Committee Reports
106th Congress (1999-2000)
House Report 106-644
|
Committee Reports for the 106th Congress | |
| House Report 106-644 | 1 of 1 | |
|
|
|
64-635
2000
106TH CONGRESS 2D SESSION
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Report
[Graphic image not available]
JUNE 1, 2000- Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed
| C O N T E N T S | Page |
| Bill Totals | 1 | |
| Committee Budget Review Process | 3 | |
| Committee Recommendations by Major Category | 3 | |
| Active Military Personnel | ||
| 3 | ||
| Guard and Reserve Personnel | ||
| 3 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance | ||
| 3 | ||
| Procurement | ||
| 3 | ||
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation | ||
| 4 | ||
| Items of Special Committee Interest | 4 | |
| Military Health Care and Medical Research Programs | ||
| 4 | ||
| Information Assurance and Computer Network Security | ||
| 5 | ||
| Ballistic Missile Defense Programs | ||
| 6 | ||
| Tactical Fighter Aviation Issues | ||
| 7 | ||
| Army Transformation | ||
| 9 | ||
| Forces to be Supported | 14 | |
| Department of the Army | ||
| 14 | ||
| Department of the Navy | ||
| 15 | ||
| Department of the Air Force | ||
| 16 | ||
| TITLE I. MILITARY PERSONNEL | 19 | |
| Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropriations | ||
| 19 | ||
| Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2001 | ||
| 19 | ||
| Adjustments to Military Personnel Account | ||
| 21 | ||
| End Strength Adjustments | ||
| 21 | ||
| Unobligated/Unexpended Military Personnel Balances | ||
| 21 | ||
| Unfunded Requirements | ||
| 21 | ||
| Basic Allowance for Housing | ||
| 22 | ||
| Guard and Reserve Forces | ||
| 22 | ||
| Full-Time Support Strengths | ||
| 22 | ||
| Military Personnel, Army | ||
| 23 | ||
| Military Personnel, Navy | ||
| 25 | ||
| Active Navy Manning | ||
| 27 | ||
| Military Personnel, Marine Corps | ||
| 27 | ||
| Military Personnel, Air Force | ||
| 29 | ||
| Reserve Personnel, Army | ||
| 31 | ||
| Reserve Personnel, Navy | ||
| 33 | ||
| Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps | ||
| 35 | ||
| Reserve Personnel, Air Force | ||
| 37 | ||
| Air Force Reserve Manning | ||
| 39 | ||
| National Guard Personnel, Army | ||
| 39 | ||
| Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams | ||
| 41 | ||
| Guard and Reserve Workyear Requirements | ||
| 41 | ||
| National Guard Personnel, Air Force | ||
| 41 | ||
| TITLE II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE | 45 | |
| Operation and Maintenance Overview | ||
| 48 | ||
| Real Property Maintenance | ||
| 48 | ||
| Depot Maintenance | ||
| 49 | ||
| Soldier Support Equipment | ||
| 49 | ||
| Junior ROTC | ||
| 49 | ||
| Field Maintenance and Logistical Support | ||
| 50 | ||
| War Reserve and Prepositioned Materiels | ||
| 50 | ||
| Headquarters and Administrative Expenses | ||
| 50 | ||
| Acquisition Program Growth | ||
| 51 | ||
| DFAS Program Growth | ||
| 51 | ||
| NATO and Overseas Staff Growth | ||
| 51 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance Budget Execution Data | ||
| 51 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance Reprogrammings | ||
| 52 | ||
| Public Transit Vouchers | ||
| 53 | ||
| Recruiting and Advertising | ||
| 53 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Army | ||
| 53 | ||
| Medium General Purpose Tents | ||
| 57 | ||
| Tactical Missile Maintenance | ||
| 57 | ||
| Military Ocean Terminal Bayonne (MOTBY) | ||
| 58 | ||
| Night Training Safety `Light Sticks' | ||
| 58 | ||
| Distance Learning--CCCE | ||
| 58 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Navy | ||
| 58 | ||
| Navy Aviation Depot Maintenance Apprentice Program | ||
| 61 | ||
| Man Overboard Indicator | ||
| 61 | ||
| UNOLS | ||
| 62 | ||
| Naval Sea Cadet Program | ||
| 62 | ||
| USNS Hayes Relocation | ||
| 62 | ||
| Center for Civil-Military Relations | ||
| 62 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps | ||
| 62 | ||
| Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying Equipment (MOLLE) | ||
| 64 | ||
| Civilian Personnel Separation | ||
| 64 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Air Force | ||
| 64 | ||
| C-5 Spare Parts | ||
| 67 | ||
| Air Force Cargo Distribution Hub | ||
| 67 | ||
| Displaying Retired Aircraft | ||
| 68 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide | ||
| 68 | ||
| Beryllium Work-Related Illnesses | ||
| 70 | ||
| DoD Schools | ||
| 70 | ||
| Family Advocacy | ||
| 71 | ||
| Youth Development and Leadership Program | ||
| 71 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve | ||
| 71 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve | ||
| 73 | ||
| Fort Worth Naval Air Station | ||
| 75 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve | ||
| 75 | ||
| NBC Defense Equipment | ||
| 77 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve | ||
| 77 | ||
| March Air Reserve Base | ||
| 79 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard | ||
| 79 | ||
| National Emergency and Disaster Information Center | ||
| 81 | ||
| Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard | ||
| 81 | ||
| C-130 Operations | ||
| 83 | ||
| Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund | ||
| 83 | ||
| Budget Justification and Budget Execution Materials | ||
| 83 | ||
| United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces | ||
| 83 | ||
| Environmental Restoration, Army | ||
| 84 | ||
| Environmental Restoration, Navy | ||
| 84 | ||
| Environmental Restoration, Air Force | ||
| 84 | ||
| Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide | ||
| 84 | ||
| Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites | ||
| 84 | ||
| Nike Battery 55 | ||
| 85 | ||
| Santa Clarita | ||
| 85 | ||
| Newmark | ||
| 85 | ||
| Depleted Uranium Environmental Restoration | ||
| 85 | ||
| Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid | ||
| 85 | ||
| Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction | ||
| 86 | ||
| Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense | ||
| 86 | ||
| TITLE III. PROCUREMENT | 87 | |
| Estimates and Appropriations Summary | ||
| 87 | ||
| Special Interest Items | ||
| 89 | ||
| Classified Programs | ||
| 89 | ||
| Communication Systems Upgrades | ||
| 89 | ||
| Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Vehicles | ||
| 89 | ||
| Aircraft Procurement, Army | ||
| 89 | ||
| Kiowa Warrior Live-Fire Testing | ||
| 90 | ||
| Ground Proximity Warning System | ||
| 90 | ||
| Missile Procurement, Army | ||
| 93 | ||
| Short Range Air Defense Modernization | ||
| 93 | ||
| Javelin | ||
| 93 | ||
| Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army | ||
| 96 | ||
| Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge | ||
| 96 | ||
| Procurement of Ammunition, Army | ||
| 98 | ||
| Ammunition Management | ||
| 98 | ||
| Sense and Destroy Armor Munition | ||
| 99 | ||
| Other Procurement, Army | ||
| 101 | ||
| Up-Armored High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicles | ||
| 103 | ||
| Aircraft Procurement, Navy | ||
| 107 | ||
| Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS) | ||
| 107 | ||
| EP-3 Modernization | ||
| 108 | ||
| Weapons Procurement, Navy | ||
| 110 | ||
| Joint Stand-Off Weapon | ||
| 110 | ||
| Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps | ||
| 113 | ||
| Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy | ||
| 115 | ||
| Other Procurement, Navy | ||
| 117 | ||
| Aviation Requirement for Joint Tactical Terminals | ||
| 118 | ||
| Procurement, Marine Corps | ||
| 122 | ||
| Aircraft Procurement, Air Force | ||
| 125 | ||
| F-15 | ||
| 126 | ||
| C-17 Advance Procurement | ||
| 126 | ||
| F-15 Modifications | ||
| 126 | ||
| F-16 Modifications | ||
| 127 | ||
| Miscellaneous Production Charges | ||
| 127 | ||
| Missile Procurement, Air Force | ||
| 131 | ||
| Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force | ||
| 133 | ||
| Other Procurement, Air Force | ||
| 135 | ||
| Next Generation Small Loader | ||
| 136 | ||
| Procurement, Defense-Wide | ||
| 139 | ||
| National Guard and Reserve Equipment | ||
| 142 | ||
| Defense Production Act Purchases | ||
| 142 | ||
| Microwave Power Tubes | ||
| 142 | ||
| Information Technology | ||
| 142 | ||
| Information Assurance and Computer Network Security | ||
| 143 | ||
| Information Technology Oversight | ||
| 144 | ||
| Defense Joint Accounting System (DJAS) | ||
| 144 | ||
| Navy Marine Corps Intranet | ||
| 144 | ||
| Information Security Lessons Learned | ||
| 145 | ||
| Army High Performance Computing Research Center | ||
| 145 | ||
| Information Technology Center | ||
| 146 | ||
| National Guard Bureau Fiber Optic Study | ||
| 146 | ||
| Global Infrastructure Data Capture Program | ||
| 146 | ||
| TITLE IV. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION | 147 | |
| Estimates and Appropriation Summary | ||
| 147 | ||
| Special Interest Items | ||
| 147 | ||
| Classified Programs | ||
| 147 | ||
| Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan | ||
| 147 | ||
| Tactical Radios | ||
| 148 | ||
| Networking of Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance Assets | ||
| 148 | ||
| Joint Ejection Seat Program | ||
| 148 | ||
| Discoverer II | ||
| 150 | ||
| Use of Special Access-Like Security Measures to Protect Business Sensitive Information | ||
| 150 | ||
| Budgeting for Operational Test | ||
| 151 | ||
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army | ||
| 151 | ||
| Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) | ||
| 156 | ||
| RDT&E Management Support | ||
| 156 | ||
| Rand Arroyo Center | ||
| 156 | ||
| Excalibur (XM-982) | ||
| 156 | ||
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy | ||
| 161 | ||
| DD-21 Next Generation Surface Combatant | ||
| 165 | ||
| Shared Reconnaissance Pod (SHARP) | ||
| 167 | ||
| Network Centric Warfare (NCW) | ||
| 167 | ||
| Navy, Marine Corps Imagery Processing Exploitation | ||
| 167 | ||
| Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVS) | ||
| 168 | ||
| Bone Marrow Registry | ||
| 168 | ||
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force | ||
| 173 | ||
| Radiation Hardened Electronics | ||
| 176 | ||
| Air Traffic Control, Approach, and Landing System | ||
| 176 | ||
| High Altitude Endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (HAE UAV)-Global Hawk | ||
| 177 | ||
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide | ||
| 181 | ||
| Arms Control Technology | ||
| 184 | ||
| High Performance Computing Program | ||
| 185 | ||
| National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) | ||
| 185 | ||
| Still-Image Compression Standard | ||
| 185 | ||
| Competitive Practices | ||
| 185 | ||
| Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense | ||
| 189 | ||
| Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense | ||
| 189 | ||
| TITLE V. REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS | 191 | |
| Defense Working Capital Funds | ||
| 191 | ||
| National Defense Sealift Fund | ||
| 191 | ||
| Ready Reserve Force | ||
| 191 | ||
| TITLE VI. OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS | 193 | |
| Defense Health Program | ||
| 193 | ||
| Special Interest Items | ||
| 193 | ||
| TRICARE Improvements | ||
| 194 | ||
| Transfer of Defense Health Program Funds | ||
| 194 | ||
| Anthrax Vaccine Program | ||
| 195 | ||
| Chiropractic Demonstration Program | ||
| 195 | ||
| Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army | ||
| 195 | ||
| Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense | ||
| 196 | ||
| DoD Support to Plan Colombia | ||
| 196 | ||
| Tethered Aerostat Radar System | ||
| 197 | ||
| Office of the Inspector General | ||
| 197 | ||
| TITLE VII. RELATED AGENCIES | 199 | |
| National Foreign Intelligence Program | ||
| 199 | ||
| Introduction | ||
| 199 | ||
| Classified Annex | ||
| 199 | ||
| Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund | ||
| 199 | ||
| Intelligence Community Management Account | ||
| 200 | ||
| Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Fund | ||
| 200 | ||
| National Security Education Trust Fund | ||
| 200 | ||
| TITLE VIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS | 203 | |
| Definition of Program, Project and Activity | ||
| 203 | ||
| House of Representatives Reporting Requirements | 203 | |
| Changes in the Application of Existing Law | ||
| 204 | ||
| Appropriations Language | ||
| 204 | ||
| General Provisions | ||
| 206 | ||
| Appropriations Not Authorized by Law | ||
| 208 | ||
| Transfer of Funds | ||
| 210 | ||
| Rescissions | ||
| 211 | ||
| Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule) | ||
| 211 | ||
| Constitutional Authority | ||
| 211 | ||
| Comparison with the Budget Resolution | ||
| 212 | ||
| Five-Year Outlay Projections | ||
| 212 | ||
| Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments | ||
| 212 | ||
| Full Committee Votes | ||
| 212 | ||
| Additional Views | ||
| 224 |
2d Session
106-644
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001
| June 1, 2000- Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed | |
| Mr. LEWIS of California, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following | |
| REPORT | |
| together with | |
| ADDITIONAL VIEWS | |
| [To accompany H.R. 4576] |
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the Department of Defense, and for other purposes, for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001.
BILL TOTALS
Appropriations for most military functions of the Department of Defense are provided for in the accompanying bill for the fiscal year 2001. This bill does not provide appropriations for military construction, military family housing, civil defense, or nuclear warheads, for which requirements are considered in connection with other appropriations bills.
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request for activities funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill totals $284,520,572,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The amounts recommended by the Committee in the accompanying bill total $288,512,800,000 in new budget authority. This is $3,992,228,000 above the budget estimate and $19,805,014,000 above the sums made available for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2000.
COMMITTEE BUDGET REVIEW PROCESS
During its review of the fiscal year 2001 budget, the Subcommittee on Defense held a total of 13 hearings during the period of February 2000 to March 2000. Testimony received by the Subcommittee totaled 1,408 pages of transcript. Approximately half of the hearings were held in open session. Executive (closed) sessions were held only when the security classification of the material to be discussed presented no alternative.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS BY MAJOR CATEGORY
ACTIVE MILITARY PERSONNEL
The Committee recommends a total of $65,098,288,000 for active military personnel, a net increase of $51,800,000 above the budget request. The Committee supports the budget request which proposed a 3.7 percent pay raise for military personnel effective January 1, 2001. The Committee also agrees with the authorized end strength as requested in the President's budget, and has included $18,500,000 for additional Navy recruiters and Navy force structure manning.
GUARD AND RESERVE PERSONNEL
The Committee recommends a total of $10,805,928,000, a net increase of $50,750,000 above the budget request for Guard and Reserve personnel. The Committee agrees with the authorized end strength as requested in the President's budget for the Selected Reserve, and has included $37,500,000 to provide for additional full-time support personnel for the Army Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air Force Reserve, and Army National Guard. The Committee has also included funds for the proposed 3.7 percent pay raise.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The Operation and Maintenance appropriation provides for the readiness of U.S. forces as well as the maintenance of facilities and equipment, the infrastructure that supports combat forces, and the quality of life of service members and their families.
The Committee recommends $97,507,228,000, a net increase of $1,227,115,000 above the fiscal year 2001 budget request. This increase is driven primarily by the need to address shortfalls in funding for infrastructure repairs and maintenance, depot level maintenance, basic soldier support equipment, field level maintenance and logistical support, and shortages of sustainment stocks. The Committee also recommends reductions from the budget request as the result of fact of life changes and management actions the Department of Defense should undertake to streamline its operations.
PROCUREMENT
The Committee recommends $61,558,679,000 for programs funded in Title III of the Committee bill, Procurement, a net increase of $2,292,076,000 to the fiscal year 2001 budget request. Included in these totals is $2,452,551,000 for procurement of National Guard and Reserve equipment, a net increase of $622,651,000 above the budget request.
Major programs funded in the bill include:
$183,371,000 for 17 UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters.
$709,454,000 for Apache Longbow modifications.
$372,248,000 for 3,754 Javelin anti-tank missiles.
$285,363,000 for 2,200 Hellfire missiles.
$188,689,000 for 66 MLRS launcher systems.
$440,689,000 for Bradley fighting vehicle industrial base sustainment.
$1,200,077,000 for the Medium armored vehicle family.
$338,422,000 for the Abrams tank upgrade program.
$2,818,533,000 for 42 F/A-18E/F fighter aircraft.
$1,128,592,000 for 16 Marine Corps V-22 aircraft.
$231,118,000 for 3 KC-130J aircraft.
$433,932,000 for 12 Trident II ballistic missiles.
$4,053,653,000 for the CVN-77 aircraft carrier.
$1,198,012,000 for 1 New Attack Submarine.
$2,703,559,000 for 3 DDG-51 Destroyers.
$348,951,000 for 1 ADC(X) ship.
$2,149,882,000 for 10 F-22 fighter aircraft.
$400,000,000 for 5 F-15 fighter aircraft.
$2,185,823,000 for 12 C-17 airlift aircraft.
$250,610,000 for 1 JSTARS aircraft.
$380,232,000 for C-135 modifications.
$219,848,000 for 9,098 JDAM munitions.
$2,357,943,000 for ammunition for all services.
$433,962,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense Organization programs.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
The Committee recommends $40,170,230,000 for programs funded in Title IV of the Committee bill, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, an increase of $2,307,829,000 to the fiscal year 2001 budget request. Major programs funded in the bill include:
$614,041,000 for the Comanche helicopter.
$355,309,000 for the Crusader artillery program.
$706,000,000 for the Joint Strike Fighter program.
$257,274,000 for the DD-21 next generation destroyer.
$1,411,786,000 for F-22 development.
$145,313,000 for B-2 development.
$569,188,000 for the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) High.
$332,952,000 for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program.
$4,111,408,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense Organization programs.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE INTEREST
MILITARY HEALTH CARE AND MEDICAL RESEARCH PROGRAMS
The Committee continues to emphasize support for and oversight of defense health care and medical research programs. The Committee recommends total funding for the Defense Health Program of $12,143,029,000, an increase of $988,412,000 over the enacted fiscal year 2000 level (a one year increase of nearly nine percent), and $542,600,000 above the fiscal year 2001 budget request. In addition, appropriations for other medical programs in this bill, funded in accounts other than the Defense Health Program appropriation cited above, are recommended to receive increases above the budget request totaling nearly $400,000,000.
The funds provided above the budget request include $280,600,000 to implement the health care enhancements recently approved by the House in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 (H.R. 4205), which are targeted to achieve improved access to care for service members, their dependents, and the retired military community. The Committee bill also includes additions over the budget request totaling $638,830,000 for medical research programs, including $175,000,000 for the peer-reviewed breast cancer research program and $75,000,000 for the peer-reviewed prostate cancer research program (both managed by the Department of the Army).
Consistent with findings resulting from its fiscal year 2001 budget review hearings, the Committee also recommends general provisions intended to give the Department greater flexibility in the execution of its managed care contracts, as well as requirements that the Secretary of Defense more fully monitor and report to Congress on issues associated with the execution of those contracts, in particular cost growth in the TRICARE system.
INFORMATION ASSURANCE AND COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
The fiscal year 2001 budget request generally accelerates the efforts underway within the Department of Defense and the intelligence community to take advantage of rapid advances in information technology. The Committee, as in years past, supports such efforts as the DoD's `Revolution in Military Affairs' and `Revolution in Business Affairs' which are largely premised on taking advantage of a growing ability to move and process information.
However, as in society at large, the national security community's growing use of such technology poses great vulnerabilities as well. Events of recent weeks have only served to highlight this problem, with the news dominated by acts by individual hackers committing computer vandalism. The threats posed by such seemingly random acts--in themselves real--pale in comparison to the potential dangers posed by those who seek to damage American interests. The range of possibilities runs from those attempting to discreetly break into systems to steal information, to more active measures intended to destroy or disable information networks in order to damage U.S. military and intelligence capabilities, perhaps in connection with a real world conflict.
The Committee believes that a concerted, focused effort is needed to protect key information systems, not only by those within the national security community but at all levels of government. The Committee commends the DoD for the efforts it has already initiated in this regard, which among other things includes taking advantage of lessons learned from the Year 2000 computer problem. Nevertheless, it is the Committee's belief that much more needs to be done in this arena.
The Committee is well aware that the complexity of this problem does not lend itself to a `silver bullet' solution. A more appropriate response is a broad approach intended to create a `defense-in-depth', with multiple levels of protection and avoidance of any single point of failure. Drawing on testimony from experts in the Department of Defense, the FBI, industry and academia, the Committee therefore recommends increases over the budget request totaling $150,000,000, targeted at addressing the most serious vulnerabilities in the Department's information infrastructure.
These funds are directed towards specific objectives, including increased monitoring of DoD networks; enhanced protection of military communications; additional training for DoD personnel; and increasing the Department's knowledge of its vulnerabilities. The funding allocations include:
$36,000,000 to purchase hardware and software applications to monitor computer networks for suspicious activity;
$35,000,000 for new digital secure phones to replace the outdated STU-III;
$20,000,000 to ensure security capabilities are built into new cell phones, rather than retrofitting them later at a significantly higher cost;
$18,600,000 to accelerate the DoD's Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) program;
$15,000,000 for information security awareness, education and training;
$12,100,000 for an effects-based evaluation of a computer network attack on information systems and processes;
$10,300,000 for an assessment of the physical and cyber vulnerabilities of militarily-critical DoD and commercial infrastructures; and
$3,000,000 for additional basic (6.1) research into information assurance.
Specific program details associated with this initiative are noted throughout this report and are summarized in the Information Technology section under Title III, Procurement. The Committee directs that those information assurance program elements or projects receiving funds over the budget request in the Committee report be designated as items of congressional interest and shall be so noted on DD Form 1414 (this is to include amounts requested in the budget request and the additional funding cited above).
The Committee intends that this Information Assurance initiative be the first step in a longer-term effort to increase programmed funding for DoD's efforts towards securing its information systems and networks. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees with the fiscal year 2002 budget submission which provides details on the planned obligation of these funds, as well as the funding proposed in the fiscal year 2002 budget for information assurance programs.
BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAMS
In light of the growing threat posed to deployed U.S. military forces, the citizens and territory of the United States, and our allies, the Committee recommends a total of $4,555,370,000 for programs under the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). This is a net increase of $168,245,000 over the budget request, and $738,824,000 above the amounts provided for fiscal year 2000.
Within this amount, the Committee recommends specific funding allocations for certain key programs as shown below:
| National Missile Defense: | |
| Procurement | $74,530,000 |
| RDT&E | $1,740,238,000 |
| Theater High-Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) RDT&E | $549,945,000 |
| Navy Theater-Wide RDT&E | $512,671,000 |
| Navy Area RDT&E | $274,234,000 |
| PAC-3: | |
| Procurement | $365,457,000 |
| RDT&E | $81,016,000 |
| International Cooperative Programs RDT&E | $116,992,000 |
TACTICAL FIGHTER AVIATION ISSUES
The Committee, as it noted in its report last year, remains concerned about the developmental challenges and overall costs associated with the current Department of Defense plans to modernize its tactical fighter inventory. The Committee recognizes the need and justification for each of the major ongoing tactical fighter modernization programs: the Navy's F/A-18 E/F fighter; the Air Force's F-22 fighter; and the Marine Corps/Air Force/Navy Joint Strike Fighter. Nevertheless, given the current expense of each of these programs, and the growing share of the DoD budget they will consume as they move from development into low-rate and then full-scale production, the Committee believes it is absolutely essential that the DoD insist on a rigorous testing and development process as well as sound program and cost management for each program. Absent such controls, the financial `bow wave' associated with tactical fighter modernization, already immense, can only grow--which could result in either reduced procurement objectives, putting even more pressure on existing, aging assets; or the diversion of funds from other critical defense needs.
The Committee's fiscal year 2001 recommendations for each of these programs are summarized below.
F/A-18 E/F: The Committee recommends $2,818,553,000 for procurement of 42 aircraft, the number of aircraft requested in the budget; $101,068,000 in advance procurement, and $248,093,000 for research, development, test and evaluation (the budgeted amounts).
F-22: The Committee recommends funding the budgeted amounts for procurement of 10 aircraft ($2,149,882,000), advance procurement ($396,222,000), and research, development, test and evaluation ($1,411,786,000).
The Committee continues to believe it is essential the F-22 aircraft receive adequate testing prior to a production decision. Unfortunately, the F-22's flight test program continues to fall short of Air Force projections. Between November 1999 and March 2000, the F-22 program lost an additional nine flight test months. The Committee is especially concerned about slips in static and fatigue testing, which are now both more than a year behind schedule. In a related matter, the Committee has become increasingly convinced that the congressionally-imposed F-22 development cost cap is forcing the Air Force to reduce or delay the funding for, and planned scope of, testing in order to accommodate continued cost growth on the F-22 development contract.
Responding to these concerns, the Committee has included two general provisions. The first (Section 8116 of the Committee bill) restates the criteria established in Public Law 106-79 (the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000), which prohibits award of a low-rate production contract for the F-22 until:
(1) first flight of an F-22 aircraft incorporating Block 3.0 software;
(2) certification by the Secretary of Defense that all Defense Acquisition Board exit criteria for award of low-rate production has been met; and
(3) submission of a report by the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation assessing the adequacy of the testing to date.
The Committee also proposes Section 8117, which replaces the existing, individual statutory budget caps on F-22 development and production with a single, overall cap for the entire program. This will provide the Air Force greater flexibility to plan, budget, and execute a sound testing and development program than is currently the case under existing law.
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF): The Joint Strike Fighter is a critically important program for the Marine Corps, Air Force and Navy. As currently planned it will be the largest single defense acquisition program in the history of the DoD. The Committee fully understands the integral part that this program plays in all three Services' tactical fighter modernization plans. It also believes that the JSF, should it live up to its technological promise and cost goals, represents the best option for replacing aging Navy and Marine Corps F/A-18 and AV-8B fighters, as well as Air Force F-16s. In short, the Committee wants this program to succeed.
The fiscal year 2001 budget request for JSF was premised on completion of the program's concept demonstration/validation phase by March 2001. By this date, the program was expected to be ready for transition into engineering and manufacturing development (EMD), to be conducted by one of the two competing contractor teams following a `winner-take-all' source selection decision. However delays in the start of the JSF flight demonstration program, as well as technical problems which may hinder demonstration of critical JSF design characteristics, have made a March 2001 completion date for concept demonstration increasingly unlikely.
Moreover, the Department of Defense has been actively assessing the effects of the `winner-take-all' acquisition strategy on the defense industrial base. It is possible that the Department may, in a matter of weeks, announce a revised acquisition strategy involving some degree of teaming or cooperation between what are currently two opposing industrial teams, each with distinctly different design concepts, hardware, subcontractors and vendor bases. Should such a revision to the acquisition strategy occur, logic dictates that the JSF development program and budget plan will require adjustments, perhaps even major changes, to those currently assumed in the fiscal year 2001 budget submission and the existing Future Years Defense Plan.
The Committee believes Congress must be in a position to carefully consider, and respond if necessary, to any proposed revisions in the JSF's acquisition strategy--especially in light of the potential schedule and cost impacts. Additionally, the current JSF program schedule and the fiscal year 2001 budget request both presume a source selection and EMD contract award will be completed by March 2001. As stated above, technical and schedule problems make it unlikely this milestone will be met.
The Committee also notes that this projected March 2001 date is just two months into the beginning of a new Administration and Congress. The Committee believes there must be sufficient time for the next Administration to formulate its own plans for the JSF in the context of its own overall defense program. In this regard, a March 2001 decision point involving a program of this importance is clearly unrealistic.
Therefore, the Committee recommends the following actions:
(1) The Committee bill includes total fiscal year 2001 funding for the Joint Strike Fighter of $706,606,000, a net decrease of $150,000,000 from the budget request. Within this total the Committee has provided $411,101,000 for concept demonstration, an increase of $150,000,000 over the budget request; and $295,502,000 for engineering and manufacturing development (EMD), a decrease of $300,000,000 from the budget request. These changes have been allocated to the appropriate program elements in the Navy and Air Force research, development, test and evaluation accounts. The effect of these changes is to provide sufficient funding to extend the concept demonstration/validation phase from March to June 2001; and to delay initiation of entry into the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the JSF program by three months, from March to June 2001.
(2) To ensure that Congress is kept apprised of the status of the JSF program, the Committee bill includes a general provision (Section 8118) which requires that 60 days following enactment of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2001, the Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees describing what, if any changes have been made to the JSF acquisition plan as a result of the Secretary's review of the `winner-take-all' strategy. If applicable, this report shall address any contemplated changes in the JSF development schedule and funding profile resulting from a revised acquisition strategy. The Secretary is also to report on a number of issues regarding the technical progress made towards achieving planned JSF performance characteristics.
(3) This provision also requires submission of a similar report from the next Administration's Secretary of Defense by March 30, 2001, which will provide Congress with updated information regarding the JSF demonstration phase as well as a detailed explanation of the next Administration's plans for this program. The provision also restricts the obligation of funds for the EMD phase of the JSF program until June 1, 2001, and further conditions the release of funds on a certification from the Secretary that the JSF EMD program has been fully funded by each of the participating services in the Future Years Defense Plan.
ARMY TRANSFORMATION
The fiscal year 2001 budget request for the Department of the Army marks the first year of a 12- to 15-year, $70 billion effort to transform its Cold War legacy force--designed for a different era and a different enemy--into a force built on speed, lethality, versatility, survivability, and sustainability. This ambitious and far-reaching plan, conceived less than a year ago, has become known as the `Army Transformation' strategy.
Recent operations have clearly shown that, in the wake of a 40 percent reduction in personnel and a 37 percent reduction in buying power over the last decade, and a weapons acquisition process which has proven to be lacking in many respects, the Army cannot quickly deploy its heavy forces, and is not optimally equipped or organized to meet the changing demands placed on it in the post-Cold War era. The Army Chief of Staff has described this problem succinctly: `... our heavy forces are too heavy and our light forces lack staying power.'
In light of the clearly demonstrated need for the Army to reconfigure itself, and the depth of the commitment to change exhibited by the Army leadership, the Committee has made the issue of Army Transformation a major focus of its deliberations in fashioning the fiscal year 2001 Defense Appropriations bill. The Committee took the following issues into consideration.
Past Restructuring Initiatives. The Committee notes that `Army transformation' is not a new idea. Especially since the end of the Cold War, different Administrations and different Army leaders have recognized the need for the Army to adapt to new and different threats. Over the last decade, the Army has undertaken a variety of restructuring initiatives, large and small. They include such efforts as the advanced warfighting experiment process, `Force XXI', digitization, the `Army of Excellence', the `Army After Next', and most recently the Strike Force headquarters concept. Many of these initiatives have shown some promise, but have regrettably failed to generate sufficient impetus to bring about transforming change to the Army. The reasons for this are varied, including prolonged research and development efforts or extended and disjointed experimentation programs. Other efforts suffered from lack of sufficient funding. None had sufficient momentum or budgetary priority to be completed as originally envisioned.
The consequence of the Army's having failed in these attempts to make significant changes were perhaps most pungently summed up by the then-Deputy Secretary of Defense, John Hamre, who in August 1999 stated: `If the Army only holds onto nostalgic versions of its grand past, it is going to atrophy and die.'
The New `Army Vision'. Within the past year, the Army has responded to this challenge by devising a new strategy, intended to provide in the near-term an enhanced capability to rapidly deploy combat power, while laying the foundation for the creation of an `objective' force that is as lethal and survivable as its heavy forces but as deployable, agile, and versatile as its light forces. The Army intends to accomplish this through three major initiatives.
`Interim Force'.--The Army has initiated an aggressive program to convert a selected number of brigades into 4,000 person interim brigade combat teams (IBCTs, also referred to as `new medium brigades'), intended to bridge the gap between traditional heavy and light Army forces. The fiscal year 2001 budget contains funding to begin this process for the first such IBCT. The primary focus of the `interim force' is to make the Army's light combat formations more lethal, survivable, and tactically mobile. The transition to interim force elements will also convert some heavy brigades into lighter and more agile forces.
The IBCTs are specifically designed for employment as early entry forces that can begin operations immediately upon departure from the port of debarkation. The mobility goal is to deploy an entire interim brigade by C-17 or C-130 aircraft to a theater twice as fast as a mechanized brigade (approximately 96 hours with a dedicated airflow). The Army intends this interim force to provide the National Command Authority with a better-tailored and more effective capability for smaller scale contingencies, such as past operations in Grenada, Somalia, Haiti, or current operations in Kosovo. The Army also contends that this force will improve American combat power for fighting major theater wars (MTW), such as on the Korean peninsula, especially should the Nation find itself confronted with a second MTW scenario.
The interim force concept, which is currently estimated to cost around $600 to $900 million per brigade, centers on acquiring a family of off-the-shelf, medium weight infantry carrier vehicles and a new mobile armored gun system. Costs will be refined with the final selection of interim armored vehicles later this summer.
The current Army budget funds an equipment acquisition profile of one interim brigade combat team per fiscal year over the Future Years Defense Plan. In testimony before the Committee, the Army Chief of Staff made clear his view that it is preferable to implement the interim force transition at a rate of two brigades per year. This is in order to reduce the risk to U.S. forces, which in all likelihood will continue to be ordered to undertake operations with equipment, organization, and doctrine that is not optimized for many of the missions they will be tasked with performing.
`Objective Force'--While attempting to address immediate operational needs through the rapid fielding of the interim brigades, the fiscal year 2001 Army budget also proposes a major research and development effort to support the design and eventual fielding of a new medium weight `objective force', based on `leap ahead' technology, and intended for deployment in the 2012 timeframe. This force will be designed to deploy a combat-capable combined arms brigade anywhere in the world in 96 hours, the remainder of the division 24 hours later, and five divisions anywhere in the world in 30 days. Even though it would be centered around a relatively lightweight (10 to 20 tons), advanced technology Future Combat System vehicle, the Army believes the objective force can be shaped and equipped to have the versatility, sustainability, and lethality to fight and win a full spectrum of conflicts ranging from small stability and support operations to full-scale major regional wars.
Heavy Force Recapitalization- The third major element of the Army strategy calls for `recapitalization' of its legacy heavy forces, to ensure that the Army will continue to have the ability to generate overwhelming heavy combat power to fight and win the Nation's wars. This part of the plan is centered on further tank upgrades, revitalization of helicopter assets, artillery upgrades, and enhanced situation awareness (digitization) capabilities. It calls for modernizing III Corps, the 3rd Infantry Division, selected Guard brigades, and other units not part of the interim force. The Committee notes that even under the most optimistic implementation timetables for the future `objective force', it will be necessary to maintain the Army's heavy formations for at least another two decades.
Committee Observations and Concerns:--The Committee commends the present Army leadership for devising a program that not only attempts to learn lessons from past restructuring efforts, but also tries to reevaluate and make fundamental changes to core organizational, doctrinal, and institutional concepts. However, the Committee believes that if this effort is to avoid the fate of previously well-intended Army efforts, it will require a sustained level of commitment from the Army, the Secretary of Defense, and Congress, a demonstrated dedication to change and willingness to make tough choices, and a concerted effort to make this a top Department of Defense priority.
Internal Army Transformation Needed- While laudatory of the Army leadership's aggressive efforts over the past year to make its transformation vision a reality, the Committee believes that the Army must undertake a serious self-examination of how it is internally organized and resourced to manage a complex and expensive undertaking such as Transformation. The Committee has not been impressed with the slow and protracted way in which the Army has historically developed and acquired many of its major systems. For example, it will take 30 years for the Army to develop and procure a new fleet of medium trucks, the Comanche helicopter will be in development for nearly 20 years before it is procured, and hundreds of millions were spent to develop the medium Armored Gun System only to see the Army recommend its cancellation immediately prior to procurement. Other examples abound. The Committee has observed how any number of Army research and development programs have displayed a lack of focus and relevance over the years, while there have been a series of embarrassing design problems involving relatively simple items such as trailer hitches and medium trucks.
Budget Priorities Must Shift As Well- The Army must also come to grips with the need to make the hard budgetary choices needed to reorder its internal priorities and to eliminate lower priority expenditures. It is not unreasonable to require the Army to contribute a significant portion of the total cost of the transformation effort from savings derived from other desirable but lower priority Army programs--especially those that after years of development have yet to demonstrate success, are duplicative of existing capabilities, or represent a `Cold War' mindset in terms of requirements and operational utility.
The Committee is also puzzled by the actions of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). The Committee notes that after issuing what amounts to an ultimatum to the Army to transform itself, OSD did not follow up its challenge with the resources necessary to properly and robustly implement the transformation plan. Even though Army transformation is a centerpiece of the President's fiscal year 2001 defense budget, the Administration proposed larger program increases for both the Air Force and the Navy than for the Army. Indeed, the proposed fiscal year 2001 budget cuts the Army's overall buying power by 1.5 percent.
The Committee takes no issue with the legitimacy of the Air Force and Navy program increases, most of which meet valid needs and requirements. But the Committee also believes that if the DoD and the next Administration does not accord Army transformation the budgetary priority it deserves, it will languish and eventually be homogenized into the traditional Army structure along with many past initiatives, producing only marginal long term effect.
Interim Force Implementation Issues- The Committee is concerned about many aspects of the proposed `off-the-shelf' acquisition plan the Army has initiated to equip the new interim brigades. But given Army immediate operational requirements, and the well-demonstrated inability of the Army acquisition system to quickly develop and field equipment, the Committee believes this unconventional acquisition initiative must be given a chance to succeed. Even then, the interim brigade acquisition strategy cannot be allowed to become yet another drawn-out, overly expensive program which collapses from its own weight.
The Committee is aware that some have called for slowing down the fielding of the interim force to allow for a period of experimentation, detailed platform demonstrations, and operational analysis. The Committee believes that the Army shall, and must, take the necessary steps to ensure that the equipment and operational tactics for the interim force meet the warfighting needs of those commanders who may be called upon to use this capability, as well as providing for the safety of those soldiers who may be called upon to fight on behalf of the Nation. On balance, given the Army's needs the Committee finds itself supportive of the Army Chief of Staff's crisply stated vision for the interim force: `We intend to stand it up, organize it, equip it, train it, pick it up, and lift it and use it, as opposed to study it.'
The Committee cautions the Army that it should be prepared to demonstrate that it has given full and careful consideration to vehicle cost in awarding upcoming IBCT vehicle production contracts. In particular, the Committee will review how the Army has weighed such costs against the benefits and desire of achieving commonality among all medium combat vehicle types. The Committee expects the Army to follow a `best value' concept when evaluating bids and awarding IBCT contracts.
Committee Recommendations:
The Committee strongly supports the thrust of the Army leadership's strategic vision to transform its Cold War legacy force to one that is better tailored to conduct a full spectrum of operations with dominance, speed, agility, lethality, and sustainability.
In addition, the Committee concurs with the Army leadership that the greatly increased frequency of small-scale contingency operations over the past decade, and the likely continuation of such missions in the foreseeable future, justifies the need for establishing its interim brigades more quickly than the ten-year timeframe currently proposed. The Army believes that it can implement this force in half the time if funds are available, and the Committee agrees that this is what should be done. In addition, the Committee strongly supports the concept that the interim force must not just be developed as a specialized force only for small contingency operations, but as a `full spectrum force' capable of effective combat at all levels of conflict.
Therefore, after careful consideration, the Committee makes these recommendations regarding the key aspects of the Army Transformation strategy:
The Committee recommends fully funding the budget request of $105,000,000 for the cornerstone of the `objective force', the Future Combat Vehicle, and also provides an additional $46,000,000 over the request to accelerate this effort.
The Committee bill fully funds the budget request of $646,077,000 to develop and field interim armored vehicles for the first interim brigade combat team--and provides additions above the budget request of $150,000,000 for development costs, and $133,000,000 in procurement accounts to completely test, equip and field the first IBCT.
In addition, the Committee provides an additional $800,000,000 in procurement funding to equip a second IBCT, in accordance with the Army's preferred rate of interim brigade implementation.
As stated above, the Committee believes that the Department of Defense must increase the overall attention and priority it is giving to the interim brigade transformation concept. The Committee bill therefore contains a general provision (Section 8115) prohibiting the obligation of any funds provided for the second IBCT, unless and until the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense budget submission fully funds an additional two IBCTs for fiscal year 2002, as well as in each of the succeeding years of the Future Years Defense Plan until eight brigades are financed. The Committee expects and directs the DoD to include adequate funding in next year's budget request to meet the recommended pace of converting two brigades per year.
Finally, a key aspect of the Army transformation process must be an internal transformation, to revitalize and modernize its processes for developing and acquiring major systems in a timely, efficient, and cost effective manner. The Committee therefore directs the Secretary of the Army to commission an independent organization (as discussed in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army portion of this report) to review and make necessary recommendations to improve the Army's management structure, procedures, requirements development and resource allocation levels for its research and development, major systems acquisition, and budget/fiscal analysis functions. This review shall expressly compare the manner in which these functions are organized and resourced by the other military services, and shall solicit the views and recommendations for improving these functions from cognizant officials in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Office of Management and Budget, the Congress, and industry. This review shall be completed no later than March 31, 2001, and a summary of the recommendations and actions the Secretary plans to take in response to those recommendations shall be transmitted to the congressional defense committees by April 30, 2001.
FORCES TO BE SUPPORTED
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
The fiscal year 2001 budget is designed to support active Army forces of 10 divisions, 3 armored cavalry regiments, and reserve forces of 8 divisions, 3 separate brigades, and 15 enhanced National Guard brigades (6 enhanced brigades will be aligned under 2 AC/ARNG integrated division headquarters). These forces provide the minimum force necessary to meet enduring defense needs and execute the National Military Strategy.
A summary of the major forces follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
1999 2000 2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Divisions: 1
Airborne 1 1 1
Air Assault 1 1 1
Light (-)1/1 1 2 2
Infantry 0 0 0
Mechanized 4 4 4
Armored 2 2 2
Total 10 10 10
Non-division Combat units:
Armored Cavalry Regiments 3 3 3
Separate Brigades 0 2 1 1
Total 3 3 4
Active duty military personnel, end strength (Thousands) 480 480 480
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
The fiscal year 2001 budget support battle forces totaling 316 ships at the end of fiscal year 2001, the same as in fiscal year 2000. Forces in fiscal year 2001 include 18 strategic submarines, 12 aircraft carriers, 246 other battle force ships, 1,835 Navy/Marine Corps tactical/ASW aircraft, 619 Undergraduate Training aircraft, 517 Fleet Air Training aircraft, 254 Fleet Air Support aircraft, 404 Reserve aircraft, and 472 aircraft in the pipeline.
A summary of the major forces follow:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
1999 2000 2001
-------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Forces 18 18 18
Submarines 18 18 18
Other 0 0 0
SLBM Launchers 432 432 432
General Purpose 256 257 258
Aircraft Carriers 11 11 12
Surface Combatants 106 108 108
Submarines (Attack) 57 56 55
Amphibious Warfare Ships 37 37 38
Combat Logistics Ships 34 34 34
Other 11 11 11
Support Forces 25 25 25
Mobile Logistics Ships 2 2 2
Support Ships 23 23 23
Mobilization Category A 18 16 15
Aircraft Carriers 1 1 0
Surface Combatants 10 8 8
Amphibious Warfare Ships 2 2 2
Mine Warfare 5 5 5
Total Ships, Battle Force 317 316 316
Total Local Defense/Misc Force 162 165 155
Auxiliaries/Sea Lift Forces 138 143 132
Surface Combatant Ships 1 0 0
Coastal Defense 13 13 13
Mobilization Category B 10 9 10
Surface Combatants 0 0 0
Mine Warfare Ships 10 9 10
Support Ships 0 0 0
Naval Aircraft:
Primary Authorized (Plus Pipe) 4,100 4,115 4,101
Authorized Pipeline 480 477 472
Tactical/ASW Aircraft 1,869 1,827 1,835
Fleet Air Training 453 517 517
Fleet Air Support 260 255 254
Training (Undergraduate) 621 627 619
Reserve 417 412 404
Naval Personnel:
Active:
Navy 373,046 371,800 372,000
Marine Corps 172,641 172,518 172,600
Reserve:
Navy 89,172 89,134 88,900
SELRES 73,297 74,124 74,251
TARS 15,875 15,010 14,649
-------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE
The fiscal year 2001 Air Force budget is designed to support a total active inventory force structure of 78 fighter and attack squadrons, 4 Air National Guard air defense interceptor squadrons and 12 bomber squadrons, including B-2s, B-52s, and B-1s. The Minuteman and Peacekeeper ICBM forces will consist of 605 active launchers.
A summary of the major forces follows:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
1999 2000 2001
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
USAF fighter and attack (Active) 83 81 78
USAF fighter and attack (ANG and AFRC) 45 45 45
Air defense interceptor (ANG) 6 6 4
Strategic bomber (Active) 10 11 12
Strategic bomber (ANG and AFRC) 3 3 3
ICBM operational launch facilities/control centers 605 605 605
ICBM operational missile boosters 550 550 550
USAF Airlift Squadrons (Active):
Strategic airlift 15 15 12
Tactical airlift 11 11 11
Total Airlift 26 26 23
Total Active Inventory 6,203 6,143 6,114
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1999 (Actual) FY 2000 Col/FY 2001 PB FY 2001 PB
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Duty 360,590 357,900 357,000
Reserve Component 177,478 180,386 182,300
Air National Guard 105,715 106,678 108,000
Air Force Reserve 71,772 73,708 74,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I
MILITARY PERSONNEL
PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FUNDED BY MILITARY PERSONNEL APPROPRIATIONS
The President's fiscal year 2001 budget request continues to make military personnel programs a high priority. The budget request proposed a 3.7 percent pay raise, effective January 1, 2001, included a significant increase in funds for advertising and recruiting support, expanded pays, bonuses and other retention incentives, recommended an increase in the number of recruiters, and contained new initiatives to improve the Services' ability to recruit and retain a quality force.
The Committee agrees with these personnel initiatives and recommends increases over the budget for programs such as Basic Allowance for Housing costs, Dislocation Allowance, enlistment and selective reenlistment bonuses, recruiting and advertising, and additional recruiters.
SUMMARY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 $73,894,693,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 75,801,666,000
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation 75,904,216,000
Change from budget request +102,550,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $75,904,216,000 for the Military Personnel accounts. The recommendation is an increase of $2,009,523,000 above the $73,894,693,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2000. These military personnel budget total comparisons include appropriations for the active, reserve, and National Guard accounts. The following tables include a summary of the recommendations by appropriation account. Explanations of changes from the budget request appear later in this section.
SUMMARY OF APPROPRIATION ACCOUNT OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2001 MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATION
[In thousands of dollars]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Account Budget Recommendation Change from request
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel:
Army $22,198,457 $22,242,457 +$44,000
Navy 17,742,897 17,799,297 +56,400
Marine Corps 6,822,300 6,818,300 -4,000
Air Force 18,282,834 18,238,234 -44,600
Subtotal, Active 65,046,488 65,098,288 +51,800
Reserve Personnel:
Army 2,433,880 2,463,320 +29,440
Navy 1,528,385 1,566,095 +37,710
Marine Corps 436,386 440,886 +4,500
Air Force 981,710 980,610 -1,100
National Guard Personnel:
Army 3,747,636 3,719,336 -28,300
Air Force 1,627,181 1,635,681 +8,500
Subtotal, Guard and Reserve 10,755,178 10,805,928 +50,750
Total, Title I 75,801,666 75,904,216 +102,550
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fiscal year 2001 budget request includes a slight decrease of 618 end strength for the active forces and an increase of 1,556 end strength for the selected reserve over fiscal year 2000 authorized levels.
The Committee recommends the following personnel levels highlighted in the tables below.
OVERALL ACTIVE END STRENGTH
----------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 estimate 1,382,218
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,381,600
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation 1,382,242
Compared with Fiscal year 2000 +24
Compared with Fiscal year 2001 budget request +642
----------------------------------------------------------
OVERALL SELECTED RESERVE END STRENGTH
--------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 estimate 864,144
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 865,700
Fiscal year 2001 recommendation 866,934
Compared with Fiscal year 2000 +2,790
Compared with Fiscal year 2001 budget request +1,234
--------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000estimate Fiscal year 2001
Budgetrequest Recommendation Change from request
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active Forces (end strength):
Army 480,000 480,000 480,000
Navy 371,800 372,000 372,642 +642
Marine Corps 172,518 172,600 172,600
Air Force 357,900 357,000 357,000
Total, Active Force 1,382,218 1,381,600 1,382,242 +642
Guard and Reserve (end strength):
Army Reserve 205,000 205,000 205,300 +300
Navy Reserve 89,134 88,900 88,900
Marine Corps Reserve 39,624 39,500 39,558 +58
Air Force Reserve 73,708 74,300 74,470 +170
Army National Guard 350,000 350,000 350,706 +706
Air National Guard 106,678 108,000 108,000
Total, Guard and Reserve 864,144 865,700 866,934 +1,234
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADJUSTMENTS TO MILITARY PERSONNEL ACCOUNT
OVERVIEW
END STRENGTH ADJUSTMENTS
The Committee recommends a personnel understrength reduction of $138,400,000 to the budget request, as a result of a General Accounting Office review of the fiscal year 2000 military personnel end strength levels. The General Accounting Office has been examining the costs for military pay and allowances to determine if the fiscal year 2001 requirements are correct. It has concluded, based on March 2000 end strength projections, that the active and Reserve components will begin fiscal year 2001 with approximately 3,200 fewer military personnel on-board than budgeted. In addition, actual data shows active military personnel on-board, by grade mix, is different than was requested in last year's budget request. This means the fiscal year 2001 pay and allowances requirements for personnel are incorrect and the budgets are overstated. The Committee will continue to monitor the Services' end strength levels as more current data becomes available.
UNOBLIGATED/UNEXPENDED MILITARY PERSONNEL BALANCES
The Committee recommends a reduction of $96,000,000 to the budget request, as a result of a General Accounting Office review of prior year unobligated military personnel account balances. Generally the Services' military personnel appropriations are obligated in the year of appropriation, with the majority of the obligated balances being disbursed within two years after being appropriated. However, all of the funds obligated are not always expended, and those unexpended balances are then transferred to the foreign currency account. Since the Services' account data have shown a pattern of not spending all of their appropriated funds, the Committee believes that the fiscal year 2001 military personnel budget request is overstated and can be reduced.
The Committee also believes the Services need to do a more comprehensive job of reviewing their appropriations balances to ensure that funds are properly obligated and expended, and if not, to adjust their budget submissions accordingly.
UNFUNDED REQUIREMENTS
The Committee recommends an increase over the budget request of $250,550,000 for additional active duty and reserve component pays and allowances to enhance enlisted recruiting, retention, and quality of life initiatives for military personnel, as follows:
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Enlistment Bonuses $130,400
Selective Reenlistment Bonuses 33,000
AGR Pilot Bonus 12,400
College First Program 5,000
Basic Allowance for Housing 63,750
Dislocation Allowance 6,000
Total $250,550
----------------------------------------
BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUSING
The Committee recommends an increase over the budget request of $63,750,000 for the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) program. The budget recommended funds for a BAH initiative that will eliminate the out-of-pocket housing costs being paid by military personnel. This initiative will lower the average out-of-pocket costs for off-base housing from the current 18.8 percent to 15 percent next year, and eliminate them entirely by fiscal year 2005. The Committee recommends an additional $30,000,000, to further reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses for military personnel over the budget request.
In addition, the Committee recommends $33,750,000 to maintain housing allowances at the 1999 levels during fiscal year 2001, in order to protect service members from any further erosion of their housing benefits in areas where the 2000 BAH rates had been decreased.
GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES
The Committee recognizes that Guard and Reserve forces are an essential part of the total force having played an important role in recent peacetime operations. Many of the skills needed for response to a crisis reside in the Reserve components, guaranteeing the increased use of Reservists in military operations other than war. The Committee continues its support of the Guard and Reserve and recommends an increase of $320,150,000 over the budget request for the personnel and operation and maintenance accounts as shown below.
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Military Personnel +$50,750
Operation and Maintenance +269,400
Total +$320,150
------------------------------------
FULL-TIME SUPPORT STRENGTHS
There are four categories of full-time support in the Guard and Reserve components: civilian technicians, active Guard and Reserve (AGR), non-technician civilians, and active component personnel.
Full-time support personnel organize, recruit, train, maintain and administer the Reserve components. Civilian (military) technicians directly support units, and are very important to help units maintain readiness and meet the wartime mission of the Army and Air Force.
Full-time support end strength in all categories totaled 148,849 in fiscal year 2000. The fiscal year 2001 budget request is 133,023 end strength. The following table summarizes Guard and Reserve full-time support end strengths:
GUARD AND RESERVE FULL-TIME END STRENGTHS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2000 estimate Budget request Recommendation Change from request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army Reserve:
AGR 12,804 12,806 13,106 +300
Technicians 6,474 6,444 7,094 +650
Navy Reserve TAR 15,010 14,649 14,649
Marine Corps Reserve 2,272 2,203 2,261 +58
Air Force Reserve:
AGR 1,134 1,278 1,336 +58
Technicians 9,785 9,733 9,733
Army National Guard:
AGR 22,430 22,448 23,154 +706
Technicians 23,957 23,957 24,992 +1,035
Air National Guard:
AGR 11,157 11,148 11,148
Technicians 22,596 22,547 22,547
Total:
AGR/TAR 64,807 64,532 65,654 +1,122
Technicians 62,812 62,681 64,366 +1,685
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $22,006,361,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 22,198,457,000
Committee recommendation 22,242,457,000
Change from budget request +44,000,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,242,457,000 for Military Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $236,096,000 above the $22,006,361,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Army are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel: | |
| 1100 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses | 71,000 |
| Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs: | |
| 2450 Unemployment Benefits | -2,100 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 2770 Personnel Underexecution | -24,900 |
| 2805 Basic Allowance for Housing | 12,800 |
| 2815 BAH Out-of-Pocket Costs | 10,200 |
| 2820 Dislocation Allowance | 2,000 |
| 2825 Unobligated/Unexpended Fund Balances | -25,000 |
MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY
MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $17,258,823,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 17,742,897,000
Committee recommendation 17,799,297,000
Change from budget request +56,400,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $17,799,297,000 for Military Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of $540,474,000 above the $17,258,823,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Navy are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel: | |
| 3900 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses | 23,500 |
| Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs: | |
| 5250 Unemployment Benefits | -1,400 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 5610 Basic Allowance for Housing | 4,300 |
| 5625 USS Houston manning | 3,500 |
| 5630 Additional Recruiter Manning | 15,000 |
| 5631 BAH Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs | 9,500 |
| 5632 Dislocation Allowance | 2,000 |
ACTIVE NAVY MANNING
The Committee recommends an increase of $18,500,000 over the `Military Personnel, Navy' budget request to provide additional manpower costs for the required end strength associated with the decision not to implement the fiscal year 2001 decommissioning of the USS Houston submarine, and to increase the Navy's recruiter manning levels from 4,500 to 5,000 total strength level.
MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $6,555,403,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 6,822,300,000
Committee recommendation 6,818,300,000
Change from budget request -4,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,818,300,000 for Military Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $262,897,000 above the $6,555,403,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Marine Corps are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel: | |
| 6700 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses | 4,000 |
| 6700 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses | 4,000 |
| Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs: | |
| 7900 Unemployment Benefits | -700 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 8230 Personnel Underexecution | -8,100 |
| 8255 Basic Allowance for Housing | 1,500 |
| 8260 Marine Corps Execution Repricing | -8,000 |
| 8265 BAH Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs | 2,800 |
| 8270 Dislocation Allowance | 500 |
MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $17,861,803,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 18,282,834,000
Committee recommendation 18,238,234,000
Change from budget request -44,600,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,238,234,000 for Military Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $376,431,000 above the $17,861,803,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel, Air Force are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel: | |
| 9350 Special Pays/Enlistment Bonuses | 7,500 |
| 9350 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses | 29,000 |
| Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs: | |
| 10700 Unemployment Benefits | -600 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 11020 Personnel Underexecution | -59,600 |
| 11080 Basic Allowance for Housing | 12,100 |
| 11115 Unobligated/Unexpended Fund Balances | -42,000 |
| 11120 BAH Out-of-Pocket Housing Costs | 7,500 |
| 11125 Dislocation Allowance | 1,500 |
RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $2,289,996,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 2,433,880,000
Committee recommendation 2,463,320,000
Change from budget request +29,440,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,463,320,000 for Reserve Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $173,324,000 above the $2,289,996,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Army are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 2: Other Training and Support: | |
| 11750 Administration and Support/Enlistment Bonuses | 12,400 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 12020 Full Time Support/AGRs | 10,000 |
| 12045 JROTC Program | 1,300 |
| 12055 College First Program | 5,000 |
| 12060 Basic Allowance for Housing | 740 |
RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,473,388,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,528,385,000
Committee recommendation 1,566,095,000
Change from budget request +37,710,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,566,095,000 for Reserve Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of $92,707,000 above the $1,473,388,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Navy are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 12880 JROTC Program | 600 |
| 12895 Basic Allowance for Housing | 310 |
| 12900 CINC Active Duty for Training | 13,400 |
| 12910 Annual Training | 23,400 |
RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $412,650,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 436,386,000
Committee recommendation 440,886,000
Change from budget request +4,500,000
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $440,886,000 for Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $28,236,000 above the $412,650,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 13780 JROTC Program | 300 |
| 13795 Personnel Underexecution | -700 |
| 13800 Active Duty for Special Work | 3,000 |
| 13805 Active Personnel Reserve Reassessment | 1,900 |
RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $892,594,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 981,710,000
Committee recommendation 980,610,000
Change from budget request -1,100,000
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $980,610,000 for Reserve Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $88,016,000 above the $892,594,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel, Air Force are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 14610 Personnel Underexecution | -8,100 |
| 14626 JROTC Program | 1,200 |
| 14640 AGR Pilot Bonus | 3,700 |
| 14645 RED HORSE Unit | 400 |
| 14650 Additional Recruiter Manning | 1,700 |
AIR FORCE RESERVE MANNING
The Committee recommends an increase over the request of $2,100,000 in `Reserve Personnel, Air Force' to provide additional personnel costs required for the stand up of a new total force Rapid Engineer-Deployable Heavy Operations-Repair Squadron Engineer (RED HORSE) unit, and additional Reserve recruiter manning end strength.
NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $3,610,479,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 3,747,636,000
Committee recommendation 3,719,336,000
Change from budget request -28,300,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,719,336,000 for National Guard Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $108,857,000 above the $3,610,479,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for National Guard Personnel, Army are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 2: Other Training and Support: | |
| 15200 Administration and Support/Enlistment Bonuses | 12,000 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 15360 Personnel Underexecution | -36,100 |
| 15390 Additional Full Time Support AGR | 23,500 |
| 15420 Basic Allowance for Housing | 1,300 |
| 15430 Unobligated/Unexpended Fund Balances | -29,000 |
WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION--CIVIL SUPPORT TEAMS
The Department of Defense has currently fielded 10 Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams. Last year, the Congress directed the establishment and organization of an additional 17 teams, for a total of 27 teams. The stationing of these additional teams has already been determined by the Department. However, the Committee believes that should additional WMD teams be established by the Congress or the Department in the future, priority should be given to states in the Southwestern United States, and other areas which are experiencing significant population increases.
GUARD AND RESERVE WORKYEAR REQUIREMENTS
For the past several years, the Committee has asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review the Reserve military personnel budget requests. In the course of their review, the GAO found that the Army National Guard has overstated the average number of military personnel workyears budgeted because the inactive duty training participation rates used to estimate the budget were overstated. Last year, the Committee also directed the Secretary of Defense to ensure the Army National Guard's accounting procedures for determining annual training and schools and special training costs were properly coded, and that the Army National Guard follow the Department's financial management regulations. GAO has determined that the Army National Guard has not corrected the accounting problems reported last year, and further found that this accounting practice is also followed by the other Guard and Reserve components. The Committee again directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Committee, by February 1, 2001, on its efforts to ensure that accurate accounting information is used in preparing the Reserve components budget submissions.
NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,533,196,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,627,181,000
Committee recommendation 1,635,681,000
Change from budget request +8,500,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,635,681,000 for National Guard Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $102,485,000 above the $1,533,196,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for National Guard Personnel, Air Force are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 16120 Personnel Underexecution | -900 |
| 16155 Basic Allowance for Housing | 700 |
| 16160 AGR Pilot Bonus | 8,700 |
TITLE II
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
The fiscal year 2001 budget request for Operation and Maintenance is $96,280,113,000 in new budget authority, which is an increase of $4,045,344,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000. The request also includes a $150,000,000 cash transfer from the National Defense Stockpile Fund Transaction fund.
The accompanying bill recommends $97,507,228,000 for fiscal year 2001, which is an increase of $1,227,115,000 above the budget request. In addition, the Committee recommends that $150,000,000 be transferred from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction fund, as proposed in the budget request.
These appropriations finance the costs of operating and maintaining the Armed Forces, including the reserve components and related support activities of the Department of Defense (DoD), except military personnel costs. Included are pay for civilians, services for maintenance of equipment and facilities, fuel, supplies, and spare parts for weapons and equipment. Financial requirements are influenced by many factors, including force levels such as the number of aircraft squadrons, Army and Marine Corps divisions, installations, military personnel strength and deployments, rates of operation activity, and the quantity and complexity of equipment such as aircraft, ships missiles and tanks in operation.
The table below summarizes the Committee's recommendations.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW
Despite increased funding proposed by the administration in the fiscal year 2001 budget request, the Committee notes that there are substantial unfunded requirements in the Operation and Maintenance accounts that are critical to maintaining the readiness of U.S. armed forces, enhancing the sustainability of such forces when they are deployed, and improving the condition of the supporting infrastructure. As in past years, the Committee requested that the Military Services identify their top unfunded priorities for consideration during the Committee's deliberations on the fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense Appropriations bill. Once again, the Military Services have identified significant shortfalls in the Operation and Maintenance accounts. In the Committee's view, these shortfalls pose a serious risk to the near term readiness of U.S. forces as well as the ability of these forces to sustain combat operations once deployed. These shortfalls are evident in a number of areas financed by the Operation and Maintenance accounts including: maintenance of infrastructure; funding for depot-level maintenance of weapons systems; field level equipment maintenance and logistical support; recruiting, advertising and related programs; and basic personnel support equipment such as cold weather gear, body armor, naval shipboard accommodations, and minor equipment items to support soldiers in the field. To correct these deficiencies, the Committee recommends increased funding above the budget request in a number of areas including those cited above.
The Committee also notes that there are areas in the Operation and Maintenance accounts where savings can be achieved to free up resources both for the readiness needs discussed above, and to make resources available for more robust modernization programs. Given the need to correct deficiencies in the Operation and Maintenance accounts in order to enhance near term readiness and sustainability as well as weapons modernization, the Committee believes it is imperative for the Department of Defense to use its Operation and Maintenance funding as efficiently as possible. Therefore, the Committee recommends certain reductions based on fact-of-life considerations, as well as management actions that the Department should under take to streamline activities funded in the Operation and Maintenance accounts.
REAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
The Committee recommends an increase of $830,300,000 above the budget request to slow the growth in the backlog of real property maintenance. The Committee notes that despite modest increases proposed by the administration for real property maintenance, the level of funding in the fiscal year 2001 budget request falls far short of arresting the growth in the backlog of such work. The budget justification materials indicate an increase in the backlog of real property maintenance workload of almost $1,600,000,000 from 2000 to 2001, and a total backlog in 2001 of $27,200,000,000. Of this amount, the backlog for the Army is over $16,000,000,000. To address this backlog, the Committee recommends additional funding over the budget request to be distributed as follows.
| Army | $555,800,000 |
| Navy | 70,000,000 |
| Marine Corps | 47,000,000 |
| Air Force | 70,000,000 |
| Defense-Wide | 10,500,000 |
| Army Reserve | 30,000,000 |
| Navy Reserve | 15,000,000 |
| Marine Corps Reserve | 2,000,000 |
| Air Force Reserve | 10,000,000 |
| Army National Guard | 15,000,000 |
| Air National Guard | 5,000,000 |
DEPOT MAINTENANCE
The Committee recommends an increase of $343,202,000 above the budget request for depot-level maintenance of weapons systems. The Committee notes with concern that the budget proposes reducing funding available for depot maintenance by over $700,000,000 from fiscal year 2000 levels while allowing the backlog of such maintenance to increase to nearly $1,200,000,000. To stem the growth in the backlog of depot maintenance, the Committee recommends additional funding over the budget request to be distributed as follows.
| Army | $54,402,000 |
| Navy | 181,200,000 |
| Marine Corps | 22,000,000 |
| Air Force | 29,100,000 |
| Defense-Wide | 10,000,000 |
| Navy Reserve | 10,000,000 |
| Marine Corps Reserve | 5,000,000 |
| Air Force Reserve | 15,000,000 |
| Air National Guard | 16,500,000 |
SOLDIER SUPPORT EQUIPMENT
The Committee recommends an increase of $66,150,000 above the budget request for soldier support equipment. The Committee notes that there remains a substantial backlog of basic troop support equipment such as minor equipment needed to support soldiers in the field, cold weather clothing, body armor, and materials to support shipboard accommodations for sailors. To address these deficiencies, the Committee recommends additional funding over the budget request to be distributed as follows.
| Army | $5,000,000 |
| Navy | 15,850,000 |
| Marine Corps | 21,300,000 |
| Army Reserve | 9,000,000 |
| Army National Guard | 12,000,000 |
| Air National Guard | 3,000,000 |
JUNIOR ROTC
The Committee recommends an increase of $12,100,000 above the budget request for the Junior ROTC program. Of this amount, $3,400,000 is for the Reserve Personnel accounts, and $8,700,000 is for the Operation and Maintenance accounts. The Committee notes that the Department of Defense is nearly 800 units below authorized levels for the JROTC program, and does not plan to reach the authorized levels until fiscal year 2006. In order to accelerate this schedule, the Committee recommends additional funding over the budget request to be distributed as follows.
| Reserve Personnel, Army | $1,300,000 |
| Reserve Personnel, Navy | 600,000 |
| Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps | 300,000 |
| Reserve Personnel, Air Force | 1,200,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Army | 4,500,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Navy | 1,700,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps | 700,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Air Force | 1,800,000 |
FIELD MAINTENANCE AND LOGISTICAL SUPPORT
The Committee recommends an increase of $60,800,000 above the budget request to address deficiencies associated with field level equipment maintenance, field logistics, and other logistical support programs. The Committee notes that a number of these programs have routinely been highlighted on the Services' unfunded lists and include programs such as corrosion control, system sustainment and technical support, and reliability and maintainability programs. To fully fund these programs, the Committee recommends additional funding over the budget request to be distributed as follows.
| Army | $20,000,000 |
| Navy | 20,500,000 |
| Marine Corps | 15,000,000 |
| Air Force | 5,300,000 |
WAR RESERVE AND PREPOSITIONED MATERIALS
The Committee recommends an increase of $60,000,000 above the budget request to address deficiencies associated with war reserve and pre-positioned materials stocks. The Committee notes that the Quarterly Readiness Report to Congress has routinely highlighted vast shortfalls in the stocks of such material which are critical to sustaining combat operations. To address these shortfalls within the Marine Corps' Maritime Prepositioning program and the Air Force readiness spares kits, the Committee recommends additional funding over the budget request to be distributed as follows. In addition, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than January 31, 2001, in both classified and unclassified form, which details specific shortfalls in war reserve materials, prepositioned materials, and other stocks needed to sustain combat operations as described in the Quarterly Readiness Report to the Congress. This report shall include estimates for both the quantities and types of material shortfalls, measures that DoD will take to eliminate these shortfalls, and estimates of the cost to remedy these shortfalls.
| Marine Corps | $15,000,000 |
| Air Force | 45,000,000 |
HEADQUARTERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES
The Committee recommends a reduction of $143,630,000 below the budget request for headquarters and administrative activities. The Committee supports the efforts of the Defense Authorization Committees to reduce administrative expenses to the same degree that other elements of the Armed Forces force structure have been reduced. In addition, the Committee notes that the fiscal year 2001 budget justification materials reflect substantial growth in headquarters activities for each of the Services including staffing, supplies and materials, and vehicle leases which do not appear justified in light of unmet readiness and modernization needs discussed elsewhere in this report. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the following reductions from the budget request.
| Army | $38,700,000 |
| Navy | 12,376,000 |
| Air Force | 75,000,000 |
| Defense-Wide | 17,554,000 |
ACQUISITION PROGRAM GROWTH
The Committee recommends a reduction of $54,481,000 below the budget request as a result of acquisition program growth. While the Committee has expressed its support for programs needed to provide logistical support to the operating forces, the Committee is concerned about the level of acquisition staffing growth proposed in the budget request. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the following reductions from the budget request.
| Navy | $45,681,000 |
| Air Force | 8,800,000 |
DFAS PROGRAM GROWTH
The Committee recommends a reduction of $47,111,000 below the budget request as a result of program growth for the Defense Finance and Accounting Service as reflected in the Operation and Maintenance accounts. The Committee notes that this growth is, in part, the result of a proposal to establish a European site for DFAS in the fiscal 2001 budget. However, the budget materials are unclear as to the ultimate costs and benefits of this action. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the following reductions from the budget request.
| Army | $19,590,000 |
| Air Force | 27,521,000 |
NATO AND OVERSEAS STAFF GROWTH
The Committee recommends a reduction of $26,000,000 below the budget request as a result of program growth for NATO and other European headquarters elements. In light of readiness and modernization shortfalls discussed elsewhere in this report, the Committee believes that such growth is unwarranted, and recommends maintaining resource levels for overseas headquarters elements at fiscal year 2000 levels. Accordingly, the Committee recommends the following reductions from the budget request.
| Army | $18,700,000 |
| Navy | 6,200,000 |
| Air Force | 1,100,000 |
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET EXECUTION DATA
The Committee directs the Department of Defense to continue to provide the congressional defense committees with quarterly budget execution data. Such data should be provided not later than forty-five days past the close of each quarter of the fiscal year, and should be provided for each O-1 budget activity, activity group, and subactivity group for each of the active, defense-wide, reserve and National Guard components. For each O-1 budget activity, activity group, and subactivity group, these reports should include: the budget request and actual obligations; the DoD distribution of unallocated congressional adjustments to the budget request; all adjustments made by DoD during the process of rebaselining the O&M accounts; all adjustments resulting from below threshold reprogrammings; and all adjustments resulting from prior approval reprogramming requests.
In addition, the Committee requires that the Department of Defense provide semiannual written notifications to the congressional defense committees which summarize Operation and Maintenance budget execution to include the effect of rebaselining procedures, other below threshold reprogrammings, and prior approval reprogrammings. The Committee further directs that the Department of Defense provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations written notification 30 days prior to executing procedures to rebaseline the Operation and Maintenance accounts.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPROGRAMMINGS
The Committee directs that proposed transfers of funds between O-1 budget activities in excess of $15,000,000 be subject to normal, prior approval reprogramming procedures. Items for which funds have been specifically provided in any appropriation in this report using phrases `only for' and `only to' are Congressional interest items for the purpose of the base for Reprogramming (DD form 1414). Each of these items must be carried on the DD 1414 at the stated amount, or revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. In addition, due to continuing concerns about force readiness and the diversion of Operation and Maintenance funds, the Committee directs the Department of Defense to provide written notification to the congressional defense committees for the cumulative value of any and all transfers in excess of $15,000,000 from the following budget activities and subactivity group categories:
Operation and maintenance, Army
Land Forces: Divisions, Corps combat forces, Corps support forces, Echelon above corps forces, Land forces operations support; Land Forces Readiness: Land forces depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Navy
Air Operations: Mission and other flight operations, Fleet air training, Aircraft depot maintenance; Ship Operations: Mission and other ship operations, Ship operational support and training, Intermediate maintenance, Ship depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps
Expeditionary Forces: Operational forces, Depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Air Force
Air Operations: Primary combat forces, Primary combat weapons, Air operations training, Depot maintenance; Mobility Operations: Airlift operations, Depot maintenance, Payments to the transportation business area; Basic Skills and Advanced Training: Depot maintenance; Logistics Operations: Depot maintenance.
Further, the Department should follow prior approval reprogramming procedures for transfers in excess of $15,000,000 out of the following budget subactivities.
Operation and maintenance, Army
- Depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Navy
- Aircraft depot maintenance,
- Ship depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps
- Depot maintenance.
Operation and maintenance, Air Force
- Air Operations, Depot maintenance,
- Mobility Operations, Depot maintenance,
- Basic Skills and Advanced Training, Depot maintenance, and
- Logistics Operations, Depot maintenance.
PUBLIC TRANSIT VOUCHERS
The Committee is aware that executive order 13150, April 21, 2000, establishes a public transportation fringe benefit for employees in the National Capital Region (NCR). The Committee is interested in the measures that the Secretary of Defense will take to implement this benefit. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report, no later than December 31, 2000, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations which delineates the measures that the Department of Defense will take to implement Executive Order 13150, and an estimate of the funding required to support this Executive Order.
RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING
The Committee recommends an increase of $75,000,000 over the budget request for active and reserve recruiting and advertising programs. The Committee recognizes that the military services' recruiting efforts to enlist high quality recruits is continuing to be difficult and provides additional funds to help meet their recruiting goals. The Committee further recommends that $2,000,000 of the funds provided are only for the Joint Recruiting and Advertising Program for a pilot program aimed at developing a partnership program involving DoD and athletic associations at two sites to deliver recruitment messages to high school students.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $19,256,152,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 19,073,731,000
Committee recommendation 19,386,843,000
Change from budget request +313,112,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,386,843,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $130,691,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Army are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: | |
| 250 M-Gator | 3,000 |
| 550 JCS Exercises | -11,000 |
| 550 Integrated Training Area Management | 12,900 |
| 550 Modern Burner Unit | 5,000 |
| 650 Depot Maintenance | 50,000 |
| 650 Depot Maintenance Apprenticeship Program | 4,402 |
| 750 NTC Airhead | 2,000 |
| 750 Security Improvements-NTC Heliport | 1,900 |
| Budget Activity 2: Mobilization: | |
| 1300 Industrial Preparedness Growth | -20,100 |
| Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: | |
| 1850 Institutional Training-Specialized Skill Training | 10,000 |
| 1850 Military Police School/MCTFT Joint Training | 2,000 |
| 1850 Information Assurance: IT Training and Education | 3,000 |
| 1950 DLI Classroom and Office Furnishings | 2,500 |
| 1950 Defense Language Institute | 2,000 |
| 1950 Monterey Regional Education Initiative | 2,000 |
| 1950 Office Furnishings for DOIM Computer Center | 1,500 |
| 1950 Joint Multi-Dimensional Education & Analysis System (NDU) | 3,000 |
| 1950 Support to International Students | 1,000 |
| 2000 Institutional Training-Training Support | 10,000 |
| 2000 Distance Learning-CCCE | 1,500 |
| 2000 Armor Officers Distance Learning | 1,500 |
| 2200 Recruiting and Advertising | 15,000 |
| 2400 JROTC | 4,500 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 2800 Pulse Technology | 5,000 |
| 2850 System Technical Support | 20,000 |
| 2850 Supercomputing Work | 6,000 |
| 2850 Logistics and Technology Project | 1,000 |
| 3250 Claims Underexecution | -40,000 |
| 3600 NATO Administrative Growth | -12,400 |
| 3650 Administrative Cost Growth in Europe | -6,300 |
| Undistributed: | |
| 3710 Classified Programs Undistributed | 7,000 |
| 3740 Memorial Events | 700 |
| 3750 Real Property Maintenance | 273,300 |
| 3780 Headquarters and Administration Growth | -38,700 |
| 3825 DFAS Program Growth | -19,590 |
| 3830 Chicago Military Academy | 5,000 |
| 3835 Repairs at Fort Baker | 6,000 |
| 3840 Clara Barton Center at Pine Bluff | 1,500 |
| 3845 Defense Joint Accounting System | -14,000 |
| 3846 WMD-Distance Learning Network | 4,000 |
| 3847 WMD-Counter-Terrorism Training and Testing | 7,000 |
MEDIUM GENERAL PURPOSE TENTS
Of the funds made available in Operation and Maintenance, Army the Committee directs that $14,000,000 be made available only for the purpose of meeting prospective requirements for modular general purpose tents (M.G.P.T.) associated with wartime and other mobilizations as described in the report accompanying the House Department of Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2000.
TACTICAL MISSILE MAINTENANCE
Of the amount recommended for Operation and Maintenance, Army, specifically depot maintenance, the Army will be funded with $48,300,000 to be applied to Army Tactical Missile Depot Maintenance requirements, to include ground support equipment, at its organic public depots.
MILITARY OCEAN TERMINAL BAYONNE (MOTBY)
Of the funds provided in Operation and Maintenance, Army for real property maintenance, $5,000,000 shall only be made available to the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, only for the stabilization of the South Berths at MOTBY.
NIGHT TRAINING SAFETY `LIGHT STICKS'
The Committee believes that the number of night training accidents may be reduced if soldiers were provided with small, inexpensive, low light emitting, emergency signaling devices. Although chemiluminescent devices are available though the defense supply system, they are a discretionary item and not provided to the Army on a scheduled basis. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Army to study the feasibility of providing low-light, chemiluminescent, emergency lighting devices to individual soldiers involved in tactical training.
DISTANCE LEARNING--CCCE
The Committee recommends $1,500,000 to enhance and expand the City Colleges of Chicago Europe (CCCE) college degree and certificate program for U.S. military service members.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $22,958,784,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 23,250,154,000
Committee recommendation 23,426,830,000
Change from budget request +176,676,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,426,830,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of $468,046,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Navy are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: | |
| 4600 Aviation Depot Maintenance | 20,000 |
| 4650 Object Oriented Simulations/Reengineering Pilot Program | 5,000 |
| 5000 Ship Depot Maintenance | 142,000 |
| 5050 Berthing & Messing Barge | 20,000 |
| 5400 JCS Exercises | -1,000 |
| 5500 Man Overboard Indicator | 2,850 |
| 5500 CINCUSNAVEUR Administrative Growth | -1,500 |
| 5550 Reverse Osmosis Desalinators | 1,000 |
| 5550 Surface Ship Calibration Support | 4,000 |
| 5850 Arms Control | -200 |
| 5950 CWIS Overhauls | 4,000 |
| 5950 Mk 45 Mod 1 Maintenance | 10,000 |
| 6220 Partnership for Rapid Innovation Pilot Project at Navy Region Northwest | 10,000 |
| 6220 Portal Crane Maintenance, Rota | 3,500 |
| 6220 NATO Administrative Cost Growth | -4,700 |
| Budget Activity 2: Mobilization: | |
| 6500 Ship Disposal Initiative | 10,000 |
| 6500 Nuclear Submarine Inactivations (PSNS) | 46,700 |
| Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: | |
| 7200 Information Assurance: IT Training and Education | 3,000 |
| 7300 NPS-Center for Civil Military Relations | 1,245 |
| 7300 Joint Multi-Dimensional Education & Analysis System (Naval War College) | 2,000 |
| 7300 Support to International Students | 500 |
| 7300 Center for Non-Proliferation Studies, Monterey | 4,000 |
| 7350 CNET | 5,000 |
| 7350 Distance Learning--CNET | 4,000 |
| 7700 JROTC | 1,700 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 8550 Acquisition Management | -8,318 |
| 8600 Acquisition Management | -19,349 |
| 8600 Information Technology Center | 7,000 |
| 8650 Acquisition Workforce | -13,614 |
| 8650 Configuration Management Information System (to insert weapon systems data into the CMIS database) | 15,000 |
| 8700 Acquisition Management | -4,400 |
| 8700 Trident Sonar Manual Conversion | 3,000 |
| Undistributed: | |
| 9280 Classified Programs Undistributed | -15,144 |
| 9320 Navy Environmental Leadership Program | 5,000 |
| 9360 Headquarters and Administration Growth | -12,376 |
| 9380 Contract and Advisory Services | -14,061 |
| 9405 Civilian Personnel Underexecution | -49,600 |
| 9410 Improved Shipboard Mattresses | 13,000 |
| 9415 Defense Joint Accounting System | -7,000 |
| 9420 Communications Program Growth | -15,557 |
NAVY AVIATION DEPOT MAINTENANCE APPRENTICE PROGRAM
Of the funds available for Operation and Maintenance, Navy for aviation depot maintenance, the Committee directs that $4,000,000 shall be available only for apprentice programs to augment the civilian workforce at the Navy's aviation maintenance depots.
MAN OVERBOARD INDICATOR
The Committee has provided an additional $2,850,000 for the procurement, installation, training and verification, and maintenance of a man overboard indicating system capable of active integration into a shipboard Personnel Tracking and Monitoring System for two U.S. Navy carrier battle groups as a field demonstration. This device should have the capability for modification to include the PTMS characteristics as discussed in the Secretary of the Navy's February 1999 Report to the Congress.
UNOLS
Of the funds made available in Operation and Maintenance, Navy, the Committee directs that $3,000,000 shall be made available only for the purpose of funding backlogs in oceanographic research.
NAVAL SEA CADET PROGRAM
The Committee is aware that the U.S. Naval Sea Cadet Corps has maintained a youth training program in close cooperation with the Navy for over forty years. In the interest of possible expansion of this program, the Committee directs that the Secretary of the Navy provide a report to the congressional defense committees, not later than December 31, 2000, which lists the benefits of this program to the Navy, and identifies the financial, material and manpower resources that the Navy should make available to the Naval Sea Cadet Corps in order to expand this program.
USNS HAYES RELOCATION
The Committee is aware of plans by the Navy to relocate the research vessel USNS Hayes. The Committee supports this initiative and urges the Navy to expedite the relocation of this vessel.
CENTER FOR CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS
The Committee recommends $1,245,000 for the Naval Postgraduate School to expand its Masters degree program to reach additional National Guard officers by providing funds for student assistance, curriculum development and distance learning support.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $2,808,354,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 2,705,658,000
Committee recommendation 2,813,091,000
Change from budget request +107,433,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,813,091,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $4,737,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: | |
| 10050 Initial Issue Gear | 21,300 |
| 10050 ULCANS | 10,000 |
| 10050 Lightweight Maintenance Enclosures | 3,000 |
| 10050 Modular Command Post System | 4,000 |
| 10050 Joint Service NBC Defense Equipment Surveillance | 3,700 |
| 10100 Equipment Maintenance | 8,500 |
| 10100 Corrosion Control | 6,500 |
| 10150 Depot Maintenance | 22,000 |
| 10200 Urban Warfare Training-Former George AFB Lease | 1,500 |
| Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: | |
| 10850 Information Assurance: IT Training and Education | 3,000 |
| 11200 Recruiting and Advertising | 8,100 |
| 11300 JROTC | 700 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 11700 Servicewide Transportation Underexecution | -2,000 |
| Undistributed: | |
| 11990 MPS replenishment/replacement stocks | 15,000 |
| 12015 Contract and Advisory Services | -367 |
| 12020 Civilian Personnel Separation | 2,500 |
MODULAR LIGHTWEIGHT LOAD-CARRYING EQUIPMENT (MOLLE)
Of the funds provided in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps for initial issue equipment, as discussed elsewhere in this report, the Committee directs that $10,000,000 shall only be available for the Modular Lightweight Load-Carrying equipment (MOLLE).
CIVILIAN PERSONNEL SEPARATION
Of the funds provided in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps, the Committee directs that up to $2,500,000 shall be used only for civilian separation pay and associated expenses at the Marine Corps Logistics Base at Barstow, California.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $20,896,959,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 22,296,977,000
Committee recommendation 22,316,797,000
Change from budget request +19,820,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,316,797,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $1,419,838,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: | |
| 12650 Reverse Osmosis Desalinators | 500 |
| 12775 Depot Maintenance--Operating Forces | 15,000 |
| 12800 Air Force Battlelabs | 4,000 |
| 13000 Tethered Aerostat Radar System | 8,500 |
| 13100 TACCSF Theater Air Command and Control Simulation Facility | 8,000 |
| 13150 JCS Exercises | -12,200 |
| 13450 Eastern Missile Range Launch Facility Enhancements | 10,000 |
| Budget Activity 2: Mobilization: | |
| 13975 Depot Maintenance--Mobilization | 14,100 |
| Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting: | |
| 14600 Information Assurance: IT Training and Education | 3,000 |
| 14600 IT Workforce Re-Skilling--Aeronautical Systems Center | 2,000 |
| 14700 Joint Multi-Dimensional Education & Analysis System (Air War College) | 2,000 |
| 14700 Support to International Students | 500 |
| 14950 Recruiting and Advertising | 8,200 |
| 15150 JROTC | 1,800 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 15350 Acquisition Management | -8,800 |
| 15350 Engine Reliability & Maintainability Program | 4,300 |
| 15900 Arms Control | -6,900 |
| 15950 Manufacturing Technical Assistance Pilot Program | 4,000 |
| 16000 Personnel Support Programs Underexecution | -4,000 |
| 16100 William Lehman Aviation Center | 500 |
| 16350 NATO & International Program Growth | -1,100 |
| Undistributed: | |
| 16450 Classified Programs Undistributed | 35,574 |
| 16500 Readiness Spare Kits | 45,000 |
| 16580 Headquarters and Administration Growth | -75,000 |
| 16600 Contract and Advisory Services | -4,633 |
| 16655 DFAS Program Growth | -27,521 |
| 16660 Defense Joint Accounting System | -7,000 |
C-5 SPARE PARTS
The Committee continues to harbor concerns about the persistent shortages of spare and repair parts needed to support Air Force aircraft. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to report to the congressional defense committees no later than January 31, 2001, and again on September 30, 2001, on the overall status of the Air Force spare and repair parts program, with a specific emphasis on the C-5 aircraft, to include whether the necessary resources are programmed to address future spare and repair parts requirements.
AIR FORCE CARGO DISTRIBUTION HUB
The Committee is aware of available capacity at the Youngstown-Warren Airport, home of the 910th Air Force Reserve Airlift Wing, that may be employed by the Department of Defense for cargo shipments. Accordingly, the Committee directs that the Commander of the Air Mobility Command provide a report to the House Committee on Appropriations not later than December 31, 2000, which assesses the feasibility of using Youngstown-Warren Airport as a hub for the distribution of Department of Defense cargo.
DISPLAYING RETIRED AIRCRAFT
The Committee urges the Secretary of the Air Force to provide all authorized assistance to defray the costs of demilitarization, preparation, and transportation of a retired AT-38B aircraft for purposes of putting the aircraft on public display at the Blue Grass Airport in Lexington, Kentucky.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $11,489,483,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 11,920,069,000
Committee recommendation 11,803,743,000
Change from budget request -116,326,000
------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,803,743,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is an increase of $314,260,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 2: Mobilization: | |
| 17250 DLA--Generalized Emulation of Microcircuits | 3,000 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 17775 Civil Military--Angel Gate Academy | 4,200 |
| 17775 Civil Military--Youth Development and Leadership Program | 500 |
| 17800 Classified and Intelligence | -2,322 |
| 17900 DCAA--Pay rate Calculation | -2,000 |
| 18000 DHRA--Joint Recruiting and Advertising Program | 2,000 |
| 18050 DISA--Information Assurance: IT Training and Education | 3,000 |
| 18200 DLA--Automated Document Conversion | 20,000 |
| 18200 DLA--Security Locks | 15,000 |
| 18500 DoDEA--Family Advocacy Program | 4,000 |
| 18500 DoDEA--Math Program Skill Set Kits | 600 |
| 18600 JCS--Headquarters Personnel Reduction | -522 |
| 18650 OEA--Pico Rivera | 2,000 |
| 18650 OEA--NAS Cecil Field | 3,000 |
| 18700 OSD--Command Information Superiority Architectures (CISA) Program | 5,000 |
| 18700 OSD--Headquarters Personnel Reduction | -4,446 |
| 18700 OSD--Information Assurance: JCOATS-IO | 1,600 |
| 18700 OSD--Information Assurance: Critical Infrastructure Protection | 10,300 |
| 18700 OSD--Energy Savings Performance Contracts | 4,000 |
| 18700 OSD--CTMA: Depot Level Activities | 10,000 |
| 18700 OSD--CTMA: Wearable Computers | 850 |
| 18700 OSD--Special Subsistence Stipend | 5,000 |
| 18820 WHS--Low priority programs | -10,000 |
| 18860 Special Programs | -200,000 |
| Undistributed: | |
| 19020 Impact Aid Program | 35,000 |
| 19070 Defense Agencies Headquarters Personnel Reduction | -12,586 |
| 19160 Defense Joint Accounting System | -13,500 |
BERYLLIUM WORK-RELATED ILLNESSES
Beryllium is a metal that has long been an important component of nuclear explosives, aircraft, missiles and other weapons due to its lightness and strength. The Administration has proposed a package of compensation for the employees of contractors and vendors to the Department of Energy who are suffering from chronic beryllium disease and other work-related illnesses associated with the manufacture of nuclear weapons. The Committee believes it would be prudent to have an understanding of whether the use of beryllium in non-nuclear applications for the Department of Defense has resulted in a similar situation for the Defense workforce. The Committee bill directs (in Section 8111 of the General Provisions) that the Secretary of Defense submit a report to the congressional defense committees on beryllium-related illnesses, to include information on incidences of beryllium-related illnesses, potential costs of compensation of Defense workforce employees for such illnesses, and whether such compensation is justified or recommended by the Secretary of Defense.
DOD SCHOOLS
The Committee commends everyone involved in the DoD school system for recent achievements that have placed it among the best performing schools in our nation. The Secretary of Defense testified before the Committee this year that the DoD school system is performing `magnificently'. Maintaining, and where needed, improving the education system supporting our military families must continue to be a high priority for the DoD and Congress.
The Committee is concerned that the compensation and allowance structure for DoD school teachers has evolved over time to a point where there may be actual or perceived inequities for different personnel stationed at the same location overseas. The Committee is also concerned that teachers stationed overseas have to pay high out-of-pocket medical costs for themselves and their dependents that would not apply if they taught in the United States, and this has become a major disincentive for preventative and follow-up health care. Either of these issues could adversely impact the Department's ability to sustain its current level of excellence in the military school system. The Committee, therefore, directs that the Secretary of Defense submit a report to the congressional defense committees by January 15, 2001 on DoD school teacher compensation/allowances and fees for teacher/dependent medical services. The report should include his recommendations and legislative proposals, if appropriate, for improving the current compensation system, removing inequities that may exist, and improving the access to quality health care for military school teachers.
FAMILY ADVOCACY
The Committee recommends $4,000,000 over the budget request in the Department of Defense Dependents Education account, only for enhancements to Family Advocacy programs for at-risk youth such as KidsPeace National.
YOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND LEADERSHIP PROGRAM
The Committee recommends an increase of $500,000 over the budget request for the Youth Developmental and Leadership program, only to develop a safety net program to serve as the follow-up activity for the program initiated under Public Law 105-174.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,469,176,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,521,418,000
Committee recommendation 1,596,418,000
Change from budget request +75,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,596,418,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $127,242,000 above the $1,469,176,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: | |
| 19640 Forces Readiness Operations Support/Integrated Training Area Management | 700 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 20010 Recruiting and Advertising | 12,000 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 20110 Real Property Maintenance | 30,000 |
| 20140 CINC Overseas Deployment Training | 2,800 |
| 20145 Extended Cold Weather Clothing System | 9,000 |
| 20150 Additional Full Time Support Technicians | 20,500 |
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY RESERVE
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $958,978,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 960,946,000
Committee recommendation 992,646,000
Change from budget request +31,700,000
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $992,646,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $33,668,000 above the $958,978,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: | |
| 21600 Ship Depot Maintenance | 10,000 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 22300 Military Manpower and Personnel Management/Recruiting and Advertising | 6,700 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 22670 Real Property Maintenance | 15,000 |
FORT WORTH NAVAL AIR STATION
The Committee has provided additional funds for Real Property Maintenance for the Navy Reserve and directs that $1,250,000 be provided for demolition of selected buildings at the Fort Worth Naval Air Station.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $138,911,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 133,959,000
Committee recommendation 145,959,000
Change from budget request +12,000,000
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $145,959,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $7,048,000 above the $138,911,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: | |
| 23500 Operating Forces/Single Storage Site for NBC Equipment | 1,800 |
| 23600 Real Property Maintenance | 2,000 |
| 23650 Depot Maintenance | 5,000 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 23850 Recruiting and Advertising | 2,000 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 24200 Increased Use of Guard and Reserve | 1,200 |
NBC DEFENSE EQUIPMENT
The Committee recommends $1,800,000 over the budget request, only to support the single site storage facility program in consolidating the storage and management of nuclear, biological, and chemical defense equipment.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE RESERVE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,782,591,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,885,859,000
Committee recommendation 1,921,659,000
Change from budget request +35,800,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,921,659,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $139,068,000 above the $1,782,591,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: | |
| 24970 Depot Maintenance | 15,000 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 25400 Recruiting and Advertising | 4,000 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 25600 Real Property Maintenance | 10,000 |
| 25640 RED HORSE Unit | 1,800 |
| 25645 Technician Pilot Retention Allowance | 5,000 |
MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE
The Committee has provided additional funds for Real Property Maintenance for the Air Force Reserve and directs that $2,000,000 be provided for required roof repairs for hangars and support buildings at March Air Reserve Base (ARB), and for navigational aids upgrades at March Inland Port.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $3,161,378,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 3,182,335,000
Committee recommendation 3,263,235,000
Change from budget request +80,900,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,263,235,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard. The recommendation is an increase of $101,857,000 above the $3,161,378,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: | |
| 26400 Base Operations/Integrated Training Area Management | 2,400 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 26680 Information Management/NGB Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic Network | 5,000 |
| 26740 Recruiting and Advertising | 12,000 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 26810 Additional Full Time Support Technicians | 30,500 |
| 26870 Real Property Maintenance | 15,000 |
| 26890 Extended Cold Weather Clothing System | 12,000 |
| 26945 National Emergency and Disaster Information Center | 1,000 |
| 26946 R-2000 Engine Flush Systems | 3,000 |
NATIONAL EMERGENCY AND DISASTER INFORMATION CENTER
The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for the National Emergency and Disaster Information Center to support the National Guard's mission as first responder to emergencies and the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) program. The Center would provide supporting functions in a number of areas to include consequence management for WMD incidents, continuity of operations, critical asset and infrastructure assurance, and disaster response. The Committee understands that the Center will have the capability to identify, analyze, and maintain a database of best practices and lessons learned associated with the activities performed by Guard personnel, such as the WMD Civil Support Teams. The Center should be managed by the Adjutant General of an eastern Division state, as determined by the National Guard Bureau, who will coordinate and consult with other federal, state and local government agencies to ensure effective and efficient operation of the Center.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $3,241,138,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 3,446,375,000
Committee recommendation 3,480,375,000
Change from budget request +34,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,480,375,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard. The recommendation is an increase of $239,237,000 above the $3,241,138,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001:
The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard are shown below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces: | |
| 27800 Real Property Maintenance | 5,000 |
| 27850 Depot Maintenance | 16,500 |
| Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities: | |
| 28100 Recruiting and Advertising | 5,000 |
| Other Adjustments: | |
| 28210 C-130 Operations | 1,500 |
| 28240 National Guard State Partnership Program | 1,000 |
| 28255 Extended Cold Weather Clothing System | 3,000 |
| 28260 Laser Leveling | 2,000 |
C-130 OPERATIONS
The Committee recommends a total of $1,500,000 over the budget request for operation and maintenance costs to support operational capabilities of the 125th Jacksonville, Florida C-130 unit.
OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,722,600,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 4,100,577,000
Committee recommendation 4,100,577,000
Change from budget request
-----------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,100,575,000 for the Overseas Contingency Operations transfer Fund. The recommendation is an increase of $2,377,977,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000. The funding in this paragraph provides for ongoing DoD Operations in Southwest Asia, Bosnia and Kosovo.
BUDGET JUSTIFICATION AND BUDGET EXECUTION MATERIALS
The Committee notes the efforts of the Department of Defense to comply with direction found in the fiscal year 2000 Department of Defense Appropriations Act to establish justification books specifically to support the contingency operations budget request. However, to fully justify the budget request, the Committee directs that DoD include in the fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund a budget justification exhibit which indicates the appropriation accounts which underlie the requirements for the funds requested in this account. This exhibit should indicate for each appropriation account, for each service, and for each contingency the amount of funds requested for this account.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $7,621,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 8,574,000
Committee recommendation 8,574,000
Change from budget request
-------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,574,000 for the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The recommendation is an increase of $953,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $378,170,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 389,932,000
Committee recommendation 389,932,000
Change from budget request
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $389,932,000 for Environmental Restoration, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $11,762,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $284,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 294,038,000
Committee recommendation 294,038,000
Change from budget request
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $294,038,000 for Environmental Restoration, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of $10,038,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $376,800,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 376,300,000
Committee recommendation 376,300,000
Change from budget request
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $376,300,000 for Environmental Restoration, Air Force. The recommendation is a decrease of $500,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE-WIDE
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $25,370,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 23,412,000
Committee recommendation 23,412,000
Change from budget request
--------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,412,000 for Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is a decrease of $1,958,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $239,214,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 186,499,000
Committee recommendation 196,499,000
Change from budget request +10,000,000
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $196,499,000 for Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites. The recommendation is a decrease of $42,715,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
NIKE BATTERY 55
The Committee understands that the City of Rancho Palos Verdes has discovered lead contamination on property that, prior to its transfer, was used by the Department of the Army as a rifle range. Given that the contamination has forced the local community to close the city's park, interpretive center and whale watching site, the Committee encourages the Army to address this problem as quickly and as completely as possible.
SANTA CLARITA
The Committee is concerned about the environmental contamination of the Porta Bella site, a former munitions manufacturing and testing facility in Santa Clarita, California. The Committee requests that the Army examine this issue and, if appropriate, begin the necessary remediation.
NEWMARK
The Committee is concerned with the lack of progress the Army, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Justice, the City of San Bernardino, and the State of California have made toward resolving the litigation regarding groundwater contamination at the Newmark and Muscoy Superfund site in California. The Committee encourages the parties to continue their progress towards satisfactorily resolving the litigation and to complete actions to fully characterize the groundwater contamination and identify potential sources in order to protect this valuable water supply. The Committee is interested in providing the encouragement necessary to bring this issue to closure.
DEPLETED URANIUM ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
The Committee understands that production of depleted uranium penetrators at the Army's STARMET site ended in September 1999, yet there is not an agreed-upon plan for environmental restoration of the site as required by federal regulations and law. The Committee directs the Under Secretary of the Army to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than November 23, 2000 which defines the Army's responsibilities for environmental restoration of the site, if any, and how the Army plans to meet them. The report shall identify funding requirements for the restoration and how the Army has financed them, as well as a detailed schedule for completion of all work.
OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $55,800,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 64,900,000
Committee recommendation 56,900,000
Change from budget request -8,000,000
--------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $56,900,000 for Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid. The recommendation is an increase of $1,100,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $460,500,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 458,400,000
Committee recommendation 433,400,000
Change from budget request -25,000,000
---------------------------------------------
This appropriation funds the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction activities of the Department of Defense.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Recommendation Change fromrequest
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Offensive Arms Elimination--Russia 152,800 162,800 +10,000
Weapons Storage Security--Russia 89,700 89,700
Weapons Transportation Security--Russia 14,000 14,000
Fissile Material Storage Facility--Russia 57,400 57,400
Fissile Material Processing and Packaging--Russia 9,300 9,300
Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium--Russia 32,100 32,100
Strategic Nuclear Arms Elimination--Ukraine 29,100 34,100 +5,000
BW Proliferation Prevention 12,000 12,000
Chemical Weapons Destruction--Russia 35,000 0 -35,000
Defense and Military Contacts 14,000 9,000 -5,000
Other Program Support 13,000 13,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION
The Department recommended $458,400,000 for the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction programs. The Committee recommends $433,400,000, a net decrease of $25,000,000. The Committee has recommended program changes in accordance with the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4205).
QUALITY OF LIFE ENHANCEMENTS, DEFENSE
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $300,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request
Committee recommendation 480,000,000
Change from budget request 480,000,000
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $480,000,000 for the Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense account. The recommendation is an increase of $180,000,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
The Committee notes that the administration has not requested funds for this account despite the substantial backlogs of real property maintenance as noted elsewhere in this report. To address this backlog, the Committee recommends additional funding of $480,000,000 above the budget request, to be distributed as follows:
| Army | $282,500,000 |
| Navy | 70,000,000 |
| Marine Corps | 47,000,000 |
| Air Force | 70,000,000 |
| Defense-Wide | 10,500,000 |
TITLE III
PROCUREMENT
ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY
The fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense procurement budget request totals $59,266,603,000. The accompanying bill recommends $61,558,679,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of $2,292,076,000 above the fiscal year 2001 budget estimate and is $8,577,965,000 above the total provided in fiscal year 2000. The table below summarizes the budget estimates and the Committee's recommendations.
SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS
Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in the project level tables or in paragraphs using the phrases `only for' or `only to' in this report are congressional interest items for the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD Form 1414). Each of these items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated amount, or a revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. These items remain special interest items whether or not they are repeated in a subsequent conference report.
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
Adjustments of the classified programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.
COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS UPGRADES
Fielded military radios and communications equipment systems still require upgrades and improvements, when cost effective, to improve operational capability and dependability as well as reduce operations and support costs. The Committee is aware of Military Standard 188-141A which includes an approved miniaturized, multi-functional, digital communications technology based on compressor and expander techniques that dramatically improves quality of voice and data communications over both wired and wireless networks. The Committee directs the Department of Defense to continue to use this technology, when cost effective, to upgrade and improve current communications systems, such as SINCGARS, JTRS, ARC-190 and PRC-104.
BALLISTIC ENGINEERED ARMORED RESPONSE VEHICLES
The Committee is aware of the development of a Ballistic Engineered Armored Response vehicle that may be able to enhance rescue and combat readiness by providing armored transportation to as many as 12-14 units and also provide the capacity to rescue 20 to 30 people during a combat and rescue mission. The Committee directs the Department of Defense to consider the desirability, utility, and cost effectiveness of such vehicles for the services.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,451,688,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,323,262,000
Committee recommendation 1,547,082,000
Change from budget request +223,820,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation finances the acquisition of tactical and utility airplanes and helicopters, including associated electronics, electronic warfare, and communications equipment and armament, modification of in-service aircraft, ground support equipment, components and parts such as spare engines, transmissions gear boxes, and sensor equipment. It also funds related training devices such as combat flight simulators and production base support.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In Thousands of dollars]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UH-60 BLACKHAWK (MYP) 64,651 183,371 +118,720
Army Reserve: 8 UH-60L aircraft +78,520
National Guard: 3 UH-60Q aircraft +40,200
TH-67 TRAINING HELICOPTER 0 18,000 +18,000
Procure training helicopters 0 0 +18,000
AH-64 MODS 18,516 52,616 +34,100
Vibration Management Enhancement Program +7,000
Oil debris detection and burn off system +5,000
Longbow internal auxillary fuel tank +10,000
Strap pack +4,300
Funny harness +3,400
Aerial rocket control system +4,400
UH-60 MODS 3,021 15,021 +12,000
National Guard: Firehawk Kits +3,000
Extended range fuel system +9,000
AIRBORNE AVONICS 60,042 63,042 +3,000
Airborne video recorder and image transceiver +3,000
AIRCRAFT SURVIVABILITY EQUIPMENT 0 14,000 +14,000
ASET IV +4,000
AN/AVR-2A Laser detection +10,000
AVIONICS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 0 14,000 +14,000
AN/AVS-6 night vision upgrade +14,000
AIRBORNE COMMUNICATIONS 0 10,000 +10,000
ARC-220 0 10,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KIOWA WARRIOR LIVE-FIRE TESTING
Live-fire testing legislation (10 U.S.C 2366) requires realistic live-fire testing of major Department of Defense weapon systems. The intent of the legislation is to conduct tests early in the production of the weapon system in order to ensure adequacy of design and to allow incorporation of design changes, if any, as a program moves into full rate production. Since the waiver authority for this legislation is very narrow, the DoD has concluded that it must do live-fire testing on the Kiowa Warrior helicopter for the cost of approximately $6 million. Kiowa Warrior entered production in 1992; the last production contract was signed in fiscal year 1999 and deliveries will be completed this year. Given that the Army does not plan on procuring additional Kiowa Warrior aircraft and plans on retiring all of the Kiowa Warriors helicopters by 2013, the Committee strongly questions the need for conducting live fire tests on the platform. The Committee directs that no funds may be spent on live fire testing on the Kiowa Warrior, until the Commander-in-Chief of the Joint Forces Command certifies that such tests must be conducted to fulfill operational requirements for the aircraft.
GROUND PROXIMITY WARNING SYSTEM
The Committee is concerned about recent mishap rates in Army aviation, particularly those that involve loss of life or aircraft, and recognizes that many of these losses occurred as a result of controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) caused by loss of situational awareness. The Committee is aware that the FAA has mandated use of an electronic warning device known as the Ground Proximity Warning System (GPWS) for all passenger-carrying aircraft and that has resulted in a 93 percent reduction in CFIT. The Committee is also aware that the Navy and the Air Force are now installing GPWS on all aircraft, but the Army continues to reject the use of this device. The Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report by April 1, 2001 on the viability of installing GPWS on Army transport helicopters. The report shall include a cost analysis of the latest generation of GPWS on a single circuit card and an acquisition plan.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2001:
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,322,305,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,295,728,000
Committee recommendation 1,240,347,000
Change from budget request -55,381,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation finances the acquisition of surface-to-air, surface-to-surface, and anti-tank/assault missile systems. Also included are major components, modifications, targets, test equipment and production base support.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In Thousands of Dollars]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMY TACTICAL MSL SYS (ATACMS)--SYS SUM 15,044 102,044 +87,000
Procure 100 ATACMS Block I missiles +77,000
Block IV Unitary Warhead +10,000
ATACMS BLKII SYSTEM SUMMARY 230,334 80,000 -150,334
Technical issues with seeker (Note: Additional funds are provided in PE 0604786A for the development of a P3I seeker) -150,334
MULTI PURPOSE INDV MUN (AP-CY) 3,547 0 -3,547
Technical issues with system -3,547
STINGER MODS 21,838 33,338 +11,500
Stinger Block I modifications +11,500
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHORT RANGE AIR DEFENSE MODERNIZATION
The fiscal year 2001 budget terminates the Stinger Block II program. The Committee understands that the Army's decision to terminate Stinger Block II was based not on new threat analysis or a change in requirements. Instead, the program was used as a `bill payer' for Army Transformation. The Committee is concerned because with the termination of Stinger Block II, the Army budget includes no funds to modernize its Army Short Range Air Defense (SHORAD) forces. The Committee does not recommend funding for Stinger Block II, but has provided additional funding for Stinger Block I to mitigate the risk to SHORAD forces in the near-term.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit no later than January 15, 2001 a comprehensive plan for the modernization of the SHORAD force. The plan should include: an analysis of the threat against the current, mid-term (Interim Brigade) and future threat (Objective) forces, the alternatives for meeting the current and emerging threat, the cost of each alternative, and the Army's plan to fund SHORAD modernization to ensure that it is synchronized with the Army's Transformation plan.
JAVELIN
The Army requested $372,248,000 for Javelin missiles. The Committee recommends the budget request; however, the Committee also recommends rescinding $150,000,000 of the $347,677,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2000 for Javelin.
Last year, the Army requested authorization to enter into a multi-year contract for Javelin missiles. Since Javelin was experiencing technical problems, the statement of the managers accompanying the conference report on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000, directed that the Army may only enter into a multi-year contract thirty days after the Secretary of Defense certified that all outstanding technical issues were resolved. Additionally, since the Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan did not sufficiently address congressional concerns, the conference agreement also directed that the Army could not enter into a Javelin multi-year contract until thirty days after the Secretary of Defense certified that the planned procurement quantities for Javelin are correct.
To date, the Secretary of Defense has not submitted the required certification to proceed with a Javelin multi-year contract. As a consequence, contract award has slipped by at least six months, resulting in excess funding which the Committee proposes to rescind.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2001:
PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,586,490,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,874,638,000
Committee recommendation 2,634,786,000
Change from budget request +760,148,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation finances the acquisition of tanks; personnel and cargo carriers; fighting vehicles; tracked recovery vehicles; self-propelled and towed howitzers; machine guns; mortars; modification of in-service equipment, initial spares; and production base support.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In Thousands of Dollars]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BRADLEY BASE SUSTAINMENT 359,389 440,689 +81,300
National Guard: Bradley A0 to ODS +81,300
MEDIUM ARMORED VEHICLE FAMILY: MAVF 537,077 600,077 +63,000
Fully fund first interim brigade +63,000
IMPROVED RECOVERY VEHICLE (M88 MOD) 68,385 76,685 +8,300
Army Reserve: Additional vehicles +8,300
AVLB SLEP 15,252 0 -15,252
Terminate program -15,252
ARMY TRANSFORMATION: MEDIUM ARMORED VEHICLE 0 +600,000
Procures 2nd IBCT set of MAV +600,000
MACHINE GUN, 5.56MM (SAW) 0 +18,300
M249 SAW +18,300
GRENADE LAUNCHER, AUTO, 40MM, MK19-3 11,835 14,335 +2,500
MK-19 MOD 3 +2,500
5.56 CARBINE M4 5,190 7,190 +2,000
Additional systems +2,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WOLVERINE--HEAVY ASSAULT BRIDGE
The Army requested no funds for the Wolverine heavy assault bridge. The Committee understands that the Army's decision to terminate Wolverine was not based on a change in requirements, but rather on the need to realign resources to support Army Transformation. In addition, although the Congress appropriated $82,000,000 for Wolverine in fiscal year 2000, the Committee understands that the Army does not intend to use the funds for the purpose for which they were appropriated. The Committee has included a General Provision, Section 8114, that directs the Army to use the fiscal year 2000 funds to procure Wolverine. Additionally, Section 8114 transfers $15,000,000 of unobligated fiscal year 2000 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army funds appropriated for the Grizzly minefield breacher program to the Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army appropriations, only to procure additional Wolverine heavy assault bridges.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2001:
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,204,120,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,131,323,000
Committee recommendation 1,227,386,000
Change from budget request +96,063,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, modification of in-service stock, and related production base support including the maintenance, expansion, and modernization of industrial facilities and equipment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In Thousands of Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CTG .50 CAL. ALL TYPES 10,646 20,646 +10,000
.50 Caliber SLAP +4,000
M903 and M962 ammunition +6,000
CTG CAL .50 API MK211 MOD 0 1,987 3,987 +2,000
Additional ammunition +2,000
CTG 25MM, ALL TYPES 57,780 66,380 +8,600
M919 ammunition +8,600
CTG 30 MM, ALL TYPES 9,517 14,517 +5,000
HEDP ammunition for Apache helicopters +5,000
NONLETHAL WEAPONS CAPABILITY SET 8,397 10,397 +2,000
Portable vehicle arresting barrier systems +2,000
60MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES 28,673 36,643 +7,970
M721/M767 ammunition +7,970
CTG MORTAR 120MM ILLUM XM930 W/MTSQ FZ 0 5,600 +5,600
M930/M983 ammunition +5,600
PROJ ARTY 155MM SADARM M898 14,907 0 -14,907
Terminate program -14,907
PROJ ARTY 155MM HE M107 35,178 45,178 +10,000
Additional ammunition +10,000
MODULAR ARTILLERY CHARGE SYSTEM (MACS) 27,432 37,432 +10,000
Additional ammunition +10,000
MINE AT M87 (VOLCANO) 0 20,000 +20,000
Additional ammunition +20,000
WIDE AREA MUNITIONS 7,284 12,284 +5,000
Additional ammunition +5,000
BUNKER DEFEATING MUNITION (BDM) 0 10,000 +10,000
SMAW-D, Bunker Defeat Munition +10,000
ROCKET, HYDRA 70, ALL TYPES 152,767 158,567 +5,800
Additional ammunition +5,800
DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES 16,603 17,603 +1,000
Fighting position excavator +1,000
GRENADES, ALL TYPES 20,260 24,760 +4,500
M83 Smoke Launcher/LVOSS Smoke Launcher +4,500
PROVISION OF INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 47,748 51,248 +3,500
Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant +3,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMMUNITION MANAGEMENT
While the Committee is disappointed with the Army's decision to implement a Triad structure for ammunition management instead of vesting responsibility in a single executive, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report back to the Committee within three months of enactment, on the effectiveness of the Triad at managing ammunition effectively and efficiently.
The Secretary should determine the effectiveness based on the following metrics: percentage of procurement funds spent to purchase hardware, especially precision munitions, compared to the amount spent on administrative or overhead costs; a list of every decision made by the Triad since its inception in September, 1998 including: date when an issue was first raised, and ultimately resolved; the cost of that decision in both dollars and manpower hours, either in anticipated savings or increased expenditures; the number of decisions brought to the attention of the Triad, and how many were unresolved and forwarded to the superior officer; examples showing whether the Triad is meeting the objectives for efficient development and production of precision munitions set forth in objectives 1, 5 and 7 on page 16 of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Study.
The report is also to include readiness measurements such as: munition family life cycle time reductions; on-time delivery of quality ammunition products to customers; reduction in backlog of delinquent deliveries, and modernization of the production base. Performance measurements such as: first time pass for first article product; first time pass for lot acceptance testing; and first time pass for period inspection. Warfighter and logistics support measurements such as: horizontal technology insertion success; increased fill to Brigade Combat Team munition requirements; and increased fill of war reserve stockpile with precision munitions.
SENSE AND DESTROY ARMOR MUNITION
The Army requested $14,907,000 for Sense and Destroy Armor Munition (SADARM). The Committee recommends no funds. The SADARM program, which has been in development for almost twenty years and has cost almost two billion dollars to date, has yet to pass an operational test.
The statement of the managers accompanying the conference report on the Defense Appropriations Act, 2000 directed that none of the fiscal year 2000 funds for SADARM may be obligated until Army's Operational Test and Evaluation Command (now known as Army Test and Evaluation Command) certified that SADARM had met its reliability requirement of 80 percent. Preliminary results from the most recent test in May indicate that the 80 percent reliability requirement for SADARM was not met.
More importantly, the current Army outyear budget plan does not fund SADARM production after fiscal year 2001, and no funding is provided for the SADARM Product Improvement Program after fiscal year 2001. Since the Army budget plan terminates the program and the system has not met its reliability requirement, the Committee recommends no funding for SADARM.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2001:
OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $3,738,934,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 3,795,870,000
Committee recommendation 4,254,564,000
Change from budget request +458,694,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation finances the acquisition of: (a) tactical and commercial vehicles, including trucks, semi-trailers, and trailers of all types to provide mobility and utility support to field forces and the worldwide logistical system; (b) communications and electronics equipment of all types to provide fixed, semi-fixed, and mobile strategic and tactical communication equipment; (c) other support equipment such as chemical defensive equipment, floating and rail equipment, generators and power units, material handling equipment, medical support equipment, special equipment for user testing, and non-system training devices. In each of these activities, funds are also included for the modification of in-service equipment, investment spares and repair parts, and production base support.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In Thousands of Dollars]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SEMITRAILER FB BB/CONT TRANS 22 1/2 T 12,135 5,035 -7,100
Program slip -7,100
HI MOB MULTI-PURP WHLD VEH (HMMWV) 110,746 125,046 +14,300
Transformation: Additional HMMWV's +9,300
Army Reserve: Additional HMMWV's +5,000
FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEH (FMTV) 438,256 475,556 +37,300
National Guard: Additional FMTVs +35,000
Army Reserves: Additional FMTV's (5 ton) +2,300
FIRETRUCKS & ASSOCIATED FIREFIGHTING EQUIPMENT 14,830 16,030 +1,200
Army Reserve: Firetruck HEMTT +1,200
FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) 166,119 191,119 +25,000
M3 CROP +10,000
Movement Tracking System +15,000
TRUCK, TRACTOR, LINE HAUL, M915/M916 42,989 44,589 +1,600
Army Reserve: Additional M915A3 Tractors +1,600
MODIFICATION OF IN SV EQUIP 28,910 36,910 +8,000
A8020 fuel injection test stand +8,000
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (TAC VEH) 1,853 2,853 +1,000
TRU-Hitches +1,000
COMBAT IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM 13,096 18,096 +5,000
Battlefield Combat ID +5,000
SHF TERM 38,307 14,307 -24,000
Schedule delay -24,000
SAT TERM, EMUT (SPACE) 3,475 13,475 +10,000
SPITFIRE terminals +10,000
SMART-T (SPACE) 48,594 32,094 -16,500
Schedule slip -16,500
GLOBAL BRDCST SVC-GBS 9,286 0 -9,286
Schedule slip -9,286
ARMY DATA DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (DATA RADIO) 32,675 66,875 +34,200
Army Transformation: EPLRS +24,200
National Guard: EPLRS +10,000
SINCGARS FAMILY 18,340 51,840 +33,500
Army Transformation: SINCGARS +10,000
National Guard: SINCGARS +20,000
Transformation: FHMUX +3,500
CUS MOD PROGRAM (WIN T/T) 113,951 122,951 +9,000
TS-21 Blackjack (AN/UXC-10) +9,000
SOLDIER ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM COMM/ELECTRONICS 4,374 19,374 +15,000
Observer Controller Communications System (OCCS) (Note: The upgrades to the OCCS should be JTRS compliant and should support both the FORSCOM/TRADOC land mobile radio requirements at the NTC) +15,000
INFORMATION SYSTEM SECURITY PROGRAM-ISSP 54,374 75,374 +21,000
Information Assurance: Network Intrusion Detection Device +8,000
Information Assurance: Secure Terminal Equipment +13,000
PENTAGON INFORMATION MGT AND TELECOM 65,412 17,262 -48,150
Program slip -48,150
PROPHET GROUND (TIARA) 9,571 12,571 +3,000
Procurement of 5 systems for high priority CONUS units +3,000
TACTICAL EXPLOITATION OF NATIONAL CAPABILITIES 12,853 8,353 -4,500
Discoverer II -4,500
SHORTSTOP 0 20,000 +20,000
Shortstop (NOTE: The Committee encourages the Army to fund Shortstop in future budget submissions) +20,000
FAAD GBS 24,188 27,188 +3,000
Air Defense Alerting system for Medium Brigade +3,000
NIGHT VISION DEVICES 34,146 59,546 +25,400
Miniature Eyesafe Laser Infrared Observation Set +5,000
AN/PVS-7 goggles +12,000
25mm image intensification tubes +8,400
MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS) 22,935 31,025 +8,090
Army Transformation: ABCS integration +8,090
STAMIS TACTICAL COMPUTERS (STACOMP) 40,015 40,015 0
STANDARD INTEGRATED CMD POST SYSTEM 35,971 47,471 +11,500
Army Transformation: SICPS +11,500
AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP 172,051 181,051 +9,000
NG Distance Learning Courseware +4,000
Ammunition AIT +5,000
RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATION SYSTEM (RCAS) 91,495 99,495 +8,000
Additional funds +8,000
GEN SMK MECH:MTRZD DUAL PURP M56 11,369 15,369 +4,000
M56 Smoke generator +4,000
RIBBON BRIDGE 15,669 29,169 +13,500
Army Reserve: ribbon bridges +13,500
KIT, STANDARD TELEOPERATING 688 10,688 +10,000
Vehicle Teleoperation kits +10,000
LAUNDRIES, SHOWERS AND LATRINES 12,580 17,080 +4,500
Laundry Advanced System +4,500
DISTRIBUTION SYS, PET & WATER 0 3,000 +3,000
Lightweight tactical water purifier +3,000
COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL 31,567 37,767 +6,200
Portable Low-Power Blood Cooling and Storage Devices +2,200
Rapid Intravenous Infusion Pump +4,000
ROLLER, VIBRATORY, SELF-PROPELLED (CCE) 4,671 11,671 +7,000
Army Reserves: additional systems +4,000
Additional systems +3,000
HYDRAULIC EXCAVATOR 8,282 10,582 +2,300
Army Reserve: additional systems +2,300
DEPLOYABLE UNIVERSAL COMBAT EARTH MOVERS 14,146 24,346 +10,200
28 additional DEUCES +10,200
CONST EQUIP SLEP 1,986 16,986 +15,000
Service Life Extension Program of Reserve Component commercial construction equipment +10,000
Extend Service Life of Commercial Construction Equipment in the XVIII Airborne Corps +5,000
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (CONST EQUIP) 2,635 6,635 +4,000
National Guard: Ultimate Building Machines +2,000
Ultimate Building Machines +2,000
SMALL TUG 0 9,000 +9,000
3 tugs +9,000
FLOATING CRANES 0 15,000 +15,000
Floating crane barges +15,000
GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP 85,886 90,886 +5,000
3000 2KW military tactical generators +5,000
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION (MHE) 1,231 3,731 +2,500
Laser leveling equipment +2,500
CTC INSTRUMENTATION SUPPORT 81,845 93,945 +12,100
MOUT +3,600
Targetry electronics for the Multi-purpose Range Complex-Heavy +3,500
DFIRST for National Guard Installation #21A95 +5,000
TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM 91,937 104,937 +13,000
National Guard: engagement skills trainer +8,000
Laser Markmanship Training System +5,000
CLOSE COMBAT TACTICAL TRAINER 81,160 0 -81,160
Test unfunded -81,160
MODIFICATION OF IN-SVC EQUIPMENT (OPA-3) 28,008 31,008 +3,000
Laser Leveling equipment +3,000
PRODUCTION BASE SUPPORT (OTH) 2,367 8,367 +6,000
Plasma Energy Pyrolysis System (PEPS) +6,000
ARMY TRANSFORMATION: OTHER SUPPORT EQUIP 0 0 +200,000
Procures support equipment for the 2nd IBCT +200,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UP-ARMORED HIGH MOBILITY MULTI-PURPOSE WHEELED VEHICLES
The budget request includes no funds for Up-armored High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWV). However, the Committee understands that the Army has an unsatisfied requirement for Up-armored HMMWV's. The Committee directs the Army to submit no later than July 10, 2000, a report which outlines the Army's acquisition objective for Up-armored HMMWV's and the current inventory levels. The report is also to include the funding required to alleviate the shortfall.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2001:
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $8,662,655,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 7,963,858,000
Committee recommendation 8,179,564,000
Change from budget request +215,706,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of aircraft and related support equipment and programs; flight simulators; equipment to modify in-service aircraft to extend their service life, eliminate safety hazards, and improve their operational effectiveness; and spare parts and ground support equipment for all end items procured by this appropriation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SH-60R 162,327 152,327 -10,000
Non-recurring cost growth -5,000
Avionics support equipment deferment -5,000
UC-35 15,200 +15,200
Additional aircraft +15,200
KC-130J 154,818 231,118 +76,300
Additional aircraft +76,300
F-18 SERIES 212,614 200,214 -12,400
Tactical Aircraft Moving Map Capability (TAMMAC) +5,000
ATFLIR +9,600
ATARS Procurement (OPEVAL results) -27,000
H-46 SERIES 16,556 21,556 +5,000
Engine Reliability improvement program risk reduction +5,000
AH-1W SERIES 9,758 13,758 +4,000
AH-1 Night targeting system +4,000
H-53 SERIES 19,919 22,519 +2,600
Marine Corps Reserve: CH-53 Night Vision B-kits +2,600
SH-60 SERIES 21,088 39,088 +18,000
AN/AQS-13F +8,000
Specific Emitter Identification (procurement/installation) +10,000
H-1 SERIES 2,642 16,642 +14,000
AN/AQQ-22 Upgrade +8,000
H-1 Upgrade program +6,000
EP-3 SERIES 25,833 80,833 +55,000
Modification of P-3 to EP-3 configuration +55,000
P-3 SERIES 60,710 78,710 +18,000
Digital Recorder Reproducers (DRRs) +4,000
SLAM-ER Weapon Integration +6,000
Digital Instantaneous Frequency Management Upgrade +6,000
Lightweight Environmentally Sealed Parachute Assembly +2,000
S-3 SERIES 79,050 64,050 -15,000
Accelerated retirement of S-3 fleet in 2008 -15,000
E-2 SERIES 18,485 57,485 +39,000
Hawkeye 2000 Upgrade +39,000
SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS 941,553 947,553 +6,000
Spares for P-3 to EP-3 modification +6,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVANCED TACTICAL AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEM (ATARS)
The Committee recommends a $27,000,000 reduction in F/A-18 procurement funding, the amount included in the request for the Advanced Tactical Airborne Reconnaissance System (ATARS). ATARS did not have a successful Operational Evaluation (OPEVAL) and was deemed `not operationally suitable' due to reliability and availability shortfalls.
This situation will cause the Navy and the Marine Corps to re-evaluate the ATARS program approved by Congress in fiscal year 2000 and should also result in a revision to the program presented in the fiscal year 2001 budget request. The Congress provided the ATARS budget request in fiscal year 2000, but prohibited the expenditure of 50 percent of the funds until completion of the OPEVAL. Despite the fact that the OPEVAL is complete, the Navy has wisely put the program on hold because it was not completely successful. This puts the Milestone III decision in jeopardy and causes the Committee to believe that based on the program presented in the fiscal year 2001 request, the requested ATARS procurement funds are excess to the needs of the Navy.
The Committee recognizes that some may perceive this decision as exacerbating the Marine Corps' un-met requirement for tactical reconnaissance. However, faced with the lack of a clear approach to move forward to a Milestone III decision and an unknown cost associated with potential ATARS modifications that would meet the OPEVAL criteria, the Committee's action is prudent.
The Committee directs the Navy to provide a recommendation on what it will do to meet both the short-term and the long-term Marine Corps requirement for tactical reconnaissance.
EP-3 MODERNIZATION
The Committee has provided a total of $61,000,000 for the Navy to modify one P-3 to an EP-3 configuration, which meets a Navy priority requirement by moving the modification from the fiscal year 2002 budget plan to a fiscal year 2001 appropriation. This asset has been the workhorse of the Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) fleet and the Committee is pleased that the Navy has identified an urgent need to increase its inventory of EP-3s. The urgency of course is also due to the operational loss of four aircraft for various sensor upgrades, a protracted process due in part to poor management on the part of the Navy.
The Committee is concerned that the Navy is not adequately planning or budgeting for a possible Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) for the EP-3 to ensure the viability of the aircraft to 2025. Therefore, the Committee directs the Navy to submit a report by January 15, 2001, which identifies the outyear requirements for a SLEP of the EP-3, including any requirement to replace sensors.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.
WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,383,413,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,434,250,000
Committee recommendation 1,372,112,000
Change from budget request -62,138,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of strategic and tactical missiles, target drones, torpedoes, guns, associated support equipment, and modification on in-service missiles, torpedoes, and guns.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRONES AND DECOYS 10,000 +10,000
Improved Tactical Air Launched Decoy (ITALD) +10,000
FLEET SATELLITE COMM FOLLOW-ON 170,537 95,500 -75,037
Defer EELV launch services until leadtime away from need per GAO recommendation -75,000
MK-48 TORPEDO ADCAP MODS 38,926 44,926 +6,000
Increased Procurement +6,000
ASW RANGE SUPPORT 14,955 18,955 +4,000
Northwest Undersea Test Range Upgrade +4,000
CIWS MODS 964 5,964 +5,000
Phalanx CIWS Block IB Upgrade kits +5,000
GUN MOUNT MODS 4,779 14,779 +10,000
MK-45 Gun System Mod 4 Upgrade kits +10,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINT STAND-OFF WEAPON
The Navy requested $171,624,000 for procurement of the Joint Stand-Off Weapon (JSOW). The Committee recommends $149,523,000, a decrease of $22,101,000.
Of the 636 JSOWs requested, the Navy plans to procure 150 of the `JSOW-B' anti-armor variant. The JSOW-B uses the BLU-108 submunition, the same submunition used in the Air Force Sensor Fuzed Weapon in production for several years. For a number of reasons, the Committee believes that it is premature to significantly ramp up production of the anti-armor variant. First, the Committee continues to be concerned that DoD is acquiring too many anti-armor weapons and has failed to respond adequately to Committee reporting requirements in this regard. The GAO has observed that DoD is acquiring an anti-armor inventory that exceeds levels achieved during the Cold War despite a vastly diminished threat. Until DoD comes to grips with this mismatch between program and threat, the Committee must make its own judgements in terms of reducing the Department's anti-armor programs. Second, the JSOW-B continues to suffer from targeting limitations that prevent efficient use of the weapon system until technologies such as sensor-to-shooter, advanced electronically scanned arrays, and an improved Harm Targeting System are available. In the meantime, the Navy and Air Force plan to use exceedingly inefficient targeting `work-arounds' such as launching weapons blindly into choke points hoping that moving armor happens to be transiting at the exact time of weapon impact. Third, the Committee notes that the Navy now recognizes the limited application of this weapon as reflected by a 50 percent reduction in the requirement for the JSOW-B variant in its latest Non-Nuclear Ordnance Requirement (NNOR) analysis completed after submission of the budget.
Fourth, as mentioned, the Air Force already has in its inventory the Sensor Fuzed Weapon that uses the same submunition as the JSOW. Sensor Fuzed Weapon is not a stand-off munition and therefore avoids some of the targeting issues associated with JSOW. Though available, this weapon was prohibited from use in Kosovo over fears of collateral damage. Adding stand-off to this capability (i.e., JSOW) would only exacerbate the potential for collateral damage. In summary, the Committee believes it is premature to procure this weapon in large numbers until the issues of targeting and requirements are resolved. Given these considerations, the Committee recommends a reduction of 120 of the budgeted 150 anti-armor JSOW-B variants, a decrease of $42,240,000. The Committee further recommends an increase of 120 baseline JSOW-A variants for an additional $20,139,000. The Committee notes that the JSOW-A variant performed well in recent operations in Iraq and Kosovo. The Committee has made similar adjustments to the Air Force JSOW program.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE CORPS
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $525,200,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 429,649,000
Committee recommendation 491,749,000
Change from Budget Request +62,100,000
---------------------------------------------
This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, ammunition modernization, and ammunition related material for the Navy and Marine Corps.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS 63,157 73,157 +10,000
Laser Guided Bombs +10,000
PRACTICE BOMBS 50,600 60,600 +10,000
Laser Guided Training Rounds +10,000
AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES 39,293 45,793 +6,500
MJU-52/B IR expendable countermeasures +6,500
5.56 MM, ALL TYPES 23,456 26,456 +3,000
Increased quantity +3,000
7.62 MM, ALL TYPES 2,039 3,039 +1,000
Increased quantity +1,000
LINEAR CHARGES, ALL TYPES 40,945 44,945 +4,000
Anti-personnel obstacle breaching system +4,000
.50 CALIBER 7,637 8,637 +1,000
Increased quantity +1,000
GRENADES, ALL TYPES 8,358 12,358 +4,000
M67 fragmentation hand grenade +4,000
ROCKETS, ALL TYPES 1,592 6,192 +4,600
SMAW Common round +4,600
ARTILLERY, ALL TYPES 322 18,322 +18,000
M795 HE ammunition +18,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.
SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $7,053,454,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 12,296,919,000
Committee recommendation 12,266,919,000
Change from budget request -30,000,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides funds for the construction of new ships and the purchase and conversion of existing ships, including hull, mechanical, and electrical equipment, electronics, guns, torpedo and missile launching systems, and communication systems.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW SSN 1,203,012 1,198,012 -5,000
Other Cost Growth -5,000
CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS 703,441 698,441 -5,000
C4ISR Upgrade, Engineering Services cost growth -5,000
DDG-51 (MYP) 2,713,559 2,703,559 -10,000
Basic Construction cost growth -10,000
LPD-17 1,489,286 1,479,286 -10,000
Escalation -10,000
ADC(X) 338,951 348,951 +10,000
Second shipyard support engineering +10,000
OUTFITTING 301,077 291,077 -10,000
LPD schedule delays -10,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $4,320,238,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 3,334,611,000
Committee recommendation 3,433,063,000
Change from budget request +98,452,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of major equipment and weapons other than ships, aircraft, missiles, and torpedoes. Such equipment ranges from the latest electronic sensors for updating naval forces to trucks, training equipment, and spare parts.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OTHER NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT 33,425 45,425 +12,000
WSN-7B Ring Laser Gyro +12,000
STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP 6,206 21,206 +15,000
AN/UYQ-70 Submarine Workstations +15,000
LCAC 3,559 -3,559
LCAC SLEP (unobligated balances) -3,559
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION 58,851 60,851 +2,000
Unattended Paint Removal and Application system +2,000
RADAR SUPPORT 25,000 +25,000
AN/SYS-2 Integrated Tracking System +10,000
SPS-73 (V) Radar +14,000
BPS-15H radar enhanced bridge repeaters +1,000
SSN ACOUSTICS 106,647 114,647 +8,000
TB-23 Array refurbishment +8,000
UNDERSEA WARFARE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 847 2,847 +2,000
Carrier Tactical Surveillance Center (CV-TSC) +2,000
SONAR SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 5,000 +5,000
New sonar dome windows (Note: Funding is only for completion of fabrication of production tooling and first article production dome with the new material system.) +5,000
SHIPBOARD IW EXPLOIT 61,524 50,024 -11,500
Contract Savings/Unobligated balances -11,500
NAVY TACTICAL DATA SYSTEM 10,000 +10,000
Land based display emulators +10,000
COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY 15,853 33,853 +18,000
System life extension, test sites +18,000
SHALLOW WATER MCM 16,863 16,363 -500
Contract Savings -500
OTHER TRAINING EQUIPMENT 21,390 28,390 +7,000
Air Traffic Control On-board trainer +3,000
BFTT electronic warfare trainers +4,000
SURFACE IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS 4,000 +4,000
Shipboard Advanced Radar Target ID system (SARTIS) +4,000
TADIX-B 32 6,032 +6,000
Additional JTT-N terminals +6.000
EMI CONTROL INSTRUMENTATION 5,378 8,378 +3,000
Mobile Inshore Undersea Warfare System (MIUW) Upgrades +3,000
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION 4,889 11,889 +7,000
Network based shipboard interior secure voice communications (Note: funding is only for procurement of AN/UYQ-70 secure voice technology equipment for land based evaluations.) +7,000
SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS 252,695 206,606 -46,089
Defer procurement of EHF follow-on terminals pending successful end-to-end testing per GAO recommendation -46,089
JEDMICS 12,000 +12,000
JEDMICS Encryption (Note: only for the continued procurement and integration of the same security solution implemented in 1999 and 2000.) +12,000
INFO SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) 46,563 66,563 +20,000
Information Assurance: Network Intrusion Detection Device +8,000
Information Assurance: Secure Terminal Equipment +12,000
WEAPONS RANGE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 15,125 26,225 +11,100
Mobile Remote Emitter Simulator (MRESS) +15,000
Underwater Acoustic Telemetry Modem -2,700
GOMEX Mine Warfare Range -1,200
AVIATION LIFE SUPPORT 20,374 16,674 -3,700
CSEL--contract award slip -3,200
PRC-112 upgrades--contract cancellation -500
NATO SEASPARROW 21,716 22,716 +1,000
Enhancement for Automatic Audio Video Tracking and non-Cooperative Target Recognition +1,000
RAM GMLS 37,309 36,809 -500
Contract savings -500
AEGIS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 36,848 36,848
Total ship monitoring program +5,000
Smartship fielding (unobligated balances) -5,000
SSN COMBAT CONTROL SYSTEMS 20,896 19,596 -1,300
AN/BSG-1--operational test slip -1,300
CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE EQUIP 6,238 8,238 +2,000
Laser leveling equipment +2,000
EDUCATION SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 2,076 5,076 +3,000
Navy recruiting kiosks +3,000
ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 22,247 14,747 -7,500
Primary ocean prediction system--software delays -7,500
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AVIATION REQUIREMENT FOR JOINT TACTICAL TERMINALS
The Committee directs the Navy to review, and report by March 15, 2001, its requirement for aviation joint tactical terminals.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.
PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,300,920,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,171,935,000
Committee recommendation 1,229,605,000
Change from budget request +57,670,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation funds the procurement, delivery, and modification of missiles, armament, communication equipment, tracked and wheeled vehicles, and various support equipment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAPID ACQUISITION PROGRAM 4,930 0 -4,930
Cancel program -4,930
INTELLIGENCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 11,960 17,960 +6,000
MEWSS procurement +6,000
RADIO SYSTEMS 3,097 9,097 +6,000
Tactical handheld radio +6,000
COMM & ELEC INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT 80,564 82,564 +2,000
Common end user computer package (Marine Corps Reserve) +2,000
FIRE SUPPORT SYSTEM 12,343 17,343 +5,000
SHORTSTOP +5,000
5/4T TRUCK HMMWV (MYP) 124,448 149,448 +25,000
HMMWV (Note: Of the additional amount, $1,500,000 is only to procure HMMWV's for recruiting purposes) +25,000
POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED 9,325 10,825 +1,500
Laser leveling equipment +1,500
COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 0 2,000 +2,000
Ultimate building machines +2,000
MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP 36,311 48,411 +12,000
D-7G bulldozer and scraper program (remanufacture) +12,100
TRAINING DEVICES 0 3,000 +3,000
Improved moving target simulator +3,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $8,228,630,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 9,539,602,000
Committee recommendation 10,064,032,000
Change from budget request +524,430,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides for the procurement of aircraft, and for modification of in-service aircraft to improve safety and enhance operational effectiveness. It also provides for initial spares and other support equipment to include aerospace ground equipment and industrial facilities. In addition, funds are provided for the procurement of flight training simulators to increase combat readiness and to provide for more economical training.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-17 (MYP) 2,211,923 2,185,823 -26,100
AF requested transfer to C-17 AP -41,000
Simulator +14,900
C-130J 208,051 208,051 0
Note: Funds provided are only for procurement of two C-130J aircraft for firefighting units in the ANG and for C-130J associated support requirements 0
E-8C 260,610 250,610 -10,000
Prior year pricing experience -10,000
E-8C (AP-CY) 0 40,000 +40,000
Advance Procurement for A/C 16 +40,000
PREDATOR UAV 22,078 32,078 +10,000
Upgrade the current ground stations, integrate the capability to control multiple UAVs simultaneously, improve reliability and maintainability, and procure necessary air vehicles +10,000
B-2A 21,723 24,723 +3,000
EGBU-28 +3,000
B-52 8,425 20,425 +12,000
Electronic countermeasures and situational awareness +12,000
A-10 33,891 37,891 +4,000
Integrated flight and fire control computer +4,000
T-3 (EFS) AIRCRAFT 1,949 0 -1,949
Funds no longer required -1,949
C-130 91,524 94,524 +3,000
Aluminum Mesh tank Liner System +3,000
C-135 328,232 380,232 +52,000
KC-135R reengine +52,000
DARP 165,540 180,276 +14,736
RIVET JOINT transfer +5,077
U-2 transfer -18,341
RC-135 RIVET JOINT aircrew (AMPd) trainer +22,000
Installation of TAWS on RIVET JOINT +6,000
OTHER AIRCRAFT 28,214 38,214 +10,000
SADL for ANG A-10, C-130, KC-135 +10,000
F-16 POST PRODUCTION SUPPORT 25,464 37,464 +12,000
IAIS +12,000
WAR CONSUMABLES 43,015 53,015 +10,000
ALE-50 Towed Decoys +10,000
DARP 98,410 136,674 +38,264
Procurement of a two-seat U-2 trainer +14,000
U-2 SYERS spares +3,000
1st Production LBSS/HBSS JSAF unit for U-2 +8,000
RIVET JOINT transfer -5,077
U-2 transfer +18,341
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e
F-15
The Air Force requested no funds for additional F-15 aircraft. The Committee recommends $400,000,000 for 5 additional F-15E aircraft. The Committee understands that there are a number of potential F-15 foreign military sales cases pending. The Committee strongly encourages the Air Force to take all necessary action to expeditiously negotiate these potential agreements.
C-17 ADVANCE PROCUREMENT
The Air Force requested $266,800,000 for advance procurement for 15 aircraft to be procured in fiscal year 2002. The Committee recommends $207,800,000, a net decrease of $59,000,000. Subsequent to submission of the budget, the Air Force identified a budgeting error and requested the Committee increase C-17 advance procurement by $41,000,000 offset by a like decrease to the C-17 full funding line-item, a `net zero' transfer. The Committee recommendation includes this transfer.
In addition, the Committee recommendation includes a reduction of $100,000,000 based on revised Air Force advance procurement estimates. The C-17 program is in the midst of a seven year multiyear contract. Although the contract requires 15 aircraft be bought in fiscal year 2001, the Air Force budgeted for only 12 based on the assumption that the British would acquire 3 aircraft. As the budget was submitted to Congress, the British had not decided to acquire these aircraft, forcing the Air Force and contractor to evaluate options to minimize the impact of lower quantities of aircraft on the multiyear contract. The Air Force and contractor found that by accelerating contract award dates and manipulating payment schedules, the multiyear contract could be maintained at the budgeted quantities. However, these actions also have the effect of reducing the requirement for advance procurement. The Committee recommendation adjusts the amount of advance procurement based on a detailed advance procurement analysis provided by the Air Force.
F-15 MODIFICATIONS
The Air Force requested $258,247,000 for F-15 modifications. The Committee recommends $305,647,000, an increase of $47,400,000. Of this amount, $26,400,000 is only for integration of BOL IR countermeasures on Air National Guard aircraft and $21,000,000 is only for additional fighter datalink modifications. The F-15 fighter datalink is an example of an information age modification that provides tremendous capability at an inexpensive price. This $230,000 per aircraft modification to the F-15C recently completed independent operational testing and was found to make the F-15C four times better in air-to-air combat (in terms of kill ratios) while providing a 30 percent increase in survivability--all this without the aid of stealth or supercruise. Despite this, the Air Force continues to fail to fund this inexpensive upgrade for 75 combat coded F-15s. Consequently, the Committee finds it must once again provide additional funds to ensure all combat coded F-15s benefit from this highly leveraging modification.
F-16 MODIFICATIONS
The Committee observes that the Senate defense appropriations report on H.R. 2521 (S. Rept. 102-154) stated, `the Committee directs that F-16 aircraft scheduled to be delivered to the Air Force during fiscal year 1992 be turned over to those Air National Guard F-16 units which served in Operational Desert Storm.' The Committee further observes that the statement of managers accompanying the appropriations conference report on H.R. 2521 (H. Rept. 102-328) stated, `The Committee of Conference directs the Air Force to initiate, immediately in the first quarter of fiscal year 1992, the modernization process for those Air National Guard F-16 units that deployed to Operation Desert Storm, in priority over any non-deploying unit, leading to equipping these deploying units with updated F-16 aircraft. Units with the Close Air Support (CAS) mission will be equipped with Block 30 aircraft.' The Committee notes that the Air Force complied with the conference direction by providing Block 30 aircraft to the 174th Fighter Wing. Subsequently, however, the Air Force reversed this action by replacing the Block 30 aircraft with less capable Block 25 aircraft.
The Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to provide F-16 Block 40 aircraft, or later model F-16 aircraft, to Air National Guard units deployed to Operation Desert Storm no later than first quarter fiscal 2002. Section 8110 of the Committee bill prohibits obligation of funds for F-16 modifications pending submission of a report by the Secretary of the Air Force detailing the plan to assign these aircraft as discussed above.
MISCELLANEOUS PRODUCTION CHARGES
The Air Force requested $398,474,000 for Miscellaneous Production Charges. The Committee recommends $363,553,000, a reduction of $34,921,000. Two years ago, the Navy initiated a next generation infrared targeting pod program called ATFLIR and, according to the Air Force, invited the Air Force to participate as a joint partner. The Air Force declined at that time. Now, the Air Force plans to procure its own next generation targeting pod, a potential billion dollar program. Though the Air Force's requirements for a next generation pod are similar to the Navy's, the planned acquisition strategy could lead the service to procure a completely different pod. The Committee is disappointed that the Navy and Air Force cannot work more closely together to develop joint solutions to meet similar requirements. Joint programs reduce costs through higher production rates, greater commonality in software development, stand-up of single vs. multiple depots, and more efficient spares procurements and management as well as numerous other efficiencies. To ensure joint commonality in DoD's next generation targeting pods, the Committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, and the Commander in Chief of the Joint Forces Command to review the Department's plans to acquire next generation targeting pods (including pods that would be procured by Guard and Reserve components) to ensure the requirements and acquisition approach appropriately promote joint commonality. The Committee directs the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology, and the Commander in Chief of the Joint Forces Command to report its findings and the steps taken to promote joint commonality to the congressional defense committees no later than February 15, 2001. The Committee fully supports Air Force acquisition of a next generation targeting pod, but will not stand by and accept another lost opportunity for joint commonality. Accordingly, the Committee recommends no funds for an Air Force Advanced Targeting Pod until these issues are resolved and the report directed above is submitted.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.
MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $2,211,407,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 3,061,715,000
Committee recommendation 2,893,529,000
Change from budget request -168,186,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides for procurement, installation, and checkout of strategic ballistic and other missiles, modification of in-service missiles, and initial spares of missile systems. It also provides for operational space systems, boosters, payloads, drones, associated ground equipment, non-recurring maintenance of industrial facilities, machine tool modernization, and special program support.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MISSILE REPLACEMENT EQ-BALLISTIC 42,308 11,508 -30,800
Defer Peacekeeper items -30,800
JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON 90,828 76,012 -14,816
Decrease anti-armor variant quantity to 20 (-80) -28,160
Increase baseline variant quantity to 154 (+80) +13,344
MISSILE SPARES--REPAIR PARTS 44,026 42,354 -1,672
Defer Peacekeeper spares -1,672
GLOBAL POSITIONING (SPACE) 196,937 162,596 -34,341
Amended budget submission -34,341
Program reduction -10,000
GLOBAL POSITIONING (SPACE) (AP-CY) 13,404 17,404 +4,000
Amended budget submission +4,000
EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEH (SPACE) 287,996 275,996 -12,000
Program reduction -12,000
MEDIUM LAUNCH VEHICLE (SPACE) 55,939 43,081 -12,858
Savings from delayed GPS launches (GAO) -12,858
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.
PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $442,537,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 638,808,000
Committee recommendation 638,808,000
Change from budget request
---------------------------------------------
This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, modifications, spares, weapons, and other ammunition-related items for the Air Force.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.
OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $7,146,157,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 7,699,127,000
Committee recommendation 7,778,997,000
Change from budget request +79,870,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides for the procurement of weapon systems and equipment other than aircraft and missiles. Included are vehicles, electronic and telecommunications systems for command and control of operation forces, and ground support equipment for weapon systems and supporting structure.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION 8,616 18,616 +10,000
T-7 bulldozers, excavators, and 2.5 ton front end loaders for ANG RED HORSE units +10,000
INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIP 5,530 36,730 +31,200
Senior Scout +8,200
Eagle Vision IV +5,000
Information Assurance: Network Intrusion Detection Device +8,000
Information Assurance: Secure Terminal Equipment +10,000
AIR TRAFFIC CTRL/LAND SYS (ATCALS) 0 6,000 +6,000
Air National Guard fixed air traffic control radar +6,000
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM 58,663 52,663 -6,000
DASR test problems -6,000
THEATER AIR CONTROL SYS IMPROVEMENT 15,431 14,997 -434
Reduced requirements for ruggedized computers -434
WEATHER OBSERV/FORECAST 33,515 28,115 -5,400
Small Tactical Terminals schedule slip -5,400
AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING EQUIP 74,771 84,771 +10,000
Spares Information System +10,000
COMBAT TRAINING RANGES 26,003 31,003 +5,000
Force Operational Readiness and Combat Effectiveness Simulation (FORCES) for ANG +5,000
NAVSTAR GPS SPACE 9,112 2,212 -6,900
Savings from combining 2 contracts into 1 -3,800
Air Force rephase of alternate station funding -3,100
MILSATCOM SPACE 53,027 35,127 -17,900
SMART T--program delays -9,000
GBS Receivers--program delays in broadcast system -4,000
Premature procurement of CCS-Consolidated equipment. Program just starting development -4,900
TACTICAL C-E EQUIPMENT 101,222 98,722 -2,500
Reduced laser range finders based on additional units bought in 2000 -2,500
ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION 6,744 10,744 +4,000
Lightweight Environmentally Sealed Parachute Assembly (LESPA) for C-130, C-141, C-5, and KC-135 +4,000
MECHANIZED MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP 15,118 25,118 +10,000
Supply Asset Tracking System +10,000
FLOODLIGHTS 10,718 14,718 +4,000
MEANPALS +4,000
BASE PROCURED EQUIPMENT 15,171 22,171 +7,000
Hazardous Gas Detection +3,000
Ultimate building machines for Air Force and Air National Guard civil engineering units +1,000
Master Crane +3,000
DARP RC-135 12,785 27,985 +15,200
COMBAT SENT-Install RWR+Calibration Van +4,700
RIVET JOINT-Mission Trainer (EFETS) +10,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEXT GENERATION SMALL LOADER
The Air Force requested $24,144,000 for procurement of next generation small loaders. The Committee recommends $11,544,000, a reduction of $12,600,000. Both competitors for the Next Generation Small Loader are foreign companies that have entered into licensing agreements with U.S. companies to produce the loaders. Low rate production begins with 13 units in fiscal year 2000 followed by 34 units in fiscal year 2001. Should the selected U.S. company encounter difficulty in the production transition between foreign contractor and a new production line, production delays and potential technical problems with the loaders could result. The Committee believes it is appropriate to allow adequate time to validate a new production line and adequately test the loaders before significantly ramping up production in fiscal year 2001. Accordingly, the Committee recommends deferring 21 loaders to fiscal year 2002 resulting in a decrease of $12,600,000 to the budget request.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.
PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $2,249,566,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 2,275,308,000
Committee recommendation 2,303,136,000
Change from budget request +27,828,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation funds the Procurement, Defense-Wide activities of the Department of Defense.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Recommended Change from request
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD 64,872 116,672 +51,800
High Performance Computing Modernization [Note: Within this amount, $1,000,000 is only for the Army High Performance Computing Research Center.] +48,000
Mentor Protege +3,000
Information Assurance: JCOATS-IO +800
DEFENSE MESSAGE SYSTEM 19,399 32,399 +13,000
DEFENSE SUPPORT ACTIVITIES 82,863 87,863 +5,000
Electronic Commerce Resource Centers +5,000
AUTOMATIC DOCUMENT CONVERSION SYSTEM 0 20,000 +20,000
ADVANCED SEAL DELIVERY SYSTEM 25,500 28,800 +3,300
Design Enhancements +3,300
SOF ORDNANCE ACQUISITION 25,978 31,978 +6,000
Sniper Detection System +6,000
SOF INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS 32,309 35,309 +3,000
Portable Intelligence Collection and Relay Capability +3,000
SOF SMALL ARMS & WEAPONS 11,829 33,449 +21,620
Body Armor Load Carriage System +5,000
Modular Integrated Communications Helmet +4,620
Special Operations Peculiar Modification to the M-4 Carbine +12,000
MISCELLANEOUS EQUIPMENT 14,376 18,876 +4,500
Low Profile Night Vision Goggles +4,500
INDIVIDUAL PROTECTION 108,725 111,725 +3,000
MEU E-NBC Capability Sets +3,000
DECONTAMINATION 12,195 13,195 +1,000
M291 Decontamination Kit +1,000
COLLECTIVE PROTECTION 36,179 37,179 +1,000
M49 Filter +1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.
NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $150,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request
Committee recommendation
Change from budget request
---------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of tactical aircraft and other equipment for the National Guard and Reserve.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
In all accounts throughout the bill, the Committee recommends a total of $2,452,551,000 for procurement of National Guard and Reserve equipment, a net increase of $622,651,000 above the budget request. Consistent with the budget request and the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 (H.R. 4205), the Committee recommends no funding in the Procurement, National Guard and Reserve Equipment account.
DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT PURCHASES
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $3,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request
Committee recommendation 3,000,000
Change from budget request +3,000,000
-------------------------------------------
The Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. App. 2061, et seq.) authorizes the use of Federal funds to correct industrial resource shortfalls and promote critical technology items which are essential to the national defense.
MICROWAVE POWER TUBES
The Committee recommends an increase of $3,000,000 only for microwave power tubes. Microwave power tubes generate and amplify microwave energy for applications in radar, electronic warfare, and telecommunications systems. These devices are currently used in over 150 deployed weapon systems. Microwave power tubes will be used in these and similar applications for at least the next two to three decades since there are no foreseeable replacement technologies. Therefore it is recommended that the Department continue efforts to maintain and improve the supplier base for microwave power tubes.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
The Department requested $19,994,906,000 for Information Technology. The Committee recommends $20,245,256,000, an increase of $250,350,000 as explained below:
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Operation and Maintenance, Army: | |
| Information Assurance: IT Training and Education | 3,000 |
| JMEANS--NDU | 3,000 |
| Distance Learning--CCCE | 1,500 |
| Armor Officers Distance Learning | 1,500 |
| Supercomputing Work | 6,000 |
| Defense Joint Accounting System | -14,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Navy: | |
| Information Assurance: IT Training and Education | 3,000 |
| JMEANS--NWC | 2,000 |
| Information Technology Center | 7,000 |
| Configuration Management Information System | 15,000 |
| Trident Sonar Manual Conversion | 3,000 |
| Defense Joint Accounting System | -7,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps: | |
| Information Assurance: IT Training and Education | 3,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Air Force: | |
| Information Assurance: IT Training and Education | 3,000 |
| IT Workforce Training--Aeronautical Systems Center | 2,000 |
| JMEANS--AWC | 2,000 |
| Defense Joint Accounting System | -7,000 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide: | |
| Information Assurance: IT Training and Education | 3,000 |
| Automated Document Conversion | 20,000 |
| Information Assurance: JCOATS-IO | 1,600 |
| Information Assurance: Critical Infrastructure Protection | 10,300 |
| Defense Joint Accounting System | -13,500 |
| Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard: | |
| NG Fiber Optics Study | 5,000 |
| Other Procurement, Army: | |
| Information Assurance: Network Intrusion Detection Device | 8,000 |
| Information Assurance: Secure Terminal Equipment | 13,000 |
| Pentagon IM&T program slip | -48,150 |
| Ammunition AIT | 5,000 |
| NG Distance Learning Courseware | 4,000 |
| Reserve Component Automation System | 8,000 |
| JEDMICS Encryption | 12,000 |
| Other Procurement, Navy: | |
| Information Assurance: Network Intrusion Detection Device | 8,000 |
| Information Assurance: Secure Terminal Equipment | 12,000 |
| Procurement, Marine Corps: | |
| Common End User Computer Package | 2,000 |
| Other Procurement, Air Force: | |
| Information Assurance: Network Intrusion Detection Device | 8,000 |
| Information Assurance: Secure Terminal Equipment | 10,000 |
| Spares Information System | 10,000 |
| Supply Asset Tracking System | 10,000 |
| Procurement, Defense-Wide: | |
| Information Assurance: JCOATS-IO | 800 |
| Automated Document Conversion | 20,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army: | |
| STRICOM-Online Contract Document Mgmt. | 2,000 |
| Information Assurance: PKI | 4,500 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy: | |
| Advanced Distributed Learning | 10,000 |
| ITC--Human Resource Enterprise Strategy | 8,000 |
| Information Assurance: PKI | 8,600 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force: | |
| Information Assurance: PKI | 5,500 |
| Information Assurance: Coordinated Distributed Attack Detection | 10,000 |
| Information Assurance: Adaptive information protection | 2,000 |
| IMDS | 5,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide: | |
| Information Assurance: Basic Research (6.1) | 3,000 |
| Joint Service Education and Training | 3,500 |
| DLA Web Based Tracking | 1,500 |
| Information Assurance: JCOATS-IO | 9,700 |
| ASD(C3I) Global Infrastructure Data Capture Init. | 21,000 |
| Information Assurance: Project Condor | 20,000 |
| Total | +250,350 |
INFORMATION ASSURANCE AND COMPUTER NETWORK SECURITY
As discussed earlier in this report, the Committee recommends providing an additional $150,000,000 over the budget request to address the most critical information assurance and computer security requirements identified by DoD. The Committee expects that the Department will issue guidance to ensure that these funds are used in a coordinated manner to support the Department's overall information assurance strategy.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OVERSIGHT
Reports by the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD IG) and the General Accounting Office (GAO) confirm that the Department of Defense continues to have difficulty managing its information technology programs. The Committee believes that the basic policies and procedures necessary for sound oversight and program management are clearly outlined in the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 and in supporting regulations. Last year, the Committee explained in detail its concerns with the Department's oversight process and made clear that compliance with the Clinger-Cohen Act would be a prerequisite for funding any information technology initiative. It is in that light that the Committee raises the following two issues.
DEFENSE JOINT ACCOUNTING SYSTEM (DJAS)
Last year, when DJAS was submitted for Milestone I approval, the DoD IG and the Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) issued warnings about the program's readiness for Milestone I approval and about dramatic changes in its scope, cost and duration. In addition, both the Air Force and the Navy withdrew from this `joint' program. Despite these obvious warnings, the Department's Information Technology oversight body (the IT OIPT) gave DJAS Milestone I and II approval, without having a meeting to review the program.
The Congress explicitly rejected this approval as inconsistent with the intent of the Clinger-Cohen Act and directed the Department to conduct a proper Milestone review to determine if this program should continue. The Committee understands that the program has continued to move forward without a proper Milestone review and that the program is still not compliant with the Clinger-Cohen Act. The Committee has therefore removed all funding for this program in fiscal year 2001 and directs that this program be terminated.
NAVY MARINE CORPS INTRANET
The Navy Marine Corps Intranet is a new initiative that involves contracting out for the full range of the Department's information technology services (such as lifecycle replacement of computers and infrastructure, software updates and help desk support). At the cost of several billion dollars over the next five years, it would be the Department's single largest information technology initiative. However, this proposal was not included in the Department's fiscal year 2001 budget.
The Committee has been supportive of efforts by the military services that seek innovative solutions, and it is out of a desire to encourage such innovation that the Committee is willing to consider this program outside the normal budget process.
As with all information technology initiatives, the Navy must demonstrate that NMCI is compliant with the Clinger-Cohen Act and that it has a sound business case for making this investment. This information is currently unavailable. However, the Navy has agreed to provide this and other relevant information, per a March 8, 2000 Memorandum of Agreement with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence. The Committee is pleased that ASD(C3I) and the Navy have agreed to this oversight procedure. The Committee will therefore withhold judgment until that information is available and ASD(C3I) has conducted a proper review. The Committee encourages the Navy and ASD(C3I) to work together to ensure that the review process is both thorough and timely.
INFORMATION SECURITY LESSONS LEARNED
In its April 10th report to Congress the Department outlines the `lessons learned from the Year 2000 effort and their applicability to information management and information security.' Among the key lessons learned was the importance of functional end-to-end testing, CINC operational evaluations, contingency plans, continuity of operation plans, a centralized system database, performance measures and timely audits. The report's bottom line is `Senior leadership must remain engaged in information technology management' if these lessons learned are to be effectively implemented.
The Committee requests that the Department of Defense provide a report, no later that November 15, 2000, outlining its efforts in implementing these lessons learned. In particular, this report should address the following questions:
1) How will the Department ensure continued senior level management involvement? In particular, what will be the management forum and who be the participants?
2) What performance measures are being used to track a system or service's preparedness for a cyber attack?
3) How are cyber attacks being integrated into CINC operational evaluations?
4) What guidance has been issued to ensure that contingency plans and continuity of operation plans are maintained and updated for a cyber attack?
5) What functional or end-to-end tests are planned to examine a system's vulnerability to a cyber attack?
6) How will information assurance audits be integrated into this effort?
ARMY HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING RESEARCH CENTER
The Committee recognizes the unique value of the Army High Performance Computing Research Center (AHPCRC). The Center's high performance computing systems are used heavily by DoD's science and technology community. AHPCRC researchers have made significant contributions to computational science and defense technology. In addition, the Center's outreach and educational programs have proven valuable to the Army.
To ensure that the Center is adequately funded, the Committee has added $9,750,000 to funds already budgeted for a total of $11,507,000 for the Center's activities. Of these funds, $6,000,000 is only for the use, operation and maintenance of the Center's high performance computing systems and networks; $1,500,000 is only for staff scientist services to support Army research activities; $1,100,000 is only for technology exchange programs with Army laboratories, outreach and education programs, and management activities of the research program and center, including publications, seminars and workshops; and $2,907,000 is only for basic research at the Center's academic partner institutions.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CENTER
The Committee recommends $7,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Navy and $8,000,000 in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy only for continuing the human resources enterprise strategy in accordance with past Committee direction. These funds shall be provided to the Navy's Program Executive Office for Information Technology (PEO/IT) for its enterprise software development Information Technology Center (ITC).
NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU FIBER OPTIC STUDY
The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only to continue the feasibility study and engineering design of a Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic Network (NDFON) for the National Guard. The Committee directs ASD(C3I) to ensure this network makes maximum use of DISA networks and is consistent with the Department's information architecture and policies.
GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE DATA CAPTURE PROGRAM
The Committee recommends $21,000,000 for the Global Infrastructure Data Capture Program (GIDC) under the ASD(C3I) for the acquisition and digital conversion of critical engineering and infrastructure data, including related systems and technical information.
TITLE IV
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATION SUMMARY
The fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense research, development, test and evaluation budget request totals $37,862,401,000. The accompanying bill recommends $40,170,230,000. The total amount recommended is an increase of $2,307,829,000 above the fiscal year 2001 budget estimate and is $2,564,670,000 above the total provided in fiscal year 2000. The table below summarizes the budget estimate and the Committee's recommendations.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommended Change fromrequest
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recapitulation
RDTE, Army 5,260,346 6,025,057 +764,711
RDTE, Navy 8,476,677 9,222,927 +746,250
RDTE, Air Force 13,685,576 13,760,689 +75,113
RDTE, Defense-Wide 10,238,242 10,918,997 +680,755
Developmental Test and Evaluation
Operational Test and Evaluation 201,560 242,560 +41,000
Grand total, RDTE 37,862,401 40,170,230 +2,307,829
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS
Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in the project level tables or in paragraphs using the phrases `only for' or `only to' in this report are congressional interest items for the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD Form 1414). Each of these items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated amount, or a revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. These items remain special interest items whether or not they are repeated in a subsequent conference report.
CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS
Adjustments of the classified programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.
ANTI-ARMOR WEAPONS MASTER PLAN
In the statement of the managers accompanying the conference report on the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1999, the DoD was directed to provide an Anti-Armor Weapons Master Plan with the fiscal year 2000 budget request. The plan, which was delivered five months late, did not address the concerns outlined in the statement. Therefore, the fiscal year 2000 statement of the managers directed the Secretary of Defense provide an in-depth analysis of Anti-Armor weapons with the fiscal year 2001 budget submission. Four months after the budget submission, the Committee has still not received the analysis. The DoD has not requested an extension or given an explanation for not delivering the plan on time. As a result, the Committee has recommended reductions to several anti-armor weapon systems.
TACTICAL RADIOS
The Committee directs that no more than 25 percent of the funds appropriated for research and development of any tactical radio program may be obligated until the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence certifies in writing to the congressional defense committees that the development program meet interoperability requirements, is not duplicative of other developmental efforts and is fully funded in the budget.
NETWORKING OF INTELLIGENCE, SURVEILLANCE, RECONNAISSANCE ASSETS
The Committee has heard a number of theoretical discussions about how to better exploit the unique capabilities of Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) and possibly national platforms, by `networking' these assets to provide a more complete intelligence picture for tactical commanders. While the Navy has provided some discussion of its Network Centric Warfare concept, the Committee is concerned that none of the Services have a strategy to achieve `networked' intelligence from the various ISR and national platforms. Furthermore, without a networked approach, it remains unclear to the Committee if the intelligence currently gathered with these platforms can be properly and timely exploited and disseminated to the tactical commander, which calls into question the wisdom of simply buying more of the same `un-networked' assets. It is possible that funds could be better spent procuring items that fulfill a requirement to tie together what is already in the inventory in order to more effectively provide the tactical commanders with critical information.
Therefore, the Committee directs that each Service provide a report no later than September 30, 2001, on its strategy to network ISR platforms. The Committee is most interested in whether each Service has a goal for such networking, a strategy to implement that goal, and a specific plan for procuring or developing what is needed to execute the strategy. Considering the necessity of multi-Service warfare, it would be senseless to propose a networked ISR system which would not provide the tactical commander with the ability to access all necessary information. Therefore, coordination of these reports is essential and required.
JOINT EJECTION SEAT PROGRAM
The Office of the Secretary of Defense has done a poor job of responding to the concerns in the Committee's fiscal year 2000 report (House Report 106-244) and the direction contained in the conference report accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2000. The Committee understands that the Department agrees with the objectives of the joint ejection seat program initiated by this Committee last year, and agrees that the program is essential to address serious safety concerns about military pilots and their ability to successfully survive emergency ejections from disabled aircraft. Yet, no funds were included in the fiscal year 2001 budget to continue this initiative, no response has been provided to the reporting requirements in last year's conference report, and the Department still chose to budget a stand-alone K-36 ejection seat program outside the framework of the joint program (even though K-36 is one of the candidates being considered for the joint program). The Committee further understands that a memorandum of agreement between the Navy and the Air Force concerning operation of the joint program has not been consummated, and also, is concerned that the staffing and decision-making in the program to date is not joint at all, but rather is being driven by a single service. The Committee views the joint ejection seat initiative as vital to providing a safer and more cost-effective seat for the Joint Strike Fighter, where about 3,000 new aircraft are envisioned, yet there is no evidence that the Department has connected this program to the Joint Strike Fighter in a meaningful way.
The Committee directs that no contract award for the joint ejection seat program using funds provided in fiscal year 2000 be made until the Secretary of Defense resolves all of the above issues and submits a report to the congressional defense committees explaining how this was done and submits a program plan for the Joint Ejection Seat Program as required by last year's conference report. None of the funds in fiscal years 2000 or 2001 may be obligated until the Secretaries of the Navy and Air Force certify to the congressional defense committees that a joint program office and supporting mechanism is in place to manage the program in a manner which fairly meets both services' requirements. None of the funds provided in this Act for the Joint Strike Fighter, or in technology base program elements which support tactical aircraft, may be used for development of an ejection seat other than those being developed in the Joint Ejection Seat Program. The Committee has included bill language under the heading `Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force' to prohibit the use of any seat other than one developed under the joint ejection seat program for the Joint Strike Fighter. The Committee directs that these limitations be included on DD Form 1414 for fiscal year 2001.
The fiscal year 2001 budget requests a total of $12,689,000 for the K-36 development program as a stand alone effort. The Committee specifically denies this request with prejudice, which shall be noted on DD Form 1414 for fiscal year 2001. Instead, the Committee recommends a total of $24,289,000 in the Navy and in the Air Force only for the Joint Ejection Seat Program which is the proper venue for competitive consideration of the K-36 proposal. The Committee reiterates that the objective of the Joint Ejection Seat Program is to completely qualify at least two modern and safe ejection seats for the Joint Strike Fighter and other future tactical aircraft applications.
DISCOVERER II
The Air Force, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office collectively requested $130,000,000 for the Discoverer II satellite technology demonstration program. The Committee recommends no funding, a decrease of $130,000,000. The fiscal year 2000 Defense Appropriations Act provided sufficient funding for the Discoverer II program to conclude the phase I studies and analysis portion of the program along with related risk reduction efforts. With phase I now funded to completion, the Committee recommends that the Discoverer II program be terminated.
The Committee makes this recommendation for the following reasons: (1) Discoverer II has no documented requirement or concept of operations; (2) the cost of the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the program, which the program office estimates at $702 million and which will in all likelihood exceed $1 billion, is of a magnitude ordinarily associated with the development of fully operational satellites and therefore unaffordable given the limited operational benefits of a technology demonstration program; (3) the Department has conducted no trade-off analysis between Discoverer II and other systems and processes that could deliver ground moving target indication data to warfighters; and, (4) the Department has failed to analyze the impact a Discoverer II constellation would have on an already overtaxed imagery processing, exploitation and dissemination system.
Even if successful, there is no guarantee the Air Force could ever build, launch, operate and maintain a Discoverer II constellation without a substantial top line increase to its budget. By some estimates the cost of a fully functional Discoverer II constellation could reach $25 billion. In the face of other severe shortfalls in space and aircraft modernization the Committee concludes that Discoverer II is of low priority and recommends its termination.
The Committee discusses its recommendation more fully in the classified annex to this report.
USE OF SPECIAL ACCESS-LIKE SECURITY MEASURES TO PROTECT BUSINESS SENSITIVE INFORMATION
The Committee continues to be concerned that DoD is using security measures similar to those used for Special Access Programs (SAPs) to protect information associated with non-SAPs. Although DoD has made progress in this area with respect to non-SAP classified activities, the Committee notes that SAP-like security measures are being used to protect contractor proprietary and competition sensitive information. The Committee is especially concerned because it appears that SAP-like security measures are applied inconsistently among programs with no clear DoD-wide policy or procedures for sharing information with Congress. In a number of instances, these security measures have needlessly complicated congressional oversight and review of program activities. The Committee notes that DoD's Office of Inspector General has made similar observations with regard to the Air Force's Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) (Report number D-2000-070, dated December 30, 1999) and recommended that DoD form a working group to develop guidance for security measures to protect business sensitive information. The Committee directs the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology to review DoD's guidance for using security measures to protect business sensitive information, develop additional guidance as necessary (including streamlined procedures for providing information to Congress), and submit a report detailing the action taken to the congressional defense committees no later than November 1, 2000.
BUDGETING FOR OPERATIONAL TEST
The Committee is concerned that the Military Departments are not adequately budgeting for operational testing. The Committee understands that severely constrained operational test budgets are forcing the Services' operational test communities to focus reporting only on the highest profile programs with small and medium sized programs proceeding into production without formal reporting from the operational test community. The Committee believes that this situation must be corrected and fully expects the Military Departments to budget adequately to ensure all programs benefit from an appropriate level of independent operational testing.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $5,266,601,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 5,260,346,000
Committee recommendation 6,025,057,000
Change from budget request +764,711,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation finances the research, development, test and evaluation activities for the Department of the Army.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH CENTERS 54,365 55,365 +1,000
Science-based regulatory compliance study (Note: The additional $1,000,000 is only for a science based regulatory compliance study which will conduct risk assessments and strategies to meet federal regulatory compliance for chemical demilitarization activities. The Committee is concerned with the impact of chemical demilitarization sites on the environment, and specifically on agricultural crops. The Committee directs that the funds be used to expand outreach to Federal, state and local governments, by providing risk analysis to these entities. The Committee recommends that this project include partnerships with such agencies, such as the National Center for Toxicological Research.) +1,000
Army High Performance Computing Research Center (Note: No less than $610,000 is only for the Army High Performance Computing Research Center. Additional information is provided in the IT section of this report) [610]
MATERIALS TECHNOLOGY 11,557 15,557 +4,000
Amorphous metal kinetic energy penetrator +4,000
SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC SURVIVABILITY 20,722 24,722 +4,000
Passive millimeter wave camera +4,000
MISSILE TECHNOLOGY 47,183 69,183 +22,000
Acceleration of development and testing for tactical missile components +8,000
Aero-optics evaluation center +5,500
Low cost guidance and navigation unit +6,000
Enhanced SCRAMJET mixing +2,500
ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 993 7,993 +7,000
Minature detection devices and analysis methods for lightweight low power sensors and isotope identification techniques +3,000
Zeus laser ordnance neutralization +4,000
MODELING AND SIMULATION TECHNOLOGY 30,479 32,479 +2,000
STRICOM--Online contract document management +2,000
COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY 63,589 68,589 +5,000
Smart truck +2,000
(Note: Only for the integration of the voice interactive device into the smart truck's voice activated central processing computer)
Advanced tactical transportation technology initiative (Note: Only for advanced vehicle technologies in collaboration with the National Automotive Command) +3,000
WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY 33,761 48,761 +15,000
Multi-role future combat system armaments system +4,000
Single crystal tungsten alloy penetrators +8,000
Low cost course correction technology for conventional ammunition and rockets +3,000
ELECTRONIC AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES 23,869 40,969 +17,100
Logistics fuel reformer technology +3,000
`AA' Zinc air battery for military applications (Note: Additional funds are provided in PE 0708045A) +1,900
Improved high rate alkaline cell +1,200
Rechargeable cylindrical cell systems +1,600
Low cost reusable alkaline manganese-zinc technology +500
Phase III of intelligent power control for sheltered systems and vehicles +6,900
Extrusion of polymer electrolytes and polymer multilaminate materials +2,000
NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY 20,465 25,465 +5,000
Combustion-driven eyesafe self powered laser +5,000
COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS 12,386 17,786 +5,400
Nonlinear acoustic mine detection +1,400
Acoustic mine detection +4,000
HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY 15,786 19,486 +3,700
Medical errors reduction research (MED TEAMS) +3,700
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY 13,994 54,494 +40,500
Sustainable green manufacturing +7,000
Range Safe demonstration program (TACOM-ARDEC) +5,000
Army's Heavy Metals Office initiative +6,000
Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cell demonstration +5,000
(Note: To demonstrate domestically produced residential PEM fuel cells in military facilities)
Demanufacturing of electronic equipment for reuse and recycling (DEER2) +12,500
Technologies to reduce non-hazardous waste (Note: Leverage DEER2 Program) +5,000
MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY 42,344 47,344 +5,000
Fuel cell development (Note: Only for the fuel cell test and evaluation operations at the Department of Defense Fuel Cell Test and Evaluation Center in support of ongoing fuel cell development and life-cycle cost reduction) +5,000
WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY 24,659 28,159 +3,500
Combat feeding (Note: Only for core technologies that address Joint Vision 2010, thus improving responsiveness and ensuring sustainability of DoD combat feeding technologies. Selected participants must have experience in production of combat rations, a history of performance supporting DoD objectives, and will produce rations that meet the requirements of regulatory agencies for shelf stable products in quantities sufficient for laboratory tests). +2,500
Affordable guided airdrop system +1,000
MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY 75,729 98,729 +23,000
Comprehensive breast cancer clinical care project [Note: The Committee supports continuation of a public/private effort, in coordination with a rural medical center and a not-for-profit medical foundation, to provide a program in breast care risk assessment, diagnosis, treatment, and research for the Department of Defense. The program shall be a coordinated effort among Walter Reed Army Medical Center, National Naval Medical Center, an appropriate non-profit medical foundation, and a rural primary health care center, with funding management accomplished by the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.] +7,000
Emergency hypothermia for advanced combat casualty and delayed resuscitation +3,000
IMED tools +6,000
Minimally invasive research [Note: Only to continue research into the development of minimally invasive surgical procedures for the brain, spinal cord, and spine under DAMD 17-99-1-9022.] +2,000
Real-time heart rate variability +5,000
WARFIGHTER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 15,469 17,469 +2,000
Metrology +2,000
MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 16,512 254,192 +237,680
Advanced cancer detection +3,500
Integrative Medicine Distance-learning Program [Note: Only to develop a distance-learning partnership in integrative medicine between educational organizations and U.S. military personnel, including doctors, nurses and other health professionals who, for various reasons, are unable to attend a resident program of integrative medicine education. This partnership shall include at least one party with background in both distance-learning and training of doctors, nurses and other health professionals in the fields of complementary and alternative medicine.] +1,000
Artificial hip (Volumetrically Controlled Manufacturing) +4,000
Biosensor research [Note: The Committee recommends $4,000,000 only for cooperative efforts with federal and non-federal organizations to support the location, identification, assessment, integration and development of advanced technologies for the remote monitoring, biosensoring and analysis of both normal and abnormal metabolic conditions.] +4,000
Blood safety [Note: The Committee recommends $7,500,000 only for improved blood products and safety in systems compatible with military field use.] +7,500
Cancer Center of Excellence +1,000
SEATreat cancer technology [Note: The Committee recommends $3,000,000 only for a minimally invasive photodynamic therapy system of incorporating real-time tumor visualization and precision dose monitoring for both skin and cervical cancer treatments.] +3,000
Center for Aging Eye +3,000
Chronic fatigue +3,000
Cervical cancer vaccine research +3,000
Chronic disease +5,500
Diabetes project (Joslin) +7,000
DREAMS +10,000
Echocardiogram +4,000
Epidermolysis Bullosa +3,000
Gallo Alcoholism Research +7,000
Gallo Cancer Center +4,000
HIV research +15,000
Diabetes project (Pittsburgh) +7,000
Laser vision correction +6,000
Ligament healing +3,000
LSTAT +4,000
Lung cancer detection (CT Scan) +7,500
Lung Cancer Research--M.D. Anderson Center +6,000
Medical free electron laser 3,500
Minimally invasive therapy +15,000
Molecular Genetics and Musculoskeletal Research Program [Note: The Committee recommends $8,000,000 only to continue the Army Molecular Genetics and Musculoskeletal Research Program.] +8,000
MRI +1,000
National Medical Testbed +15,000
Neurofibromatosis research +17,000
Neurotoxin exposure treatment +15,000
Nutrition research +3,760
Ovarian cancer research +10,000
Polynitroxylated hemoglobin [Note: $6,000,000 to continue the development of polynitroxylated hemoglobin as an oxygen-carrying red cell substitute for combat casualty care.] +6,000
Pulse medical instruments +420
Synchrotron-based scanning research [Note: The Committee recommends $7,000,000 only to continue the Army synchrotron-based scanning research technology for treatment of large field tumors, including breast and lung cancers.] +7,000
Tissue repair +3,000
Secure telemedicine technology +3,000
Wound healing +2,000
Virtual retinal display technology +6,000
Molecular and cellular bioengineering research [Note: From within available funds, $600,000 is only for cellular and macromolecular structures research including integration of the geometry and topography of biological complexes as revealed by electron microscopy, x-ray crystallography, magnetic resonance spectroscopy and computational analysis.] [600]
WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 29,738 59,738 +30,000
Multi-role future combat system armaments system +10,000
Precision guided mortar munition +8,000
Viking indirect fire module +7,000
SMAW-D--concept demonstration testing of confined space propulsion system +5,000
COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 148,114 162,114 +14,000
Future Combat System (Note: Within the additional amount provided by the Committee, the Army should conduct research on advanced engines, such as the turbo fuel cell engine) +46,000
Future Scout and Cavalry System -69,000
National Automotive Center--university innovative research +3,000
Composite armored vehicle +4,000
Mobile parts hospital +10,000
Advanced tactical transportation technology initiative +3,000
Combat vehicle and automotive technology (Note: Only for a technology transfer center to scale up and transfer weight reduction technologies to combat vehicles) +8,000
IMPACT (Note: Only to continue Project IMPACT research into vehicle and truck weight reduction, corrosion control, vehicle design and manufacturing architectures using lightweight steel) +4,000
Silicon carbide research +5,000
COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 21,505 28,505 +7,000
Big Crow Program Office Support +3,000
Intelligence analysis advanced tool set +4,000
MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 3,072 6,072 +3,000
Aircrew coordination training +3,000
EW TECHNOLOGY 15,359 20,359 +5,000
Shortstop +5,000
NIGHT VISION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 33,341 46,141 +12,800
Helmet mounted infrared sensor (vision technology) +3,800
Backpack UAV for brigade-combat tests (BUSTER) +9,000
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 1,616 11,116 +9,500
Corrosion measurement and control project +9,500
ARMY MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION (DEM/VAL) 12,573 28,173 +15,600
Full dimensional visualization software +9,000
Aero acoustic instrumentation +2,500
Family of systems simulator +4,100
TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER AMMUNITION 30,139 50,139 +20,000
XM-1007 +20,000
ADVANCED TANK ARMAMENT SYSTEM (ATAS) 118,139 268,139 +150,000
MAV RDTE Shortfalls +150,000
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY DEM/VAL 4,897 14,897 +10,000
Commercialization of technology to lower defense costs +10,000
WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS--ADV DEV 28,679 36,179 +7,500
Objective crew served weapon +7,500
MEDICAL SYSTEMS--ADV DEV 15,259 15,509 +250
Portable Low-Power Blood Cooling and Storage Devices +250
TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLE (TUGV) 0 300 +300
Viking platform engineering analysis, including M1 +300
TACTICAL EXPLOITATION OF NATIONAL CAPABILITIES--EMD 57,419 43,419 -14,000
Semi-Automated imagery processor +3,000
Discoverer II -17,000
BRILLIANT ANTI-ARMOR SUBMUNITION (BAT) 96,102 101,102 +5,000
P31 Seeker for BAT (Note: Funds are only for a follow-on seeker for ATACMS-BAT) +5,000
JOINT SURVEILLANCE/TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM 17,898 26,898 +9,000
COTS technology insertion common ground station (Note: Within the budget request, $4,000,000 is only for the remaining SIP-3 engineering/retrofit efforts and UAV connectivity for SCDL) +9,000
AVIATION--ENG DEV 7,104 12,104 +5,000
Advanced integrated helmet system +5,000
WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS--ENG DEV 22,505 30,505 +8,000
M2HB .50 caliber quick change barrel +1,500
Small arms fire control system +2,500
120MM Short Range Practice cartridge +4,000
SENSE AND DESTROY ARMAMENT MISSILE--ENG DEV 52,848 0 -52,848
SADARM P31 -21,043
XM982 -31,805
ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & CONTROL HARDWARE & SOFTWARE 33,420 39,420 +6,000
Next generation command and control system (Note: Only for the integration of the Army's Advanced Warfare Environment's commercial technology solution and architecture into the Army's legacy and emerging command and control systems) +6,000
THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT 13,901 16,101 +2,200
Next generation anti-tank guided missile program (XM-ATGM) +2,200
CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION PROGRAM 15,410 15,410 0
Mounted maneuver battlespace lab [5,000]
ARMY TEST RANGES AND FACILITIES 119,657 129,657 +10,000
White Sands missile range test instrumentation +10,000
ARMY TECHNICAL TEST INSTRUMENTATION AND TARGETS 33,156 37,256 +4,100
Advanced comprehensive engineering simulator and missile planning tool +4,100
SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY ANALYSIS 27,248 34,748 +7,500
Information operations/Vulnerability analysis +7,500
DOD HIGH ENERGY LASER TEST FACILITY 14,521 35,521 21,000
HELSTF +3,000
Solid state laser program (Note: Of the funds for Solid State Laser no less than $5,000,000 is only for industrially-developed solid state laser diode arrays and no less than $3,000,000 is only for optooelectronics) +18,000
TECHNICAL INFORMATION ACTIVITIES 25,749 30,499 +3,750
Army High Performance Computing Research Center (1,147)
Army High Performance Computing Research Center (Note: No less than $4,897,000 is only for the Army High Performance Computing Research Center. Additional information is provided in the IT section) +3,750
MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION, EFFECTIVENESS AND SAEFTY 11,276 14,776 +3,500
Cyrofracture anti-personnel mine disposal system +3,500
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE 0 3,000 +3,000
Natural gas boilers +3,000
DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS AGAINST WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCT 0 3,000 +3,000
National Terrorism Preparedness Institute +3,000
COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 99,423 112,823 +13,400
Field emission display program +5,900
AN/VVR-1 upgrade +4,000
M1 track development program +3,500
AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS 95,829 97,829 +2,000
Guardrail tactical integrated broadcast system +2,000
AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2,929 7.929 +5,000
Full authority digital engine control +3,000
Variable displacement vane pump & liquid-or-light end air boost pump equipped fuel delivery unit +2,000
DIGITIZATION 29,671 31,671 +2,000
Digitization: Ft. Hood +2,000
FORCE TWENTY-ONE (XXI), WARFIGHTING RAPID ACQUISITION 6,021 0 -6,021
Termination -6,021
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM 8,140 20,440 +12,300
Information Assurance: PKI +4,500
National Ground Intelligence Center/National Collaborative Environment +3,800
National Ground Intelligence Center/FIRES project +4,000
END ITEM INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES 57,906 81,906 +24,000
TIME +4,000
Optics manufacturing +3,000
`AA' zinc air batteries for military applications (Note: additional funds are provided in PE 0602705A) +2,000
Munitions manufacturing +15,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
The Committee is concerned that the Army's current concept of operations for its Tactical UAV (TUAV) appears shortsighted by not addressing future UAV requirements. The Army has not adequately addressed requirements for such things as longer range and more versatile payload options. Therefore, the Committee directs the Army to submit a report by June 15, 2001, which identifies UAV requirements not met by the TUAV and its plan for meeting those requirements.
RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
RAND ARROYO CENTER
The Army requested $19,872,000 for the Rand Arroyo Center, the Committee recommends the budget request. Of the budgeted amount, $1,000,000 is only for the Center for Naval Analyses to conduct a study of Army acquisition practices as discussed elsewhere in this report.
EXCALIBUR (XM-982)
The Army requested $31,805,000 for the development of the Excalibur (XM-982) 155mm artillery round. The Committee recommends no funding. The Excalibur development program, which began in 1998, was to have cost approximately $50 million and be completed in 45 months. Today, the Army estimates that Excalibur will spend 87 months, or seven years, in development, and cost over $135 million dollars. Additionally, the Committee believes that the Excalibur artillery round is not synchronized with the Army plan for fielding the Interim Brigades. Given the excessive cost growth, schedule delay and the fact that the Excalibur round fielding will not be in sync with the Interim Brigades, the Committee recommends no funds.
Although the Committee terminates the Excalibur program, the requirement for an improved artillery projectile still exists. The Committee directs the Army to provide, no later than July 10, 2000, a report that outlines alternatives for meeting the Army's 155mm improved artillery projectile requirement. The report is to include capabilities, estimated development cost, production cost, and the schedule for each alternative. The Committee directs that the Army consider the Trajectory Correctable Munition as one of the alternatives.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2001:
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, NAVY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $9,110,326,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 8,476,677,000
Committee recommendation 9,222,927,000
Change from budget request +746,250,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides funds for the research, development, test and evaluation activities of the Department of the Navy and the Marine Corps.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIR AND SURFACE LAUNCHED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 37,966 52,966 +15,000
Pulse detonation engine technology +4,000
Free electron laser upgrade +5,000
Solid fuel RAMJET +6,000
SHIP, SUBMARINE & LOGISTICS TECHNOLOGY 44,563 47,563 +3,000
Three dimensional printing metalworking technology +3,000
COMMUNICATIONS, COMMAND AND CONTROL, INTELLIGENCE 79,905 91,905 +12,000
Center for Communications and Networking Technologies +10,000
Optoelectric high definition camera prototypes +2,000
HUMAN SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY 30,939 38,139 +7,200
Biological hazard detection system +5,000
Marine Fire Training Center at the Marine and Environmental Research and Training Station (MERTS) +2,200
MATERIALS, ELECTRONICS AND COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY 68,076 92,026 +23,950
Wood composite technology +2,000
Silicon carbide semiconductor material +5,000
Defense productivity software initiative +3,200
Ceramic and carbon based composites for use in strategic missiles and hypersonic vehicles +3,000
Aerospace Materials Technology Consortium +4,000
Environmentally sound ship program +1,250
Hybrid fiberoptic wireless communications +2.500
Battlespace information display technology initiative development demonstration +3,000
UNDERSEA WARFARE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY 52,488 53,388 +900
Lithium carbon monofluoride ion cells for battery applications +900
OCEANOGRAPHIC AND ATMOSPHERIC TECHNOLOGY 60,320 68,070 +7,750
Chemical, optical and physical sensor systems for mine countermeasures +6,000
South Florida Ocean Measurement Center +1,750
UNDERSEA WARFARE WEAPONRY TECHNOLOGY 35,028 37,028 +2,000
Undersea warfare microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) +2000
DUAL USE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM 10,067 11,067 +1,000
NAVAIR technology commercialization initiative +1,000
AIR SYSTEMS AND WEAPONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 39,667 54,667 +15,000
Aircraft affordability project DP-2 +3,500
IHPTET +1,000
Integrated hypersonic aeromechanics tool program (IHAT) +2,500
Eye safe LADAR +8,000
SURFACE SHIP & SUBMARINE HM&E ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 37,432 68,232 +30,800
Superconducting DC motor +10,000
Portable hybrid electric power systems +3,000
Virtual testbed for reconfiguring ships +3,000
Electromagnetic propulsion systems +4,000
Ship service fuel cell +2,800
Project M +4,000
Advanced waterjet propulsor (AWJ-21) +4,000
MARINE CORPS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION (ATD) 54,749 61,249 +6,500
C3RP +1,500
Spike Urban Warfare System +5,000
MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT 10,110 94,110 +84,000
National Bone Marrow Program +34,000
Coronary/Prostate Disease Reversal +6,000
Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance +5,000
Medical Readiness Technology [Note: Only for continuation of the medical readiness technology initiatives to verify and validate telemedicine's clinical impact afloat and ashore, and to integrate crucial medical data transfer system for operations in a joint environment.] +9,000
Naval Blood Research Laboratory +4,000
Optical Imaging of Brain +4,000
Post-Polio Syndrome +3,000
RobotEyes [Note: Only to integrate RobotEyes optical sensing system with prosthesis devices to improve opportunities for disabled/handicapped service members to remain on active duty.] +1,000
Rural Health [Note: Includes first responder emergency communications and telerehabilitation.] +8,700
Rural Health Deployed Military Patient Records +2,300
Vectored Vaccine Research [Note: The Committee recommends $4,000,000 only to develop NTVS for non-invasive vaccination at the surface of the skin.] +4,000
Teleradiology [Note: The Committee recommends $3,000,000 only for teleradiation and mammography imaging.] +3,000
MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING ADV TECH DEV 26,988 42,988 +16,000
Advanced Distributed Learning (Note: Funds are only to continue efforts to standardize distributed learning courseware.) +10,000
WARCON (Note: Funding is only for the continuation of the Distributed Simulation Warfighting Concepts to Future Ship Design (WARCON) program to develop and implement an integrated acquisition environment architecture.) +6,000
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND LOGISTICS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 24,002 39,002 +15,000
Depleted Uranium Emulsion-based Stabilization Technologies [Note: only for field demonstration of this range maintenance technology at China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station and other facilities.] +8,000
Resource Preservation Initiative +4,000
Aviation depot maintenance technology demonstration at NADEP Jacksonville +3,000
NAVY TECHNICAL INFORMATION PRESENTATION SYSTEM 49,506 49,506
[Note: Up to $2,000,000 is only for the continuation of the Center for Defense Technology and Education at the Naval post-graduate school.]
UNDERSEA WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 58,296 62,296 +4,000
Advanced technology demonstration to prototype a multi-function hull-mounted sonar +4,000
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY TRANSITION 76,333 79,533 +3,200
Vectored thrust ducted propeller +3,200
C3 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 29,673 35,673 +6,000
Dominant battlespace command initiative +6,000
ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 19,680 24,680 +5,000
Stochastic Resonance and BEARTRAP Initiatives +5,000
TACTICAL AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE 1,956 2,356 +400
Spares procurement for Predator UAV under Navy testing authority +400
SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER MINE COUNTERMEASURES 97,929 99,429 +1,500
UUV Center of Excellence at NUWC +1,500
SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO DEFENSE 11,000 +11,000
Anti-torpedo all-up round +6,000
Ship-towed tripwire sensor +3,000
Distributed Engineering Center +2,000
CARRIER SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 148,952 152,952 +4,000
ASW tactical decision aids--integrating software/prototype fielding +4,000
SHIPBOARD SYSTEM COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT 244,437 254,437 +10,000
Permanent magnet motor +10,000
ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT 113,269 129,769 +16,500
Conformal acoustic velocity sonar (CAVES) +5,000
Common Towed Array +8,000
High performance brush technology +3,500
SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED DESIGN 162 5,162 +5,000
Human integration information system in the Automated Maintenance Environment +5,000
COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION 32,966 65,966 +33,000
Optically multiplexed wideband radar beamformer +3,000
Common command and decision functions for theater air and missile defense +30,000
CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS 28,619 30,619 +2,000
Demonstration/validation and production of environmentally safe energetic materials +2,000
MARINE CORPS ASSAULT VEHICLES 137,981 144,281 +6,300
Advanced radio antenna interface unit +6,300
MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM 23,216 25,216 +2,000
Advanced modeling and simulation for the USMC integrated infantry combat system program +2,000
JOINT SERVICE EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT 13,131 14,681 +1,550
Remote ordnance neutralization system (RONS) +1,550
COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT 119,257 179,257 +60,000
[Note: Only for DII-COE compliance, data analysis for large networks, multi-level secure operations, CEC network node expansion, airborne antennae improvements and planar array production.] +60,000
NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM 4,942 7,942 +3,000
Proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells [Note: Only to demonstrate domestically produced PEM fuel cells at the Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center.] +3,000
NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY 11,000 +11,000
Virtual systems implementation program +6,000
Rapid retargeting logistics technology +5,000
LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY 143,044 146,044 +3,000
Naval Fires Network Demonstrator and Tactical Dissemination Module +3,000
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)--DEM/VAL 131,566 206,566 +75,000
Additional risk reduction and flight test [Note: The Committee designates the Joint Strike Fighter as an item of special congressional interest.] +75,000
SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/ENGINE 34,100 38,100 +4,000
Navy Collaborative integrated information technology initiative +4,000
OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT 24,393 38,393 +14,000
Upgrade ship ground station at NAWCAD to a ship and air integration facility +4,000
CH-60S airborne mine countermeasures [Note: Only for continued systems engineering development of the CH-60S carriage, stream, tow, and recovery system.] +10,000
STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT 95,814 103,814 +8,000
Joint services metrology program +5,000
Calibration and measurement technology for reduced crew size +3,000
MULTI-MISSION HELICOPTER UPGRADE DEVELOPMENT 69,946 79,946 +10,000
ATIRCM/CMWS integration on the SH-60R +5,000
TADIRCM +5,000
P-3 MODERNIZATION PROGRAM 2,906 8,906 +6,000
APS-137B(V)5 radar +6,000
TACTICAL COMMAND SYSTEM 57,817 60,817 +3,000
Ocean surveillance information system (OSIS-OED) +3,000
AIR CREW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 17,466 34,466 +17,000
Joint helmet mounted queuing system +7,000
Modular flight helmet/Advanced visionics helmet system/Helicopter integrated life support system (HAILSS) +6,000
K-36 ejection seat -6,439
Joint ejection seat program +10,439
EW DEVELOPMENT 97,281 133,781 +36,500
Spray cooling technology for EA-6B ICAP III program +8,500
Location of GPS system jammers (LOCO GPSI) +6,000
EA-6B Link-16 connectivity +15,000
Integrated defensive electronic countermeasures (IDECM) +7,000
SC-21 TOTAL SHIP SYSTEM ENGINEERING 305,274 257,274 -48,000
Development cost growth -50,000
Power node control centers +2,000
AIRBORNE MCM 47,312 50,312 +3,000
Remote technical assistance support to deploying MCM ships +3,000
SSN-688 AND TRIDENT MODERNIZATION 34,801 62,801 +28,000
Advanced food-service technology +3,000
Multi-purpose processor (MPP) SBIR follow-on for advanced processing builds +25,000
NEW DESIGN SSN 207,091 212,091 +5,000
MPP-SBIR follow-on for technology insertion and refresh for Virginia SSN combat system +5,000
SUBMARINE TACTICAL WARFARE SYSTEM 20,492 26,492 +6,000
Integration of advanced tactical software, AN/UYQ-70 and other off the shelf products into backfit submarine combat control systems +6,000
SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/LIVE FIRE T&E 62,204 72,204 +10,000
Littoral support fast patrol craft +10,000
NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER RESOURCES 3,291 28,291 +25,000
AN/UYQ-70 [Note: Only to develop and implement technology refresh capabilities to incorporate into future AN/UYQ-70 workstation production across surface, submarine, and air platforms.] +25,000
JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION 26,151 29,151 +3,000
DAMASK component packaging +3,000
MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT 5,273 27,273 +22,000
Bone Marrow Transplant Technology [Note: The Committee recommends $4,000,000 only for the unrelated donor marrow transplantation clinical trials of graft engineering.] +4,000
Dental Research +6,000
High Resolution Digital Mammography +4,000
Mobile Integrated Diagnostic and Data Analysis System (MIDDAS) +2,000
Voice Interactive Device [Note: Only for continued modification, demonstration, and validation of the Naval voice interactive device as a tool for medical personnel on-board ships or in the field to facilitate the collection, processing, storing, and forwarding of critical medical data for treating combat casualties.] +6,000
DISTRIBUTED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM 20,710 35,710 +15,000
ADS-P3I for alternative power source (FDS-C) +9,500
ADS-risk mitigation/processing software +5,500
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER (JSF)--EMD 295,962 145,962 -150,000
EMD deferment [Note: The Committee designates the Joint Strike Fighter as an item of special congressional interest.] -150,000
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 15,259 23,259 +8,000
Human Resources Enterprise Strategy +8,000
MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT 40,707 44,707 +4,000
Acquisition/installation of refurbished SPS-48E radar systems for test and evaluation support +4,000
STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT--NAVY 8,056 6,056 -2,000
Freeze to fiscal year 2000 level -2,000
TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICES 949 10,949 +10,000
Supply Chain Management +4,000
Commercialization of Advanced Technology (CAT) program [Note: only to establish the CAT program at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center.] +6,000
SEW SURVEILLANCE/RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT 12,694 7,694 -5,000
Lower priority TENCAP projects -5,000
MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE SUPPORT 8,091 14,891 +6,800
Consequence Management Information System +6,800
STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS SYSTEM SUPPORT 42,687 54,687 +12,000
Radiation hardened technology computer aided design program +10,000
Alternate pendulous integrating gyro accelerometer and Hemispherical resonator gyro development +2,000
E-2 SQUADRONS 18,698 37,698 +19,000
E-2/C-2 eight blade composite propeller +8,000
E-2C Middleware Technology and Advanced Processing Builds +5,000
NCW development, test and evaluation in support of Naval Fires Network Demo +6,000
INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM 16,928 27,928 +11,000
Web Centric Warfare (WeCAN) technology expansion to other warfare areas and domains +5,000
ASW Combat Systems Integration--onboard signal processor development +6,000
CONSOLIDATED TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 27,059 34,559 +7,500
Battleforce tactical trainer [Note: Only for the continuation of the current upgrade of the BFTT system to a Windows-NT/PC based system to improve the interfaces to other ship and shore based systems.] +7,500
HARM IMPROVEMENT 21,355 46,355 +25,000
AARGM +25,000
MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS 96,153 107,153 +11,000
MEWSS P3I +5,000
Combined Arms Command and Control Training Upgrade (CACTUS) [Note: Only for the upgrade of the USMC training facilities to implement the Joint Simulation System for use in the Marine force's CACTUS] +6,000
MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORTING ARMS SYSTEMS 22,124 39,424 +17,300
Expeditionary indirect fire general support weapon system +17,300
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM 21,530 30,130 +8,600
Information Assurance: PKI +8,600
TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES 113,052 129,052 +16,000
MSAG for Tactical Control System (TCS) +10,000
Navy joint operational testbed for UAVs +5,000
Navy UAV display system to combine data retrieved from multiple UAVs into a network +1,000
AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEM 4,759 15,759 +11,000
Upgrade Storyfinder/Landmark systems with SEI +6,000
EP-3 upgrade/weight reduction study; redesign of common electronic receivers/tuners; development, design, and flight test of new lightweight equipment racks +5,000
MANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS 27,479 65,079 +37,600
Sensor upgrade on special project aircraft +2,600
Ongoing SHARP development efforts +18,000
Acquisition and test of small SAR for potential SHARP P31 +9,000
Lens development for longer stand-off range +5,000
Advanced focal plane array for increased sensor reliability +3,000
MODELING AND SIMULATION SUPPORT 9,106 12,106 +3,000
C41SR modeling and simulation +3,000
INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 59,626 69,626 +10,000
Program increase +10,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DD-21 NEXT GENERATION SURFACE COMBATANT
The Navy requested $305,274,000 for continued ship systems engineering for the DD-21 surface combatant program. The Committee recommends $257,274,000, a decrease of $48,000,000. The Committee remains supportive of this program but has substantial reservations concerning the Navy's current acquisition strategy for the DD-21. In the name of innovation and in a departure from all previous new ship design and development programs, the Navy has elected to give the industrial teams competing for the DD-21 considerable latitude in determining the ship's overall design and incorporation of subsystems--the theory being that the contractors are free to propose `best value' solutions to the Navy's operational requirements as long as certain key performance parameters are met. While this approach is commendable in many ways, it leaves open several questions which have yet to be addressed in an adequate manner by the Navy. The questions are as follows:
Applicability of other Navy technology programs to the DD-21 program- The Office of Naval Research maintains a robust program for surface ship technologies which are being developed in the name of the DD-21 program. By some estimates there are 26 technology demonstration projects totaling over $600,000,000 in the fiscal year 2001 budget request which claim relevance to the DD-21 program. There is no guarantee, however, that any of these technologies will find their way onto the DD-21 platform since the development teams are free to choose any technologies they want without input or insight from the Navy. If this is the case, then it raises the question of whether all these technology demonstrations are truly necessary.
Unique Integrated Logistics Support- The DD-21 will be the first Navy ship to have a full service contractor. A full service contractor has the opportunity to provide all maintenance and support services for the ship class during its life cycle. The division of these support services between the ultimate contractor and Navy support systems is an issue to be proposed by the competing design teams as part of their concept designs. The Committee is concerned that a full service contractor may make decisions on logistics support of the DD-21 that will limit the Navy's options when making ship operation and management decisions. In the worst case the Navy may be forced to carry two different shore infrastructures for integrated logistics support: a traditional track for legacy ships and a separate track for the DD-21. Additionally, this approach may create unintended conflicts between the Navy's legacy supply organization and industry.
Interoperability- The DD-21 must have the ability to interact, coordinate, and share information with other ships and units in a joint task force. Its primary mission of land attack requires it to work with U.S. Marine Corps and Army ground forces as well as with Allied forces. It will also be expected to operate as part of a carrier battle group. It is the Committee's understanding that the fleet can never attain total system integration if there is a divergence in the hardware and software that contractors are installing on the DD-21 and what the Navy is installing on other ships. The DD-21 program is proposing to use commercial off the shelf equipment and components to a greater degree than the Navy has on prior ships. Again, the Committee is concerned that due to the unique nature of the DD-21 acquisition strategy, the Navy is not giving any direction or suggestions to the DD-21 design teams that would reduce the risk of interoperability problems with the rest of the fleet or other services.
Finally, the Committee's greatest concern is that the DD-21 acquisition strategy is precluding the use of innovative technologies from small companies in the design of the ship. It is troublesome that major design decisions for critical subsystems on the DD-21 are being locked in without the benefit of an open consideration of the broadest array of technologies possible. The Committee believes that in the name of innovation, the Navy may actually be discouraging its practice.
The Committee therefore directs the Navy to prepare a report which addresses these issues, as well as the following questions concerning the DD-21 acquisition strategy:
(1) What is the proper role of the Navy in ensuring new technology from the widest range of vendors is given fair consideration in the DD-21 source selection process?
(2) What mechanism or process is in place to introduce new technology that isn't developed directly by present DD-21 design team members?
(3) How does the Navy differentiate between technology that impacts the ship's initial design and requires an early milestone decision, and technology that can be incorporated in mid or late stages of design?
(4) What is the optimal method for instilling competition among technical approaches without incurring unacceptable cost growth?
The report should be submitted to the congressional defense committees no later than March 15, 2001.
SHARED RECONNAISSANCE POD (SHARP)
The Committee has provided a total of $17,000,000 for risk reduction and P3I initiatives for the SHARP program. The risk reduction efforts are financed with an additional $5,000,000 to develop/upgrade the sensor to an 18-inch lens and integrate an existing dual-band sensor into the TARPS pod and $3,000,000 to develop an advanced focal plane array with moving target indicator (MTI) for a smaller electo-optical framing camera size. The Committee has also provided $9,000,000 for the acquisition and evaluation of a small synthetic aperture radar (SAR) within the TARPS-CD program as a potential P3I for the SHARP program. The Naval Research Lab is directed to continue funding other ongoing projects in electro-optical framing at no less than the funding level of fiscal year 2000.
The Committee has also provided $18,000,000 in additional funds for the SHARP program to maintain its current and very aggressive deployment schedule. DD Form 1414 shall show this as a special congressional interest item.
NETWORK CENTRIC WARFARE (NCW)
The Committee believes that existing and emerging technologies could be used to enhance the dissemination of intelligence data through the networking of various Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) and national platforms. The Committee directs the Navy to pursue a study of technologies that would benefit the goal of Network Centric Warfare.
Additionally, the Committee has provided a total of $9,000,000 for NCW and a Naval Fires Network Demonstration. The Committee believes these funds should be used in conjunction to develop the Naval Fires Network Demonstrator, test the tactical dissemination of intelligence for Time Critical Strike Capabilities on-board the E-2C, and refine the NCW concept of operations.
NAVY, MARINE CORPS IMAGERY PROCESSING EXPLOITATION
The Committee understands the need for close interoperability between the Navy and the Marine Corps in the area of precision targeting, imagery exploitation and amphibious operations. The Committee recognizes that the schedules of related service intelligence programs present an opportunity for greater coordination in this area, and recommends that the Services consolidate their efforts into one coordinated plan to ensure ground exploitation and precision targeting interoperability.
UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAVS)
The Committee is concerned that the Navy's current plans for use of UAVs appear disjointed. Multiple organizations are developing multiple plans and requirements with what appears to be little internal communication about these plans and requirements. The Navy's recent UAV studies contract, in conjunction with its recently announced contract for a VTOL UAV, presents a confusing picture of the Navy's intentions.
Furthermore, despite obvious interest and continual questioning on the part of the Committee, the Navy has not responded with information which outlines its objectives or plans with respect to UAVs. While recent risk reduction contracts for the `multi-role endurance unmanned aerial vehicle' are for studies of how a UAV could potentially be employed, this type of activity has not been clearly articulated to the Committee. It is difficult for the Committee to help the Navy meet its UAV requirements when they have not been presented.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Navy to submit a report by December 15, 2000, which addresses all of its plans for unmanned aerial vehicles. At a minimum, the report should address: (1) all identified requirements; (2) requirements that remain un-met with the current UAV contracts, especially any requirement for support of deep-strike operations; and, (3) a description of the roles and responsibilities of the various organizations within the Navy which claim jurisdiction over UAV programs. The Navy should consider more centralized management of the various UAV programs to ensure a coordinated approach to meeting requirements.
BONE MARROW REGISTRY
The Committee provides $34,000,000 to be administered by the C.W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program, also known, and referred to, within the Naval Medical Research Center, as the Bone Marrow Registry. This DoD donor center has recruited 230,000 DoD volunteers, and provides more marrow donors per week than any other donor center in the Nation. The Committee is aware of the continuing success of this life saving program for military contingencies and civilian patients, which now includes 4,000,000 potential volunteer donors, and encourages agencies involved in contingency planning to include the C.W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program in the development and testing of their contingency plans. DD Form 1414 shall show this as a special congressional interest item, and the Committee directs that all of the funds appropriated for this purpose be released to the C.W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program within 60 days of enactment of the Fiscal Year 2001 Defense Appropriations Act.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, AIR FORCE
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $13,674,537,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 13,685,576,000
Committee recommendation 13,760,689,000
Change from budget request +75,113,000
------------------------------------------------
This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation activities of the Department of the Air Force.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommendation Change from request
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 206,149 216,149 +10,000
Sacramento Peak Observatory (600)
Chabot Observatory +2,000
Astronomical Active Optics +4,000
Coal based advanced thermally stable jet fuel +4,000
MATERIALS 72,815 83,515 +10,700
IR detectors, RF and power electronics +2,000
Special Aerospace Materials and Manufacturing Processes +5,200
Thermal Management for Space Structures +2,500
Advanced Physical Vapor Transport Growth Process +1,000
AEROSPACE FLIGHT DYNAMICS 48,775 52,315 +3,540
Weapons systems logistics, deployed base systems technology, and force protection +3,540
HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED RESEARCH 62,619 63,019 +400
Altitude protection +400
AEROSPACE PROPULSION 116,262 118,262 +2,000
Lithium Ion Battery +2,000
AEROSPACE SENSORS 65,644 69,644 +4,000
3D non-volatile memory +4,000
HYPERSONIC TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM 0 5,000 +5,000
Hypersonic electric power system +5,000
SPACE TECHNOLOGY 57,687 61,687 +4,000
Terabit +4,000
COMMAND CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS 78,749 90,549 +11,800
Simulation Based Acquisition +11,800
ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR WEAPON SYSTEMS 21,678 48,928 +27,250
Aging aircraft +10,000
National Composite P4A Initiative +3,000
Advanced Low Observable Coatings +6,000
Special Aerospace Materials and Manufacturing Processes +5,250
National Center for Industrial Competitiveness +3,000
AEROSPACE PROPULSION SUBSYSTEMS INTEGRATION 34,440 35,440 +1,000
IHPTET +1,000
ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS 28,311 44,811 +16,500
IDAL IR simulator and RF and IR integration +6,000
National Radar Signature Production and Research Capability (RCAS) +10,500
FLIGHT VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY 2,445 7,645 +5,200
Weapons systems logistics, deployed base systems technology, and force protection +5,200
AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND POWER TECHNOLOGY 41,964 45,464 +3,500
(Note: $3 million is only to establish a next generation aerospace research initiative through the investigation of a broad range of science and technologies which integrates private research centers involved in both aeronautic and space research with major research universities and technical colleges, small businesses and manufacturers in support of aerospace and engine propulsion capabilities, to improve the nation's aerospace research, development, and manufacturing base and address the growing shortfall within the aerospace specialized technological workforce) +3,000
Vectored Thrust Ducted Propeller Compound Helicopter demonstration for combat rescue +500
CREW SYSTEMS AND PERSONNEL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY 12,479 19,479 +7,000
High Brightness Helmet Display +7,000
FLIGHT VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION 13,184 18,184 +5,000
Trans-Atmospheric Aerospace Plane (TAAP) study by ASC +5,000
ELECTRONIC COMBAT TECHNOLOGY 25,882 27,882 +2,000
IDAL Coherent C3NI Signal Simulations +2,000
SPACE AND MISSILE ROCKET PROPULSION 24,283 28,283 +4,000
Pulse detonation engine +4,000
BALLISTIC MISSILE TECHNOLOGY 0 23,000 +23,000
GPS Range Safety +23,000
ADVANCED SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGY 97,327 60,087 -37,240
Discoverer II -54,240
Miniature Satellite Threat Reporting System (MSTRS) +3,000
Satellite survivability +4,000
Scorpius +10,000
ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 33,371 42,371 +9,000
High Resolution Space Object Imaging +9,000
SPACE-BASED LASER 63,216 35,000 -28,216
Program reduction -28,216
INFORMATION OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY 991 0 -991
Transfer funds to 0303140F -991
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER 129,538 204,538 +75,000
Risk reduction and flight testing +75,000
INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE (DEM/VAL) 24,488 15,788 -8,700
Integrated Broadcast System -8,700
AIR FORCE/NATIONAL PROGRAM COOPERATION (AFNPC) 3,370 1,370 -2,000
Duplication of effort -2,000
INTEGRATED AVIONICS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 712 0 -712
Program reduction -712
B-1B 168,122 158,122 -10,000
IDECM delays -10,000
B-2 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY BOMBER 48,313 145,313 +97,000
500lb JDAM integration +56,000
Inflight replanning +11,000
EGBU-28 +25,000
EHF risk reduction +5,000
EW DEVELOPMENT 58,198 56,298 -1,900
CMWS--Air Force withdrawal from program. Prior year funds shall be used to support the joint program through FY 2001 -19,800
MALD +3,000
PLAID for ALR-69 +14,900
MILSTAR LDR/MDR SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (SPACE) 236,841 241,841 +5,000
Integrated Satellite Communications Control +5,000
ARMAMENT/ORDNANCE DEVELOPMENT 8,876 25,876 +17,000
Cast Ductile Bomb +2,000
Miniature Munitions Capability +15,000
AGILE COMBAT SUPPORT 668 0 -668
Program reduction -668
JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION 1,157 26,157 +25,000
500lb JDAM +25,000
LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS 14,758 26,358 +11,600
K-36 ejection seat -6,250
Joint ejection seats program +13,850
Standardized cockpit and crew seats +4,000
COMBAT TRAINING RANGES 12,559 16,559 +4,000
ADOSM +4,000
INTEGRATED COMMAND & CONTROL APPLICATIONS (IC2A) 214 0 -214
Program reduction -214
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER EMD 299,540 149,540 -150,000
Defer EMD -150,000
RDT&E FOR AGING AIRCRAFT 14,204 29,204 +15,000
Aging aircraft +3,000
Aging landing gear life extension +12,000
TARGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 191 0 -191
Program reduction -191
MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT 54,057 68,807 +14,750
Laser Induced Surface Improvement (LISI) +2,000
X-15 test stand at Edwards AFB +250
Multi-axis thrust stand at Edwards AFB +5,000
Eglin range improvements +7,500
INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVALUATION 28,238 33,238 +5,000
AFOTEC +5,000
F-16 SQUADRONS 124,903 133,903 +9,000
SAR for TARS podded reconnaissance system +9,000
F-15E SQUADRONS 61,260 68,860 +7,600
BOL IR +7,600
AF TENCAP 9,826 16,826 +7,000
Hyperspectral research on Predator UAV +4,000
Hyperspectral research on high altitude reconnaissance platforms +3,000
COMPASS CALL 5,834 25,834 +20,000
Signal analysis subsystem +10,000
SPEAR +10,000
JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM) 120,281 113,281 -7,000
Defer pre-production operational test units per GAO recommendation -7,000
JOINT SURVEILLANCE AND TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM 144,118 151,318 +7,200
GATM +7,200
USAF MODELING AND SIMULATION 17,624 18,624 +1,000
STORM +1,000
WARGAMING AND SIMULATION CENTERS 3,874 8,874 +5,000
Theater Air Command and Control Simulation Facility (TACCSF) +5,000
INFORMATION WARFARE SUPPORT 1 0 -1
Program reduction -1
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM 7,212 25,703 +18,491
Transfer from 0603690F +991
Information Assurance: System protection through exploration of adaptive information protection technology using and modifying COTS technology +2,000
Information Assurance: CDAD +10,000
Information Assurance: PKI +5,500
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) PLAN 200 0 -200
Program reduction -200
TACTICAL TERMINAL 238 0 -238
Program reduction -238
DEFENSE RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT ACTIVITIES (SPACE) 45,149 38,049 -7,100
Reduction taken against projects that duplicate TENCAP -7,100
NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (SPACE AND CONTROL) 250,197 261,097 +10,900
Amended budget submission +10,900
SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM (SPACE) 53,654 85,154 +31,500
Modernization of Edwards AFB test stand 1D +12,600
Extended Range Concept Requirements Analysis +1,600
Flight Termination System Requirements +700
Design of Space Launch Ops Complex at Vandenberg, AFB +5,500
Activation of Edwards AFB test stand 2A for rocket component tests +11,100
DRAGON U-2 (JMIP) 27,546 31,546 +4,000
SYERS polarization project +4,000
ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES 109,215 128,215 +19,000
Replacement of EO/IR sensors on existing Global Hawk UAV +12,000
Development of dual band sensor capabilities and precision target location +7,000
AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS 136,913 143,913 +7,000
Wideband integrated common data link +7,000
DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND SYSTEMS 21,330 25,830 +4,500
Eagle Vision IV +4,500
NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM (SPACE) 17,088 12,088 -5,000
Program reduction -5,000
SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES 1,109 2,109 +1,000
Universal Biological Sensor +1,000
AFSOC Aircrew Orientation and Screening +600
Develop methodology for approving medications for use by aircrew +400
DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON-IF) 1,515 4,515 +3,000
Metrology +3,000
INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 53,082 57,582 +4,500
Special Aerospace Materials and Manufacturing Processes +4,500
SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 32,258 42,258 +10,000
Advanced Engine Simulation and Optimization Program +2,500
Aircraft and Systems Support Infrastructure +2,500
IMDS +5,000
COMPUTER RESOURCES SUPPORT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CRSIP) 2,356 7,356 +5,000
NPLACE +4,000
Air Resource Rapid Reapplication Tools +1,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RADIATION HARDENED ELECTRONICS
The Committee commends the Department of Defense for the establishment of the Radiation Hardened Oversight Council and for the initiatives recently taken to assure the availability of radiation hardened microelectronics components. These components are essential to meet the Department's unique requirements and are crucial to the success of current and future national security systems. The investment strategy directed by the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics will assure adequate funding to meet science & technology and producibility needs from fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2005. It is imperative that this strategy is executed with the full cooperation and participation of the Services and Agencies involved.
Not later than April 1, 2001, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress a report on the implementation of the Radiation Hardened Electronics Investment Strategy as directed by the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics. The report will describe the degree of participation in the strategy by the Services and Agencies involved and the impact of the strategy on the availability of radiation hardened electronics components needed to satisfy the Department's integrated and prioritized requirements for national security systems.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, APPROACH, AND LANDING SYSTEM
The Air Force budgeted $18,093,000 for the air traffic control, approach, and landing system. The Committee recommends $58,093,000, an increase of $40,000,000 only for development of the mobile air traffic control system. The Air National Guard operates tactical deployable air traffic control systems developed in the 1950s, which provide 65 percent of the total Air Force radar approach control capability for wartime and contingency support. These units are no longer supportable and require cannibalization and extensive maintenance to keep wartime-tasked units at least marginally operational. There are no fully operational radars in the Air National Guard due to age of equipment and lack of parts. The Congress added funds in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 to address this urgent requirement, but the Air Force did nothing with these funds. The Air Force proposes a new development program for both active and Guard mobile air traffic control systems, which unfortunately does not result in fielding equipment to Guard units on a timely basis. The additional $40,000,000 recommended by the Committee consists of $10,000,000 only to accelerate the development of the mobile air traffic control system and $30,000,000 only to procure test asset/contingency mobile air traffic control systems at no less than three Air National Guard locations selected by the Director of the Air National Guard. The test assets are intended to be the first three systems delivered to the government under the development program, and should be used by Guard units to assist in further development of the objective system. The Committee directs that none of the funds in this Act for development of mobile air traffic control systems for the Air Force and the Air National Guard may be obligated until the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs certifies to the congressional defense committees that the development program meets schedule and performance requirements of Air National Guard units and that the first three systems will be fielded only to Guard units as test assets under the development program. The Committee further directs that all funds provided for development of the mobile air traffic control system are of special interest, and shall be so designated on DD Form 1414. Reprogramming request FY 99-012PA is hereby denied, and $8,000,000 in fiscal year 1999 and $2,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 other procurement funds are proposed for rescission elsewhere in the bill.
HIGH ALTITUDE ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (HAE UAV)--GLOBAL HAWK
The Committee directs the Air Force to submit by March 15, 2001, a report which addresses its plan for acquiring the Global Hawk UAV. The report should address: (1) the cost of the program through the Future Years Defense Plan (FYDP); (2) the schedule for development and acquisition; (3) the total number of air vehicles scheduled for acquisition; (4) the overall cost of the program; and, (5) the potential of the air vehicle to exceed the $10 million cost cap previously imposed by the Department.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE-WIDE
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $9,256,705,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 10,238,242,000
Committee recommendation 10,918,997,000
Change from budget request +680,755,000
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide activities of the Department of Defense.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Recommended Change from request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES 90,415 100,415 +10,000
Spin Electronics [Note: The Committee has transferred $10,000,000 from PE 601103D8Z from the Nanotechnology Initiative. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 only to strengthen the spin electronics programs.] +10,000
UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES 253,627 289,627 +36,000
Advanced Power and Energy Program +1,000
Multi-disciplinary atmospheric and hydrologic research +3,000
Computational Neuroscience +1,000
National Security Training [Note: $1,000,000 is only for an educational program to encourage non-traditional and minority students to enter national security and foreign policy careers through a new training partnership between the Department of Defense, a Hispanic Serving Institution located in an empowerment zone, and one or more institutions of higher education that have expertise in international affairs. This program would be focused on a continuum of education and support for successful students at two-year colleges to continue their studies at higher levels in order to expand the pools of minority groups for leadership roles in the Department of Defense.] +1,000
Defense Commercialization Research Initiative +4,000
Electro-Magnetic Nanopulse +2,500
MEMS +1,500
MEMS for Rolling Element Bearings +1,500
MEMS sensors for Radionuclides Detection and Ordnance Monitoring [Note: The Committee recommends $9,500,000 only for Radionuclides Detection and Ordnance Monitoring.] +9,500
Quantum-Dot Cellular Automata Nanoscience and Technology Research +4,000
Remote Sensing +6,000
Technology Insertion Demonstration (SEI) +2,000
Desert Environmental Research: [Note: The Committee recommends an increase of $4,000,000 only for a University based GIS program using sensor technology, line distance sampling, and spatial analysis techniques to monitor desert tortoise population related to potential expansion of the Fort Irwin National Training Center.] +4,000
Spin Electronics [Note: The Committee transfers $10,000,000 from the Nanotechnology Initiative to PE 601103E for Spin electronics programs.] -10,000
Bioengineering/Nanotechnology Research [Note: Only to establish a program to develop interdisciplinary research and development for bioengineering in advanced medicine, based on nanotechnology and the new synthetic capabilities afforded by molecular self-assembly such as the synthesis of mushroom nanostructures and DNA-like ribbon nanostructures and the discovery of key features of the self-assembly of the cell's cytoskeleton, to address medical problems of concern for national security such as improved treatment for battlefield wounds and better defense against biological warfare.] +5,000
INFORMATION ASSURANCE +3,000
DEF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM TO STIMULATE COMPETITIVE RESEARCH 9,859 19,859 +10,000
Program Increase +10,000
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM 33,197 40,197 +7,000
Chemical Agent Detection +7,000
SUPPORT TECHNOLOGIES--APPLIED RESEARCH 37,747 50,247 +12,500
Wide band Gap Electronics +10,000
Bottom Anti-Reflective Coatings +2,500
MEDICAL FREE ELECTRON LASER 15,029 25,029 +10,000
Program increase +10,000
HISPANIC SERVING INSTITUTIONS 5,000 +5,000
Hispanic Serving Institutions [Note: The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only for Hispanic Serving Institutions.] +5,000
COMPUTING SYSTEMS AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY 376,592 335,592 -41,000
Reuse Technology (RTAP) +4,000
Program reduction due to program growth -45,000
EXTENSIBLE INFORMATION SYSTEMS 69,282 49,282 -20,000
Program reduction due to program growth -20,000
BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE 162,064 166,564 +4,500
Biological and Chemical Terrorism Response and Training [Note: The Committee recommends $10,000,000 only for the continuation of a joint biological and chemical terrorism response training program.] +10,000
Biological and Chemical Terrorism Response and Training [Note: The Committee recommends $7,000,000 only for the continuation of a joint biological and chemical terrorism response training program.] +7,000
Asymmetrical protocols for biological warfare defense +4,000
Desalination Research +3,500
Program reduction due to program growth -20,000
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM 73,600 75,600 +2,000
Improved Detection of WMD +2,000
INTEGRATED COMMAND AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 31,761 38,761 +7,000
High Definition Systems +7,000
MATERIALS AND ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY 249,812 259,312 +9,500
Materials in Sensors and Actuators Technology [Note: The Committee recommends $9,500,000 only for continuation of the Materials in Sensors and Actuators technology.] +9,500
NUCLEAR SUSTAINMENT & COUNTERPROLIFERATION TECHNOLOGIES 230,928 225,428 -5,500
Thermionics +5,000
Discrete Particle Methods +3,500
Program reduction due to program growth -14,000
EXPLOSIVES DEMILITARIZATION TECHNOLOGY 8,964 23,164 +14,200
Advanced Cutting Technology +1,200
Contained Detonation +10,000
Hydrothermal Oxidation [Note: The Committee recommends $3,000,000 only for Hydrothermal Oxidation of Energetics.] +3,000
COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT 41,307 48,307 +7,000
Blast Mitigation [Note: Only for blast mitigation testing.] +4,000
Facial Recognition +3,000
SUPPORT TECHNOLOGIES--ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 93,249 123,249 +30,000
Atmospheric Interceptor Technology +15,000
Excalibur +15,000
SPACE BASED LASERS (SBL) 74,537 58,000 -16,537
Space Based Laser -16,537
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM--ADVANCED DEV 46,594 49,344 +2,750
Chemical and Biological Defense Research +2,000
Small Unit Biological Detector [Note: The Committee recommends $750,000 only for the Marine Corps Small Unit Biological Detector program for continuation of an industry-based development program for microfluidic devices for chemical and biological agents detection and analysis.] +750
Anthrax Vaccine [Note: The Committee recommends $1,000,000 from within available funds only to accelerate the development of a second generation anthrax vaccine at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.] [1,000]
SPECIAL TECHNICAL SUPPORT 10,777 14,777 +4,000
Complex Systems Design/MULTI VIEW--Data Standards for Integrated Digital Environment (DSIDE) +4,000
ARMS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY 52,930 69,930 +17,000
Basic and Applied Research to Support Nuclear Monitoring [Note: Of the amount provided ($6,000,000 in the request plus the increase of $6,000,000) for peer reviewed basic and applied research to support operational nuclear test monitoring requirements: $4,000,000 is only for applied explosion seismology research and; $8,000,000 is only for basic research.] +6,000
Continuation of an Industry-Based Research Program [Note: The Committee recommends $6,000,000 only for innovative technologies and equipment, as part of the effort to ensure compliance with arms control treaties, which is only to be used for the continuation of an industry based research program for developing systems using advances in solid nuclear detectors, processing electronics, analysis software, and chemical detection and identification technology.] +6,000
Nuclear Weapons Effects +5,000
GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS 23,082 47,382 +24,300
Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor Retrofits (CMOS) +3,500
Computer Assisted Technology Transfer (CATT) +4,000
Air Logistics +300
Gate Array Reverse Engineering +3,000
Multiple Soft Core Integration +4,000
Si28 Super Lattice Research Project +3,000
Systems Simulation of Electronically Compressed Function +3,500
Competitive Sustainment Demonstration Program +3,000
STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM 51,357 57,357 +6,000
Toxic Chemical Cleanup Criteria +3,000
Environmental clean-up workers safety [Note: Only to continue the research and demonstration program devoted to health and safety issues of environmental clean-up and shipyard workers.] +3,000
COOPERATIVE DOD/VA MEDICAL RESEARCH 0 1,000 +1,000
Review of Biopsies 1,000 +1,000
ADVANCED ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES 191,800 211,800 +20,000
Center for Advanced Microstructures (CAMD) +4,000
MEMS for Deep Silicon Etch Technology [Note: The Committee recommends an increase of $8,000,000 only for the completion of the deep silicon etch technology MEMS project at the Army Research Laboratory.] +8,000
Laser Plasma Point Source X-ray Lithography +5,000
Advanced Lithography Demonstration +3,000
ADVANCED CONCEPT TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS 116,425 116,425
WMD Consequence Management [Note: The Committee recommends $5,200,000 from within available funds only to prepare a WMD Consequence Management program for bases and stations in conjunction with the National Terrorism Preparedness Institute at the Southwest Public Safety Institute to include a pilot program at a base under the Commander in Chief, Pacific Command.] [5,200]
SENSOR AND GUIDANCE TECHNOLOGY 182,225 149,125 -33,100
Large Millimeter Telescope +4,000
Discoverer II -40,100
Radar Vision Technology +3,000
PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT 35,108 26,107 -9,001
Reduction for program growth -9,001
ADVANCED SENSOR APPLICATIONS PROGRAM 15,534 24,534 +9,000
Component Development for Active Sensors +5,000
Solid State Technology +4,000
NAVY THEATER WIDE MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM 382,671 512,671 +130,000
Accelerate Program +80,000
Radar Competition +50,000
MEADS CONCEPTS--DEM/VAL 63,175 53,475 -9,700
Reduction for Program Growth -9,700
BMD TECHNICAL OPERATIONS 270,718 292,718 +22,000
Liquid Surrogate Targets +3,000
Optical Data/Sensor Fusion +4,000
Wide Bandwidth Technology +15,000
JOINT SERVICE EDUCATION AND TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT [Note: At the OSD Joint ADL co-laboratory.] 0 3,500 +3,500
JOINT ROBOTICS PROGRAM--EMD 11,553 16,553 +5,000
Vehicle Teleoperation +5,000
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 12,000 13,500 +1,500
DLA Web Based Tracking +1,500
GENERAL SUPPORT TO C3I 3,769 34,469 +30,700
Information Assurance: JCOATS-IO +9,700
ASD (C3I) Global Infrastructure Data Capture Initiative [Note: Only for the acquisition and digital conversion of critical engineering and infrastructure data.] +21,000
INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM 290,771 322,771 +32,000
Information Assurance: Project Condor +20,000
Projection of vital data +12,000
DEFENSE IMAGERY AND MAPPING PROGRAM 74,975 103,975 +29,000
Exploitation of moving targets +2,000
EDGE Viewer Upgrade +4,000
EDGE Viewer--visualization and bomb blast for force protection +4,000
GEOSAR +15,000
Automated Document Conversion for NIMA libraries +4,000
INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS 7,090 9,090 +2,000
Metalcasting Technology +2,000
SPECIAL OPERATIONS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT 7,360 10,360 +3,000
Special Operations Mobile Robotic Vehicle +3,000
SPECIAL OPERATIONS TACTICAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 133,520 156,620 +23,100
Tri-Band Antenna Signal Combiner +5,100
Multi-Mode, Multi-band Personal Communications System and Remote Trunking System +6,000
Leading EDGE +5,000
Autonomous Landing Guidance System Technology +6,000
Littoral Warfare Craft/Surface planing wet submersible boat +1,000
SPECIAL OPERATIONS INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT 3,022 9,022 +6,000
Tactical video system +2,000
Joint Threat Warning System +4,000
SOF OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS 87,071 95,071 +8,000
Small Combatant Craft +8,000
CCDOTT [Note: $15,000,000 is only for the Center for Commercial Deployment of Transportation Technologies from within funds available for RDT&E, Defense-Wide.] [15,000]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
The proliferation of nuclear weapons continues to be one of the most serious threats facing the U.S. today. A cornerstone of a strong nuclear proliferation deterrent is an effective U.S. operational monitoring capability. Developing such a capability requires a sustained and robust seismic research program. The Committee directs that $12,000,000 shall be available only for peer-reviewed basic and applied seismic research specifically to address validated Air Force operational nuclear test monitoring requirements. Of this amount, $4,000,000 shall be available only for peer-reviewed applied seismic research and $8,000,000 shall be available only for peer-reviewed basic seismic research.
The Committee also directs the Department to vigorously pursue transition of the research results into operations. The Committee further directs the Department to segregate the basic and applied research funds for this program into clearly identifiable projects within the 6.1 and 6.2 budget categories; and to improve integration of the basic and applied components of the program. Further, the Committee directs the Department to provide by December 1, 2000, a detailed report to the Committee on the plan for obligating these funds.
HIGH PERFORMANCE COMPUTING PROGRAM
The Committee remains very concerned about the health of the DoD's High-Performance Computing Modernization Program (HPCMP). This program is essential to DoD efforts to develop technologically superior weapons, warfighting capabilities, and related systems. However, the program has fallen behind in its primary mission to procure high performance computing hardware for DoD production activities. Due to procurement shortfalls, DoD lags behind industry, the Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation in supercomputing technology--eroding DoD's ability to address its most technologically challenging projects. As a step toward correcting this problem, the Committee has added $48,000,000 only for the procurement of high performance computing hardware, and strongly urges DoD to address the procurement shortfalls in the fiscal year 2002 budget.
NATIONAL IMAGERY AND MAPPING AGENCY (NIMA)
STILL-IMAGE COMPRESSION STANDARD
The Committee directs NIMA to take the lead in developing an integrated plan for transitioning imagery infrastructures to fully exploit the opportunities provided by the soon to be ratified Still-Image Compression Standard JPEG-2000.
COMPETITIVE PRACTICES
The Committee anticipates that NIMA will pursue all avenues of fair and open competition for the acquisition of technology, goods and services.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.
DEVELOPMENTAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $265,957,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request
Committee recommendation
Change from budget request
---------------------------------------------
This appropriation funds the Developmental Test and Evaluation activities of the Department of Defense.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends no funds, as proposed in the budget.
OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $31,434,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 201,560,000
Committee recommendation 242,560,000
Change from budget request +41,000,000
--------------------------------------------
This appropriation funds the Operational Test and Evaluation activities of the Department of Defense.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Recommended Change from request
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT (CT) 121,401 147,401 +26,000
Magdalena Ridge +7,000
Roadway Simulator +12,000
Silent Sentry +7,000
OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION 17,172 22,172 +5,000
Increase program for improvement of tests +5,000
LIVE FIRE TESTING 9,712 19,712 +10,000
Live Fire Testing +10,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE
The Department requested $201,560,000 for Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense. The Committee recommends $242,560,000, an increase of $41,000,000.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2001.
[In thousands of dollars]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational Test & Eval, Defense--RDT&E Management Support:
Central Test and Evaluation Investment Development 121,401 147,401 +26,000
Operational Test and Evaluation 17,172 22,172 +5,000
Live Fire Testing 9,712 19,712 +10,000
Development Test and Evaluation 53,275 53,275
Total, Operational Test & Eval, Defense 201,560 242,560 +41,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE V
REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS
DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $90,344,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 916,276,000
Committee recommendation 916,276,000
Change from budget request
--------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $916,276,000 for the Defense Working Capital Funds, the amount proposed in the budget. The recommendation is an increase of $825,932,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000. The Committee notes that the increase proposed in the budget realigns funding needed to support the Defense Commissary system.
NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $717,200,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 388,158,000
Committee recommendation 400,658,000
Change from budget request +12,500,000
---------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides funds for the lease, operation, and supply of prepositioning ships; operation of the Ready Reserve Force; and acquisition of ships for the Military Sealift Command, the Ready Reserve Force, and the Marine Corps.
READY RESERVE FORCE
The Defense Department requested $258,000,000 for the Ready Reserve Force. The Committee recommends $270,500,000, an increase of $12,500,000. The additional funding provided by the Committee is only for the Department of Defense to upgrade a ship for the Ready Reserve Force that can also be used as a training ship for the Massachusetts Maritime Academy cadets.
TITLE VI
OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $11,154,617,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 11,600,429,000
Committee recommendation 12,143,029,000
Change from budget request +542,600,000
------------------------------------------------
This appropriation funds the Defense Health Program of the Department of Defense.
SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS
Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in the project level tables or in paragraphs using the phrases `only for' or `only to' in this report are congressional interest items for the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD Form 1414). Each of these items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated amount, or a revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. These items remain special interest items whether or not they are repeated in a subsequent conference report.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budgetrequest Recommended Change fromrequest
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation and Maintenance 11,244,543 11,525,143 +280,600
Government Computer-Based Patient Records [10,000] 0
Medicare Eligible Health Options 2,000 +2,000
Claims Processing Initiative 3,600 +3,600
Military Treatment Facilities Optimization 134,000 +134,000
Reimbursement for Travel Expenses 15,000 +15,000
Reduced Catastrophic Cap 32,000 +32,000
TRICARE Senior Pharmacy 94,000 +94,000
Research and Development 65,880 327,880 +262,000
Head Injury Program 2,000 +2,000
Joint U.S.-Norwegian Telemedicine 4,000 +4,000
Cancer Research [Note: Only for cancer research in the integrated areas of signal transduction, growth control and differentiation, molecular carcineogensis and DNA repair, cancer genetics and gene therapy, and cancer invasion and angiogensis.] 6,000 +6,000
Army Peer-Reviewed Breast Cancer Research Program 175,000 +175,000
Army Peer-Reviewed Prostate Cancer Research Program 75,000 +75,000
Procurement 290,006 290,006 0
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 11,244,543 11,525,143 +280,600
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 65,880 327,880 +262,000
PROCUREMENT 290,006 290,006 0
Total 11,600,429 12,143,029 +542,600
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRICARE IMPROVEMENTS
The Committee recommends increases over the budget request totaling $280,600,000 to support several initiatives to improve the TRICARE health care program. Consistent with action taken in the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2001 (H.R. 4205), these include additional funds to optimize the use of Military Treatment Facilities (MTF) and improve TRICARE business practices ($134,000,000); funding for the TRICARE Senior Pharmacy program ($94,000,000); a reduction in the catastrophic cap for retired TRICARE beneficiaries ($32,000,000); reimbursement of certain travel payments for patients who have a referral more than 100 miles away from their primary health care facility ($15,000,000); improved claims processing ($3,600,000); and an in-depth study on health care options for Medicare-eligible military retirees ($2,000,000).
These initiatives should improve the TRICARE benefit for all military families by improving access and quality of care. In particular, the funding to optimize MTF usage and business practices should lead to improved access for both active duty and retired military families. Within the $134,000,000 recommended for this initiative, the Committee directs that $85,500,000 be used to provide additional support staff to primary care providers in the military direct care system, in accordance with the House-passed authorization legislation.
In addition to these initiatives, by funding the authorized TRICARE Senior Pharmacy program, the Committee bill would provide all Medicare-eligible military retirees with access to prescription drugs through various access points, including the national mail order pharmacy; network and out-of-network pharmacies; and military pharmacies. As a consequence, this should alleviate the disparity in benefit between those military retirees over the age of 65 who have access to pharmaceuticals because they have access to a military treatment facility (or one that was recently closed), and those who do not.
TRANSFER OF DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM FUNDS
The Committee directs that any funding made available for the Defense Health Program, as well as any other Department of Defense activity, shall not be transferred to another agency pursuant to Section 109 of Public Law 103-317 unless a prior approval reprogramming for any such transfer has been submitted to and approved by the congressional defense committees.
ANTHRAX VACCINE PROGRAM
The Committee concurs with the findings of the Institute of Medicine interim report on the anthrax vaccine and directs the Secretary of Defense to: immediately submit all relevant research on the safety and efficacy of the anthrax vaccine to peer-reviewed scientific journals for publication; make this research available to the general public through the AVIP website; and establish a statistically significant active long-term monitoring program to document the relative safety of the vaccine. The Committee is also concerned by continuing financial difficulties and irregularities identified by the Inspector General and the Defense Contract Audit Agency and directs the Department to expeditiously implement adequate accounting measures.
The Committee is concerned by reports that the Department may seek additional extraordinary contractual relief, beyond the $24.1 million granted in 1999. The risk exposure of the Government as the principal creditor is already at a maximum level and the contractor already pledged all of its property, plant and equipment as collateral when contractual relief was granted. Therefore the Secretary is directed to notify the Committees on Appropriations and the Committees on Armed Services 30 days prior to seeking further extraordinary contractual relief under P.L. 85-804.
The Committee supports the ongoing work by the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases to develop a second generation anthrax vaccine that promises to be significantly more effective and induce fewer adverse reactions. Accordingly, within available funds, the Committee directs that $1 million be made available only to accelerate the development of this vaccine. The Department is directed to report to the Committee on Appropriations, by December 30, 2000, on its plans to significantly accelerate the availability of this new vaccine as well as any additional unfunded requirement associated with this goal.
CHIROPRACTIC DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
The Committee endorses the recently concluded Department study that demonstrated that chiropractic care resulted in higher levels of patient satisfaction, superior outcomes, fewer hospital stays, and an increase in readiness due to a large reduction in lost duty days. The Committee accepts the cost analysis of the Oversight Advisory Committee, and concludes that the integration of chiropractic care on a direct access and full scope of services basis will increase readiness and retention and produce a net dollar savings for the Department.
CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, ARMY
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $1,029,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 1,003,500,000
Committee recommendation 927,100,000
Change from budget request -76,400,000
-----------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Army requested $1,003,500,000 for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army. The Committee recommends $927,100,000, a decrease of $76,400,000. The Committee directs that none of the reduction may be applied against the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program.
PROGRAM RECOMMENDED
The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2001:
[In Thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Committee recommended Change from request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chem Agents & Munitions Destruction, Army:
Chem Demilitarization--O&M 607,200 607,200 0
Chem Demilitarization--PROC 121,900 105,700 -16,200
Chem Demilitarization--RDTE 274,000 214,200 -60,200
Total, Chem Agents & Munitions Destruction, Army 1,003,500 927,100 -76,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES, DEFENSE
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $847,800,000
Fiscal year 2001 request 836,300,000
Committee recommendation 812,200,000
Change from the budget request -24,100,000
--------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides funds for Military Personnel; Operation and Maintenance; Procurement; and Research, Development, Test and Evaluation for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the Department of Defense.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Department of Defense requested $836,300,000 for Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities. The Committee recommends $812,200,000, a reduction of $24,100,000.
EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES
| [In thousands of dollars] | |
| Caper Focus | +6,000 |
| Puerto Rico ROTHR security | +1,200 |
| Southwest Border Fence | +6,000 |
| Southwest Border States Information System | +6,000 |
| Multi-Jurisdictional Counter-drug Task Force | +4,000 |
| Lake County HIDTA | +1,000 |
| Appalachian HIDTA | +3,600 |
| National Interagency Civil-Military Institute | +2,000 |
| Tethered Aerostat | +10,000 |
| National Counter-narcotics Training Center (Hammer) | +4,000 |
| Young Marines | +1,500 |
| Air National Guard Fighter Operations | -5,000 |
| Special Operations Forces Patrol Coastal | -3,000 |
| GBEGO-Mexico | -3,000 |
| Carribean support | -3,000 |
| T-AGOS Support | -14,000 |
| DoD Support to Plan Colombia | -41,400 |
DOD SUPPORT TO PLAN COLOMBIA
The budget request included $41,400,000 for Department of Defense Support to Plan Colombia. The Committee supports the Department's participation in Plan Colombia and recommended funding the fiscal year 2001 request in the Fiscal Year 2000 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations bill (H.R. 3908) which passed the House on March 30, 2000.
TETHERED AEROSTAT RADAR SYSTEM
The budget request included $32,089,000 to operate and modernize the Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS). The Committee recommends $42,089,000, an increase of $10,000,000. The Committee has also recommended additional funding for TARS operations under Air Force Operation and maintenance as discussed elsewhere in this report.
The US Customs Service, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, and the US Southern Command share the joint requirement for critical low-altitude radar surveillance of the Caribbean, the Gulf coast and Southwestern approaches into US High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. The Committee is aware that the US Customs Service and the US Air Force have differing views on the TARS operation and modernization program which is the responsibility of the Air Force.
The Committee, therefore, directs that DD Form 1414 designate the total amount of funds in all Department of Defense appropriations for the operation and upgrade of the Tethered Aerostat Radar System as an item of special Congressional interest and restricts obligation of funds to no more that 50 percent of the amount provided in this act until the following report and joint certification have been submitted.
The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Treasury to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the status of the Tethered Aerostat Radar System, and to jointly certify that (1) the President's Budget for fiscal year 2002 and the accompanying five year budget plan fully meet the operational and modernization requirements of the US Customs Service, the US Southern Command, and the North American Defense Command for counter-drug and continental air defense missions and (2) the management responsibility and corresponding funding have been allocated to the Department of Defense and to the Department of the Treasury in a manner which best facilitates the mission-effectiveness of the system.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $137,544,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 147,545,000
Committee recommendation 147,545,000
Change from budget request
---------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $147,545,000 for the Office of the Inspector General, the amount proposed in the budget. The recommendation is an increase of $10,001,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
TITLE VII
RELATED AGENCIES
NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
The National Foreign Intelligence Program consists of those intelligence activities of the government which provide the President, other officers of the Executive Branch, and the Congress with national foreign intelligence on broad strategic concerns bearing on U.S. national security. These concerns are stated by the National Security Council in the form of long-range and short-range requirements for the principal users of intelligence.
The National Foreign Intelligence Program budget funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act consists primarily of resources for the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency, National Imagery and Mapping Agency, intelligence services of the Departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force, Intelligence Community Management Staff, and the CIA Retirement and Disability System Fund.
CLASSIFIED ANNEX
Because of the highly sensitive nature of intelligence programs, the results of the Committee's budget review are published in a separate, detailed and comprehensive classified annex. The intelligence community, Department of Defense and other organizations are expected to fully comply with the recommendations and directions in the classified annex accompanying the fiscal year 2001 Defense Appropriations bill.
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND DISABILITY SYSTEM FUND
-----------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $209,100,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 216,000,000
Committee recommendation 216,000,000
Change from budget request ..............
-----------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides payments of benefits to qualified beneficiaries in accordance with the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement Act of 1964 for Certain Employees (P.L. 88-643). This statute authorized the establishment of a CIA Retirement and Disability System (CIARDS) for a limited number of CIA employees and authorized the establishment and maintenance of a fund from which benefits would be paid to those beneficiaries.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $216,000,000 for the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Systems Fund (CIARDS). The recommendation is the same as the budget request and $6,900,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $158,015,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 137,631,000
Committee recommendation 224,181,000
Change from budget request +86,550,000
---------------------------------------------
This appropriation provides funds for the activities that support the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) and the Intelligence Community.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The budget included a request of $137,631,000 for the Intelligence Community Management Account. The Committee recommends $224,181,000, an increase of $86,550,000 above the request and $66,166,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000. Of the amount appropriated under this heading, $33,100,000 is for transfer to the Department of Justice for operations at the National Drug Intelligence Center. Details of adjustments to this account are included in the classfied annex accompanying this report.
PAYMENT TO KAHO'OLAWE ISLAND CONVEYANCE, REMEDIATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FUND
--------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $35,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 25,000,000
Committee recommendation 25,000,000
Change from budget request
--------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000 for the Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Fund, the amount proposed in the budget. The recommendation is a decrease of $10,000,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION TRUST FUND
-------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 appropriation $8,000,000
Fiscal year 2001 budget request 6,950,000
Committee recommendation 6,950,000
Change from budget request
-------------------------------------------
The National Security Education Trust Fund was established to provide scholarships and fellowships to U.S. students to pursue higher education studies abroad and grants to U.S. institutions for programs of study in foreign areas and languages.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Committee recommends $6,950,000 for the National Security Education Trust Fund. The recommendation is the same as the budget request and $1,050,000 less than the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
TITLE VIII
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The accompanying bill includes 118 general provisions. Most of these provisions were included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000 and many have been included in the Defense Appropriations Act for a number of years.
Actions taken by the Committee to amend last year's provisions or new provisions recommended by the Committee are discussed below or in the applicable section of the report.
DEFINITION OF PROGRAM, PROJECT AND ACTIVITY
For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177) as amended by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-119) and by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-508), the following information provides the definitions of the term `program, project, and activity' for appropriations contained in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The term `program, project, and activity' shall include the most specific level of budget items, identified in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2001, the accompanying House and Senate Committee reports, the conference report and the accompanying joint explanatory statement of the managers of the Committee on Conference, the related classified reports, and the P-1 and R-1 budget justification documents as subsequently modified by Congressional action.
In carrying out any Presidential sequestration, the Department of Defense and agencies shall conform to the definition for `program, project, and activity' set forth above with the following exception:
For Military Personnel and Operation and Maintenance accounts the term `program, project, and activity' is defined as the appropriations accounts contained in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act.
The Department and agencies should carry forth the Presidential sequestration order in a manner that would not adversely affect or alter Congressional policies and priorities established for the Department of Defense and the related agencies and no program, project, and activity should be eliminated or be reduced to a level of funding which would adversely affect the Department's ability to effectively continue any program, project, and activity.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives:
CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the application of existing law.
Language is included in various parts of the bill to continue on-going activities which require annual authorization or additional legislation, which to date has not been enacted.
The bill includes a number of provisions which place limitations on the use of funds in the bill or change existing limitations and which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing the application of existing law.
The bill includes a number of provisions, which have been virtually unchanged for many years, that are technically considered legislation.
The bill provides that appropriations shall remain available for more than one year for some programs for which the basic authorizing legislation does not presently authorize each extended availability.
In various places in the bill, the Committee has earmarked funds within appropriation accounts in order to fund specific programs and has adjusted some existing earmarking.
Those additional changes in the fiscal year 2001 bill, which might be interpreted as changing existing law, are as follows:
APPROPRIATIONS LANGUAGE
Language has been amended in `Operation and Maintenance, Army' which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses, and the amount provided for transfer to the National Park Service for infrastructure repair improvements at Fort Baker. Language has been deleted concerning recovery of costs associated with environmental restoration at government-owned, contractor-operated facilities; for demolition and removal of Military Traffic Management Command facilities; and concerning the transfer of funds to the Presidential Commission on Holocaust Assets.
Language has been amended in `Operation and Maintenance, Navy' which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses.
Language has been amended in `Operation and Maintenance, Air Force' which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses; and which changes the amount earmarked for the William Lehman Aviation Center.
Language has been amended in `Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide' which changes the amount available for emergency and extraordinary expenses; changes the amount earmarked for security locks, and changes the amount that the Secretary of Defense may transfer to other accounts in this bill for purposes of classified activities. Language has also been deleted concerning funds for intelligence activities.
Language has been amended in `Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund' which allows for additional transfer authority to the military personnel, procurement, and research, development, test and evaluation accounts.
Language has been deleted in `Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction' which earmarked $25,000,000 for dismantling and disposal of nuclear submarines.
Language has been included in `Aircraft Procurement, Army' which earmarks funds for Army Reserve UH-60 aircraft.
Language has been amended in `Other Procurement, Army' which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement, and the number of vehicles required for physical security of personnel.
Language has been deleted in `Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy' concerning specific program-level appropriations; and incremental funding authority for the LHD-1 Amphibious Assault Ship.
Language has been amended in `Other Procurement, Navy' which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement; adds language for the procurement of a passenger vehicle required for physical security of personnel, and limits the purchase cost of the vehicle.
Language has been amended in `Procurement, Marine Corps' which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement.
Language has been amended in `Other Procurement, Air Force' which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement; adds language for the procurement of a passenger vehicle required for the physical security of personnel, and limits the purchase cost of the vehicle.
Language has been amended in `Procurement, Defense-Wide' which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement and the number of passenger vehicles required for physical security of personnel; and deletes language providing funds for electronic commerce resource centers.
The appropriations paragraph for the `National Guard and Reserve Equipment' account has been deleted which provided funds for Guard and Reserve equipment.
Language has been deleted in `Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy' concerning Intercooled Recuperated Gas Turbine engine technology.
Language has been amended in `Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force' prohibiting the development of an ejection seat for the Joint Strike Fighter other than that which is under development in the Joint Ejection Seat Program.
Language has been deleted in `Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide' which earmarks funds for ballistic missile defense programs.
The appropriations paragraph for `Developmental Test and Evaluation, Defense' has been deleted which provided funds for the Director, Test and Evaluation.
Language has been included in `Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense' which makes funds available for the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to develop policy guidance and conduct other oversight functions.
Language has been amended in `Defense Working Capital Funds' which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement.
Language has been included in `Defense Health Program' which earmarks $10,000,000 for HIV educational activities undertaken in connection with U.S. military training conducted in African nations.
Language has been deleted in `Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense' which earmarks funds for transfer to `Military Construction, Air Force' in support of the U.S. Southern Command.
Language has been amended in `Intelligence Community Management Account' which transfers $33,100,000 to the Department of Justice.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 8005 has been amended which increases the level of general transfer authority for the Department of Defense.
Section 8008 has been amended to delete language providing multi-year procurement authority for Longbow Apache, the Javelin missile, F/A-18 E/F, C-17 and F-16; and adds multi-year authority for Bradley fighting vehicles, DDG-51 destroyers, UH-60 and CH-60 aircraft.
Section 8017 has been amended with regard to applicability to persons with disabilities.
Section 8031 has been amended to change the number of staff years that may be funded for defense studies and analysis by Federally Funded Research and Development Centers.
Section 8053 has been amended to delete language earmarking funds for a building demolition project.
Section 8054 has been amended to include language which rescinds funds from the following programs:
| (Rescissions) | |
| Revised Economic Estimates: | |
| 2000 Appropriations: | |
| Aircraft Procurement, Army: Inflation Savings | $7,000,000 |
| Missile Procurement, Army: Inflation Savings | 6,000,000 |
| Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army: Inflation Savings | 7,000,000 |
| Procurement of Ammunition, Army: Inflation Savings | 5,000,000 |
| Other Procurement, Army: Inflation Savings | 16,000,000 |
| Aircraft Procurement, Air Force: Inflation Savings | 32,700,000 |
| Missile Procurement, Air Force: Inflation Savings | 5,500,000 |
| Other Procurement, Air Force: Inflation Savings | 6,400,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army: Inflation Savings | 19,000,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force: Inflation Savings | 42,000,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide: Inflation Savings | 33,900,000 |
| Program-specific Reductions: | |
| 1998 Appropriations: | |
| Under the heading, Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy: SSN-21 attack submarine program | 74,000,000 |
| 1999 Appropriations: | |
| Other Procurement, Army: R2000 Engine Flush System | 3,000,000 |
| Weapons Procurement, Navy: Tomahawk | 22,000,000 |
| Aircraft Procurement, Air Force: JSTARS (Contract savings) | 12,300,000 |
| Missile Procurement, Air Force: CALCM (Contract Savings) | 20,000,000 |
| Other Procurement, Air Force: RAPCON (Restructuring program) | 8,000,000 |
| 2000 Appropriations: | |
| Missile Procurement, Army: Javelin (Schedule slip) | 150,000,000 |
| Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army: Command and Control Vehicle (Termination) | 60,000,000 |
| Other Procurement, Army: SMART-T (Schedule slip) | 29,000,000 |
| Aircraft Procurement, Navy: F/A-18 E/F cost savings | 6,500,000 |
| Missile Procurement, Air Force: AMRAAM (Budget error) | 6,192,000 |
| Other Procurement, Air Force: | |
| SMART-T (Schedule slip) | 12,000,000 |
| RAPCON (Restructuring program) | 2,000,000 |
| DCGS Communications Segment Upgrade | 6,000,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army: | |
| WRAP (Unobligated balance) | 10,000,000 |
| Breacher (Program terminated) | 42,000,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force: C-130 (Schedule slip) | 30,000,000 |
| Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Fund: Unused Balance | 17,000,000 |
Section 8058 has been amended to substitute the phrase `Combatant Commands' in place of `Unified and Specified Commands' concerning reimbursement for Reserve Intelligence Personnel.
Section 8060 has been amended to delete language concerning secure secretarial offices, support facilities, and the subway entrance to the Pentagon.
Section 8085 has been included which reduces funds available for several operation and maintenance accounts by $800,000,000 to reflect working capital fund cash balance and rate stabilization adjustments.
Section 8087 has been amended to delete language concerning foreign built cranes, and to add language modifying Buy American requirements.
Section 8089 has been amended to add language to reassess the structure and content of the managed care support contract program.
Section 8092 has been amended which reduces funds available for military personnel and operation and maintenance accounts by a total of $537,600,000 due to favorable foreign currency fluctuations.
Section 8094 has been amended to revise the amounts earmarked to maintain a total inventory of 94 B-52 aircraft.
Section 8095 has been amended to delete language requiring a DOD Inspector General report on funding for the maintenance of flag officer quarters.
Section 8096 has been amended to delete language which prohibited the obligation of funds for the Line-of-Sight Anti-Tank program, and deletes funds earmarked for the Air Directed Surface to Air Missile.
Section 8099 has been amended to revise the limitation on expenditure of funds for information technology systems and to make the provision applicable to the current fiscal year.
Section 8104 has been amended to provide $5,000,000 to evaluate a standards and performance based academic model at DoD schools.
Section 8106 has been amended which requires the Secretary of Defense to report by March 15, 2001 on health care contract liabilities.
Section 8107 has been included which supports civil requirements associated with the Global Positioning System.
Section 8108 has been included which makes $115,000,000 of the funds available in `Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide' available until expended, and allows the Secretary of Defense to transfer such funds to other federal activities.
Section 8109 has been included which reduces funds available for military personnel and operation and maintenance accounts by a total of $463,400,000 due to balances available in the `Foreign Currency Fluctuation, Defense' account.
Section 8110 has been included which prohibits funds for aircraft modifications until the Secretary of the Air Force submits a report on Air National Guard F-16 aircraft.
Section 8111 has been included which requires a report on work-related illnesses resulting from exposure to beryllium or beryllium alloys.
Section 8112 has been included which earmarks funds from `Operation and Maintenance, Army' for security enhancements to the heliport which supports the National Training Center.
Section 8113 has been included which extends the authority for an equipment center demonstration program.
Section 8114 has been included, which transfers $15,000,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2000 under `Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army' for the Grizzly breacher mineclearing program to `Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army' for Wolverine heavy assault bridge program; and directs the Army to obligate $97,000,000 from within available fiscal year 2000 funds for `Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army' for the procurement of Wolverine heavy assault bridges.
Section 8115 has been included which makes the obligation of fiscal year 2001 appropriations for equipment for a second interim brigade combat team contingent on certain Secretary of Defense and Director of Operational Test and Evaluation certifications.
Section 8116 has been included which requires completion of certain testing of the F-22 aircraft prior to low-rate initial production.
Section 8117 has been included which amends existing cost caps for the F-22 aircraft program.
Section 8118 has been included which requires certain reports on the Joint Strike Fighter program, and places limitations on the obligation of funds for the program.
APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:
Military Personnel, Army
Military Personnel, Navy
Military Personnel, Marine Corps
Military Personnel, Air Force
Reserve Personnel, Army
Reserve Personnel, Navy
Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps
Reserve Personnel, Air Force
National Guard Personnel, Army
National Guard Personnel, Air Force
Operation and Maintenance, Army
Operation and Maintenance, Navy
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force
Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide
Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve
Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard
Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund
United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
Environmental Restoration, Army
Environmental Restoration, Navy
Environmental Restoration, Air Force
Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide
Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites
Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid
Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction
Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense
Aircraft Procurement, Army
Missile Procurement, Army
Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Procurement of Ammunition, Army
Other Procurement, Army
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Weapons Procurement, Navy
Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Other Procurement, Navy
Procurement, Marine Corps
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Missile Procurement, Air Force
Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force
Other Procurement, Air Force
Procurement, Defense-Wide
Defense Production Act Purchases
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
Defense Working Capital Funds
National Defense Sealift Fund
Defense Health Program
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army
Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense
Office of the Inspector General
Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund
Intelligence Community Management Account
Payment to Kaho'olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Fund
National Security Education Trust Fund
- Sec. 8104.
- Sec. 8022.
TRANSFER OF FUNDS
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.
The following table shows the appropriation affected by the transfers:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations to which transfer is made Amount Appropriations from which transfer is made Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation and maintenance, Army $50,000,000 National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund $150,000,000
Operation and maintenance, Navy 50,000,000
Operation and maintenance, Air Force 50,000,000
Intelligence Community Management Account 33,100,000 Dept. of Justice National Drug Intelligence Center 33,100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSFERS
Language has been included in `Operation and Maintenance, Army', which provides for the transfer of $6,000,000 to the `National Park Service' for improvements at Fort Baker.
Language has been included in `Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide', which provides for the transfer of $10,000,000 to certain classified activities.
Language has been included in `Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund', which provides for the transfer of funds out of this account to other appropriation accounts.
Language has been included in `Environmental Restoration, Army', which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account.
Language has been included in `Environmental Restoration, Navy', which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account.
Language has been included in `Environmental Restoration, Air Force', which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account.
Language has been included in `Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide', which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account.
Language has been included in `Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites', which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this account.
Language has been included in `Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense', which transfers funds to other appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense.
Ten provisions (Sections 8005, 8006, 8015, 8037, 8040, 8060, 8062, 8075, 8108, and 8114) contain language which allows transfers of funds between accounts.
RESCISSIONS
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill:
| Under the heading, Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy 1998/2002: SSN-21 attack submarine program | $74,000,000 |
| Other Procurement, Army 1999/2001 | 3,000,000 |
| Weapons Procurement, Navy 1999/2001 | 22,000,000 |
| Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 1999/2001 | 12,300,000 |
| Missile Procurement, Air Force 1999/2001 | 20,000,000 |
| Other Procurement, Air Force 1999/2001 | 8,000,000 |
| Aircraft Procurement, Army 2000/2002 | 7,000,000 |
| Missile Procurement, Army 2000/2002 | 156,000,000 |
| Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army 2000/2002 | 67,000,000 |
| Procurement of Ammunition, Army 2000/2002 | 5,000,000 |
| Other Procurement, Army 2000/2002 | 45,000,000 |
| Aircraft Procurement, Navy 2000/2002 | 6,500,000 |
| Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 2000/2002 | 32,700,000 |
| Missile Procurement, Air Force 2000/2002 | 11,692,000 |
| Other Procurement, Air Force 2000/2002 | 26,400,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army 2000/2001 | 71,000,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force 2000/2001 | 72,000,000 |
| Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide 2000/2001 | 33,900,000 |
| Reserve Mobilization Income Insurance Fund | 17,000,000 |
COMPLIANCE WITH CLAUSE 3 OF RULE XIII (RAMSEYER RULE)
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the rules of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is printed in italics and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 8093 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000
SEC. 8093. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) None of the funds appropriated or otherwise provided for the Department of Defense in this or any other Act for any fiscal year may be obligated or expended for design, manufacture, or procurement of a nuclear-capable shipyard crane from a foreign source. Subsection (a) does not apply to the limitation in the preceding sentence.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the rules of the House of Representatives states that:
Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution of a public character, shall include a statement citing the specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.
The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law . . .
Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this specific power granted by the Constitution.
COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from the Committee's section 302(a) allocation.
[In millions of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
302(b) allocation-- This bill-- *
Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary 288,414 279,025 288,297 277,094
Mandatory 216 216 216 216
--------------------------------------------------------------------
FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS
In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying bill.
| [In millions of dollars] | |
| Budget Authority in bill | 288,513 |
| 2001 | 188,232 |
| 2002 | 59,380 |
| 2003 | 21,716 |
| 2004 | 9,045 |
| 2005 | 9,011 |
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, no new budget or outlays are provided by the accompanying bill for financial assistance to State and local governments.
FULL COMMITTEE VOTES
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names of those voting for and those voting against, are printed below:
There were no recorded votes.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
Often of the job of this Committee is to ask questions and to question assumptions. That is especially true in a world of limited financial resources. Last year the Committee produced a provocative Defense bill which challenged many assumptions underlying defense budget policy, particularly regarding tactical fighter aircraft and in particular whether the F-22 aircraft was ready for production. This year's bill is a disappointing return to a more business-as-usual approach. In the context of the Congressional Republican leadership's budget resolution, which proposes to increase defense but decimate the operation of many other Federal agencies, this bill is not one that I can support in its present form.
UNREASONABLE FUNDING LEVELS
The President's budget proposed a hefty increase of $15.8 billion, or 5.9 percent, over the fiscal year 2000 appropriated level for the Department of Defense. This was done to pay for the President's military pay raise and to meet his commitment of achieving a $60 billion annual procurement level. But his budget balanced this hefty increase with increases for education, national parks, law enforcement, health and safety, environmental protection and other important non-Defense programs. The Congressional leadership abandoned that balance in its Budget Resolution by increasing the President's 5.9 percent increase for defense programs funded in this bill by another $4 billion, by giving away $175 billion over five years in tax cuts, and by making it all appear to add up by cutting non-defense discretionary programs by $125 million below inflation over the next five years. The folly of this approach becomes more clear with the passage of each domestic appropriations bill that conforms to the budget resolution. That is demonstrated vividly in the Legislative Appropriations bill which proposes to dramatically reduce the number of Capitol police--an inappropriate response to the well-documented need or increased security to the public and for protection of the Capitol police force highlighted by the tragic and senseless murder of two American heroes last year. It is also demonstrated by the fact that Presidential initiatives to strengthen education, health care, worker training, and science are being eviscerated.
Adding $4 billion in the defense bill, beyond the hefty $15.8 billion increase proposed by the President, appears very much to be a case of political one-upmanship.
The President's budget fully funded the President's military pay raise and met his commitment to an annual procurement level of $60 billion. It proposes significant growth in the number of F/A-18E/F, F-22, V-22, E-2, and KC-130J aircraft, fully funds the New Attack Submarine and an aircraft carrier, and increases many other smaller procurement and research programs. While Committee increases in other programs will have positive effects within the Department of Defense, many of them will not result in a near-term improvement in combat readiness or enhance the near-term performance of any troops during combat. In the context of the Republican leadership's budget resolution, the Committee needs to take a more disciplined approach.
REFORM
Last year, the Committee sent a strong message to the Pentagon in a bipartisan and unanimous fashion that it is time to reorient its spending priorities to meet a broader array of military budget requirements in the 21st century. This means: (1) paying attention to so-called `asymmetrical' threats like chemical and biological terrorism, information warfare, smaller scale urban warfare, and cruise missile defense and (2) bolstering conventional military capabilities like airlift, sealift, electronic jamming, intelligence and surveillance, and communications. Although the Committee includes a $150 million initiative for hacker-defense of DOD computer systems in this bill, it is the lone example of where the Committee made any follow-through on the priorities it set last year.
This Congress continues to dodge significant attempts at reform to cut out wasteful military spending that everyone knows is widely prevalent. The authorizing committees have again ignored the Secretary of Defense's recommendation to conduct additional rounds of base closures that ultimately could save the government over $20 billion. The Congress has apparently grown comfortable with the status quo--operating military bases that the Defense Department readily admits add little or nothing to our national security.
Each year the General Accounting Office conducts studies which indicate that many other opportunities exist for large military savings through improved management. During the last year, the General Accounting Office has reported that:
Material financial management deficiencies identified at DOD, taken together, represent the single largest obstacle that must be effectively addressed to achieve an unqualified opinion on the U.S. government's consolidated financial statements. DOD's vast operations (an estimated $1 trillion in assets, nearly $1 trillion in reported liabilities, and a reported net cost of operations of $378 billion in fiscal year 1999) have a tremendous impact on the government's consolidated reporting. To date, no major part of DOD has yet been able to pass the test of an independent audit. The lack of key controls and information not only hampers DOD's ability to produce credible financial statements, but impairs efforts to improve the economy and efficiency of its operations.
For fiscal years 1996-1998, the Navy reported that it had lost $3 billion of intransit inventory, including some classified and sensitive items such as aircraft guided-missile launchers, military night vision devices, and communications equipment.
In the five years between fiscal years 1994 and 1998, defense contractors returned about $4.6 billion in overpayments from the Department of Defense.
The Defense Department does not need an additional $4 billion above the increase the President proposed. It could generate an equivalent amount of buying power if it would simply reform some of its fundamental management systems. Unfortunately, there are no initiatives in the Committee's bill to facilitate that objective, and we continue to throw good money after bad.
TACTICAL AVIATION PROGRAMS
For too long, the Pentagon has resisted calls to restructure its hyper-expensive tactical aircraft procurement plan to buy three separate types of tactical aircraft costing in excess of $300 billion, even though the traditional Cold War threats for which they were designed have dissipated and new non-conventional threats are emerging. Last year, the Committee made this issue a priority in its deliberations and recommendations. A key point the Committee raised is whether or not the threat will emerge which justifies this level of investment and in particular whether it warrants production of the F-22 aircraft.
This bill largely returns to business-as-usual by essentially `rubber-stamping' the Pentagon's tactical aircraft program, and by so-doing it ignores the key strategic policy question concerning the future of defense tactical aircraft. The Committee's bill provides growth in the Navy's F-18 program, allows the F-22 to enter production even though it is not ready, and allows the Joint Strike Fighter to enter a more advanced phase of
development whose cost is estimated to be about $20 billion despite warnings from the General Accounting Office that this is premature. The combination of these actions results in a contractual quagmire from which the Pentagon and Congress will not be able to extricate themselves. No new information has been found which suggests that the threat to American tactical aviation is more formidable or credible than a year ago.
F-22
This bill approves the budget request of almost $4 billion for the F-22 program in fiscal year 2001, of which $1.4 billion is for continued development and testing and $2.1 billion is for production of 10 aircraft. During the past year the Congress has discovered that: (1) F-22 flight testing has not been conducted to the extent planned or required; (2) static and fatigue testing are more than a year behind schedule; (3) the Office of the Secretary of Defense estimates that F-22 production costs will be approximately $1 billion more than the Air Force has budgeted per year; and (4) the cost of the development program continues to increase rather than stabilize.
The cost of the F-22 development program has doubled since 1985 to $24 billion, and only 15 percent of the testing program has been accomplished since the engineering manufacturing development program began in 1991. Nevertheless, the Committee has approved the request of $2.1 billion for F-22 production--without question.
The conference agreement last year on the F-22 aircraft prohibits a production decision until the so-called `block 3' software is flight rested in an actual F-22 aircraft (rather than in a surrogate test aircraft). That testing is not scheduled to occur until the fall of next year, at the earliest. It should be noted that the Air Force has to only conduct a single flight test of the block 3 software to meet the Congressional requirements and to allow the program to enter low rate initial production. However, many flight test months are actually required to determine with fidelity whether or not the software actually works. The taxpayer should have some reasonable confidence that the aircraft and its software actually works, prior to entering into billions of dollars of production contracts; in this regard, the program is no closer to being ready to enter into production than a year ago, and may in fact be worse off. Three caution-flags have been raised on this program that the Committee has chosen to ignore.
(1) The Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation testified before Congress this year and provided strong warnings that the program continues to be in trouble. He noted that the F-22 test program is proceeding much more slowly than in previous aircraft development programs, and even these lagging testing schedules continue to slip over time. Over the past three years, the F-22 has lost 49 flight test months that could have been available for testing--a reduction of 20 percent in the available flight test months from original plans.
To accommodate the loss of test time and to reduce test costs, the Air Force has reduced flight test hours by 13 percent (580 flight test hours). He testified in March:
Basically, not enough of the test program has been completed to know whether or not significant development problems remain to be corrected.
His testimony also revealed that the current test program does not include any operational testing under adverse environmental conditions, especially in rain and cold weather; the flight test aircraft cannot be flown near thunderstorms to identify potential rain-induced problems or to gather data on static discharge impact on the aircraft, a continuing B-2 problem. Effective fire-suppression is mandatory to achieve a survivable aircraft design, yet the Air Force now knows that the aircraft's vulnerable area is 30 percent higher than the specification calls for.
(2) The Committee's own Surveys and Investigations staff reported in March 2000 that the decision to enter production in December 2000 is premature. Fatigue-life testing and avionics testing are the two highest risk areas in the program. Delaying the production decision would significantly reduce the impact of those risks on the program while concurrently providing more robust testing of the block 3 software. It recommended to the Committee that the production decision not be made until the third fatigue life test is completed, currently scheduled for December 2001 (fiscal year 2002).
If the Committee had heeded these concerns, it would have eliminated all F-22 production funds from this bill and saved $2.1 billion, while also holding the Air Force's `feet to the fire' to ensure that it was building aircraft that work.
(3) The General Accounting Office recently recommended that, in order to meet industrial base concerns, the F-22 low rate production should begin at no more than 6 aircraft per year until development and initial operational test and evaluation are complete. This would allow the program to avoid significantly expanding production capacity until after operational
testing demonstrates the aircraft is suitable for its intended mission. The risks of doing otherwise are: buying systems that will require significant and costly modifications to achieve satisfactory performance; accepting less capable systems than planned; or deploying substandard systems to combat forces.
Had the Committee followed this modest recommendation, it could have eliminated 4 aircraft and saved $828 million in just this year alone.
It is highly troubling that the Committee would approve $2.1 billion for production of 10 F-22 aircraft in fiscal year 2001 given the strong and clear warnings from three separate and credible organizations that prove the program is not ready to go into production. This might be understandable if F-22 were an isolated and unique anomaly in the Air Force acquisition system, or if the threat were compelling. We know this is not the case.
The only major weapon system the Air Force has delivered below cost and on time during the last 20 years was its then-highly touted B-1 bomber program. The Air Force rushed into production for political reasons, and got a fleet of aircraft whose performance defects were so severe that the aircraft now have limited utility in combat because they cannot adequately protect themselves.
The Air Force spent $4 billion on development of the Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile, which was subsequently terminated due to poor cost, schedule, management, and performance issues.
The C-17 was estimated to cost about $42 billion for 210 aircraft, but is now estimated to cost about $45 billion for only 134 aircraft.
The B-2 development contract more than doubled from its initial target value of $9.4 billion to $21.1 billion currently.
Given the fact that the F-22 is clearly not ready to enter into production, in the context of the Air Force's very poor track record of developing its major weapon systems at the times or costs promised, it is disturbing that the Committee would put $2.1 billion at risk by allowing F-22 production to go forward at this time. The nation would be better served by investing this $2.1 billion in education, law enforcement, the environment, or other efforts to meet our international responsibilities and allowing the F-22 technology to mature before we spend really big money on it.
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
The Joint Strike Fighter, if carried to fruition as currently envisioned by the Department of Defense, will be the largest program in the Pentagon's weapons-purchasing plan for the next 20 years and perhaps in history. The cost of developing and building almost 3,000 aircraft could be over $200 billion.
In the early 1990s the Air Force testified that the cost goal for the F-22 in constant dollars of that era was $35 million each. We now know that the current estimated unit cost for the F-22 in real taxpayer dollars is $113 million, which still is based on very optimistic assumptions. This is almost double what today's F-15 aircraft cost.
The Joint Strike Fighter is in the same position as the F-22 was a decade ago, and the Department of Defense is selling the program to Congress on the assumption that unit costs will be around between $28 to $38 million in constant dollars. The F-22 experience makes it hard to believe such preliminary Joint Strike Fighter unit cost estimates. If the unit costs are off, then the program could cost much more than $200 billion!
The fiscal year 2001 budget for the Joint Strike Fighter was premised on ending the on-going $3 billion concept demonstration phase of the program later this year and initiating the next phase of development known as engineering manufacturing development on March 1, 2001 at a currently estimated cost of about $20 billion. The Committee recommends a three month delay (to June 1), but also allows engineering manufacturing development to commence once certain reporting requirements have been met.
The General Accounting Office issued a report on the Joint Strike Fighter in May 200 which states:
Once the development phase beings, a large, fixed investment in the form of human capital, facilities, and materials is sunk into the program and any significant changes will have a large, rippling effect on cost and schedule. Beginning the engineering manufacturing development phase when critical technologies are at a low level of maturity serves to significantly increase program risk and the likelihood of schedule delays, which in turn result in increased program costs . . . When the competing contractors experienced design problems and cost overruns, DOD restructured the program in a manner that will provide less information than originally planned prior to selecting between the two competing contractors. Specifically, the program restructure moves away from best commercial practices that were evident in the original strategy, where technology was being developed ahead of product. Instead, DOD's approach moves toward the traditional practice of concurrently developing technologies and products, which often raised cost-benefit issues as a result of cost increases and schedule
delays as problems are encountered in technology development . . . We make a recommendation that the Joint Strike Fighter program office adjust its currently planned engineering and manufacturing decision date of March 2001 to allow adequate time to mature critical technologies to acceptable maturity levels before awarding the engineering and manufacturing development contract.
The Committee is to be congratulated for a thoughtful recommendation in this bill to delay engineering manufacturing development of the Joint Strike Fighter by three months. However, the fiscally prudent course would be to eliminate the remaining $295 million in the bill for fiscal year 2001 Joint Strike Fighter engineering manufacturing development, and to demand that the Department of Defense demonstrate that it has a good understanding of the results of the $3 billion concept demonstration program that is about to conclude, ensure that the best acquisition strategy is in place to ensure future competition within the aircraft industrial base, and respond to the common-sense concerns of the General Accounting Office. Here again, the Committee has missed an opportunity to save $295 million and apply these funds to more urgent requirements at home and abroad.
NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE
The Committee's bill recommends $1.8 billion for national missile defense. During the past few years the Congress had a very narrow focus on only the technology issue: `Does it work and how soon can we deploy it?' The Administration, in its upcoming negotiations with Russia, is addressing national missile defense and the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in a broader arms-control context aimed potentially at further reductions to nuclear weapons.
In 1985, the Soviet Union had about 11,500 nuclear warheads--each of which was estimated to have 20 to 30 times the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Today, Russia has about 5,000 such warheads. The Congress should be encouraging further reductions in global nuclear weapons, and also examining the need for and timing of national missile defense within a global arms-control context.
It is disappointing that the Congress in general, and this Committee in particular, has given the Administration $1.8 billion for national missile defense--without question. And there are plenty of questions:
- Do we have better national security through deploying a limited national defense system or by globally reducing nuclear weapons?
- If we deploy a limited national missile defense system, are we simply causing China to build more nuclear missiles aimed at our country?
- If we deploy a national missile defense system, do we undermine our ability to keep our allies like Britain, France, or Canada behind us on other key security issues down the line?
- Do our proposed national missile defense interceptors have inherent anti-satellite capability, and in `fixing' the missile defense problem are we inadvertently creating a global arms race for anti-satellite weapons?
The Committee should be commended for paying attention to and providing leadership on tactical aviation issues. But I am wondering why we have done nothing but `rubber stamp' the budget request for national missile defense? The arms-control issues related to national missile defense must be adequately addressed eventually. It is my hope that in the future the Committee and the Congress will focus on them in a thoughtful way, and that we have a good understanding of the exact consequences of what we are doing should the nation make the decision to introduce a new class of weapons--national missile defense interceptors--into the global inventory of weapons.
SUMMARY
There are many good things in the bill that I support, such as the pay raise for the troops and improved health care benefits for both active duty and retired personnel. The 7.4 percent increase to defense spending proposed in this bill is excessive. If the Republican majority were not insisting on slashing the President's future domestic requests for strengthening education, health care, and science in order to provide huge multiyear tax promises, an additional $4 billion would be more defensible. But in this context, that is extremely difficult. Unlike last year, the bill shows little evidence of making major choices as we did last year with the F-22.
It is politically and economically irresponsible to the people whom we represent to lead them to believe that our non-defense programs can sustain huge reductions without threatening public health and safety, and the economic prosperity on which the future of American families depends. Our population will continue to grow, our economy and social structures will continue to evolve and become more complex, and our responsibilities as the world's economic superpower will be great. That will require a more balanced effort to address our domestic and international responsibilities than the Congress has provided in the Appropriations bills it has produced so far. That should be the priority for additional funding.
DAVE OBEY.
|
|
|
|
|
| 1 of 1 |
