEMS
The Committee believes that the Navy should conduct a review of its requirement for maintaining multiple attack missile systems. For example, it is unclear to the Committee why the Navy is developing and acquiring both the Tactical Tomahawk and the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), both of which have essentially the same stated mission and capability for nearly identical cost.
Furthermore, the Committee is concerned that the Navy has multiple `improvement' plans underway for its varied inventory of attack missile systems. It appears that a program barely completes testing and evaluation before an improvement is already in development. The Committee is concerned that there is a potential for too much time and money to be spent on developing new technologies, delaying the introduction of the missile to the inventory in sufficient numbers.
This situation has led to an inventory of smaller numbers of one kind of missile per mission rather than a large inventory of missiles for multiple missions. The Navy should consider a `neck down' strategy to reduce the number of different missiles and concentrate resources on increasing the overall number of missiles in the inventory.
DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITIES FUND (DTOF)
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 to establish a Disruptive Technology Opportunities Fund (DTOF). This Fund, managed by the N6/N7 organization, will support a Navy partnership with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) on a portfolio of high-risk, high-payoff projects to address pressing naval challenges.
The Committee is supportive of this concept because the projects identified for advancement through the DTOF are those designed to transition quickly to meet Fleet requirements. The Committee notes there are a significant number of ongoing science and laboratory projects that support several institutional organizations, but do not support requirements identified by the Fleet and rarely, if ever, transition to operational use. The Committee believes that research and development projects must be able to support current or future operational requirements of the Navy and must transition to operational use.
The Committee directs the Navy to submit by January 15, 2005, a report on the projects to be considered under the DTOF and the fiscal year 2006 and future budgetary requirements of this initiative. Future reports of projects should be submitted with the budget request, and should identify those projects that have transitioned to operational use in the Fleet or have been abandoned if not able to transition.
SUPPLY CHAIN PRACTICES FOR AFFORDABLE NAVY SYSTEMS (SPANS)
The Committee recommends an additional $2,000,000 for the development and adoption of industrial and logistical best business and management practices among government and industry in support of Department of Defense systems. The Committee is aware of the significantly higher costs for supply chain management in the Defense sector than that for commercial electronics companies, and recognizes the significant savings that the SPANS program has already demonstrated by gains in efficiency and cycle time reduction. The Committee encourages the Office of Naval Research to fully fund this program in future budget requests.
CENTER FOR COASTLINE SECURITY TECHNOLOGY
The Committee recommends an additional $5,000,000 to continue research on tactical unmanned aerial vehicles at the Center for Coastline Security Technology. These funds will be used by the Center to continue research, simulation, and evaluation of coastal defense and marine domain awareness equipment, sensors, and components.
JOINT OPERATIONAL TEST BED (JOTBS)
The Committee recommends an additional $7,000,000 only for the Joint Operational Test Bed (JOTBS). Of these funds, $1,500,000 is to ensure Predator ground control viability, $2,000,000 is to enhance the JOTBS Joint Mission Support Module, and $3,500,000 is to lease (annually) or procure UAV suites for experimentation. JOTBS is a Congressional interest item. Funds may not be moved into or out of this program without prior Congressional approval.
NANO-IMPRINT AT MANUFACTURING SCALE (NIMS)
The Committee recommends an additional $4,000,000 for the development of a Nano-Imprint at Manufacturing Scale (NIMS) tool.
The Committee is concerned that this nation faces shrinking advantages across all technology areas due to the rapid decline of the U.S. based semiconductor industry and the movement of intellectual property and industrial capability to foreign nations. In addition, the United States is losing the capability to conduct research and development for next generation lithography machines to produce integrated circuits used in Defense applications.
Nano-lithography is one of the key technologies with the potential to revitalize the domestic semiconductor industry. The additional funds provided by the Committee will advance the development of Nano-Lithography technology to enable the Department of Defense to build ultra-high speed circuits critical to the development of smart weapon systems.
COMPOSITE CERAMIC UNMANNED UNDERWATER VEHICLE
The Committee supports the initiative to develop high-performance, low cost, modular UUVs using advanced composite technology, ceramic component technology, and water-soluble tooling. The Committee believes the Navy should pursue this technology and include funding in future requests for applied research on composite ceramic UUVs.
AH-1Y/UH-1Z TAILBOOM
The budget requested $90,389,000 for the H-1 Upgrade program, an increase of $1,600,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $132,389,000, an increase of $42,000,000 over the fiscal year 2005 request. The Committee understands that the Marine Corps has identified a technical issue in the current design of these aircraft which involves the venting of engine exhaust onto the tailboom. The Committee further understands that an additional $12,000,000 is required for the engineering and tooling necessary to resolve this problem, and an additional $30,000,000 is required for testing. Accordingly, the Committee recommends an increase of $42,000,000 for this program.
CV-22 OSPREY
The budget requested $304,164,000 for the V-22 Osprey flight test program, a reduction of $102,978,000 below the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $253,164,000, a reduction of $51,000,000 from the fiscal year 2005 request. The Committee is aware that the test flight schedule for the CV-22 variant of the Osprey has experienced a delay of approximately six months. This delay is technical in nature having to do with the intensity of inspections and maintenance that accompany V-22 flight testing, and a lack of suitable environmental conditions for test flights, among other things. As a result of this delay, the Committee recommends a reduction of $51,000,000 from the budget request for the V-22 test flight program. The Committee also recognizes the delayed test events will have to be rescheduled, and associated costs must be supported in future budget requests. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than February 1, 2005, indicating revisions to the test flight schedule to compensate for this delay, and indicating how this delay will be funded over the Future Years Defense Program.
VXX HELICOPTER PROGRAM
The budget requested $777,398,000 for the VXX Executive Helicopter Development program, an increase of $579,967,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $557,398,000, a reduction of $220,000,000 from the fiscal year 2005 request. The Committee understands that the Department of Defense has deferred selection of the contractor team that will produce this aircraft because of the immaturity of the mission equipment to be incorporated into the aircraft.
NAVY CONVERGED ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING
The budget requested $100,000,000 for Navy Converged Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), an increase of $100,000,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $65,000,000, a reduction of $35,000,000 from the fiscal year 2005 request. Based on concerns discussed in the Information Technology section of this report, the Committee has adjusted amounts available for ERP to be applied as follows:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Operation and Maintenance, Navy, 1A6A | -$7,500 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy | -27,500 |
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, AIR FORCE
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $20,500,984,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 21,114,667,000
Committee recommendation 21,033,622,000
Change from budget request -81,045,000
------------------------------------------------
This appropriation finances the research, development, test and evaluation activities of the Department of the Air Force.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $21,033,622,000 for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee's recommendation.
SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH
The Air Force requested $508,448,000 for the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) High Program, a decrease of $108,781,000 below the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $599,448,000, an increase of $91,000,000 above the budget request. The Committee notes this adjustment was requested by the Air Force to address new cost growth to the SBIRS High program.
The Committee is deeply disappointed with the development of the SBIRS High program. This program has been restructured numerous times, most recently 2 years ago following a Nunn-McCurdy cost breach. The Committee understands new cost estimates are triggering another round of Nunn-McCurdy notifications. The Committee is dismayed with the inability of the Air Force and contractor team to execute this program effectively. The Committee understands that the Office of Secretary of Defense is actively analyzing program alternatives. The Committee encourages this analysis and directs submission of the results to the congressional defense committees upon completion.
SPACE BASED RADAR
The Air Force requested $327,732,000 for the Space Based Radar program. The Committee recommends $75,000,000, a reduction of $252,732,000, and directs that the Air Force fundamentally restructure the program to meet the concerns addressed below.
The Space Based Radar (SBR) program is intended to provide near continuous, global radar imagery and surface moving target indication (SMTI) as well as high resolution terrain information. Advocates describe the program as a key contributor to achieving `global persistent surveillance'. Though the pursuit of persistent surveillance is a noble goal, the Committee believes the Space Based Radar program as currently structured:
- --Is neither affordable nor likely to produce the results claimed by its advocates, within any reasonable definition of cost, technical challenge, or risk.
- --Would consume a disproportionate share of resources from within an already highly stressed DoD space and surveillance budget;
- --And finally, is simply a less-pressing priority than many other near-and mid-term needs confronting the Department of Defense.
SBR Cost.--Regarding cost, recent independent cost estimates by the OSD Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG) state that the acquisition and 12-year operations cost of the current SBR program of record--a 9 satellite constellation--would cost $34 billion in constant fiscal year 2004 dollars. This amount is roughly equal to the life cycle cost of virtually all other Air Force satellite programs combined, including Advanced EHF, Wideband Gapfiller, GPS, NPOESS, and SBIRS High. Moreover, there are many reasons to believe this estimate significantly understates prospective SBR costs.
First, this is a `50 percentile' estimate, conducted prior to the concept definition phase. Historically, actual program costs increase from this point, sometimes dramatically, as requirements and technical issues become clearer with time. As a point of comparison, cost estimates for the Space Based Infrared System High (SBIRS High) program have increased some 450 percent from a similar stage in its development.
The Committee further notes the Air Force considers 9 satellites in low earth orbit to be less than half the number required to provide near continuous global moving target indication. The CAIG was not asked to estimate the cost of an objective SBR constellation of 21-24 satellites, but the cost of such a constellation could exceed $60 billion based on the current understanding of program requirements and technology.
Alternative SBR configurations offer little prospect of mitigating such costs. For example, in the hope that fewer satellites will translate to lower costs, some concepts suggest putting fewer (though significantly larger) satellites in Medium Earth Orbit (MEO). While this approach may have some operational advantages, it apparently does not reduce costs, as the recently completed Air Force Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) estimates that a full MEO constellation would cost about 40 percent more than a 24 satellite LEO constellation.
The Committee is also concerned about the cost and operational magnitude of the infrastructure needed to support the SBR program. For example, just three to four SBR satellites, working at peak load, would consume bandwidth equal to the entire capacity of the yet-to-be-developed Transformational Communications Satellite system. Likewise, SBR poses daunting challenges for any supporting ground infrastructure--always a significant cost driver for space programs. For example, it is widely accepted that SBR will generate far too much data for traditional human exploitation. Instead, the success of the program depends on significant advances in artificial intelligence, a field with a spotty track record at best.
SBR Operational Capability.--Regarding system capability, the Committee harbors additional concerns about the performance of an SBR constellation, particularly with regard to tracking moving targets. The Committee has consistently maintained that the baseline 9 satellite constellation, as well as more robust alternatives, would be unable to track vehicles effectively because of significant coverage gaps.
The Committee's position has been largely validated by the Air Force's SBR Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). Though AoA briefing charts attributed some limited tracking to a 9 satellite system, the Air Force later admitted this tracking was provided completely by airborne assets. More disturbing, even a full 21 satellite constellation loses track on most high value targets in just minutes. Further, the Air Force analysis did not take into account adversary use of even simple denial and deception techniques.
Another DoD analysis suggests that even the meager performance identified in the AoA is overly optimistic. This independent analysis indicates a 24 satellite system would provide only 55 percent coverage when terrain and relative vehicle speeds are considered--and that between 96 and 150 satellites would be required in low earth orbit to provide continuous coverage.
Further, the Committee is concerned about the effectiveness of SBR in targeting many environments. For example, SBR is not well suited for moving indication in urban areas, nor can it image under sheds, in caves, in underground facilities, or under heavy foliage. The system will have limitations in mountainous terrain, due to obstructed views from various satellite look angles. In short, SBR provides limited capability in the very environments that adversaries are using today, and will likely continue to use, to hide activities from U.S. surveillance.
Committee Views and Recommendations- In summary, in and of itself the SBR development program is fraught with enough uncertainties to call into question its viability. Indeed, even under the Administration's own plans the SBR program of record is underfunded in the current Future Year Defense Program by $2 billion, a shortfall resulting from the Department's unwillingness to fully fund this program. The Committee sees little prospect of this changing in light of the other fiscal challenges confronting the Department. These include the well-documented `procurement bow-wave'; this Administration's emphasis on missile defense and other transformational programs; and now, and most importantly, the as-yet-unbudgeted future manpower, operational, and equipment recapitalization requirements stemming from operations in Iraq and the Global War on Terrorism. The Committee concludes that against these demands, SBR simply cannot be afforded budget priority.
Without a new approach, the Committee sees little future for the Space Based Radar program. Accordingly, the Committee recommends $75,000,000, a reduction to the request of $252,732,000. These funds are provided to redirect the Air Force's development efforts towards technologies and concepts that would lead to program costs far lower than currently conceived. The focus should be on seeking breakthroughs that fundamentally change the cost-benefit equation for a space based radar system.
E-10A MULTI-MISSION COMMAND AND CONTROL AIRCRAFT
The budget requested $538,860,000 for the E-10A Multi-sensor Command and Control Aircraft program, an increase of $178,000,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $458,860,000, a reduction of $80,000,000 below the request.
The Committee is concerned about the proposed level of funding growth in the E-10A program in light of recent developments that call into question any relationship between the amounts in the request and the program as it currently stands. At the Defense Acquisition Board meeting for this program in December 2003, a decision was made to delay Milestone B by one year, from July 2004 to July 2005. The Milestone B decision is the point at which the Air Force is to confirm that the MR-RTIP radar can be integrated with the 767 aircraft, so that the program may proceed with that platform. The reasoning for this delay was to allow the completion of ongoing studies into the cruise missile threat and several Ground Moving Target Indicator air and space tradeoff studies. Due to the Milestone B delay, the Air Force has had to delay delivery of the test bed aircraft for modifications by six months.
These actions have forced a restructuring of the program after the budget was submitted in February. Since then, the Air Force has directed the start of pre-System Design and Development (SDD) program re-planning activities, issued new objectives for an engineering change proposal (ECP), and stated the need for this ECP to comply with the new `program adjustments to execute a new technical baseline.'
Despite these changes, the Air Force's guidance directs the contractor to now assume a `robust Initial Design Review' schedule to avoid delaying the Final Design Review in 2006 or the initial operational capability date of 2013. This change in the program results in a greatly condensed time between initial and final design review, significantly increasing risk to the program. Experience shows that it is extremely difficult to recover schedule in a development program. The Committee sees no basis for such optimistic assumptions, especially since efforts to host the radar on the 767 aircraft involves incorporating open systems architecture and interfaces which have yet to be designed.
The Committee believes the Air Force must be more realistic and less optimistic in its restructuring of this program. The one-year delay in Milestone B and the delay of the test bed aircraft delivery should be appropriately accounted for in the schedule, not ignored. For these reasons, the Committee has reduced the request by $80,000,000 to realign the program with a more responsible schedule.
BOMBER DEVELOPMENT
The request included no funding for a future bomber development program. The Committee recommends $50,000,000 for this purpose.
Earlier this year, the Air Force established a program office and an integrated planning team to begin reviewing technologies available to improve Air Force global strike (GS) and global persistent attack capabilities (GPA). Further, in an industry-wide `Request For Information' (RFI), the Air Force solicited input from industry regarding the need for updated GS/GPA capabilities and methods for meeting new capability requirements. The Air Force RFI notes that, in meeting any new requirements, `proposed capabilities may be comprised of currently available/emerging products, modified current products, Non-developmental Items and Government Furnished Equipment. A new or modernized bomber aircraft may satisfy the proposed capability.'
The Committee is encouraged that the Air Force is considering a variety of options, including the development of a new weapon system or upgrading existing legacy platforms, such as the B-2 bomber, with increased capabilities. Thus, the Committee strongly urges the Secretary of the Air Force to give full and fair consideration to all options mentioned above. Also, the Committee directs that the Secretary of the Air Force provide notification to the congressional defense committees at least 30 days prior to the obligation of any funds provided under this heading.
Given that the timeline for a bomber development decision will not occur until late in fiscal year 2005, and that significant amounts of funding provided in the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations Act have not yet been obligated, the Committee is restrained from providing funds in an amount greater than the additional $50,000,000 appropriated for this effort. Nonetheless, the Committee fully expects the Department of Defense to provide robust funding for the future bomber development program in its fiscal year 2006 budget request and beyond.
AIRBORNE ELECTRONIC ATTACK
The budget requested $138,393,000 for Electronic Warfare Development, an increase of $41,389,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $110,893,000, a reduction of $27,500,000 below the request.
Of the funds requested in fiscal year 2005, $57,500,000 was planned for development of a new stand-off jamming pod capability for the B-52. The Committee notes that on March 19, 2003, during the Air Force posture hearing before the Committee, the Secretary of the Air Force, in explaining the program he envisioned, stated `[w]e would use the same equipment the Navy would, so we would not be developing anything new'. Based on his statement, the Committee was surprised by the fiscal year 2005 budget justifications showing a new start development program totaling over $733,000,000 in 5 years.
The Committee would note there are several tested and fielded technologies that could fulfill this requirement much more affordably and quicker than the Air Force program of record. Accordingly, the Committee has provided $30,000,000 of the request for engineering and architecture development efforts, receiver and jammer technology studies, and for development and refinement of requirements and CONOPS. The Committee denies funding for receiver and jammer technology development. The Committee holds the Secretary to his word, and believes the Air Force should take a hard look at available technologies for integration into the B-52 before proceeding with development of a costly new system.
BOMBER TACTICAL DATA LINKS
The budget requested $120,256,000 for Bomber Tactical Data Link development, an increase of $107,297,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $81,256,000, a reduction of $39,000,000 below the request.
Of the funds requested, $68,200,000 is for continuing development of B-1B Link 16 integration, a program begun in fiscal year 2004 with $12,800,000 in appropriations. The remaining $52,000,000 of the request would begin development of a similar capability in the B-52. While supportive of providing this capability for B-52 aircraft, the Committee believes that given the historical level of funding needed to begin development for the B-1B, the request is excessive. The Committee has provided sufficient resources within this appropriation for the Air Force to begin development of the B-52 capability, and continue the ongoing B-1B program.
NATIONAL AEROSPACE LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE
The Committee recommends $25,000,000 in Aerospace Technology Development and Demonstration to establish a national aerospace leadership program. Given the evolving security and economic threats to our Nation, the Committee believes it is imperative that the United States maintain its world leadership in advanced propulsion and power systems, as well as preserve an innovative and highly competitive domestic aerospace manufacturing supplier base to meet the Department of Defense's current and future needs. This initiative should be used to support U.S. leadership in aerospace research and development, fortify the U.S.-based manufacturing supply chain, and buttress our aerospace original equipment manufacturers' technology and production market share. As such, the Secretary of the Air Force is directed to implement a multi-regional aerospace leadership program, enlisting the support of and recommendations for such a program from industry, university, and U.S. Government executive and congressional leaders. Moreover, the Secretary is directed to develop plans and provide funding for continuing this program in fiscal year 2006 and beyond. The Committee intends to work with the Department of the Air Force as it develops a comprehensive, detailed implementation plan for this intitiative.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $18,900,715,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 20,739,837,000
Committee recommendation 20,851,271,000
Change from budget request +111,434,000
------------------------------------------------
The appropriation provides funds for the research, development, test and evaluation activities of the Department of Defense for Defense-Wide activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $20,851,271,000 for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee's recommendation.
COMPARATIVE GENOMICS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY GOALS
The Committee recommendation includes an additional $3,000,000 in DARPA's Defense Research Sciences line-item only to research novel computational approaches to biological processes with application to other problems of extreme computational complexity. These funds are also available only to enhance understanding of the evolution and transmission of pathogenicity, contributing to better identification and inactivation of pathogens and the development of effective countermeasures. The Committee encourages the Department of Defense to examine these innovative research methods and incorporate funding in the fiscal year 2006 and subsequent budget requests to continue this research.
OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE SATELLITE
The Committee has provided an additional $25,000,000 to the Force Transformation Directorate only for the Operationally Responsive Satellite program. The Committee notes that the program has been authorized in both the House and Senate. The Committee fully supports the program objectives as discussed in both the House and Senate authorization reports. The Committee sees great promise that this approach could provide transformational space-based capabilities to warfighters in a timely and cost-effective manner.
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM
The Committee commends the Department on the execution of the Chem-Bio Defense Initiatives Fund and recommends continuing the program within the Department's Chemical and Biological Defense Program. The Committee's recommendation provides an increase of $25,000,000 for this fund. The Secretary of Defense is directed to allocate these funds among the programs that yield the greatest gain in our chem-bio defensive posture.
CALIFORNIA MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY CENTER (CMTC)
The Committee recommends continuing the California Manufacturing Technology Center (CMTC). The Committee's recommendation provides an increase of $8,000,000 only to continue development of efficient processes, techniques and tools to enable small manufacturers to respond to Diminished Manufacturing Sources (DMS) and to reduce costs with automatic and computer-based systems technology.
DEFENSE ACQUISITION CHALLENGE PROGRAM
The budget requests $21,463,000 for the Defense Acquisition Challenge Program in the Quick Reaction Special Projects Advanced Technology Development program element. The Committee believes the focus of this program should be less on new technology development and more on identifying and inserting innovative technologies quickly into the Department of Defense's weapon systems. Accordingly, the Committee has eliminated $21,463,000 from the budget request, and has instead provided $26,463,000 as a new program element line in Research, Development and Evaluation, Defense-Wide Budget Activity 5 (Engineering and Manufacturing Development), an increase of $5,000,000 above the request.
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM
The budget requested $235,700,000 for the Business Management Modernization Program (BMMP), an increase of $108,200,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $138,452,000, a decrease of $97,248,000.
Based on concerns discussed in the Information Technology section of this report, the Committee has adjusted amounts available for BMMP for fiscal year 2005 to be applied as follows:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, BMMP | -7,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide, BMMP Domains | -15,000 |
| Procurement, Defense-Wide, BMMP Domain Procurement Systems | -30,248 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, BMMP | -45,000 |
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM (BMDS) SUMMARY
The budget request includes $10,170,677,000 for missile defense programs, an increase of $1,090,311,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $9,712,777,000, a reduction of $457,900,000.
Within the total requested for fiscal year 2005, $9,146,672,000 is for the programs managed directly by the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). With respect to the MDA request, the Committee recommends $8,688,772,000, a reduction of $457,900,000. While the funding recommended is a reduction from the budget request, the Committee notes that, with respect to all missile defense programs, the recommended amount is $632,411,000 above that enacted in fiscal year 2004, with MDA programs funded at $977,088,000 above fiscal year 2004.
The Committee strongly supports the efforts of the Administration to field a system to provide an initial defense capability beginning in September 2004. To this end, the Committee fully funds that portion of the MDA budget request that provides for Ground Based Midcourse (GMD) programs related to initial defensive operations (IDO), including the provision of launch sites, interceptors, Aegis-class warships, and early warning radars (including continuing development of the Sea-Based X Band radar). The Committee also fully funds plans for forward-based radars and Theater Missile Defense programs such as Patriot, as described elsewhere in this report.
The Committee is concerned about a number of the proposals contained in the fiscal year 2005 budget request. For example, the Department of Defense appears to be rushing toward development of next-generation technologies without fully testing or developing the systems that comprise the current generation. Accordingly, the Committee recommends reductions of $25,000,000 each to both the BMDS--Technology program and the Advanced Concepts, Evaluations and Systems program. The Committee recommends a reduction of $61,500,000 to the Terminal Defense Segment program including $31,500,000 for excessive program management costs, and $30,000,000 because of program schedule delays related to rocket motor production. The Committee recommends a reduction of $35,000,000 for long lead materials related to BMDS interceptors number 31 through 40 because MDA has failed to identify a suitable launch site. Finally, the Committee believes the level of funding requested for the national team efforts remains excessive. The Committee recognizes the work of the national team is essential to successful deployment of the integrated, layered missile defense system envisioned by DoD. However, the justification materials accompanying the budget request fail to provide an adequate basis for the requested level of funding. Accordingly, the Committee recommends reductions totaling $205,000,000 to the program elements containing national team funding.
The Committee also recommends rescinding funds provided in previous years. The Committee notes that MDA terminated the RAMOS program in execution of its fiscal year 2004 program, and substantially restructured the Airborne Laser (ABL) program. The Committee recommends a rescission of $31,500,000 due to the termination of the RAMOS program. The Committee is aware that MDA is presently developing plans to complete termination of this program. Accordingly, the Committee would consider a prior approval reprogramming of funds if this proves necessary for the orderly conclusion of this program. The Committee also recommends a rescission of $74,700,000 due to MDA's restructuring of the Airborne Laser program which resulted in termination of plans for the Iron Bird test facility and a second aircraft.
The table below provides a summary of the Committee's recommended funding for fiscal year 2005.
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Missile Defense Agency Programs: | |
| Ballistic Missile Defense--Technology | 196,320 |
| Advanced Concepts, Evaluations and Systems | 231,159 |
| Ballistic Missile Defense--Terminal Defense Segment (THAAD & Arrow) | 876,248 |
| BMD Midcourse Defense | 4,369,775 |
| BMD Boost Defense--Airborne Laser (ABL) | 495,614 |
| Ballistic Missile Defense--Sensors | 594,957 |
| Ballistic Missile Defense Interceptors | 398,262 |
| Ballistic Missile Defense--Test & Targets | 713,658 |
| Ballistic Missile Defense--Products (C2BMC) | 388,608 |
| Ballistic Missile Defense--Core (SE&I) | 310,264 |
| Pentagon Reservation | 13,884 |
| Management Headquarters | 100,023 |
| Total MDA Programs | 8,688,772 |
| JTAMDO | 86,409 |
| Theater Missile Defense Programs: | |
| Patriot PAC-3 System Summary | 489,253 |
| Patriot Modifications | 87,948 |
| Patriot Improvements | 31,690 |
| MEADS | 264,527 |
| Patriot PAC-3 Research & Development | 64,178 |
| Total--Theater Missile Defense Programs | 937,596 |
| Grand Total | 9,712,777 |
AEGIS MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM
The fiscal year 2005 budget request includes $1,072,374,000 for the Aegis element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS), and the budget materials reflect a program total of $4,681,115,000 from fiscal year 2003 through 2009. In addition to this robust level of funding, the Missile Defense Agency indicates that the Navy will commit as many as 18 Aegis-class ships to support this program. The Committee supports the continuing development of the Aegis program and has fully funded the Department's request in fiscal year 2005. However, the Committee has concerns about the required level of funding in the outyears to modify ships, provide a stock of SM-3 missiles, and provide for operation and maintenance costs of this element of the BMDS. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than January 31, 2005, that explains the Department's long range plans for the Aegis element of BMDS including the number of vessels that DoD will commit to support Aegis; plans to fund conversion of these vessels for missile defense purposes in future budget submissions; plans to resolve conflicts between Navy support for missile defense missions and other surface combatant missions; and plans to provide for operation and maintenance funding requirements.
BMDS OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The Committee notes that the Missile Defense Agency budget in support of the Ground-Based Midcourse (GMD) program contains over $300,000,000 for operation and maintenance related activities of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). This includes about $200,000,000 for physical security and force protection, and $104,750,000 for contractor logistical support (CLS) needed to support missile sites upon activation. The budget provides neither an indication of the long-term operation and maintenance costs for the BMDS, nor an expression of DoD's plans to begin budgeting for these costs in the military services' operation and maintenance accounts. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than November 15, 2004, that outlines that Department's plans to program and budget for operation and maintenance costs necessary to keep the BMDS on alert status including manning and operating missile defense sites, maintenance of equipment, and providing for physical security of BMDS assets.
INTEGRATED FLIGHT TEST-13C (IFT-13C)
The Missile Defense Agency is presently finalizing preparations for Integrated Test Flight-13C scheduled for July 2004. The Committee understands this is a critically important test flight not only for the Ground Based Midcourse (GMD) booster and kill vehicle, but also as a test of the Command, Control, Battle Management and Communications (C2BMC) hardware and software. The Committee also notes the importance of this test given its timing with respect to initial defensive operations scheduled for September 2004. Accordingly, the Committee directs that the Director of the Missile Defense Agency provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than August 15, 2004, in both classified and unclassified form, including a detailed assessment of the results of IFT-13C and any impact these results may have on initial defensive operations.
ADVANCED MULTIPURPOSE MICRODISPLAY SYSTEM
The Committee recommends an increase of $3,000,000 only for development of an eyewear system that incorporates a high resolution display, based on a folded optics engine, that is low profile, first surface and is capable of high optical efficiency with low optical distortion.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005.
OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $305,861,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 305,135,000
Committee recommendation 309,135,000
Change from budget request +4,000,000
---------------------------------------------
This appropriation funds the Operational Test and Evaluation activities of the Department of Defense.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $309,135,000 for Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense. The following report and project level tables provide a summary of the Committee's recommendation.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005.
TITLE V
REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS
DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $1,641,507,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 1,685,886,000
Committee recommendation 1,174,210,000
Change from budget request -511,676,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,174,210,000 for the Defense Working Capital Funds. The recommendation is a decrease of $467,297,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS REDUCTION
The Committee recommends a reduction of $511,676,000 to the budget estimate, as a result of fiscal constraints, to be distributed only as follows:
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
Working Capital Fund, Army -$184,056,000
Working Capital Fund, Navy -65,385,000
Working Capital Fund, Air Force -81,089,000
Working Capital Fund, Defense-Wide -181,146,000
-------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $1,066,462,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 1,269,252,000
Committee recommendation 1,186,626,000
Change from budget request -82,626,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides funds for the lease, operation and supply of pre-positioning ships, operation of the Ready Reserve Force, and acquisition of ships for the Military Sealift Command, the Ready Reserve Force, and the Marine Corps.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,186,626,000 for the National Defense Sealift Fund (NDSF).
MARITIME PRE-POSITIONING FORCE (FUTURE)
The fiscal year 2005 budget includes a $117,000,000 request for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation for Strategic Sealift, an increase of $103,500,000 over the fiscal year 2004 level. Of the amount requested, $92,626,000 is for concept development and lead hull research and development efforts for the Maritime Pre-positioning Force (Future), MPF(F).
The Committee has provided a total of $34,326,000 for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation for Strategic Sealift, a reduction of $82,626,000 from the request. This reduction is applied to the request for MPF(F) for which the Committee provides a total of $10,000,000 for concept development. None of the funds provided for MPF(F) concept development may be obligated or expended until the Navy submits a detailed MPF(F) proposal and expenditure plan to the Committee on Appropriations.
Budget documentation provided to Congress in support of the fiscal year 2005 budget request provided no information detailing how the MPF(F) funds were to be spent. The only information provided states that lead hull construction costs are to be incrementally funded beginning in fiscal year 2007. Requests for additional information yielded no detail of the planned expenditures due to a not-yet completed study by the Center for Naval Analysis. The Committee notes that while detail was not provided to Congress, the trade press was provided some information and printed articles quoting senior Navy officials on plans for the possible construction of a fleet of MPF(F) ships.
The Committee believes the Navy must provide sufficient justification of its requests for appropriated funds. While the Committee appreciates that the timing inherent in the budget process does not always favor rapid transition to new ideas, it is not reasonable to request Congress provide funds for a program with no justification except that which is printed in the trade press. Furthermore, the Navy is well aware of the Committee's views with respect to incremental funding of programs. The Committee finds little humor in being asked to fund an unjustified request of nearly $100 million, for what is intended upon its maturation to become an incrementally funded program.
TITLE VI
OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $15,730,013,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 17,640,411,000
Committee recommendation 17,959,186,000
Change from the budget request +318,775,000
------------------------------------------------
This appropriation funds the Defense Health Program of the Department of Defense.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The budget requested $17,640,411,000 for the Defense Health Program, an increase of $1,910,398,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $17,959,186,000, an increase of $318,775,000 over the budget request.
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM--REPROGRAMMING
The Committee remains concerned as the Department of Defense embarks upon the transition to new TRICARE contracts and institutes new business practices to improve beneficiary satisfaction, access to care and efficiency of Military Treatment Facilities. As the Committee has observed in the past, the Department's typical pattern of budget execution for the Defense Health Program has been to divert funding from Direct (or In-House) Care to pay for the increasing cost of contractor-provided medical care, while continuing to insist at the time its budgets are submitted that such diversions will not be needed. To limit such transfers and improve oversight of this account, the Committee designates funding for the Direct Care System as a special interest item, as defined elsewhere in this report, and that the Department of Defense shall follow prior approval reprogramming procedures for any transfers out of the Direct Care System.
In addition, the Committee directs that the Department of Defense shall provide budget execution data for all of the Defense Health Program accounts. Such budget execution data shall be provided quarterly to the congressional defense committees through the DD-COMP(M) 1002.
WALTER REED ARMY MEDICAL CENTER--AMPUTEE PATIENT CARE PROGRAM
Ongoing combat operations have produced a surge in complex combat injuries involving amputations of major limbs. Military amputees demand highly specialized care that requires an experienced team of surgeons, physical and occupational therapists, phychologists, phychiatrists, nurses, social workers, nutritionists and others that specialize in treating this population. The Military Amputee Patient Care Program (headquartered at Walter Reed Army Medical Center) provides a center of expertise for state-of-the-art treatment, the rehabilitation of military amputee patients to the highest level of physical function, and a return to active duty if possible. The Committee commends the Army and those associated with this vital effort.
The Committee recommends an additional $18,000,000 over the budget request for this program. This includes $8,000,000 for operating costs associated with the center, including but not limited to personnel, equipment, patient travel, and prosthetic device costs. An additional $10,000,000 is provided for increased clinical and applied collaborative research in prosthetic care. Of this amount, not less than $1,500,000 shall be for clinical evaluation of vacuum assisted suspension systems, including investigation of the improved functionality resulting from volumetric control, as well as the circulatory and improved wound healing benefits of such technology in supporting our service members returning to pre-injury physical activity levels.
LANDSTUHL ARMY MEDICAL CENTER
The Committee acknowledges and commends Landstuhl Army Medical Center and its staff for the significant role they have played in the treatment of wounded service men and women during the ongoing Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 over the request, only for Landstuhl Army Medical Center to make upgrades to the facility in order to continue providing quality patient care.
ARMY FISHER HOUSES
Since 1990 Fisher Houses have been meeting the needs of military family members when confronted with the illness or hospitalization of an eligible military beneficiary. The Committee is aware that the Non-Appropriated Fund Instrumentalities established by law to help defray the operating costs of Fisher Houses have decreased in value due to poor financial market performance. Further, the costs to manage many Fisher Houses are much higher than planned due to an influx of patients at Military Treatment Facilities as a result of casualties suffered during Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Accordingly, the Committee has allocated $11,000,000 to the Defense Health Program to help mitigate any deficit in the Fisher House's operating costs. The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to analyze the financial condition of the Fisher House operating accounts and submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2005.
THIRD-PARTY COLLECTIONS
According to the General Accounting Office (GAO) DoD's Third-Party Collections Program generates on average about $122 million annually. However, total collections for fiscal year 2003 were down $30 million from the previous year, and the GAO has further documented that DoD fails to collect $44 million a year from third-party insurers (an amount that represents only 35 of the 132 Military Treatment Facilities under DoD's auspices). It is clear that DoD's failure to effectively bill and collect from third-party insurers pursuant to law is resulting in an increased burden on the taxpayer. The Committee also has concerns that DoD reduced its Information Technology budget for third-party outpatient collection systems from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005.
The Committee directs the DoD to report to the congressional defense committees by April 1, 2005, regarding the status of the transition to outpatient itemized billing and how third-party collections have progressed since the implementation of this system in fiscal year 2003. The Committee also directs the DoD to submit quarterly reports to the congressional defense committees on the status of collections during the current fiscal year.
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
The Committee believes that hardships resulting from U.S. troop deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan make it imperative for the Department of Defense to offer adequate mental health services for active duty and reserve members deployed to combat theaters. The Committee also is concerned that sufficient mental health services be made readily available to dependents of active duty and reserve members. As such, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of mental health services available to our military members deployed in combat theaters, as well as a review of services that may be available to their dependents during and after a military member's deployment. The report should be submitted to the congressional defense committees no later than 180 days after enactment of this legislation. The review should include, but not be limited to, the following subjects:
- --Data on the average number of service days lost due to mental health reasons;
- --The types of measures taken by the military services to reduce the stigma often associated with mental health counseling;
- --An analysis of mental health services available--and barriers to access--to active duty and reserve members and their dependents (including dependents of activated members of the National Guard and Reserve Components); and,
- --An analysis of the extent to which the U.S. Army has implemented the recommendations of the Army's Mental Health Advisory Team.
LIMITED ACCESS TO MILITARY TREATMENT FACILITIES IN RURAL AREAS
The Committee is encouraged by the Department of Defense's recent efforts to address the lack of access to care in rural and remote communities. However, the Committee remains concerned that despite these efforts, under-served communities still have difficulty accessing health care services, especially Reservist and retiree beneficiaries. Therefore, the Committee encourages the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs to work in consultation with a private non-profit to develop a `community-based' model pilot program in Washington State to expand health care services in these areas.
CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $1,500,261,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 1,371,990,000
Committee recommendation 1,371,990,000
Change from budget request 0
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation funds the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction activities of the Department of the Army.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The budget requested $1,371,990,000 for the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army program, a decrease of $128,271,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends the budget request of $1,371,990,000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2005.
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $835,616,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 852,697,000
Committee recommendation 876,697,000
Change from the budget +24,000,000
---------------------------------------------
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 to include activities related to narcoterrorism.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Department of Defense requested $852,616,000 for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities. The Committee recommends $876,697,000, an increase of $24,000,000.
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Criminal Information Sharing Alliance Network (CISA) | +5,000 |
| Florida National Guard Counter-Drug Activities | +3,000 |
| Indiana National Guard Counter-Drug Activities | +1,000 |
| Joint Task Force-6 | +2,000 |
| Multi-Jurisdictional Counter-Drug Task Force Training | +3,500 |
| Nevada National Guard Counter-Drug Activities | +3,000 |
| Project Athena Beta Site | +2,500 |
| Southwest Border Fence | +7,000 |
| Tennessee National Guard Counter-Drug Activities | +2,000 |
| Volume Test Site for Point Sensors at NSWC | +3,000 |
| Young Marines | +3,000 |
| Tethered Aerostat | -5,000 |
| Hemispheric Radar System | -5,000 |
| ISR and Tanker Support | -1,000 |
VOLUME TEST SITE FOR POINT SENSORS
The Committee recommends an additional $3,000,000 only for the Volume Test Site for Point Sensors program at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren, VA. The Committee also directs that these funds be transferred to the Office of Naval Research for execution.
TETHERED AEROSTAT PROGRAM
The budget request includes $32,291,000 for the Tethered Aerostat Program. The Committee recommends $27,291,000, a reduction of $5,000,000 for the same reasons enunciated in House Report 108-187. The funds provided by the Committee are intended to continue the operation of all existing Aerostat systems.
HEMISPHERIC RADAR SYSTEM
The budget request includes $25,466,000 for the Hemispheric Radar System. The Committee recommends $20,466,000, a reduction of $5,000,000. The reduction is recommended based on operational assessments that determined that four radar sites would close in Peru, Colombia, and Venezuela.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $193,562,000 for the Office of the Inspector General. Of this amount, $191,362,000 shall be for operation and maintenance, $2,100,000 shall be for procurement, and $100,000 shall be for research, development, test and evaluation. The recommendation is an increase of $31,113,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
The Committee supports the goal of achieving improved financial management within the Department of Defense, including clean financial audits. The Committee has provided additional funding to support an increase in audit capacity and mission support for the Offices of the Deputy Inspector General for Auditing, Intelligence, Investigations, and Inspections and Policy.
TITLE VII
RELATED AGENCIES
NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM
The National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP) consists of those intelligence activities of the government that 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 NFIP budget funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act consists primarily of resources for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Reconnaissance Office, the National Security Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the intelligence services of the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the Intelligence Community Management Staff, and the CIA Retirement and Disability Fund.
CLASSIFIED ANNEX
The Committee's budget reviews 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 2005 Defense Appropriations Act.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM FUND
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $226,400,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 239,400,000
Committee recommendation 239,400,000
Change from budget request 0
---------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides payments of benefits to qualified beneficiaries in accordance with the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees (P.L. 88-643), as amended by Public Law 94-522. This statute authorized the establishment of a CIA Retirement and Disability System (CIARDS) for certain CIA employees and authorized the establishment and maintenance of a fund from which benefits would be paid to those beneficiaries.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The budget requested $239,400,000 for the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund, an increase of $13,000,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $239,400,000 as requested for this mandatory account.
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $175,113,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 304,355,000
Committee recommendation 309,644,000
Change from budget request +5,289,000
---------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides funds for the activities that support the Director of Central Intelligence and the intelligence community.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The budget requested $304,355,000 for the Intelligence Community Management Account, an increase of $134,531,000 over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. The Committee recommends $309,644,000, an increase of $5,289,000. Of the amount appropriated under this heading, $46,100,000 is for transfer to the Department of Justice for operations at the National Drug Intelligence Center.
PAYMENT TO KAHO'OLAWE ISLAND CONVEYANCE, REMEDIATION, AND ENVIRONMETAL RESTORATION FUND
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2004 appropriation $18,430,000
Fiscal year 2005 budget request 0
Committee recommendation 0
Change from budget request 0
--------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $0 for the Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Fund, the amount proposed in the budget. The recommendation is $18,430,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2004.
NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION TRUST FUND
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 appropriation $8,000,000
Fiscal year 2005 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 to provide grants to U.S. institutions for programs of study in foreign areas and languages.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The budget requested $8,000,000 for the National Security Education Trust Fund, the same amount provided in the fiscal year 2004 appropriation.
The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the purposes of title VIII of Public Law 102-183, to be derived from the National Security Education Trust Fund, as requested.
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 2004 and many have been included in the Defense Appropriations Act for a number of years.
Actions taken by the Committee to amend last year's provisions or new provisions recommended by the Committee are discussed below or in the applicable section of the report.
DEFINITION OF PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY
For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177) as amended by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119) and by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508), the following information provides the definition 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, 2005, 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.
CHAPTER 1
TITLE IX
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE--MILITARY
SUBMISSION OF BUDGET AMENDMENT
On May 12, 2004, the President submitted a budget amendment for the Department of Defense, requesting $25,000,000,000 for the Iraq Freedom Fund. These funds were requested as a contingent emergency reserve, dependent on Presidential designation for release. As proposed, these funds could be transferred to any appropriations account after five days prior notice to the Congress.
The Committee commends the Administration for submitting this request. The President's fiscal year 2005 budget, submitted in February 2004, contained no additional funding to support fiscal year 2005 operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. Funds for these operations were to be requested at the beginning of 2005 in a supplemental appropriations request, as has been the norm over the past decade with similar operations. However, events over recent months--the decision to sustain a higher force level in Iraq than had been previously forecast, the required troop movements to support those levels, and increased force protection requirements--make it abundantly clear that some level of funding to support these operations is required early in the fiscal year, so as to preclude the services from having to divert funds from other worldwide operational and training requirements.
The Committee believes the cost of continuing involvement of a substantial number of Army and Marine Corps combat divisions and support units will be more than the services can absorb within their peace time budgets, without unacceptable damage to home station training, maintenance, and support operations. Therefore, the funds requested in the budget amendment are intended to serve as a funding bridge until early next year when the Department of Defense will have better information on required resources, providing the basis for a supplemental request for the remaining fiscal year 2005 costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan operations.
Following receipt of the President's request, the Committee obtained background information on fiscal year 2005 war-related requirements from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the military services and defense agencies, and the intelligence community. Additionally, the Committee reviewed available budget execution data for fiscal year 2004. These efforts provided a good understanding of anticipated funding needs for the first several months of fiscal year 2005, and formed the basis for the Committee's recommendations, cited below.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
In this chapter, the Committee recommends total new appropriations of $25,000,000,000, provided within 22 appropriations accounts. Funding by category is as follows:
| Military Personnel | $3,932,000,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance | 14,335,400,000 |
| Iraq Freedom Fund | 2,978,000,000 |
| Procurement | 2,199,600,000 |
| Defense Working Capital Funds | 1,250,000,000 |
| Defense Health Program | 305,000,000 |
Funds are provided for specific appropriations accounts, and would be available upon enactment of the bill. Quarterly reports are required on the obligation of funds.
To provide some measure of flexibility to the Department of Defense, as was done in the November 2004 War Supplemental (Public Law 108-106), the Committee recommends providing appropriations for the Iraq Freedom Fund, which would be available for obligation five days after written notification is provided to the Congress. Also, the Committee bill provides transfer authority for funds in this title, permitting up to $2,000,000,000 to be reprogrammed among activities following approval by the congressional defense committees through regular order prior-approval notification and reprogramming procedures.
The Committee bill also includes certain authorities providing for war-related support to allied forces, and training and equipping Iraqi and Afghan military and security forces, consistent with similar authorities provided in Public Law 108-106.
For purposes of Section 402(a)(2) of S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), as made applicable to the House of Representatives by H. Res. 649 (108th Congress), all funds provided in this chapter, and those made available by transfer or pursuant to authority in section 9003 of the Committee bill, are directly in support of national security and U.S. forces in the field, are sudden, meet an urgent and compelling need, are unpredictable, and are not permanent in nature.
The following table summarizes, by appropriations account or general provision, the Committee's recommendations compared to the President's request.
[In thousands of dollars]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account Request Recommendation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq Freedom Fund $25,000,000 $2,978,000
Military Personnel:
Military Personnel, Army 2,552,200
Military Personnel, Navy 232,200
Military Personnel, Marine Corps 273,200
Military Personnel, Air Force 874,400
Total Military Personnel 3,932,000
Operation and Maintenance:
O&M, Army 11,698,400
O&M, Navy 303,000
O&M, Marine Corps 1,295,000
O&M, Air Force 744,000
O&M, Defense-Wide 295,000
Total Operation and Maintenance 14,335,400
Procurement:
Missile Procurement, Army 42,800
Procurement of WTCV, Army 201,900
Procurement of Ammunition, Army 330,000
Other Procurement, Army 1,151,400
Aircraft Procurement, Navy 34,000
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps 112,800
Procurement, Marine Corps. 111,400
Other Procurement, Air Force 35,300
Procurement, Defense-Wide 80,000
National Guard and Reserve Equipment 100,000
Total Procurement 2,199,600
Revolving and Management Funds:
Defense Working Capital Funds 1,250,000
Total Revolving and Management Funds 1,250,000
Other Department of Defense Programs:
Defense Health Program 305,000
Total Other DoD Programs 305,000
Transfer Authority:
Total Transfers [25,000,000] [2,000,000]
Grand Total Chapter 1, Title IX 25,000,000 25,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees within 60 days of enactment of this legislation on the allocation of the funds within the accounts listed in this chapter. The Secretary shall submit updated quarterly reports thereafter.
The Committee also directs the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional defense committees, no later than January 31, April 30, and July 31, 2005, a comprehensive financial analysis and update for fiscal year 2005. This series of reports will detail both actual and projected obligation of appropriations provided in this Act for the continuation of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In certain limited areas, the Committee has provided funds in this chapter at a line item level of detail more general than in the other titles of the bill. Examples include funds for the Army's Rapid Fielding Initiative, funded in both operation and maintenance and procurement accounts, and various `miscellaneous equipment' lines for the Marine Corps, Special Operations Forces, and the Guard and Reserve. This approach is intended to provide the military services with some degree of flexibility to respond to the needs of commanders in the field, provide support for service members, and to reconstitute units that return to their home stations. The Secretary of Defense is directed to provide a report to the congressional defense committees within 60 days of enactment of this legislation on the allocation of the funds within those line items, and submit updated quarterly reports thereafter. Additional discussion on this subject is provided elsewhere in this report.
Finally, the Committee expects that in order to meet unanticipated requirements, the Department of Defense may need to transfer funds within those appropriations accounts for purposes other than those specified in this report. The Committee directs the Department of Defense to follow normal prior-approval reprogramming procedures should it be necessary to transfer funding between different appropriations accounts in this chapter.
ABUSE OF PRISONERS
The Committee is deeply troubled by the breakdown in training, supervision and discipline that resulted in the deplorable mistreatment of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, Iraq. While investigations and the legal process continue, it is clear that the basic values inherent in American military conduct were ignored.
Military unit structure and training must be specific to the tasks or missions to which the units will be assigned. Military unit design must be reinforced by close supervision, discipline, and rigorous training, including training on values and ethics. Readiness must be assessed by inspections. A reporting system that provides confidentiality and protection for personnel to report misdeeds must be available, and military personnel must be aware of the system.
The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees not later than February 1, 2005, regarding military structure and job specialties for handling prisoners and managing prisons; the proper roles and separation of duties of military police, intelligence gathering officials, and civilian contractors; the training standards for those who handle prisoners; the responsibilities and interactions of supervisors between military and civilian personnel; the utility of internal controls; and the availability of a mechanism for junior personnel to report perceived abuses up the chain of supervision or command. The report shall address shortcomings discovered by Department of Defense investigations of this matter, and any corrective actions that will be implemented including changes in resource allocation.
INC FINANCIAL REVIEW
The Committee directs that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with the cooperation of the Secretaries of State and Defense, and the Director of Central Intelligence, submit a comprehensive report (in both unclassified and classified forms, as appropriate) to the Committee on Appropriations, within 15 days of enactment of this legislation. This report shall describe in detail all United States government sources of funding, and the purposes of this funding, provided directly to or in support of the Iraqi National Congress (INC) since the enactment of the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998 through fiscal year 2004. This report shall include delineation of funds by fiscal year and agency, including financial and other support provided by the Coalition Provisional Authority during its existence, and the intended purpose of such funding. This report should describe any anticipated U.S. government financial or other support for the INC for fiscal year 2005 and beyond. The report also should address military and security-related training efforts in which INC-sponsored personnel were or are currently involved in, as well as funds used to support their activities or movements. The Committee further requests that OMB furnish to the Committee copies of any agency Inspector General audits, inspections, or other internal reports completed regarding these programs. The Committee requests that OMB consult with the Committee prior to beginning this effort.
MILITARY PERSONNEL
The Committee recommends a total of $3,932,000,000 for the active duty military personnel accounts. Of the amount provided, the Committee provides $3,118,500,000 for first quarter incremental wartime costs of pays and allowances for active duty and Reserve personnel deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Also included is $683,000,000 for costs of the services exceeding their mandated active duty end strength levels due to unprecedented retention levels and stop loss policies, and to support increased Army and Marine Corps end strength as provided for in the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. Finally, $130,500,000 is provided for Family Separation Allowance and Imminent Danger Pay.
The following table provides details of the recommendations for the military personnel accounts:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Recommendation | |
| Military Personnel, Army: | |
| First quarter of incremental wartime costs | $2,200,000 |
| Army active duty overstrength | 162,000 |
| Increased active duty end strength | 150,000 |
| Extension of Imminent Danger Pay | 4,900 |
| Extension of Family Separation Pay | 35,300 |
| Total Military Personnel, Army | 2,552,200 |
| Military Personnel, Navy: | |
| First quarter of incremental wartime costs | 204,000 |
| Extension of Imminent Danger Pay | 700 |
| Extension of Family Separation Pay | 27,500 |
| Total Military Personnel, Navy | 232,200 |
| Military Personnel, Marine Corps: | |
| First quarter of incremental wartime costs | 207,500 |
| Marine Corps overstrength and increased active duty end strength | 50,000 |
| Extension of Imminent Danger Pay | 2,400 |
| Extension of Family Separation Pay | 13,300 |
| Total Military Personnel, Marine Corps | 273,200 |
| Military Personnel, Air Force: | |
| First quarter of incremental wartime costs | 507,000 |
| Air Force active duty overstrength | 321,000 |
| Extension of Imminent Danger Pay | 16,500 |
| Extension of Family Separation Pay | 29,900 |
| Total Military Personnel, Air Force | 874,400 |
| Total Military Personnel | 3,932,000 |
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The Committee recommends $14,335,400,000 for operation and maintenance accounts. Of this amount, $13,188,000,000 is provided for incremental operations and support costs of the war, critical field and depot maintenance, training, and base operations support, in accordance with requirements and priorities provided the Committee by the services.
$1,148,000,000 is provided for individual soldier equipment, including force protection items--such as $538,000,000 for body armor. Funding is provided for the Rapid Fielding Initiative in the Army, and for Initial Issue Equipment in the Marine Corps to address critical requirements for basic soldier and Marine equipment such as hydration on the move gear, advanced combat helmets, desert boots, cold weather clothing, and ultra-lightweight camouflage net systems. Funds necessary to support Army Brigade Restructuring (also referred to as `modularity') transformation in the early months of fiscal year 2005 have also been included.
The following table provides details of the recommendations for the operation and maintenance accounts:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Recommendation | |
| Operation and Maintenance, Army: | |
| Incremental Wartime Operating Costs | $9,789,750 |
| Depot Maintenance | 220,000 |
| Rapid Fielding Initiative | 610,000 |
| Interceptor Body Armor with Deltoid Auxiliary Protection | 334,600 |
| Brigade Restructuring (Modularity) HMMWV Recap | 56,050 |
| Reset (Delayed Desert Damage 10/20) | 688,000 |
| Total Operation and Maintenance, Army | 11,698,400 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Navy: | |
| Incremental Wartime Operating Costs | 161,000 |
| Ship Depot Maintenance | 76,000 |
| Aircraft Depot Maintenance | 66,000 |
| Total Operation and Maintenance, Navy | 303,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps: | |
| Incremental Wartime Operating Costs | 1,212,000 |
| Depot Maintenance. | 43,000 |
| Initial Issue Including Body Armor | 40,000 |
| Total Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps | 1,295,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Air Force: | |
| Incremental Wartime Operating Costs | 600,000 |
| Interceptor Body Armor | 144,000 |
| Total Operation and Maintenance, Air Force | 744,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide: | |
| Incremental Wartime Operating Costs | 226,000 |
| SOCOM Body Armor | 19,000 |
| DISA | 50,000 |
| Total Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide | 295,000 |
| Total Operation and Maintenance | 14,335,400 |
IRAQ FREEDOM FUND
The Committee recommends $2,978,000,000 for the Iraq Freedom Fund, instead of $25,000,000,000 as proposed by the President. Of this amount, not less than $1,978,000,000 is available only for classified programs, which are described in a classified annex to this report.
The Committee proposal provides substantial funding in the Iraq Freedom Fund to provide the Department of Defense with the capability to address emergent requirements. In particular, under this appropriation funds may be transferred to research, development test and evaluation accounts to support quick reaction development and fielding activities, especially those relating to force protection, such as countermeasures against improvised explosive devices.
Consistent with direction in prior appropriations acts, funds in the Iraq Freedom Fund may not be transferred for obligation unless the Secretary of Defense notifies the congressional defense committees in writing of the details of any transfer from this account five days prior to transfer. The Secretary is also directed to submit a report not later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter to the congressional defense committees summarizing the details of the transfer of funds from this appropriation.
PROCUREMENT
The Committee recommends a total of $2,199,600,000 for various procurement appropriations. Of this amount, over $1.2 billion is provided for force protection and related equipment, including:
- $674,300,000 for Up-armored HMMWVs;
- $198,400,000 for Bolt-on Armor kits;
- $297,400,000 for Rapid Fielding Initiative equipment; and
- $59,000,000 for aircraft survivability equipment.
In addition, $417,800,000 is for ammunition, and over $300,000,000 is for additional equipment to equip the restructured Army brigades being stood up in 2004-2005. National Guard and Reserve forces will receive $100,000,000 for combat gear and support equipment, and Special Operations Forces $80,000,000.
The Committee believes that the Army and Marine Corps should make every effort to ensure that this funding is provided in support of deployed units, or those scheduled for rotation to the theater, without regard as to whether they are in the active or reserve component.
The following table provides details of the recommendations for the procurement accounts:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Recommendation | |
| Missile Procurement, Army: | |
| Javelin, Brigade Restructuring (Modularity) | $42,800 |
| Total Missile Procurement, Army | 42,800 |
| Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army: | |
| XM-8 Assault Weapon, Brigade Restructuring (Modularity) | 25,900 |
| Rapid Fielding Initiative | 166,600 |
| WTCV Procurement, Brigade Restructuring (Modularity) | 9,400 |
| Total Procurement of WTCV, Army | 201,900 |
| Procurement of Ammunition, Army: | |
| Small Arms Ammunition, Brigade Restructuring (Modularity) | 315,000 |
| Flares, Aircraft Survivability | 15,000 |
| Total Procurement of Ammunition, Army | 330,000 |
| Other Procurement, Army: | |
| M1114 Up-Armor HMMWV, Force Protection | 639,000 |
| Vehicle Bolt-on Armor and Emerging Requirements | 132,400 |
| Rapid Fielding Initiative | 130,800 |
| Other Procurement, Brigade Restructuring (Modularity) | 249,200 |
| Total Other Procurement, Army | 1,151,400 |
| Aircraft Procurement, Navy: | |
| Aircraft Survivability Equipment | 34,000 |
| Total Aircraft Procurement, Navy | 34,000 |
| Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps: | |
| Miscellaneous Ammunition | 102,800 |
| Flares, Aircraft Survivability | 10,000 |
| Total Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps | 112,800 |
| Procurement, Marine Corps: | |
| Miscellaneous Equipment | 45,400 |
| Bolt-on Armor Kits | 66,000 |
| Total Procurement, Marine Corps | 111,400 |
| Other Procurement, Air Force: | |
| Up-Armored HMMWV | 35,300 |
| Total Other Procurement, Air Force | 35,300 |
| Procurement, Defense-Wide: | |
| SOCOM Miscellaneous Equipment | 80,000 |
| Total Procurement, Defense-Wide | 80,000 |
| National Guard and Reserve Equipment: | |
| Miscellaneous Equipment for Deployment to OIF/OEF | 100,000 |
| Total National Guard and Reserve Equipment | 100,000 |
| Total Procurement | 2,199,600 |
MISCELLANEOUS PROCUREMENT
As discussed earlier in this report, in certain limited areas the Committee has provided for some degree of flexibility for the Army's Rapid Fielding Initiative, funded in both operation and maintenance and procurement accounts, and various `miscellaneous equipment' lines for the Marine Corps, Special Operations Forces, and the Guard and Reserve.
The Committee has provided $249,200,000 for Other Procurement, Army requirements related to the Army's Brigade Restructuring (Modularity) initiative. Among the items identified by the Army for possible procurement include communications equipment such as SINCGARS radios, other tactical radios, Joint Network Nodes, satellite communications hubs, and related equipment; equipment required for actionable intelligence including various DCGS-A items; and other equipment such as weapons sights and night vision equipment.
The Committee has provided $45,400,000 for Procurement, Marine Corps for similar equipment required to conduct ongoing operations. Items identified by the Marine Corps include: targeting devices, tactical radios, jammers, night vision devices, and intelligence gathering and analysis equipment.
The Committee has provided $80,000,000 in Procurement, Defense-Wide for equipment required for operations by Special Operations Forces. Examples of equipment identified by U.S. SOCOM include Critical Combat Mission Needs for Small Arms and Weapons, Communication Equipment and Electronics, Miscellaneous Equipment, SOF Operational Enhancements, Rotary Wing Upgrades and Sustainment, C-130 Modifications, Ammunition, and Equipment Reconstitution.
The Committee has provided $100,000,000 for National Guard and Reserve equipment required for operations of deployed units of the Army National Guard and the Army and Marine Corps Reserve, and to reconstitute equipment lost or left behind by returning units. Examples of equipment identified by the Guard and Reserve include Night Vision devices, Decontamination Kits, M4 Carbines, M240B Machine Guns, other Small Arms, High Frequency Radios, Multi-band Super High Frequency Terminals, Movement and Tracking Systems, All Terrain Lifting Army Systems, Truck Rough Terrain Container Handlers, Global Positioning Systems, and Handheld Standoff Mine Detection Systems. The Committee intends that these funds shall be in addition to the amounts provided elsewhere in this chapter providing for equipment to deploying Guard and Reserve units.
VEHICLE FORCE PROTECTION
Over the past year, the Committee observed the dramatic rise in the requirement for additional armored tactical and support vehicles, including armor kits for existing vehicles, as the threat to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan from rocket propelled grenades and improvised explosive devices continued unabated. The Committee has long propounded the need for these vehicles and has provided increased funding for them in past appropriations acts. Once again, the Committee has acted to address the need for armored vehicles by recommending an increase of $674,300,000 to purchase additional up-armored HMMWVs and $198,400,000 for additional bolt-on armor kits within appropriations accounts under this title.
The Committee remains concerned that the heretofore haphazard approach to procuring armored vehicles resulted in increased risk to our troops in the field. To help quantify that risk and spur development of a clear policy for procuring armored vehicles, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the congressional defense committees that answers the following questions:
1. What is the Department's policy for purchasing armored vehicles, and how does the Department determine what percentage of the total vehicle fleet must be armored?
2. What factors have been used to set that policy, and when was it last updated?
3. What long-range plans does the Department have for purchasing armored vehicles and what funding has been allocated for that purpose?
4. What studies have been conducted by the Department or outside parties that characterize and/or quantify the protection provided by armored vehicles (versus non-armored vehicles) in the face of threats from rocket propelled grenades, improvised explosive devices, small arms fire and similar types of weapons?
5. How many U.S. casualties have been caused by these types of weapons; how many of these casualties were experienced by troops in non-armored vehicles; and how many of these casualties could have been avoided or minimized had the troops been using armored vehicles?
This report should be submitted (in unclassified and classified form, as appropriate) to Congress not later than November 15, 2004. The Committee intends to continue to work with the Department on this matter.
DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS
The Committee recommends an additional $1,250,000,000 for the Defense Working Capital Funds. This increase is recommended due to more recent, accurate estimates of fuel price increases as well as requirements in such programs as war reserves, spare parts, unused plant capacity, and fuel facilities studies.
The continued need to supplement funds due to repeated under-pricing of fuel is of grave concern to the Committee. Admittedly, recent fuel price increases have exceeded forecasts, but the Committee believes part of this problem is due to the Department, under Office of Management and Budget guidance, failing to accurately estimate and budget for fuel price fluctuations. This must be corrected. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report by November 15, 2004, to the congressional defense committees on corrective actions being taken to improve fuel price estimates.
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
The Committee recommends $305,000,000 for the Defense Health Program. These funds will cover additional costs incurred by the military medical system, including costs associated with improving medical readiness for Ready Reserve members, and TRICARE eligibility for mobilized members of the Reserve Component and their families during pre-mobilization and the transition back to Reserve Component status.
The Committee is determined to provide the best possible health care for the Reserve Component. Unfortunately the Department has failed to fully implement the provisions that were established in Public Law 108-136. Funds provided by the Committee are to meet these requirements, as well as related initiatives included in the House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005.
OUTSOURCING OVERSIGHT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTS
The Committee is deeply concerned about the outsourcing of oversight responsibilities with respect to Iraq reconstruction contracts. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) has awarded ten contracts worth $5.1 billion for the reconstruction of various sectors in Iraq. These contracts are cost-plus, single-award, indefinite-delivery/indefinite-quantity contracts. These types of contracts are typically awarded to multiple contractors to ensure competition, yet each of the Iraq reconstruction contracts was awarded to a single contractor.
With billions of dollars at stake and the unique nature of the reconstruction contracts, effective oversight is critically important to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. The Committee has been advised that the CPA awarded seven program management contracts that assign oversight responsibilities for U.S. reconstruction contracts to private companies. Delegating oversight responsibilities to private contractors is potentially troublesome and should only be done if: (1) appropriate Federal personnel are not available to perform the oversight functions; (2) appropriate Federal personnel supervise the contract and perform all inherently governmental functions and; (3) the contractor does not have an organizational conflict of interest or the appearance of such a conflict of interest in the performance of the contract.
The Committee, however, is concerned that several of the private contractors awarded oversight contracts may have substantial ongoing commercial relationships with the companies they are charged with overseeing. The Committee strongly believes the Department should comply with the above conditions before entering into any such oversight contracts. Further, the Committee intends to pursue this matter to ensure proper oversight is given to contracting activities in Iraq and elsewhere.
CHAPTER 2
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
ADMINISTRATION OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
DIPLOMATIC AND CONSULAR PROGRAMS
The Committee recommendation includes $665,300,000 for necessary expenses for the operations of the United States Mission in Iraq, including $240,000,000 for logistical support, $18,800,000 for the costs of worldwide OpenNet and classified connectivity infrastructure, $70,000,000 for the State Department operations in Iraq, and $336,500,000 for the security-related costs, including equipment, armored vehicles, protective detail and contract support. Language is included designating funding for emergency and overseas contingency operations. For purposes of Section 402(a)(2) of S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), as made applicable to the House of Representatives by H. Res 649 (108th Congress), funds provided under this heading are provided in response to a situation which poses a direct threat to U.S. personnel and property, is sudden, is an urgent and compelling need, is unpredictable, and is not permanent in nature.
EMBASSY SECURITY, CONSTRUCTION, AND MAINTENANCE
The Committee recommendation includes $20,000,000 for necessary expenses of securing interim United States Mission facilities in Iraq. Language is included designating funding for emergency and overseas contingency operations. For purposes of Section 492(a)(2) of S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), as made applicable to the House of Representatives by H. Res. 649 (108th Congress), funds provided under this heading are provided in response to a situation which poses a direct threat to U.S. personnel and property, is sudden, is an urgent and compelling need, is unpredictable, and is not permanent in nature.
CHAPTER 3
BILATERAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE
FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO THE PRESIDENT
UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
INTERNATIONAL DISASTER AND FAMINE ASSISTANCE
The Committee recommendation includes $70,000,000 for necessary expenses to respond to the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan and in Chad. Language is included designating funding for emergency and overseas contingency operations.
For purposes of Section 402(a)(2) of S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), as made applicable to the House of Representatives by H. Res. 649 (108th Congress), funds provided under this heading are provided in response to a situation which poses a direct threat to life and property, is sudden, is an urgent and compelling need, is unpredictable, and is not permanent in nature.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
MIGRATION AND REFUGEE ASSISTANCE
The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 for necessary expenses to respond to the humanitarian crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan and in Chad. Language is included designating funding for emergency and overseas contingency operations.
For purposes of Section 402(a)(2) of S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), as made applicable to the House of Representatives by H. Res. 649 (108th Congress), funds provided under this heading are provided in response to a situation which poses a direct threat to life and property, is sudden, is an urgent and compelling need, is unpredictable, and is not permanent in nature.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--THIS TITLE
Title IX of the Committee bill contains fifteen general provisions. Several of these extend or modify war-related authorities included in Public Law 108-106, enacted in November 2004. These include extending until September 30, 2005 higher levels of Family Separation Allowance and Imminent Danger Pay, travel reimbursement for the families of hospitalized service members, and clothing allowances. The Committee bill also includes certain authorities providing for war-related support to allied forces, and training and equipping Iraqi and Afghan military and security forces.
In April 2004, the Administration requested that the congressional defense committees provide legislative authority for a new program called the Global Peace Operations Initiative. The House Armed Services Committee has addressed this matter, in both the House-passed version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (H.R. 4200) and its accompanying report (House Report 108-491). Section 1213 of that bill directs the Administration provide additional information to the Congress. The requested legislative authority for this program was denied.
The Committee strongly agrees with the concerns expressed by the House Armed Services Committee and does not recommend providing the requested legislative authority. The Committee directs that those reports required by section 1213 of the authorization bill also be provided to the Subcommittees on Defense and Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations. The Committee also suggests that, should this program be requested in any future budget, the funds required for implementation be included in the budget request.
A description of the recommended general provisions follows.
Section 9001 establishes the period of availability for obligation for appropriations and provides that funds in title IX are available for obligation upon enactment of this Act.
Section 9002 has been included which provides that funds made available in title IX are in addition to amounts provided elsewhere in this Act.
Section 9003 provides for transfer between appropriations of up to $2,000,000,000 of the funds in title IX, for the Department of Defense establishes notification requirements, and provides that transfer authority in this section is in addition to any other transfer authority available to the Department of Defense, and is subject to the same terms and conditions as provided in section 8005 of this Act. This section also amends section 8005 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004, to increase transfer authority to $3,000,000,000, excludes transfers among military personnel appropriations from counting against this limitation, and repeals section 168(a) of division H of Public Law 108-199.
Section 9004 deems funds appropriated or made available by transfer in title IX for intelligence activities to be authorized by the Congress.
Section 9005 provides that none of the funds in title IX may be used to finance programs or activities denied by Congress, or to initiate a new start without prior congressional notification.
Section 9006 provides that Sections 1318 and 1319 of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, shall remain in effect for fiscal year 2005.
Section 9007 establishes certain military pay rates from October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005.
Section 9008 provides that not to exceed $500,000,000 of operation and maintenance funds made available in title IX may be used to train and equip military or security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to include the provision of supplies and equipment, that such authority is in addition to other authority to provide assistance, and provides for congressional notification.
Section 9009 makes available $300,000,000 of operation and maintenance funds provided by title IX to fund the Commander's Emergency Response Fund, and provides for quarterly reports to the congressional defense committees.
Section 9010 amends Section 202(b) of the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act by increasing the amount to $650,000,000.
Section 9011 provides that operation and maintenance funds in title IX may be used to provide supplies, services, and transportation to coalition forces supporting military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and provides for quarterly reports.
Section 9012 provides that the Secretary of Defense shall submit semi-annual reports on the military operations of the Armed Forces and reconstruction activities of the Department of Defense in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Section 9013 has been included regarding certain transfer, reprogramming, and other authorities applicable to amounts provided in this title for the Department of State.
Section 9014 has been included in which the Congress reaffirms that torture of prisoners of war and detainees is illegal and does not reflect the policies of the United States Government or the values of the people of the United States.
Section 9015 has been included which requires the President to provide to the Congress, no later than October 1, 2004, a report detailing the estimated costs from fiscal year 2006 to 2011 of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, including reconstruction, security and support costs.
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 2005 bill, which might be interpreted as changing existing law, are as follows:
APPROPRIATIONS LANGUAGE
Language has been amended in `Operation and Maintenance, Army' which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses.
Language has been amended in `Operation and Maintenance, Navy' which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses.
Language has been amended in `Operation and Maintenance, Air Force' which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses.
Language has been amended in `Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide' which changes the name of the `CINC Initiative Fund' to `Combatant Commander Initiative Fund'; amends the earmark for funds available to the Combatant Commander Initiative Fund; changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses; includes language which earmarks funds for an internship program for university students to participate in Defense educational programs; and amends the amount available for expenses relating to certain classified activities.
Language has been amended in `Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard' with changes designed to make this appropriations paragraph consistent with the `Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard' appropriations paragraph.
Language has been amended in `United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces' which changes the amount that may be provided for official representation purposes.
Language has been amended in `Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid' which changes a title 10 citation in this paragraph.
The appropriations paragraph `Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction' was amended to include the word `Account' in the title; and language has been deleted which earmarks funds for dismantling and disposal of nuclear submarines.
Language has been included in the Army's procurement accounts which earmarks funds for the Army Reserve and Army National Guard.
Language has been deleted in `Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army' which earmarks funds for the Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.
Language has been deleted in `Other Procurement, Army' concerning the purchase of vehicles required for physical security of personnel.
Language has been included in the Navy and Marine Corps' procurement accounts which earmarks funds for the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps Reserve.
Language has been deleted in `Other Procurement, Navy' concerning the purchase of vehicles required for physical security of personnel; and includes language which allows funds to be available for TRIDENT modifications associated with force protection and security requirements.
Language has been included in the Air Force's procurement accounts which earmarks funds for the Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard.
Language has been included in `Aircraft Procurement, Air Force' with regard to the procurement of C-17 aircraft.
Language has been deleted in `Other Procurement, Air Force' concerning the purchase of vehicles required for physical security of personnel.
Language has been deleted in `Procurement, Defense-Wide' concerning the purchase of vehicles for the Defense Security Service and vehicles required for physical security of personnel.
The appropriations account `National Guard and Reserve Equipment' has been deleted.
Language has been amended in `Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army' which earmarks $10,000,000 for Molecular Genetics and Musculoskeletal Research.
Language has been deleted in `National Defense Sealift Fund' which earmarks funds for the cost of constructing additional sealift capacity.
Language has been deleted in `Defense Health Program' which earmarks funds for contracts entered into under the TRICARE program; includes language which earmarks $11,000,000 for Army Fisher Houses; earmarks $10,000,000 for HIV prevention programs; and includes language concerning funds for HIV prevention programs in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004.
Language has been deleted in `Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army' which earmarks funds only for Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program evacuation route improvements.
Language has been amended in `Intelligence Community Management Account' which earmarks $26,953,000 for the Advanced Research and Development Committee; and which transfers $46,100,000 to the Department of Justice.
The appropriations account `Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Fund' has been deleted.
Language has been included in Title IX which provides $25,000,000,000 to certain appropriations accounts for additional war related expenses for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Language has been included in Title IX in the `Iraq Freedom Fund' that provides for the transfer of funds into and out of this account; provides that no less than $1,978,000,000 be for classified programs; requires the Secretary of Defense to notify the congressional defense committees prior to making transfers from this appropriation; and requires the Secretary of Defense to report quarterly on the transfer of funds from this appropriation.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 8005 has been amended which increases the level of general transfer authority for the Department of Defense, and provides that transfers between military personnel appropriations shall not be taken into account for purposes of the limitation of funds which may be transferred under this section.
Section 8008 has been amended to include language which provides multiyear authority for Lightweight 155mm Howitzer; and includes language which prohibits funds to be used for a multiyear contract unless certain conditions are met.
Section 8014 has been amended to prohibit an offeror from gaining a competitive advantage by not including a health care plan, or contributing less for employee health care than the amount paid by the Department of Defense for health care for employees.
Section 8015 has been amended which changes a title 10 citation in this provision.
Section 8018 has been amended to include language to make permanent the provision concerning residual value amounts.
Section 8024 has been amended to include language to make permanent the provision which allows the Secretary of Defense to adjust wage rates for civilian employees hired for health care occupations.
Section 8027 has been amended which earmarks $24,822,000 for the Civil Air Patrol Corporation; and deletes language which earmarks funds for administrative expenses incurred by the Air Force.
Section 8028 has been amended to change the number of staff years of technical effort that may be funded for defense Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs); includes language which provides a waiver for the staff years funded in the National Foreign Intelligence Program; deletes language on the number of staff years that may be funded for defense studies and analysis by FFRDCs; and amends the amount for reduction for FFRDCs.
Section 8033 has been amended to include language to make permanent the provision that allows funds available at the end of a fiscal year due to energy cost savings to remain available for the next fiscal year.
Section 8034 has been amended to include language to make permanent the provision concerning non-excess property leases.
Section 8036 has been amended to include language to make permanent the provision that allows funds available in `Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense' to be available for the `Young Marines program'.
Section 8048 has been amended to include language which rescinds $399,750,000 from the following programs:
| 2003 Appropriations: | |
| Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction: Unobligated balances | $50,000,000 |
| 2004 Appropriations: | |
| Aircraft Procurement, Navy: Modification of Aircraft (T-38) | 2,900,000 |
| Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy: SNN ERO (SNN 716) | 10,300,000 |
| Other Procurement, Navy: Minesweeping Replacement | 5,200,000 |
| Other Procurement, Air Force: Classified Programs | 100,000,000 |
| Procurement, Defense-Wide: ASDS Advanced Procurement | 23,400,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army: | |
| MEADS | 41,650,000 |
| Biomedical Engineering Technology and Advanced Material | 1,000,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy: Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle | 20,000,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force: | |
| Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle | 15,000,000 |
| Classified Programs | 9,000,000 |
| ADV Polar | 13,000,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide: | |
| Center for Information Assurance | 2,100,000 |
| Airborne Laser | 74,700,000 |
| RAMOS | 31,500,000 |
Section 8051 has been amended to include language to make permanent the provision that allows funds appropriated for the Department of Defense to be available to compensate National Guard personnel for State counter-drug activities.
Section 8056 has been amended to include language to make permanent the provision that allows for the transfer of funds to other Department of Defense appropriations for projects related to increasing energy and water efficiency in Federal buildings.
Section 8063 has been amended to include language to make permanent the provision that allows the Secretary of Defense to issue loan guarantees in support of United States defense exports.
Section 8067 has been amended to include language to make permanent the provision permitting the obligation at the time a reimbursable order is accepted for funds appropriated in title II of this Act and for the Defense Health Program in title VI for supervision and administration costs for facilities maintenance or similar support functions.
Section 8079 has been amended to include language to make permanent the provision that refunds attributable to the use of Government travel cards and purchase cards may be credited to the Operation and maintenance and Research, development, test and evaluation accounts.
Section 8086 has been amended to change the dollar amount available for transfer, and deletes subsection (b) providing for additional transfers.
Section 8088 has been amended which provides funds for a grant to the Fisher House Foundation; and deletes language which provided funds to the Services for support and upkeep of existing Fisher Houses.
Section 8089 has been amended which reduces funds available in Operation and Maintenance accounts by $300,000,000 to reflect savings attributable to efficiencies and management improvements in the funding of the Services' miscellaneous or other contracts.
Section 8090 has been amended which changes the amount available under `Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide' for the Arrow missile defense program; and amends the amount available for producing Arrow missile components in the United States and Arrow missile components and missiles in Israel to meet Israel's defense requirements.
Section 8091 has been included which provides that the Secretary of the Navy shall make certain grants related to ongoing research in support of the Office of Naval Research.
Section 8092 has been amended which reduces the amount available for transfer to fund increases in the cost of prior year shipbuilding programs.
Section 8094 has been amended to include language to make permanent the provision that allows appointments of healthcare professionals only after the individual has a recognized degree from an accredited institution and successfully completed a clinical education program affiliated with the Department.
Section 8096 has been amended which reduces funds available in title IV of this Act by $270,000,000 to reduce cost growth in information technology development and modernization.
Section 8098 has been amended which reduces funds available in Operation and Maintenance accounts by $316,000,000 to reflect cash balance and rate stabilization adjustments in Defense Working Capital Funds.
Section 8099 has been amended which provides $6,000,000 in `Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard' only for a grant to the Center for Military Recruitment, Assessment and Veterans Employment.
Section 8100 has been amended which requires the Army to program and budget for fielding the Non-Line of Sight Cannon element of the Future Combat System by fiscal year 2010, and requires the Army to program and budget for no fewer than seven Stryker Brigade Combat Teams.
Section 8101 has been amended which provides grants to the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Foundation, the Presidio Trust and the Fort Ticonderoga Association.
Section 8108 has been amended which provides for certain land conveyances at the former Norton Air Force Base.
Section 8109 has been amended which reduces funds available in titles III and IV of this Act by $345,000,000 to reflect savings from revised economic assumptions; and deletes language which exempts military personnel pay and benefits from reductions under this provision.
Section 8110 has been amended which reduces funds available in `Operation and Maintenance, Air Force' by $967,200,000 to reflect cash balance and rate stabilization adjustments in Defense Transportation Working Capital Fund.
Section 8111 has been amended to include new restrictions on the use of intelligence funding.
Section 8112 has been amended providing that subsection 8149(b) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2003, which requires a credit worthiness evaluation of an individual prior to the issuance of a government charge card, shall remain in effect for fiscal year 2005.
Section 8113 has been included which provides for the purchase of heavy and light armored vehicles for force protection purposes, and requires notification to Congress.
Section 8114 has been included which earmarks funds in `Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps' for the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a contract for road improvements at the Twentynine Palms, California installation.
Section 8115 has been included which appropriates $3,000,000 to `Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps', for a health demonstration project at the Marine Corps Air and Ground Combat Center.
Section 8116 has been included concerning the conveyance of a former Army Reserve Training Center to the city of Wooster, Ohio.
Section 8117 has been included which requires members of Reserve components to be notified in writing of the expected period for which the military member will be mobilized.
Section 8118 has been included which provides for the transfer of funds from any available Navy appropriation to any available ship construction program, and repeals Section 126 of Public Law 108-136.
Section 8119 has been included which reduces funds available in title II of this Act by $100,000,000 to reflect savings attributable to the offsetting of payments to contractors for the collection of unpaid taxes.
Section 8120 has been included which reduces funds available in title IV of this Act by $685,000,000 for non-statutory funding set asides.
Section 8121 has been included which establishes a Tanker Replacement Transfer Fund, and appropriates $100,000,000 to said Fund.
Section 8122 has been included which prohibits using funds in this Act to amend or cancel the Department of Defense Directive on personal commercial solicitation on military installations, until one year after the General Accounting Office provides a report on the regulations governing the sale of life insurance policies to military personnel, and policies and procedures for processing financial allotments.
An explanation for each of the general provisions included in Title IX of the bill are provided in that Title.
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 ofauthorization Appropriationsin this bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel, Army 2004 ( 1 ) 28,247,667 29,507,672
Military Personnel, Navy 2004 ( 1 ) 23,217,298 24,416,157
Military Personnel, Marine Corps 2004 ( 1 ) 8,971,897 9,591,102
Military Personnel, Air Force 2004 ( 1 ) 22,910,868 24,291,411
Reserve Personnel, Army 2004 ( 1 ) 3,568,725 3,719,990
Reserve Personnel, Navy 2004 ( 1 ) 2,002,727 2,108,232
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps 2004 ( 1 ) 571,444 653,073
Reserve Personnel, Air Force 2004 ( 1 ) 1,288,088 1,451,950
National Guard Personnel, Army 2004 ( 1 ) 5,500,369 5,915,229
National Guard Personnel, Air Force 2004 ( 1 ) 2,174,598 2,536,742
Operation and Maintenance, Army 2004 24,627,037 25,029,346 25,820,311
Operation and Maintenance, Navy 2004 27,975,559 28,146,658 29,570,090
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps 2004 3,426,056 3,440,323 3,605,815
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force 2004 26,089,670 26,904,731 27,994,110
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide 2004 16,243,157 16,226,841 17,346,411
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve 2004 1,966,009 1,998,609 1,976,128
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve 2004 1,171,921 1,172,921 1,233,038
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve 2004 173,952 173,952 187,196
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve 2004 2,179,188 2,179,388 2,227,190
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard 2004 4,256,331 4,340,581 4,376,886
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard 2004 4,406,146 4,431,216 4,438,738
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Account 2004 5,000 5,000 5,000
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces 2004 10,333 10,333 10,825
Environmental Restoration, Army 2004 396,018 396,018 400,948
Environmental Restoration, Navy 2004 256,153 256,153 266,820
Environmental Restoration, Air Force 2004 384,307 384,307 397,368
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide 2004 24,081 24,081 26,684
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites 2004 252,619 284,619 216,516
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid 2004 59,000 59,000 59,000
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Account 2004 450,800 450,800 409,200
Aircraft Procurement, Army 2004 2,098,985 2,154,035 3,107,941
Missile Procurement, Army 2004 1,549,462 1,505,462 1,327,000
Procurement of Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army 2004 1,997,304 1,857,054 2,773,695
Procurement of Ammunition, Army 2004 1,413,305 1,387,759 1,608,302
Other Procurement, Army 2004 4,365,246 4,774,452 4,868,371
Aircraft Procurement, Navy 2004 9,009,948 9,110,848 8,841,824
Weapons Procurement, Navy 2004 2,233,534 2,095,784 1,993,754
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps 2004 924,355 934,905 885,340
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 2004 11,729,984 11,467,623 10,189,327
Other Procurement, Navy 2004 4,739,143 4,941,098 4,980,325
Procurement, Marine Corps 2004 1,123,499 1,165,727 1,462,703
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 2004 12,035,151 12,086,201 13,289,984
Missile Procurement, Air Force 2004 4,298,505 4,165,633 4,425,013
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force 2004 1,284,725 1,262,725 1,346,557
Other Procurement, Air Force 2004 11,631,859 11,558,799 13,199,607
Procurement, Defense-Wide 2004 3,768,506 3,709,926 3,028,033
National Guard and Reserve Equipment 2004 0 400,000 0
Defense Production Act Purchases 2004 0 78,016 27,015
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army 2004 9,544,833 10,363,941 10,220,123
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy 2004 14,845,503 15,146,383 16,532,361
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force 2004 20,555,667 20,500,984 21,033,622
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide 2004 18,438,718 18,900,715 20,851,271
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense 2004 286,661 305,861 309,135
Defense Working Capital Funds 2004 632,261 1,641,507 1,174,210
National Defense Sealift Fund 2004 1,062,762 1,066,462 1,186,626
Defense Health Program 2004 15,401,509 15,730,013 17,959,186
Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction, Army:
Operation and maintenance 2004 1,199,168 1,169,168 1,138,801
Procurement 2004 79,212 79,212 78,980
Research, development, test and evaluation 2004 251,881 251,881 154,209
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense 2004 817,371 835,616 876,697
Office of Inspector General 2004 162,449 162,449 193,562
CIA Retirement & Disability System Fund 2004 226,400 226,400 239,400
Intelligence Community Management Account 2004 175,113 309,664
Transfer to Dept of Justice 2004 0 (44,300) (46,100)
National Security Education Trust Fund 2004 8,000 8,000 8,000
Sec. 8005 2004 (2,100,000) (3,000,000)
Sec. 8021 2004 8,000 8,000
Sec. 8028 2004 -74,200 -40,000
Sec. 8034 2004 31,000 25,000
Sec. 8037 2004 1,331 1,000
Sec. 8048 2004 -325,560 -399,750
Sec. 8079 2004 44,000 44,000
Sec. 8101 2004 34,950 6,600
Sec. 8088 2004 3,800 2,000
Sec. 8089 2004 -504,500 -300,000
Sec. 8096 2004 -200,000 -270,000
Sec. 8098 2004 -372,000 -316,000
Sec. 8099 2004 5,500 6,000
Sec. 8110 2004 -451,000 -967,200
Sec. 8109 2004 -1,662,000 -345,000
Sec. 8115 2004 0 3,000
Sec. 8119 2004 0 -100,000
Sec. 8120 2004 0 -685,000
Sec. 8121 2004 0 100,000
Title IX, Department of Defense 2004 0 25,000,000
Title IX, Department of State, Administration of Foreign Affairs 2003 5,133,390 5,098,804 685,300
Title IX, International Disaster and Famine Assistance 1987 25,000 70,000 70,000
Title IX, Migration and Refugee Assistance 2001 750,000 700,000 25,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, Army' which provides for the transfer of funds to Fort Baker.
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 `Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Account' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account.
Language has been included in `Environmental Restoration, Army' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account.
Language has been included in `Environmental Restoration, Navy' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account.
Language has been included in `Environmental Restoration, Air Force' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account.
Language has been included in `Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account.
Language has been included in `Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites' which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account.
Language has been included in `Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense' which transfers funds to other appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense.
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.
Fourteen provisions (Sections 8005, 8006, 8015, 8027, 8034, 8037, 8056, 8065, 8086, 8090, 8092, 8110, 8118, 8121) contain language which allows transfers of funds between accounts.
Language has been included in Title IX, Chapter 1, `Iraq Freedom Fund' which transfers funds to other appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense.
Language has been included in Title IX, Chapter 1, section 9003, which provides transfer authority for funds in Chapter 1, and amends fiscal year 2004 transfer authority.
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:
| Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction, 2003/2005 | $50,000,000 |
| Aircraft Procurement, Navy, 2004/2006 | 2,900,000 |
| Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy, 2004/2008 | 10,300,000 |
| Other Procurement, Navy, 2004/2006 | 5,200,000 |
| Other Procurement, Air Force, 2004/2006 | 100,000,000 |
| Procurement, Defense-Wide, 2004/2006 | 23,400,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army, 2004/2005 | 42,650,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy, 2004/2005 | 20,000,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force, 2004/2005 | 37,000,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, 2004/2005 | 108,300,000 |
COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CL. 3(E) (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 italics, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI
OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
- For expenses, not otherwise provided for, for medical and health care programs of the Department of Defense, as authorized by law, $15,730,013,000, of which $14,914,816,000 shall be for Operation and maintenance, of which not to exceed 2 percent shall remain available until September 30, 2005, and of which $7,420,972,000 shall be available for contracts entered into under the TRICARE program; of which $328,826,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2006, shall be for Procurement; and of which $486,371,000, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2005, shall be for Research, development, test and evaluation, of which not less than $4,250,000 shall be available for HIV prevention educational activities undertaken in connection with U.S. military training, exercises, and humanitarian assistance activities conducted primarily in African nations.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
- SEC. 8005. Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that such action is necessary in the national interest, he may, with the approval of the Office of Management and Budget, transfer not to exceed [Struck out->]
[ $2,100,000,000 ][<-Struck out] $3,000,000,000 of working capital funds of the Department of Defense or funds made available in this Act to the Department of Defense for military functions (except military construction) between such appropriations or funds or any subdivision thereof, to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes, and for the same time period, as the appropriation or fund to which transferred: Provided, That such authority to transfer may not be used unless for higher priority items, based on unforeseen military requirements, than those for which originally appropriated and in no case where the item for which funds are requested has been denied by the Congress: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify the Congress promptly of all transfers made pursuant to this authority or any other authority in this Act: Provided further, That no part of the funds in this Act shall be available to prepare or present a request to the Committees on Appropriations for reprogramming of funds, unless for higher priority items, based on unforeseen military requirements, than those for which originally appropriated and in no case where the item for which reprogramming is requested has been denied by the Congress [Struck out->][ : Provided further, That a request for multiple reprogrammings of funds using authority provided in this section must be made prior to June 30, 2004. ][<-Struck out] : Provided further, That transfers among military personnel appropriations shall not be taken into account for purposes of the limitation on the amount of funds that may be transferred under this section.-
SECTION 126 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004
[Struck out->][ SEC. 126. PILOT PROGRAM FOR FLEXIBLE FUNDING OF CRUISER CONVERSIONS AND OVERHAULS. ][<-Struck out]
- [Struck out->]
[ (a) ESTABLISHMENT- The Secretary of the Navy may carry out a pilot program of flexible funding of conversions and overhauls of cruisers of the Navy in accordance with this section. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (b) AUTHORITY- Under the pilot program, the Secretary may, subject to subsection (d), transfer amounts described in subsection (c) to the appropriation for the Navy for procurement for shipbuilding and conversion for any fiscal year to continue to provide funds for any conversion or overhaul of a cruiser of the Navy for which funds were initially provided from the appropriation to which transferred. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (c) FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR TRANSFER- The amounts available for transfer under this section are amounts appropriated to the Navy for any fiscal year after fiscal year 2003 and before fiscal year 2013 for the following purposes: ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (1) For procurement, as follows: ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (A) For shipbuilding and conversion. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (B) For weapons procurement. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (C) For other procurement. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (2) For operation and maintenance. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (d) LIMITATIONS- (1) A transfer may be made with respect to a cruiser under this section only to meet either (or both) of the following requirements: ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (A) An increase in the size of the workload for conversion or overhaul to meet existing requirements for the cruiser. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (B) A new conversion or overhaul requirement resulting from a revision of the original baseline conversion or overhaul program for the cruiser. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (2) A transfer may not be made under this section before the date that is 30 days after the date on which the Secretary of the Navy transmits to the congressional defense committees a written notification of the intended transfer. The notification shall include the following matters: ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (A) The purpose of the transfer. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (B) The amounts to be transferred. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (C) Each account from which the funds are to be transferred. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (D) Each program, project, or activity from which the funds are to be transferred. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (E) Each account to which the funds are to be transferred. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (F) A discussion of the implications of the transfer for the total cost of the cruiser conversion or overhaul program for which the transfer is to be made. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (e) MERGER OF FUNDS- Amounts transferred to an appropriation with respect to the conversion or overhaul of a cruiser under this section shall be credited to and merged with other funds in the appropriation to which transferred and shall be available for the conversion or overhaul of such cruiser for the same period as the appropriation to which transferred. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (f) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER TRANSFER AUTHORITY- The authority to transfer funds under this section is in addition to any other authority provided by law to transfer appropriated funds and is not subject to any restriction, limitation, or procedure that is applicable to the exercise of any such other authority. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (g) FINAL REPORT- Not later than October 1, 2011, the Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report containing the Secretary's evaluation of the efficacy of the authority provided under this section. ][<-Struck out]- [Struck out->]
[ (h) TERMINATION OF PROGRAM- No transfer may be made under this section after September 30, 2012. ][<-Struck out]-
SECTION 168 OF THE CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004
(Division H of Public Law 108-199)
- SEC. 168 [Struck out->]
[ (a) RESCISSIONS- From unobligated balances of amounts made available in Public Law 107-38, and in Public Law 107-117, and in appropriations Acts for the Department of Defense, $1,800,000,000 is hereby rescinded: Provided, That the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, after consultation with the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate and the Secretary of Defense, shall determine the amounts to be rescinded from each account that is to be so reduced: Provided further, That the rescissions shall take effect no later than September 30, 2004: Provided further, That the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall notify the Committees on Appropriations of the House and Senate 30 days prior to rescinding such amounts: Provided further, That such notification shall include the accounts, programs, projects and activities from which the funds will be rescinded: Provided further, That this section shall not apply to any amounts appropriated or otherwise made available by the seventh proviso under the heading `Emergency Response Fund' in Public Law 107-38. ][<-Struck out]* * * * * * *
-
SECTION 202 OF THE AFGHANISTAN FREEDOM SUPPORT ACT OF 2002
SEC. 202. AUTHORIZATION OF ASSISTANCE.
- (a) * * *
- (b) AMOUNT OF ASSISTANCE- The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under subsection (a) may not exceed [Struck out->]
[ $450,000,000 ][<-Struck out] $650,000,000, except that such limitation shall be increased by any amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 204(b)(1) and shall not count toward any limitation contained in section 506 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2318).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.
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]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) allocation This bill
Budgetauthority Outlays Budgetauthority Outlays
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary: 390,931 415,987 390,931 415,594
Mandatory 239 239 239 239
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 | 391,170 |
| Outlays: | |
| 2004 | 128 |
| 2005 | 286,638 |
| 2006 | 90,587 |
| 2007 | 24,555 |
| 2008 and beyond | 13,970 |
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. DAVID OBEY
The Administration's steadfast refusal to appropriately plan for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and address critical shortfalls in our military was evident in its FY 2005 budget request for the Department of Defense. The President's budget included no funding for Iraq and Afghanistan operations, nor were funds requested to address known Army needs for additional manpower, protective gear, up-armored Humvees, and repair or replacement of weapons systems damaged in the war. Only recently did the Administration grudgingly admit the need for additional funds by submitting a $25 billion `emergency' supplemental.
The Administration's failure to budget for these ongoing efforts is irresponsible and reckless. It shows an unwillingness to make the difficult budgetary choices forced upon our nation by the President's Iraq policy, as well as a lack of respect for the American people who deserve to know the facts up front rather than on the installment plan.
The Committee did the right thing by including these funds, but based on analysis of the best available data from the Pentagon, operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost over $76 billion over the next year. If the White House and the Majority Party had been willing to deal with real numbers, I had intended to offer an amendment during Full Committee consideration of this bill that would have increased funding for Iraq and Afghanistan by $51.7 billion to fully fund the real expected cost of military operations and personnel costs in Iraq and Afghanistan for the entire year. I am inserting in the record the text of the amendment to show these real costs.
My amendment would have ensured that our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan had the supplies and support they require for their mission, and I am disappointed that the full cost of the war effort is not included as part of this bill. We have an obligation to our troops. We know that this obligation will cost more than $25 billion. Congress will need to provide these additional funds soon, whether or not the President chooses to support the troops by requesting the funds himself.
The Committee accepted my amendment requiring the President to provide details on estimated costs for FY 2006-11 for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This report will be due to the Congress on October 1, 2004, unless the President certifies that the costs cannot be divulged due to national security issues. I offered this amendment because the Administration owes the American people a full accounting of the cost of its policies in Iraq and Afghanistan over the next five years.
Since the beginning of military operations in Iraq, this Administration has said, `Trust us. We know better.' The Committee did trust the Administration. We provided the Administration and its political appointees in the Pentagon with every dollar requested for Iraq. We provided them with unprecedented flexibility in spending those funds. There were no questions asked and no strings attached.
The Administration and the Pentagon have abused the trust that the Congress and the American people placed in them.
They marched to war based upon flawed intelligence and knowingly used that false intelligence to persuade Members of Congress and the public to support military action.
The Administration exaggerated foreign military and financial support to downplay the full cost of the war.
They ignored the advice of career military officials, like Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki, who suggested that an Iraqi occupation force should number `several hundred thousand.'
The Defense Department pushed aside the State Department, which was more experienced and better prepared to help shape a post-war Iraq.
Most appallingly, the Administration and the Pentagon rushed our military into battle with inadequate supplies and support. Some 40,000 troops in the Iraqi theatre lacked protective plates for body armor vests. Portable electronic jammers for defeating roadside bombs were in woefully short supply. Only about 25 percent of the armored vehicles needed had been provided.
Today, U.S. forces are still short about 1,300 of the 4,000 armored Humvees needed in Iraq. Newsweek recently noted that: `[a]ccording to an unofficial study by a defense consultant that is now circulating through the Army, there have been 142 casualties by land mines or improvised explosive devices, while 48 others died in rocket propelled grenade attacks. Almost all of those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles, which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had the stronger armor around them, the study suggested.'
Today, the United States Army is stretched to the breaking point. Many Army units have had their deployments extended well beyond the 12-month rotation called for by Defense Department policy. Some units are being called back to Iraq earlier than planned. The Army recently went into `stop-loss,' which prevents officers or enlisted persons in certain specialties from departing the service even after they are eligible to leave. In effect, the Administration has instituted a `stealth draft' what will prevent Americans who have served their country honorably from returning to civilian life.
These facts demand that the Congress exercise its Constitutional oversight responsibility more aggressively. Conducting that oversight requires receiving the Pentagon's best estimate of the cost of our engagement in Iraq for the next five years. These numbers are available and they should be provided to the Committee and the Congress, as this bill now requires.
To date, Congress has appropriated about $150 billion in military and reconstruction funding for the Iraq conflict. It is undeniable that the additional $25 billion provided in this bill for Iraq will not be the last dollars that the Iraq mission will require or that the Congress will provide. The total figure will likely swell to roughly a quarter of a trillion dollars for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the vast majority of that funding devoted to Iraq. To put this in perspective, a quarter of a trillion dollars would:
- Pay for last year's Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development Departments bill, the Commerce, Justice and Senate Departments bill, and the Agriculture Department bill combined.
- More than double the total amount the states spend on education.
- Repair nearly every school in America that needs to be modernized.
The American people deserve a full accounting of the cost of the war in Iraq, and not on the installment plan. Since day one of the Iraq operation, the Administration's actions have been characterized by deception. I hope the Administration will take the opportunity they have been provided to have an honest conversation about the true cost of the Iraq mission. We owe the American people nothing less.
DAVE OBEY.
AMENDMENT TO BE OFFERED BY MR. OBEY
Strike Title IX and insert in lieu of
TITLE IX--ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
CHAPTER I--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
MILITARY PERSONNEL
MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY
For an additional amount for `Military Personnel, Army', $10,088,200,000.
MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY
For an additional amount for `Military Personnel, Navy', $844,200,000.
MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS
For an additional amount for `Military Personnel, Marine Corps', $1,045,700,000.
MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
For an additional amount for `Military Personnel, Air Force', $3,358,400,000.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY
For an additional amount for `Operation and Maintenance, Army', $41,539,150,000.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY
For an additional amount for `Operation and Maintenance, Navy', $806,000,000.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
For an additional amount for `Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps', $4,979,000,000.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
For an additional amount for `Operation and Maintenance, Air Force', $2,787,000,000.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
For an additional amount for `Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide', $1,123,000,000.
IRAQ FREEDOM FUND
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
For an additional amount for `Iraq Freedom Fund', $6,000,000,000, to remain available for transfer until September 30, 2006, for the purposes authorized under this heading in Public Law 108-11: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense may transfer the funds provided herein to appropriations for military personnel; operation and maintenance; Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid; procurement; research, development, test and evaluation; the Defense Health Program; and working capital funds: Provided further, That of the amounts provided under this heading, not less than $5,000,000,000 shall be for classified programs, which shall be in addition to amounts provided for elsewhere in this title, and under this heading: Provided further, That funds transferred shall be merged with and be available for the same purposes and for the same time period as the appropriation or fund to which transferred: Provided further, That this transfer authority is in addition to any other transfer authority available to the Department of Defense: Provided further, That upon a determination that all or part of the funds transferred from this appropriation are not necessary for the purposes provided herein, such amounts may be transferred back to this appropriation: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall, not fewer than 15 days prior to making transfers from this appropriation, notify the congressional defense committees in writing of the details of any such transfer: Provided further, That the Secretary shall submit a report no later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter to the congressional defense committees summarizing the details of the transfer of funds from this appropriation.
PROCUREMENT
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY
For an additional amount for `Missile Procurement, Army', $42,800,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007.
PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY
For an additional amount for `Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army', $201,900,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY
For an additional amount for `Procurement of Ammunition, Army', $330,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY
For an additional amount for `Other Procurement, Army', $1,265,600,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
For an additional amount for `Aircraft Procurement, Navy', $34,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS
For an additional amount for `Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps', $112,800,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007.
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
For an additional amount for `Procurement, Marine Corps', $111,400,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
For an additional amount for `Other Procurement, Air Force', $35,300,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007.
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
For an additional amount for `Procurement, Defense-Wide', $320,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007.
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT
For an additional amount for `National Guard and Reserve Equipment', $100,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2007.
REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS
DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS
For an additional amount for `Defense Working Capital Funds', $1,250,000,000.
OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
For an additional amount for `Defense Health Program', $305,000,000 for Operation and Maintenance.
CHAPTER II--GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 9001. The amounts provided in this title, or made available by the transfer of funds in or pursuant to this title, are designated by the Congress to be contingency operations pursuant to section 403 of S. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), and an emergency requirement pursuant to section 502 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress).
SEC. 9002. Appropriations provided in this title are available for obligation until September 30, 2005, unless otherwise so provided in this title: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law or of this Act, funds in this title are available for obligation, and authorities in this title shall apply, upon enactment of this Act.
SEC. 9003. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or of this Act, funds made available in this title are in addition to amounts provided elsewhere in this Act.
(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
SEC. 9004. Upon his determination that such action is necessary in the national interest, the Secretary of Defense may transfer between appropriations up to $600,000,000 of the funds made available to the Department of Defense in this title: Provided, That the Secretary shall notify the Congress promptly of each transfer made pursuant to this authority: Provided further, That the transfer authority provided in this section is in addition to any other transfer authority available to the Department of Defense: Provided further, That the authority in this section is subject to the same terms and conditions as the authority provided in section 8005 of this Act.
SEC. 9005. Funds appropriated in this title, or made available by the transfer of funds in or pursuant to this title, for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414).
SEC. 9006. None of the funds provided in this title may be used to finance programs or activities denied by Congress in fiscal year 2005 appropriations to the Department of Defense or to initiate a procurement or research, development, test and evaluation new start program without prior notification to the congressional defense committees.
SEC. 9007. Sections 1318 and 1319 of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108-11; 117 Stat. 571), shall remain in effect during fiscal year 2005.
SEC. 9008. From October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2005, (a) the rates of pay authorized by section 310(a) of title 37, United States Code, shall be $225; and (b) the rates of pay authorized by section 427(a)(1) of title 37, United States Code, shall be $250.
SEC. 9009. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, from funds made available in this title to the Department of Defense for operation and maintenance, not to exceed $500,000,000 may be used by the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, to train, equip, and provide related assistance to military or security forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, to enhance their capability to combat terrorism and to support U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: Provided, That such assistance may include the provision of equipment, supplies, services, training and funding: Provided further, That the authority to provide assistance under this section is in addition to any other authority to provide assistance to foreign nations: Provided further, That the Secretary of Defense shall notify the congressional defense committees not less than 15 days before providing assistance under the authority of this section.
SEC. 9010. From Funds made available to this title to the Department of Defense for operation and maintenance, not to exceed $300,000,000 may be used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to fund the Commander's Emergency Response Program, for he purpose of enabling military commanders in Iraq to respond to urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction requirements within their areas of responsibility by carrying out programs that will immediately assist the Iraqi people, and to fund a similar program to assist the people of Afghanistan: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense shall provide quarterly reports to the congressional defense committees regarding the source of funds and the allocation and use of funds made available pursuant to the authority provided in this section.
SEC. 9011. Section 202(b) of the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-327, as amended by section 2206 of Public Law 108-106) is amended by striking `$450,000,000' and inserting in lieu thereof `$650,000,000'.
SEC. 9012. Funds available to the Department of Defense for operation and maintenance in this title may be used, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to provide supplies, services, transportation, including airlift and sealift, and other logistical support to coalition forces supporting military and stability operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: Provided, That the Secretary of Defense shall provide quarterly reports to the congressional defense committees regarding support provided under this section.
SEC. 9013. (a) Not later than April 30 and October 31 of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the military operations of the Armed Forces and the reconstruction activities of the Department of Defense in Iraq and Afghanistan.
(b) Each report shall include the following information:
- (1) For each of Iraq and Afghanistan for the half-fiscal year ending during the month preceding the due date of the report, the amount expended for military operations of the armed Forces and the amount expended for reconstruction activities, together with the cumulative total amounts expended for such operations and activities.
- (2) An assessment of the progress made toward preventing attacks on United States personnel.
- (3) An assessment of the effects of the operations and activities in Iraq and Afghanistan on the readiness of the Armed Forces.
- (4) An assessment of the effects of the operations and activities in Iraq and Afghanistan on the recruitment and retention of personnel for the Armed Forces.
- (5) For the half-fiscal year ending during the month preceding the due date of the report, the costs incurred for repair of Department of Defense equipment used in the operations and activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.
- (6) The foreign countries, international organizations, and nongovernmental organizations that are contributing support for the ongoing military operations and reconstruction activities, together with a discussion of the amount and types of support contributed by each during the half-fiscal year ending during the month preceding the due date of the report.
- (7) The extent to which, and the schedule on which, the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of the Armed Forces is being involuntarily ordered to active duty under section 12304 of title 10, United States Code.
- (8) For each unit of the National Guard of the United States and the other reserve components of the Armed Forces on active duty pursuant to an order to active duty under section 12304 of title 10, United States Code, the following information:
- (A) The unit.
- (B) The projected date of return of the unit to its home station.
- (C) The extent (by percentage) to which the forces deployed within the United States and outside the United States in support of a contingency operation are composed of reserve component forces.
SEC. 9014. Of the amounts provided in this title, $5,000,000,000 may not be obligated or expended until such time as: (1) the President provides to the Congress a report detailing the estimated costs over the period from fiscal year 2006 to 2011 of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, or any related military operations in and around Iraq and Afghanistan, and the estimated costs of reconstruction, internal security, and related economic support to Iraq and Afghanistan; or (2) the President certifies in writing to the Congress that estimates of these future military and economic support costs cannot be provided for purposes of national security; Provided, That the report referenced in subsection (1) shall be submitted no later than January 1, 2005.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
