[House Report 107-436]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2nd Session 107-436
_______________________________________________________________________
BOB STUMP
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
on
H.R. 4546
together with
ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
May 3, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
One Hundred Seventh Congress
BOB STUMP, Arizona, Chairman
DUNCAN HUNTER, California IKE SKELTON, Missouri
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah JOHN SPRATT, Jr., South Carolina
CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas
JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado LANE EVANS, Illinois
JIM SAXTON, New Jersey GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii
TERRY EVERETT, Alabama MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts
ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam
HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON, ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
California SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
J.C. WATTS, Jr., Oklahoma THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
MAC THORNBERRY, Texas VIC SNYDER, Arkansas
JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana JIM TURNER, Texas
SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia ADAM SMITH, Washington
VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee LORETTA SANCHEZ, California
JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut
WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina MIKE McINTYRE, North Carolina
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas
JIM RYUN, Kansas CYNTHIA A. McKINNEY, Georgia
BOB RILEY, Alabama ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
JIM GIBBONS, Nevada ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico BARON P. HILL, Indiana
KEN CALVERT, California MIKE THOMPSON, California
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
ANDER CREHSHAW, Florida SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia RICK LARSEN, Washington
ED SCHROCK, Virginia
W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
RANDY FORBES, Virginia
JEFF MILLER, Florida
JOE WILSON, South Carolina
Robert S. Rangel, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Explanation of the Committee Amendments.......................... 1
Purpose.......................................................... 2
Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations.................. 2
Summary of Authorization in the Bill............................. 2
Summary of Table of Authorizations............................... 3
Rationale for the Committee Bill................................. 10
Hearings......................................................... 14
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION.................. 14
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT............................................. 14
OVERVIEW....................................................... 14
Aircraft Procurement, Army................................... 17
Overview................................................... 17
Items of Special Interest.................................. 21
AH-64 modifications...................................... 21
Airborne communications.................................. 21
Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)................... 22
Aircrew integrated systems............................... 22
Avionics support equipment............................... 23
CH-47 cargo helicopter modifications..................... 23
Helicopter new training.................................. 23
UH-60 Blackhawk.......................................... 24
UH-60 modifications...................................... 24
Missile Procurement, Army.................................... 25
Overview................................................... 25
Items of Special Interest.................................. 28
Army tactical missile system (ATACMS) summary/ATACMS
block II system summary................................ 28
Hellfire system summary.................................. 29
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army.................... 29
Overview................................................... 29
Items of Special Interest.................................. 32
Bradley base sustaimnent................................. 32
Improved recovery vehicle (IRV).......................... 32
M113 carrier modifications............................... 32
M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW)........................ 33
Ammunition Procurement, Army................................. 33
Overview................................................... 33
Items of Special Interest................................ 37
Army ammunition procurement.............................. 37
Army ammunition production and load, assemble, and pack
(LAP) capacity......................................... 37
Other Procurement, Army...................................... 38
Overview................................................... 38
Items of Special Interest.................................. 47
Automated data processing equipment (ADPE)............... 47
Combat support medical................................... 47
Family of heavy tactical vehicles........................ 48
High mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs).... 48
Information system security program (ISSP)............... 49
Items less than $5.0 million (construction equipment).... 49
Joint tactical area command systems...................... 49
Lightweight maintenance enclosure (LME).................. 49
Single channel ground and airborne radio systems
(SINCGARS) family...................................... 50
Small tug................................................ 50
Stamis tactical computers (STACOMP)...................... 51
Striker family........................................... 51
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army.............. 52
Overview................................................... 52
Items of Special Interest.................................. 54
Chemical agents and munitions destruction................ 54
Aircraft Procurement, Navy................................... 54
Overview................................................... 54
Items of Special Interest.................................. 59
AV-8B series modifications............................... 59
E-2 modifications........................................ 59
EA-6B modifications...................................... 59
H-1 series modifications................................. 60
H-60 series modifications................................ 60
Joint primary air training system (JPATS)................ 61
MH-60S................................................... 61
P-3 series modifications................................. 61
T-45 training system (TS)................................ 62
UC-35.................................................... 63
Weapons Procurement, Navy.................................... 63
Overview................................................... 63
Items of Special Interest.................................. 67
AIM-9X missile........................................... 67
Hellfire II missile...................................... 67
Tomahawk missile......................................... 67
Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps.................... 68
Overview................................................... 68
Items of Special Interest.................................. 71
Marine Corps ammunition procurement...................... 71
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy............................ 71
Overview................................................... 71
Items of Special Interest.................................. 75
Carrier replacement program advance procurement.......... 75
CVN-69 refueling complex overhaul (RCOH)................. 75
Landing craft air cushion (LCAC) service life extension
program (SLEP)......................................... 75
Minehunter small waterplane area twin hull (SWATH) boats. 75
Other Procurement, Navy...................................... 76
Overview................................................... 76
Items of Special Interest.................................. 84
Advanced integrated electronic warfare system (AIEWS).... 84
Environmental support equipment.......................... 84
Gun fire control equipment............................... 84
Operating forces industrial plant equipment.............. 84
Other aviation support equipment......................... 85
Other supply support equipment........................... 85
Other training equipment................................. 85
Procurement, Marine Corps.................................... 86
Overview................................................... 86
Items of Special Interest.................................. 91
Family of construction equipment......................... 91
Night vision equipment................................... 91
Radio systems............................................ 91
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force.............................. 92
Overview................................................... 92
Items of Special Interest.................................. 98
B-2 modifications........................................ 98
C-130H................................................... 99
C-130J................................................... 99
C-130 modifications...................................... 100
F-15 modifications....................................... 100
F-16 modifications....................................... 101
Fixed aircrew standardized seats......................... 102
HH-60G pave hawk upgrades................................ 102
Miscellaneous production charges......................... 102
Predator B unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)................. 103
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force............................ 103
Overview................................................... 103
Items of Special Interest.................................. 106
Air Force Ammunition Procurement......................... 106
Missile Procurement, Air Force............................... 106
Overview................................................... 106
Items of Special Interest.................................. 109
Advanced extremely high frequency satellite.............. 109
AGM-65 modifications..................................... 109
Minuteman III modifications.............................. 109
Other Procurement, Air Force................................. 110
Overview................................................... 110
Items of Special Interest.................................. 116
Combat arms training system (CATS)....................... 116
Combat training ranges................................... 116
Eagle vision............................................. 116
General information technology........................... 116
GeoBase centralized geographic information system (GIS).. 117
Point of maintenance initiative.......................... 117
Thinpack parachutes...................................... 118
Procurement, Defense-Wide.................................... 118
Overview................................................... 118
Items of Special Interest.................................. 123
Army special operations aviation (ARSOA) avionics re-
capitalization and enhanced situational awareness...... 123
Chemical/biological defense procurement program.......... 123
Computer assisted medical diagnostics.................... 123
Portable intelligence collection and relay capability
(PICRC)................................................ 124
Special operations forces (SOF) small arms and weapons... 124
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense........... 124
Overview................................................... 124
Items of Special Interest.................................. 126
Chemical agents and munitions destruction................ 126
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 127
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 127
Sections 101-107--Authorization of Appropriations.......... 127
Subtitle B--Navy Programs.................................... 127
Section 111--Shipbuilding Initiative....................... 127
Subtitle C--Air Force Programs............................... 128
Section 121--Multiyear Procurement Authority for C-130J
Aircraft Program......................................... 128
Subtitle D--Other Programs................................... 128
Section 141--Revisions to Multiyear Contracting Authority
Relating to Structuring of Contracts..................... 128
Section 142--Transfer of Technology Items and Equipment in
Support of Homeland Security............................. 128
Section 143--Destruction of Existing Stockpile of Lethal
Chemical Agents and Munitions............................ 129
Section 144--Report on Department of Defense Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle Systems................................... 129
Section 145--Report on Impact of Army Aviation
Modernization Plan on the Army National Guard............ 129
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION............ 130
OVERVIEW....................................................... 130
Army RDT&E................................................... 132
Overview................................................... 132
Items of Special Interest.................................. 141
155mm extended-range guided projectile................... 141
Advanced Army composite bridge........................... 141
Advanced battery technology demonstration and validation
program................................................ 141
Advanced fuel cell technology............................ 141
Advanced threat infrared countermeasures/common missile
warning system......................................... 142
Aircrew coordination training............................ 142
Applied communications and information networking (ACIN)
program................................................ 142
Anti-material sniper rifle............................... 143
Asbestos pilot project................................... 143
Automated document conversion............................ 143
Bipolar wafer cell nickel-metal hydride battery.......... 143
Clothing and equipment technology........................ 143
Crusader................................................. 144
Digital glue technology.................................. 144
Dismounted situation awareness system.................... 145
Distance Learning........................................ 145
Eliminating arthropod-borne infectious disease........... 145
Energy and sustainability research....................... 145
Enhanced area air defense system short range air defense
integrated kinetic energy system....................... 146
Explosively formed penetrators........................... 146
Eye-safe laser........................................... 146
Family of systems simulator.............................. 146
Fuel catalyst research and evaluation.................... 147
Global combat support system............................. 147
Helmet mounted thermal imaging system.................... 147
Hemoglobin based oxygen carrier.......................... 147
Human factors engineering technology..................... 148
Hyperspectral long-wave imager for the tactical
environment............................................ 148
Intelligence command global information portal........... 148
Javelin.................................................. 149
Landmine warfare/barrier engineering development......... 149
Lightweight x-band radar................................. 149
M795 extended range, high explosive baseburner projectile 150
Metabolically engineered tissues for trauma.............. 150
Metallic particles in defense applications obscurant
smokes................................................. 150
Metrology................................................ 150
Micro electro-mechanical systems inertial measurement
unit/global positioning system......................... 151
Mini-backpack unmanned aerial vehicle.................... 151
Mobile tactical high energy laser........................ 151
Night vision fusion...................................... 151
Non-traditional intelligence analysis toolset............ 152
Nuclear biological, and chemical agent removal........... 152
P3 micro-power devices for missile defense applications.. 152
Rotary multi-fuel auxiliary power unit................... 152
Stable hemostat.......................................... 153
Textile electronic garments for combat casualty care..... 153
Thermionic technology.................................... 153
Unmanned aerial vehicle/unmanned ground vehicle
demonstration program.................................. 153
Volumetrically controlled manufacturing.................. 154
Weapons and munitions engineering development............ 154
Shoulder-launched multipurpose assault weapon-
disposable (confined space).......................... 154
Common remotely operated weapon system................. 154
Wire detection and obstacle avoidance system for
helicopters............................................ 155
Navy RDT&E................................................... 155
Overview................................................... 155
Items of Special Interest.................................. 166
Acoustic rapid commercial-off-the-shelf technology
insertion.............................................. 166
Adanced cable design for mine/submarine warfare.......... 166
Advanced camouflage coating demonstration................ 166
Advanced composite radome materials...................... 166
Advanced composite sail.................................. 167
Advanced deployable system burial capability............. 167
Advanced ducted electric propulsion pod.................. 167
Advanced extended echo-ranging sonobuoy development...... 168
Advanced land attack missile............................. 168
Advanced light strike vehicle............................ 169
Advanced smart propulsor product model................... 169
Advanced stealth ship radar.............................. 169
Advanced variable speed drive systems.................... 170
AEGIS baseline 7 phase II open architecture.............. 170
Affordable towed array construction...................... 170
Affordable weapon........................................ 170
Anti-submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, and ship
self-defense initiative................................ 171
Anti-submarine warfare synthetic training environment.... 172
Autonomous maritime navigation........................... 172
Aviation integrated life support system.................. 172
Aviation-shipboard information technology initiative..... 172
Biomedical research imaging.............................. 173
Chemical agent warning network demonstration............. 173
Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) carbon fiber
qualification.......................................... 173
Compatible processor upgrade............................. 173
DP-2 thrust vectoring system............................. 174
Electric propulsion/ship power system distributed test
bed.................................................... 174
Electronic interconnection research and development
program................................................ 174
Electronic warfare development........................... 175
Airborne electronic attack follow-on................... 175
Location of global positioning system interferers...... 175
Electro-optical framing sensor........................... 175
Extended range guided munitions.......................... 176
Fibrous monolithic materials insertion................... 176
Formable aligned carbon thermosets....................... 176
Hawk AN/TPS-59 radar service life extension program...... 176
High brightness electron source program.................. 177
High temperature superconducting AC synchronous Navy
propulsion motor and generator......................... 177
Human factors and improved performance integration tool.. 177
Hybrid fiber optic/wireless communications............... 178
Integrated maritime picture system of systems............ 178
Interrogator for high-speed retro reflectometer
communications......................................... 178
Joint mission high-speed vessel.......................... 178
Joint operational test bed............................... 179
Knowledge projection for fleet maintenance............... 179
Laser aim scoring system................................. 180
Laser welding and cutting................................ 180
Littoral support craft--experimental..................... 180
Low cost swarm unmanned aerial vehicle program........... 181
Marine mammal research program........................... 181
Mark-48 advanced capability torpedo improvements......... 181
Medical threat detection system.......................... 182
Mine countermeasures mine sweep mid-life assessment and
upgrade................................................ 182
Mobile fire support system............................... 182
Modeling and simulation of surgical procedures for
battlefield trauma..................................... 183
Multi-purpose sensor..................................... 183
National shipbuilding research program................... 183
Naval collaboration tool set............................. 184
Navy common command and decision system.................. 184
Navy support of research in oceanography................. 185
Navy tactical unmanned aerial vehicle.................... 185
Nonlinear dynamics stochastic resonance.................. 186
Ocean modeling for mine and expeditionary warfare........ 186
Organ transfer technology................................ 186
Photovoltaic energy park................................. 187
Portable digital precision location system............... 187
Portable sterile water production device................. 187
Rapid deployment fortification wall...................... 188
Rapid retargeting........................................ 188
Real-time heart rate variability monitor................. 188
Real-time precision tracking radar....................... 189
SEALS Mark 5 patrol craft modification................... 189
Shipboard integrated data environment.................... 189
Ship self defense electronic warfare systems............. 190
Ship service fuel cell................................... 190
Small combatant craft.................................... 190
Sniper rifle improvements................................ 190
Stationary lighter than air platform..................... 191
Submarine payloads and sensors program................... 191
Submarine tactical warfare system........................ 191
Superconducting DC homopolar motor....................... 191
Supply chain best practices.............................. 192
Surface navy integrated undersea tactical technology..... 192
Target location designated handoff system................ 192
Vacuum electronics....................................... 193
Water purifications-expeditionary warfare................ 193
Wide bandgap semiconductor materials..................... 193
Air Force RDT&E.............................................. 194
Overview................................................... 194
Items of Special Interest.................................. 204
Advanced aluminum aerostructures......................... 204
Advanced concept ejection seat II improvement............ 204
Advanced thermal protection systems...................... 204
Aging landing gear life extension program................ 204
Air combat training ranges............................... 205
Air Force manufacturing technology program............... 205
Air Force/national systems cooperation................... 206
Ceramic matrix composites................................ 206
Compass Call upgrades.................................... 206
Electronic countermeasures upgrades for the generic radar
target generator....................................... 206
Electronic warfare development........................... 207
Precision location and identification.................. 207
Comet infra-red countermeasures system................. 207
Global Hawk high altitude endurance unmanned aerial
vehicle................................................ 207
Air Force................................................ 207
Navy..................................................... 208
GPS-II program adjustment................................ 209
Guidance, propulsion, and re-entry vehicle demonstration/
validation............................................. 209
High-accuracy network determination system............... 209
Identification of time critical programs................. 210
Information operation technology and fusion initiative... 210
Information security and intrusion detection development. 210
Integrated high payoff rocket propulsion technology...... 211
Joint air to surface standoff missile.................... 211
Joint integrated satellite communications technology..... 211
Joint services work station.............................. 211
Laser induced surface improvement technology............. 212
Lithium ion battery development.......................... 212
Low emission/efficient hybrid aviation refueling truck
propulsion............................................. 212
Metals affordability initiative.......................... 212
Missile technology demonstration......................... 213
Network centric collaborative targeting.................. 213
Pulse detonation engine.................................. 213
Rapid attack support system.............................. 213
Scorpius................................................. 213
Space Technology......................................... 214
Streaker small launch vehicle............................ 214
Super wideband compressive receiver...................... 214
Synthetic theatre operations research model.............. 214
Texas regional institute for environmental studies....... 215
Thermal management for space structures.................. 215
Thrust vector control and infrared signature reduction... 215
Upper atmospheric and astronomical training.............. 215
Vacuum pump.............................................. 216
Wind-corrected munitions dispenser development........... 216
Defense Wide RDT&E........................................... 216
Overview................................................... 216
Items of Special Interest.................................. 225
Advanced sensor applications program..................... 225
Aircraft affordability initiative........................ 225
Backscatter mobile truck system.......................... 225
Ballistic Missile Defense................................ 225
Silicon carbide based widebandgap technology........... 226
Ballistic Missile Defense System....................... 226
Terminal Defense Segment............................... 227
Midcourse Defense Segment.............................. 227
Boost Defense Segment.................................. 228
Sensors Segment........................................ 229
THAAD and PAC-3........................................ 229
Cooperative Programs................................... 229
Exploration of Alternative Approaches.................. 230
Ballistic missile defense baseline reports............. 230
Cobra blue force tracking equipment...................... 231
Chemical/biological defense research, development, test
and evaluation program................................. 231
Engineered pathogen identification and countermeasures
program.............................................. 231
Rapid antibody-based biological countermeasures........ 232
Multi-wavelength surface scanning biological sensor.... 232
Chemical-biological regenerative air filters........... 232
Chemical-biological mass spectrometer II............... 232
Asymmetric protocols for biological defense enhancement 233
Mustard gas prophylactic............................... 233
Biological defense homeland security test bed.......... 233
C3I intelligence programs................................ 234
Combat Sent data distribution upgrade.................... 234
Combating terrorism technology support................... 235
Lightweight biological detectors....................... 235
Chemical-biological electrostatic decontamination
system............................................... 235
Facial recognition technology.......................... 235
Magnetic quadrupole resonance explosives detection..... 235
Commercial imagery to support military requirements...... 236
Complex systems engineering.............................. 236
Computer science and internet security degree program.... 236
Defense agency science and technology funding............ 237
Defense counterintelligence programs..................... 238
Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive
research............................................... 238
Defense imagery and mapping program...................... 238
Defense manufacturing supply chain management............ 238
Defense travel system.................................... 239
Enhance techniques for the detection of explosives....... 239
Environmental security technical certification program... 239
Integrated optoelectronics technology.................... 239
Interdisciplinary bilogical nanoscience research......... 239
Joint technology office.................................. 240
Kinetic energy-anti satellite system..................... 240
Medical free electron laser............................ 240
Multi-function self-aligned gate....................... 241
Multi-link antenna system.............................. 241
National collaborative environment..................... 241
``Smart'' fuzing....................................... 241
Spike urban warfare system............................. 242
Strategic environmental research and development
program.............................................. 242
Tactical missile recycling............................. 242
Thermobaric warhead development........................ 242
Unmanned aerial vehicles major acquisition programs.... 243
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense..................... 243
Overview................................................... 243
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 245
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 245
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations............... 245
Section 202--Amount for basic and applied research......... 245
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 245
Section 211--RAH-66 Comanche Aircraft Program.............. 245
Section 212--Management Responsibility for Navy Mine
Countermeasures Programs................................. 245
Section 213--Extension of Authority to Carry Out Pilot
Program for Revitalizing the Laboratories and Test and
Evaluation Centers of the Department of Defense.......... 246
Section 214--Revised Requirements for Plan for
Manufacturing Technology Program......................... 246
Section 215--Technology Transition Initiative.............. 246
Section 216--Defense Acquisition Challenge Program......... 247
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense........................ 248
Section 231--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for
Procurement of (PAC-3) Missiles Pending Submission of
Required Certification................................... 248
Section 232--Responsibility of Missile Defense Agency for
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Related to
System Improvements of Programs Transferred to Military
Departments.............................................. 248
Section 233--Amendments to Reflect Change in Name of
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization to Missile Defense
Agency................................................... 248
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE............................. 248
OVERVIEW....................................................... 248
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 280
Budget Request Adjustments................................... 280
Excess Foreign Currencies Reductions....................... 281
Joint Chiefs of Staff Training Exercises................... 281
Budget Request Display Issues................................ 281
Accrual Accounting for Civil Service Retirement and Health
Programs................................................. 281
Defense Emergency Response Fund............................ 282
Information Technology (IT) Issues........................... 282
Overview................................................... 282
Requirements............................................. 283
Budget Reviews........................................... 283
Performance-based contracting............................ 284
Program management....................................... 284
Defense Messaging System (DMS)........................... 284
Defense Integrated Military Human Resources Systems...... 285
Global Command Support System-Army....................... 285
Supply Maintenance Aviation Reengineering Team........... 286
Warfighters Simulation System............................ 286
Wireless Priority Service................................ 286
Environmental Issues......................................... 286
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues....................... 289
Appropriated Fund Support for Morale, Welfare, and
Recreation Programs...................................... 289
Defense Commissary Agency Funding and Staffing............. 289
Force Protection for Morale, Welfare, and Recreation
Activities............................................... 290
Support of Privatized Housing Areas........................ 290
Other Issues................................................. 290
Automatic Identification Technology/Radio Frequency
Identification........................................... 290
Cold Weather Clothing...................................... 291
Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities......... 291
Industrial Mobilization Capacity/Unutilized Plant Capacity. 292
Fuel Savings Technology.................................... 292
Energy Savings Performance Contracts....................... 293
Long Tenn Depot Strategy................................... 293
National Defense Sealift Fund Issues....................... 294
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 294
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 294
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding............. 294
Section 302--Working Capital Funds......................... 294
Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home.................. 294
Subtitle B--Environmental Issues............................. 294
Section 311--Incidental Taking of Migratory Birds During
Military Readiness Activity.............................. 294
Section 312--Military Readiness and the Conservation of
Protected Species........................................ 295
Section 313--Single Point of Contact for Policy and
Budgeting Issues Regarding Unexploded Ordnance, Discarded
Military Munitions, and Munitions Constituents........... 295
Subtitle C--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities.......................................... 295
Section 321--Authority for Each Military Department to
Provide Base Operating Support to Fisher Houses.......... 295
Section 322--Use of Commissary Stores and MWR Retail
Facilities by Members of National Guard Serving in
National Emergency....................................... 295
Section 323--Uniform Funding and Management of Morale,
Welfare, and Recreation Programs......................... 296
Subtitle D--Workplace and Depot Issues....................... 296
Section 331--Notification Requirements in Connection with
Required Studies for Conversion of Commercial or
Industrial Type Functions to Contractor Performance...... 296
Section 332--Waiver Authority Regarding Prohibition on
Contracts for Performance of Security-Guard Functions.... 296
Section 333--Exclusion of Certain Expenditures from
Percentage Limitation on Contracting for Performance of
Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair Workloads............. 296
Section 334--Repeal of Obsolete Provision Regarding Depot-
Level Maintenance and Repair Workloads That Were
Performed at Closed or Realigned Military Installations.. 297
Section 335--Clarification of Required Core Logistics
Capabilities............................................. 297
Subtitle E--Defense Dependents Education..................... 297
Section 341--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that
Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense Civilian Employees................. 297
Section 342--Availability of Quarters Allowance for
Unaccompanied Defense Department Teacher Required to
Reside on Overseas Military Installation................. 297
Section 343--Provision of Summer School Programs for
Students Who Attend Defense Dependents' Education System. 297
Subtitle F--Information Technology........................... 298
Section 351--Navy-Marine Corps Intranet Contract........... 298
Section 352--Annual Submission of Information on National
Security and Information Technology Capital Assets....... 298
Section 353--Implementation of Policy Regarding Certain
Commercial Off-the-Shelf Information Technology Products. 299
Section 354--Installation and Connection Policy and
Procedures Regarding Defense Switch Network.............. 299
Subtitle G--Other Matters.................................... 299
Section 361--Distribution of Monthly Reports on Allocation
of Funds Within Operation and Maintenance Budget
Subactivities............................................ 299
Section 362--Minimum Deduction From Pay of Certain Members
of the Armed Forces to Support Armed Forces Retirement
Home..................................................... 299
Section 363--Condition on Conversion of Defense Security
Service to a Working Capital Funded Entity............... 300
Section 364--Continuation of Arsenal Support Program
Initiative............................................... 300
Section 365--Training Range Sustainment Plan, Global Status
of Resources and Training System, and Training Range
Inventory................................................ 300
Section 366--Amendments to Certain Education and Nutrition
Laws Relating to Acquisition and Improvement of Military
Housing.................................................. 300
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS...................... 301
OVERVIEW....................................................... 301
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 302
Subtitle A--Active Forces.................................... 302
Section 401--End Strengths for Active Forces............... 302
Section 402--Revision in Permanent End Strength Minimum
Levels................................................... 302
Section 403--Authority for Military Department Secretaries
to Increase Active-Duty End Strengths By Up to One
Percent.................................................. 303
Section 404--General and Flag Officer Management........... 303
Section 405--Extension of Certain Authorities Relating to
Management of Numbers of General and Flag Officers in
Certain Grades........................................... 303
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces................................... 304
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve............ 304
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in
Support of the Reserves.................................. 304
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual
Status).................................................. 304
Section 414--Fiscal Year 2003 Limitation on Non-Dual Status
Technicians.............................................. 305
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations.................. 305
Section 421--Authorization of appropriations for Military
Personnel................................................ 305
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY............................... 306
OVERVIEW....................................................... 306
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 306
Absentee Voting for Military Members....................... 306
Compensation and Benefits for Reserve Component Members.... 307
Consideration of Innovative Readiness Training Initiatives. 307
Review and Report on Increased Participation of U.S. Navy
Officers in Intermediary and Senior War Colleges......... 308
Uniting Through Reading.................................... 308
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 308
Subtitle A--General Personnel Management Authorities......... 308
Section 501--Increase in Number of Deputy Commandants of
the Marine Corps......................................... 308
Section 502--Extension of Good-of-the-Service Waiver
Authority for Officers Appointed to a Reserve Chief or
Guard Director Position.................................. 308
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management..................... 309
Section 511--Reviews of National Guard Strength Accounting
and Management and Other Issues.......................... 309
Section 512--Courts-Martial for the National Guard When not
in Federal Service....................................... 309
Section 513--Matching Funds Requirements Under National
Guard Youth Challenge Program............................ 310
Subtitle C--Reserve Component Officer Personnel Policy....... 310
Section 521--Exemption from Active Status Strength
Limitation for Reserve Component General and Flag
Officers Serving on Active Duty in Certain Joint Duty
Assignments Designated by the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff.......................................... 310
Section 522--Eligibility for Consideration for Promotion to
Grade of Major General for Certain Reserve Component
Brigadier Generals Who do not Otherwise Qualify for
Consideration for Promotion Under the One-Year Rule...... 310
Section 523--Retention of Promotion Eligibility for Reserve
Component General and Flag Officers Transferred to an
Inactive Status.......................................... 311
Section 524--Authority for Limited Extension of Medical
Deferment of Mandatory Retirement or Separation for
Reserve Officers......................................... 311
Subtitle D--Education and Training........................... 311
Section 531--Authority for Phased Increase to 4,400 in
Authorized Strengths for the Service Academies........... 311
Section 532--Enhancement of Reserve Component Delayed
Training Program......................................... 312
Subtitle E--Decorations and Awards........................... 312
Section 541--Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of
Certain Decorations to Certain Persons................... 312
Section 542--Option to Convert Award of Armed Forces
Expeditionary Medal Awarded for Operation Frequent Wind
to Vietnam Service Medal................................. 312
Subtitle F--Administrative Matters........................... 312
Section 551--Staffing and Funding of the Defense Prisoner
of War/Missing Personnel Office.......................... 312
Section 552--Three-Year Freeze on Reductions of Personnel
of Agencies Responsible for Review and Correction of
Military Records......................................... 312
Section 553--Department of Defense Support for Persons
Participating in Military Funeral Honors Details......... 313
Section 554--Authority for Use of Volunteers as Proctors
for Administration of Armed Services Vocational Aptitude
Battery Test............................................. 313
Section 555--Annual Report on Status of Female Members of
the Armed Forces......................................... 313
Subtitle G--Benefits......................................... 313
Section 561--Voluntary Leave Sharing Program for Members of
the Armed Forces......................................... 313
Section 562--Enhanced Flexibility in Medical Loan Repayment
Program.................................................. 313
Section 563--Expansion of Overseas Tour Extension Benefits. 314
Section 564--Vehicle Storage in Lieu of Transportation When
Member is Ordered to a Nonforeign Duty Station Outside
Continental United States................................ 314
Subtitle H--Military Justice Matters......................... 314
Section 571--Right of Convicted Accused to Request
Sentencing by Military Judge............................. 314
Section 572--Report on Desirability and Feasibility of
Consolidating Separate Courses of Basic Instruction for
Judge Advocates.......................................... 315
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS.............. 315
OVERVIEW....................................................... 315
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 316
Integrating Basic Allowance for Subsistence into Basic Pay. 316
Montgomery G.I. Bill for Members of the Selected Reserve... 316
Reducing the Gap Between Military and Private Sector Pay
Increases................................................ 317
Use of the Critical Skills Retention Bonus for Linguists... 317
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 318
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances............................... 318
Section 601--Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2003.... 318
Section 602--Expansion of Basic Allowance for Housing Low-
Cost or No-Cost Moves Authority to Members Assigned to
Duty Outside United States............................... 318
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays........... 318
Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and
Special Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces............... 318
Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and
Special Pay Authorities for Certain Health Care
Professionals............................................ 318
Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus
Authorities for Nuclear Officers......................... 319
Section 614--One-Year Extension of Other Bonus and Special
Pay Authorities.......................................... 319
Section 615--Minimum Levels of Hardship Duty Pay for Duty
on the Ground in Antarctica or on Arctic Icepack......... 319
Section 616--Increase in Maximum Rates for Prior Service
Enlistment Bonus......................................... 319
Section 617--Retention Incentives for Health Care Providers
Qualified in a Critical Military Skill................... 319
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances............. 320
Section 631--Extension of Leave Travel Deferral Period for
Members Performing Consecutive Overseas Tours of Duty.... 320
Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivors Benefits............... 320
Section 641--Phase-in of Full Concurrent Receipt of
Military Retired Pay and Veterans Disability Compensation
for Military Retirees with Disabilities Rated at 60
Percent or Higher........................................ 320
Section 642--Change in Service Requirements for Eligibility
for Retired Pay for Non-Regular Service.................. 321
Section 643--Elimination of Possible Inversion in Retired
Pay Cost-of-Living Adjustment for Initial COLA
Computation.............................................. 321
Section 644--Technical Revisions to So-Called ``Forgotten
Widows'' Annuity Program................................. 321
Subtitle E--Reserve Component Montgomery GI Bill............. 321
Section 651--Extension of Montgomery G.I. Bill-Selected
Reserve Eligibility Period............................... 321
Subtitle F--Other Matters.................................... 321
Section 661--Addition of Definition of Continental United
States in Title 37....................................... 321
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE MATTERS................................... 321
OVERVIEW....................................................... 321
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 323
Claims Processing for Under-65 Medicare-Eligible
Beneficiaries.............................................. 323
Defense Enrollment and Eligibility Enrollment Reporting
System Improvements........................................ 323
Force Health Protection...................................... 324
Military Health Care System Information Management........... 324
TRICARE Access Standards for Appointments.................... 325
Waiver of TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Deductible for
Beneficiaries in Nursing Homes............................. 325
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 325
Subtitle A--Health Care Program Improvements................. 325
Section 701--Elimination of Requirement for TRICARE
Preauthorization of Inpatient Mental Health Care for
Medicare-Eligible Beneficiaries.......................... 325
Section 702--Expansion of TRICARE Prime Remote for Certain
Dependents............................................... 326
Section 703--Enabling Dependents of Certain Members Who
Died While on Active Duty to Enroll in the TRICARE Dental
Program.................................................. 326
Section 704--Improvements Regarding the Department of
Defense Medicare--Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund...... 326
Section 705--Certification of Institutional Non-
Institutional Providers Under the TRICARE Program........ 327
Section 706--Technical Correction Regarding Transitional
Health Care.............................................. 327
Subtitle B--Reports.......................................... 327
Section 711--Comptroller General Report on TRICARE Claims
Processing............................................... 327
Section 712--Comptroller General Report on Provision of
Care Under the TRICARE Program........................... 328
Section 713--Repeal of Report Requirement.................. 328
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND
RELATED MATTERS................................................ 329
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 329
Acqusition program and management.......................... 329
Defense Logistics Agency's Best Value Contracting.......... 330
Report on Small Business Concerns Owned and Controlled by
Women.................................................... 330
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 330
Section 801--Plan for Acquisition Management Professional
Exchange Pilot Program................................... 330
Section 802--Evaluation of Training, Knowledge, and
Resources Regarding Negotiation of Intellectual Property
Arrangements............................................. 331
Section 803--Limitation Period for Task and Delivery Order
Contracts................................................ 331
Section 804--One-Year Extension of Program Applying
Simplified Procedure to Certain Commercial items; Report. 331
Section 805--Authority to Make Inflation Adjustment to
Simplified Acquisition Threshold......................... 332
Section 806--Improvement of Personnel Management Policies
and Procedures Applicable to the Civilian Acquisition
Workforce................................................ 332
Section 807--Modification of Scope of Ball and Roller
Bearings Covered for Purposes of Procurement Limitation.. 332
Section 808--Rapid Acquisition and Deployment Procedures... 332
Section 809--Quick-Reaction Special Projects Acquisition
Team..................................................... 332
Section 810--Report on Development of Anti-Cyberterrorism
Technology............................................... 333
Section 811--Contracting with Federal Prison Industries.... 333
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT...... 333
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST....................................... 333
Regional Centers for Security Studies...................... 333
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 333
Section 901--Change in Title the Secretary of the Navy to
the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps............... 333
Section 902--Report on Implementation of United States
Northern Command......................................... 333
Section 903--National Defense Mission of Coast Guard to be
Included in Future Quadrennial Defense Reviews........... 334
Section 904--Change in Year for Submission of Quadrennial
Defense Review........................................... 334
Section 905--Report on Effect of Noncombat Operations on
Combat Readiness of the Armed Forces..................... 334
Section 906--Conforming Amendment to Reflect
Disestablishment of Department of Defense Consequence
Management Program Integration Office.................... 335
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS...................................... 335
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 335
Chartering of Special Purpose Vessels........................ 335
Counter-Drug Activities...................................... 335
Overview................................................... 335
Items of Special Interest.................................. 336
DEA Support.............................................. 336
Mexico Information Analysis Center....................... 337
National Guard C-26 Aircraft............................. 337
Riverine Training Deployments............................ 337
Southwest border fence................................... 337
Tethered Aerosat Radar System............................ 337
Transit Zone Maritime Patrol Aircraft.................... 337
Principles of Federal Appropriation.......................... 337
Security Requirements for Contractor Employees............... 338
Strategic Force Structure Plan............................... 338
U.S. Strategic Deterrent..................................... 339
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 339
Subtitle A--Financial Matters................................ 339
Section 1001--Transfer Authority........................... 339
Section 1002--Authorization of Supplemental Appropriations
for Fiscal Year 2002..................................... 339
Section 1003--Uniform Standards Throughout Department of
Defense for Exposure of Personnel to Pecuniary Liability
for Loss of Government Property.......................... 339
Section 1004--Accountable Officials In the Department of
Defense.................................................. 340
Section 1005--Improvements in Purchase Card Management..... 340
Section 1006--Authority to Transfer Funds Within a Major
Acquisition Program from Procurement to RDT&E............ 340
Section 1007--Development and Procurement of Financial and
Non-financial Management Systems......................... 340
Subtitle B--Reports.......................................... 341
Section 1011--After-Action Reports on the Conduct of
Military Operations Conducted as Part of Operation
Enduring Freedom......................................... 341
Section 1012--Report on Biological Weapons Defense and
Counter-Proliferation.................................... 342
Section 1013--Requirement That Department of Defense
Reports to Congress Be Accompanied by Electronic Version. 342
Section 1014--Strategic Force Structure Plan for Nuclear
Weapons and Delivery Systems............................. 342
Section 1015--Report on Establishment of a Joint National
Training Complex and Joint Opposing Forces............... 343
Section 1016--Repeal of Various Reports Required of the
Department of Defense.................................... 343
Section 1017--Report on the Role of the Department of
Defense in Supporting Homeland Security.................. 343
Section 1018--Report by the National Academy of Sciences on
Effects of Nuclear Earth Penetrators and Other Weapons... 343
Section 1019--Report by the National Academy of Sciences on
Effects of Nuclear Interceptors.......................... 344
Subtitle C--Other Matters.................................... 344
Section 1021--Sense of Congress on Maintenance of a
Reliable, Flexible, and Robust Strategic Deterrent....... 344
Section 1022--Time for Transmittal of Annual Defense
Authorization Legislative Proposal....................... 344
Section 1023--Technical and Clerical Amendments............ 344
Section 1024--War Risk Insurance for Vessels in Support of
NATO-Approved Operations................................. 344
Section 1025--Conveyance, Navy drydock, Portland, Oregon... 345
Section 1026--Additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil
Support Teams............................................ 345
TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL............... 345
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 345
Section 1101--Eligibility of Department of Defense
Nonappropriated Fund Employees For Long-Tenn Care
Insurance................................................ 345
Section 1102--Extension of Department of Defense Authority
to Make Lump-Sum Severance Payments...................... 345
Section 1103--Common Occupational and Health Standards for
Differential Payments as a Consequence of Exposure To
Asbestos................................................. 345
Section 1104--Continuation of Federal Employee Health
Benefits Program Eligibility............................. 345
Section 1105--Triennial Full-Scale Federal Wage System Wage
Surveys.................................................. 346
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS..................... 346
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 346
Section 1201--Support of United Nations-Sponsored Efforts
to Inspect and Monitor Iraqi Weapons Activities.......... 346
Section 1202--Strengthening the Defense of Taiwan.......... 346
Section 1203--Administrative Services and Support for
Foreign Liaison Officers................................. 347
Section 1204--Additional Countries Covered by Loan
Guarantee Program........................................ 347
Section 1205--Limitation on Funding for Joint Data Exchange
Center................................................... 348
Section 1206--Limitation on Number of Military Personnel in
Colombia................................................. 348
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE
FORMER SOVIET UNION............................................ 349
OVERVIEW....................................................... 349
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 351
Arms Elimination Projects in Russia........................ 351
Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention................ 351
Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia..................... 351
Defense and Military Contacts.............................. 352
Fissile Material Storage Facility.......................... 352
Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia................. 353
Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security.................... 353
Other Assessments and Administrative Support............... 353
Weapons of Mass Destruction Infrastructure Elimination of
Kazakhstan............................................... 353
Weapons of Mass Destruction Infrastructure Elimination of
Ukraine.................................................. 354
Russian Proliferation to Iran.............................. 354
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 355
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction
Programs and Funds....................................... 355
Section 1302--Funding Allocations.......................... 355
Section 1303--Prohibition Against Use of Funds Until
Submission of Reports.................................... 355
Section 1304--Report on Use of Revenue Generated by
Activities Carried Out Under Cooperative Threat Reduction
Programs................................................. 355
Section 1305--Prohibition Against Use of Funds for Second
Wing of Fissile Material Storage Facility................ 356
Section 1306--Sense of Congress and Report Requirement
Regarding Russian Proliferation to Iran.................. 356
Section 1307--Prohibition Against Use of Cooperative Threat
Reduction Funds Outside the States of the Former Soviet
Union.................................................... 356
Section 1308--Limited Waiver of Restriction on Use of Funds 356
Section 1309--Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission
of Report on Defense and Military Contacts Activities.... 356
TITLE XIV--UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE.......................... 357
OVERVIEW....................................................... 357
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 357
Section 1401--Definition of Utah Test and Training Range... 357
Section 1402--Military Operations and Overflights at Utah
Test and Training Range.................................. 358
Section 1403--Designation and Management of Lands in Utah
Test and Training Range.................................. 358
Section 1404--Designation of Pilot Range Wilderness........ 358
Section 1405--Designation of Cedar Mountain Wilderness..... 358
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS................. 358
PURPOSE........................................................ 358
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW................................. 358
TITLE XXI--ARMY.................................................. 375
SUMMARY........................................................ 375
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 375
Planning and Design........................................ 375
Unspecified Minor Construction............................. 375
Water Tanks, Fort Bliss, Texas............................. 375
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 375
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 375
Section 2102--Family Housing............................... 375
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 375
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army........ 376
Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2002 Projects........................ 376
TITLE XXII--NAVY................................................. 376
SUMMARY........................................................ 376
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 376
Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System Land Based Test Site 376
North Chicago Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center
And Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, Illinois................ 376
Planning and Design........................................ 377
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 377
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 377
Section 2202--Family Housing............................... 377
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 377
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy........ 377
Section 2205--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2002 Project......................... 378
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE........................................... 378
SUMMARY........................................................ 378
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 378
C-17 Assault Strips........................................ 378
Planning and Design........................................ 378
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 378
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land
Acquisition.............................................. 378
Section 2302--Family Housing............................... 379
Section 2303--Improvements of Military Family Housing Units 379
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force... 379
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES..................................... 379
SUMMARY........................................................ 379
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 379
Planning and Design........................................ 379
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 379
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 379
Section 2402--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 379
Section 2403--Energy Conservation Projects................. 379
Section 2404--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense
Agencies................................................. 380
Section 2405--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 2000 Project......................... 380
Section 2406--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 1999 Project......................... 380
Section 2407--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Certain Fiscal Year 1997 Project......................... 380
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE..... 380
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 380
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects..................................... 380
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO........ 381
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES.................. 381
SUMMARY........................................................ 381
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 381
Dual Use Reserve Facilities................................ 381
Joint Army Reserve and National Guard Reserve Center....... 381
Planning and Design, Air National Guard.................... 381
Planning and Design, Army National Guard................... 381
Unspecified Minor Construction............................. 382
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 382
Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and
Land Acquisition Projects................................ 382
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS.......... 382
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 382
Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts
Required to Be Specified by Law.......................... 382
Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain
Fiscal Year 2000 Projects................................ 382
Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal
Year 1999 Projects....................................... 383
Section 2704--Effective Date............................... 383
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS................................. 383
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 383
Impact of Privatized Housing on Local School Systems....... 383
Integrated Water Management System on Guam................. 383
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 384
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family
Housing Changes............................................ 384
Section 2801--Changes to Alternative Authority for
Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing.......... 384
Section 2802--Modification of Authority to Carry Out
Construction Projects as Part of Environmental Response
Action................................................... 384
Section 2803--Leasing of Military Family Housing in Korea.. 384
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration...... 384
Section 2811--Agreements with Private Entities to Limit
Encroach ments and Other Constraints on Military
Training, Testing, and Operations........................ 384
Section 2812--Conveyance of Surplus Real Property for
Natural Resource Conservation Purposes................... 385
Section 2813--National Emergency Exemption from Screening
and Other Requirements of McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act for Property Used in Support of Response
Activities............................................... 385
Section 2814--Demonstration Program on Reduction in Long-
Term Facility Maintenance Costs.......................... 385
Section 2815--Expanded Authority to Transfer Property at
Military Installations to Be Closed to Persons Who
Construct or Provide Military Family Housing............. 385
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances................................. 386
Part I--Army Conveyances..................................... 386
Section 2821--Land Conveyances, Lands in Alaska No Longer
Required for National Guard Purposes..................... 386
Section 2822--Land Conveyance, Fort Campbell, Kentucky..... 386
Section 2823--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Training
Center, Buffalo, Minnesota............................... 386
Section 2824--Land Conveyance, Fort Bliss, Texas........... 386
Section 2825--Land Conveyance, Fort Hood, Texas............ 386
Part II--Navy Conveyances.................................... 387
Section 2831--Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station,
Miramar, San Diego, California........................... 387
Section 2832--Boundary Adjustments, Marine Corps Base,
Quantico, and Prince William Forest Park, Virginia....... 387
Part III--Air Force Conveyances.............................. 387
Section 2841--Land Conveyance, Wendover Air Force Base
Auxiliary Field, Nevada.................................. 387
Subtitle D--Other Matters.................................... 387
Section 2861--Easement for Construction of Roads or
Highways, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California.. 387
Section 2862--Sale of Excess Treated Water and Wastewater
Treatment Capacity, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune,
North Carolina........................................... 388
Section 2863--Ratification of Agreement Regarding Adak
Naval Complex, Alaska, and Related Land Conveyances...... 388
Section 2864--Special Requirements for Adding Military
Installations to Closure List............................ 388
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS
AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS....................................... 388
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS...... 388
OVERVIEW....................................................... 388
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST....................................... 406
Full Funding for Retiree Costs in the Fiscal Year 2003
Budget Request........................................... 406
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION....................... 406
OVERVIEW....................................................... 406
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 407
Adjustments to the Budget Request.......................... 407
Reductions............................................... 407
Increases................................................ 407
Federal Workforce Restructuring............................ 408
Foster Panel Assessment of NNSA Reform Efforts............. 409
Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign............... 409
Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator............................ 411
Stockpile Certification.................................... 411
Test Readiness............................................. 411
Tritium Readiness Campaign................................. 412
ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES..................... 412
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 412
Adjustments to the Budget Request.......................... 412
Environmental Management Cleanup Reform Program............ 413
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 414
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations........ 414
Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration..... 414
Section 3102--Environmental and Other Defense Activities... 414
Subtitle B--Department of Energy National Security
Authorizations General Provisions.......................... 414
Section 3120--Short Title; Definitions..................... 414
Section 3121--Reprogramming................................ 414
Section 3122--Minor Construction Projects.................. 415
Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects.............. 415
Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority...................... 415
Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction
Design................................................... 415
Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design, and
Construction Activities.................................. 415
Section 3127--Funds Available for All National Security
Programs of the Department of Energy..................... 415
Section 3128--Availability of Funds........................ 415
Section 3129--Transfer of Defense Environmental Management
Funds.................................................... 416
Section 3130--Transfer of Weapons Activities Funds......... 416
Section 3131--Scope of Authority to Carry Out Plant
Projects................................................. 416
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and
Limitations................................................ 416
Section 3141--One-Year Extension of Panel to Assess the
Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States
Nuclear Stockpile........................................ 416
Section 3142--Transfer to National Nuclear Security
Administration of the Department of Defense's Cooperative
Threat Reduction Program Relating to Elimination of
Weapons Grade Plutonium in Russia........................ 416
Section 3143--Repeal of Requirement for Reports on
Obligations of Funds for Programs on Fissile Materials in
Russia................................................... 417
Section 3144--Annual Certification to the President and
Congress on the Condition of the United States Nuclear
Weapons Stockpile........................................ 417
Section 3145--Plan for Achieving One-Year Readiness for
Resumption by the United States of Underground Nuclear
Weapons Tests............................................ 417
Subtitle D--Provisions Relating to Defense Environmental
Management................................................. 417
Section 3151--Defense Environmental Management Cleanup
Reform Program........................................... 417
Section 3152--Report on Status of Environmental Management
Initiatives to Accelerate the Reduction of Environmental
Risks and Challenges Posed by the Legacy of the Cold War. 418
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD............. 418
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST....................................... 418
Full Funding for Retiree Costs in the Fiscal Year 2003
Budget Request........................................... 418
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 419
Section 3201--Authorization................................ 419
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE......................... 419
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 419
Section 3301--Authorized Uses Of Stockpile Funds........... 419
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES............................ 419
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 419
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations.............. 419
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION.............................. 419
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST...................................... 419
Full Funding for Retiree Costs in the Fiscal Year 2003
Budget................................................... 419
Blanket Approval of Vessel Time Charters................... 420
Financial Assistance to States to Prepare Vessels for Use
as Artificial Fish Reefs................................. 420
Loan Guarantee Program..................................... 421
Marketing Efforts to Reduce Potential Losses............... 421
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS......................................... 422
Section 3501--Authoirization of Appropriations for Fiscal
Year 2003................................................ 422
Section 3502--Authorization of Transfer the USS Sphinx..... 422
Section 3503--Financial Assistance to States for
Preparation of Obsolete Vessels for Use as Artificial
Reefs.................................................... 422
Section 3504--Independent Analysis of Title XI Insurance
Guarantee Applications................................... 422
Departmental Data................................................ 422
Department of Defense Authorization Request.................... 422
Military Construction Authorization Request.................... 423
Committee Position............................................... 424
Communications From Other Committees............................. 424
Fiscal Data...................................................... 430
Congressional Budget Office Estimate........................... 430
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate...................... 430
Committee Cost Estimate........................................ 448
Oversight Findings............................................... 448
General Performance Goals and Objectives......................... 449
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 450
Statement of Federal Mandates.................................... 450
Roll Call Votes.................................................. 451
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 460
Additional views of Ike Skelton, John Spratt, Lane Evans, Neil
Abercrombie, Marty Meehan, Thomas H. Allen, Loretta Sanchez,
Ellen O. Tauscher, Robert A. Brady, Robert E. Andrews, Baron P.
Hill, James R. Langevin, Rick Larsen, Adam Smith, Robert A.
Underwood...................................................... 580
Additional views of Ike Skelton, Robert E. Andrews, Lane Evans,
Ellen O. Tauscher, Marty Meehan, Vic Snyder, John Spratt, Susan
A. Davis, Rick Larsen, Silvestre Reyes, James H. Maloney, John
B. Larson, Loretta Sanchez, Baron P. Hill, Thomas H. Allen,
Robert A. Brady, Cynthia A. McKinney, Adam Smith, James R.
Langevin, Ciro D. Rodriguez.................................... 582
Additional views of W. Todd Akin................................. 585
Dissenting views of Cynthia A. McKinney.......................... 586
107th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 107-436
======================================================================
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
_______
May 3, 2002.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Stump, from the Committee on Armed Services, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4546]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 4546) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2003 for military activities of the Department of Defense, and
for military construction, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, report favorably thereon with amendments
and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause off the
bill and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the
reported bill.
The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to
the text of the bill.
EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a
substitute during the consideration of H.R. 4546. The title of
the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the
bill. The remainder of the report discusses the bill, as
amended.
PURPOSE
The bill would--(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2003 for procurement and for research, development, test
and evaluation (RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2003 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working
capital funds; (3) Authorize for fiscal year 2003: (a) the
personnel strength for each active duty component of the
military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the
Selected Reserve for each reserve component of the armed
forces; (c) the military training student loads for each of the
active and reserve components of the military departments; (4)
Modify various elements of compensation for military personnel
and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel
actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2003 for military construction
and family housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2003 for the Department of Energy national security
programs; (7) Modify provisions related to the National Defense
Stockpile; and (8) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year
2003 for the Maritime Administration.
RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS
The bill does not generally provide budget authority. The
bill authorizes appropriations. Subsequent appropriation acts
provide budget authority. The bill addresses the following
categories in the Department of Defense budget: procurement;
research, development, test and evaluation; operation and
maintenance; working capital funds, military personnel; and
military construction and family housing. The bill also
addresses Department of Energy National Security Programs and
the Maritime Administration.
Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in
this bill and legislation affecting compensation for military
personnel determine the remaining appropriation requirements of
the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide
authorization of specific dollar amounts for personnel.
SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL
The President requested budget authority of $396.8 billion
for the national defense budget function for fiscal year 2003.
Of this amount, the President requested $378.3 billion for the
Department of Defense, including $9.0 billion for military
construction and family housing. Of this amount requested for
the Department of Defense, $10.0 billion has been designated as
a reserve fund and will receive separate treatment pending
submission of a detailed budget request. The defense budget
request for fiscal year 2003 also included $16.4 billion for
Department of Energy national security programs and the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
The committee recommends an overall level of $382.8 billion
in budget authority. This amount represents an increase of
approximately $39.5 billion from the amount authorized
forappropriation by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107).
SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS
The following table provides a summary of the amounts
requested and that would be authorized for appropriation in the
bill (in the column labeled ``Budget Authority Implication of
Committee Recommendation'') and the committee's estimate of how
the committee's recommendations relate to the budget totals for
the national defense function. For purposes of estimating the
budget authority implications of committee action, the table
reflects the numbers contained in the President's budget for
proposals not in the committee's legislative jurisdiction.
RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003
(H.R. 4546) demonstrates the committee's continuing
responsibility and commitment to the national security of the
United States in the wake of September 11th--a date that now
marks the most lethal single attack on the United States in our
nation's history.
H.R. 4546 is the first defense authorization bill in
decades that was drafted with our country at war. Accordingly,
this bill sends an important signal of unwavering support for
the American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who are
fighting the global war against terrorism. This commitment is
evident by the fact that H.R. 4546 would authorize--
The largest relative increase in defense
spending since 1966;
The largest defense budget (in inflation-
adjusted terms) since fiscal year 1990;
The fifth straight year of real increases in
defense spending, after 13 consecutive years of real
cuts to defense budgets; and
The largest increase in military manpower
since 1986.
The committee is convinced that the U.S. military is
finally on the road to recovery, as the coming fiscal year will
set a modern day high-water mark for the U.S. defense program.
This bill would ensure that the Armed Forces are fully capable
and ready to execute their assigned missions while transforming
themselves to meet future threats; enhance the nation's ability
to deter and defend against strategic threats, and to counter
the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; advance
efforts to protect our homeland from a variety of threats; and
support the President's campaign to defeat international
terrorism.
The unconventional nature of the military campaign against
terrorism required that Congress accordingly adjust its
traditional budget process to allow for greater flexibility in
financing the significant costs of these operations. In keeping
with this approach, the committee divided the annual defense
authorization bill into two separate components.
H.R. 4546 would authorize $383.4 billion for defense
activities during fiscal year 2003. This bill provides for the
base defense budget for the upcoming fiscal year, and largely
covers the costs associated with the normal rate of investment
and operations of the Department of Defense. The second bill,
H.R. 4547, the Cost of War on Terrorism Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003, will supplement H.R. 4546 by covering the
known costs of continuing Operations NOBLE EAGLE and ENDURING
FREEDOM, as well as miscellaneous DOD incremental costs
directly associated with the war on terrorism. In addition,
H.R. 4547 would serve as the legislative vehicle for further
authorization action once the Administration submits a detailed
budget proposal for the $10 billion contingency fund identified
in the budget request.
The committee believes this approach--dividing the annual
defense bill into two discrete components--represents the most
workable implementation of the flexible budgeting proposal
contained in both the President's budget request and the House-
passed Concurrent Resolution on the Budget. Equally important,
this approach would facilitate appropriate Congressional
oversight of this remaining portion of the proposed defense
budget by ensuring regular-order consideration and action.
In keeping with this approach, the committee carefully
scrutinized the base defense budget and identified a discrete
category of items that, due to their direct relationship to the
conduct of the war against terrorism, are more appropriately
funded through this second bill, H.R. 4547. These items, which
total $3.4 billion of the $10 billion expected to be authorized
by H.R. 4547, would cover the following war-related costs:
replacement weapons and equipment used or lost in the war; one-
time upgrades or special operational costs; and personnel
costs.
When combined, the core defense authorization bill, H.R.
4546, which is funded at $383.4 billion, and the second defense
authorization bill, H.R. 4547, which is expected to be funded
at $10 billion, would fully support the President's budget
request of $393.4 billion for the national defense function.
The committee is pleased with the Administration's overall
request for defense, but believes that even greater spending
will be required to ensure that the military is properly
manned, trained, equipped, and organized to deal not only with
today's threats, but with emerging, unforeseen, and asymmetric
ones as well.
Strategic Defense, Deterrence, and Forces
H.R. 4546 would promote U.S. national security and
strategic readiness by moving forward with research and
development of multi-tiered missile defense systems, and
implementing several of the findings and conclusions of the
Nuclear Posture Review (NPR).
Recent reports by the Intelligence Community state that the
ballistic missile threat to the United States continues to
grow. A December, 2001, National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)
concluded that ``The probability that a missile with a weapon
of mass destruction will be used against U.S. forces or
interests is higher today than most of the Cold War, and it
will continue to grow as the capabilities of potential
adversaries mature.'' The NIE added that short and medium range
ballistic missiles already pose a significant threat overseas
to U.S. interests, military forces, and allies.
North Korean missiles under development are capable of
striking the United States, and Iran could attempt to launch an
Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) by 2005. Both
countries also have active nuclear weapons programs designed to
develop nuclear warheads for their missiles. And were it not
for international sanctions and prohibitions, Iraq would have
similar capabilities--which have only been delayed by a few
years because of Iraq's continuing, covert efforts.
Russia maintains the most robust ballistic missile force
capable of reaching the United States, but resource problems,
force structure decisions, and expected agreements with the
United States will force a significant reduction in Russia's
strategic forces over the next several years. Conversely, China
continues its multi-year effort to modernize and expand its
strategic forces, including the development of new road-mobile
missiles and submarine-launched missiles.
As a result of these disturbing threat reports, and the
urgent need to eliminate the United States vulnerability to
ballistic missiles, the committee endorses the President's
ballistic missile defense program, and supports the proposed
layered defense system and realistic testing program.
Therefore, the bill fully supports and marginally increases the
President's $7.8 billion budget request for missile defenses.
Beyond the constitutional and moral obligation to defend
the nation, the committee believes that missile defenses are
critical to deterring enemies from attacking the United States
or its interests. Missile defenses also prevent adversaries
from attempting to intimidate or blackmail the United States
from acting in its interests by removing the enemy's missile
trump card and changing their strategic calculus. Finally,
missile defenses promote stability by dissuading other nations
from building ballistic missiles in the first place, given that
such endeavors become too costly and too risky if their
missiles can be defeated.
The other component to effective strategic defenses and
deterrence is robust, flexible, and capable nuclear forces. The
Bush Administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) of January
2002 provided a comprehensive road map to achieving the
capabilities necessary for today's strategic environment, and
to deal with future, unforeseen threats. The NPR calls for a
new triad of offensive forces, defensive capabilities, and a
reinvigorated nuclear industry/infrastructure. The committee
held hearings and received briefings from senior government
officials, and other experts, on the need to revitalize the
United States nuclear weapons industry, and to enhance our
nuclear weapons infrastructure. As a result, the bill would,
among other things, endorse the President's Nuclear Posture
Review and task the Administration to develop a plan for
enhanced nuclear test readiness.
Combating Terrorism
Recently, the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI)
appeared before Congress and stated that the al Qaeda terrorist
network is the most immediate and serious threat that the
country faces, that it will continue to attack the United
States and our interests abroad, and that its pursuit of
weapons of mass destruction is particularly alarming. The DCI
added that American military facilities around the world are at
particular risk. This is not surprising given the attack on the
USS Cole in Yemen two years ago, the 1996 attack on the Khobar
Towers in Saudi Arabia, and the fact that the U.S. military is
the most visible symbol of American strength and values.
Given these threats, both here in the United States and
abroad, the committee bill endorses the President's efforts to
combat terrorism by supporting the Department of Defense's
request of $7.3 billion for combating terrorism activities.
This request includes $6.0 billion for antiterrorism, $676.0
million for counterterrorism, $360.0 million for terrorism
consequence management, and $223.0 million for
counterintelligence efforts.
The antiterrorism measures proposed by the Department
include increased security and vigilance for key personnel,
installations, and equipment. These activities will complement
the actions of other federal agencies and friendly nations.
The committee supports the Department's plans for terrorism
consequence management, which are focused on two major areas:
the preparedness of installation emergency responders to
mitigate the effects of an attack involving chemical,
biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosives;
and the support provided to a lead federal agency when foreign,
state, and local governments request assistance.
The Department defines counterterrorism as ``offensive
measures taken to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorism.''
The committee endorses this definition, recognizes the
Department's exceptional history with regard to
counterterrorism operations; applauds the military's current
efforts in Afghanistan, the Philippines, and elsewhere; and
supports the Department's efforts to ensure U.S. Special
Operations Forces are the best manned, trained, armed,
equipped, and supported in the world.
Good intelligence is the first line of defense against
terrorism. As such, the committee supports the Department's
efforts to improve intelligence collection, analysis, and
dissemination to commanders in a timely manner.
Putting People First
The committee believes that the key to capable and flexible
armed forces is the people--military and civilian alike, and
the families that stand with them--who have dedicated
themselves to the defense of the country. As such, the
committee believes that the Department of Defense must take
special care to ensure that their readiness, morale and quality
of life are enhanced.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003
would not only ensure that our military personnel are well
trained and equipped, but also reflects the committee's concern
about the impact that the war on terrorism is having on service
members and their families. Despite years of overuse and
budgetary neglect, the Armed Forces have performed
magnificently in the wake of the September 11th attacks on the
nation. Notwithstanding their exceptional successes in
Afghanistan, and their deployments to the Philippines, Georgia,
and Central Asia, the committee believes that wartime
operations have exacerbated the same debilitating stresses of
high operations and personnel tempos that existed before the
global war on terrorism.
The Committee fully supports the Secretary's efforts to
reduce operational and mission requirements, and to free up
force structure to reduce the ``tooth to tail'' ratio.
Accordingly, the committee bill would increase active duty end
strength by 12,600 from the requested levels, and provide an
additional $550.0 million to support this increase.
Because ``people'' are the key to a great military force,
this bill gives the Department the resources it needs to
recruit and retain quality people at all levels, improve the
quality of life for service members and their families, and to
take better care of military retirees and veterans. As in the
past, the committee bill would provide a pay raise that
combines both across-the-board and targeted increases for mid-
grade noncommissioned officers and officers. The bill would
also reduce out-of-pocket housing expenses for military
personnel, authorize concurrent receipt of military retired pay
and disability payments for the most severely disabled military
retirees, and implement several changes to improve health care
for military personnel.
Finally, taking care of our military personnel also means
providing them with the best equipment, weapons, resources, and
technology available to do their jobs and accomplish their
missions. But given the billions of dollars of unfunded
requirements, coupled with the need to fight a war abroad and
protect the homeland from terrorism, adequate military
readiness will be difficult to sustain over the long term. Many
of the military's weapons systems and platforms are long past
their initial design lifespan, so maintenance problems and
costs will continue to degrade mission capability. That said,
the committee enhanced the President's budget request by
providing the additional investments in the technology and
weapons that will give our soldiers, sailors, airmen and
Marines the advantages on the modern battlefield that will help
guarantee success. The committee remains committed to making
even larger investments in the future to ensure that our
service members remain the best armed, equipped, and capable in
the world.
Conclusion
In H.R. 4546, the committee has focused its efforts on
improving military readiness, taking care of DOD personnel and
their families, strengthening our strategic defenses and
forces, combating terrorism, stemming the proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, and preparing for an extended war
against terrorism. As a result, the committee believes its
message is clear--that the House Armed Services Committee is
completely committed to defending the United States, the
American people, and our interests by restoring the strength
and improving the capabilities of our nation's Armed Forces.
HEARINGS
Committee consideration of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 results from hearings
that began on February 6, 2002 and that were completed on April
11, 2002. The full committee conducted 8 sessions. In addition,
a total of 22 sessions were conducted by five different
subcommittees and two panels of the committee on various titles
of the bill.
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION
TITLE I--PROCUREMENT
OVERVIEW
The fiscal year 2003 Department of Defense (DOD)
procurement request subject to authorization was $68,637.2
million, $6,430.3 million higher than the fiscal year 2002
authorization.
The budget request also included $3,382.4 million in
procurement-related equipment and items, as part of the Defense
Emergency Response Fund request, resulting in a $9,812.7
million budget request increase over the fiscal year 2002
authorized level.
The committee increased the authorization for procurement
by $2,933.3 million and transferred $1,793.2 million from
procurement to H.R. 4547, for a net increase to the budget
request of $4,522.5 million, and a total procurement
authorization of $73,440.5 million.
Aircraft Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $2,061.0 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends
authorization of $2,300.3 million for fiscal year 2003.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
AH-64 modifications
The budget request contained $93.6 million for AH-64
modifications, but included no funds to procure the digital
source collector (DSC) health usage monitoring system (HUMS);
nor the oil debris detection system (ODDS); nor combination
ammunition storage magazine and crashworthy ballistically,
self-sealing, internal auxiliary fuel tanks; nor a tactical
engagement simulation system (TESS) for the Army National Guard
(ARNG).
The DSC-HUMS, a pre-planned product improvement for the
vibration management enhancement program, is an on-board,
crash-survivable memory unit that records voice, flight data,
and electronic diagnostic data from the 1533 multiplex data
bus. The system aids post mishap investigations and
troubleshooting field maintenance failures.
The ODDS is an on-board detection system that alerts
aircrews to the presence of metal chips in engines and
propeller gear boxes, which allows flights to be terminated
prior to catastrophic failure of critical components. The
system also permits the clearing of smaller particles that
routinely accumulate in engine oil and cause false impending
engine failure alarms resulting in unnecessary termination of
aircraft missions and costly engine diagnostics.
The committee notes that requirements for additional
combination ammunition storage magazine and crashworthy
ballistically, self-sealing, internal auxiliary fuel tanks
exist for both AH-64A Apache and AH-64D Apache Longbow
aircraft. These tanks replace externally-mounted, non-
crashworthy, non self-sealing fuel tanks and are currently
installed in 101st Airborne Division (Air Assualt) Apaches
operating in Operation Enduring Freedom and provide a 26
percent increase in additional fuel capacity while preserving
the capability to carry 300 rounds of 30 millimeter ammunition.
The TESS is an advanced imbedded training system to enhance
combat training and readiness for Apache aircrews and provides
communications, decentralized engagement tracking and
prosecution, and real time casualty assessment, which enables
aircrews to conduct collective training at their home stations.
The committee believes that the TESS would allow ARNG pilots to
train more proficiently and help maintain similar proficiency
levels of active component AH-64 aircrews.
The committee recommends $132.6 million for AH-64
modifications, an increase of $8.0 million to procure DSC-HUMS;
an increase of $8.0 million in PE 64746A for continued
development of DSC-HUMS for the Apache Longbow; an increase of
$5.0 million to procure ODDS; an increase of $18.0 million to
procure combination ammunition storage magazine and crashworthy
ballistically, self-sealing, internal auxiliary fuel tanks; and
$8.0 million for one TESS for the ARNG, for a total increase of
$39.0 million for procurement upgrades for the AH-64 Apache
fleet.
Airborne communications
The budget request contained $44.5 million for the
procurement of 10 AN/ARC-220 aviation non-line-of-sight (NLOS)
high frequency (HF) radios, 262 AN/VRC-100 NLOS HF ground
radios and associated A-kits for installation of AN/ARC-220
radios into AH-64 Apache attack helicopters.
The AN/ARC-220 aviation NLOS HF radio provides secure voice
and data communications between Army helicopters flying nap-of-
the-earth missions and beyond-line-of-sight tactical operations
centers. The committee notes that the Task Force Hawk after
action report identified the lack of such capability in AH-64
Apache attack helicopters as a major deficiency for conducting
long-range strike missions. Further, the committee understands
that the Army has recently increased its basis of issue of the
AN/ARC-220 radio to one per AH-64 Apache versus the earlier
basis of issue of one per every two aircraft.
Based on the Task Force Hawk shortfalls, the increased
requirement, and the committee's belief that this
communications requirement is essential to effectively employ
Apache aircraft for deep strike missions and ground offensives,
the committee recommends $53.0 million, an increase of $8.5
million, to procure an additional 375 AN/ARC-220 aviation NLOS
HF radios.
Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)
The budget request contained no funds to procure ASE.
The AN/AVR-2A laser detecting set (LDS) is the only device
in the Army capable of providing warning to helicopter crews
when they have been illuminated by a laser-targeted weapon. It
detects, identifies, and characterizes threats 360-degrees-
around and plus-or-minus 45 degrees above-and-below an
aircraft.
The committee continues to be concerned with the growing
laser threat to helicopter aircrews and notes the limited
fielding of this system to force package one aircraft only. The
committee understands that the Army plans to budget for LDS
beginning in fiscal year 2004 to complete LDS kit installation
on the AH-64D Apache Longbow and UH-60M Blackhawk helicopters.
Based on a growing laser threat to Army helicopters and
consistent with prior year actions, the committee recommends an
increase of $5.0 million to accelerate procurement and fielding
of AN/AVR-2A LDS kits.
Aircrew integrated systems
The budget request contained $15.2 million for the
procurement of aircrew integrated systems, but included no
funds to either procure cockpit airbag systems (CABS) or HGU-
56P, AH-64 Apache helicopter integrated helmet and display
sight subsystems (IHADSS) for the Army National Guard (ARNG).
The CABS is a crash-activated, inflatable protection
system, which provides head and body supplemental restraint for
helicopter aviators, reducing death and injury caused by the
body and head impacting against cockpit structures in the event
of a crash or hard landing. The committee is highly supportive
of technological advances that contribute to improved aircraft
crashworthiness and aircrew safety, and, also notes that the
Army Chief of Staff has identified $26.1 million for the
procurement of CABS as a top fiscal year 2003 unfunded
priority. The IHADSS is comprised of an AH-64A Apache
helicopter flight helmet, which provides crash protection and
noise attenuation and a small monocular display which provides
line-of-sight as well as flight critical video and symbology
information to the pilot. The committee believes these helmets
provide aviators with better situational awareness and safety
of flight information and note that not all ARNG Apache units
have these helmets.
The committee recommends $42.6 million for aircrew
integrated systems, an increase of $26.1 million to procure
CABS and $1.3 million for the procurement of 64 IHADSS for the
ARNG.
Avionics support equipment
The budget request contained $7.5 million to procure AN/
AVS-6(V)3 aviator's night vision imaging systems (ANVIS) and
AN/AVS-7 heads-up displays.
The AN/AVS-6(V)3 ANVIS is a helmet-mounted, twin-tube,
image-intensified (I2), generation IV, night vision system that
significantly enhances night flight operations in conditions
that vary from overcast starlight to strong urban lighting.
Currently fielded systems comprise older generation II or
generation III night vision technology. AN/AVS-6(V)3 ANVIS
generation IV technology provides a 200 percent improvement in
visual acuity and range performance in high light levels and a
65 percent improvement in visual acuity and range performance
in low light levels over current technology, fielded from
fiscal years 1985 through 1993.
The committee believes that improved safety of flight
operations would result from this enhanced generation IV
technology and recommends $15.5 million, an increase of $8.0
million, to accelerate the procurement of AN/AVS-6(V)3 ANVIS.
CH-47 cargo helicopter modifications
The budget request contained $382.1 million for MH-47/CH-
47F special operations and cargo helicopter modifications, but
included no funds for crashworthy crew seats.
While existing pilot and co-pilot seats offer some
protection in the event of a hard impact landing or a crash,
crew chiefs and load master personnel do not have crashworthy
crew seats to provide increased protection from the
acceleration forces created by such a landing or crash, thereby
avoiding serious injuries or, in extreme cases, fatalities to
soldiers. The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has
identified a fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirement to
accelerate procurement of crashworthy crew seats into the CH-47
Chinook helicopter.
The committee recommends $395.6 million, an increase of
$13.5 million, to procure crashworthy crew seats for CH-47
cargo helicopters.
Helicopter new training
The budget request contained no funds to procure TH-67
Creek training helicopters.
The committee notes the continued shortfall in visual
flight, instrument flight, and basic combat skills training
helicopters which will occur with the anticipated retirementof
Vietnam-era UH-1 and OH-58 A/C aircraft as outlined in the fiscal year
2000 Army Aviation Modernization Plan. The committee understands that
the Army does not intend to replace these retiring aircraft due to
affordability.
Based on the need to replace the aging Huey and OH-58 A/C
training fleet as soon as possible and the need to provide
quality training for Army aviators, the committee recommends an
increase of $9.6 million for six TH-67 helicopters.
UH-60 Blackhawk
The budget request contained $153.4 million for the
procurement of 12 UH-60L Blackhawk utility helicopters for the
Army National Guard (ARNG), but included no funds for HH-60L
enhanced medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) helicopters for the ARNG
or for a UH-60L full motion simulator.
The Blackhawk is the Army's primary utility helicopter for
air assault, general support and aero medical evacuation
missions. The HH-60L MEDEVAC helicopter provides enhanced
medical evacuation and treatment of six litter or seven
ambulatory patients in a state-of-the-art medical treatment
cabin interior.
The committee is aware that the national command
authority's rapid reaction force 18th Airborne Corps has a
requirement for one additional UH-60L Blackhawk full motion
simulator and that this simulator is not planned to be budgeted
for until fiscal year 2005. However, aviation units from this
corps are currently deployed in combat operations in Operation
Enduring Freedom and must maintain the highest levels of
readiness and training as a rotational alert force.
The committee recommends $268.7 million, an increase of
$52.6 million to procure five additional UH-60L Blackhawks for
the ARNG and $47.7 million to procure three HH-60L MEDEVAC
variants for the ARNG, and an increase of $15.0 million for one
UH-60L Blackhawk full motion simulator for the 18th Airborne
Corps, for a total increase of $115.3 million.
UH-60 modifications
The budget request contained $41.9 million for UH-60
modifications, of which $10.3 million was for crashworthy
external fuel systems, but no funds were included for this
system for Army National Guard (ARNG) UH-60 combat search and
rescue aircraft or for UH-60 deicing system upgrades.
UH-60 crashworthy external fuel systems are self-sealing,
ballistically-tolerant tanks that replace existing 230 gallon
non-crashworthy external fuel tanks originally intended only
for ferry flights. However, expanding Army aviation missions
have increasingly required these non-crashworthy tanks to be
used to extend UH-60 tactical mission ranges, which create
safety risks to flight crews, passengers, and aircraft that
require individual mission waivers by individual commands.
The committee understands that the original UH-60 series
aircraft were built with a marginally capable deicing system
and that an upgrade is underway to improve its performance.
As a result of potential safety risks created by existing
systems, the committee recommends $49.9 million for UH-60
modifications, an increase of $6.0 million, for crashworthy
external fuel systems for both ARNG combat search and rescue
aircraft and active Army UH-60s, and an increase of $2.0
million for UH-60 series aircraft deicing system upgrades, for
a total increase of $8.0 million.
Missile Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $1,642.3 million for Missile
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,693.9 million for fiscal year 2003.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Army tactical missile system (ATACMS) summary/ATACMS block II system
summary
The budget request contained $9.1 million for the fielding
of prior year procured missiles, but included no funds to
procure ATACMS quick reaction program (QRP) unitary warhead
missiles. The budget request also included $49.7 million for
engineering services, production engineering support and
related activities for ATACMS block II missiles, however, no
block II missiles are planned to be produced in fiscal year
2003.
The ATACMS is a surface-to-surface, global positioning
system-guided missile for deep-strike attacks against tactical
surface-to-surface and surface-to-air missile sites; logistics
elements; and command, control, communications complexes.
The committee is aware of the ATACMS QRP upgrade that will
incorporate Standoff Land Attack Missile-Expanded Response
warheads into ATACMS Block IA missiles. This warhead upgrade is
designed to limit collateral damage when used against targets
in urban environments and is a direct outgrowth of the Army's
inability to conduct deep strike missions against such targets
with its existing ATACMS missile inventory during Operation
Allied Force. The committee also notes that the Army received
$38.0 million in fiscal year 2002 Defense Emergency Response
Fund supplemental funding to accelerate this conversion
initiative.
The committee notes that $5.0 million and $6.1 million was
appropriated for engineering services and production
engineering support, respectively, in fiscal year 2002 for the
production of 6 ATACMS block II missiles and 83 brilliant
antitank submunitions (BAT). However, $25.3 million and $12.0
million is requested for engineering services and production
engineering support, respectively, in fiscal year 2003, yet no
missile or submunition production is planned. The committee is
concerned about the fiscal year 2003 request including a five-
fold increase for engineering services and just under twice the
amount for production engineering support over the amounts
appropriated for these fiscal year 2002 production
requirements. The committee also notes that the Army is
currently reviewing and restructuring the ATACMS block II and
BAT program and considering arming unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAV) with BAT pre-planned product improved (P3I) submunitions
instead of expending BAT P3I submunitions from missiles.
The committee believes that the Army should have the
capability to provide joint force commanders with a surface-to-
surface deep strike option, which creates limited collateral
damage in urban environments. Also, the committee is supportive
of expanding UAV capability with weapons, which have been
effectively demonstrated in Operation Enduring Freedom.
The committee recommends $47.1 for ATACMS missile system
summary, an increase of $38.0 million, to upgrade ATACMS Block
IA missiles to the QRP configuration. Also, the committee
recommends $23.3 million for ATACMS block II system summary, a
decrease of $20.3 million and $6.1 million from engineering
services and production engineering support, respectively, for
a total decrease of $26.4 million, since no production is
planned in fiscal year 2003 for ATACMS block II missiles or BAT
P3I submunitions.
Hellfire system summary
The budget request contained $184.4 million for the
procurement of Longbow Hellfire missiles, but included no funds
to procure laser Hellfire II missiles.
The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff has
identified a fiscal year 2003, $80.2 million unfunded
requirement for laser Hellfire II missiles.
The committee recommends $224.4 million for Hellfire system
summary, a $40.0 million increase, for laser Hellfire II
missiles.
Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $2,248.6 million for
procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army for
fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of
$2,373.0 million for fiscal year 2003.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Bradley base sustainment
The budget request contained $397.1 million for the
procurement of Bradley A3 fighting vehicle upgrades, including
$3.5 million for fielding Army National Guard (ARNG) A2
Operation Desert Storm (ODS) variants.
The Bradley A2ODS is an upgraded first-generation Bradley
A0, which enhances its lethality, survivability, and mobility,
as well as the situational awareness of its crew. Modifications
include installation of a laser range finder, Global
Positioning System navigation capability, a combat
identification system, a driver's thermal viewer and a missile
countermeasure device.
When the Army completes all of its planned upgrades to the
Bradley, the active fleet will include a mix of the most
advanced A3 variant, along with A2 and A2ODS versions. The
committee understands that beginning in fiscal year 2003,
approximately 400 ARNG Bradley A0s will remain unmodified since
this upgrade program was initiated. Because of major
survivability deficiencies, Bradley A0s were not mobilized
during the Persian Gulf War. However, as part of the new ARNG
enhanced brigades, the committee notes that some of these A0
vehicles will be required to deploy with active Army forces.
Because ARNG enhanced brigades will comprise an increasing
percentage of the Army's warfighting capability in the future,
the committee recommends $457.1 million for Bradley base
sustainment, an increase of $60.0 million, to upgrade an
additional 45 Bradley A0 vehicles to the A2ODS variant for the
ARNG.
Improved recovery vehicle (IRV)
The budget request contained $50.3 million for the
procurement of 16 M88A2 IRVs, but included no funds for the
procurement of these vehicles for the Army National Guard
(ARNG).
The 56-ton M88A1 is capable of towing only vehicles
weighing less than 60 tons. Consequently, two M88A1s are
required to safely tow an Abrams tank if it becomes immobile
due to combat damage or mechanical failure. The M88A2 IRV
upgrade is a jointly procured system for both the Army and
Marine Corps and includes increased engine horsepower, as well
as braking, steering, winch, lift, and suspension capabilities
required to safely recover Abrams tanks and other heavy combat
systems. The committee understands that the Army will terminate
this program in fiscal year 2006 as one of its 18 programs it
identified for termination through the future years defense
program to reprioritize funds for transformation, however,
these upgrades will be procured to fulfill heavy counter attack
corps requirements. The committee also notes that the ARNG has
a shortfall of IRVs in its enhanced separate brigade force
structure.
The committee recommends $96.1 million, an increase of
$45.8 million, for 15 additional M88A2 IRV upgrades for the
ARNG.
M113 carrier modifications
The budget request contained $60.3 million for M113 carrier
modifications, of which $14.9 million was for M113 ``A3''
upgrades, and $45.4 million was for new T-150 track for the
United States-based Counter Attack Corps.
The M113A3 upgrade program, forecast to add an additional
20 years of service life to the vehicle, includes installation
of a new engine, transmission, external armored fuel tanks,
driver controls, and internal Kevlar spall liners. The
committee notes, however, that the M113A3 upgrade program is
one of 11 programs to be terminated by the Army in fiscal year
2003 in order to afford higher transformation priorities.
While the committee is supportive of transformation and
understands the need to reallocate resources to accelerate
improved transformational technologies, in this instance it
believes that the Army's decision to not upgrade the remaining
forward deployed 112, 2nd Infantry Division M113A2s in the
Republic of Korea, and the 185, 1st Armored Division and 167,
1st Infantry Division M113A2s in Europe, will at a minimum,
leave the soldiers in these front line units vulnerable and
lacking increased maneuver capability in the potentially
unstable and high threat environments they are required to
operate in. Unless the Secretary of the Army can present the
committee with a valid plan as to why the Army would not
complete these particular unit vehicle upgrades prior to
terminating the ``A3'' upgrade program after fiscal year 2003,
the committee recommends that the entire $60.3 million
requested for fiscal year 2003 be only for M113A3 upgrades for
these units.
M249 squad automatic weapon (SAW)
The budget request contained no funds for the procurement
of the M249 SAW. The M249 SAW is a lightweight machine gun
capable of delivering a sustained volume of automatic,
accurate, and highly lethal fire up to ranges of 800 meters. It
is being widely fielded throughout the Army to airborne,
artillery, light and mechanized infantry, and aviation units.
The committee notes that this has been one of the infantry's
critical weapon systems in the Army's deployment to Afghanistan
for Operation Enduring Freedom. As a result of a review and
increased requirements, the committee understands that the Army
Chief of Staff has identified an $18.6 million fiscal year 2003
unfunded requirement for an additional 9,580 guns, which will
fulfill the service's total procurement objective of 89,428
guns.
The committee recommends an increase of $18.6 million for
this purpose to complete the procurement objective of M249
SAWs.
Ammunition Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $1,159.4 million for
Ammunition Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2003. The committee
recommends authorization of $1,320.0 million for fiscal year
2003.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Army ammunition procurement
The budget request contained $1,159.4 million for
procurement of ammunition and production base support. The
committee recommends an additional $133.6 million, for the
following types of ammunition programs, of which ammunition
production is among the top unfunded requirements identified by
the Army Chief of Staff in fiscal year 2003:
Small/Medium Caliber Ammunition:ions of dollars]
CTG 5.56mm, all types (production line upgrade)....... 5.0
CTG 25mm, APFSDS-T M919............................... 23.0
Mortar Ammunition:
81mm M816................................................. 2.8
CTG 120mm M934A1.......................................... 7.8
CTG 120mm IR Illum M983................................... 3.0
Pine Bluff Arsenal production line upgrade................ 3.0
Artillery Ammunition:
Projectile, Artillery 155mm Illum M110.................... 10.0
Projectile, Artillery 155mm HE M795....................... 24.0
Modular Artillery Charge System........................... 20.0
Rockets: Bunker Defeating Munition............................ 10.0
Demolition Munitions, All Types: Modernization Demolition
Initiators................................................ 5.0
Production Base Support: ARMS Initiative...................... 20.0
Army ammunition production and load, assemble, and pack (LAP) capacity
The committee understands that the Department of the Army
has issued a request for information with regard to
consolidation of its four government owned, contractor
operated, ammunition LAP facilities beginning in fiscal year
2003. However, it also understands that the necessary funds to
execute a contract related to consolidation are not included in
the future years defense program. The committee notes that the
Army has identified a $544.0 million fiscal year 2003 unfunded
requirement for conventional ammunition, its largest annual
unfunded requirement over the past five fiscal years, as a
result of growing shortfalls in war reserve ammunition and
increased marksmanship training requirements identified by the
Army Chief of Staff to fight the war on terrorism. While the
committee is a proponent of streamlining and eliminating excess
capacity within the ammunition industrial base, it is aware
that unique job skills exist in these production facilities and
that the correct industrial production and LAP capacity and
related skills must be maintained to meet surge production
requirements.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide
a report to the congressional defense committees by January 15,
2003, which outlines the conventional ammunition industrial
base requirements, including LAP capacity, to fulfill the
ammunition requirements for the Department's new capabilities-
based strategy and Army Chief of Staff unfunded requirements.
Other Procurement, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $5,168.5 million for Other
Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends
authorization of $6,119.4 million for fiscal year 2003.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Automated data processing equipment (ADPE)
The budget request contained $156.5 million for procurement
of ADPE, of which $13.5 million was included for automatic
identification technology (AIT)/radio frequency-identification
(RFID) devices.
AIT/RFID devices, which consist of various radio frequency,
bar code scanning, and data carrier devices, are components of
automated logistics systems that expedite receiving, storage,
distribution, and inventory management of new and repairable
items as well as afloat and ashore pre-positioned stockpile
items and equipment. These devices are also used to automate
manufacturing process controls for repair parts and to track
other types of ground support equipment at various military
depots. The committee believes that substantial savings and
efficiencies can continue to be achieved from further
implementation of these devices in automated inventory and
repair processes. The committee urges the Secretary of the Army
to review the opportunities to reduce manpower requirements in
Army industrial facilities as a result of increased
efficiencies that may be achieved from the continued
installation of this technology.
The committee recommends $174.0 million, an increase of
$12.3 million for maintenance AIT/RFID implementation in Army
industrial facilities, and an increase of $5.2 million for AIT/
RFID implementation in pre-positioned stocks, for a total
increase of $17.5 million.
Combat support medical
The budget request contained $21.0 million to procure
deployable medical systems and field medical equipment, but
included no funds for rapid intravenous (IV) infusion pumps, or
Life Support for Trauma and Transport (LSTAT) units, or the
Army Medical Support Group Telemedicine Instrumentation Pack
(TIP). The budget request also contained $12.6 million in PE
64807A, but included no funds for LSTAT spiral development.
The Rapid IV infusion pump is a Food and Drug
Administration approved miniature, portable, lightweight pump
specifically designed for life-saving intravenous fluid
resuscitation by a medic in the field to restore blood pressure
and prevent shock and death of victims with severe blood loss
or dehydration. The committee understands that it is estimated
that up to 15 percent of the soldiers that died in Vietnam who
were not immediate battlefield casualties would have survived
their wounds if rapid infusion of fluids had been a possibility
during that conflict.
The LSTAT integrates a set of commercially available, FDA-
approved medical devices in a self-contained mini-intensive
care, medical evacuation platform, which provides advanced
life-support, on-board ventilation, suction, environmental
control, oxygen generation, and patient monitoring to stabilize
wounded soldiers near the battlefront as they are evacuated.
LSTAT is configured on a NATO-standard litter, is broadly
interoperable with other medical systems and compatible with
most evacuation platforms including UH-60s, UH-1s, C-130s, and
High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicles.
The TIP is a portable electronic patient record and
diagnostic device, which allows medical personnel to acquire
and update a patient's health information and treatment history
from statistics gathered by numerous patient health monitoring
and diagnostic instruments. A patient's medical treatment
history and statistics are automatically recorded into the
electronic patient chart for later review during a patient's
treatment or can be transmitted online for other medical
expert's assistance.
The committee is supportive of the potential life saving
capability that these devices offer, and, therefore, recommends
$38.0 million, an increase of $5.0 million to procure rapid IV
infusion pumps; an increase of $10.0 million to continue
procurement of LSTAT units, and an increase of $2.0 million to
procure TIPs. The committee also recommends $17.6 million in PE
64807A, and increase of $5.0 million, for spiral development of
expanded LSTAT capabilities.
Family of heavy tactical vehicles
The budget request contained $242.8 million to procure
palletized load systems, heavy equipment transporter systems,
heavy expanded mobility tactical trucks and other related
equipment of which $34.3 million was included to procure 2,324
movement tracking systems (MTS). However, no MTS were requested
for the Army Reserve.
The MTS is a satellite-based tracking, communication system
providing both active and reserve component combat service
support units with global positioning system vehicle location
and tracking and two-way text messaging between stationary base
locations and vehicles.
The committee understands the MTS significantly enhances
the Army's ability to strategically position, monitor, and
track re-supply items, while providing near real-time command
and control of in-theater logistical requirements. As Army
Reserve unit deployments increase, the committee believes there
is an increasing need for better communications
interoperability between active and mobilized reserve combat
service support units.
The committee also notes the Chief of the Army Reserve has
identified a fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirement for MTS and,
recommends an increase of $9.0 million to accelerate
procurement of MTS for the Army Reserve.
High mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs)
The budget request contained $196.8 million for 2,064
HMMWVs, of which $54.0 million was included to procure 360 of
the M1114 Up-Armor variant.
The Up-Armor HMMWV is a multi-service, four wheel drive
utility vehicle that provides proven ballistic protection for
soldiers from anti-personnel and anti-tank mines and armored
piercing munitions. The committee notes the Army Chief of Staff
has identified a $31.1 million fiscal year 2003 unfunded
requirement for an additional 180 Up-Armored HMMWVs. The
committee understands these additional vehicles will be fielded
to deployed active and reserve units to enhance combat support
missions.
Recognizing the ongoing importance of force protection and
in light of lessons learned from previous urban and combat
operations, the committee recommends $227.9 million, an
increase of $31.1 million, to fulfill the unfunded requirement
for an additional 180 M1114 Up-Armor HMMWVs.
Information system security program (ISSP)
The budget request contained $39.1 million and $13.4
million to procure secure voice and data equipment for the Army
and Air Force respectively.
The committee strongly supports upgrading critical secure
telecommunications by replacing older secure voice and data
systems with modern secure digital communications equipment.
These upgrades will help reduce the exploitation of classified
and sensitive information due to growing information security
threats. The committee also notes that this is a top fiscal
year 2003 unfunded priority of the Air Force Chief of Staff.
To accelerate the replacement of older secure voice and
data terminals, the committee recommends an increase of $14.0
million for Army ISSP and $10.0 million for Air Force Command,
Control, and Communications Countermeasures to procure
additional secure terminal equipment.
Items less than $5.0 million (construction equipment)
The budget request contained $12.9 million to procure
construction equipment support items, of which $784 thousand
was for two water distributors for airborne units, but no funds
were requested for the Army Reserve.
These water distributors provide water distribution for
rapid construction requirements in the deployed locations. The
committee notes that the Chief of the Army Reserve has
identified a $4.0 million fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirement
for 12 water distributors.
The committee recommends an increase of $16.9 million for
construction equipment items less than $5.0 million, an
increase of $4.0 million, to accelerate procurement and
fielding of 12 water distributors to the Army Reserve.
Joint tactical area command systems
The budget request contained $900 thousand for management
of joint tactical area command systems, but included no funds
to upgrade AN/ARS-6 (V) personnel locator communications
systems.
The AN/ARS-6 (V) personnel locator communications system is
an airborne electronic locator, which can precisely locate
survivors on the ground equipped with AN/PRC-112 survival
radios. The committee understands that this commercial-off-the-
shelf (COTS) upgrade will include a global positioning system
waveform for currently fielded systems and believes that this
capability may aid in the rescue and recovery of personnel and
survivors in extremis situations.
The committee recommends $6.9 million for joint tactical
area command systems, an increase of $6.0 million, for AN/ARS-6
(V) COTS insertion upgrades.
Lightweight maintenance enclosure (LME)
The budget request contained $7.7 million to procure LMEs,
of which $1.9 million was for the Army National Guard (ARNG).
The LME is a lightweight, frame-supported tent designed to
provide forward deployed maintenance units a quick setup-and-
takedown enclosed shelter in which to perform field maintenance
operations across the battlefield in all climatic conditions.
The committee notes that mobility will be the hallmark of
the Army's future medium brigades as well as ARNG units and
that they must therefore be capable of rapidly repairing and
maintaining equipment while deployed.
The committee recommends $17.7 million, an increase of
$10.0 million, for the procurement of additional LMEs: $5.0
million for the Army and $5.0 million for the ARNG.
Single channel ground and airborne radio systems (SINCGARS) family
The budget request contained $30.1 million to procure
SINCGARS for high priority Army National Guard (ARNG) units and
interim brigade combat teams. The budget request also included
$22.1 million to procure improved high frequency radios (IHFR)
for ARNG weapons of mass destruction civil support teams, but
included no funds for IHFRs for the Army Reserve.
The IHFR is the primary means of communications for
maneuver battalions, combat support and combat service support
units, the latter of which are comprised primarily of Army
Reserve forces. The IHFR provides a versatile capability for
short- and long-range communications, particularly important
for highly mobile and geographically dispersed units not
supported by active component communications units. The IHFR is
also the only tactical radio that possesses a long-range
communications capability independent of terrestrial or
satellite relays and exceeds the range of the line-of-sight
SINCGARS. To date, limited fielding has occurred to the Army
Reserve due to budget constraints; however, as a result of
newly expanded missions in support of the war on terrorism, the
Chief of the Army Reserve has identified a $61.1 million fiscal
year 2003 unfunded requirement for 1,750 IHFRs.
The committee recommends an increase of $61.1 million to
procure IHFRs for the Army Reserve.
Small tug
The budget request contained no funds to procure small
tugs.
The small tug is a 60-foot, steel hull, twin propeller
vessel designed to tow general cargo barges in harbors, inland
waterways, and along coastlines. It is also capable of
assisting larger tugs in mooring ships of all sizes at piers
and in restricted navigation waterways, moving floating cranes
and machine shops, and performing line-handling duties.
The committee is aware that the Army has procured 12 of
these tugs, has two under contract, and has recently increased
its requirement to 16 vessels. The small tug replaces the
Army's obsolete 40-year-old small tugs that were used in
Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
Consistent with prior years, and to complete the
requirement for two additional tugs, the committee recommends
an increase of $7.0 million to accelerate procurement of 2
additional vessels towards completion of the requirement for 16
small tugs.
Stamis tactical computers (STACOMP)
The budget request contained $61.3 million for STACOMP, of
which $47.2 million was for global combat support system
(GCSS)-Army hardware and fielding.
The GCSS-Army will be the business and tactical information
system for Army combat service support to manage supply
property, maintenance, ammunition, and supply support. In
fiscal year 1997, the Army began development of GCSS-A to
transform the Army's information technology support systems,
which included replacing 16 legacy systems with 5 modules.
However, the Army is still attempting to implement the first,
and admittedly easiest, module to more than support supply
property requirements. Despite spending $320 million on GCSS-
Army over 5 years, nothing has been fielded to date and no
legacy information systems have been replaced. The Army intends
to initially field the first module in fiscal year 2002. The
committee is concerned about the amount of funds that have been
expended, the lack of success, and amount of time required for
initial fielding of the first and easiest module.
The committee has learned that the Army has now changed its
acquisition strategy for the second module, which will cover
maintenance logistics requirements and intends to use a
commercial based enterprise resourcing plan versus continuing
development of the second module. This is a significant change
in strategy, which will affect the acquisition approach,
funding requirements, and testing and implementation schedule.
Because of the Army's adoption of a commercial system
acquisition strategy, the committee believes the system will
require less funds to field the additional modules and
recommends $51.3 million for STACOMP, a decrease of $10.0
million for GCSS-A.
Striker family
The budget request contained $28.5 million for the
procurement of 54 Striker command and control vehicles, but
included no funds for Strikers for the Army National Guard
(ARNG).
The Striker vehicle is a high mobility multi-purpose
wheeled vehicle mounted system, which incorporates a Bradley
fire support vehicle mission equipment package of a laser
rangefinder/designator, thermal sight, handheld computer, and
both inertial navigation and global positioning systems. The
Striker is operated by combat observation lasing teams (COLTs)
as an integral part of heavy and light division and ARNG
enhanced separate brigade reconnaissance teams to locate and
designate targets for laser-guided ordnance.
The committee understands that funds appropriated in fiscal
year 2001 for the ARNG Strikers enabled the fielding of only 50
percent of the required systems for an ARNG separate enhanced
brigade and the full requirement is not expected to be budgeted
for until fiscal year 2006.
The committee recommends $33.0 million, an increase of $4.5
million for six Striker systems to accelerate and complete
fielding to an ARNG separate enhanced brigade.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army
Overview
The budget request contained $1,490.2 million for Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, for fiscal year 2003.
The committee recommends no funds for fiscal year 2003.
Items of Special Interest
Chemical agents and munitions destruction
The budget requests contained $1,490.2 million for Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army.
The committee notes that section 1412 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1986 (Public Law 99-
145), as amended, requires that funds for the destruction of
the U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions,
including funds for military construction projects necessary to
carry out the demilitarization program, shall only be
authorized and appropriated in the budget of the Department of
Defense (DOD) as a separate program and shall not be included
in the budget accounts for any of the military departments. The
committee notes that for the fourth year in a row, the
Department's budget request contains authorization and
appropriation of funds for the chemical demilitarization
program in a budget account of the Department of the Army in
contravention of direction provided by the law.
The committee believes that the original 1986 legislation,
which mandated that funds for the chemical demilitarization
program be authorized and appropriated in a defense-wide budget
account in order to emphasize that destruction of the chemical
weapons stockpile was a national issue affecting all of the
Department and not just a single military service, was
appropriate. In 1986, the estimated cost of the chemical
stockpile demilitarization program was approximately $1,500.0
million. Today, the potential estimated cost of the program has
grown to $24,000.0 million and reinforces the committee's
earlier position.
The committee recommends no funds for Chemical Agents and
Munitions Destruction, Army, a decrease of $1,490.2 million.
The committee recommends an increase of $1,490.2 million for
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense, as
described elsewhere in this report. The committee also
recommends a provision, section 143, that would require the
Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to certify in
subsequent annual budget requests that the request is in
accordance with the law.
Aircraft Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $8,203.9 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends
authorization of $8,971.6 million for fiscal year 2003.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
AV-8B series modifications
The budget request contained $32.2 million for AV-8B series
modifications, but included no funds for the AV-8B engine life
management program (ELMP) or for Litening advanced airborne
targeting and navigation (AT) pods.
The ELMP was developed by the Marine Corps to address the
safety and reliability of the AV-8B's engine. The committee
understands that increased ELMP funds for fiscal year 2003
would provide more efficient foreign object damage repair
capability, improved oil analysis systems, and fuel metering
unit revitalization, and recommends an increase of $5.8 million
for the AV-8B ELMP.
The Litening AT pod is the next generation Litening pod
system that will incorporate an advanced forward-looking infra-
red radar and other enhancements to the existing multi-sensor
and precision strike capability. The committee understands that
the Marine Corps has a requirement for 98 Litening targeting
pods but has thus far only procured 66, for a shortfall of 32,
and, recommends an increase of $55.0 million for 32 Litening AT
pods.
The committee recommends $93.0 million for AV-8B series
modifications, an increase of $60.8 million, and notes that
both of the recommended AV-8B series modification increases are
included among the Commandant of the Marine Corps' unfunded
priorities for fiscal year 2003.
E-2 modifications
The budget request contained $17.2 million for E-2
modifications, but included no funds to upgrade E-2C aircraft
to the Hawkeye 2000 configuration.
The Hawkeye 2000 configuration is an upgrade to older-model
E-2C aircraft that integrates satellite communications, a
commercial-off-the-shelf, high-capacity mission computer and
associated workstations, and cooperative engagement capability
equipment. The committee understands that the Navy's E-2C
aircraft inventory includes at least two older-model E-2C
aircraft, which are not configured to meet current operational
fleet requirements, and can be economically upgraded to the
Hawkeye 2000 configuration.
The committee recommends $81.2 million for E-2
modifications, an increase of $64.0 million, to the upgrade two
older-model E-2C aircraft to the Hawkeye 2000 configuration.
EA-6B modifications
The budget request contained $223.5 million for EA-6B
modifications, of which $45.8 million was included for 15 EA-6B
wing center sections (WCSs), but included no funds for the
outer wing panel (OWP), the USQ-113 communications jammer, or
for band 9/10 transmitters. The Department of the Navy's fleet
of 122 EA-6B aircraft are the Department of Defense's only
aircraft configured to provide the electronic-jamming
capability to deny and degrade the acquisition of friendly
forces by enemy air defense systems.
The committee understands that recent EA-6B fatigue life
inspections have revealed that both existing WCSs and OWPs are
aging more rapidly than expected due to fatigue cracking, and
that this situation has prompted the Navy to ground eight of
its EA-6Bs and restrict EA-6B flight operations in 51 aircraft
to less than three times the force of gravity, or ``g's,''
rather than its full operating envelope of 5.5 g's. To restore
these aircraft to their full operating envelope, WCSs and OWPs
must be replaced and the committee recommends an increase of
$40.0 million to procure and install an additional four WCSs
and five OWPs.
The USQ-113 communications jammer provides upgraded very-
high and ultra-high frequency jamming capability. The committee
understands that procurement of this system not only improves
equipment maintainability and operational capability, but also
improves the availability of this system for deployed aircraft.
The committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million for the
USQ-113 communications jammer.
The band 9/10 transmitter provides the EA-6B with expanded
jamming capability against target tracking and fire control
radars of modern integrated air defense systems. Since the
committee understands that 214 of the Department of the Navy's
263-inventory objective for band 9/10 transmitters have been
procured thus far, it recommends an increase of $29.0 million
to procure 43 additional band 9/10 transmitters.
The committee recommends $327.5 million for EA-6B
modifications, an increase of $104.0 million, and notes that
each of the EA-6B modification increases recommended are
included among both the Chief of Naval Operation's and
Commandant of the Marine Corps' top unfunded priorities for
fiscal year 2003.
H-1 series modifications
The budget request contained $1.8 million for H-1 series
modifications, of which $1.0 million was included for three AN/
AAQ-22 night thermal imaging system (NTIS) product improvement
program (PIP) upgrades.
The AN/AAQ-22 NTIS provides the Marine Corps' UH-1N
helicopter fleet with a capability to operate in both day and
night conditions, as well as in a smoke, dust or haze
environment, and the PIP upgrade improves the AN/AAQ-22 NTIS by
increasing resolution by greater than 20 percent, improving
system stability and control, upgrading target detection and
obstacle avoidance capability, and adding a laser designator to
guide precision munitions. The committee understands that the
UH-1Ns equipped with the AN/AAQ-22 NTIS PIP upgrade have
performed superbly in Operation Enduring Freedom in their
mission to identify targets of opportunity and to provide rapid
alerting of threats to Allied forces.
To enhance the UH-1N's mission effectiveness and to improve
its flight safety, the committee recommends $16.8 million, an
increase of $15.0 million to accelerate procurement of the AN/
AAQ-22 NTIS PIP upgrade.
H-60 series modifications
The budget request contained $15.4 million for H-60 series
modifications, but included no funds for the H-60 link 16
upgrade.
The committee understands that the link 16 upgrade is
required in the Navy's H-60 series helicopters to provide
situational awareness to the aircraft and the warfare commander
of crucial and time critical information for strike operations
and defense within an area of responsibility, and notes that
the Chief of Naval Operations has included the H-60 link 16
upgrade among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003.
Consequently, the committee recommends $70.4 million for H-
60 series modifications, an increase of $55.0 million, for the
H-60 link 16 upgrade.
Joint primary air training system (JPATS)
The budget request contained no funds for the Navy JPATS.
The JPATS, consisting of both the T-6A aircraft and a
ground-based training system, will be used by the Navy and Air
Force for primary pilot training. The T-6A will replace both
the Navy's T-34 and Air Force's T-37B fleets, providing safer,
more economical and more effective training for future student
pilots.
Despite the fact that the Department of the Navy does not
plan to continue JPATS procurement until fiscal year 2007, the
committee continues to believe that its procurement for the
Navy would not only reduce procurement costs for both the Navy
and the Air Force but would also reduce operations and
maintenance costs, and notes that the Chief of Naval Operations
has included JPATS procurement among his top unfunded
priorities for fiscal year 2003.
The committee recommends an increase of $60.0 million and
expects that this amount will procure ten T-6A aircraft and
associated ground-based training systems.
MH-60S
The budget request contained $284.2 million for 15 MH-60S
helicopters and $88.0 million for advance procurement of 13 MH-
60S helicopters in fiscal year 2004. The MH-60S helicopter's
primary mission will be organic airborne mine countermeasures;
however, it will also replace the H-46D for the Navy's
helicopter combat support missions including vertical
replenishment, cargo and personnel transfer, and search and
rescue.
The committee understands that the aging H-46D helicopter
is increasingly expensive to operate, and that, because of its
diminished availability, the Navy's inventory of combat support
helicopters is 24 less than required to sustain its battle
group combat support needs. The committee also notes that the
Chief of Naval Operations has identified additional MH-60S
helicopters among his top four unfunded priorities for fiscal
year 2003.
The committee believes that the aging H-46D fleet should be
retired as soon as practical, and recommends $372.2 million, an
increase of $88.0 million for four additional MH-60S
helicopters and for advance procurement of long-lead components
for five additional helicopters in fiscal year 2004.
P-3 series modifications
The budget request contained $102.7 million for P-3 series
modifications, of which $84.0 million was included for four
anti-surface warfare improvement program (AIP) kits, but
included no funds for procurement of the advance multiband
optical surveillance system (AMOSS) or for communications,
navigation, and surveillance global air traffic management
(CNS/ATM) modifications for VP- and UP-3A aircraft.
The AIP improves the P-3's communications, survivability,
and over-the-horizon targeting capabilities through the
installation of commercial-off-the-shelf components. The
committee understands that the Commanders-In-Chief (CINCs)
require 146 AIP-configured aircraft, but notes that the
Department of the Navy has budgeted for a total of only 83 in
its future years defense program. The committee also notes that
the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) has included additional AIP
kits among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003.
The committee recommends an increase of $27.0 million to
procure two additional AIP kits. Additionally, the committee
understands that some AIP-configured P-3 aircraft have also
been equipped with the tactical common data link (TCDL), which
provides real-time imagery downlink to commanders, weapons
delivery platforms and other end-users, and that these aircraft
have been primary surveillance and intelligence contributors
during Operation Enduring Freedom. Since the committee believes
that future conflicts are likely to require the increased
capabilities that the TCDL provides, it urges the Department of
the Navy to include the TCDL in all its AIP-configured P-3
aircraft.
The AMOSS is an electro-optical, multi-spectral
surveillance camera system designed for use in the Navy's six
special project P-3 aircraft to detect the presence of
substances used in the development and production of weapons
from standoff ranges in both day and nighttime conditions. The
AMOSS would replace the special project P-3's existing electro-
optical surveillance camera system, which is limited to day-
only operations and cannot be used from standoff ranges. The
committee understands that funds appropriated for fiscal year
2002 are being used to deliver a prototype AMOSS and that
production of the first three AMOSSs can begin in fiscal year
2003 so that all six special project P-3 aircraft could be
equipped with this capability by fiscal year 2005. To provide
improved weapons development and production reconnaissance
capabilities to the special project P-3 aircraft, the committee
recommends an increase of $9.0 million to procure three AMOSSs.
VP- and UP-3A aircraft are configured to support the travel
requirements of senior naval commanders and theater CINCs. The
committee understands that the majority of these aircraft are
not configured with the CNS/ATM requirements for preferred air
traffic routing, nor are they configured with the appropriate
communications systems required for senior naval commander and
CINC connectivity. To address these deficiencies in the Navy's
VP- and UP-3A fleets, the committee recommends an increase of
$6.0 million for the CNS/ATM modification, and notes that the
CNO has also included this upgrade among his unfunded
priorities for fiscal year 2003.
The committee recommends $144.7 million for P-3 series
modifications, an increase of $42.0 million.
T-45 training system (TS)
The budget request contained no funds for the advance
procurement of T-45C aircraft. The T-45TS is an integrated
training system that combines the T-45 aircraft, simulators,
and computer-based training for the Navy's intermediate-level
undergraduate pilot training.
The committee notes that, while the Navy requires 234 T-45
aircraft, its inventory will be only 181 aircraft after eight
T-45C's are produced in fiscal year 2003, and that T-45
production is not planned for years beyond fiscal year 2003.
Since the committee believes that T-45 production should
continue in order to meet the requirement for 234 T-45
aircraft, it recommends an increase of $10.0 million for
advance procurement of T-45C aircraft in fiscal year 2004.
UC-35
The budget request contained no funds for procurement of
UC-35 aircraft.
The UC-35 is a medium-range, medium-lift operational
support aircraft. The committee understands that the Marine
Corps conducts the operational support airlift mission with the
short-range C-12 aircraft, which is increasingly expensive to
operate, and does not meet payload, range, or avionics
requirements. The committee notes the Commandant of the Marine
Corps has included the procurement of UC-35s among his unfunded
priorities for fiscal year 2003.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.3 million for
one UC-35 aircraft for the Marine Corps.
Weapons Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $1,832.6 million for Weapons
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends
authorization of $1,916.6 million for fiscal year 2003.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
AIM-9X missile
The budget request for the Department of the Navy contained
$53.3 million for 295 AIM-9X missiles and the budget request
for the Department of the Air Force contained $57.0 million for
286 AIM-9X missiles. The AIM-9X missile is a fifth generation,
launch-and-leave, infrared-guided air-to-air missile.
The committee notes that the AIM-9X missile is superior to
all fielded short-range air-to-air missiles, is pleased that
both the Departments of the Navy and the Air Force have
included its procurement in the fiscal year 2003 budget request
and restored its procurement in their future years defense
programs, and understands that cost improvement initiatives
have been, and continue to be, underway to achieve lower future
unit costs.
The committee strongly encourages the Departments of the
Navy and the Air Force to take the necessary actions to
leverage cost improvement initiatives and to maximize economies
of scale in order to procure the most AIM-9X missiles possible
in the future years defense programs within the programmed
budget.
Hellfire II missile
The budget request contained no funds for Hellfire II
missiles.
The Hellfire II missile is a laser-guided, anti-armor and
anti-ship weapon used by the Marine Corps on the AH-1W
helicopter and by the Navy on the SH-60B helicopter as their
primary precision-guided munition. The committee notes that,
despite increased funding provided by Congress in fiscal years
1998, 2000 and 2001, the Navy is currently at only 54 percent
of its inventory requirement for these missiles. The committee
further notes that, as a result of this situation, both the
Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine
Corps have identified procurement of Hellfire II missiles among
their unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2003.
Consistent with its prior actions, the committee recommends
an increase of $40.0 million to procure additional Hellfire II
missiles.
Tomahawk missile
The budget request contained $145.8 million for 106 block
IV low-rate initial production tactical tomahawk (TACTOM)
missiles but included no funds for special tooling and test
equipment to increase the production rate of the block IV
TACTOM missile from 450 to 600 missiles per year.
The Tomahawk missile is a long-range, precision strike
cruise missile launched from surface ships or submarines, and
the block IV TACTOM missile will provide improved performance
at a lower unit cost than previous missile versions. The
committee understands that existing special tooling and test
equipment will provide a capacity to produce 450 TACTOM
missiles per year, but believes that the ability to produce 600
TACTOM missiles per year would be critical in a time of
national emergency.
The committee recommends $167.8 million for the Tomahawk
missile, an increase of $22.0 million, to procure the special
tooling and test equipment necessary to increase the production
of block IV TACTOMs from 450 to 600 per year.
Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request contained $1,015.2 million for
Ammunition Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps in fiscal year 2003.
The committee recommends authorization of $1,104.5 million for
fiscal year 2003.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Marine corps ammunition procurement
The budget request contained $276.3 million for procurement
of ammunition. The committee recommends an increase of $38.9
million for the following types of ammunition, which are among
the top unfunded requirements identified by the Commandant of
the Marine Corps in fiscal year 2003:
[In millions of dollars]
Cartridge, 7.62mm, linked..................................... 1.3
Cartridge, .50 caliber, linked................................ 2.3
Cartridge, 120mm HEAT-MP-T.................................... 10.0
Cartridge & Lnchr., 84mm AT-4 M136............................ 10.0
Projectile, 155mm HE M795..................................... 9.0
Non-lethal Ammunition......................................... 6.3
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $8,191.2 million for
Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy in fiscal year 2003. The
committee recommends authorization of $9,279.5 million for
fiscal year 2003.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Carrier replacement program advance procurement
The budget request contained $243.7 million for advance
procurement of plans, nuclear components, materials and
equipment for CVN(X)-1. The CVN(X)-1, the first of a new class
of Navy aircraft carriers, is currently scheduled for contract
award in fiscal year 2007 with delivery to the fleet in fiscal
year 2014.
The committee notes that fiscal year 2003 CVN(X)-1 program
of record delays its contract award and delivery schedule by
one year compared to the plan provided to the Congress for
fiscal year 2002, and believes that this delay will increase
long-term construction costs due to disruption in the supplier
base and higher labor costs.
The committee recommends $472.7 million, an increase of
$229.0 million, for carrier replacement program advance
procurement and encourages the Navy to budget its future years
defense program so that the CVN(X)-1 contract award will occur
in fiscal year 2006 and be delivered in fiscal year 2013.
CVN-69 refueling complex overhaul (RCOH)
The budget request contained no funds for the CVN-69 RCOH.
The CVN-69, one of 12 Navy aircraft carriers and also known as
the U.S.S. Eisenhower, is undergoing a prior-year funded mid-
life RCOH that refuels its reactors, upgrades its main
propulsion components, modernizes its warfighting combat
systems, and repairs the ship's infrastructure to meet
continued service life requirements.
The committee understands that procurement of deferred and
high priority habitability work could most efficiently be
accomplished while the CVN-69 is undergoing its mid-life RCOH,
and notes that the Chief of Naval Operations has included the
CVN-69 RCOH among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003.
The committee recommends an increase of $24.0 million for
the CVN-69 RCOH.
Landing craft air cushion (LCAC) service life extension program (SLEP)
The budget request contained $67.6 million for three LCAC
SLEPs, but included no funds for an additional buoyancy box.
The LCAC is the only surface platform that can provide
high-speed, heavy lift for Marine Corps amphibious operations
from over-the-horizon. The SLEP would extend the LCAC's service
life from twenty years to thirty years, and the buoyancy box,
part of the LCAC SLEP, is the hull section component enabling
the LCAC to be properly buoyant in the water. The committee
understands that, while only three buoyancy boxes are planned
for production in fiscal year 2003, four is the minimum rate of
production necessary to preclude a termination of the buoyancy
box production line.
The committee believes that uninterrupted buoyancy box
production is critical to continuation of the LCAC SLEP, and
recommends $78.6 million, an increase of $11.0 million for the
procurement of one additional buoyancy box for the LCAC SLEP.
Minehunter small waterplane area twin hull (SWATH) boats
The budget request contained no funds for procurement of
Minehunter SWATH boats or for their associated mine
countermeasures equipment suites.
The Minehunter SWATH boat is a 40-foot, twin hull vessel
that can operate in very shallow water with increased stability
in rough seas compared to a similar size mono hull ship. The
Navy's minehunting fleet includes one Minehunter SWATH boat,
which is its only surface mine warfare vessel capable of
operating in very shallow water or capable of transport by C-5
aircraft for operational deployment within 24 hours. The
committee understands that the Minehunter SWATH boat has
completed highly successful testing and notes that senior naval
officers support increased procurement to meet shallow water
minehunting requirements.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.3 million for
the procurement of two Minehunter SWATH boats and their
associated mine countermeasures equipment suites.
Other Procurement, Navy
Overview
The budget request contained $4,347.0 million for Other
Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends
authorization of $4,527.8 million for fiscal year 2003.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced integrated electronic warfare system (AIEWS)
The budget request contained $15.8 million to procure the
AIEWS.
Subsequent to the submission of the fiscal year 2003 budget
request, the Department of the Navy notified the committee that
it had terminated the AIEWS program due to cost overruns and
continued schedule delays, which has adversely impacted the
Navy's ability to field urgently needed surface electronic
warfare improvements. Therefore, the committee recommends
denial of funds for this program.
Environmental support equipment
The budget request contained $20.0 million for the
procurement of environmental support equipment, but no funds
were included for the procurement of high resolution, side
scanning, bottom mapping sonars.
High resolution, side scanning, bottom mapping sonars,
temporarily on loan to the Naval Oceanographic Office from the
Naval Mine Countermeasures Command (MCM), are currently being
used by T-AGS class ships to map underwater features and
terrain of ports in support of homeland security requirements.
Only three of these sonars are currently available to perform
this mission. The shortfall of available sonars for this
mission will greatly delay the data collection required for
port security and may degrade MCM mission fulfillment.
Understanding the critical need for dedicated, permanent
mapping equipment for homeland security requirements and
continued MCM operations, the committee recommends $27.5
million for environmental support equipment, an increase of
$7.5 million, to procure high resolution, side scanning, bottom
mapping sonars for T-AGS class ships.
Gun fire control equipment
The budget request contained $27.1 million to procure gun
fire control equipment, of which $17.6 million was for the
procurement of three AN/SPQ-9B radars.
The AN/SPQ-9B radar provides early and reliable detection
and tracking of very low radar cross-section, sea skimming
missiles in natural and man-made clutter increasing the time
for ship self defense systems to potentially counter them. The
committee notes that by increasing fiscal year 2003 funds, this
system can be accelerated from its planned fiscal year 2005
initial procurement for DDG-51 class destroyers.
Because the committee is keenly aware of the increasing
proliferation of sea skimming cruise missiles, it recommends
$46.8 million, an increase of $19.7 million, to accelerate
procurement of three additional AN/SPQ-9B radars for DDG-51
class destroyers.
Operating forces industrial plant equipment
The budget request contained $17.1 million for operating
forces industrial plant equipment, but included no funds for
expeditionary maintenance facilities (EMF).
The committee is aware that the Navy is continuing to
decommission its repair tenders, thereby limiting its ability
to rapidly deploy a ship and equipment repair capability to
support forward deployed forces. However, the committee is also
aware that EMF, which are surface and air transportable, self-
contained facilities, can be operational within 72 hours of
deployment, and can meet the service's needs for a rapidly
deployable repair and maintenance capability.
The committee believes the EMF concept may enhance forward
deployed repair requirements, and recommends $22.1 million for
operating forces industrial plant equipment, an increase of
$5.0 million, for procurement of one EMF.
Other aviation support equipment
The budget request contained $12.4 million to procure
aviation support equipment, but included no funds to expand the
resource allocation management plan (RAMP) data base for naval
aviation requirements.
The RAMP is a resource planning software-based system
fielded to fixed wing Naval Aviation Depots (NADEP) that
provides planning, scheduling, and financial assessments for
aircraft maintenance requirements. The committee understands
that this system is not incorporated into Department of the
Navy rotary wing NADEPs and may enhance the efficiency of those
facilities.
Therefore the committee recommends $15.4 million for other
aviation support equipment, an increase of $3.0 million, for
the expansion of the RAMP into rotary wing NADEPs.
Other supply support equipment
The budget request contained $11.0 million for the
procurement of other supply support equipment, but no funds
were included for automatic identification technology (AIT) in
support of the serial number tracking system (SNTS).
The SNTS uses commercial AIT to provide web-based, cradle-
to-grave, total asset visibility of individual components
throughout the supply, maintenance, and transportation transfer
process within Naval and Marine Corps aviation depots and will
enhance the maintenance, remanufacture, and rebuild process of
Navy and Marine Corps aircraft. The committee believes that
streamlined business processes, such as SNTS, can be
accelerated by implementing AIT and has recommended increases
for this technology for this purpose in the Navy in fiscal year
2002, and for maintenance and ammunition tracking systems for
other services in prior fiscal years.
The committee recommends $19.0 million for other supply
support equipment, an increase of $8.0 million, for the SNTS.
Other training equipment
The budget request contained $15.4 million for other
training equipment, of which $32.5 million was for the
procurement to support the battle force tactical training
(BFTT) program.
The BFTT system allows surface combatants and aircraft
carriers to conduct realistic coordinated training scenarios
using ownship equipment instead of shore-based training
simulators. The committee notes that Congress has provided
funds in fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002 to upgrade the BFTT
system in order to provide an air traffic control (ATC)
training capability for aircraft carrier battle groups and
amphibious readiness groups. However, the committee understands
that AEGIS combat training systems on both CG-47 Ticonderoga
class cruisers and DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers
require BFTT upgrades to enable SPY-1 radar operators to also
receive advanced radar on-board training within carrier battle
groups via BFTT. Because of the enhanced benefits to ships'
crews from integrated battle group training, the committee
recommends $21.4 million for other training equipment, an
increase of $6.0 million, to procure BFTT advanced radar on-
board training systems for AEGIS class ships.
Procurement, Marine Corps
Overview
The budget request contained $1,288.4 million for
Procurement, Marine Corps in fiscal year 2003. The committee
recommends authorization of $1,352.0 million for fiscal year
2003.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Family of construction equipment
The budget request contained $14.7 million to remanufacture
or product improve D-7G dozers, 621B scrapers, and 130G
graders. The dozer/scraper/grader fleet is used by Marine Corps
combat engineer and support units for airfield construction, as
well as combat clearing and debris excavation.
The committee notes that the service's dozer, scraper and
grader fleet is over 15 years old and that the Commandant of
the Marine Corps has identified a fiscal year 2003 unfunded
requirement to accelerate remanufacture of this equipment. The
committee also notes that the remanufacturing/product
improvement program will extend the life of this equipment for
an additional 10 years.
Consistent with its actions in prior years, the committee
recommends $21.2 million for the family of construction
equipment, an increase of $6.5 million, to remanufacture/
product improve D-7G dozers, scrapers, and graders.
Night vision equipment
The budget request contained $23.2 million to procure night
vision equipment, but included no funds to procure AN/PVS-17
night vision sights.
The AN/PVS-17 is a lightweight, rifle-mounted, generation
III image intensification night vision sight that replaces
obsolete, post-Vietnam era AN/PVS-4 sights. The committee notes
that the Commandant of the Marine Corps has identified a $12.7
million fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirement to procure
additional AN/PVS-17 night vision sights, which would complete
this system's acquisition objective. Consistent with prior year
actions, the committee continues to recognize the increased
benefits of generation III technology, and recommends $36.0
million for night vision equipment, an increase of $12.8
million, for AN/PVS-17 night vision sights.
Radio systems
The budget request contained $25.5 million to procure radio
systems, but no funds were included to procure Tactical Hand
Held Radios (THHR), and $1.0 million was included for the
Lightweight Multiband Satellite Terminal (LMST).
The THHR is a military-ready, multi-band, secure voice and
data radio that will provide Marine reconnaissance teams, and
squad-/platoon-size units with a lightweight, standardized,
maintainable communications capability that is interoperable
with numerous Department of Defense legacy communications
radios.
The LMST is a joint mobile military tri-band satellite
communications terminal deployed in transit cases, which allow
rapid set up and tear down required in rugged, tactical and
expeditionary operations. The LMST provides enhanced long-haul
communications for forward deployed forces.
The committee notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps
has identified a $5.0 million unfunded requirement for THHRs
and a $20.0 million unfunded requirement for LMSTs in fiscal
year 2003. Because the committee believes that the services
must have interoperable communications to successfully operate
in joint military deployments and supports the need for greater
communications capability within small units, the committee
recommends $50.5 million for radio systems, an increase $5.0
million to complete the acquisition objective for THHRs, and an
increase of $20.0 million to begin procurement of LMSTs.
Aircraft Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $12,067.4 million for Aircraft
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2003. The committee
recommends authorization of $12,522.8 million for fiscal year
2003.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
B-2 modifications
The procurement budget request contained $72.1 million for
various B-2 modifications, of which $9.9 million was included
to upgrade two B-2 aircraft with satellite communications
(SATCOM), but included no funds for the B-2's windshield tape
alternative (WTA) modification. Additionally, the research,
development test and evaluation (RDTE) budget request contained
$225.3 million in PE 64240F for B-2 system development, but
included no funds for low observability (LO) maintenance
improvements. The B-2 is the Department of Defense's most
advanced long-range strike aircraft, capable of global force
projection in a highly defended target environment.
The B-2 SATCOM provides beyond-line-of-sight secure voice
and data communications that will ensure global command and
control of this aircraft. The committee notes that only nine B-
2s are budgeted to receive SATCOM, and believes that the entire
fleet of 21 B-2 aircraft should be upgraded with this critical
modification. Consequently, the committee recommends an
increase of $25.2 million to configure the remaining B-2s with
SATCOM.
The WTA modification would replace the current tape around
the exterior of the B-2's windshield which is rapidly
deteriorating due to vibration and cabin pressurization cycles.
The committee understands that this modification would improve
the B-2 mission capable rate by 1.75 percent, reduce operations
and support costs by $24.5 million, save 25,000 maintenance
man-hours per year, and reduce the aircraft's signature to
enemy radar. The committee recommends an increase of $6.8
million to modify 16 B-2 aircraft with the WTA and encourages
the Air Force to budget funds to complete the WTA modification
for the remaining aircraft in fiscal year 2004.
The committee understands that B-2 LO maintenance
improvement development is required in three parts of the
aircraft: door seals, engine exhaust area coatings, and
tailpipe coatings. The B-2's current door seals, which are
prone to damage causing decreased signature performance, could
be repaired by the development of alternate door edge treatment
(ADET) that would simplify maintenance procedures and reduce
radar signature degradation. Secondly, the B-2's engine exhaust
environment, which causes existing hot trailing edge coatings
to degrade and delaminate resulting in costly repairs, could be
improved with the development of the advanced hot trailing edge
(AHTE) which would retrofit new high-temperature composite
coatings in the engine exhaust area, improving the B-2's
availability. Thirdly, the B-2's current tailpipe coating,
which requires time-consuming repairs resulting from ablation
during routine engine operating conditions, could be improved
by the development of new materials and processes that would
decrease the expenditure of maintenance man-hours and improve
the B-2's mission capable rate. The committee recommends an
increase of $17.0 million in PE 64270F for the ADET, AHTE, and
new tailpipe coating development.
The committee recommends $104.1 million for B-2 procurement
modifications, an increase of $32.0 million, and $242.3 million
in RDTE PE 64240F, an increase of $17.0 million.
C-130H
The budget request contained $18.7 million for C-130H
procurement, but included no funds for the conversion of an Air
Force Reserve Command (AFRC) C-130H3 unit level trainer (ULT)
to the C-130H2 configuration.
The committee understands that the AFRC's C-130H2 formal
training unit (FTU) currently possesses a C-130H3 ULT that
requires conversion to the C-130H2 configuration to property
train C-130H2 FTU students, and believes that, without the
conversion of the ULT, projected student throughput will not be
achievable.
The committee recommends $23.7 million for C-130H
procurement, an increase of $5.0 million for the conversion of
the AFRC's C-130H3 ULT to the C-130H2 configuration.
C-130J
The Department of the Air Force budget request contained
$175.9 million for program management, logistics, and training
support for the fleet of 37 Air Force C-130J aircraft.
Additionally, The Department of the Navy Defense Emergency
Response Fund (DERF) budget request contained $334.0 million
for four KC-130J aircraft. The committee notes that the Air
Force budget request includes a proposal to begin a five-year,
40-aircraft C-130J multiyear procurement, and understands that
funds that would be provided to the Department of the Navy for
the Marine Corps' KC-130J program in the DERF for fiscal years
2003 through 2008 would add 24 KC-130J aircraft throughout the
five-year period and be included in the Air Force C-130J
multiyear procurement for a total of 64 aircraft to be procured
under the Air Force C-130J multiyear proposal.
In past years, the committee has strongly supported both
the Air Force's C-130J and the Marine Corps' KC-130J aircraft
variants to modernize these fleets. While the committee
continues to support procurement of both variants, it is
concerned that the Air Force C-130J is experiencing difficulty
in meeting established operational effectiveness and
suitability parameters. However, the committee believes that
continued senior management attention to the achievement of its
operational effectiveness and suitability goals will result in
a successful initial operational test and evaluation, and that
the multiyear procurement contract should proceed subsequent to
the Secretary of Defense's certification to the congressional
defense committees that satisfactory progress is being made
towards a successful operational test and evaluation. The
committee views satisfactory progress to include, but not be
limited to, the aircraft's ability to conduct worldwide airland
operations, assault operations, and the completion of both
software block 5.3 installation and its associated hardware
components.
Additionally, despite the fact that over two months have
elapsed since the committee received the budget request and its
associated budget justification documents, the Department of
the Air Force has still not provided the committee the
necessary findings outlined in section 2306b(a) of title 10,
United States Code, for the committee to fully understand and
evaluate the savings that would be achieved by the proposed C-
130J multiyear procurement contract. The committee recommends a
provision (Section 121) that would authorize the Secretary of
Defense to enter into a multiyear procurement contract for Air
Force C-130J and Marine Corps KC-130J aircraft beginning with
the fiscal year 2003 program year, subject to a certification
to the congressional defensecommittees that satisfactory
progress is being made towards a successful operational test and
evaluation, and that each of the conditions specified in section
2306b(a) of title 10, United States Code, have been satisfied with
respect to that contract.
C-130 modifications
The budget request contained $138.5 million for C-130
modifications, but included no funds for the fourth-generation
terrain awareness and warning system (TAWS) or for the MC-130P
universal aerial refueling receptacle slipway (UARRSI)
modification.
The fourth-generation TAWS, the most advanced TAWS version,
projects an aircraft's position relative to the ground and
improves pilot situational awareness by warning of potential
ground impact, thus preventing controlled flight into terrain.
The committee understands that the Air Force has directed that
all passenger and troop carrying aircraft be equipped with a
fourth-generation TAWS by fiscal year 2005, but also
understands that the C-130 avionics modernization program,
which provides avionics upgrades for the C-130 fleet, does not
schedule the installation of a fourth-generation TAWS until
fiscal years 2006 to 2014. Therefore, the committee recommends
an increase of $31.0 million to procure and install the fourth-
generation TAWS on the Air Force fleet of C-130 aircraft.
The MC-130P UARRSI modification, which allows the MC-130P
to be refueled in flight, has been installed on all but two of
the Air Force's operational MC-130P fleet, but the committee
understands that it has not been installed on the four aircraft
used to train new MC-130P pilots. Since the committee believes
that in-flight air refueling training is critical for new MC-
130P pilots, it recommends an increase of $11.6 million to
procure and install the MC-130P UARRSI modification on the four
aircraft used to train new MC-130P pilots.
The committee recommends $181.1 million, an increase of
$42.6 million for C-130 modifications.
F-15 modifications
The budget request contained $232.5 million for F-15
modifications, of which $33.0 million was included for six ALQ-
135 band 1.5 countermeasures system modifications, but included
no funds to convert the Air National Guard's (ANG) F100 engines
in their F-15 aircraft to the F100-220E configuration.
The ALQ-135 band 1.5 countermeasures system modification
provides a self-protection jamming capability against modern
surface-to-air enemy missiles and is integrated with the F-
15E's existing internal countermeasure set and its ALR-56C
radar warning receiver to provide full threat coverage. The
committee believes that improved self-protection capability
such as the ALQ-135 band 1.5 countermeasures system
modification addresses critical deficiencies identified
subsequent to Operation Allied Force in 1999, and that the ALQ-
135 band 1.5 countermeasures system should be produced at the
most efficient rates and installed in F-15E aircraft as rapidly
as possible.
The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million to
procure 20 additional ALQ-135 band 1.5 countermeasures systems,
and strongly encourages the Air Force to establish a consistent
funding approach for the ALQ-135 band 1.5 countermeasures
system that will complete production and installation of this
modification on all F-15E aircraft by fiscal year 2005.
Conversion kits for the F-15's F100 engine, also known as
``E-kits,'' provide increased thrust, greater reliability,
better fuel efficiency, and reduced operations and maintenance
costs. The committee notes that the ANG's F-15 aircraft make a
critical contribution to the Air Force's Air Expeditionary
Forces, and believes that engine conversion kits for the ANG's
F-15 aircraft should be accelerated. Therefore, the committee
recommends an increase of $34.0 million for engine conversion
kits for the ANG's F-15 aircraft.
The committee recommends $291.5 million for F-15
modifications, an increase of $59.0 million.
F-16 modifications
The budget request contained $265.0 million for various F-
16 modifications, but included no funds for Litening advanced
airborne targeting and navigation (AT) pods for the Air Force
Reserve Command (AFRC), for the Air National Guard's (ANG)
Theater Airborne Reconnaissance System (TARS) pods, or for
F100-229 re-engine kits for the ANG's block 42 F-16 aircraft.
Additionally, the research, development test and evaluation
(RDTE) budget request contained $66.8 million in PE 35206F for
airborne reconnaissance systems, but also included no funds for
the TARS.
The Litening AT pod is the next generation Litening pod
system that will incorporate an advanced forward-looking infra-
red radar and other enhancements to the existing multi-sensor
and precision strike capability. Since the committee
understands that Litening AT pods are among the Air Force
Reserve Commander's top unfunded modernization priorities, it
recommends an increase of $14.4 million for eight Litening AT
pods for the AFRC.
The two ANG F-16 units equipped with TARS pods provide a
responsive under-the-weather reconnaissance capability to
support the intelligence and targeting requirements of military
users. The committee understands that current TARS pods require
a data link system upgrade to connect with the joint force air
component commander's command and control (JFACC C2) structure
and a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) to enable night and all-
weather reconnaissance capability. Since the committee believes
that night and all-weather reconnaissance operations and the
ability to data link to the JFACC C2 structure are essential to
identify and engage time-critical targets, it recommends an
increase of $11.1 million in PE 35206F to complete the
development of the data link and SAR integration into the TARS,
and a procurement increase of $6.6 million for upgraded TARS
pods.
The committee notes that the ANG's F-16 block 42 aircraft
are underpowered compared to F-16 block 40, block 50, and block
52 aircraft, and believes that this limitation does not provide
sufficient power to adequately defend against opposition air
defense systems in likely theaters of operation. To provide
increased thrust for the ANG's F-16 block 42 aircraft, the
committee recommends an increase of $62.0 million to re-engine
ten F-16 block 42 aircraft with the F100-229 re-engine kit.
In total, the committee recommends $348.0 million for F-16
procurement modifications, an increase of $83.0 million, and
$77.9 million in RDTE PE 35206F, an increase of $11.1 million.
Fixed aircrew standardized seats
The budget request contained $54.7 million for other
modifications, but included no funds for fixed aircrew
standardized seats (FASS).
FASS would provide crewmembers and passengers on C-130, C-
135, C-141, C-5, E-3, KC-10, C-17, and E-8 aircraft protection
against aircraft crash loads up to 16 times the force of
gravity. In prior years, the committee has supported the
development of the FASS, understands that it is now ready for
production, and continues to believe that its implementation
will not only increase safety but also reduce supply and
maintenance costs through the commonality and
interchangeability of its parts.
The committee recommends $59.5 million for other
modifications, an increase of $4.8 million, for procurement of
FASS.
HH-60G pave hawk upgrades
The budget request contained $40.6 million for H-60
modifications, but included no funds to upgrade the 13 student
training HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopters.
The committee understands that the HH-60G Pave Hawk
helicopters used for student training are not configured with
701C engines, forward looking infra-red (FLIR) systems or
helicopter infrared suppression systems (HIRSS), which are
configurations used in the combat air force (CAF) HH-60G Pave
Hawk fleet. The committee further understands that, as a result
of these deficiencies, pilots who complete training in those
HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopters not configured with the 701C
engine, FLIR systems or the HIRSS are not proficient in the use
of these systems when they arrive at their operational units.
Since the committee believes that student training in
operational HH-60G Pave Hawk CAF configurations is critical to
mission readiness, it recommends an increase of $29.5 million
to procure and install 701C engines, FLIR systems, and the
HIRSS on the 13 HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopters used for student
training.
Miscellaneous production charges
The budget request contained $349.5 million for
miscellaneous production charges, of which $14.2 million was
included for the P4 refurbishment contract (P4RC), but included
no funds for the P4RC for the Air National Guard (ANG) or for
the comet infra-red (IR) countermeasures pod.
The P4 is an airborne instrumentation subsystem pod used by
fighter and attack aircraft which provides the capability to
conduct air-to-air, air-to-surface, and electronic warfare
combat training while providing real-time aircraft monitoring
and recording events for post-mission debrief and analysis.
While the P4 pods can only be used at ranges equipped with
ground-station instrumentation, the P4RC upgrades the P4 pods
with global positioning receivers, data recorders, and on-board
weapons simulations so that training can occur at locations
without ground-station instrumentation. Since ANG units and
aircraft have experienced increased operations tempo and may
not have the opportunity to conduct training at ranges equipped
with ground-station instrumentation, the committee believes
that ANG units should also be included in the P4RC. The
committee recommends an increase of $30.0 million to upgrade
150 ANG P4 pods to the P4RC configuration.
The comet IR countermeasures pod is designed for use on
military fighter and transport aircraft to provide preemptive
and extended duration protection from man-portable surface-to-
air missiles (SAMs) by dispensing a continuous stream of
pyrophoric material that oxidizes on contact with the
atmosphere producing a decoy IR signature. The committee notes
that both instances of battle damage to an A-10 aircraft during
Operation Allied Force occurred due to IR SAMs that were not
seen by the pilot, or other aircraft in the formation, because
of the SAM's small size, high speed, and short engagement
range, and understands that the comet IR countermeasures pod
could provide the long-duration self-protection necessary for
an A-10 aircraft to accomplish its mission while operating in
the target area. Due to its importance in protecting both
combat and mobility aircraft, the committee also notes that the
Air Force Chief of Staff has included the comet IR
countermeasures pod among his top unfunded priorities for
fiscal year 2003. In addition to the research and development
increase described elsewhere in this report, the committee
recommends an increase of $18.0 million to procure 48 comet IR
countermeasures pods and 576 decoy cartridges for use in A-10
aircraft.
The committee recommends $379.5 million for miscellaneous
production charges, an increase of $48.0 million for
miscellaneous production charges.
Predator B unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)
The budget request contained $23.1 million for procurement
of seven Predator UAV systems but included no funds for the
turbo prop-powered Predator B, a larger, faster variant with
increased payload capacity.
The Predator UAV system provides long-dwell, real-time
intelligence information to Joint Task Force Commanders. The
committee notes that following the accomplishments of the
Predator UAV system in its reconnaissance role in Operation
Enduring Freedom, the system has also successfully demonstrated
its capability to be weaponized to deliver Hellfire missiles.
As missions for the Predator UAV system expand, the committee
believes that the improved speed and payload capacity of the
turbo prop-powered Predator B UAV is critical to future combat
operations.
The committee recommends an increase of $26.0 million for
six turbo prop-powered Predator B UAV systems and associated
spare parts.
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $1,133.9 million for
Ammunition Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2003. The
committee recommends authorization of $1,176.9 million for
fiscal year 2003.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Air Force Ammunition Procurement
The budget request contained $1,129.5 million for
procurement of ammunition. The committee recommends an increase
of $29.9 million, for the following types of ammunition
programs:
[In millions of dollars]
Practice Bombs: Cast Ductile Iron (BDU-56).................... 3.0
General Purpose Bombs: Cast Ductile Iron (MK-84).............. 3.0
Sensor Fuzed Weapon........................................... 20.0
Flares:
MJU-52 Training Flares.................................... 2.0
MJU-52 War Reserve Flares................................. 1.9
Missile Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $3,575.2 million for Missile
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2003. The committee
recommends authorization of $3,482.6 million for fiscal year
2003.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced extremely high frequency satellite
The budget request contained $94.5 million in missile
procurement Air Force, budget activity 05, Item 19, for
advanced extremely high frequency (AEHF) satellite advanced
procurement.
The committee is aware that the AEHF satellite program has
been restructured, and therefore cannot execute the $94.5
million funds requested for advanced procurement.
The committee recommends no funds in missile procurement
Air Force for AEHF satellite advanced procurement, a decrease
of $94.5million.
AGM-65 modifications
The budget request contained $300 thousand for AGM-65
modifications, but included no funds for conversion of AGM-65
missiles to an upgraded configuration.
Two configurations of the AGM-65, a precision guided
tactical missile employed on the F-16, F-15E and A-10 aircraft,
are currently undergoing conversion to be upgraded for improved
capability. The ``G'' configuration, with an infrared target
seeker is being upgraded to the ``K'' configuration, which uses
an updated electro-optical (EO) seeker. The ``B''
configuration, with an obsolete EO target seeker, is being
upgraded to the ``H'' configuration, which also uses an updated
EO seeker. The committee understands that planned production of
AGM-65H and AGM-65K missiles in fiscal year 2003 will not occur
at economic rates, and also will not provide sufficient
training missiles for Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC) or Air
National Guard (ANG) pilot proficiency training.
The committee recommends $5.3 million, an increase of $5.0
million to upgrade an additional 160 AGM-65 missiles to the
``H'' or ``K'' configuration, of which 100 missiles are for
pilot proficiency training in the AFRC and ANG.
Minuteman III modifications
The budget request contained $580.7 million for Minuteman
III (MM III) modifications, of which $237.5 million was for the
guidance replacement program (GRP) and $290.3 million was for
the propulsion replacement program (PRP). The MM III is a
strategic ballistic missile capable of delivering special
weapons against enemy targets at very long range.
The GRP replaces the MM III's guidance system with updated
and more reliable components and the PRP refurbishes the MM
III's booster to provide extended service life. The committee
notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has included MM III
modifications contract cost growth and renewal among his
unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003 due to contract rate
increases and higher than planned consumption of government
furnished equipment in both the GRP and PRP. The committee also
notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has included the
procurement of additional warhead shipping containers in this
unfunded priority because the Nuclear Posture Review-directed
warhead download options were revealed only after the fiscal
year 2003 budget request had been submitted.
The committee recommends $603.9 million for MM III
modifications, an increase of $23.2 million to address GRP and
PRP deficiencies and to procure warhead shipping containers.
Other Procurement, Air Force
Overview
The budget request contained $10,523.9 million for Other
Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2003. The committee
recommends authorization of $10,907.7 million for fiscal year
2003.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Combat arms training system (CATS)
The budget request contained $11.3 million for base
procured equipment, but included no funds for CATS. CATS is a
computer-based simulation system that provides marksmanship
training for security force personnel as well as training to
manage less-than-lethal judgmental scenarios.
The committee understands that since September 11, 2001,
Air National Guard (ANG) bases, which are each equipped with
one CATS, are used daily to train security force personnel, and
that, as a result of this daily use, a second CATS is required
at each ANG base leaving a shortfall off 117 systems. With
limited access to firing ranges and training munitions, the
committee believes that the CATS is proving to be an essential
asset to meet the marksmanship and weapons certification
training, and situational scenario readiness requirements, of
ANG personnel.
The committee recommends $25.3 million for base procured
equipment, an increase of $14.0 million, for the CATS.
Combat training ranges
The budget request contained $17.2 million for combat
training ranges, but included no funds for the unmanned threat
emitter (UMTE) program.
The committee understands that both the Nellis and Eielson
air combat training ranges are not configured with training
systems which emulate the most advanced adversary surface-to-
air missile and anti-aircraft artillery systems, and believes
that the UMTE program will address this requirement.
Consequently, the committee recommends $53.2 million for
combat training ranges, an increase of $36.0 million for the
UMTE program.
Eagle vision
The budget request contained $9.0 million for intelligence
communication equipment, but included no funds for procurement
of the eagle vision system.
Eagle vision is a mobile off-the-shelf downlink and
processing system that utilizes commercial satellites for
imagery. The committee understands that the eagle vision system
will incorporate the ability to overlay high-resolution
national imagery over unclassified commercial data, and will
also provide a capability to transmit this data to warfighters
in the field within minutes. The committee notes its past
support for the eagle vision system and believes that it should
be continued to provide the warfighter with imagery support
capability that is not available by other means.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for
procurement of the eagle vision system.
General information technology
The budget request contained $55.8 million for general
information technologies, but included no funds for procurement
of the parts and repair item support (PARIS) program or for the
science and engineering lab data integration (SELDI) program.
The PARIS program is a computer-based system that
facilitates the management of technical data related to source
qualification and outsourced repairs for use by the Air Force's
Air Logistics Centers. The committee understands that the PARIS
program has demonstrated the ability to accurately and rapidly
identify both defective parts and their vendors, so that the
those parts, identified as defective, could be quickly removed
from service and the applicable vendors could be removed as the
approved supplier of those parts. Additionally, the committee
understands that use of the PARIS program has already saved an
estimated $15.0 million in fiscal year 2001, and believes that
its increased use will result in future parts, repair and labor
cost savings. The committee recommends an increase of $9.0
million for the PARIS program.
The Air Force Material Command's science and engineering
lab captures, analyzes and disseminates lab test data to the
Air Force's engineering and system overhaul operations, and the
committee understands that the SELDI program would facilitate
this mission by providing more rapid lab data access affecting
overhaul operations, providing accident investigators with
immediate access to lab results of failed components, enabling
component failure trend analysis, and implementing new acoustic
signature sensors to ensure the proper chemical composition of
materials and equipment. Since the committee further
understands that the SELDI would improve operational aircraft
readiness, increase flight safety and reduce support costs, it
recommends an increase of $9.5 million, for procurement of the
SELDI program.
The committee recommends a total increase of $18.5 million
for general information technologies.
GeoBase centralized geographic information system (GIS)
The budget request contained $202.9 million for base
communications infrastructure, but included no funds for
procurement of the GeoBase centralized GIS.
The GeoBase centralized GIS would link all aspects of a
base's infrastructure information to a computer-generated map
display so relationships between people and processes can be
displayed in a geographical context. The committee understands
that the Air Force's major and minor installations currently
use disparate and outdated systems and processes that do not
facilitate the visibility of assets, requirements, and
processes in a geographic context to allow enhanced management
efficiency, and believes that the GeoBase centralized GIS would
standardize base management functions in a more accessible,
easily-understood, and effective manner.
The committee recommends $217.9 million for base
communications infrastructure, an increase of $15.0 million for
procurement of the GeoBase centralized GIS.
Point of maintenance initiative
The budget request contained $25.6 million for mechanized
material handling equipment, but included no funds for
procurement of the point of maintenance initiative (POMX).
The POMX is a maintenance data collection program that was
designed and developed by the Logistics Systems Office of the
Air Force Materiel Command. The committee notes that the POMX
objective is to increase the timeliness and accuracy of
maintenance data collection while reducing the administrative
burden on maintenance technicians, and understands that its use
has already been validated at one Air Force base.
To ensure the efficiency and accuracy of maintenance-
related data, the committee recommends $33.6 million for
mechanized material handling equipment, an increase of $8.0
million, for the POMX.
Thinpack parachutes
The budget request contained $9.3 million for personal and
safety items of less than a $5.0 million value, but included no
funds for procurement of thinpack parachutes.
Due to its longer repack cycle and extended service life,
the committee believes that replacement of existing parachutes
with the thinpack parachute would result in substantial life
cycle cost savings as it has in the Navy's P-3 and E-2C
aircraft programs. For this reason, the committee has strongly
supported thinpack parachutes, previously known as the
lightweight environmentally sealed parachute assembly, and
understands that both the Air Force Special Operations Command
and Air Mobility Command are developing the thinpack parachute
in fiscal year 2002 so that production can commence in early
2003.
Consistent with its previous actions, the committee
recommends $4.0 million to procure thinpack parachutes for use
in Air Force aircraft.
Procurement, Defense-Wide
Overview
The budget request contained $2,688.5 million for
Procurement, Defense-Wide in fiscal year 2003. The committee
recommends authorization of $2,621.0 million for fiscal year
2003.
The committee recommends approval of the request except for
those programs adjusted in the following table. Unless
otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and
based on affordability considerations.
Items of Special Interest
Army special operations aviation (ARSOA) avionics re-capitalization and
enhanced situational awareness
The budget request contained $289.8 million for special
operations forces (SOF) rotary wing upgrades, but included no
funds for the ARSOA avionics re-capitalization and enhanced
situational awareness program.
The committee understands that the ARSOA avionics re-
capitalization and enhanced situational awareness program would
replace obsolete avionics with mission processors,
multifunction displays and intelligence broadcast receivers for
13 helicopters in the Army's 160th Special Operations Aviation
Regiment, and would preclude time-sensitive parts obsolescence
problems beginning in fiscal year 2004.
Since the committee notes that the Commander-in-Chief of
the Special Operations Command has included the ARSOA avionics
re-capitalization and enhanced situational awareness program as
his highest unfunded priority for fiscal year 2003, it
recommends $309.0 million for SOF rotary wing upgrades, an
increase of $19.2 million, for the ARSOA avionics re-
capitalization and enhanced situational awareness program.
Chemical/biological defense procurement program
The budget request contained a total of $435.7 million for
chemical/biological defense (CBD) procurement, including $125.3
million for procurement of individual protection equipment,
$15.6 million for decontamination equipment, $143.2 million for
the joint biological defense program, $34.7 million for
collective protection equipment, and $116.9 million for
contamination avoidance equipment.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for
procurement of automatic chemical agent alarms (ACADA) for the
Army National Guard and Army Reserve, an increase of $13.4
million for procurement of the biological integrated detection
system for newly organized Army Reserve biological detection
units, and a total of $49.6 million for collective protection
equipment, including an increase of $14.9 million for
procurement of chemical-biological protective shelters for Army
medical companies and Marine Corps forward surgical teams.
Computer assisted medical diagnostics
The committee is aware that off-the-shelf medical
diagnostic technology is available that could significantly
improve the ability of health care professionals to more
quickly and accurately diagnose diseases, using a digital
clinical library and decision support software. This technology
could enable clinicians to rapidly sort and review thousands of
medical photographs, match them to the patient's symptoms and
other relevant factors, and quickly develop a priority list of
potential diagnoses. The committee understands that the
surgeons general of the Army and the Air Force are evaluating
such technology, and urges the Secretary of Defense to closely
evaluate this technology for procurement by all the services.
Portable intelligence collection and relay capability (PICRC)
The budget request contained $8.2 million for special
operations forces (SOF) intelligence systems but included no
funds for PICRC systems.
The PICRC system integrates commercial-off-the-shelf, full-
dimensional mapping and display software; desktop computers;
hand-held computing devices; and wireless communications to
provide SOF operators with high-resolution imagery for
precision navigation, annotation of real-time visual
observations, and a capability to relay information to command
elements. The committee understands that this system would
significantly enhance SOF capabilities to accurately collect,
quickly report, and promptly act upon real-time intelligence
data.
The committee recommends $14.2 million for SOF intelligence
systems, an increase of $6.0 million, for procurement of PICRC
systems.
Special operations forces (SOF) small arms and weapons
The budget request contained $4.8 million to procure SOF
small arms and weapons, of which $3.7 million was to procure
the advanced lightweight grenade launcher (ALGL), but included
no funds to procure the AT4-confined space (CS) anti-armor and
bunker defeat and breeching weapon.
The committee notes the Commander-in-Chief of the Special
Operations Command has identified fiscal year 2003 unfunded
requirements of $4.4 million for accelerated procurement of
ALGLs, and $10.5 million to accelerate and field the first
production lot of 4,000 AT4-CS special operations insensitive
munition weapons.
The committee recommends $19.7 million for SOF small arms
and weapons, an increase of $4.4 million for additional ALGLs,
and an increase of $10.5 million for additional AT4-CS weapons,
for a total increase of $14.9 million.
Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense
Overview
As described elsewhere in this report, the committee
recommends transferring the budget request of $1,490.2 million
for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army (CAMD, A)
to Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (CAMD,
D), and recommends a total of $1,490.2 million for Chemical
Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense, including $974.2
million for research, development, test, and evaluation, $302.7
million for procurement, and $213.2 million for operations and
maintenance. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are
without prejudice and based on affordability consideration.
Items of Special Interest
Chemical agents and munitions destruction
The committee notes that chemical demilitarization for 90
percent of the stockpile at eight stockpile storage sites in
the continental United States is under contract. To date, more
than 8,000 tons of chemical agent, over 25 percent of the total
U.S. stockpile, have been safely destroyed in operational
demilitarization facilities at Johnston Atoll and Tooele, Utah,
using the baseline incineration process. Stockpile
demilitarization operations at the Johnston Atoll facility have
been completed and shutdown of that facility begun.
Construction of demilitarization facilities at Anniston,
Alabama, and Umatilla, Oregon, has been completed and
systematization operations are in progress at those locations,
while construction of the Pine Bluff, Arkansas, facility is
over 75 percent complete. Mustard agent in bulk storage at
Aberdeen, Maryland, and VX nerve agent in bulk storage at
Newport, Indiana, will be destroyed using neutralization,
rather than the baseline incineration process. In September
2001, the Defense Acquisition Executive completed a
comprehensive review of the chemical demilitarization program
that resulted in new schedule milestones (completion of
stockpile destruction in 2011 vice 2007 as required under the
Chemical Weapons Convention Treaty) and a new life cycle cost
estimate: $24,000.0 million, an increase of $9,000.0 million
over the previous estimate. The review provided the basis for
the selection of neutralization as the technology to be used
for destruction of mustard-filled munitions and bulk agent at
Pueblo, Colorado, and the yet-to-be-designated technology to be
used for destruction of assembled chemical weapons at Blue
Grass, Kentucky. The committee understands that the Defense
Acquisition Executive directed the Army to propose alternatives
for accelerating the destruction of the stockpile and reducing
the overall life cycle costs.
The committee is aware of actions being taken in the
aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York
and against the Pentagon, to increase the safety and security
of the stockpile against potential terrorist attack. A decision
has been made to accelerate the destruction of bulk mustard at
Aberdeen and acceleration of the destruction of bulk VX at
Newport is under consideration. The committee notes that
funding for accelerated destruction of bulk agent was not
included in the fiscal year 2003 budget request or in the
fiscal year 2002 supplemental request. Should additional funds
for the accelerated destruction of bulk agent not be included
in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriation, the
committee strongly recommends that they be included in the
President's subsequent budget request for authorization and
appropriation of the Defense Emergency Fund.
The committee notes the shift in program management
oversight responsibility within the Army Secretariat from the
Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics) to the Assistant Secretary of the Army
(Installations and Environment). The committee believes that
the cost, complexity, and importance of the program require
that it continue to be managed as a major defense acquisition
program, and elsewhere in this report has recommended a
provision (section 143) to that effect.
The committee notes on-going efforts in the chemical
stockpile emergency preparedness program (CSEPP) to insure the
readiness of the military installations on which the chemical
demilitarization facilities are located and of the surrounding
localcivilian jurisdictions to respond to a chemical accident
or incident involving the stockpile. The committee believes that close
working relationships between the Department of the Army and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and its regional activities,
state and local emergency management activities, and local government
and the Army installations are absolutely essential to ensuring that
the Army's chemical stockpile storage and destruction mission are
capable of being carried out so as to ensure the maximum protection for
the environment, the general public, and the personnel who are involved
in the storage and destruction of the stockpile. The committee expects
both the Secretary of the Army and the Director, FEMA to carry out
their respective responsibilities with regard to the CSEPP program in
accordance with the memorandum of agreement between the two agencies.
In the report that accompanied H.R. 2586 (H. Rept. 107-
194), the committee directed the Secretary of Defense to update
the assessment required by Section 141(a) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-
65) by March 1, 2002, in order to identify those actions taken
or planned by the Secretary to significantly reduce the cost of
the program and ensure its completion in accordance with the
obligation of the United States under the Chemical Weapons
Convention. The committee has not yet received this report, but
plans to hold hearings on the chemical stockpile destruction
program later this year to address these and other program
issues.
Finally, the committee directs the Comptroller General to
review and assess the status and management of the chemical
stockpile destruction program and to report the results of that
assessment to the congressional defense committees not later
than March 1, 2003.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Sections 101-107--Authorization of Appropriations
These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year
2003 funding levels for all procurement accounts.
Subtitle B--Navy Programs
Section 111--Shipbuilding Initiative
This section would authorize $810.0 million for one
additional Arleigh Burke Class destroyer, or DDG-51, in fiscal
year 2003 if the Secretary of the Navy certifies to the
congressional defense committees on, or before the date of the
enactment of this Act, that the prime contractor for the
Virginia Class submarine program has committed to expend from
its own funds an amount not less than $385.0 million for
economic order quantity procurement of nuclear and non-nuclear
components for Virginia Class submarines beginning in fiscal
year 2003. If this certification is not provided, then $810.0
million shall be allocated as follows: $415.0 million for
Virginia Class submarine advance procurement, $210.0 million
for cruiser conversion advance procurement, and $185.0 million
for nuclear attack submarine engineered refueling overhaul.
Additionally, if the terms of the agreement between the
prime contractor for the Virginia Class submarine program and
the United States include a requirement for the Secretary of
the Navy to seek to acquire Virginia Class submarines through a
multiyear procurement contract, the Secretary of the Navy may,
in accordance with section 2306b of title 10, United States
Code, enter into a multiyear contract for the procurement of
Virginia Class submarines beginning in the fiscal year 2003
program year, subsequent to his certification that the
conditions in subsection (a) of that section have been
satisfied with respect to that contract and a period of thirty
days has elapsed after the date of transmission of such
certification to the congressional defense committees.
Subtitle C--Air Force Programs
Section 121--Multiyear Procurement Authority for C-130J Aircraft
Program
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
enter into a multiyear procurement contract for Air Force CC-
130J and Marine Corps KC-130J aircraft beginning with the
fiscal year 2003 program year, subject to a certification to
the congressional defense committees that satisfactory progress
is being made towards a successful operational test and
evaluation, and that each of the conditions specified in
section 2306b(a) of title 10, United States Code, have been
satisfied with respect to that contract.
Subtitle D--Other Programs
Section 141--Revisions to Multiyear Contracting Authority Relating to
Structuring of Contracts
This section would change section 2306b(i) of title 10,
United States Code to require the Department of Defense to
structure multiyear procurement contracts so that complete end
items are procured through yearly appropriated amounts, and
would restrict advance procurement to those long-lead items
necessary in order to meet the planned delivery schedule for
complete major end items programmed under the contract to be
acquired with funds appropriated in a subsequent fiscal year.
Section 142--Transfer of Technology Items and Equipment in Support of
Homeland Security
This provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
enter into an agreement with an independent, non-profit,
technology-oriented entity, which has demonstrated a proven
ability to facilitate technology transfer of promising defense
technologies developed by both the private and public sectors
that will aid federal, state and local law enforcement, fire
fighting, and emergency medical ``first responders''. The
entity would develop and deploy items and equipment through
coordination between government agencies and private sector,
commercial developers and suppliers oftechnology that would
enhance public safety and emergency response. The entity would also
work in coordination with the InterAgency Board (IAB) for Equipment
Standardization and Interoperability to develop items and equipment
that meet the standardization requirements established by the IAB. The
entity would evaluate the equipment items that have been identified
through the standards development process accomplished to date by the
IAB and other state-of-the-art items and equipment that may benefit
first responders. An increase of $1.0 million is included in PE 65384BP
to facilitate this agreement and establish an InterAgency Consequence
Management Equipment Transfer program.
Section 143--Destruction of Existing Stockpile of Lethal Chemical
Agents and Munitions
This section would require that the Secretary of Defense
ensure that the program for destruction of the United States
stockpile of lethal chemical agents and munitions is managed as
a major defense acquisition program in accordance with the
essential elements of such programs as may be determined by the
Secretary. The provision would also require the Under Secretary
of Defense (Comptroller) to certify annually to the
congressional defense committees that the budget request for
the chemical agents and munitions destruction program has been
submitted in accordance with the requirements of applicable
federal laws. As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee
cites section 1412 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1986 (Public Law 99-145), as amended.
Section 144--Report on Department of Defense Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
Systems
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the Congress no later than January 1, 2003
for each unmanned aerial vehicle system to include: (1) a
description of the system infrastructure, (2) the system
Operational Requirements Document, (3) a description of the
system training and basing infrastructure, (4) a description of
the how the department acquires unmanned aerial vehicle
systems, (5) the system acquisition plan and (6) recommended
changes in law that would facilitate unmanned vehicle
acquisition.
Section 145--Report on Impact of Army Aviation Modernization Plan on
the Army National Guard
This section would require the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau to submit a report to both the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services no later
than February 1, 2003, regarding the impact of the Army
Aviation Modernization Plan on the Army National Guard to
conduct its aviation missions, the plan and timeline outlined
within the Army Aviation Modernization Plan to transfer
aircraft from the active Army to the Army reserve components,
and the suitability of existing, commercial off-the-shelf,
light-twin engine helicopters to perform Army National Guard
aviation missions. The provision would also allow for the Chief
of Staff of the Army to submit views on the report.
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
Overview
The budget request contained $53,924.2 million for
research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), including
$67.2 million for the Defense Health Program. The committee
recommends $56,491.5 million, an increase of $2,567.4 million
to the budget request.
The committee strongly supports this much needed increase
and notes that the Department of Defense and the military
services have all initiated major efforts to transform military
warfighting capabilities to better prepare for future threats
and challenges. The committee notes that the largest portion of
the total RDT&E request is contained in the fielded system
development category, the area primarily dedicated to upgrades
of existing systems. The committee remains concerned that the
Department will not be able to budget for sufficient funds to
sustain all of the planned system upgrades and also adequately
fund priority transformation efforts.
The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to outline
clearly the overall Department priorities for RDT&E investment
strategies for both transformation efforts and existing system
upgrades and sustainment.
Army RDT&E
Overview
The budget request contained $6,918.5 million for Army
RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $6,933.3
million, an increase of $283.4 million and a transfer of $268.6
million for missile defense programs from Army RDT&E to
Defense-wide RDT&E.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2003 Army
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes
to the Army request are discussed following the table.
Items of Special Interest
155mm extended-range guided projectile
The budget request contained $70.9 million in PE 64814A for
artillery munitions.
The committee notes that the Army is merging the trajectory
correctable munitions (TCM) program and the Excalibur (XM-982)
guided munition program into a single extended-range guided
munition program. The committee is aware that combining these
programs has the potential to reduce cost, improve performance
and accelerate fielding of a 155mm extended-range guided
projectile for our ground forces.
The committee strongly supports merging TCM and Excalibur
and recommends the budget request in PE 64814A.
Advanced Army composite bridge
The budget request contained $229.8 million in PE 63005A
for combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, but
included no funds for the development of the Advanced Army
Composite Bridge.
The committee is aware that the Army has evaluated a
composite bridge technology demonstrating a capacity to carry
military loads in excess of 110 tons. The committee understands
the potential benefits composite materials offer, especially in
terms of weight savings, corrosion resistance, and battle
damage tolerance. As a result, the committee urges further
development of this initiative to facilitate a full-scale
demonstration and complete design and fabrication.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
63005A to mature the full-scale demonstration of the Advanced
Composite Bridge.
Advanced battery technology demonstration and validation program
The budget request contained $7.4 million in PE 63308A for
Army missile defense systems integration, but included no funds
for the advanced battery technology demonstration and
validation program.
The committee is aware that the advanced battery technology
demonstration and validation program has produced notable
successes such as a new thermal battery for the Patriot PAC-3
missile and a prototype battery for the compact kinetic energy
missile. He committee supports continuation of the program to:
(1) continue development of a thermal battery simulation and
modeling tool, (2) develop advanced electrochemical batteries
to support the missile technology sector, and (3) provide the
government with a second source for critical-use thermal
batteries.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE
63308A for the advanced battery technology demonstration and
validation program.
Advanced fuel cell technology
The budget request contained $27.5 million in PE 62705A for
electronics and electronic devices, but included no funding for
advanced fuel cell technology.
The committee notes that the military is becoming
increasingly dependent on electrical power for its personal
warfighting systems, and supports development of advanced fuel
cell technology to meet those requirements.
The committee recommends $32.5 million for PE 62705A, an
increase of $5.0 million for advanced fuel cell technology.
Advanced threat infrared countermeasures/common missile warning system
The budget request contained $22.8 million in PE 64270A for
the development of EW equipment, but included no funds to
complete an Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures/Common
Missile Warning System (ATIRCM/CMWS) installed test facility
upgrade.
The ATIRCM system integrates defensive infrared (IR)
countermeasures into currently fielded aircraft for more
effective protection against a greater number of IR-guided
missiles than is provided by currently fielded technology. The
CMWS provides warning of a threat IR-guided missile on a
variety of tactical aircraft and helicopters. While the
committee notes the transfer of this system to the United
States Special Operations Command for continued development and
initial fielding, the committee is aware of a critical
requirement to upgrade Army test facilities in order to perform
effective tests on helicopter self-protection systems installed
and integrated on aircraft against multi-mode missile seekers.
To complete this test facility system upgrade, the
committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 64270A,
for this purpose.
Aircrew coordination training
The budget request contained $3.5 million in PE 63007A for
manpower, personnel, and training technology but included no
funds for aircrew coordination training (ACT).
The committee notes that ACT has almost completed
development. The committee is aware that ACT has demonstrated
the ability to improve aircrew safety and efficiency, which is
especially critical in combat operations.
The committee recommends $5.6 million in PE 63007A, an
increase of $2.1 million for aircrew coordination training.
Applied communications and information networking (ACIN) program
The budget request contained no funds in PE 64805A for the
ACIN program.
The committee understands that the ACIN program includes
projects intended to integrate commercial off-the-shelf
components and adapt commercial technologies to fulfill
military communications applications for 21st century warfare.
The committee notes that the Army has implemented the ACIN
program and recommends that the Secretary of the Army
coordinate with the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command,
Control, Communications, and Intelligence) to expand applicable
aspects of the ACIN program within the Department of Defense.
Consistent with its prior year actions to promote increased
partnering with commercial industry, the committee recommends
an increase of $17.0 million in PE 64805A for ACIN.
Anti-material sniper rifle
The budget request contained $6.0 million in PE 63607A for
the joint service small arm program, but included no funding
for the anti-material sniper rifle.
The committee is aware that the Army unfunded requirements
list contains a requirement for improvements to the long-range
sniper rifle. The anti-material sniper rifle offers the
potential to reduce weight and improve reliability of the
existing sniper rifle.
The committee recommends $15.8 million in PE 63607A, an
increase of $9.8 million for the anti-material sniper rifle.
Asbestos pilot project
The budget request contained $9.3 million in PE 63779A for
environmental quality technology, but included no funds for an
asbestos pilot project.
The committee is aware that asbestos is an environmental
hazard and supports research and development to improve
hazardous waste reduction, and reduce the cost of disposal.
The committee recommends $11.3 million in PE 63779A, an
increase of $2.0 million for an asbestos pilot project.
Automated document conversion
The budget request contained $229.8 million in PE 63005A
for combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, but
included no funds for advanced data conversion.
The committee notes that only a small portion of the Tank
and Automotive Command's legacy product data is in computer
aided design formats. The committee is aware that CAD-based
technical data is recognized as an enabler for cost effective
recapitalization.
The committee recommends an increase of $750 thousand in PE
63005A for development and evaluation of existing and emerging
technologies for conversion of paper/raster to 2-dimensional
and 3-dimensional CAD along with advanced formats.
Bipolar wafer cell nickel-metal hydride battery
The budget request contained $61.0 million in PE 78045A for
end item industrial preparedness, but included no funds for the
bi-polar wafer cell nickel-metal hydride battery.
The committee is aware that the future military will be
increasingly dependent on portable electric power, and notes
that bi-polar wafer cell nickel-metal hydride battery
technology has the potential to meet some of these needs.
The committee recommends $63.0 million in PE 78045A, an
increase of $2.0 million for bi-polar wafer cell nickel-metal
hydride battery.
Clothing and equipment technology
The budget included $25.5 million in PE 62786A for clothing
and equipment technology, but included no funding to improve
the affordability and reliability of inflatable textile-based
structures for deployable shelters.
The committee is supportive of the Army's Transformational
Campaign Plan, and particularly of development of technologies
to improve soldier survivability and performance. The committee
notes that the Army's logistics development plan appears to be
inconsistent with all Objective Force requirements,
particularly with regard to achieving rapid rates of deployment
into areas with likely chemical or biological weapons threats.
The committee is aware that advanced shelter development
incorporating innovative weaving technologies may
simultaneously facilitate deployments and improve soldier
survivability and urges the Army to pursue further development
of this initiative.
The committee recommends $27.5 million in PE 62786A, an
increase of $2.0 million, for advanced development in
deployable shelters.
Crusader
The committee is aware that the Crusader advanced field
artillery system is the Army's next generation self-propelled
howitzer that has increased lethality, mobility, and
survivability. The committee notes that the requirement for
Crusader directly addresses the shortfalls in mobility and
range of U.S. artillery systems that were evident during the
Gulf War. Crusader capitalizes on mature, state-of-the-art
technologies to improve range and volume of fire,
responsiveness, re-supply, command and control and
sustainability. The committee notes that the Army proposes to
transition Crusader from program definition and risk reduction
(PDRR) to systems development and demonstration (SDD) in fiscal
year 2003. A milestone B decision is scheduled in the 3rd
quarter of fiscal year 2003 to support this transition.
The committee notes Crusader's continuing progress in
development and is aware that Crusader has already met all of
its milestone B firing performance requirements in government
testing at Yuma Proving Ground. The government-industry team
contract performance continues to be on schedule and budget.
The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics,
and Technology) and the Director of the Army's Objective Force
Task Force have testified before this committee regarding the
need for Crusader and the capabilities it brings to the
battlefield.
The committee is concerned that the transformational war-
fighting potential of Crusader has not been fully recognized by
the Department of Defense and cannot be properly assessed until
the Army completes its comprehensive Analysis of Alternatives
(AOA) for the Crusader Milestone B decision. The committee
believes that alternatives to Crusader's capabilities suggested
by the Department of Defense should be included in the AOA and
assessed on an equal basis.
Therefore, the Committee directs that there be no change to
the Crusader development schedule, funding or procurement
requirements, to include termination, until the completion of
the Army's Milestone B Analysis of Alternatives. The Secretary
of the Army shall present a report of the completed analysis to
the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2003. The
committees will respond to that analysis within 30 days so that
the scheduled Milestone B review can be completed in April
2003.
Digital glue technology
The budget request contained $31.9 million in PE 62303A for
missile technology, but included no funds for digital glue
technology.
The committee is informed that digital glue technology can
reduce the number of lines required to integrate systems by as
much as a factor of 10.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.4 million in PE
62303A for digital glue technology.
Dismounted situation awareness system
The budget request contained $28.9 million in PE 23758A for
digitization, but included no funds for the dismounted
situation awareness system (DISM).
The committee endorses the use of commercial-of-the-shelf
(COTS) technology to meet warfighting requirements while
reducing costs and schedules. The committee notes that the
dismounted situation awareness system (DISM) map has
successfully demonstrated its ability to significantly improve
combat unit situational awareness during a night live fire
exercise with paratroops. The committee is also aware that this
system was developed using small business innovative research
program funding.
The committee recommends $32.9 million in PE 23758A, an
increase of $4.0 million for DISM.
Distance learning
The budget request contained $14.3 million in PE 62785A for
manpower/personnel/training technology, but included no funds
for distance learning.
The committee notes that education is essential both for
career advancement and to support a well-educated work force,
and further notes that distance learning is a new and
innovative means to provide such required education.
The committee recommends $15.8 million in PE 62785A, an
increase of $1.5 million for distance learning.
Eliminating arthropod-borne infectious disease
The budget request contained $67.5 million in PE 62787A for
medical technology, but included no funds for eliminating
arthropod-borne infectious disease.
The committee is aware that arthropod-borne infectious
disease represents a significant health problem over a growing
portion of the United States, with potential to infect members
of our military.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
62787A for eliminating arthropod-borne infectious disease
Energy and sustainability research
The budget request included $2.9 million in PE 63734A for
military engineering and advanced technology, but included no
funding for energy and sustainability research.
The committee supports initiatives designed to improve
infrastructure life cycle operations and cost effectiveness, as
well as enhancing the overall quality of life on military
installations. The committee further supports those efforts
aimed at achieving efficiencies in energy-consumption while
concurrently experiencing reductions in overall pollution
levels and waste-streams. The committee understands that
innovative technologies can be brought to bear on these issues
in a collaborative environment involving both academia and
government resources. The committee notes that energy and
sustainability audits of Department of Defense facilities have
produced numerous operational efficiencies. The committee
encourages further development in this initiative.
The committee recommends $5.9 million in PE 63734A, an
increase of $3.0 million, for energy and sustainability
research.
Enhanced area air defense system short range air defense integrated
kinetic energy system
The budget request contained $31.9 million in PE 62303A for
missile technology, but included no funds for the Army enhanced
area air defense system (EAADS) short range air defense
integrated kinetic energy (E-STRIKE) system.
The committee is aware that the Army's SWORD program, a
component of E-STRIKE, is scheduled to complete science and
technology efforts at the end of fiscal year 2002, and will be
without funding until the E-STRIKE program begins in fiscal
year 2004.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
62303A for SWORD.
Explosively formed penetrators
The budget request included $3.0 million in PE 62624A for
research on smaller, more lethal Explosively Formed Penetrators
(EFPs).
The committee strongly endorses the Army's Future Combat
System (FCS) and supports initiatives aimed at fielding a
lighter, faster, more survivable, and more lethal combat force.
The committee recognizes that warhead requirements and
technologies must consequently adapt to FCS characteristics and
is concerned that the present level of EFP investment may prove
insufficient to meet both existing and future requirements. The
committee further recognizes that the eventual FCS combat
vehicles may involve a variety of smaller caliber guns and
rocket launchers requiring smaller and more lethal warheads to
defeat, among other things, active protection systems. Indeed,
a next-generation warhead technology could benefit mortars,
artillery, rockets, missiles, and hand-emplaced munitions. The
committee encourages the Army to place greater emphasis on such
an effort.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
62624A for smaller, more lethal, next-generation Explosively
Formed Penetrators.
Eye-safe laser
The budget request contained $22.3 million in PE 62709A for
night vision technology, but included no funds for eye-safe
lasers.
The committee is aware that eye-safe laser technology is
applicable to detection and identification of diverse objects,
such as wires, vehicles, and chemical/biological clouds.
The committee recommends $25.3 million in PE 62709, an
increase of $3.0 million for combustion driven eye-safe laser
technology.
Family of systems simulator
The budget request contained $7.4 million in PE 63308A for
Army missile defense systems integration, but included no funds
for the family of systems simulator (FoSSim).
The committee is aware that FoSSim integration capability
can be used to evaluate and improve new operational concepts,
and analyze interfaces for missile defense capabilities.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE
63308A for FoSSim.
Fuel catalyst research and evaluation
The budget request contained $229.8 million in PE 63005A
for combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, but
included no funds for fuel catalyst research and evaluation.
The committee is aware that a fuel catalyst technology has
been developed that causes hydrocarbon fuels to combust more
completely, leading to reduced emissions and better fuel
economy. The committee notes that a demonstration of this
catalyst technology could validate its potential for
significant operational savings for military vehicles.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
63005A for fuels catalyst research and evaluation.
Global combat support system
The budget request contained $71.9 million in PE 33141A for
global combat support system-Army (GCSS-A).
The committee is aware that the Army initiated an
information systems program in 1997 that was intended to
transform the Army's information technology support systems.
The committee notes that the Army is still attempting to
implement the first, and generally accepted easiest of five
modules intended to replace 16 legacy systems. The committee
additionally notes that the Army is changing its acquisition
strategy forsubsequent modules, and questions the requirement
for research and development until the revised strategy is clear.
The committee recommends $51.9 million in PE 33140A, a
decrease of $20.0 million for GCSS-A
Helmet mounted thermal imaging system
The budget request contained $36.5 million in PE 63710A for
night vision advanced technology, but included no funds for the
helmet-mounted thermal imaging system.
The committee is aware that thermal imaging offers
potential for improved detection of personnel involved in
casualties where emergency crews, be they military or civilian,
must work in environments where visibility is obscured.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.8 million in PE
63710A for the helmet mounted thermal imaging system.
Hemoglobin based oxygen carrier
The budget request contained $67.5 million in PE 62787A for
medical technology, but included no funds for the hemoglobin-
based oxygen carrier.
The committee is aware of a 2001 Department of Defense
(DOD) Inspector General audit of the DOD Blood Program that
highlights programmatic shortfalls in the Department's ability
to meet its stated requirements. The committee is aware of a
promising hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier technology that would
minimize, and in some cases eliminate, the storage and
transportation problems identified in the report. A hemoglobin-
based oxygen carrier has extended life and innovative health
benefits due to its ability to deliver oxygen directly to human
tissue. The committee supports this innovation and urges the
Department of the Army to move expeditiously in a manner that
will soon field this capability.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE
62787A specifically for the hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier.
Human factors engineering technology
The budget request included $17.4 million in PE 62716A for
Human Factors Engineering Technology, but included no funding
for the Army's manpower and personnel integration (MANPRINT)
modeling technologies.
The committee supports efforts to maximize soldier
performance and to match soldier effectiveness with the
technological advances imbedded in the Army's Objective Force
concept. The committee endorses efforts of the Army Research
Laboratory to conduct field studies and collect performance
data on the capabilities and limitations of soldiers,
particularly in the area of soldier-equipment interaction.
Further, the committee recognizes and fully encourages the
cross-service integration of tools and methodologies in an
effort to minimize total ownership costs of future weapons
systems through improvements in design, operations, and
maintenance.
The committee recommends $20.4 million in PE 62716A, an
increase of $3.0 million, for development of MANPRINT modeling
and related technologies.
Hyperspectral long-wave imager for the tactical environment
The budget request included $4.9 million in PE 305206A for
Airborne Reconnaissance Operational Systems Development.
The committee remains supportive of long-wave infrared
(LWIR) hyperspectral imagery technology as a means for
providing a unique, next-generation, all-terrain, day/night
detection capability for camouflaged or concealed targets. The
committee notes that the Army's planned efforts in this program
include the development of greater integration of a variety of
imaging techniques. The committee supports these initiatives
yet remains particularly concerned with the need to integrate
the stabilization of the LWIR sensor for ensuring enhanced
target detection algorithms in pursuit of a full system
capability.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.2 million in PE
35206A for hyperspectral long-wave imager.
Intelligence command global information portal
The budget request contained $5.4 million in PE 33028A for
Security and Intelligence Activities, but included no funding
for the Army intelligence and security command (INSCOM) global
information portal.
The committee notes that INSCOM is developing the global
information portal to provide intelligence analysts with timely
information and to provide software applications that improve
analysis. The committee is aware that INSCOM is using
commercial-off-the-shelf software to continue to develop the
global information portal.
The committee recommends $10.4 million in PE 33028A, an
increase of $5.0 million for the INSCOM global information
portal.
Javelin
The budget request contained $489 thousand in PE 64611A for
Javelin missile upgrades; however, no funds were included for
upgrades to defeat advanced active protection systems (APS).
The Javelin missile system is a fire-and-forget antitank
weapon designed to defeat the most current armored systems
fielded today. However, the committee understands some armored
vehicles use APS to detect incoming missiles and defeat them by
interfering with the missile guidance system.
The committee is aware of an ongoing technology insertion
program to overcome this problem that uses current off-the-
shelf technologies to develop counter APS (CAPS) for Tube-
launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided and Hellfire missiles
to defeat existing generation I and II APS. The committee notes
that the Army Chief of Staff has identified a $13.1 million
unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2003 for future generation
III CAPS development, integration and testing for the Javelin.
Based on increased threats and the need to develop CAPS for
generation III APS threats to the Army's antitank missiles, the
committee recommends $13.6 million, an increase of $13.1
million, in PE 64611A for this purpose and strongly urges the
Army to include funds in its fiscal year 2004 budget to
accelerate this program.
Landmine warfare/barrier engineering development
The budget request contained $129.0 million in PE 64808A
for landmine warfare/barrier engineering development, of which
$28.3 million was for non-self-destruct anti-personnel landmine
alternatives (NSD-A).
The committee understands that the Army has used a portion
of the $37.2 million of fiscal year 2001 NSD-A funds as a
reprogramming source and that $13.0 million of the funds remain
withheld by the Department of Defense Comptroller. Since a
portion of fiscal year 2001 funds have not been obligated for
their intended purpose, additional funds remain on withhold,
and the program is delayed, the committee believes that the
remainder of these funds can be used to meet fiscal years 2002
and 2003 requirements until the Department of Defense
determines its course of action on this initiative.
The committee recommends $101.7 million in PE 64808A for
fiscal year 2003, a decrease of $27.3 million.
Lightweight x-band radar
The budget request included $29.1 million in PE 12419A for
Joint Land Attack Cruise Missiles Defense, but included no
funding for lightweight x-band radar technology.
The committee is aware of efforts to improve the
discrimination capability of the Joint Land Attack Cruise
Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System (JLENS) to better
address the increased cruise missile threat. The committee
understands the challenge of maintaining an advanced, cost-
effective, long endurance, precision-tracking defensive system.
According to justification documents provided to the committee,
JLENS has a requirement to develop, test, and provide a
contingency-deployable Fire Control radar demonstration
prototype to address this challenge. The committee understands
that a lightweight electronically-steerable X-band antenna may
be ideal. Therefore, the committee urges the Army to pursue
further development of such technology.
The committee recommends $31.1 million in PE 12419A, an
increase of $2.0 million, for lightweight x-band radar
technology.
M795 extended range, high explosive baseburner projectile
The budget request contained $38.1 million in PE 62624A for
weapons and munitions technology, but included no funds for the
M795 extended range, high explosive baseburner projectile.
The committee notes that modern warfare requires greater
artillery range and is aware that the M795 extended range
baseburner projectile offers the potential to enhance
conventional field artillery capabilities.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 in PE 62624A
million for the M795 extended range, high explosive baseburner
projectile.
Metabolically engineered tissues for trauma
The budget request contained $67.5 million in PE 62787A for
medical technology, but included no funds for metabolically
engineered tissues for trauma care.
The committee notes that technologies are being developed
to permit long-term storage of cells and tissues in an ordinary
environment that would allow better treatment of battlefield
casualties.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
62787A for metabolically engineered tissues for trauma.
Metallic particles in defense applications obscurant smokes
The budget request contained $3.7 million in PE 62622A for
chemical, smoke and equipment defeating technology, but
included no funds for metallic particles in defense
applications obscurant smokes.
The committee notes that metallic particles in defense
applications obscurant smokes may have potential benefits for
the warfighter.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
62622A for metallic particles in defense applications obscurant
smokes.
Metrology
The budget request contained $50.3 million in PE 63001A for
warfighter advanced technology development, $37.8 million in PE
64215N for Navy standards development, and $1.3 million in PE
72207F for precision maintenance and calibration.
The Department of Defense's metrology research and
development program develops new measurement standards and
capabilities to support the development, test, evaluation, and
maintenance of emerging military systems. The committee
understands that shortfalls in the metrology budget of all the
military departments have led to the erosion of critical
calibration standards development and measurement services to
the detriment of the development and support of new weapons
systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE
63001A for the Army's metrology research and development
program, an increase of $5.2 million in PE 64215N for the Navy
program, and an increase of $1.5 million in PE 72207F for the
Air Force metrology research and development program.
Micro electro-mechanical systems inertial measurement unit/global
positioning system
The budget request contained $31.9 million in PE 62303A for
missile technology, and included $10.0 million for micro
electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) inertial measurement units
(IMU).
The committee is aware that MEMS integrated inertial
measurement unit-global positioning systems (IMU-GPS) offer the
potential to provide affordable precisionnavigation capability
for a family of platforms and weapons. The committee notes that the
Army has been designated as the lead service for this program.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
62303A for MEMS IMU-GPS.
Mini-backpack unmanned aerial vehicle
The budget request contained $46.5 million in PE 35204A for
night vision advanced technology, and included $9.6 million for
night vision airborne systems.
The committee is aware that an advanced mini-backpack
unmanned air vehicle (UAV) with day/night sensor capability has
been developed and is ready for testing. The committee notes
that this UAV has potential applications both with existing
forces and as part of the future combat system.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
35204A for mini-backpack UAV.
Mobile tactical high energy laser
The budget request contained $7.4 million in PE 63308A,
including $3.5 million for the Mobile Tactical High Energy
Laser (MTHEL), a mobile version of an existing high energy
chemical laser system jointly developed by the United States
and Israel to demonstrate the feasibility of defeating short
range rockets using directed energy.
The committee is aware of promising results with the
current THEL, but believes that much work remains to be
accomplished before the technology develops to a lethal and
militarily useful capability.
The committee recommends an increase of $25 million in PE
3308A for MTHEL.
Night vision fusion
The budget request contained $36.5 million in PE 63710A for
night vision technology, but included no funds for night vision
fusion.
The committee is aware that the ability to see
significantly better at night and under conditions of obscured
visibility than an adversary is critical to the success of the
military. The committee notes that digital pixel-level fusion
has demonstrated the potential to greatly enhance night vision.
The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE
63710A for night vision fusion.
Non-traditional intelligence analysis toolset
The budget request contained $42.3 million in PE 64321A for
support of the All Source Analysis System (ASAS), but included
no funds for the continued development of the non-traditional
intelligence analysis toolset (NTIAT).
The committee strongly supports the Army's objective force
concept, yet remains concerned with the Department's lack of
commitment to develop an open-architecture, information-
exchange capability as part of the more mobile, ASAS-Light
alternative. The committee strongly supports the ASAS-Light
modernization initiative as a means for maintaining situational
awareness, battle-management interoperability, and targeting
advantages at all echelons of command and in all deployment
environments. The committee supports further investment in this
multi-source fusion and processing effort.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
64321A to continue NTIAT development.
Nuclear biological, and chemical agent removal
The budget request contained $11.4 million in PE 63804A for
logistics and engineering equipment, and included $7.9 million
to develop and demonstrate prototype petroleum and water
distribution technologies.
The committee strongly supports Army efforts to protect
against potential contamination of water supply systems and
recognizes the shortcomings of current analytical methods. The
committee is particularly supportive of proposals designed to
improve the real-time detection and removal of nuclear,
biological, and chemical (NBC) contamination and is aware of
promising analytical approaches in this field.
The committee recommends $16.4 million in PE 63804A, an
increase of $5.0 million, specifically for evaluating
technologies and analyzing concepts for applicability to NBC
contamination detection and removal.
P3 micro-power devices for missile defense applications
The budget request included $7.4 million in PE 63308A for
Army missile defense systems integration, but included no
funding for the P3 micro-power device.
The committee endorses the development work at the Army
Space and Missile Defense Command aimed at producing a micro-
power device suitable for applications in autonomous and remote
conditions. The committee notes the infinite number of
applications for such a technology, particularly in
intelligence, battle management, and missile defense systems.
The committee understands the need for such technological
weight and volume efficiencies and supports additional
development.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
63308A for further development of the P3 micro-power device.
Rotary multi-fuel auxiliary power unit
The budget request contained $229.8 million in PE 63005A
for combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, and
included $39.2 million for combat vehicle mobility.
The committee is aware that rotary multi-fuel auxiliary
power unit (APU) technology may offer a reduced cost
alternative to existing turbine APUs. The committee notes that
rotary multi-fuel technology may also offer weight advantages
suitable for a broad range of applications.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63005A for the rotary multi-fuel auxiliary power unit.
Stable hemostat
The budget request contained $16.6 million in PE 63002A for
medical technology, but included no funds for the stable
hemostat.
The committee is informed that 50 percent of combat deaths
are due to uncontrollable blood loss. The committee is aware
that a hemostat has been developed that promotes blood clotting
and has the potential to reduce the death rate on the
battlefield.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE
63002A for stable hemostat.
Textile electronic garments for combat casualty care
The budget request contained $16.6 million in PE 63002A,
including $4.4 million for combat injury management, but
included no funding for rugged textile electronic garments for
combat casualty care.
The committee is aware of advances in sensor technology,
textile electronics, information management and medical science
that have opened up the potential for remote diagnosis,
monitoring, and treatment of a range of medical conditions. The
committee notes positive results from combat casualty care and
electronic textiles research strongly suggesting that major
improvements can be made in wounded soldier survival. To
benefit from these advances, the committee urges the Secretary
of the Army to institute a program to develop, implement, and
assess rugged textile electronic garments for combat casualty
care. The committee expects the proposed effort to develop,
implement and assess advanced textile electronic garments in an
integrated system.
Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0
million in PE 63002A to develop rugged textile garments for
combat casualty care.
Thermionic technology
The budget request contained $7.4 million in PE 63308A for
Army missile defense systems integration, but included no
funding for thermionics technology.
The committee notes that progress is being made in advanced
thermionics technology to make it a more viable power option
for space applications.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63308A for thermionics technology.
Unmanned aerial vehicle/unmanned ground vehicle demonstration program
The budget request contained $4.8 million in PE 63006A for
command, control, communications advanced technology, but
included no funds for an unmanned aerial vehicle /unmanned
ground vehicle (UAV/UGV) demonstration program.
The committee notes that integrated operations of unmanned
aerial and ground vehicles may provide means to reduce
personnel vulnerability especially while fighting in a complex
urban environment.
The committee recommends $7.2 million in PE 63006A, an
increase of $2.4 million for the UAV/UGV demonstration program.
Volumetrically controlled manufacturing
The budget request contained $87.9 million in PE 63313A for
missile and rocket advanced technology, but included no funding
for volumetrically controlled manufacturing (VCM).
The committee is aware that the Army Medical Research and
Material Command successfully conducted a research program for
biomaterial application using an innovative process, VCM. The
committee notes that VCM is a precision synthetic manufacturing
process that precisely calculates the 3D material matrix
coefficients, in discrete volumes, and then replicates the
properties within a manufacturing process. The material matrix
has the capability to vary, based on loading tolerances, and is
scalable to macro, micro and the nano level, and could lead to
new and higher performance materials for aerospace
applications.
The committee recommends an increase of $11.5 million in PE
63313A for volumetrically controlled manufacturing.
Weapons and munitions engineering development
The budget request contained $41.8 million in PE 64802A for
weapons and munitions engineering development, but no funds
were included to complete development of the shoulder-launched
multipurpose assault weapon-disposable (confined space) (SMAW-
D(CS)) or the common remotely operated weapon system (CROWS).
Shoulder-launched multipurpose assault weapon-disposable
(confined space)
The SMAW-D(CS) will enable soldiers to fire this single-
shot, disposable launcher weapon against earthen, timber
bunkers and light armored vehicles and breech masonry walls
from and an enclosed space, which is not possible with the
current SMAW-D. This requirement is necessary due to the
termination of the multipurpose individualized munition, which
provided soldiers with a confined space launch capability. Due
to the increased urban terrain engagements that soldiers are
training for and operating in and the need for this confined
space, launch and breeching requirement, the committee
recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 64802A to complete
development of the SMAW-D(CS).
Common remotely operated weapon system
The CROWS provides armored and light armored vehicles with
remotely operated machine guns, allowing crewmembers to fire
from and remain within the protection of their vehicles. The
committee recommends an increase of $3.4 million in PE 64802A
to continue development of the CROWS.
Wire detection and obstacle avoidance system for helicopters
The budget request contained $36.5 million in PE 63710A for
night vision advanced technology, but included no funds for a
wire detection and obstacle avoidance system for helicopters.
The committee is aware that helicopter combat operations
are increasingly conducted at low level and at night. The
committee notes that wire and other obstacle detection and
avoidance is more difficult under those conditions.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
63710A for a wire detection and obstacle avoidance system for
helicopters.
Navy RDT&E
Overview
The budget request contained $12,501.6 million for Navy
RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $13,274.5
million, an increase of $772.9 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2003 Navy
RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes
to the Navy request are discussed following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Acoustic rapid commercial-off-the-shelf technology insertion
The budget request contained $98.5 million in PE 64503N for
submarine system equipment development, including $64.6 million
for acoustic rapid commercial-off-the-shelf technology
insertion (ARCI) of submarine sonars.
The ARCI program upgrades current submarine sonar systems
with open architecture commercial-off-the-shelf computer
technology allowing continued upgrades as technology develops.
Full implementation is currently planned for fiscal year 2008,
but conversion of all submarines can be accelerated with
additional funds. The committee believes that this technology
upgrade is essential for the submarine fleet, and recommends an
increase of $25.0 million in PE 64503N to continue the research
and development necessary for the insertion of multi-purpose
processor technology into submarine and other naval sonar
systems.
Advanced cable design for mine/submarine warfare
The budget request contained $31.1 million in PE 64212N for
anti-submarine warfare and other helicopter development.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
64212N for the development and evaluation of improvements in
the cables used for towing mine and submarine warfare sensors
and countermeasures.
Advanced camouflage coating demonstration
The budget request contained $78.2 million in PE 63114N for
power projection advanced technology development, including
$16.3 million for advanced development of autonomous operations
technology.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63114N for development and flight demonstration of an
integrated set of advanced camouflage coatings and treatments
for unmanned aerial vehicles that will dramatically decrease
the detection range of threat sensors.
Advanced composite radome materials
The budget request contained $60.8 million in PE 25601N for
operational systems development of the high-speed, anti-
radiation missile (HARM), including $48.7 million for continued
development of the advanced anti-radiation guided missile
(AARGM).
The committee notes the progress in the AARGM program, a
Phase III Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) follow-on
program designed to demonstrate an advanced multi-mode seeker
on an existing high-speed anti-radiation missile (HARM)
airframe. Successful controlled, captive flight, and guided
vehicle test flights in the AARGM advanced technology
demonstration and success in phase I of the Quick Bolt advanced
concept technology demonstration have resulted in the Navy's
decision to transition AARGM technology into the system
development and demonstration phase.
The committee notes that use of AARGM technology in the
high-speed anti-radiation demonstration requires a new radome.
The committee also notes that the speed of next-generation
missiles for the suppression of improved enemy air defense and
other time critical targets will require materials for radomes
and conformal antennas that withstand higher temperatures and
permit the use of higher frequency radars. The committee
further notes the identification of several new material
systems that have the potential for meeting both needs.
The committee recommends $62.3 million in PE 25601N, an
increase of $1.5 million to develop and qualify new composite
materials for next-generation high-speed missile system
applications.
Advanced composite sail
The budget request contained $107.4 million in PE 63561N
for advanced submarine system development.
The committee notes that the Navy's technology insertion
plan for the Virginia class submarine includes installation of
an advanced sail on the seventh Virginia class submarine. The
advanced composite sail program is intended to provide
substantial additional payload capacity and stealth
improvements over conventional submarine sails. Phase II of the
program addresses the incorporation of full-scale design
features and the complete spectrum of full-scale load
specifications that would be encountered by operational
submarines, including damage assessment and repair.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63561N for development, demonstration, and validation of
technologies and techniques for advanced monitoring of the
operational condition of composite sails, repair procedures,
and procedures for enabling future payloads to be inserted into
a composite sail without major redesign of the sail structure.
Advanced deployable system burial capability
The budget request contained $35.9 million in PE 64784N to
continue development of the advanced deployable system (ADS).
ADS is an undersea surveillance system that is designed to
detect and track modern diesel electric and nuclear submarines,
as well as provide the capability for tracking surface ships
and detecting sea mine laying. ADS is composed of distributed
sensors that can be rapidly and unobtrusively deployed in
regional contingency areas for use against enemy submarines and
in support of littoral warfare. The committee notes that in
fiscal year 2002 Congress added $4.0 million to the ADS program
to accelerate the development of improvements in the ADS cable
burial capability to enhance ADS cable survivability and
installation of cable trunk extensions. Congress also added
$4.0 million to the program to reduce risk in the development
of remotely powered all optical array technology for the ADS.
The committee recommends an increase of $16.0 million in PE
64784N for the ADS program, including $6.0 million to
accelerate development of the ADS cable burial capability, $4.0
million for the development of ADS off board sensors, and $6.0
million to continue the program for development of remotely
powered, all optical array technology for application in the
ADS program.
Advanced ducted electric propulsion pod
The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for
force protection advanced technology development, including
$14.9 million for surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical,
and electrical advanced technology development.
The committee notes the Navy's development of an advanced
podded propulsion module that will demonstrate an advanced,
hydrodynamically efficient, externally mounted electric ship
propulsion module that reduces fuel consumption; eliminates the
need for large and costly reduction gears, propeller shafts and
hull penetrations; and offers quieter operation and higher
power in a smaller diameter package, compared to other
propulsor options.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
63123N to accelerate the development and demonstration of the
advanced ducted electric propulsion pod.
Advanced extended echo-ranging sonobuoy development
The budget request contained $13.9 million in PE 64261N for
development of acoustic search sensors, including $8.3 million
for advanced extended echo ranging (AEER) development.
The committee notes the role of multi-static active
acoustic sonar systems in the Navy's airborne anti-submarine
warfare capability and on-going programs to improve the
capabilities of extended echo ranging (EER) sensors for
undersea warfare in the shallow waters of the littoral.
The committee recommends $33.9 million in PE 64261N for the
development of acoustic search sensors, including $20.0 million
to continue the program for development of the AEER sensor
system.
Advanced land attack missile
The budget request contained $108.7 million in PE 63795N
for land attack technology demonstration and validation. No
funds were requested for the advanced land attack missile
program.
The committee notes that Navy programs for development of
the extended range guided munition (ERGM), land attack standard
missile (LASM), and advanced land attack missile (ALAM) have
focused on addressing the operational requirements for naval
surface fire support for land forces operating in the littoral
and the shortcomings in current naval surface fire support
capabilities.
In the statement of managers accompanying the conference
report on H.R. 4205 (H. Rept. 106-945), the conferees placed a
high priority on completing the analysis of alternatives to
determine the appropriate course of action for providing Naval
fire support and directed the Secretary of the Navy to report
to the congressional defense committeesrecommended revisions to
the ALAM program with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget
request.
In April 2002, the Comptroller of the Navy executed a
below-threshold reprogramming which redirected funds authorized
and appropriated for ALAM and effectively halted the ALAM
program. The Navy completed an ALAM analysis of alternatives in
May 2001, which determined that a boost glide missile system
was the most cost effective system, supersonic cruise missiles
showed merit, and additional detailed design studies were
warranted. In November 2002, the Assistant Secretary of the
Navy for Research Development, and Acquisition terminated the
LASM program. Section 211 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for 2002 (Public Law 107-107) required the Secretary of
Defense to carry out an assessment of the requirements for
naval surface fire support of ground forces operating in the
littoral environment, including the role of an advanced fire
support missile system for navy combatant vessels and to submit
a report of the result of that assessment to the congressional
defense committees by March 31, 2002. The committee has not yet
received the Secretary's report.
In the Navy's unfunded requirements list that was submitted
to the committee following submission of the fiscal year 2003
budget request, the Chief of Naval Operations identified the
program as a high priority unfunded requirement.
The committee has consistently supported the requirement
for improvements in naval surface fire support to land forces
operating in the littoral and believes that the Navy should
proceed promptly to reestablish the program for development and
demonstration of an advanced land attack missile.
The committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million in PE
63795N for the ALAM program.
Advanced light strike vehicle
The budget request contained $51.6 million in PE 63640M for
Marine Corps advanced technology demonstration, but included no
funds for the advanced light strike vehicle.
The committee is aware that an advanced light strike
vehicle is needed to give Marines on ground mobility and
lethality.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE
63640M for advanced light strike vehicle.
Advanced smart propulsor product model
The budget request contained $89.4 million in PE 62123N for
force protection applied research, including $46.0 million in
surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and electrical
applied research.
The committee notes prior efforts by the Navy in the
development of smart propulsor product models that use advanced
computational analysis, modeling, and simulation in the design,
performance modeling, and analysis of ship propulsors.
Integration of advanced hydromechanical, hydroacoustic, and
mechanical analysis tools in the product models would permit
tighter coupling of performance modeling and simulation to
analyze and make tradeoffs in the design and manufacture of
propulsors that could improve performance, yet reduce
manufacturing and life cycle costs.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
62123N for the development of an advanced smart propulsor
product model that would incorporate advanced hydromechanical,
hydroacoustic, and mechanical analysis tools to permit tighter
coupling of performance.
Advanced stealth ship radar
The budget request contained $65.1 million in PE 63271N for
radio frequency systems advanced technology demonstration.
The committee notes that Sea Lion is a small combatant
craft that has been used as a baseline platform to design,
build and test advanced high-speed craft for U.S. Special
Operations Forces. The committee also notes that for small
combatant craft operating in the littoral the capabilities for
covert detection and avoidance of other forces are highly
desirable for enhanced self and force protection.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.8 million in PE
63271N for demonstration and evaluation of low probability of
intercept and low observable radars on small combatant craft
such as the Sea Lion technology demonstration platform.
Advanced variable speed drive systems
The budget request contained $243.1 million in PE 63513N
for shipboard system component development, but included no
funds for the advanced variable speed drive (VSD) system.
The committee is aware that the development of the advanced
VSD system will enable fleet-wide implementation of state of
the art variable speed motor controls, without the size and
weight restrictions of existing VSD.
The committee recommends $245.1 million in PE 63513N, an
increase of $2.0 million for the advanced variable speed drive
system.
AEGIS baseline 7 phase II open architecture
The budget request contained $300.7 million in PE 64307N
for AEGIS combat systems engineering, of which $13.2 million
was included for continued development of the AEGIS baseline 7
phase II open architecture effort on AEGIS combat systems.
The AEGIS baseline 7 phase II open architecture effort
provides upgraded computer programs for sensor improvements and
to reduce life cycle costs, as well as development of a solid
state replacement for the SPY-1 radar, aimed at providing
increased sensitivity and bandwidth required for long range
ballistic missile defense.
The committee recommends $310.7 million in PE 64307N, an
increase of $10.0 million, to accelerate AEGIS baseline 7 phase
II open architecture efforts.
Affordable towed array construction
The budget request contained $98.5 million in PE 64503N for
submarine system equipment development, including $5.2 million
in the submarine sonar improvement program to continue
development of affordable towed array technology initiatives.
The submarine sonar improvement program delivers block
updates to sonar systems installed on SSN 688, 688I, 21 and
TRIDENT class submarines to maintain clear acoustic, tactical
and operational superiority over submarine and surface
combatants in all scenarios through detection, classification,
localization and contact following. The TB-29, TB-21A and TB-16
towed array sonar systems support these requirements. The
committee notes that the Navy initiated the affordable towed
array technology program to develop fiber optic technology for
more cost effective, more reliable towed arrays.
The committee recommends an increase of $16.0 million in PE
64503N to accelerate the Navy's affordable towed array
technology development program.
Affordable weapon
The budget request contained $78.2 million in PE 63114N for
Power Projection Advanced Technology development.
The Office of Naval Research (ONR) Affordable Weapon
program is an advanced technology demonstration to design,
develop, and build a 600-mile range, 200 lbs-payload, precision
strike missile with global positioning system/inertial
navigation system guidance and control and a data link. The
committee notes the significant progress made in the Affordable
Weapon development and flight test program to date, including
launch and flight test. The committee has been advised that key
to ONR's success has been the effective use and modification
for military applications of commercially available equipment.
The success of the program indicates that the demonstration
program should continue with the development and integration of
the seeker, data link, special survivability measures, ground
station, and improved performance propulsion.
The committee recommends an increase of $15.4 million in PE
63114N for continuation of the Affordable Weapon demonstration
project.
Anti-submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, and ship self-defense
initiative
The committee notes the Navy's capabilities for anti-
submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, and ship self-defense
are key enablers for the ability of the Navy to operate in the
littoral regions of the world. For the last six years, the
General Accounting Office (GAO) at the committee's request has
conducted a series of assessments regarding the Navy's
capabilities for mine countermeasures, antisubmarine warfare
and ship self-defense, and completed a comprehensive update of
the assessments in May 2001.
In responding to the GAO assessments, the Department of the
Navy has acknowledged that it lacks or has degraded
capabilities in a number of key warfighting areas needed for
operations in littoral regions: breaching enemy sea mines in
the surf zone, detecting and neutralizing enemy submarines in
shallow water, and defending naval ships against cruise
missiles. The committee notes that the Navy has had programs
under way to improve its capabilities in each of these areas
for several years. However, even though mine countermeasures,
anti-submarine warfare, and ship self-defense are regarded as
essential core naval capabilities, progress has been slow.
During committee hearings on the fiscal year 2002 budget
request, the Chief of Naval Operations cited the continuing
existence of shortfalls in these essential core naval
capabilities.
To address these shortfalls, the committee has recommended
the following increases for the Navy's anti-submarine warfare,
mine countermeasures, and ship self-defense programs. These
recommendations are discussed further in the classified annex
to this report:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RDT&E Procurement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anti-submarine warfare...................... $126.1 $82.0
Mine countermeasures........................ 18.0 0.0
Ship self-defense........................... 61.4 24.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee intends to review the Navy's response to
these initiatives and actions taken to improve its capabilities
for anti-submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, and ship
self-defense in hearings on the fiscal year 2004 budget
request.
Anti-submarine warfare synthetic training environment
The budget request contained $31.4 million in PE 24571N for
consolidated training systems development.
The committee is aware that the anti-submarine warfare
(ASW) capability of the fleet is directly tied to the
proficiency and level of training of the ASW component of the
naval battle force. The committee also understands that, like
most combat operations, ASW is a perishable skill that requires
frequent practice of complex tasks on both the individual and
the team level.
The committee notes that the limitations of current ASW
training facilities and systems inhibit the ability for
integrated training and result in most integrated training
being done at sea. The committee further notes that the Navy's
ASW community has affirmed the need for a common, integrated
ASW training environment that could link real and synthetic ASW
forces in realistic operational training situations for
training, mission planning, and mission rehearsal. The
committee believes that such a capability can probably not be
achieved by a simple integration of existing incompatible
training systems and that an incremental migration to an
integrated, interactive ASW training system will be required.
The committee also believes that the first step toward
realizing such a capability in the fleet should be the linking
of air ASW simulators to the existing Battle Force Teams
Trainers.
The committee recommends $41.4 million in PE 24571N, an
increase of $10.0 million to initiate a program for integration
of fixed and rotary wing air ASW and other simulators into the
Battle Force Tactical Trainer to establish an ASW synthetic
training environment.
Autonomous maritime navigation
The budget request contained $5.8 million in PE 63563N for
advanced ship design, but included no funds for autonomous
maritime navigation.
The committee notes that autonomous maritime navigation
will allow unmanned surface vessels to operate alone, or in a
coordinated group without the need for continuous control from
a remote operator, even near shore or other vessels.
The committee recommends $10.8 million in PE 63563N, an
increase of $5.0 million for the autonomous maritime
navigation.
Aviation integrated life support system
The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 63216N for
aviation survivability, but included no funds for the aviation
integrated life support system (AILSS).
The committee is aware that the AILSS effort, which
commenced in 1996, is ready to transition into a tactical
variant for the F-18.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.5 million in PE
63216N for aviation integrated life support system.
Aviation-shipboard information technology initiative
The budget request contained $24.6 million in PE 64512N for
shipboard aviation systems development, but included no funds
for development of the aviation-shipboard information
technology initiative (AS/ITI), which would upgrade and
integrate aircraft carrier information systems to reduce cost
and improve the effectiveness of carrier aircraft launch and
recovery operations.
The committee notes that the Navy views the AS/ITI as a
promising technology for both its next-generation aircraft
carriers and those currently in service, which can enhance
accuracy and minimize latency of information; distribute
information where required; improve shipboard aircraft sortie
rates and safety; and reduce carrier operating costs.
The committee recommends $32.8 million in PE 64512N, an
increase of $8.2 million, for development of the AS/ITI.
Biomedical research imaging
The budget request contained $19.0 million in PE 63729N for
warfighter protection advanced technology development.
The committee notes the progress being made in the use of
advanced imaging technology in biomedical research. New imaging
technology has allowed the observation of tumors as small as
1mm in diameter and has allowed scientist to observe critical
biochemical changes associated with tumor, strokes, and other
disease states. These findings have important implication for
advances in real-time medical diagnosis and treatment.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63729N to continue research in the application of advanced
imaging technology to biomedical research.
Chemical agent warning network demonstration
The budget request contained $12.2 million in PE 65873M for
Marine Corps program-wide support, but included no funding for
the chemical agent warning network demonstration.
The committee recommends $15.2 million in PE 65873M, an
increase of $3.0 million to continue the development of the
chemical agent warning network for use by the Marine Corps
Chemical-Biological Incident Response Force.
Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) carbon fiber qualification
The budget request included $68.9 million in PE 62236N for
warfighter sustainment applied research, but included no
funding for COTS carbon fiber qualification.
The committee is supportive of efforts to transition new
materials and processes for use on present and future aircraft
and missile systems. The committee notes that the Department of
Defense is currently required to use high-priced single-source
fiber to reinforce composite structure. The committee is
encouraged with efforts to establish a second source for
intermediate modules fiber to ensure more competitive practices
and supports further efforts in this regard.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
62236N to qualify COTS fibers for further applications to Navy
weapons platforms.
Compatible processor upgrade
The budget request contained $13.0 million in PE 63739N for
Navy logistics productivity demonstration and validation. No
funds were provided for continuation of the compatible
processor upgrade program (CPUP).
The committee notes that CPUP system-on-a-chip processor
products are used to modernize existing computer systems while
preserving legacy software and infrastructure, adapt commercial
designs for high radiation environments, and optimize system
designs. Congress provided funds in fiscal year 2001 to
initiate a program for the development of application-specific
CPUP processors to upgrade the capability of the Navy's AN/AYK-
14, AN/AYK-44, and AN/UYK-20 computers at a fraction of the
cost and time required to reengineer legacy software for new
computer systems, and provided an additional $2.5 million to
continue the program in fiscal year 2002.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE
63739N to complete the CPUP program.
DP-2 thrust vectoring system
The budget request contained $78.3 million in PE 63114N for
power projection advanced technology development, but included
no funding for the DP-2 thrust vectoring system demonstration
project.
DP-2 is a proof-of-concept program to demonstrate the use
of thrust vector control to achieve vertical takeoff and
conventional takeoff capabilities in a one-half scale flight
test vehicle. The technology offers the potential for a low
cost, medium range aircraft of advanced composite construction.
The committee notes the progress to date in the DP-2
program and the initial hover test of the one-half scale test
vehicle in January 2002. The committee believes that test
progress and the potential of the DP-2 proof-of-concept justify
continuation of the program.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE
63114N to continue development and demonstration of the DP-2
thrust vector system concept.
Electric propulsion/ship power system distributed test bed
The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for
Force Protection Advanced Technology development.
As a part of the Navy's program leading to the development
of an all-electric ship, the committee continues to support the
development of a virtual, distributed test bed which will
provide the software and hardware modeling tools for shipboard
machinery design and allow government and industry ship
designers and engineers to evaluate machinery alternatives in a
virtual prototype before committing to full-scale development.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63123N to continue the program for advanced development of a
distributed test bed for electric propulsion and ship power
systems.
Electronic interconnection research and development program
The budget request contained $82.5 million in PE 63236N for
warfighter sustainment advanced technology development.
The committee notes that printed circuit boards (PCB) are
fundamental to the operation of military navigation, guidance
and control, electronic warfare, missile, and surveillance and
communication equipment. High density, highly ruggedized,
highly reliable interconnection technology is essential to the
performance of many PCB used in military systems. The committee
notes that industry PCB focuses on high-volume, low-cost boards
rather than the high performance, reliability, and extreme
environmental requirements of PCB for use in military systems
and at the same time the United States has lost much of its PCB
manufacturing capability to overseas sources. The committee
recognizes the need to enhance the U.S. capability for
development and production of high density, high reliability
PCB for use in military systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
63236N to accelerate improvements in PCB technology to meet
military requirements now and in the future.
Electronic warfare development
The budget request contained $74.7 million in PE 64270N for
electronic warfare (EW) development, but included no funds for
risk reduction activities to develop an EA-6B electronic
jamming aircraft replacement or to evaluate the location of
global positioning system interferers (LOCO GPSI) system in
fleet operations.
Airborne electronic attack follow-on
The committee notes that the December 2001 Airborne
Electronic Attack Analysis of Alternatives recommended 27
options to replace the EA-6B aircraft and that a final decision
on its replacement is planned for fiscal year 2002. Consistent
with the fiscal year 2002 decision, the committee further notes
that the Department of the Navy has included funds in its
future years defense program to develop an airborne electronic
attack follow-on beginning in fiscal year 2004 and that the
Chief of Naval Operations has included development funding for
an EA-6B follow-on aircraft among his unfunded priorities for
fiscal year 2003. To accelerate the development of the EA-6B
successor, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0
million in PE 64270N for pre-engineering and manufacturing
development risk reduction activities.
Location of global positioning system interferers
Location of global positioning system interferers (LOCO
GPSI) is a state-of-the-art precision surveillance and
targeting system for location of global positioning systems
interferers that is designed to protect global positioning
system-guided weapons against jamming and interference. The
committee understands that Naval operational fleet commanders
continue to request deployment of the LOCO GPSI system in fleet
exercises to demonstrate and evaluate the military utility of
this system. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0
million in PE 64270N to continue to evaluate LOCO GPSI
capabilities in fleet operations in fiscal year 2003.
Electro-optical framing sensor
The budget request contained $5.5 million in PE 35206N for
airborne reconnaissance systems, but included no funds for
electro-optical framing.
The committee is aware that additional improvement is
required for SHARP sensors.
The committee recommends $11.5 million in PE 35206N, an
increase of $6.0 million for continued development of an
integrated electronic shutter to upgrade SHARP sensors and
prototype development of a cellular neural network airborne
processor.
Extended range guided munitions
The budget request contained $108.7 million in PE 63795N
for land attack technology demonstration and validation,
including $44.8 million for naval surface fire support and
development of the Extended Range Guided Munition (ERGM).
The committee notes the progress in the ERGM program as it
completes the controlled test flight phase of the development
program and prepares to begin full-scale firings. The committee
notes that the schedule for program risk reduction is being
reviewed as a result of the decision to adopt a unitary warhead
for the projectile. The committee also notes that both the Navy
and the prime contractor have funded the development of low
cost guidance electrical units to reduce the production cost of
the projectile. The committee also notes that the Navy is also
evaluating the ANSR projectile, not as a replacement for ERGM,
but as a complementary capability to ERGM with the possible
application of being fired from both current 5-inch, 54 caliber
and 5-inch, 62 caliber gun systems.
The committee recommends an increase of $14.5 million in PE
63795N for risk reduction in the ERGM program, acceleration of
guidance and control system redesign and test, and continued
evaluation of the ANSR projectile.
Fibrous monolithic materials insertion
The budget request contained $68.9 million in PE 62236N for
warfighter sustainment, but included no funds for fibrous
monolithic materials insertion
The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE
62236N for fibrous monolithic materials insertion.
Formable aligned carbon thermosets
The budget request contained $68.9 million in PE 62236N for
warfighter sustainment applied research, but included no funds
for formable aligned carbon thermosets (FACTS).
The committee is aware that development of FACTS will allow
increased use of advance fibers in tactical aircraft with the
attendant benefits of such materials.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE
62236N for FACTS.
Hawk AN/TPS-59 radar service life extension program
The budget request contained $174.7 million in PE 26313M
for Marine Corps communications systems, and included $2.6
million for the Hawk AN/TPS-59 radar service life extension
program.
The committee is aware that operational experience and
engineering analysis has shown that the Hawk AN/TPS-59 radar
requires an automatic false alarm reduction mode as part of the
service life extension program. The Hawk radar has been
continually upgraded and is still a high priority asset for
rapid deployment forces.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
26313M for the AN/TPS-59 radar service life extension program.
High brightness electron source program
The budget request contained $56.3 million in PE 62271N for
RF systems applied research, but included no funds for the high
brightness electron source program.
The committee is aware that the high brightness electron
source program is vital to maintenance of the microwave vacuum
tube electronics for high power applications
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
62271N for the high brightness electron source program.
High temperature superconducting AC synchronous Navy propulsion motor
and generator
The budget request included $57.6 million in PE 63123N for
Force Protection Advanced Technology and included no funding
for the High Temperature Superconducting (HTS) AC Synchronous
Navy Propulsion Motor and Generator.
The committee supports the Future Naval Capabilities (FNC)
program and recognizes that its success depends heavily on
innovative scientific breakthroughs in areas such as
electronics, sensor development, and propulsion. The committee
understands the importance of component miniaturization to
achieving FNC goals. In the area of propulsion development in
particular, the committee is aware of engineering analyses and
tests that have illuminated the potential benefits offered by
HTS motors and generators, particularly in the areas of weight,
cost, and noise reduction. The committee supports development
in this field and encourages greater investment.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE
63123N for the HTS AC Synchronous Navy Propulsion Motor and
Generator development.
Human factors and improved performance integration tool
The budget request included $6.6 million in PE 62236N for
Manpower, Personnel, and Human Factors, but included no funding
for the Improved Performance Integration Tool and related
methodologies.
The committee supports the development of modeling tools
that optimize sailor job performance as a means for fulfilling
the requirements of the Navy's Future Naval Capabilities. The
committee is aware of several Navy force management initiatives
and not only encourages a continuation in these areas, but also
urges further sailor/unit performance optimization through the
use of non-Navy methodologies found elsewhere in the Department
of Defense. The committee is particularly interested in the
potential benefit of the Improved Performance Integration Tool
(IMPRINT) and the Army's manpower and personnel integration
(MANPRINT) initiative. The committee urges the Navy to adopt
IMPRINT and MANPRINT methodologies in an effort to minimize the
total ownership costs of future acquisition programs.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
62236N for the Improved Performance Integration Tool and
related modeling applications.
Hybrid fiber optic/wireless communications
The budget request contained $76.6 million in PE 62114N for
common picture applied research.
The committee notes progress being made in applied research
for hybrid fiber optic/wireless communications that are
characterized by having very high bandwidth, mobility, and low
probability of intercept. The overall goal of the program is to
develop the technology for versatile, mobile, secure
communications systems for military and commercial use that
will combine the most desirable features of fiber optic and
wireless communications.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
62114N to continue the program for applied research in hybrid
fiber optic/wireless communications.
Integrated maritime picture system of systems
The budget request contained $37.8 million in PE 63235N,
including $17.5 million for development of advanced technology
for knowledge superiority and assurance.
The committee notes ongoing activities in the Navy and in
the other military departments to improve situational awareness
and develop an integrated common operational picture for air,
land, and sea commanders and their staffs. The committee also
notes that the emphasis on increasing force protection for the
fleet both in port and at sea will require the integration of
information about sea ports, harbors, anchorages, and the
maritime operational environment in the integrated maritime
operational picture.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in
PE63235N for advanced development of an integrated maritime
common operational picture that will include both force
protection and seaport security information and systems.
Interrogator for high-speed retro reflectometer communications
The budget request included $76.6 million in PE 62114N for
power projection applied research, but included no funding for
a high-speed retro-reflectometer communication interrogator.
The committee strongly supports advanced sensor, processor,
and data-link exchange technologies as a means to support,
among other things, a greater reliance on unmanned aerial
vehicles. High-speed data links are especially needed to
rapidly download high resolution imagery from airborne sensors.
The committee is aware of a ground-based interrogator
technology with the potential for developing fleet-deployable
exploitation algorithms and processes for large-bandwidth
applications.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
62114N for developing a laser interrogator for high-speed
covert retro-reflectometer communication.
Joint mission high-speed vessel
The budget request contained $51.6 million in PE 63640M,
but included no funding for the joint mission high-speed
vessel.
The committee notes that the Army, Navy and Marine Corps
have been conducting very successful exploration of concepts
and capabilities with commercially available advanced hull and
propulsion capabilities. The committee also notes the desire to
continue concept-based experimentation to enable networked sea-
basing as a future joint force expeditionary capability. The
committee notes that the objective is to identify a
transformational capability enabling high-speed, sustained,
sea-based joint operations.
The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE
63640M for the joint mission high-speed vessel.
Joint operational test bed
The budget request contained $206.4 million in PE 35204N
for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles, but included no funds
for the joint operational test bed system (JOTBS).
The committee is aware that as a result of the revised
unified command plan, the Joint Forces Command will focus on
its responsibilities of helping transform the military,
including improving joint interoperability and innovation. The
committee notes that the JOTBS is fundamental to these
responsibilities and vital to future joint use of unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs). The committee also notes that the JOTBS
is vital, not only to complete tactical control system (TCS)
development for Predator, but also use by multiple UAVs such as
Shadow, Marine Shadow, and other UAVs.
The committee directs the Commander in Chief (CINC), Joint
Forces Command to competitively contract for the new Government
Flight Activity support contract as follows:
(1) Preparation of the contract solicitation, analysis of
responses to the solicitation, and contract award must be
conducted in accordance with Department of Defense regulations
by an established government contracting organization/office
with previous extensive experience in writing GFA support
contracts.
(2) The solicitation must be open to all commercial vendors
certified in the flight activities covered by the solicitation.
Additionally, the committee directs the Secretary of the
Navy and the CINC Joint Forces Command to robustly fund the
JOTBS in future years to remove any dependency on congressional
increases for its viability. The committee strongly recommends
that the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Naval Warfare
(N7/N78), which sponsors both unmanned aerial vehicles and
tactical control system development be designated as the Navy
program sponsor for the JOTBS.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE
35204N for JOTBS.
Knowledge projection for fleet maintenance
The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for
force protection advanced technology development, but included
no funds to continue the ``Knowledge Projection for Fleet
Maintenance'' project.
Congress provided $2.5 million in fiscal year 2002 to
support the initiation by the Navy of a collaborative program
for the development of a new system to remotely monitor Navy
ships and enable off-board technical experts to assist on-board
technicians who are part of the ship's crew in ship maintenance
and repair. The committee believes that the successful
development and implementation of this approach to knowledge-
based system diagnosis and repair could be increasingly
important as the Navy makes the transition to ships with
reduced numbers of personnel and as electronic equipment and
other ships systems continues to be more complex and powerful.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
63123N to continue the Knowledge Projection for Fleet
Maintenance project.
Laser aim scoring system
The budget request contained $31.1 million in PE 64212N for
anti-submarine warfare and other helicopter development, but
included no funds for the sea-target laser aim scoring system
(LASS).
The LASS provides real-time quantitative feedback on
critical aspects of laser-guided weapon employment not
currently available from existing Navy laser scoring systems,
and is being adapted to existing Navy seaborne targets to
support Navy H-60 armed helicopter training and readiness
events that require laser scoring capability. Since the
committee continues to believe that the sea-target LASS could
address a Navy training deficiency by allowing in-flight laser
designation practice against a moving at-sea target while also
providing immediate laser aiming result feedback to the pilot,
it recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 64212N to
develop the sea-target LASS.
Laser welding and cutting
The budget request included $89.4 million in PE 62123N for
force protection applied research, but included no funding for
the laser welding and cutting program.
The committee supports efforts to improve ship design
processes and performance while simultaneously lowering overall
construction costs. The committee is aware of laser welding and
cutting as a means for design and fabrication enhancements. The
committee supports further efforts in this area.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
62123N for the laser welding and cutting program.
Littoral support craft--experimental
The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for
Force Protection Advanced Technology development, but included
no funding to continue the development of the Littoral Support
Craft--Experimental (LSC-X).
The committee notes the continued progress by the Office of
Naval Research (ONR) in the development of designs and
operational concepts for a littoral support craft: a fast
(above 40 knots), high performance, low cost platform that
could be an effective adjunct to the major surface combatant
and carrier battle group operating in the littoral. The
committee strongly supports ONR proposals for a phased program
for development of an experimental littoral support craft
demonstrator (LSC-X) that would provide the basis for
operational experiments on the contribution that such a craft
and its variants could make to naval operations in the
littoral. The committee understands that the LSC-X design will
include development of a modular payload capability to allow
the use of different technology demonstrators and warfare
mission modules. As such, the committee believes that LSC-X
could be an effective experimental test bed for many of the
technologies that might be chosen for use on the Littoral
Combat Ship (LCS). The committee also notes that among combat
related features linked to the LSC-X program is continued
development of the Affordable Weapon that is discussed
elsewhere in this report.
The committee notes that the ONR has made significant
progress on the LSC-X, culminating recently in comprehensive
and successful tow tank tests that have resulted in the
authorization to proceed with fabrication of the LSC-X full
scale prototype in fiscal year 2002.
The committee recommends an increase of $13.7 million in PE
63123N to continue development of the LSC-X.
Low cost swarm unmanned aerial vehicle program
The budget request contained $76.6 million in PE 62114N for
power projection applied research, but included no funds for
the low cost swarm unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV).
The committee is aware that cost reduction is important to
make UAVs affordable at the small unit level. The committee
notes that the swarm UAV has achieved significant cost
reduction while maintaining meaningful performance, and has the
potential to cost-effectively meet close-in surveillance
requirements.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
62114N for low cost swarm unmanned aerial vehicle.
Marine mammal research program
The budget request included $393.6 million in PE 61153N for
defense research sciences.
The committee supports the efforts of the Office of Naval
Research (ONR) to research marine mammals' behavior and the
broad aspects of the underwater environment. The committee is
aware of a heightened public concern about underwater acoustic
effects on these animals. To address these concerns and better
understand the potential contributions of marine mammals to
Department of Defense priorities, the committee encourages
additional behavioral and acoustics research.
The committee recommends $395.7 million in PE 61153N an
increase of $2.1 million for marine mammal research.
Mark-48 advanced capability torpedo improvements
The budget request contained $107.4 million in PE 63561N
for Advanced Submarine System Development.
The committee notes that the advanced rapid COTS insertion
(A-RCI) program, which uses advanced processing builds (APB)
and a multi-purpose processor (MPP) hardware architecture
(developed under a small business innovative research (SBIR)
phase III project) to achieve rapid, cost-effective advances in
signal processing, has successfully and improved the
performance of submarine sonar systems in the most cost-
effective manner. In fiscal year 2002 Congress provided funds
to establish a similar A-RCI program for the MK-48 torpedo,
leveraging the experience gained in the submarine sonar
program. If successful, the MK-48, A-RCI program could have
significantpotential to cost effectively improve performance of
the MK-48 torpedo in the demanding littoral waters sonar environment.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE
63561N to continue the program for application of the advanced
processing build/multipurpose processor technology insertion
process to the MK-48 ADCAP torpedo.
Medical threat detection system
The budget request contained $7.2 million in PE 64771N for
medical systems engineering development, but included no funds
to develop a real-time medical threat detection system.
The committee is aware of a medical surveillance and
informatics system which would use advanced signal processing
methods to routinely collect data and identify deviations for
normal patterns of illness and detect potential health and
medical threats. This system would augment existing Navy
medical surveillance and information capabilities to provide
real-time surveillance and clinical data for early medical
threat detection of both naval force and civilian populations
in support homeland security requirements.
The committee is supportive of technologies enhancements
for medical safety of personnel and recommends $10.3 million in
PE 64771N, an increase of $3.1 million, to establish a real-
time medical threat detection system.
Mine countermeasures mine sweep mid-life assessment and upgrade
The budget request contained $155.0 million in PE 63502N
for surface and shallow water mine countermeasures
demonstration and validation.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63502N to conduct a mid-life assessment of the MCM class Mine
Sweeping suite and to evaluate potential upgrades to the
system. This recommendation is a part of the committee's mine
countermeasures initiative that is discussed in the classified
annex to this report.
Mobile fire support system
The budget request contained $51.6 million in PE 63640M for
Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstrations and included
$3.2 million for emerging fires and targeting technologies.
The committee is aware of ongoing efforts at the Marine
Corps Warfighting Lab to develop innovative medium-caliber
indirect fire support technology to support rapid mobility on
the battlefield. Known as Mobile Fire Support System (MFSS),
the 120mm rifled mortar program has exhibited unparalleled
accuracy, automation, and advanced fire control technology.
Additional development is required to further lighten the
system and incorporate other design improvements, such as an
innovative breach loading capability for extreme firing angles.
As a result, the committee is encouraged with the potential
applications of this program.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63604M, specifically for the acceleration of MFSS development.
Furthermore, the committee urges the Secretary of the Army to
conduct a comprehensive assessment of MFSS to determine
potential applications in accordance with transformational
objectives. The committee recommends $1.0 million in PE 63004A
for this purpose, as reflected elsewhere in this report.
Modeling and simulation of surgical procedures for battlefield trauma
The budget request contained $19.0 million in PE 63729N for
warfighter protection advanced technology development,
including $7.6 million for development of advanced technology
for casualty care and management.
The committee notes advances in the use of modeling and
simulation for the development of advanced surgical procedures
for battlefield trauma and the utility of such simulations for
the training of field medical personnel.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE
63729N for the development of new protocols for modeling
surgical procedures applicable to battlefield trauma.
Multi-purpose sensor
The budget request included $65.1 million in PE 63271N for
radio-frequency (RF) systems advanced development, but no
funding for the multi-purpose power sensor.
The committee is aware of a promising new surveillance
radar detection capability managed by the Office of Naval
Research. During initial concept of operation validation, the
sensor demonstrated a capability for detecting the presence and
intensity of radio frequency energy across a broad spectrum of
frequencies. Additional field-testing and development is
necessary to deliver a prototype capable of measuring RF
exposure with consistent accuracy. The committee supports this
initiative and recognizes the importance of this type of
technology for meeting the Navy's future naval capabilities.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.4 million in PE
63271N for the multi-purpose sensor.
National shipbuilding research program
The budget request contained $9.9 million in PE 78730N for
the Navy's National Shipbuilding Research Project Advanced
Shipbuilding Enterprise (NSRP ASE).
The committee recognizes this innovative Navy-industry
collaboration as a credible, cost-effective high-leverage focal
point for productivity improvements across all navy ship
construction programs. The projects in lean manufacturing,
process re-engineering, and other new construction and ship
repair technologies funded through the NSRP ASE address both
prior year shipbuilding cost growth and the cost of future
ships. Adequately funding this investment now helps to ensure
that the resultant efficiencies are in place before the pending
increase in naval ship construction rates needed to re-
capitalize the fleet. This program is a key imperative that
enables significant reductions in the cost and time required
for affordable naval ship construction, conversion, and repair.
The committee recommends $9.9 million in PE 78730N for the
NSRP ASE and recommends that all funds in this program element
be focused only on those critical elements of the NSRP ASE
program that identify and adopt improved business practices
which maximize actual U.S. Navy ship production within
available Navy shipbuilding and construction funding. The
committee strongly urges the Secretary of the Navy to continue
to place a high priority on the NSRP ASE program by funding it
in future budget requests at an annual amount equal to or
greater than the fiscal year 2002 level of $22.4 million.
Naval collaboration tool set
The budget request contained $43.2 million in PE 65013N for
Navy information technology development and modernization.
The committee notes the development and application of
emerging network centric information systems and collaboration
tools that use basic web technology and commercial-off-the-
shelf computer and software products to enable operational
commanders and their staffs to rapidly share battlespace
information and situational awareness and achieve greater
mission effectiveness and speed of command and operations. The
accelerating proliferation and application of information
sharing and collaboration tools create the opportunity for the
Navy to capitalize on the experience gained in prototype web-
based information systems being used in the fleet in various
warfare areas and develop a ``best of breed'', web-based set of
collaboration tools that will enhance the ability of naval
commanders and their staffs to operate in a common, integrated
data environment.
The committee recommends $48.2 million in PE 65013N, an
increase of $5.0 million to accelerate the development of a
naval collaboration toolset that can be used in all warfare
areas and domains, including building a common undersea picture
and facilitating collaboration in homeland security and
counterterrorism.
Navy common command and decision system
The budget request contained $40.5 million in PE 63582N for
the Navy's combat systems integration demonstration and
validation program.
The common command and decision (CC&D) program is a pre-
planned product improvement (P3I) to the AEGIS Weapons System
and the Ship Self Defense System MK 2 that replaces the command
and decision capability presently in these systems with a
common set of application computer programs and associated
supporting software infrastructure which will perform selected
command and decision functions in an identical manner across
multiple Navy ships.
The committee notes that the Navy has established a
collaborative program for development of the CC&D that will
build on the Multi-purpose Processor/Advanced Processor Build
techniques developed and proven in the submarine Acoustic Rapid
Commercial-off-the-shelf Insertion (A-RCI) program. The program
of record would result in initial introduction of the CC&D
system in the fleet in 2010; however, the committee notes that
the Navy has indicated that with appropriate funding the CC&D
capability could be fielded as early as 2005.
The committee strongly believes that the Navy should
accelerate the program for upgrade and insertion of advanced
technology in combat systems of legacy surface ships of the
battle fleet. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0
million in PE 63582N to accelerate development of the CC&D
system.
Navy support of research in oceanography
The budget request contained $55.2 million in PE 62435N for
ocean warfighting environment applied research.
The committee believes that scientific knowledge of the
oceans and ocean environments makes a critical contribution to
U.S. national security and commercial vitality. The committee
notes, that in large part, U.S. scientific expertise in
oceanography and ocean sciences is sustained by the Office of
Naval Research and the National Science Foundation partnership
that provides oversight of the University-National
Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) fleet.
The committee recognizes the age of the UNOLS fleet and the
need for a rational plan for renewal of the fleet over the next
ten years. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of
the Navy to submit to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and House Committee on Armed Services no later than February 1,
2003, a report detailing specific requirements and outlining a
specific plan for UNOLS fleet renewal. The report should
include specific recommendations on the numbers of each class
of ship to be maintained in the UNOLS fleet, their geographic
distribution, the schedule for their replacement, and estimates
of ship construction costs.
In the committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106-162),
the committee noted the finding of the National Ocean Research
Leadership Council's Ocean Research Advisory Panel that one of
the most pressing concerns in oceanography is the need for
integrated ocean observation systems. The committee notes
recommendations that have been made for what it believes to be
a piecemeal commitment to establishing regional coastal ocean
observing systems without a clear concept or plan for how these
regional systems will fit into a national integrated ocean and
coastal observation system. The committee requests that the
Secretary of the Navy as in his role as a member of the
National Ocean Research Leadership Council encourage the
Council to develop standards and plans for the establishment
and administration of an integrated ocean and coastal observing
system that provides for long-term, continuous, and real-time
observations of the coastal oceans of the United States and to
report those plans to Congress in the Council's next annual
report on the National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
The committee recommends $60.2 million in PE 62435N, an
increase of $5.0 million for the coastal ocean observation
system. The committee directs that the increase for the coastal
ocean observation system may not be obligated until 30 days
after the Council's report detailing the standards and plans
for the establishment and administration of an integrated ocean
and coastal observation system is received by the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services.
Navy tactical unmanned aerial vehicle
The budget request contained $206.4 million in PE 35204N
for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (TUAV), and included
$43.6 million for vertical TUAV (VTUAV), and $9.1 million for
the tactical control system (TCS).
The committee is aware that the Navy terminated the Fire
Scout VTUAV program and has requested funds for developing the
Air Force Global Hawk endurance UAV for broad area maritime
surveillance. The committee notes that though the Navy, which
is the lead service for the joint tactical control system (TCS)
development, no longer has a TUAV program, its responsibilities
for program management for TCS remain. The committee further
notes that both the Army and Marine Corps are fielding variants
of the Shadow UAV, are committed to TCS for Shadow, and are
critically dependent on successful Navy program management of
TCS.
The committee recommends a decrease of $43.6 million in PE
35204N for the Fire Scout VTUAV.
Nonlinear dynamics stochastic resonance
The budget request contained $13.2 million in PE 63254N for
anti-submarine warfare (ASW) systems development, for the
continued development and evaluation of nonlinear dynamics and
stochastic resonance (NDSR) for acoustic, magnetic, and other
ASW sensor and signal processing applications.
The NDSR program was initiated in 1999 to apply the
principles and results from the emerging science of nonlinear
dynamics towards critical problems in shallow water anti-
submarine warfare (ASW) with the goal of producing dramatic
improvements in ASW system capability. The committee notes that
the research conducted to date has demonstrated that there is a
strong potential for greatly increased ASW system performance
resulting from significantly extended electromagnetic detection
ranges, enhanced sonar target discrimination and improved noise
reduction.
The committee recommends $18.2 million in PE 63254N, an
increase of $5.0 million to continue the development,
demonstration, and evaluation of NDSR technology for ASW
applications.
Ocean modeling for mine and expeditionary warfare
The budget request contained $43.7 million in PE 63782N for
mine and expeditionary warfare advanced technology development,
including $19.3 million for advanced surveillance and
reconnaissance.
The committee notes the Navy's need for improved tactical
and strategic information for the littoral battlespace
environment, improved detection of submarine and mines in
turbid littoral regions, development of predictive models for
the littoral environment, and development of improved sensor
technologies.
The committee recommends $46.7 million in PE 63782N, an
increase of $3.0 million for advanced technology development of
ocean modeling for mine and expeditionary warfare.
Organ transfer technology
The budget request contained $19.0 million in PE 63729N for
warfighter protection advanced technology development. No funds
were requested for continuation of the organ transfer
technology program.
The committee notes continued progress in the development
of immune therapies by investigators at the Naval Medical
Research Center that have been shown to prevent the rejection
of tissue and organ transplants without the need for continuous
use of immunosuppressive drugs. In fiscal year 2001, the Chief
of Naval Research initiated a program to capitalize on these
newly developed methods of treatment. Congress provided $3.0
million to initiate a clinical trials program in fiscal year
2001 and $2.0 million to continue the program in fiscal year
2002.
The committee notes the initial progress in the clinical
trials program and plans to bring additional patients into the
program to broaden the program base. The committee believes
that the ability to transplant massive tissue segments without
rejection could revolutionize the treatment of combat
casualties who suffer significant tissue loss or organ damage
from blast, missile fragments or burns.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63729N to continue the organ transfer technology clinical
trials program.
Photovoltaic energy park
The budget request contained $2.1 million in PE 63725N for
demonstration and validation of improvements in naval
facilities.
The committee notes that rising energy costs, the
availability and reliability of traditional sources of fossil
fuels, and increased concerns about the effect of gaseous
emissions on the environment and fossil fuel pollution have
fostered great interest in developing renewable energy sources
such as solar power, hydrogen, and fuel cells. The committee is
aware of ongoing discussions for the development of prototype
large-scale solar powered electrical generating systems and
also understands that public/private partnerships have been
established for development and evaluation of advanced fuel
cells. The committee believes that renewable energy from
electricity generated using solar power and from advanced fuel
cells could meet the need for reliable and secure sources of
non-polluting electric power and energy for military forces.
The committee recommends $4.6 million in PE 63725N,
including an increase of $2.5 million for development and
demonstration of renewable energy sources, including solar-
powered electrical generation plants, hydrogen, and fuel cells.
Portable digital precision location system
The budget request contained $76.6 million in PE 62114N for
power projection applied research, but included no funds for
the portable digital precision location system.
The committee is aware that many shipboard functions are
being automated, in order to reduce crew size. The committee
notes that in order to maintain vigilance and combat
effectiveness under reduced manning, personnel identification
and location technologies are required.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.4 million in PE
62114N for the portable digital precision location system.
Portable sterile water production device
The budget request included $19.0 million in PE 63729N for
warfighter protection advanced technology, but included no
funds for the portable sterile water production device.
The committee supports efforts by the Office of Naval
Research to leverage ongoing research in the field of sterile
water production and managed by the Army's Medical Research and
Development Command. The committee understands this research
promises to produce a lightweight portable remote water-for-
injection purification system for combat casualty care. The
committee supports additional research on this project to
facilitate testing of potential military applications.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.6 million in PE
63729N for the portable sterile water production device.
Rapid deployment fortification wall
The budget request included $51.6 million in PE 63640M for
Marine Corps advanced technology demonstrations, but included
no funding for the rapid deployment fortification wall.
The committee is aware of a potentially innovative
technology for improving ground forces barrier defense. The
Rapid Deployment Fortification Wall is an expandable,
stackable, modular wall made of tough, lightweight,
environmentally responsible plastic that can possibly serve as
a replacement for sandbags. The committee believes that the
technology can serve to rapidly construct field fortifications
for bunkers, standoff blast and ballistic protection units, and
other hardened shelters, and may prove more easily
transportable and re-usable. The committee urges additional
testing of this technology, with a particular focus given to
transport (ground and aerial), manning, live-fire, and
recycling requirements and capabilities.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE
63640M million for the rapid deployment fortification wall.
Rapid retargeting
The budget request contained $13.0 million in PE 63739N for
Navy Logistic Productivity demonstration and validation,
including $4.9 million for rapid retargeting. The committee
notes that, within the logistics productivity program, the Navy
has implemented a rapid retargeting project to address obsolete
designs in electronic systems.
The project provides the technology to eliminate obsolete
components and reduce multiple electronic modules to single
programmable designs. The committee understands that the rapid
retargeting process is also being employed to replace different
types of standard electronic modules with programmable
commercial-off-the-shelf components, thereby reducing the
requirements for spare parts on board naval vessels.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63739N for the Navy's rapid retargeting project.
Real-time heart rate variability monitor
The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 63216N for
aviation survivability, but included no funds for real-time
heart rate variability monitor.
The committee notes that real time heart rate variability
monitor technology can be used to automate protective systems,
aid in survivor identification and remotely determine
physiological status.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE
63216N for real-time heart rate variability monitor.
Real-time precision tracking radar
The budget request contained $78.3 million in PE 63114N for
power projection technology, but included no funds for real-
time precision tracking radar.
The committee is aware that real-time precision tracking
radar will provide the warfighter with a lightweight, low-cost,
high-resolution synthetic aperture radar with moving target
detection capability.
The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE
63114N for real-time precision tracking radar.
SEALs Mark 5 patrol craft modification
The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for
force protection advanced technology development.
The committee notes the progress in the Office of Naval
Research (ONR) program to evaluate the ability of Project M
technology to mitigate the high shock and vibration experienced
by the Navy SEALs Mark V patrol craft crew and passengers in
high-speed special operations. Project M is an active noise and
vibration cancellation system that was developed in the Navy's
advanced submarine technology program.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE
63123N to continue the ONR program for application of Project M
technology to mitigate physical shock to crew and passengers in
the Mark V patrol craft.
Shipboard integrated data environment
The budget request contained $82.5 million in PE 63236N for
war fighter sustainment advance technology development,
including $17.0 million for expeditionary development and
demonstration.
The committee notes that the installation of fiber optic
and Ethernet local area networks on ships makes possible not
only the use of web-based communications and data sharing among
the various elements in the network on board the ship, but also
provides the capability for a fully interactive, ship-wide
integration of physical plant and support operations,
maintenance, logistics, training, and financial data systems.
The committee believes that such a capability, coupled to other
ships of the fleet and the Navy's shore establishment through
the Navy's Information Technology 21, the Navy-Marine Corps
Intranet, or the Global Combat Support System could provide a
fully,integrated operations support and logistics network that
would significantly improve maintenance and logistical support of the
ships of the fleet and of forward-deployed shore activities, while
potentially reducing Navy manpower requirements. The committee also
notes that various naval operational support, engineering, and
logistical activities are pursuing individual solutions for creating a
capability for real-time in-service engineering, logistical, and life
cycle support to the deployed ships of the fleet
The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE
63236N to initiate a program for development and demonstration
of a prototype shipboard integrated data environment. The
committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy to establish a
common program among the various elements of the supporting
shore establishment for development of the capability for
providing real-time operational and logistical support to the
deployed ships of the fleet.
Ship self defense electronic warfare systems
The budget request contained $28.1 million in PE 64757N for
the development of engagement and soft kill capabilities of
ship self defense, of which $25.9 million was for continued
development of the advanced integrated electronic warfare
system (AIEWS).
Subsequent to the submission of the fiscal year 2003 budget
request, the Department of the Navy notified the committee that
it had terminated the AIEWS program due to cost overruns and
continued schedule delays, which have adversely impacted the
Navy's ability to field urgently needed surface electronic
warfare improvements, and requested that the all funding for
AIEWS research, development, test, and evaluation be
transferred to the AN/SLQ-32, shipboard electronic warfare
system, to initiate a product improvement program.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.6 million in PE
64757N, including a decrease of $25.9 million to reflect the
Navy's decision to terminate the AIEWS project and an increase
of $27.5 for the development of AN/SLQ-32 shipboard electronic
warfare system improvements.
Ship service fuel cell
The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for
force protection advanced technology development.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
63123N to continue the development of a direct ship service
fuel cell technology demonstrator for technology validation and
training of ship systems engineers, designers, system
integrators, operators and engineering students.
Small combatant craft
The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for
force protection advanced technology.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
63123N for acquisition, test, and evaluation of a high-speed,
shallow draft, off-shore capable assault boat for assault and
troop transport insertion and extraction operations. The
committee believes that this small combatant craft research
will provide Marine Corps and Special Operations Forces with
potential assault craft options by examining trade-offs between
weight, payload, fuel efficiency and range, durability, and
tactical survivability.
Sniper rifle improvements
The budget request included $36.0 million in PE 26623M for
Marine Corps ground combat/supporting arms systems.
The committee is aware that rifle accuracy is critical for
long range snipers, and urges that platoon long-range sniper
rifle capability be improved for maximum accuracy.
Therefore the committee recommends an increase of $750
thousand in PE 26623M for the weapons training battalion
product improvement of sniper rifles and sniper rifle
manufacturing capability.
Stationary lighter than air platform
The budget request contained $174.7 million in PE 26313M
for Marine Corps communications systems.
The committee is aware that the Marine Corps stationary
lighter than air platform (MCSLaP) would provide a means for
the Marine Corps expeditionary forces to rapidly extend voice
and data beyond the line-of-sight. The committee notes that the
Marine Corps is investigating commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS)
sensor and payload packages to combine with COTS aerostat
technology to provide this over-the-horizon capability.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
26313A for MCSLaP.
Submarine payloads and sensors program
The budget request contained $107.4 million in PE 63561N
for development, demonstration, and validation of advanced
submarine systems
The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency/Navy submarine payloads and sensors program
resulted in the development of a number of innovative, but
realistic payload, sensor and platform concepts that would
enable a revolutionary expansion of capabilities and allow the
submarine to play a more decisive role in Joint Force
operations, especially in the ability to exert greater
influence over events on shore. The concepts provide a
potential roadmap to the future through successive
implementations that would use the Virginia class nuclear
attack submarine as a baseline point of departure.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE
63561N for follow-on studies and demonstration of advanced
submarine payloads and sensors capabilities.
Submarine tactical warfare system
The budget request contained $14.0 million in PE 64562N for
submarine combat control system (CCS) upgrades to the Mark two
(MK2) variant.
These upgrades replace obsolete equipment and converge
multiple submarine CCSs into a single program, which provides
component commonality, incorporates Tactical Tomahawk cruise
missile launch capability, and reduces life cycle costs with an
open architecture for future system enhancements.
The committee believes that this system would increase the
warfighting capability of submarines, and recommends $28.3
million for PE 64562N, an increase of $14.3 million, to
accelerate development of CCS MK2 upgrades.
Superconducting DC homopolar motor
The budget request contained $57.6 million in PE 63123N for
force protection advanced technology development, including
$14.9 million for surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical
and electrical advanced technology, but included no funding to
continue the program for development and demonstration of a
superconducting direct current homopolar motor.
The committee notes the progress being made in the Office
of Naval Research project for development of a 5000 shaft-
horsepower superconducting, direct current, homopolar motor
that may be used in the experimental littoral support craft
program and could provide a prototype for a full-scale motor in
the 25,000 to 50,000 shaft horsepower range which could be a
primary power source for a major combatant or other class ship.
The committee notes that completion of the program in fiscal
year 2003 should provide information for the Navy to determine
if development should continue on this motor for use in future
integrated electric drive ships.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63123N to complete development and at-sea testing of the DC
homopolar motor.
Supply chain best practices
The budget request contained $929 thousand in PE 65804N for
technical information services that support cooperative
advanced technology initiatives between the Navy and U.S.
industry with the goals of improving affordability, and
reducing the life cycle costs of new and modernized Navy
systems.
The committee recommends $6.9 million in PE 65804N, an
increase of $6.0 million to continue the program for
development and adoption of industrial and logistical best
business and management practices among government and industry
in support of defense systems. The committee encourages the
Office of Naval Research to include funding for this program in
future Navy budgets.
Surface navy integrated undersea tactical technology
The budget request contained $155.0 million in PE 63502N
for demonstration and validation of surface and shallow water
mine countermeasures.
The committee notes that in order to effectively conduct
the anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and mine warfare (MIW)
missions, naval forces must be able to reliably detect, locate,
and target enemy mines and submarines, respond rapidly and
decisively to these hostile contacts, employ integrated ASW and
MIW systems with very high probability of neutralizing the
target and provide all commanders with a common under sea
picture of the undersea battle space. This requirement places a
premium on development of a common undersea picture that
includes threat and environmental characterization along with
the undersea warfare platforms and sensors.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
63502N for development of the common undersea picture.
Target location designated handoff system
The budget request contained $36.0 million in PE 26623M for
Marine Corps ground combat/supporting arms systems, and
included $14.6 million for the Marine Corps ground weaponry
product improvement program, but included no funds for the
target location designated handoff system.
The committee is aware that it is imperative to continue to
upgrade existing targeting capabilities to ensure
interoperability with the emerging joint and Marine Corps
tactical command, control, communications and computer
architecture.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.9 million in PE
26623M for the target location designated handoff system.
Vacuum electronics
The budget request contained $56.3 million in PE 62271N for
applied research in radio frequency technology, including $4.5
million for applied research in radio frequency vacuum
electronics power amplifiers.
The committee report on H.R. 1402 (H. Rept. 106-162) noted
the committee's support for a robust vacuum electronics
research and development program in the Department of Defense
and other federal agencies. The committee has reviewed the
results of the Secretary of the Navy's report to Congress on
the DOD vacuum electronics program and the DOD's April 2001
Technology Area Review and Assessment (TARA) on creating a
balanced tri-service investment strategy for RF vacuum
electronics and solid state power technologies. The committee
endorses the TARA views on the criticality of support for both
vacuum electronics and solid-state power technologies. The
committee notes the TARA review's recommendations for increased
funding in the tri-service vacuum electronics program and for
establishment of a combined tri-service initiative to rapidly
advance wide bandgap semiconductor device technology to enable
advanced military radar and other systems requiring power
electronics in the mid-to-long term. The committee is
disappointed that the Department of Defense has not implemented
the recommendations from the TARA review.
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE
62271N for applied research in vacuum electronics, an increase
of $8.0 million. The committee expects the Under Secretary of
Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) through the
Director of Defense Research and Engineering to ensure a
balanced investment strategy for vacuum electronics and solid
state power technologies that will meet DOD requirements for
current and future systems that use radio frequency power
electronics.
Water purification-expeditionary warfare
The budget request contained $51.6 million in PE 63640M for
Marine Corps advanced technology demonstration, but included no
funds for water purification-expeditionary warfare.
The committee is aware that providing an adequate supply of
water to deployed forces represents the number one logistical
problem of expeditionary warfare. Expeditionary missions around
the world must deal with ground water that has contaminates
which range from high salinity to oil pollution. The water
purification-expeditionary warfare program will conduct a field
demonstration of advanced technology to show increased
performance and/or reduced cost for water purification and
offers to significantly upgrade existing water purification
systems with advanced technology.
The committee recommends an increase of $2 million in PE
63640M for the water purification-expeditionary warfare
program.
Wide band gap semiconductor materials
The budget request contained $5.5 million in PE 61153N for
basic research and $30.0 million in PE 62712E and $3.5 million
in PE 62271N for applied research in wide band gap
semiconductor electronics.
Section 212 of the National Defense Authorization Action
for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) required the
Secretary of Defense to carry out a cooperative program to
develop and demonstrate advanced technologies and concepts for
future Naval radar systems and other applications, with
particular emphasis on development of high frequency and high
power wide band gap semiconductor materials and devices. The
provision also required the DDRE to report to the congressional
defense committees on the implementation of the plan, including
identification of the funding required to carry out the fiscal
year 2003 program and for the future years defense program. The
committee has not yet received the DDRE's report.
The committee continues to place a high priority on the
development of the technology for advanced wide band gap
semiconductor materials and devices for future naval radar and
other applications. The committee notes the results of the
December 2000 Special Technology Review on Radio Frequency
Applications for Wide Band Gap Technology by the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics that recommended an increased science and technology
investment in wide band gap materials, devices, circuits, and
packaging which would total approximately $50 million a year
over a five-year period beginning in fiscal year 2002, in order
to develop the technologies necessary to field advanced radar
systems in time to meet the Navy's and the Department of
Defense requirements in 2015.
The committee recommends a total of $47.0 million for basic
and applied research in wide band gap semiconductor materials
technology, an increase of $8.0 million to the budget request
and including $30 million in PE 62712N, $5.5 million in PE
61153N, and $11.5 million in PE 62271N.
Air Force RDT&E
Overview
The budget request contained $17,601.2 million for Air
Force RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of
$18,803.2 million, an increase of $1,202.0 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2003 Air
Force RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major
changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the
table.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced aluminum aerostructures
The budget request contained $22.3 million in PE 63211F for
aerospace technology development, including $9.6 million for
continued development of advanced aluminum aerostructures.
The committee is aware that advanced aluminum
aerostructures have demonstrated significant cost, weight, and
production process reductions for the C-17 and C-130 aircraft,
and offer similar improvements for future programs such as F-22
and Joint Strike Fighter.
The committee recommends $26.3 million in PE 63211F, an
increase of $4.0 million for continuation of advanced aluminum
aerostructures.
Advanced concept ejection seat II improvement
The budget request contained $925 thousand in PE 64706F for
development of aircraft life support systems, but included no
funds for the advanced concept ejection seat (ACES) II pre-
planned product improvement (PPPI) program. The ACES II is the
pilot ejection seat used on all Department of the Air Force
combat aircraft except the B-52 bomber.
The committee understands that Air Force pilots continue to
experience injuries from high-speed ejections, which can be
rectified by inflatable restraints and improved parachute
design. The committee further understands that an improved
modular ACES II seat design has the potential to both reduce
maintenance requirements, thereby lowering life-cycle costs,
and to accommodate smaller-sized females and larger-sized
males.
To address these improvements in the ACES II, the committee
recommends $8.0 million in PE 64706F, an increase of $7.1
million, for continuation of the ACES II PPPI program and
encourages the Air Force to continue to provide funds for the
ACES II PPPI in its future years defense program.
Advanced thermal protection systems
The budget request contained $75.3 million in PE 62102F for
materials, but included no funds for advanced thermal
protection systems (TPS).
The committee is aware that current thermal protection
materials are derivatives of materials designed specifically
for long range missile applications and do not provide adequate
protection for current and emerging requirements to address
prolonged, high temperature stresses of in-atmosphere
hypersonic flight. Advanced TPS materials have demonstrated the
capability to provide enhanced protection, as well as weight
reduction, and offer solutions for aerostructures in
development and planned for the future.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE
62102F for advanced TPS.
Aging landing gear life extension program
The budget request contained $19.9 million in PE 65011F for
development of products and services to improve the performance
of aging aircraft systems but included no funds for the aging
landing gear life extension (ALGLE) program.
The ALGLE program addresses the operational, safety and
maintenance consequences of increased mishaps resulting from
landing gear failures as well as low mission capable rates for
KC-135, C-130, C-5 and F-16 aircraft that are attributable to
either unavailable or unreliable landing gear assets. The
committee notes that the ALGLE program is prototyping new
landing gear component modifications, developing new repair
techniques, and exploiting new technologies. The committee
understands that these efforts have already resulted in life
cycle cost reductions of over $62.0 million, and that the
program has the potential to further reduce life cycle costs by
over $400.0 million.
Accordingly, the committee believes that this program
should continue to address the Air Force's aging landing gear
problems in fiscal year 2003 and in subsequent years. The
committee recommends $34.9 million in PE 65011F, an increase of
$15.0 million, for continuation of the ALGLE program.
Air combat training ranges
The budget request contained $13.5 million in PE 64735F for
combat training range development but included no funds to
integrate tactical data information and ground tracking in the
Nellis Air Combat Training System (NACTS).
The NACTS, configured with instrumentation to determine
aerial combat outcomes, is used to train aircrews and ground-
based participants for combat. The committee understands that
the joint tactical information distribution system (JTIDS), an
aircraft data system to exchange time-critical targeting data,
will be integrated into the NACTS in fiscal year 2002, but that
the NACTS does not have the capability to assess the
effectiveness of JTIDS uses in NACTS tactics training scenarios
for aircrew and ground participants.
The committee recommends $16.5 million in PE 64735F, an
increase of $3.0 million, to integrate tactical data
information and ground tracking into the NACTS.
Air Force manufacturing technology program
The budget request contained $37.6 million in PE 78011F for
the Air Force's Industrial Preparedness Manufacturing
Technology program, a reduction of $21.4 million from the
amount provided in fiscal year 2002.
The committee is concerned by the low level of fiscal year
2003 funding requested by the Air Force for the Manufacturing
Technology (ManTech) program. The ManTech Program has an
outstanding record of strengthening industrial base capability,
shortening lead times for manufacturing applications and
defense products, improving weapon system affordability, and
speeding the transition and insertion of vital technology out
of the laboratory and into operational use for the warfighter.
The basic capability of the industrial base to produce military
weapons is supported strongly by commercial investments, but
military-unique industrial capabilities required to elevate our
weapon systems above those of potential adversaries depend on
military investment. The ManTech Program is a critical element
of the investment needed to transform the industrial capability
to support the transformation of the armed forces. The
requested budget of $37.6 million is far short of the level
needed to support, sustain, and enable such a transformation.
The committee strongly recommends that the Secretary of the
Air Force restore the program to a funding level of at least
$70 million for fiscal year 2004, and to consider treating the
ManTech Program as an Air Force corporate investment program
with annual funding of at least 1 percent of the total funds
budgeted for Air Force Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation.
Air Force/national systems cooperation
The budget request contained $8.8 million in PE 63856F for
Air Force/national systems cooperation.
The committee is aware that the Air Force and national
systems management are now combined within the office of the
Under Secretary of the Air Force, and that therefore
cooperation should result in reduced costs and should not
require additional funding.
The committee recommends $2.8 million in PE 63856F, a
decrease of $6.0 million for Air Force/national systems
cooperation.
Ceramic matrix composites
The budget request contained $21.1 million in PE 63112F for
advanced materials for weapons systems, but included no funding
for ceramic matrix composites.
The committee notes that ceramic matrix composite materials
offer significant weight reduction and enhanced durability for
high performance jet engines used in the F-22 and Joint Strike
Fighter.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
63112F for continued development of ceramic matrix composites.
Compass Call upgrades
The budget request contained $3.9 million in PE 27253F for
Compass Call, and included $2.5 million to develop and
integrate new technologies to sustain Compass Call.
The committee notes that Compass Call is the Air Force's
airborne wide area coverage offensive counter information
system. The committee is aware that the Tactical Radio
Acquisition and Countermeasures Subsystem (TRACS) represents
the next evolutionary capability increase in receiver/
countermeasures capability for Compass Call.
The committee recommends $11.9 million in PE 27253F, an
increase of $8.0 million for TRACS.
Electronic countermeasures upgrades for the generic radar target
generator
The budget request contained $46.3 million in PE 64759F for
major T&E investment, but included no funds for electronic
countermeasures upgrades for the generic radar target generator
(RTG).
The committee is aware test ranges and training ranges are
constantly challenged to provide operationally realistic threat
environments for electronic countermeasures. The RTG will
provide threat representative aircraft signatures and high
fidelity models to represent the environments the warfighter is
likely to encounter on today's battlefields.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
64759F for electronic countermeasures upgrades for the generic
RTG.
Electronic warfare development
The budget request contained $65.1 million in PE 64270F for
electronic warfare (EW) development, of which $10.6 million was
included for the precision location and identification (PLAID)
technology program, but included no funds for the development
of the comet infra-red (IR) countermeasures system.
Precision location and identification
The PLAID technology program will improve aircrew
situational awareness by providing accurate ground emitter
location and unambiguous identification. The committee
understands that the budget request for fiscal year 2003 does
not provide for the development of a PLAID capability that
would pass ground emitter target locations to other systems nor
provide for risk-reduction flight testing of this capability.
The committee recommends an increase of $14.7 million for
this purpose.
Comet infra-red countermeasures system
Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends a
procurement increase for the comet IR countermeasures system,
but understands that further testing is required in fiscal year
2003 to develop the comet IR countermeasures production
configuration. Since the Air Force Chief of Staff included
comet IR countermeasures among his top unfunded priorities for
fiscal year 2003, the committee recommends an increase of $5.2
million for this purpose.
The committee recommends $85.0 million in PE 64270F, an
increase of $19.9 million.
Global Hawk high altitude endurance unmanned aerial vehicle
Air Force
The budget contained $309.0 million in PE 35205F for
endurance unmanned aerial vehicles, and included $306.0 for
Global Hawk high altitude endurance (HAE) unmanned aerial
vehicle (UAV). The Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF)
contained an additional $128.3 million for Global Hawk and
associated sensor electronics development.
The committee notes the recent operational success of
Global Hawk and supports introduction of this new capability.
However, the committee is aware that the joint engineering team
is methodically re-baselining the Global Hawk program and
recognizes that this process must be thorough and complete to
form the basis for a strong, well-structured production phase.
The committee recognizes that while the air vehicle definition
may be more mature than sensor packages, determining the proper
sensors is fundamental to the future success of Global Hawk.
The committee recalls the problems associated with other
programs making the transition from an advanced concept
technology demonstration to formal acquisition, and believes
that those experiences have shown that extra attention to
detail is important as the transition to acquisition is made.
Some Global Hawk documentation required by the DOD 5000 series
acquisition regulations is either incomplete or in various
stages of development, and must be completed.
The committee believes that the proper goal for the Global
Hawk acquisition program should be to expeditiously field a
meaningful operational capability for the warfighter. However,
determination of a proper operational capability for Global
Hawk that fits within the overall intelligence, reconnaissance
and surveillance architecture, is essential to successful
production.
The committee believes that cost reduction efforts are
essential to allow fielding Global Hawk in meaningful numbers
and notes that while production rate affects average per unit
cost, the proper design, robust but not gold plated, has an
even greater potential to limit cost and schedule growth.
Industrial facilities can be efficiently sized for a particular
rate, given stable production goals. The Secretary of the Air
Force should ensure that industrial production facilities are
sized at an appropriate and realistic capacity, based on a firm
commitment to a sustained rate of production, rather than an
overly optimistic estimate that leads to unwarranted investment
in production facilities.
The committee also believes that the Air Force should make
maximum appropriate use of off-the-shelf technology and open
standards in order to minimize system costs and allow
competition, rather than engaging in prolonged development that
slightly improves performance while causing great expense and
years of potential delay. The committee is also aware of the
Navy's new UAV concept exploration effort examining Global Hawk
and, should the Navy decide to use Global Hawk, believes that
the sensors and platform should remain common with the Air
Force variant unless modifications are justified as necessary
to meet mission requirements.
The committee notes that basing and infrastructure
development are also cost drivers and must be developed with
maximum commonality and minimum duplication, again based on a
realistic estimate of procurement numbers. The committee notes
that shared Air Force-Navy Global Hawk basing facilities might
offer cost savings should the Navy decide, after its broad area
maritime surveillance (BAMS) experimentation, to acquire Global
Hawk.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to re-
baseline the Global Hawk by December 31, 2002. This new
baseline should incorporate a clear roadmap of technology
insertion leading to an objective configuration. The re-
baselining shall be established on realistic per unit costs,
with and without sensors; address the evolutionary growth
structure or ``spiral'' cost, schedule objectives, and
milestone decisions.
The committee recommends the budget request for Global
Hawk.
Navy
The budget request contained $206.4 million in PE 35204N
and included $152.0 million for Global Hawk and $28.3 million
in the DERF fiscal year 2003 for sensor development.
The committee is very concerned that the Navy enters the
Global Hawk program with clear maritime requirements and notes
that there is currently no mission needs statement, no analysis
of multiple concepts, and no specific exit criteria. The
committee directs the Secretary of the Navy not to obligate
more that 20 percent of the Navy's Global Hawk funding until
these requirements have been met for the Broad Area Maritime
Surveillance (BAMS) Phase I demonstration in accordance with
DOD 5000 series.
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to submit
the acquisition strategy for the BAMS Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
(UAV) to the congressional defense and intelligence committees.
The committee recommends $180.3 million in PE 35204N for
Global Hawk, including $28.3 million for sensor development in
the DERF for fiscal year 2003.
GPS-II program adjustment
The budget request contained $324.1 million in PE 35165F
for the NAVSTAR global positioning system (GPS).
The committee is aware that recent program adjustments have
eliminated funds included to modify future GPS-II satellites to
increase power.
Therefore, the committee recommends $275.1 million in PE
35165F, a decrease of $49.0 million for GPS-II.
Guidance, propulsion, and re-entry vehicle demonstration/validation
The budget request contains $63.0M in PE 63851F for the
development of guidance, propulsion, and re-entry vehicle
technology demonstration and validation programs.
The committee is concerned that a number of Air Force
science and technology efforts to develop space vehicle and
missile technologies are not being effectively coordinated and
tested.
Therefore, the committee recommends that the demonstration
and validation efforts for development of guidance, propulsion,
re-entry vehicles be executed by the Ballistic Missile
Technology office and the Rocket Propulsion Laboratory, and
demonstration/validation of advanced technologies and new
capabilities be executed by the Space and Missile System Center
Detachment Rocket Program.
High-accuracy network determination system
The budget request contained $6.5 million in PE 63444F for
the Maui space surveillance system, but included no funds for
the high-accuracy network determination system (HANDS).
The committee understands the importance of maintaining
space situational awareness to ensure collision avoidance of
national assets and space debris. The committee is aware that
potential collisions can unduly draw attention from mission
space-based national requirements. Accurate determination of
target satellite orbits, neighboring satellites and debris is
key to collision avoidance operations and threat management.
HANDS can reduce the potential for collision by reducing errors
in the current space-object maintenance catalog. The committee
supports further development of this initiative.
The committee recommends $11.5 million in PE 63444F, an
increase of $5.0 million for the high-accuracy network
determination system.
Identification of time critical programs
The budget request contained $34.3 million in PE 63789F for
C3I advanced development, including $4.2 million for continued
development of identification of time critical programs.
The committee is aware of the importance of reducing the
sensor-to-shooter engagement time for hi-value, short-duration
battlefield targets and fully supports continued development of
technologies for this purpose.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million in PE
63789F for accelerated testing and evaluation of time critical
target identification.
Information operation technology and fusion initiative
The budget request included $9.4 million in PE 33140F for
the information systems security program, but included no funds
for the information operation technology and fusion initiative.
The committee notes that the Information Systems Security
Program conducts research and development of information
protection tools and transitions them to operational systems.
The committee also notes that the effort concentrates on
transitioning state of the art information operation
capabilities to the warfighter by demonstrating and validating
advanced technology necessary to address specific deficiencies
and shortfalls identified by the Air Intelligence Agency. The
committee further notes that the aim of the program is to
expedite technology to the field through rapid prototyping.
The committee believes deficiencies exist in the area of
information operations, information assurance, information
fusion, and information security. The committee understands
that advanced development can eventually eliminate these
deficiencies, particularly when applied in a collaborative
program utilizing industry, academia, and government resources.
The committee encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to
pursue this initiative.
The committee recommends $12.4 million in PE 33140F, an
increase of $3.0 million, for the information operation
technology and fusion initiative.
Information security and intrusion detection development
The budget request included $34.3 million in 63789F for
command, control, communications, and intelligence (C3I)
advanced development, and included $7.0 million for battlespace
information exchange and $9.3 million for dynamic aerospace
command and control execution.
The committee is concerned with the growing threat to
information exchange procedures, supports efforts to develop
innovative security measures, and applauds Air Force efforts to
develop and test components of a secure, deployable information
grid. The committee understands that technology developments
include an information assurance decision support system,
advanced information management, multi-level secure
communications, secure survivable networks, and communications
transmission systems.
The committee is also aware of efforts to develop an
intrusion defense capability as a means for detecting and
defeating hostile forces trying to embed digital information as
a means of deception. The committee is supportive of these and
other efforts aimed at reinforcing information integrity
activities and urges further investment in these areas.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
63789F for development, product tests, and the fielding of
intrusion defenses and system security tools.
Integrated high payoff rocket propulsion technology
The budget request contained $53.6 million in PE 62500F for
Air Force Multi-disciplinary Space Technology, including $19.6
million for integrated high payoff rocket propulsion technology
and $76.6 million in PE 62114N for Navy Power Projection
Applied Research, including $13.6 million for integrated high
payoff rocket propulsion technology.
The committee notes the improvements in large and small
rocket engine propulsion capability made available through the
Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology (IHPRPT)
program and supports the increased emphasis placed on IHPRPT by
the Department of Defense and the Air Force.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
62500F and $5.0 million in PE 62114N for integrated high payoff
rocket propulsion technology.
Joint air to surface standoff missile
The budget request contained $42.1 million in PE 27325F for
the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM), including
$19.6 million for integrated high payoff rocket propulsion
technology.
The committee notes the recent series of successful JASSM
flight tests and is aware of Air Force efforts to extend the
missile range to provide longer stand-off and sustain or
improve accuracy. The committee is encouraged by the proposed
plan to develop the extended range segment of the JASSM
program, and supports acceleration of that effort.
The committee recommends $52.1 million in PE 27325F, an
increase of $10.0 million for accelerated testing and
evaluation of and extended range JASSM.
Joint integrated satellite communications technology
The budget request contained $148.9 million in PE 64479F
for Mistar LDR/MDR satellite communications, but included no
funds for joint integrated satellite communications (SATCOM)
technology (JIST).
The committee is aware that JIST is a web-based satellite
communications management technology that utilizes the
Department's existing internet protocol router to expand the
flexibility and efficiency of military satellite
communications. The committee notes that development systems
like JIST, based on common standards, is key to increased
satellite communications efficiency.
The committee recommends $157.0 million in PE 64479F, an
increase of $8.1 million for JIST.
Joint services work station
The budget request contained $55.5 million in PE 27581F for
Joint STARS, including $19.3 million for the Joint Services
Work Station.
The committee is aware of the importance of maintaining
multi-service interoperability for all supporting elements of
the Joint STARS systems.
The committee recommends $68.2 million in PE 27581F,
including $32.0 million for the continued development of the
Joint Services Work Station, an increase of $12.7 million.
Laser induced surface improvement technology
The budget request contained $46.3 million in PE 64759F for
major test and evaluation investment, but included no funds for
laser induced surface improvement technology (LISI).
The committee is aware that the LISI technology has been
demonstrated to significantly extend product life by improving
surface properties and increasing resistance to the effects of
wear and corrosion. The committee notes that the technology has
reached prototype development stage for demonstration projects
on military components.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
64759F to complete the prototype processing facility to move
laser induced surface improvement technology into fielded
applications.
Lithium ion battery development
The budget request contained $107.7 million in PE 62203F
for aerospace propulsion, and included $9.9 million for lithium
ion battery development.
The committee notes the development of improved batteries
and fuel cells continues to afford significant savings and
enhancement in weapons and communicationsystem. The next
generation, high-energy/density, lithium ion battery will enable
development and production of smaller, lighter aircraft, space
vehicles, and hand held electronic equipment.
The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE
62203F for continued development of the lithium ion battery.
Low emission/efficient hybrid aviation refueling truck propulsion
The budget request contained $35.8 million in PE 78611F for
support systems development, but included no funds for low
emission/efficient hybrid fuel truck propulsion.
The committee is informed that existing Air Force aviation
refueling trucks operate short distances in a manner that
causes high fuel usage, high emissions and decreased engine
life. The committee notes that a heavy-duty hybrid drive
technology has been developed for aviation refueling trucks.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE
78611F for installation and test of low emission/efficient
hybrid aviation refueling truck propulsion.
Metals affordability initiative
The budget request contained $75.3 million in PE 62102F and
$21.1 million in PE 63112F for materials development, and $37.6
million in PE 78011F for industrial preparedness, but included
no funds for continuation of the metals affordability
initiative (MAI).
The committee is aware that the MAI represents a unique
government-industry collaboration to provide significant
improvements in the manufacturing of specialty aerospace
metals.
The committee fully supports the continuation of the MAI
and recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 62102F, an
increase of $5.0 million in PE 63112F, and an increase of $3.0
million in PE 78011F for acceleration of the initiative.
Missile technology demonstration
The budget request contained $16.2 million in PE 65860F for
the rocket systems launch program, but included no funds for
continuation of the missile technology demonstration (MTD-3b).
The committee is aware that the MTD-3b continues to mature
technologies that support high speed weapon system platforms.
The committee recommends $27.2 million in PE 65860F, an
increase of $11.0 million for MTD-3b.
Network centric collaborative targeting
The budget request contained no funding in PE 35207F for
manned reconnaissance systems.
The committee recognizes the Air Force's thrust towards
network centric warfare, but notes that the Air Force requested
no money towards this effort.
The committee recommends $20.0 million in PE 35207F, an
increase of $20.0 million for network centric collaborative
targeting advance concepts technology demonstration.
Pulse detonation engine
The budget request contained $107.7 million in PE 62203F
for propulsion development, including $16.0 million for
continued development of the pulse detonation engine (PDE).
The committee is aware that the PDE offers significant cost
and performance advantages over conventional engines
The committee supports Air Force plans to fabricate and
test a flight worthy prototype and recommends an increase of
$6.0 million in PE 62203F for accelerated testing and
evaluation of the PDE.
Rapid attack support system
The budget request contained no funds in PE 27027F for
continued development of the rapid attack support system.
The committee is aware that software development has
progressed to the point that many of the systems in the DOD
Joint Technical Architecture can be tied together to enhance
the process of rapid targeting and attack.
The committee recommends $5.0 million in PE 27027F for
transition of the rapid attack support system to production.
Scorpius
The budget request contained $42.3 million in PE 63401F for
advanced spacecraft technology, but included no funds for
Scorpius.
The committee is aware that Scorpius development responds
to the Air Force mission need statement for operationally
responsive, affordable space lift. The committee notes that
Scorpius had a successful sub-orbital launch on the first
attempt.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE
63401F for Scorpius.
Space Technology
The Air Force's budget includes significant out-year
funding for Minuteman IV and future space vehicle development
activities. To minimize development costs, common technologies
and requirements for ballistic missiles and space vehicles
should be shared between the Air Force and the Navy. To assure
resources are properly focused on future strategic system
development, the committee recommends that the Air Force ensure
that efforts of the Space and Missile Systems Center and the
Air Force ResearchLaboratory are combined so that both
development and test facilities address technology requirements for
future strategic missile and space systems in a coordinated fashion.
The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE
63311F, Ballistic Missile Technology, and $1.0 million in PE
62201F, Aerospace Propulsion, to coordinate future missile and
space systems requirements and technology.
Streaker small launch vehicle
The budget request contained $42.3 million in PE 63401F for
advanced spacecraft technology, but included no funds for the
Streaker small launch vehicle.
The committee is aware that space launch remains a very
expensive portion of the space program. The committee notes
that a low cost launch technology is being developed for micro
and nano satellites, which offers potential to significantly
reduce, associated launch costs.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
63401F for the Streaker small launch vehicle.
Super wideband compressive receiver
The budget contained $4.5 million in PE 63260F for
intelligence advanced development, but included no funds for
super wideband compressive receiver (SWCR) technology.
The committee is aware SWCR technology has near-term
potential to greatly improve receiver capability for multiple
applications. SWCR technology combined with software
reprogrammability may also offer rapid adaptation to new wave
forms.
The committee recommends $5.5 million in PE 63260F, an
increase of $1.0 for million SWCR.
Synthetic theatre operations research model
The budget request contained $21.9 million in PE 27601F for
Air Force Modeling and Simulation, but included no funds for
the synthetic theatre operations research model (STORM).
The committee is aware that the Joint Model Transition
(JMT) project has been created to support the development and
upgrade of research and development models, and notes that
STORM offers the potential to be an excellent candidate for the
first year of the JMT initiative.
The committee recommends $23.9 million in PE 27601F, an
increase of $2.0 million for the continued development of STORM
within the JMT project.
Texas regional institute for environmental studies
The budget request contained no funds in PE 63723F for
environmental engineering technology.
The committee continues to support the ongoing Texas
Regional Institute for Environmental Studies (TRIES) research
and development of environmental technologies to protect
military water supply systems. The committee encourages further
work in this area, and remains supportive of the cooperative
partnership arrangement between TRIES and the Air Force.
The committee recommends $3 million in PE 63723F for TRIES
to demonstrate new deployable bioreactor technologies.
Thermal management for space structures
The budget request contained $75.3 million in PE 62102F for
materials, and more than $8.0 million the thermal management
for aerospace structures.
The committee is aware that the Office of Naval Research
and the Air Force Research Lab have demonstrated the potential
to improve performance and reduce weight on military aircraft
and spacecraft by using ultra-high thermal conductivity carbon
fibers for selected electronics/avionics components and
structures. The Air Force launched a program in this area in
fiscal year 2000, and significant progress has been made. The
committee understands that the Air Force has qualified use of
these carbon fibers for manufacturing compact electronic
enclosures for satellite passive cooling systems. The committee
supports further development in this initiative and encourages
the qualification of these composite materials for applications
across all fleets of military aircraft.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.2 million in PE
62102F for continued development of thermal management for
space structures.
Thrust vector control and infrared signature reduction
The budget request contained $85.7 million in PE 63216F for
aerospace propulsion and power technology, but included no
funding for thrust vector control and infrared signature
reduction.
The committee is aware that the Air Force is experimenting
with a propulsion flow control to reduce the heat signature of
fighter jets that will reduce vulnerability to heat seeking
missiles.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
63216F for continued development of thrust vector control and
infrared signature reduction.
Upper atmospheric and astronomical training
The budget request contained $219.1 million in PE 61102F
for Defense Research Sciences, but included no funding for
enhanced upper atmospheric and astronomical training.
The committee is aware that the Air Force has provided
extensive scientific training in upper atmospheric and
astronomical research to both government and non-government
audiences. However, the training facilities are limited in
capacity and in need of expansion and enhancement. The
committee notes that an Air Force investment of $5.0 million
for enhanced scientific research equipment would be combined
with non-government funding to complete the project.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for
enhanced upper atmospheric and astronomical training.
Vacuum pump
The budget request contained $39.9 million in PE 62605F for
Directed Energy Technology, but included no funds for the
vacuum pump.
The committee is aware of the potential benefits afforded
by upgrades to vacuum pump systems at Air Force laser
facilities, and recommends $42.25 million in PE 62605F, an
increase of $2.25 million for vacuum pump system upgrades.
Wind-corrected munitions dispenser development
The budget request contained no funds in PE 64600F for
munitions dispenser development.
The committee understands that the Air Force intends to
terminate the Joint Stand Off Weapon ``B'' variant dispenser
weapon in fiscal year 2003 due to technical delays and cost
increases.
Accordingly, the Air Force Chief of Staff has identified a
$16.2 million fiscal year 2003 unfunded requirement to extend
the range of the unpowered wind corrected munitions dispenser
(WCMD) by developing a deployable wing system for the WCMD,
which would enable the weapon to glide for an extended range
(ER). The committee notes the effective use of the gravity fall
WCMD in Operation Enduring Freedom and believes a WCMD-ER
enhancement would provide an additional stand off weapon
capability within the Air Force's war reserve munition stock,
and, recommends $16.2 million in PE 64600F for development of
the WCMD-ER.
Defense-Wide RDT&E
Overview
The budget request contained $16,613.6 million for Defense-
Wide RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $17,191.2
million, an increase of $309.1 million and the transfer of
$268.6M million for missile defense programs from Army RDT&E to
Defense-wide RDT&E.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2003
Defense-Wide RDT&E program are identified in the table below.
Major changes to the Defense-Wide request are discussed
following the table.
Items of Special Interest
Advanced sensor applications program
The budget request included $16.0 million in PE 63714D8Z
for the advanced sensor applications program.
The Committee is concerned that promising projects executed
by the Navy's (PMA264) program office are appreciably under
funded. Additional details are contained in the classified
annex to this report.
Therefore the committee recommends an increase of $5.0
million in PE 63714D8Z for the advanced sensor applications
program.
Aircraft affordability initiative
The budget request included $10.3 million in PE 64805D8Z
for the Department of Defense Commercial Operations and Support
Savings Initiative (COSSI), and included no funds for the
digital electronic warfare (EW) aircraft affordability
initiative. The committee notes that the stated goal of COSSI
is to adapt commercial technologies to reduce operations and
support (O&S) costs and to improve overall weapons systems
performance.
The committee remains supportive of the EW digital product
improvement program (PIP) based on its promise to substantially
decrease high-performance aircraft O&S costs and increase
combat performance. The committee understands the potential
benefits associated with a reduction in both weight and power
consumption requirements aboard such aircraft, and notes the
potential savings associated with a wholesale conversion to a
digital EW receiver. The committee notes significant progress
to date in the requisite software development, design, and
testing of a digital receiver and two associated modules for
the F-22 aircraft. The committee supports a continuation of
this effort, and encourages implementation of design
verification testing and Lot 4 insertion in the F-22 program.
The committee recommends $18.3 million in PE 64805D8Z, an
increase of $8.0 million, for the digital EW PIP aircraft
affordability initiative.
Backscatter mobile truck system
The budget request contained $33.6 million in PE 63228D8Z
for physical security equipment, but included no funds for the
backscatter mobile truck system.
The committee is aware that the backscatter mobile truck
system is a commercial-off-the-shelf system capable of
detecting organic materials in shipping containers and
vehicles.
The committee recommends an increase of $16.0 million in PE
63228D8Z for the backscatter mobile truck system
Ballistic missile defense
The budget request contained $7,763.0 million for ballistic
missile defense and related activities, $12.6 million less than
the comparable fiscal year 2002 appropriation. The request
included $6,690.7 million in research, development, test and
evaluation (RDT&E) and $23.4 million in military construction
for the Missile Defense Agency (MDA), as well as $312.3 million
in Army RDT&E, $72.9 million in Defense-Wide RDT&E, and $663.7
million in Army missile procurement.
The committee recommends $7,784.0 million for ballistic
missile defense, an increase of $21.0 million. The committee
authorizes $7,003.7 million for MDA, reflecting transfers of
$117.7 million for the Medium Extended Air Defense System
(MEADS) program from the Army PE 63869A to the MDA PE 63881C
and $150.8 million for Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3)
improvements from the Army PE 64865A to MDA in PE 64865C, and a
net increase of $21.0 million. The transfers are consistent
with the committee's view, as expressed in Section 23X, that
responsibility for research and development related to
improvements of fielded systems should remain with MDA to
ensure component integration and interoperability with the
ballistic missile defense ``system of systems''.
Silicon carbide based wide bandgap technology
The budget request contained $121.8 million in PE 63175C
for advanced technology development, but included no funds for
silicon carbide based wide bandgap technology.
The committee remains concerned about the apparently small
fraction of MDA's budget devoted to technology development (1.8
percent in the request), noting that these activities lead to
evolving capabilities for countering advanced threats. The
committee understands that significant program specific
technology development occurs within individual programs, and
believes that MDA should establish a means to more fully
account for its technology investments across-the-board.
The committee recommends $127.3 million for technology, an
increase of $5.5 million for development of silicon carbide
based wide bandgap semi-conductor technology. Wide bandgap
technology finds wide application in advanced power
electronics, particularly ground based radar and next
generation communication systems.
Ballistic missile defense system
The budget request contained $1,066.0 million in PE 63880C
for the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) system but included no
funds for wide bandwidth technology and $8.1 million for
Battlespace Environment and Signatures Toolkit.
The BMD system elements comprise battle management, command
and control (BM/C2), communications, targets and
countermeasures, system engineering and integration, and
system-wide test and evaluation. The committee understands that
the globally distributed ballistic missile defense system will
be the most complex architecture ever attempted by the
Department of Defense. Although the scientific hurdles are
relatively small, the engineering challenges associated with
orchestrating an effective defense are considerable, and the
committee supports MDA's efforts to build a national industry
team to address system component integration and
interoperability.
Wide bandwidth technology program
The committee recognizes the value of wide bandwidth
information technology to improve operational efficiency and
test infrastructure, and recommends $10.0 million for the Wide
Bandwidth Technology program.
Battlespace environment and signatures toolkit
The committee notes the ongoing work to develop the
Battlespace Environment and Signatures Toolkit program to model
threat signatures and supports the efforts to maintain a
current threat signature database and tools to integrate
current information into ongoing missile defense program.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to
accelerate this effort.
Terminal defense segment
The budget request contained $170.0 million in PE 63881C
for the terminal defense segment, including $65.7 million for
Arrow.
Enhanced Arrow deployability program
The terminal defense segment includes $65.7 million for
Arrow, primarily for the Arrow System Improvement Program to
evolve system capabilities to counter advanced missile threats
to Israel. The committee recommends an increase of $21.0
million for the Enhanced Arrow Deployability Program to enhance
Arrow system operational capabilities and interoperability with
missile defense systems of the United States.
Navy area program
The terminal defense segment also contains $90.0 million
for a sea-based terminal program to develop alternatives to the
Navy Area program, which was terminated on December 14, 2001 as
a result of a Nunn-McCurdy cost breach. The committee supports
the Administration's efforts to enforce fiscal discipline in
major development and acquisition programs, but notes the
undiminished need for lower tier sea-based defense, and
encourages MDA to move expeditiously in pursuing alternatives.
The committee recommends $308.7 million, an increase of
$117.7 million, which reflects transfer of MEADS into this
program element, and an increase of $21.0 million for Arrow
Midcourse defense segment
The budget request contained $3,195.1 million in PE 63882C
for the midcourse defense segment, including $426.6 million for
sea-based midcourse defense.
Ground based midcourse defense
The budget request includes $533.9 million for the 2004
Pacific Test Bed and $2,072.5 million for ground-based
midcourse defense, both down significantly from fiscal year
2002. The committee is encouraged by the recent flight test
successes of this program, but more importantly by the test
rate, which is now approaching three-month centers. The
committee strongly believes that programs of this level of
sophistication and maturity only seriously move forward when
the test program reaches a critical momentum.
Aegis LEAP interceptor flight demonstration program
The committee understands that the sea based midcourse
defense segment is still in its infancy, but is encouraged by
the first intercept achieved in the Aegis LEAP Interceptor
(ALI) Flight Demonstration Program with an interceptor launched
from the Aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie in January. The committee
recommends an increase of $27.0 million to purchase additional
ALI test articles for threat representative testing.
Long range S-band and X-band discrimination radar
development
The committee is also supportive of the new emphasis on
improving existing shipboard radar to enable better ballistic
missile discrimination and tracking and recommends an increase
of $25.0 million to accelerate long range S-band and X-band
discrimination radar development.
The committee recommends $3,244.6 million, an increase of
$52 million for ALI flight demonstration program and $25.0
million for long range radar improvements.
Boost defense segment
The budget request contained $796.9 million in PE 63883C
for the boost defense segment.
The committee recommends $719.4 million, a decrease of
$77.5 million.
Of the amount requested, $144.0 million is for ``hit-to-
kill'' boost phase intercept programs that rely on the energy
of motion (kinetic energy) of the interceptor to negate the
target. The request supports two programs, consisting of $89.6
million for a sea-based boost program leading to a
demonstration in fiscal year 2005, and $54.4 million for a
space-based boost program leading to a demonstration in fiscal
year 2006. The committee is concerned that, given the amount of
tactical air power already available, and recent successes with
armed unmanned aerial vehicles in Operation Enduring Freedom,
MDA may have overlooked the most promising near term
alternative for boost phase defense--air--based kinetic energy
boost phase intercept. The committee urges MDA to give serious
consideration to this option.
Of the amount requested, $625.4 million is for directed
energy boost phase programs that rely on laser heating to
induce structural failure of the target. The request for
directed energy programs consists of $34.8 million for the
space-based laser and $598.0 million for the airborne laser
(ABL).
In the case of ABL, the committee is concerned by
escalating costs and the slip in schedule of a lethal shoot
down demonstration from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2005.
The committee understands the formidable technical challenges
this program faces. While the committee expects that one day
directed energy will play a role in ballistic missile defense,
the committee notes that the 30 plus year historical record on
developing lethal, militarily-useful systems is singularly
unimpressive. The committee questions a boost phase defense
investment strategy that relies on this difficult technology to
the extent that the current program does, and encourages MDA to
more seriously pursue alternative approaches. The committee
recommends $520.5 million for ABL, a reduction of $77.5 million
specifically to funds requested to begin payments on a second
aircraft and purchase long lead optics.
Sensors segment
The budget request contained $373.4 million in PE 63884C
for the boost defense segment.
The committee recommends the budget request. The committee
believes that space-based sensors with play a key role in
ballistic missile defense, and supports the restructured Space-
Based Infrared System-low (SBIRS-low) program proposed by MDA.
The restructured program will begin to place satellites in
orbit in the fiscal year 2006-2007 timeframe to support, with
current developmental technologies, the activities of the 2004
Pacific Test Bed, but will continue to compete and evolve more
capable sensor payloads for later launches.
THAAD and PAC-3
The budget request contained $932.2 million in PE 64861C
for the Theater High Altitude Air Defense system (THAAD, and
$150.8 million in PE 64865A for PAC-3 engineering and
manufacturing development (EMD). Funds for these two programs
were requested under separate program elements, as required for
programs in EMD by section 223(b) of title 10, United States
Code, as amended by Section 232 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107).
The committee supports the budget request, but moves PAC-3
EMD funding into MDA for reasons previously discussed. The
committee notes that the Army began fielding limited numbers of
PAC-3 missiles in September of 2001 as planned, and has begun
initial operational testing while continuing an RDT&E program
to improve the system's capability against an expanded threat
set.
After a troubled test program culminating in intercept of
two ballistic missile targets in 1999, THAAD entered EMD in
fiscal year 2000. However, the program is not scheduled to
resume flight tests until late fiscal year 2004. The committee
understands that the THAAD interceptor is undergoing major
redesign and re-engineering, but given the nearly $1 billion
budget for this program, and the likelihood that certain flaws
will only be uncovered in flight, the committee questions the
advisability of such a long hiatus in flight testing.
Cooperative programs
Although the committee believes that the United States
should lead in the development of ballistic missile defense
systems, the committee does not think that missile defense
should be a protection simply provided by the United States to
the international community, but rather a capability whose
benefits and costs are shared with friends and allies.
Accordingly, the committee makes special note of support for
international cooperative programs in the budget request,
including $65.7 million for Israel's Arrow terminal missile
defense program in PE 63881C, $69.1 million for the Russian-
American Observation Satellite program in PE 63884C, $79.0
million for cooperative research with Japan on sea-based upper
tier defense in PE 63882C, and $117.7 million for co-
development with Italy and Germany of the Medium Extended Air
Defense System (MEADS) in PE 63869A. The committee is familiar
with the special difficulties associated with execution of
international cooperative programs, but believes that such
programs help to advance the national security agenda of the
United States.
Exploration of alternative approaches
The committee understands that the Department may
investigate other options for ballistic missile defense--
nuclear--armed interceptors, blast fragmentation warheads, and
directed energy technologies--as alternatives to current
approaches based predominantly on hit-to-kill technology. The
committee would consider such an examination of alternatives to
be a prudent step, consistent with the commitment to evaluate
all available technological options for this critical mission.
Ballistic missile defense baseline reports
The Committee is aware that the Missile Defense Agency
(MDA) is in the process of completing an internal planning
document known as the Technical Objectives and Goals document
(TOG). As the cornerstone of this system engineering process,
the TOG and applicable supporting systems engineering documents
provide a development baseline for each block within the
overall ballistic missile defense system that sets performance
goals at the system, project, and in some cases the component
level. The Committee further understands that the TOG will be
an essential document in formulating the 2004 budget request.
The resulting Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) System baseline
from this process will be documented as part of the BMD System
Selected Acquisition Reports, submitted annually to Congress.
The Committee directs the Director of MDA to ensure that
the relevant performance goals and development baselines of the
TOG be communicated to Congress as part of the budget
justification materials accompanying the FY 2004 and future
budget requests. Such development baselines shall be made
available for each block. In particular, the baselines shall be
made available for projects developing systems that may be
fielded, and other programs and projects identified as
congressional special interest items.
The Committee recognizes the difficulty in summarizing data
to make it readily understandable for Congress. This difficulty
is compounded by the transition from a requirements-based
acquisition process to a capability-based process. The
Committeefurther appreciates and supports the efforts made by
MDA to respond in a timely fashion to requests for further information
made by the Committee. To make the voluminous data that MDA provides
more readily understandable, the Committee directs the Director of MDA
to ensure that the annual budget justification material for each system
include the funding profile for developing the major components of each
of the projects that may be fielded, and for each block of that system.
The committee notes that section 232(h) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-
107) requires a report by the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation (OT&E) by no later than February 15 of each year. To
date, no specific report by the Director of OT&E has been
received. The Committee directs the Director of OT&E to comply
with the statutory requirement, and expects the Missile Defense
Agency to continue to work cooperatively with the Director of
OT&E so that the report may be prepared and submitted in a
timely fashion in the future.
Cobra blue force tracking equipment
The budget request contained $281.4 million in PE 116404BB
for tactical systems development, but included no funds for
blue force tracking equipment.
The committee is aware that the Army Special Operations
Command has an approved combat mission needs statement (MNS) to
equip its teams with secure blue force tracking devices. It is
also aware that the Marine Corps has a draft MNS for its Marine
expeditionary units. The committee notes that a limited blue
force tracking capability has been deployed, with unanimous
praise from the units so equipped. The committee further notes
that additional equipment is required to fully equip deployed
Army Special Forces and Marine Expeditionary Units.
The committee recommends $283.9 million in PE 116404BB, an
increase of $2.5 million to develop the next generation cobra
blue force tracking equipment.
Chemical/biological defense research, development, test and evaluation
program
The budget request contained a total of $932.9 million for
chemical/biological defense research, development, test, and
evaluation, including $64.1 million in PE 61384BP for basic
research, $262.2 million in PE 62384BP for applied research,
$249.8 million in PE 63384BP for advanced technology
development, $144.8 million in PE 63884BP for demonstration/
validation, $169.0 million in PE 64384BP for engineering and
manufacturing development, and $43.0 million in PE 65384BP for
RDT&E management support. The budget request also contained
$133.0 million in PE 62383E for the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) biological warfare defense research
program.
Engineered pathogen identification and countermeasures
program
The committee notes that the potential threat of using
unknown or genetically modified pathogens as biological warfare
agents places a high premium on the ability to rapidly identify
the pathogen and its disease producing characteristics and to
develop and implement therapies for countering the agent. The
committee understands that human genome mapping promises
beneficial advances both in medicine and in the identification
and treatment of biological warfare pathogens. Advances in
biotechnology, computational biology and computational
chemistry promise the capability to shrink the drug research
cycle significantly. In fiscal year 2002, Congress provided
$2.0 million to initiate a program for rapid identification and
development of countermeasures to biological warfare and
engineering pathogens.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE
61384BP to continue the program for applied research in
identification and development of countermeasures to
genetically modified or engineered pathogens.
Rapid antibody-based biological countermeasures
The committee has been advised that recent advances in
molecular biology combined with advances in microbiology have
resulted in the development of powerful technologies, based
upon a human antibody platform, which can be used to devise
effective countermeasures against biological weapons.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
62384BP for applied research in human antibody-based
countermeasures against biological agents.
Multi-wavelength surface scanning biological sensor
The budget request contained $16.0 in PE 63714D8Z for the
advanced sensors applications program.
The committee understands that recent advances in multi-
wavelength excitation spectral technology shows promise for
development of high spectral resolution fluorescence systems
that would provide the capability to detect and identify
biologic agents not discernible with conventional sensors by
exploiting the fine spectral signatures of both the biologic
target and the existing background. The committee notes
oversight by the Office of the Secretary the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications, and
Intelligence) of a program for development and demonstration of
multi-wavelength excitation spectral technology that, if
successful, could provide a leap-ahead improvement in the
scanning and screening of potentially contaminated locations.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
63714D8Z to continue the development of active, high-
resolution, broad-band infrared sensors for real-time detection
and identification of pathogens. The committee directs the
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense (Chemical-Biological
Defense) and the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency to review the program for coordination and potential
integration in related programs in the DOD chemical-biological
defense program or DARPA biological warfare defense program.
Chemical-biological regenerative air filters
The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE
62384BP to accelerate the program for applied research in
chemical-biological regenerative airfiltration technology to
replace activated charcoal filters in Navy and other collective
protection systems.
Chemical-biological mass spectrometer II
The chemical-biological mass spectrometer (CBMS) is a
detector capable of both biological and chemical agent
detection and identification. The CBMS Block I system is a
component of the P3I Biological Integrated Detection System
(BIDS). The CBMS Block II system is an improved system that is
being developed for inclusion in the NBCRS Block II system
(IAV-NBCRV) and the Joint Service Lightweight NBCRS system. The
CBMS II is being further enhanced to allow operation as a
stand-alone system.
The committee understands that CBMS Block has demonstrated
an effective chemical agent detection and identification
capability and that the currently funded effort would complete
the development of this chemical capability. A January 2002
peer review of further testing concluded that the CBMS Block II
had demonstrated the potential capability for biological
detection and that continued development should focus on the
development and testing of biological agent identification
algorithms, improve systems reliability and producibility, and
develop a logistics and maintenance support program. Successful
completion of the development program would result in a single
integrated detection system for future nuclear, biological,
chemical reconnaissance platforms.
The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE
63884BP to accelerate the program for development and
demonstration of the CBMS Block II.
Asymmetric protocols for biological defense enhancement
The committee recommends $137.0 million in PE 62383E, an
increase of $4.0 million for applied research in asymmetric
protocols for biological defense with emphasis on enhancing
individual non-specific immunities to and blocking pathogens
from biological warfare threat agents.
Mustard gas prophylactic
The budget request included $262.2 million in PE 62384BP
for the Chemical Biological Defense program, but included no
funding for the development of a mustard gas prophylactic.
The committee recognizes the threat of mustard gas as a
potential weapon of mass destruction and notes that existing
methods of protection are focused primarily on external
apparel. The committee is aware of a technology, referred to as
Signal Transduction Interruption Methodology Antioxidant
Liposomes (STIMAL) that might provide a prophylactic defense.
The anticipated research product supports the body's immune and
molecular systems to first stabilize and then accelerate the
recovery process in cases of unprotected exposure. Prophylactic
treatment testing has yielded a rate of treatment as high as
83% and shows some promise for even higher rates with further
development. The committee supports further research,
development, and testing to accelerate this initiative.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
62384BP for STIMAL.
Biological defense homeland security test bed
The budget request included $485.1 million for Department
of Defense (DOD) homeland security initiatives requested by the
Office of Homeland Security: the biological counterterrorism
research program and the biological defense homeland security
support program. The committee understands that the objective
of the biological defense homeland security support program is
to initiate a comprehensive pilot program to build a National
Biological Defense System for the Office of Homeland Security.
The program will create and deploy a national, multi-component,
multi-organization defense capability that is targeted to
protect urban areas, other high-value assets, and special
events; and to provide an integrated homeland security
capability designed to detect, mitigate, and respond to
biological-related incidents. The committee notes that the
Department's fiscal year 2003 plans for the program include
establishment of a fully equipped DOD test bed in each of the
military departments, an enhanced chemical-biological
monitoring system in the National Capitol Region, and an
initial biological surveillance and monitoring capability in
two additional urban areas.
The committee understands that the pilot project to
increase chemical biological defense capabilities at DOD
installations will equip nine diverse DOD installations
selected by the military departments with state-of-the-art
contamination avoidance, protection and decontamination
equipment, enhanced emergency response capabilities for
consequence management, and an integrated command and control
network. The project will also include a comprehensive training
and exercise plan for each installation.
The committee notes, however, that the criteria and process
for selecting the locations of, and establishing the two urban
area test beds have not been determined.
The committee believes that the Department of Defense
should proceed promptly with a pilot program for establishing
the two urban area test beds to provide the capability to
develop, test, validate and deploy technologies and systems
that will provide for increased homeland security. The
committee also believes that selection of the sites for these
test beds should take into account the factors of the potential
biological threat to the area, geography, transportation and
other critical infrastructure networks, military and government
presence. Other criteria should include previously established
crisis and consequence response capabilities, industrial,
medical, and academic activities, and the availability of
state, regional, local governmental, and non-governmental
activities that would participate in the test bed.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to establish
a competitive program for selection of urban area test beds in
the biological defense homeland security support program. The
committee believes that the regional biological defense network
will serve as a national model to develop and promote
integrated solutions to secure America's borders, support first
responders and defend against bioterrorism.
C3I intelligence programs
The budget request contained $75.7 million in PE 35190D8Z
and $5.6 million in the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF)
for C3I intelligence programs.
The committee notes that the program has a very significant
increase over the prior year, due to a new program called
horizontal fusion. This program has insufficient program
definition associated with it.
The committee recommends a decrease of $34.0 million in PE
35190D8Z for C3I intelligence programs.
Combat sent data distribution upgrade
The budget request included $4.6 million in PE 35207G for
manned reconnaissance systems, but included no funds for the
Combat Sent data distribution upgrade.
The committee is aware that Combat Sent does not have a
high data-rate communications link to allow near real-time
distribution of data to theater commanders and analysis
centers.
The committee recommends $12.9 million in PE 35207G, an
increase of 8.3 million for the Combat Sent data distribution
upgrade.
Combating terrorism technology support
The budget request contained $49.0 million in PE 63122D8Z
for the combating terrorism technology support program. The
program develops technology and prototype equipment that
address DOD, interagency, and international technology
requirements for combating terrorism.
Lightweight biological detectors
The committee notes a number of competing technologies for
development of portable, light-weight, biological-detection and
identification systems that are capable of rapidly detecting
and positively identifying a broad range of biological agents
and other organisms. The committee recommends an increase of
$4.0 million in PE 63122D8Z to accelerate the competitive
development and evaluation of these systems.
Chemical-biological electrostatic decontamination system
The committee notes that the electrostatic decontamination
system is a photosensitive, electrostatically charged mist,
which when sprayed onto a contaminated surface and illuminated
with ultraviolet light destroys the chemical or biological
agents that are present. Successful development and
demonstration of the electrostatic decontamination system could
result in a field expedient decontamination capability that
would be less dependent on water and would not require the
deployment of post-decontamination waste disposal equipment.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million in PE
63122D8Z to continue the development and evaluation of the
electrostatic decontamination system.
Facial recognition technology
Given the rise in the number of terrorist attacks against
Americans, the committee remains committed to anti-terrorism
efforts and biometrics technology in particular. The committee
notes the potential force protection applications and
surveillance benefits of facial recognition technology and is
aware of ongoing operational testing in this field.
The committee understands that further development in this
area is necessary to improve both image quality and automatic
recognition performance rates.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
63122D8Z for facial recognition technology.
Magnetic quadrupole resonance explosives detection
The committee notes the development, demonstration, and
employment of scanning explosive detection systems that use
magnetic quadrupole resonance technology to detect the presence
of explosives in luggage and mail with a greatly enhanced
detection probability and reduced false alarm rate.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
63122D8Z to accelerate the development and evaluation of
magnetic quadrupole resonance technology for screening of
personnel for the presence of explosives and to extend the
application of the technology to the screening of cargo and
vehicles.
Commercial imagery to support military requirements
The budget request supported purchase of commercial
imagery, products and services in support of national
intelligence and military needs.
The committee believes real progress has been made in the
past year with respect to understanding the desirability of
integrating commercial remote sensing into the national
architecture.
However, the committee believes that insufficient progress
has been made by the Secretary of Defense and the Director of
Central Intelligence in achieving the goals outlined by
Congress in its fiscal year 2002 direction on this subject.
Given the lateness of last year's defense bills, the committee
appreciates the difficulty in complying fully with last year's
direction. Nevertheless, the committee is genuinely disturbed
by reports that the process for development and implementation
of the commercial imagery strategy called for may now be on
hold.
The committee also questions the wisdom and cost
effectiveness of continued investment in government
infrastructure for imagery, products and services that would
likely be contracted out by 2005 on implementation of the
desired commercial strategy. This area will receive increased
scrutiny by the committee.
Finally, the committee is not satisfied with the geospatial
readiness of our troops. There is no reason for them to not
have the best geospatial products based on the most current
geospatial data available in the United States today.
Regrettably, they do not.
Complex systems engineering
The budget request contained $11.2 million in PE 63704D8Z
for special technical support, but included no funds for
complex systems engineering.
The committee is aware that multi-view data standards are
being developed for an integrated digital design environment
supporting complex systems design. The committee is also aware
that this project is developing common data formats to permit
data from advanced computer-based system design and analysis
tools in use by DOD to be efficiently integrated, eliminating
the costly and time-consuming manual interface that is standard
today. The committee notes the significant success achieved in
the development of the multi-view data framework and supports
its application to additional pilot efforts.
The committee recommends $17.0 million in PE 63704D8Z, an
increase of $5.8 million for complex systems engineering.
Computer science and internet security degree program
The budget request contained $394.3 million in PE 33140G
for information systems security programs, but included no
funds for the computer science and internet security degree
program.
The committee notes that there is an increasing dependency
within the Department of Defense on the internet. This reality
has generated a growing need for individuals who are highly
trained in computer and internet security tools and procedures
necessary to protect systems from attack.
The committee recommends an increase of $750 thousand in PE
33140G for the computer science and internet security degree
program.
Defense agency science and technology funding
The budget request contained $9,677.2 million for defense
science and space technology, including all defense-wide and
military service funding for basic research, applied research,
and advanced development.
The committee notes that this amount represents an increase
of $919.5 million, or 10.5 above the amount requested for the
fiscal year 2002 budget, and 2.7 percent of the budget request.
However, the committee also notes that the amount requested for
science and technology is a decrease of $199.3 million from the
amount provided by Congress for fiscal year 2002. The committee
commends the Department of Defense commitment to a goal of 3
percent of the budget request for the defense science and
technology program and progress toward this goal.
The committee views defense science and technology
investments as critical to maintaining U.S. military
technological superiority in the face of growing and changing
threats to national security interest around the world, and
believes that both the defense agencies and the military
departments have vital roles in DOD's science and technology
investment strategy. Defense agencies focus on science and
technology specific to the particular agency or, in the case of
DARPA, on problems of national-level problems, operational
dominance, and exploitation of high-risk, high-payoff
technology. The military departments' science and technology
programs focus on the development and transition of more mature
technologies into future weapons systems.
The committee notes that the defense-wide science and
technology account increased over 14 percent while the Air
Force account increased over 5 percent and the Army and Navy
science and technology accounts each decreased more than 21
percent (over $400 million each). Although the committee is
pleased with the overall progress in the defense science and
technology program, the committee continues to be disturbed by
the continuing trend of overall reduction in the military
departments' science and technology program in comparison to
significant increases in the Defense-wide science and
technology account and in the amount budgeted for the Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), in particular. The
committee concern is not directed at the content of the DARPA
program, but rather on the Department's continuing trend of
placing higher priority on defense agency science and
technology programs at the expense of the already inadequate
service research and development budgets. The committee
believes that the Department has not provided sufficient
justification to support these imbalances in funding levels
between defense agencies and the services, and, therefore,
recommends correcting these imbalances by reductions in the
DARPA accounts that appear to show disproportionate growth and
distribution of those funds among service science and
technology projects.
The committee recommends the reductions in the program
elements listed:
[In millions of dollars]
61101E--Defense research science.............................. 12.0
62301E--Computing systems and communications technology....... 50.0
62712E--Materials and electronics technology.................. 50.0
63285E--Advanced aerospace systems............................ 50.0
The committee directs that the reduction of $50.0 million
in PE 62301E not be assessed against DARPA Information
Awareness Office programs.
Defense counterintelligence programs
The budget request contained $60.7 million in PE 35146D8Z
for classified programs-C3I, but included no funding for an
initiative to accelerate efforts to support specific
counterintelligence awareness efforts.
Additional details are contained in the classified annex to
this report.
The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE
35146D8Z for the Defense counterintelligence programs
initiative
Defense experimental program to stimulate competitive research
The budget request contained $9.9 million in PE 61114D8Z
for the Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research (DEPSCoR).
The committee is aware that DEPSCoR is helping to improve
our nation's science and technology capability through funding
of merit-reviewed research activities at universities in 21
states and Puerto Rico. The committee notes that these programs
helpindividuals, institutions and states improve their research
capabilities and to become more competitive for other funding sources.
The committee recommends $19.9 million in PE 61114D8Z, an
increase of $10.0 for DEPSCoR.
Defense imagery and mapping program
The budget request contained $143.5 million in PE 35102BQ
for the Defense imagery and mapping program. The committee is
concerned that promising projects are under-funded. Additional
details are found in the classified annex to this report.
The committee recommends an increase of $28.0 million in PE
35102BQ for the Defense imagery and mapping program.
Defense manufacturing supply chain management
The budget request contained $25.5 million in PE 63712S for
logistics research and development technology demonstration.
The committee notes defense industry concerns about
reducing lead time and increasing the quality of procured parts
and equipment from their respective supply chains as a strategy
to deliver weapons systems to their Department of Defense
customers on time and on budget. These concerns extend to hard-
to-find and obsolete spare parts and equipment.
The committee recommends $27.0 million in PE 63712S, an
increase of $1.5 million to develop and demonstrate an
integrated, multi-state, virtual defense manufacturing supply
chain pilot capability.
Defense travel system
The budget request contained $30.4 million in PE 65124D8Z
for the defense travel system.
The committee notes that the budget request for the defense
travel system increased precipitously and believes that the
last year's level is sufficient.
The committee recommends $20.4 million in PE 65124D8Z, a
decrease of $10.0 million for the Defense travel system
Enhanced techniques for the detection of explosives
The budget request contained $33.6 million in PE 63228D8Z
for physical security equipment research and development.
The committee notes that the detection of explosives is a
major concern. Standoff detection of hidden or buried ordnance,
including improvised explosive devices, landmines, unexploded
ordnance, is critical in mitigating the risk and increasing the
safety of military and civilian personnel involved in the
clearance of landmines and unexploded ordnance, explosive
ordnance disposal operations and the response of security
forces to an incident.
The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE
63228D8Z for multidisciplinary research in the development of
advanced technologies for the detection of explosives,
improvised explosive devices, landmines, and unexploded
ordnance that will lead toward the development of cost
effective, highly reliable, computer integrated explosive
detection systems.
Environmental security technical certification program
The budget request contained $28.3 million in PE 63851D8Z
for the Environmental Security Technical Certification Program.
The committee believes that budget justification documents
support funding at the previous year's level, but the 40
percent increase requested is not sufficiently justified.
The committee recommends $20.3 million in PE 63851D8Z, a
decrease of $8.0 million for the Environmental Security
Technical Certification Program.
Integrated optoelectronics technology
The budget request contained $440.5 million in PE 62712E
for applied research in materials and electronics technology.
The committee notes the potential for advances in high
capacity interconnects, innovative chip scale technologies,
advanced microelectromechanical systems, and miniaturization
and integration of optical systems that would enable the
development of advanced optoelectronics devices for defense and
other applications.
The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE
62712E for applied research in integrated optoelectronics
technology.
Interdisciplinary biological nanoscience research
The budget request included $175.6 million in PE 61101E for
multidisciplinary science basic research, and included $9.3
million for specific research in nanostructure biology.
The committee views the Nanostructure in Biology program as
potentially providing new and unprecedented opportunities to
exploit a wide range of bio-functionality in a number of
military application areas, including chemical and biological
sensing, diagnostics, and therapeutics. Potential innovations
in this area include the development of algorithms for real-
time atomic level resolution of molecules. Such resolution
techniques could provide unique threat countermeasures,
biomolecular sensors and motors, drug delivery devices, and
advanced wound healing techniques, all sharing the potential
for providing far-reaching applications in future battlefield
environments.
The committee notes the ongoing research involving
nanospheres, nano-biosensors, and multi-crystal equipment, and
encourages further work in this area for detecting
cytotoxicity. The committee recognizes the unique benefit of
interdisciplinary studies and strongly supports further
investment in this area.
The committee recommends $10.8 million in PE 61101E for the
Nanostructure Biology program, an increase of $1.5 million, for
interdisciplinary biological nanoscience research.
Joint technology office
The budget request contained $13.6 million in PE 63924D8Z
for high energy laser advanced technology programs.
The committee understands the challenges of developing high
energy lasers for weapons applications. The committee is
encouraged by the progress demonstrated in some of the large
and more visible demonstration programs, but believes it
necessary to proceed on a broad front to develop the full range
of technologies required to bring directed energy to the
battlefield.
The committee recommends $28.6 million in PE 63924D8Z, an
increase of $15.0 million.
Kinetic energy-anti satellite system
The budget request contained no funding in PE 63XXXD8Z for
kinetic energy-anti satellite (KE-ASAT) system.
The committee notes that the kinetic energy-anti satellite
system is to develop an option for space control, a critical
capability for future space operations.
The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million in PE
63XXXD8Z for the kinetic energy-anti satellite system.
Medical free electron laser
The budget request contained no funding in PE 62227D8Z for
the ongoing medical free electron laser (MFEL) program and
recommended transfer of program management to the National
Institutes of Health.
The committee is aware that the MFEL program has been a
good example of a peer-reviewed program that is oriented toward
military medical applications. The committee believes that the
MFEL program transfer was inappropriate and supports MFEL
retention within DOD.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense not to
transfer the MFEL program and recommends $15.0 million in PE
62227D8Z for MFEL.
Multi-function self-aligned gate
The budget contained $11.9 million in PE 35206G for manned
reconnaissance systems, but included no funds for multi-
function self-aligned gate (MSAG) tile antenna technology.
The committee believes that MSAG has the potential to
revolutionize antenna design and result in significant
improvement in data rates to meet rapidly escalating demand for
information exchange in the new digital warfare environment.
The committee recommends $14.9 million in PE 35206G, an
increase of $3.0 million for the development and demonstration
of MSAG tile antenna technology.
Multi-link antenna system
The budget request contained $199.6 million in PE 63750D8Z
for advanced concept technology demonstrations, but included no
funds for the multi-link antenna system (MLAS).
The committee notes that MLAS technology has demonstrated
communications using small arrays, and is at the point in
development at which a larger, full-scale demonstration is
appropriate. The committee is aware that the multi-link antenna
system advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD) has
been planned and approved by the Secretary of Defense.
The committee recommends an increase of $14.0 million in PE
63750D8Z for the multi-link antenna system ACTD.
National collaborative environment
The committee, in the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107), directed the
Secretary of Defense and Director of Central Intelligence to
develop a proposed architecture for a national collaborative
environment. The committee is aware that the ongoing war
against terrorism has increased the need for such a capability.
The committee notes, with pleasure, that the Secretary of
Defense has initiated a well-staffed program through the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop
the fundamental architecture, technologies and tools necessary
to enable a national collaborative environment. The committee
realizes that architectural studies may well impact the
direction and effort of the DARPA program, and requests the
Secretary of Defense to ensure that the Director, DARPA is a
full participant in those study efforts and is made fully aware
of all related work within the Department.
The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense
to provide continued support for this vital DARPA program and
the ultimate establishment of a national collaborative
environment.
``Smart'' fuzing
The committee believes the United States should make every
effort to reduce the susceptibility of friendly forces and non-
combatants to accidental death or injury--including that which
results from inappropriate contact with unexploded ordnance--
without impairing military effectiveness, capability, or
mission accomplishment. Hence, the committee recommends the
Department of Defense place greater priority on the development
of affordable and effective submunition fuses that have
reliability rates comparable to those found in unitary
munitions fuzing, thus increasing performance of these
munitions while reducing the danger of unexploded ordnance to
friendly forces and non-combatants. The committee also
encourages the continued development of ``smart'' landmines
with higher reliability and performance rates.
Spike urban warfare system
The budget request contained $6.7 million in PE 116401BB,
for special operations technology development, but included no
funds for the Spike urban warfare system.
The committee is aware that enhancements are required for
shoulder fired guided missiles, and improvements to the
guidance system in order to better defeat hard targets and
reduce collateral damage in an urban environment.
The committee recommends $11.7 million in PE 116401BB, an
increase of $5.0 million for the Spike urban warfare system.
Strategic environmental research and development program
The budget request contained $60.5 million in PE 63716D8Z
for the strategic environmental research and development
program (SERDP).
The committee notes that insufficient budget specific
justification has been provided for SERDP including an $11.0
million increase over the level of funding projected for fiscal
year 2003 in the fiscal year 2002 amended budget request.
The committee recommends $30.5 million in PE 63716D8Z, a
decrease of $30.0 million for the Strategic Environmental
Research Program.
Tactical missile recycling
The budget request contained $8.9 million in PE 63104D8Z
for explosives demilitarization technology, and included $5.8
million for tactical missile recycling.
The committee is aware that the explosive demilitarization
technology program is a cooperative interservice, interagency
effort focused as the sole Department of Defense program
dedicated to the development of safe, efficient, and
environmentally acceptable processes for resource recovery and
recycling or disposition of strategic, tactical, and
conventional munitions including explosives and rocket motors.
The committee recommends $11.9 million in PE 63104D8Z, an
increase of $3.0 million for tactical missile recycling
technology.
Thermobaric warhead development
The budget request contained $77.4 million in PE 63160BR
for development and demonstration of counterproliferation
advanced technologies.
The committee notes the effectiveness of thermobaric
materials, a new class of explosives that demonstrate
impressive capabilities for generation of pressure and thermal
effects much greater than conventional high explosives. Weapons
employing thermobaric warheads were developed rapidly and
employed with great effectiveness in support of tunnel defeat
operations in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan. The
committee also notes the progress being made in the development
and demonstration of advanced thermobaric warheads in the on-
going thermobaric warhead advanced concept technology
demonstration lead by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.
The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE
63160BR for thermobaric warheads advanced technology
development. The committee recommends continued close
coordination of the DTRA program with the Navy's insensitive
munitions program and the Army's advanced warheads development
program.
Unmanned aerial vehicles major acquisition programs
The committee is aware that recent successful operational
employment of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) has heightened
military service efforts to develop and field several new
variants, with additional capabilities. The committee notes
that though the budget request has rapidly increased overall
funding for UAVs, formal acquisition management documentation
is incomplete or not yet developed in many instances.
The committee expresses its concern about proper program
management elsewhere in this report, and is specifically
concerned that UAV programs adhere to the same standards as
other acquisition programs. The committee recognizes the
necessity for and benefit of acquiring a robust family of UAVs,
but believes that the Secretary of Defense and military service
Secretaries must ensure that the programs are managed well, to
prevent unanticipated cost growth and schedule delays
experienced by other new systems. The committee notes that
while the acquisition per unit cost may be relatively small, in
the aggregate, the acquisition cost rivals the investment in
other larger weapon systems.
Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense
Overview
The budget request contained $222.1 million for Operational
Test and Evaluation RDT&E. The committee recommends
authorization of $222.1 million.
The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2003
Operational Test and Evaluation RDT&E program are identified in
the table below. Major changes to the Operational Test and
Evaluation request are discussed following the table.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 201--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would establish RDT&E funding levels for the
Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002.
Section 202--Amount for Basic and Applied Research
This section would establish basic and applied research
funding levels for the Department of Defense for fiscal year
2002.
Subtitle B--Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 211-RAH-66 Comanche Aircraft Program
This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from
obligating any of the funds in fiscal year 2003 for engineering
and manufacturing development of the RAH-66 Comanche aircraft
program until the Secretary submits to the congressional
defense committees a report, prepared in coordination with the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and
Logistics, containing an accurate estimate of funds to complete
engineering and manufacturing development and the new
restructured timeline for bringing the aircraft to initial
operational capability.
This provision would also impose a cost cap on the total
cost of engineering and manufacturing development (EMD),
require an annual report by the Department of Defense Inspector
General (DOD IG) that would assess the progress of EMD and its
prospect of completion under the cost cap, and allow
adjustments to the cost cap for economic inflation and
compliance with laws enacted after September 30, 2002. The
annual report would be required until EMD is complete. Finally,
the provision would limit the obligation of funds authorized to
be appropriated for each year to 90 percent until the DOD IG
annual report is submitted.
Section 212--Management Responsibility for Navy Mine Countermeasures
Programs
This section would amend section 216 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993
(Public Law 102-190) and would extend the implementation of the
Management Responsibility for Navy Mine Countermeasures
programs through fiscal year 2008.
The committee believes that the requirement that the
Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff provide an annual certification of the adequacy of the
Navy's mine countermeasures program has had a positive impact
on the program, increasing the visibility of and attention paid
to the program by officials in the Department of Defense and
the Navy. The committee notes the direction contained in the
committee report on H.R. 3616 (H. Rept. 105-532) that the
annual certification by theSecretary of Defense and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff address the adequacy of funding
for the mine countermeasures program for the budget year through the
end of the future years defense program and also include objective
measures against which the Navy's progress in enhancing its mine
countermeasures capabilities can be evaluated.
Section 213--Extension of Authority To Carry Out Pilot Program for
Revitalizing the Laboratories and Test and Evaluation Centers of the
Department of Defense
Section 246 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261)
authorizes the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program
for revitalizing the laboratories and test and evaluation
centers of the Department of Defense with the objective of
improving cooperative relationships for the performance of
research and development with universities and other private
sector entities. This provision would amend section 246 to add
the demonstration of improved efficiency in the performance of
the research, development, test, and evaluation functions of
the Department of Defense to the objectives of the pilot
program and would also extend the authorization for the program
until March 1, 2008.
Section 214--Revised Requirements for Plan for Manufacturing Technology
Program
This provision would amend section 2525(e) of title 10,
United States Code, to reduce the requirement for update and
submission to Congress of the five-year plan for the Department
of Defense (DOD) Manufacturing Technology Program from annually
with the submission of the DOD budget to biennially. The
amendment would also delete the requirement including in the
report an annual assessment of program effectiveness and an
annual assessment of the extent to which the costs of
manufacturing technology projects are being shared.
Section 215--Technology Transition Initiative
The provision would require the Secretary of Defense,
acting through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, to carry out an initiative to
facilitate the rapid transition of new technologies from DOD
science and technology programs into DOD acquisition programs.
The initiative would be managed by a senior official in the
Office of the Secretary of Defense, who would be assisted by a
board of directors composed of the acquisition executives of
the military departments, the members of the Joint Requirements
Oversight Council, and the commander of the Joint Forces
Command; and who would be responsible for identifying promising
technology that have been demonstrated in DOD science and
technology programs, identify potential sponsors and establish
management agreements for the transition of such technologies
into production, and provide not less that fifty percent of the
funding for recommended projects that are selected for such
funding support. The provision would also require the Secretary
to establish a panel of highly qualified scientists and
engineers to advise the Under Secretary on matters relating to
the initiative.
The provision would further require that the amount
requested for activities of the initiative shall be set forth
in a separate program element within amounts requested for
Defense-wide research, development, test, and evaluation
activities. The committee expects that the Secretary of Defense
will establish a funding planning wedge for the Technology
Transition Initiative program in the future years defense plan.
The committee notes that the Technology Transition
Initiative established pursuant to Sec. 215 does not replace,
but complements the responsibility of the senior acquisition
executives of the Department of Defense and the military
departments and the heads of the Defense agencies with research
and development responsibilities under section 5358, title 10,
United States Code (section 904, Public Law 106-301) to ensure
that the science and technology programs under their authority
are carried out in such manner that will foster the transition
of science and technology to higher levels of research,
development, test, and evaluation.
Section 216--Defense Acquisition Challenge Program
This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a pilot program, the Defense Acquisition Challenge
Program, to provide a person, institution, industrial
corporation, or activity within or outside the Department of
Defense the opportunity to propose the insertion of unique and
innovative technologies (``challenge proposals'') at the
component, subsystem, or system level of an existing DOD
acquisition program that, compared to the incumbent component,
subsystem, or system, would result in substantially superior
improvements in performance, affordability, manufacturability,
or operational capability of that acquisition program.
The provision would require the Secretary to establish
procedures under which challenge proposals would be submitted
for review and evaluation by a panel of scientists and
engineers established under the auspices of the Under Secretary
of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics). The
committee believes that these procedures should provide for the
solicitation of component, subsystem, or system-level
technologies that, if incorporated in the appropriate defense
acquisition program would result in substantial improvements in
the program and could be transitioned rapidly into a fielded
program, a block change, or a spirally developmental increment.
The committee expects that the review panel would take a ``best
value'' approach that encompasses consideration of such
criteria as potential improvement in performance,
affordability, manufacturability, and operational capability.
Those proposals with merit would be requested to submit a
proposal to be reviewed by the government program office and
the prime system contractor for the impacted program. The
program office-prime contractor team would then conduct an
independent review of the merits of the challenge proposal,
including whether the challenge proposal is likely to result in
improvements in performance, affordability, manufacturability,
or operational capability at the component, subsystem, or
system level of the applicable acquisition program and whether
the challenge proposal could be implemented rapidly in the
program through changes in fielded systems, through block
changes to the component, subsystem, or system, or through a
spiral development increment. Each challenge proposal
determined under a favorable full review and evaluation by the
program office and prime contractor to satisfy the criteria
outlined above would then be considered by the prime system
contractor for incorporation into the acquisition program as a
new technology insertion at the component, subsystem, or system
level.
The committee believes that the challenge program could
provide an excellent avenue for accelerating the introduction
of new and innovative technology into defense acquisition
programs and that appropriate incentives, such as share-in-
saving or other appropriate incentives, should be established
to encourage the program office and the prime contractor to
adopt successful challenge proposals that meet the criteria
outlined above.
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense
Section 231--Limitation on Obligation of Funds for Procurement of (PAC-
3) Missiles Pending Submission of Required Certification
This section would prevent obligation of funds for
procurement of PAC-3 pending submission to the congressional
defense committees of criteria for the transfer of missile
defense programs from the Missile Defense Agency to the
military departments, and certification by the Secretary of
Defense that those criteria have been met for the PAC-3
program. The criteria and certification are required by
sections 224(b)(2) and 224(c), respectively, of title 10,
United States Code.
Section 232--Responsibility of Missile Defense Agency for Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation Related to System Improvements of
Programs Transferred to Military Departments
This section would amend Section 224(e) of title 10, United
States Code to require the Director of the Missile Defense
Agency to retain responsibility for research, development,
test, and evaluation related to improvements of missile defense
systems and system components that have been transferred to the
military departments for procurement and fielding.
Section 233--Amendments To Reflect Change in Name of Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization to Missile Defense Agency
This section would amend a number of provisions of
permanent law to reflect the name change of the ``Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization'' or ``BMDO'' to the ``Missile
Defense Agency'' or ``MDA''.
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
OVERVIEW
The budget request for operation and maintenance represents
an increase of $22.7 billion over spending levels authorized
and appropriated for fiscal year 2002. Of this increase, $13.8
billion has been included for the Defense Emergency Response
Fund (DERF), and $3.3 billion represents the cost for
Department of Defense civilian employees health care and
retirement accrual funding. The remaining $5.6 billion, which
represents three percent of the operation and maintenance
budget request, is allocated to what the Department has termed
``realistic budgeting'' and inflation. As detailed elsewhere in
the report, $10.0 billion of the DERF, and the $3.3 billion for
the civilian employees accrual funding have not been included
in the committee's recommendations.
Although the budget request has been portrayed as the
largest increase in defense spending in many years, the reality
is that there are little, if any, real increases. The committee
is concerned with the Department's ability to achieve
acceptable readiness in the military services. The proposed
level of funding, coupled with the need to fight a war, and
$25.4 billion in unfunded requirements identified by the chiefs
of the military departments for fiscal year 2003, suggests that
adequate military readiness will be difficult to sustain in the
long term. Not only is there concern for sustaining adequate
readiness for the duration of the current conflict, but also a
looming concern for the inevitable reconstitution of our forces
when the war has concluded. Many of the Department's combat
weapons systems are long past their initial design lifespan,
and there are only a few replacement systems on the drawing
boards.
The committee notes the increased attention and recognition
of historic under-funding in many of the critical readiness
accounts with the application of realistic funding this year.
Even this approach of realistic funding, however, may not
sustain readiness at acceptable levels. As an example, the
budget request includes an increase for ship depot maintenance
of $621.2 million. This significant increase will not provide
any additional ship repair over previous years, it will merely
fund previously programmed ship repair requirements and may
negate the annual practice of re-programming and supplemental
funding requests. Even with this laudable attempt at realistic
funding, the committee notes that the ship repair accounts are
only funded at the 95 percent level.
The committee conducted a series of hearings in an effort
to obtain a more accurate and detailed assessment of current
and near-term readiness from senior DOD civilian and military
leaders. As it has been for the past several years, the
overwhelming impression left on the committee was of an
overextended force struggling to maintain acceptable readiness
levels in a wartime environment coupled with domestic terrorism
concerns. The committee continues to hear complaints about lack
of spare parts, aging equipment, decaying infrastructure,
growing equipment and facility backlogs, and the difficulties
of conducting quality training and operational deployments with
significant personnel shortages. The committee notes that
within the fiscal years 01, 02, and 03 DERF accounts, over $4.0
billion has been dedicated for increased force protection
requirements. The committee applauds the Department for these
much needed security improvements and urges the Department to
assign the same level of effort to the other infrastructure
needs of the Department.
The committee notes that the Department has made some
progress, but must continue to take steps to reduce costs in
non-readiness related accounts. At the same time, the
Department must provide aggressive oversight over proposals to
reduce costs through contracting out and privatization. The
committee is concerned with the apparent differing opinions
between the Department and the Office of Management and Budget
as to the need for further mandated outsourcing studies. At the
same time, the committee is aware that the Department has
turned to strategic sourcing as a means to make outsourcing
decisions without the need for prolonged studies. The committee
is concerned that strategic sourcing may encompass
consolidation, restructuring, privatization, and the outright
termination of existing services, which may produce short-term
savings, but may prove to be more costly in the future and may
have an adverse impact on readiness. The committee fully
supports well developed and justified programs that will reduce
costs and prove over time to enhance readiness; however, at a
time when military readiness is critical for the successful
prosecution of the war effort, the committee does not believe
the Department should conduct uncoordinated new programs.
Consistent with past practice, the committee has identified
spending that does not directly support readiness and has
reprioritized it into areas that will. In making decisions on
how best to apply resources to address readiness problems, the
committee relied heavily on testimony received during extensive
oversight hearings and on the unfunded priorities identified by
the service chiefs.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Budget Request Adjustments
The committee recommends the following adjustments to the
fiscal year 2003 budget request:
Department of the Army Adjustments:s of dollars]
AIT/RFID Maintenance...................................... +9.0
AIT/RFID Prepositioned Stocks............................. +8.0
Army Aviation Warfighting Simulation Center............... +4.0
Army Cold Weather Clothing (ECWCS)........................ +8.0
Army Depot Apprenticeship Program......................... +10.0
Army National Guard Cold Weather Clothing (ECWCS)......... +4.0
Army National Guard Modular Sleep System.................. +10.0
Army Reserve Modular Sleep System......................... +6.0
Army Reserve Cold Weather Clothing (ECWCS)................ +4.0
Army Reserve Military Technicians......................... +8.0
Azur Blue Cannon Bore Cleaning System..................... +2.2
BA-4 BRAC Preparation Funds............................... -24.1
BA-4 Global Command Support System........................ -5.0
Controlled Humidity Preservation.......................... +20.0
Corrosion Prevention and Control Program.................. +12.0
Electronic Maintenance and Point to Point Wiring.......... +6.0
Hydration on the Move (CamelBak).......................... +4.1
M-Gators.................................................. +4.0
Training Range Modernizations............................. +32.0
Transfers to H.R. 4547.................................... -14.4
USARSO Leasing Increases.................................. -2.55
Department of the Navy Adjustments:
AV-8B Engine Life Maintenance Program..................... +2.0
BA-3 IMET Funding......................................... -4.93
BA-3 IMET Funding, USMC................................... -1.33
Corrosion Control Program ATC Glass....................... +2.0
Hydration on the Move CamelBak............................ +1.0
LHA Stability Improvement Alterations..................... +57.0
Navy Aviation Depot Apprenticeship Program................ +6.0
Navy Shipyard Depot Apprenticeship Program................ +6.0
Stainless Steel Sanitary Spaces........................... +15.0
Navy Transfer to H.R. 4547................................ -5.3
Naval Sea Cadets.......................................... +1.0
USMC Facility Restoration and Modernization............... +31.0
USMC Transfers to H.R. 4547............................... -11.5
Uniting through Reading................................... +0.1
Department of the Air Force Adjustments:
Aging Propulsion Systems Life Extension................... +7.0
Air Force Logistics System/L-SMART........................ +2.5
Air National Guard Cold Weather Clothing (ECWCS).......... +4.0
B-1B Pivot Shear Replacement.............................. +80.0
BA-4 BRAC Preparation Funds............................... -16.5
Combat Air Patrol Flying Hours............................ -300.0
Hydration on the Move (CamelBak).......................... +1.0
Office, Secretary of Defense Adjustments:
Impact Aid................................................ +35.0
Defense-wide Activities Adjustments:
CSRS/FEHBP Accrual Funding transfer out................... -2,276.3
Defense Human Resources Activity.......................... -20.0
Defense Information Systems Agency........................ -37.0
DERF transfer to other accounts........................... -6,213.3
Foreign Currency Account.................................. -522.4
Joint Chiefs of Staff Exercise Program.................... -10.0
Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund............. -50.0
Washington Headquarters Service........................... -10.0
TRICARE Prime Remote...................................... +6.0
Marshall Island Diabetes Reversal/Wellness Program........ +2.0
National Guard Challenge.................................. +2.5
National Guard Youth Foundation........................... +2.5
Excess Foreign Currencies Reductions
Since the submission of the budget request, the U.S. dollar
has increased in value compared to various foreign currencies.
As a result, the committee believes that the budget request is
overstated. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction in
this account of $522.4 million to be apportioned to the
military services by the Department of Defense.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Training Exercises
The committee is concerned with the increasing pace of
operations throughout the military services and the proposed
Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) training exercises program. The
budget request includes an increase of $21.8 million for JCS
training exercises. The committee believes that requirements
for these additional training exercises will be leviedagainst
units that are already overextended with the execution of the war on
terrorism, other world-wide operational deployments, home station
training exercises, and training exercises at the services' major
combat training centers. The committee questions whether the benefit of
additional JCS exercises, at this time, is worth the price paid by
units already suffering the effects of high operational tempo.
Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 million for
the JCS training exercises program.
Budget Request Display Issues
Accrual Accounting for Civil Service Retirement and Health Programs
The budget request proposed, for the first time, to include
$3.3 billion for the costs of the Civil Service Retirement
System (CSRS) and the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB)
program for future retirees on an accrual basis in the accounts
that pay the salaries of current civilian employees. Currently,
these accrual accounts are funded by the Office of Management
and Budget and are paid from a general account of the U.S.
Treasury. Specific legislation is required to accomplish this
change in these mandatory accounts. The Congress has not acted
on the required legislation and, therefore, the committee
recommends the continuation of the current practice of funding
these accounts. The following represents the total budget
request for CSRS and FEHB that have not been included in the
committee's recommendation:
[In millions of dollars]
Operation and Maintenance--Army............................... 612.382
Operation and Maintenance--Navy............................... 324.278
Operation and Maintenance--Marine Corps....................... 47.210
Operation and Maintenance--Air Force.......................... 531.055
Operation and Maintenance--Defense-Wide....................... 346.046
Operation and Maintenance--Army Reserve....................... 43.220
Operation and Maintenance--Navy Reserve....................... 6.227
Operation and Maintenance--Air Force Reserve.................. 55.365
Operation and Maintenance--Army National Guard................ 87.255
Operation and Maintenance--Air National Guard................. 88.416
Office of the Inspector General............................... 8.275
Court of Military Appeals..................................... 0.311
RDT&E--Army................................................... 98.161
RDT&E--Navy................................................... 5.565
RDT&E--Air Force.............................................. 36.249
RDT&E--Defense-Wide........................................... 14.688
Military Construction--Army................................... 26.083
Military Construction--Navy................................... 10.470
Working Capital Fund--Army.................................... 109.042
Working Capital Fund--Navy.................................... 373.228
Working Capital Fund--Air Force............................... 122.365
Working Capital Fund--Defense Commissary Agency............... 27.589
Working Capital Fund--Defense-Wide............................ 206.879
Family Housing--Army.......................................... 3.267
Family Housing--Defense Logistics Agency...................... 0.037
Defense Health Program........................................ 126.230
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 3,309.893
Defense Emergency Response Fund
The budget request for operation and maintenance contained,
for the first time, a single entry for a transfer account
entitled the Defense Emergency Response Fund (DERF), which is
intended to be used to support the efforts of the Department of
Defense (DOD) to respond to, or protect against, acts or
threatened acts of terrorism against the United States. Of the
requested $20.1 billion for the DERF, $10.0 billion is
designated as incremental funding for ongoing operations in the
War on Terrorism. The remaining $10.1 billion contained in the
DERF transfer account is intended for enhancements and new
initiatives identified to assist the Department in force
protection, munitions, military construction, security and
communications requirements, continuity of operations
requirements, and for additional flying hours to support combat
air patrols within the United States.
In accordance with the Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year
2003, (H.Con. Res. 353), the $10.0 billion designated as
incremental funding for ongoing operations in the war on
terrorism has not been included in the committee's
recommendation.
The committee is concerned that maintaining a single
transfer account for the additional items needed by the
military services to increase security, and continue operations
of the war on terrorism, will be difficult to manage and, of
greater concern, will be difficult to audit. The committee
notes that the Department provided detailed DERF justification
materials based on the traditional appropriation account
formats. Using this data, the committee has distributed all of
the remaining DERF transfer account into the specific services'
accounts by budget activities and sub-activities groups. The
following shows the distribution of the DERF transfer account
to the traditional appropriations accounts:
Operation and Maintenance............................... $ 3,847,048,000
Procurement............................................. 3,382,433,000
Research and Development................................ 2,198,235,000
Military Construction................................... 594,384,000
Military Personnel...................................... 32,900,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 10,055,000,000
Information Technology (IT) Issues
Overview
The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control,
Communications and Intelligence [ASD(C3I)] is a single position
with various roles and responsibilities, one of those roles
being the Department of Defense's (DOD) Chief Information
Officer (CIO).Under title 10, United States Code, the DOD CIO
is responsible for reviewing budget requests; ensuring
interoperability; ensuring federal and Department of Defense standards
are prescribed; and eliminating duplicative information technology and
national security systems. The committee recognizes these are difficult
and challenging responsibilities, yet these tasks are vital if DOD is
to succeed in management reform and transformation.
The committee is aware of several dominant problems
regarding the purchase of information technology systems. These
problems include the inability to aggressively control and
manage user requirements; failure to integrate information
technology reviews with budget and financial decisions;
difficulty in properly using performance based contracts; and
promotion or endorsement of program managers who do not have
the varied skills necessary to run a successful information
technology program.
Requirements
Information technology systems have the ability to improve
dramatically the Department's numerous administrative
processes. The committee believes that too often tremendous
resources are wasted on systems that do not meet the initial
requirement for which the systems were intended. Without proper
oversight and aggressive leadership, management reform will
suffer and cases, such as described below, will prevail.
The committee recognizes that requirements setting and
management are particularly difficult for those IT systems that
are intended to be joint or defense wide. Evidence suggests
that these IT systems cannot move beyond the requirements phase
without strong leadership making difficult trade-offs among the
various requirements. Without leadership, joint or defense wide
systems duplicate military or agency unique systems rather than
replace those systems. Equally, a joint or defense-wide system
often migrates into a more unique system as the various
agencies and military services adapt the system to their
individual requirements. One of the more glaring examples of
failure to minimize requirement growth is the Standard
Procurement System (SPS), a system touted as moving the
procurement world into paperless contracting.
This system was stunted by the services' and agencies'
insurmountable requirements and lack of Department leadership
to arrest unnecessary requirements growth. The services and
agencies complained that their unique requirements were not
being met and independently changed the system to fit their own
needs. The committee is aware of other problems with SPS, but
believes requirements growth was one of the more significant
problems. The Department committed over $320.0 million to this
system prior to Congress bringing SPS to a halt last year.
Budget Reviews
The committee believes that the Department of Defense has
not articulated or successfully integrated the CIO's
responsibilities with budgeting and financial decisions. The
committee believes the opportunity for such integration
presents itself with the Department's recent commitment to a
financial management modernization program.
The Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, is committed
to leadership and strong oversight over this program--which
includes the development, funding, and financing of the
information technology systems under the modernization program.
The committee believes the Comptroller's interest in
information technology should be captured and the Comptroller
should have greater responsibility and oversight over all
information technology systems within the Department of
Defense. The committee believes that the need to integrate the
CIO's responsibilities with the Comptroller's responsibilities
is well within the foundation principles of the Clinger-Cohen
Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-106).
Performance-based contracting
A major concern for the committee is the way in which the
Department uses performance-based contracts, or task orders,
for IT services. The committee believes in the concept of
payment for performance. When the Department chooses a
performance based service contract for an IT system, the
Department should design the contract in a way that ties
contractor payment with performance. The committee believes
that a performance metric, and thus payment, should be more
than a delivery schedule. Payment should also include an
affirmative evaluation of whether the service or product does
in fact meet all of the contract objectives. Failure to
incentivize the contractor to perform as originally agreed in
the contract is a practice inconsistent with good management
and good business practice.
Program management
A successful IT program manager needs a strong and varied
set of skills and knowledge. Not only does the program manager
need acquisition experience, it is equally important to have
technical and functional knowledge. The technical experience is
important in evaluating the vendor product, understanding
vendor progress, and recognizing technical difficulties ahead.
Functional knowledge is a key to evaluating user requirements,
recognizing the necessary degree of business re-engineering,
and anticipating user concerns. These three skills can be
difficult to find in one program manager. The committee
believes, however, that at a minimum, the senior program
management team must incorporate all three varied skills.
Defense Messaging System (DMS)
This system was originally intended to replace the
automatic digital network (AUTODIN), a messaging system that
DOD uses to transmit messages ranging from unclassified to top
secret, including sensitive compartmented information. Seven
years after the original DMS contract was awarded, and the
expenditure of $647.0 million, the AUTODIN is still not in
operation because, in part, top secret and sensitive
compartmented information cannot be transmitted with DMS. The
committee believes this is just one of several examples where
after general requirements for an IT system have been
established, the Department has failed to provide the necessary
leadership to manage and move the system in a positive and
successful direction. The committee strongly believes that
without proper oversight and aggressive leadership in this
area, management reform will suffer and cases, such as
demonstrated above, will prevail.
Defense Integrated Military Human Resources Systems
The Department of Defense is attempting to develop and
implement the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources
System (DIMHRS), a single personnel and pay system that will
support all military personnel. The committee is concerned with
the Department's continued disparate efforts in the development
of DIMHRS. Information technology systems of this magnitude and
importance require uniform, rigid, and continuous oversight.
The committee believes that such an oversight management
structure is not in place.
In the budget request for fiscal year 2003, the committee
received three different budget exhibits from the three
organizations that play a significant role in development of
DIMHRS. None of the three organizations were aware of the other
submissions, or could discuss information or data contained in
the other's submissions. The program manager and program
executive office could not even explain the purpose or work of
all four prime contractors working for the program manager. The
committee notes there are over 12 prime contracts under this
initiative.
The committee has seen total confusion, a lack of
communication, and complete mistrust between the personnel
community and the pay community. The two sides do not support
each other's funding requirements, user requirements, or
testing procedures. This system will fail unless the Secretary
of Defense takes immediate steps to vastly improve the
management structure of DIMHRS. The committee directs the
Secretary of Defense to obligate no funds appropriated for
fiscal year 2003 for DIMHRS until a report is submitted to the
Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on
Armed Services. The report shall include: a statement of the
roles and responsibilities assigned to the Defense Human
Resources Activity, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service,
and the Department of the Navy; all funds appropriated and
obligated, by appropriation, for DIMHRS since its inception; a
list of each prime contractor and the work to be performed
under the contract; a description of the pay and personnel
module that will be used in DIMHRS and a description of the
testing each module underwent and a statement whether the
module can meet user requirements.
Global Command Support System--Army
In 1997, the Army initiated actions that would transform
the Army's information technology (IT) support systems. This
included replacing 16 legacy IT systems with five modules.
After spending over $320.0 million on this system to date,
nothing has been fielded and no legacy systems have been turned
off. In fact, the Army is still attempting to implement the
first, and admittedly easiest, module. The committee is
troubled by the amount of money and time needed for initial
fielding of the first and easiest module, and is equally
concerned with the Army's decision to start development of the
second module, even before there is an Army decision about
whether the second module will be a commercial off the shelf
product or a government developed product. In light of these
concerns, the committee recommendation includes a reduction of
$5.0 million for the Global Command Support System.
Supply Maintenance Aviation Reengineering Team
The Supply Maintenance Aviation Reengineering Team is one
of four enterprise resource planning initiatives within the
Department of the Navy. Although the objectives of this plan
have commendable goals, the committee is concerned with the
Navy's acquisition plan for this initiative. The Navy has
awarded a performance based contract for this initiative;
however, at the same time, the Navy is still developing
performance measurements, quantifying mission improvements,
resource savings and mission benefits. In addition, the Navy
has informed the committee that it is still waiting for the
contractor to document critical aspects of the project. The
committee urges the Navy to re-evaluate this initiative.
Warfighters Simulation System
The Warfighter Simulation system, initiated by the
Department of the Army in 1994, is intended to allow Army units
world wide to train in their local command posts using their
assigned organizational equipment. The committee understands
that no formal cost benefit or return on investment analysis
was ever performed for this system. In April 2001, the system
experienced a ``schedule breach''. At that time, the milestone
decision authority for this system directed that a revised
acquisition program baseline be developed and cost position
established. To date, neither is complete. Therefore, the
committee directs the Secretary of the Army to not obligate any
funds for fiscal year 2003 for the Warfighter Simulation System
until the military decision authority reviews the revised
acquisition program baseline and cost position and determines
it is appropriate to move forward with this program.
Wireless Priority Service
The budget request includes $101.0 million in the Defense
Emergency Response Fund, and $73.0 million in the operation and
maintenance request for the Defense Information Systems Agency
to initiate and implement a priority wireless service whereby
government officials can achieve priority access when using
cellular phones. Following White House guidance, the committee
understands that the Department hopes to have priority access
nationwide by December, 2003. However, the committee does not
believe that the Department has developed a realistic
implementation plan, and has not seen evidence that the
Department can obligate $73.0 million in the first quarter of
fiscal year 2003. Therefore, the committee recommends a
reduction of $37.0 million for the Defense Information Systems
Agency.
Environmental Issues
Through a series of hearings, fact-finding trips and in-
depth briefings, the committee has received a growing number of
reports from the Department of Defense and the military
services that mandatory compliance with federal environmental
laws is having an increasingly adverse impact on their ability
to fully utilize training ranges that are critical to
maintaining military readiness. The committee is concerned
thatmaintaining military readiness is not only necessary to insure
national security, but especially critical for the successful
prosecution of the War on Terrorism.
During the past several months, the committee has had
numerous meetings with representatives from the Department, the
military services, federal environmental regulators, state
regulatory organizations and representatives of the nonprofit
environmental community to consider their common and competing
concerns regarding the impact on military readiness and
national security caused by compliance with various federal
environmental laws. In addition to meetings in Washington,
D.C., the committee has visited numerous military facilities
throughout the country to examine the positive effects of
compliance with environmental laws and regulations, as well as
the adverse impact environmental compliance is creating in
other geographic areas, particularly in the context of
encroachment upon existing and available land which can be used
for military training and testing.
The committee is of the opinion that it is essential that
all federal agencies, including the Department, be required to
comply with all federal environmental laws, including the
Endangered Species Act (Public Law 93-205), the Marine Mammal
Protection Act (Public Law 92-522), the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (Public Law 93-300), the Clean Air Act (Public Law 88-206),
and the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92-500), to name a few.
However, due to its unique training and operational missions,
the Department often faces unique challenges in balancing its
obligations to comply with these environmental laws and
sustaining military readiness. The ever increasing limitations
and restrictions on lands and waters which are currently set
aside for military training exercises, as well as restrictions
on the times and conditions under which military training
exercises can be conducted, are some examples of these
environmental encroachment challenges.
For example, the Navy spends approximately $2.4 million
each year and is forced to close its shore bombardment range
off the California coast at San Clemente Island four days each
week during the breeding season due to the presence of a bird
called the loggerhead shrike, an endangered species that
inhabits the island. When the shrike was initially listed as an
endangered species on San Clemente Island, the population was
estimated to include only 13 birds. Today the population has
grown to approximately 160 birds, of which approximately 70
birds are in the wild. The rest are housed in the captive
breeding programs on San Clemente Island or at the San Diego
Zoo, all at the expense of the Navy. To achieve this
environmental success, the Navy has found it necessary to
reduce one of the island's two firing ranges in size by 90
percent and the other by 50 percent during the fire season.
Although the shrike population has increased dramatically,
current laws establish no goal at which restrictions on the
Navy's activities will be relaxed.
Similarly, at Fort Hood, Texas, one of the Army's premier
training installations, of approximately 200,000 training
acres, 66,000 acres, or 33 percent, of the training land is
committed to protect the habitat of two endangered species. The
presence of cultural artifacts restricts an additional 11
percent of Fort Hood's training area, and 128,000 acres have
restrictions on digging, affecting 64 percent of the training
area. Combined with additional restrictions of smoke and noise,
a total of 84 percent of Fort Hood's available training area is
currently subject to some kind of limitation. The committee
notes that some type of encroachment problem exists at nearly
every military installation.
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act is an important environmental
statute that was enacted in 1918 to control the mass slaughter
of birds for commercial purposes. Under the statute, a federal
agency can obtain a permit to ``take'' migratory birds
intentionally, such as clearing large flocks of Canadian Geese
from a landing field or golf course. However, a federal court
recently ruled that the Navy had violated the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act by accidentally taking migratory birds while
conducting training at one of its facilities in Guam without a
permit to take migratory birds. The court recognized a paradox
in that the statute prohibits the issuance of a permit to
authorize unintentional takings during military readiness
activity. The committee recommends a provision that would amend
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to correct this paradox.
After several weeks of requesting that the Department
communicate its environmental proposals to Congress, the
Department delivered its proposed legislative language to the
committee three business days prior to the Readiness
Subcommittee markup. Among the requests received from the
Department for relief of environmental encroachment was a
proposal addressing encroachment of the Navy's operational
activities by creating a new definition of ``harassment'' under
the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
The committee recognizes the need to balance important
federal environmental laws against the need to safeguard the
Navy's ability to maximize its readiness capabilities. The
committee declined to adopt a provision addressing the
encroachment challenges created by the current language in the
Marine Mammal Protection Act due to the lack of a meaningful
period during which the committee had to examine the long-term
environmental impact of this legislative provision. The
committee recognizes that modifications to the Marine Mammal
Protection Act may be required to address the Navy's concerns
and intends to continue its examination of this matter in order
to derive the correct legislative solution to this issue.
It is not the intent of the committee to weaken or repeal
any of the existing federal environmental laws. The committee
remains committed to fully funding the environmental programs
of the Department. This commitment is demonstrated through
annual authorizations to the Department and the military
services of approximately $4 billion for environmental
programs. The committee is similarly committed to preserving
the invaluable natural resources that occupy the lands and seas
upon which the military services operate, including
authorization of important research and development projects
with partners throughout the government and environmental
community.
The committee recommends several legislative provisions to
promote a statutory balance between the need to preserve and
protect our invaluable natural resources and the equally
important imperative to ensure national security
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues
Appropriated Fund Support for Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Programs
The committee has long supported robust appropriated fund
support to Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) programs of
the Department of Defense and the military services. At the
same time, the committee believes that the Department should
conduct efficient, self-supporting business activities that
both provide a benefit and some measureof income. The committee
has discovered, however, that the tragic events of September 11, 2001,
and the resultant tightened security on military bases have had a
devastating impact on many installation MWR programs. Many business
activities suffered significant financial losses as customers had
difficulty accessing base facilities and a substantial number of
personnel deployed. In testimony before the committee, Department of
Defense officials stated that the Department was reviewing a proposal
to provide some measure of financial relief for affected programs. The
committee commends the Secretary of Defense for this initiative and
urges him to follow through and provide needed funds to these important
programs.
Defense Commissary Agency Funding and Staffing
The committee believes that the commissary benefit is one
of the most important non-pay benefits provided to military
families. The committee has learned in repeated family
testimony and installation visits that the commissary store is
a key element of a cohesive military community, especially in
times of crisis and major deployments. The committee is aware
that the Defense Commissary Agency (DECA) has embarked on an
aggressive cost cutting campaign that will eliminate 2,650
civilian positions over a three-year period. While the
committee believes that all Defense agencies should be operated
at maximum efficiency, the committee has heard testimony that
these cuts may have gone too far, to the point of jeopardizing
service to the customer. The Secretary of Defense, in testimony
before the committee on February 6, 2002, committed to maintain
the present level of savings and customer service in commissary
stores, and the committee fully supports that objective. There
is dispute, however, on whether that commitment is being
fulfilled. To answer that question and help the committee and
the Department preserve this important benefit, the committee
believes that an independent agency should be tasked to
determine whether an adequate level of funding and staffing
will be maintained.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
to review the DECA budget, staffing plan, and customer
satisfaction survey methodology to determine the adequacy of
the customer service survey methodology and whether current
levels of savings and customer service can be maintained. The
Comptroller General shall report his findings to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services not later than March 1, 2003. The committee further
directs the Secretary of Defense to moderate the pace of these
proposed personnel reductions until the results of the
Comptroller General review are available.
Force Protection for Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Activities
The committee is aware that the Department of Defense is
reviewing force protection standards for military
installations. This review includes overall base security,
facility stand off distances from installation perimeters,
parking security, building engineering upgrades and the like.
The committee believes that Morale, Welfare, and Recreation
(MWR) activities of all types should be included in this
review. The committee is aware of instances where major resale
and other MWR activities are located outside the perimeter of a
military installation. The committee affirms its long held view
that the protection of Department of Defense assets and
facilities, including MWR activities, wherever they may be
located, is a command responsibility that must be resourced
with appropriated funds.
Support of Privatized Housing Areas
The committee supports the military services' efforts to
improve military family housing through privatization
initiatives. The committee has also acted to preserve the
virtual monopoly of the military resale system on installations
by prohibiting such projects from including facilities that
would compete with military commissaries, exchanges, or other
Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) programs. The committee
provided that protection because it believes that military
communities are best served by military resale activities. In
order to continue to receive such protection, the military
services' resale and MWR programs have an obligation to
aggressively support privatized housing with needed programs
such as shoppettes, child care centers, and other necessary
facilities, especially if such housing is isolated from the
parent installation.
Other Issues
Automatic Identification Technology/Radio Frequency Identification
The committee believes that equipment maintenance is a
critical requirement to achieving readiness. The Department of
the Army is developing depot level maintenance programs to re-
capitalize equipment and mitigate the impact of aging combat
equipment. The key to the maintenance process of these
programs, is the ability to track and manage critical parts
within the repair cycle process. Currently, the ability to
accurately see the location of items in the repair cycle is
limited. Many items undergoing repair are often lost,
misrouted, or misplaced requiring procurement of a replacement
part, or work being deferred until the part can be found.
Either action results in production delays and increased repair
costs.
The committee is aware of a promising automatic
identification technology that would enable the tracking and
management of critical parts and equipment known as Radio
Frequency Identification (RF/ID) for maintenance. In January
2001, the Army successfully concluded a pilot program using RF/
ID to continuously track and monitor critical and essential
repair parts of selected major aviation components undergoing
maintenance at their aviation depot. In addition, the committee
believes that every opportunity to obtain and employ
technologies that will aid in Total Asset Visibility (TAV) of
all materiel in storage, transit, and from manufacturer or
vendor, to depots, through ports, afloat on the high seas, and
in land based storage sites. This is particularly important to
optimize the processes associated with the storage and shipment
of pre-positioned stocks, sets, kits, and outfits stored
throughout the globe to support contingency requirements.
Because these new technologies have the potential to
improve readiness, the committee recommends the addition of
$8.6 million for Maintenance RF/ID, and $7.9 million for Pre-
Positioned Stocks RF/ID. Procurement requirements for these
systems are discussed elsewhere in the report.
Cold Weather Clothing
The committee is aware that within the active and reserve
components, there is a need for additional funding for the
Extended Cold Weather Clothing System (ECWCS), which is
designed to provide protection during cold and wet weather. As
an example, many military units operating in harsh weather
environments, including Afghanistan, continue to provide
individuals with obsolete cold weather clothing that was
designed and fabricated with 1970's fabric technology and
construction techniques. These critical protective items, now
approaching 25 years in the inventory, represent the oldest and
most inefficient items of clothing in use by soldiers in the
field. Faced with the dilemma of wearing the outmoded cold-
weather gear and being uncomfortable, many soldiers rely on
personal outdoor wear to keep warm purchased from commercial
sources at their own expense. The committee believes that
individual mobility, protection and comfort is a significant
contributor to the combat readiness of the individual war-
fighter and would significantly improve their quality of life.
Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of funding for
ECWCS as follows:
[In millions of dollars]
Army.......................................................... 8.0
Army Reserve ................................................. 4.0
Army National Guard .......................................... 4.0
Air National Guard ........................................... 4.0
Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities
The committee continues to believe that the Commercial
Technologies for Maintenance Activities (CTMA) program, created
by the Department of Defense (DOD) in 1998 and designed to
bring the most modern and advanced manufacturing capabilities
used from commercial industry in DOD maintenance depots and
related maintenance activities, is of great value as a
technology resource and will have a positive effect on the
efficiency and effectiveness of DOD industrial activities. The
CTMA program is in direct support of section 361 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public
Law 105-85) that required DOD to re-engineer industrial
processes and adopt best-business practices at their depot-
level activities. Although DOD initially funded the CTMA
program in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 to carry out the mandate
of Section 361, it has failed to keep CTMA in its budget
despite the strong support of the program by Congress and the
depot activities of the Department. Therefore, the committee
recommends the addition of $20.0 million for the Defense
Logistics Agency to continue the CTMA program at depot-level
activities that will lower operations and sustainment costs.
The committee believes the addition of these funds will allow
depot-level activities to participate in manufacturing
technology demonstration projects in collaboration with more
than 220 of the leading U.S. manufacturers and urges the
Department of Defense to include funding for the CTMA program
in future budget requests.
Industrial Mobilization Capacity/Unutilized Plant Capacity
Industrial Mobilization Capacity (IMC)/Unutilized Plant
Capacity (UPC) funding at Department of the Army arsenals is
required to compensate the arsenals for the costs of that
capability that is maintained only for mobilization. If the
arsenals were a private business, they would get rid of this
mobilization capacity and associated costs. The arsenals,
however, have been directed to retain this mobilization
capacity. Absent direct IMC/UPC funding the arsenals would have
to include these mandated mobilization costs in their overhead
rates. These inflated overhead rates would greatly hamper the
arsenals as they compete for work from outside the Army as well
as drive up production costs. The practical implication of not
fully funding IMC/UPC has been costly to the arsenals. The
Congress has expressed its concern about the Army's lack of
support of IMC/UPC for the past several years, including a
requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398) to fully budget for IMC/
UPC. The committee is aware that the budget request includes
$24.8 million for IMC/UPC for Rock Island Arsenal and $25.2
million for IMC/UPC for Watervliet Arsenal. The committee
congratulates the Secretary of the Army for finally fully
budgeting for this critical requirement and expects the
secretary to use the funding only for IMC/UPC needs at the
Army's production arsenals.
Fuel Savings Technology
The United States uses more petroleum each year than the
next five largest consuming nations combined. Military fuel
consumption for aircraft, ships, ground vehicles and facilities
makes the department of Defense the single largest consumer of
petroleum in America. Ten years after the end of the Cold War,
over 70 percent of the tonnage required to deploy Army combat
units is fuel. Naval forces depend each day on millions of
gallons of fuel to operate around the globe. The Air Force is
the largest Department consumer, and spends approximately 85
percent of its fuel budget to deliver, by airborne tankers,
just 6 percent of its annual jet fuel usage. Due to
unpredictable changes in fuel costs, the projected loss in the
Department's fuel account in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 is
expected to be approximately $1.2 billion.
The committee believes the Department should consider new
technologies to reduce the amount of required fuel. A report
issued by the Defense Science Board Task Force in January 2001
titled: ``More Capable Warfighting Through Reduced Fuel
Burden'', stated ``High payoff, fuel-efficient technologies are
available now to improve warfighting effectiveness in current
weapon systems through retrofit and by new systems
acquisition''. One of these new technologies to reduce fuel
usage is a bolt-on fuel catalyst that treats fuel prior to
ignition and has shown remarkable reductions not only in fuel
usage, but also in engine emissions.
The committee is aware that a fuel catalyst system,
designed for diesel engines, has been tested over a 14 month
period by the Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton, California with
results showing an average 38.7 percent fuel economy and a 44.8
percent reduction in certain engine emissions. This same
technology was also tested by the Navy Facilities Engineering
Service Center onboard a Navy vessel that resulted in a 39 to
50 percent reduction in exhaust pollution and a 21 percent
reduction in fuel consumption.This new technology would
increase fuel efficiency resulting in substantial cost savings on fuel,
would extend vehicle range, and would reduce the attendant logistical
cost to supply fuel. The committee understands the cost of this new
technology can be amortized in as little as six months through fuel
savings alone.
Given the magnitude of potential fuel savings and emissions
reductions, the committee does not understand why the
Department has not taken advantage of this technology. The
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to take immediate
steps for the application of this new technology as soon as
practicable.
Energy Savings Performance Contracts
Authority for the Department of Defense to enter into
Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC) is contained in
section 8287 of title 42, United States Code, and Executive
Order 13123. Based on this authority, the Department of the Air
Force has entered into numerous ESPCs. Under current Air Force
policy, a single contractor is awarded an ESPC for each of the
five regions, which make up the continental United States. The
committee believes there could be instances where an
installation is interested in entering into an ESPC, but the
capabilities of the contractor assigned to that region do not
meet the installation's requirements. The committee, therefore,
requests the Secretary of the Air Force to re-evaluate its
current policy of dividing the country into regions and
entering into only one ESPC per region.
Long Term Depot Strategy
The committee is concerned that the Air Force has not yet
completed a long-term depot strategy. Over the past few years,
the committee has expressed a need for the Air Force to develop
a strategy that provides a roadmap for how the air logistics
centers will be used and supported in the future. While the
committee is pleased that the Air Force has made significant
progress in developing such a strategy, the committee is
concerned that the strategy has not yet been finalized and
looks forward to receiving, as soon as possible, a completed
long-term depot strategy that will identify:
(1) Future weapon systems and how they will be
supported in the depots,
(2) The plans for future investments in
infrastructure and technology to ensure that the depots
are fully equipped and resourced to support critical
weapon systems, and
(3) The parameters of public-private partnerships to
ensure effective and efficient support of weapon
systems for the Air Force.
National Defense Sealift Fund Issues
The budget request contained $388.8 million for one T-AKE
vessel in the National Defense Sealift Fund. The T-AKE is a
Department of the Navy cargo and ammunition ship that provides
at-sea replenishment. Twelve T-AKE ships are planned for
procurement between fiscal years 2000 and 2007.
The committee notes that the previous future years defense
program (FYDP) submitted to Congress for fiscal year 2001
included two T-AKE ships in fiscal year 2004 but the FYDP for
fiscal year 2003 includes only one ship in this year, and
understands that costs for T-AKE ships in fiscal year 2004 and
later years are based on the option that the Navy would procure
two T-AKE ships in fiscal year 2004.
Since the committee understands that fixed-price contracts
have been awarded under the assumption that the Department of
the Navy would provide funding for two ships in fiscal year
2004 and to deviate from that assumption would increase unit
costs, it encourages the Navy to return to a funding profile
that would exercise the option to procure two T-AKE ships in
fiscal year 2004.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 301--Operation and Maintenance Funding
This section would authorize $129.8 billion in operations
and maintenance funding for the Armed Forces and other
activities and agencies of the Department of Defense.
Section 302--Working Capital Funds
This section would authorize $2.4 billion for Working
Capital Funds of the Department of Defense.
Section 303--Armed Forces Retirement Home
This section would authorize $69.9 million from the Armed
Forces Retirement Trust Fund for the operation of the Armed
Forces Retirement Home, including the Armed Forces Retirement
Home--Washington, and the Armed Forces Retirement Home--
Gulfport.
Subtitle B--Environmental Issues
Section 311--Incidental Taking of Migratory Birds During Military
Readiness Activity
This section would amend section 704 of title 16, United
States Code, to give the Department of Defense statutory
authority under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, P.L. 93-300, to
obtain a permit for incidental taking of birds during
authorized military readiness activity.
Section 312--Military Readiness and the Conservation of Protected
Species
This section would amend section 1533 of title 16, United
States Code, (Public Law 93-205), to amend the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 to prohibit furtherdesignations of critical
habitat for endangered species in areas for which an Integrated Natural
Resources Management Plan has been prepared under section 101 of the
Sikes Act, (Public Law 86-797). This section would also require
regulatory agencies to consider national security concerns in addition
to economic impact prior to designating future areas of critical
habitat. This section would not annul existing critical habitat
designations, but it would permit the Secretary of the Interior to
exercise discretion to revise existing critical habitat designations on
military installations. No existing critical habitat can be revised,
however, if such action would result in the extinction of an endangered
or threatened species.
Section 313--Single Point of Contact for Policy and Budgeting Issues
Regarding Unexploded Ordnance, Discarded Military Munitions, and
Munitions Constituents
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a single point of contact in the Department of
Defense for policy and budgeting issues involving the
characterization, remediation, and management of explosive and
related risks with respect to unexploded ordnance, discarded
military munitions, and munitions constituents at defense sites
that pose a threat to human health or safety. The section would
also permit the Secretary to establish an independent advisory
and review panel to report annually to Congress on progress
made by the Department of Defense regarding unexploded
ordnance.
Subtitle C--Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities
Section 321--Authority for Each Military Department To Provide Base
Operating Support to Fisher Houses
This section would amend section 2493 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the secretary of a military
department to provide appropriated fund support to Fisher
Houses associated with the health care facilities of that
military department. Currently, only the Secretary of the Navy
may provide such support. This provision would expand that
authority to the Secretaries of the Army and Air Force.
Section 322--Use of Commissary Stores and MWR Retail Facilities by
Members of National Guard Serving in National Emergency
This section would amend section 1063a of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize members of the national guard who are
ordered to non-federal service in response to a federally
declared national emergency to use commissary and exchange
stores. Many members of the national guard have been called to
service in their states to help secure the homeland in the War
on Terrorism, and the committee believes that they should be
authorized commissary and exchange privileges.
Section 323--Uniform Funding and Management of Morale, Welfare, and
Recreation Programs
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
permit installation commanders to manage funds appropriated for
installation Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) programs
under the procedures used for nonappropriated funds. In effect,
the installation commander would be allowed to pool
appropriated and nonappropriated MWR funds into a single
nonappropriated fund account, resulting in greater flexibility
and a more streamlined financial accounting system. The
Department of Defense conducted a successful test of this
concept, and the committee believes adoption of this initiative
throughout the Department will increase the efficiency of MWR
programs operated at the installation level.
Subtitle D--Workplace and Depot Issues
Section 331--Notification Requirements in Connection With Required
Studies for Conversion of Commercial or Industrial Type Functions to
Contractor Performance
This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to
notify Congress when the public sector maintains performance of
a commercial function after competing against the private
sector to determine which workforce could perform the work in
the most efficient and effective manner.
Section 332--Waiver Authority Regarding Prohibition on Contracts for
Performance of Security-Guard Functions
This section would provide a waiver to section 2465(a) of
title 10, United States Code, which currently prohibits the
contracting out of security guard functions of the Department
of Defense. The waiver authority would allow the Secretary of
Defense or the secretary of a military department to contract
for security guard functions if these functions are or will be
performed by members of the armed forces, and at locations
where security-guard functions are now required since September
11, 2001.
Section 333--Exclusion of Certain Expenditures From Percentage
Limitation on Contracting for Performance of Depot-Level Maintenance
and Repair Workloads
Currently, section 2474(f) of title 10, United States Code,
excludes, until the year 2005, all work performed by non-
federal personnel at Department of Defense maintenance and
repair depots from the percentage limitations (50/50) on
contracting for depot-level maintenance by the private sector.
This provision would remove the date limitation. The committee
believes that the date limitation impedes the ability of both
the public and the private sectors to fully achieve the
benefits of public-private partnerships.
Section 334--Repeal of Obsolete Provision Regarding Depot-Level
Maintenance and Repair Workloads That Were Performed at Closed or
Realigned Military Installations
This provision would repeal section 2469a of title 10,
United States Code, that addressed depot-level maintenance and
repair workloads that were performed at installations closed or
realigned under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act
of1990 (Public Law 101-510). All applicable installations have
completed closure or realignment actions and, therefore, section 2469a
is no longer necessary.
Section 335--Clarification of Required Core Logistics Capabilities
This provision would amend section 2464(a)(3) of title 10,
United States Code to change the definition of core logistics
to include acquisition logistics, supply management, system
engineering, maintenance, and modification management.
Subtitle E--Defense Dependents' Education
Section 341--Assistance to Local Educational Agencies That Benefit
Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense
Civilian Employees
This section would authorize $30.0 million for educational
assistance to local education agencies where the standard for
the minimum level of education within the state could not be
maintained because of the large number of military connected
students. The committee's commitment to military children has
provided much needed boosts to the education of military
children around the country. Even so, the committee notes that
the Department of Education impact aid program provides
supplementary funds to eligible school districts nationwide,
and believes that the Department of Education bears the
principal responsibility for providing support for the
educational needs of the nation's children.
Section 342--Availability of Quarters Allowance for Unaccompanied
Defense Department Teacher Required To Reside on Overseas Military
Installation
This section would amend section 905 of title 20, United
States Code, to provide a method for the Department of Defense
Education Activity (DODEA) to reimburse the Department of the
Navy for the costs associated with making excess family housing
available to unaccompanied DODEA teachers assigned to
Guantanamo Bay Naval Station, Cuba. The provision would also
provide DODEA with a needed incentive to attract and retain
qualified educators to accept employment at Guantanamo Bay.
Section 343--Provision of Summer School Programs for Students Who
Attend Defense Dependents' Education System
This section would amend section 921 of title 20, United
States Code, to clarify that the Secretary of Defense may
provide optional summer school programs in the defense
dependents' education system at no cost to those students who
would normally be entitled to a free public education.
Subtitle F--Information Technology
Section 351--Navy-Marine Corps Intranet Contract
This provision would authorize the Department of the Navy
to expand the duration of the current contract for Navy Marine
Corps Intranet services from the current five years to seven
years. The committee believes that this extension is necessary
for the continued success of this program.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(P.L. 106-398) authorized a phased implementation for the Navy-
Marine Corps Intranet. Under this approach, the first phase
consisted of implementing and testing the first 15 percent of
the total number of seats to be provided under the contract.
Although the Navy agreed that this approach was reasonable, the
following year the Navy sought legislative relief. In response,
Congress granted Navy the authority to order 250,000 seats,
over half the program, before the operational testing of the
original 15 percent was complete. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (P.L. 107-107) granted
this authority. The Department of the Navy has recently
notified the committee that it needs authority to lengthen the
duration of the original contract. The committee recognizes the
enormous infrastructure the contractor has built and
implemented in order for the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet to be
successful. The committee believes it is appropriate for the
contractor to have a longer period of time to recoup its
investment costs.
The committee, however, continues to have significant
concerns over this program. At this time, the primary concerns
are cost and funding. The budget request for NMCI is $1.4
billion. This funding request, however, does not include the
costs for maintaining legacy systems, being connected to the
SIPRNET, or to fund a transition office. The committee is
concerned these unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2003 will
exceed $600.0 million.
Section 352--Annual Submission of Information on National Security and
Information Technology Capital Assets
This provision would codify information and data the
Department of Defense must supply Congress on information
technology systems. In the past, the committee has received
information technology documents that describe the various
information technology initiatives and provide budget data on
these initiatives. These documents, however, are too often
inaccurate, misleading, and incomplete. The Department must
provide the committee accurate and precise information and data
on information technology systems. The committee will rely on
the documents, submitted pursuant to this provision, when
making recommendations. It is not the committee's intention,
however, to eliminate data or information the Office of
Management and Budget or the Department of Defense may
internally request on information technology and national
security systems.
Section 353--Implementation of Policy Regarding Certain Commercial Off-
the-Shelf Information Technology Products
This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to
ensure effective implementation, throughout the military
services and defense agencies, of the federal government's
policy to purchase only those commercial off-the-shelf
informationassurance and information assurance-enable
information technology products that have been evaluated and validated
in accordance with specified criteria, schemes, or programs.
Section 354--Installation and Connection Policy and Procedures
Regarding Defense Switch Network
This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a clear, uniform, and enforceable policy, applicable
to all military and defense agencies, regarding the testing and
certification requirements that must be satisfied before a
telecom switch can be connected to the Defense Switch Network.
The committee understands that there is a current policy in
place, but believes the current policy is not well defined and
does not have clear requirements for certifying and connecting
telecom switches. The Department of Defense must apply the new
policy consistently, or risk vendor re-evaluating the
Department as a customer.
Subtitle G--Other Matters
Section 361--Distribution of Monthly Reports on Allocation of Funds
Within Operation and Maintenance Budget Subactivities
This provision would amend section 228 of title 10, United
States Code, to clarify that the report required by section
228, concerning the allocation of funds within the various
operation and maintenance accounts of the Department of
Defense, be provided to the congressional defense committees.
Section 362--Minimum Deduction From Pay of Certain Members of the Armed
Forces to Support Armed Forces Retirement Home
This provision would amend section 1007(i) of title 37,
United States Code, to require that the minimum amount to be
collected monthly from all active duty enlisted and warrant
officer personnel for the support of the Armed Forces
Retirement Home be no less than $1. The committee notes that
the current rate of deduction, $.50 cents, was established in
1977 and; although Congress authorized the Department of
Defense to increase the monthly deduction to $1 in section 371
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995
(Public Law 103-337), the Department has not acted on this
authority. The committee further notes that had the Department
increased the monthly deduction to the authorized level of $1
in 1995, the Armed Forces Retirement Home Trust Fund would have
received, approximately, an additional $55.0 million thereby
maintaining the stability of the Trust Fund.
Section 363--Condition on Conversion of Defense Security Service to a
Working Capital Funded Entity
This provision would prohibit the Department of Defense
from converting the Defense Security Service (DSS) to a working
capital fund (WCF) entity until the Secretary of Defense
certifies to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services that the financial tools and
systems are in place to support DSS as a WCF.
Section 364--Continuation of Arsenal Support Program Initiative
This section would amend Section 343 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-
398) to authorize the Secretary of the Army to extend the
Arsenal Support Initiative Program through fiscal year 2004. It
would also require the Secretary of the Army to provide a
report to the congressional defense committees by July 1, 2003,
on the benefits of this program for Army manufacturing arsenals
and to the Army and the success as of that date in achieving
the goals of the program.
Section 365--Training Range Sustainment Plan, Global Status of
Resources and Training System, and Training Range Inventory
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop a comprehensive plan for addressing problems created by
limitations on the use of military lands, marine areas, and
airspace reserved, withdrawn, or designated for training and
testing activities by the Department. The section would also
require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on plans
of the Department to improve the Global Status of Resources and
Training System to better reflect the extent that military
units are achieving training requirements and the impact of
encroachment and other factors negatively affecting military
readiness. In addition, the section would require the Secretary
of Defense to develop and maintain a training range data bank
for each of the military services.
Section 366--Amendments to Certain Education and Nutrition Laws
Relating to Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing
This section would amend section 8003(b)(2) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, (section
7703(b)(2) of title 20, United States Code), to prevent changes
in the daily attendance, caused by the privatization of family
housing on military installations, from affecting payments
under the impact aid program. The section would also amend
section 9(b)(3) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch
Act (section 1758(b)(3) of title 42 United States Code), to
exclude payments to military personnel for privatized military
housing from affecting the eligibility of students for free or
reduced price school lunches.
TITLE IV--MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS
OVERVIEW
The committee's military personnel recommendations directly
reflect its considerations of the impact that the war on
terrorism is having on service members and their families.
Following the September 11, 2001 attack on America, the
nation's military forces, already stressed by years of high
operations tempo and under-resourcing, responded magnificently
to a range of challenges, and many new missions.
Notwithstanding that magnificent response, the committee
believes that the wartime operations have both masked and
exacerbated the same debilitating stresses of high operations
and personnel tempos that existed before the global war on
terrorism. While fully supporting the efforts of the Secretary
of Defense to reduce operational and mission requirements, the
committee recognizes that the war on terrorism will be a long-
term effort and that some growth in active manpower is prudent
at this time. Therefore, the committee's recommendation would
increase active duty end strength by 12,600 above fiscal year
2002 levels, the largest single-year growth in active strength
since 1985-1986, and provide an additional $550.0 million to
support the increase.
The committee also understands that service in uniform,
whether in peace or war, often inflicts disabling injuries on
military personnel. Heretofore, disabled military retirees were
prohibited by law from receiving both their full military
retired pay and their disability payments from the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA). The committee's recommendation would
end this injustice by authorizing the most severely disabled
military retirees, those rated 60 percent and above, to receive
both their full retired pay and their full VA disability
payments by 2007.
Building on its continuing multi-year effort to improve pay
and benefits, the committee continues to believe that fully
funded and flexible compensation programs are essential to
successful recruiting and retention. Accordingly, the committee
would provide a pay raise that combines both across-the-board
and targeted increases for mid-grade noncommissioned officers
and officers, and a new, more flexible approach to managing the
retention of critical health care providers. Furthermore, the
committee's recommendation would reduce out-of-pocket housing
expenses from the current 11.3 percent to 7.5 percent in fiscal
year 2003 and sustain the commitment to eliminate out-of-pocket
expenses by fiscal year 2005.
Responding to the Secretary of Defense's desire for
increased freedom to manage, the committee remains committed to
providing military and civilian personnel managers within the
Department of Defense the flexible authorities needed to
promote efficient, effective, equitable, and timely management
practices. Accordingly, the committee would include more
flexible legislative initiatives for promotion, retirement,
education programs, leave management, medical deferment of
separation or retirement, support for veterans' funerals,
privately-owned vehicle storage, and recruit candidate testing.
Finally, in the area of health care, the committee
continues to seek better implementation of the TRICARE For Life
program and to improve existing programs. To this end, the
committee's recommendations focus on several limited benefit
changes, necessary improvements to TRICARE's management and
business practices, the future of the managed care support
contracts and optimization efforts.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Active Forces
Section 401-End Strengths for Active Forces
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for active duty personnel of the armed forces as of September
30, 2003.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2003 Change from
FY 2002 ------------------------------------------------------
Service authorized Committee FY 2003 FY 2002
Request recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army........................................ 480,000 480,000 484,800 4,800 4,800
Navy........................................ 376,000 375,700 379,457 3,757 3,457
USMC........................................ 172,600 175,000 175,000 0 2,400
Air Force................................... 358,800 359,000 360,795 1,795 1,995
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................... 1,387,400 1,389,700 1,400,052 10,352 12,652
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee's strength recommendation approves the 1.4
percent growth for the Marine Corps requested by the Secretary
of Defense, and also provides for one percent increases for the
Army and Navy, and a one-half of one percent increase for the
Air Force that are in addition to the budget request. The
committee's concerns about the inadequacy of active component
manning levels extend back for at least five years prior to the
commencement of the worldwide war on terrorism on September 11,
2001. Since that date, new military force requirements have
emerged and the operations tempo has increased. In only one
case--the increased Marine Corps end strength--did the budget
request recognize these new realities. For the other services,
the net end strength requested in the budget was just below the
fiscal year 2002 authorized levels. While the committee fully
supports the efforts of the Secretary of Defense to require the
military services to comprehensively review their total force
manpower requirements, the committee also believes that some
increases in end strength are prudent now, that the recommended
increases are within the discretionary end strength growth
permitted by current law, and that the recommended increases
can be achieved by each of the military services. To support
the additional end strength, the committee recommends
increasing by $550.0 million the total amount authorized for
the military personnel accounts of the Army, Navy and Air
Force.
Section 402--Revision in Permanent End Strength Minimum Levels
This section would amend section 691 of title 10, United
States Code, by establishing end strength floors for the active
forces at the fiscal year 2003 strength levels recommended by
the committee in section 401.
Section 403--Authority for Military Department Secretaries To Increase
Active-Duty End Strengths by Up to One Percent
This section would authorize the secretaries of the
military departments to increase the authorized active duty end
strength of their respective military service by up to one
percent. The increase allowed to the secretaries of the
military departments would be within the overall two percent
increase in end strength that current law now permits the
Secretary of Defense to authorize. The committee recommends
this expanded authority for the secretaries of the military
departments to allow them flexibility to enhance manning and
readiness in essential units or critical specialties or
ratings, and to assist them in managing dynamic strength
fluctuations occurring in the military services as a result of
new requirements, hard-to-predict recruiting and retention
variables, and variables induced by the movement of reserve
component personnel on and off active duty.
Section 404--General and Flag Officer Management
This section would increase by one the limit on the number
of United States Marine Corps three- and four-star general and
flag officers authorized to be on active duty, thereby
permitting the commanding general, II Marine Expeditionary
Force, to serve as a lieutenant general. This section would
also exempt the senior military assistant to the Secretary of
Defense from counting against the limits on three- and four-
star general and flag officers that apply to that officer's
specific military service. In addition, the section would also
require that the chief of the Army Veterinary Corps serve in
the grade of brigadier general. This section would become
effective upon Congressional receipt of a report, using current
requirements and data, that complies fully with section 1213,
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
(Public Law 104-201).
Section 405--Extension of Certain Authorities Relating to Management of
Numbers of General and Flag Officers in Certain Grades
This section would extend to December 31, 2004, three
expiring authorities relating to general and flag officer
management. Those authorities provide for: the process by which
the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff fill vacant senior joint four-star general and flag
officer positions; the exemption of the senior joint four-star
general and flag officers appointed by that process from the
general and flag officer limits that apply to the military
services; and, the process by which the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff designates and fills 12 general and flag
officer positions on the joint staff and 10 reserve component
general and flag positions on the staffs of the commanders of
the unified and specified commands.
Subtitle B--Reserve Forces
Section 411--End Strengths for Selected Reserve
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for the selected reserve personnel, including the end strength
for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves, as of
September 30, 2003:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2003 Change from
FY 2002 ------------------------------------------------------
Service authorized Committee FY 2003 FY 2002
Request recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard......................... 350,000 350,000 350,000 0 0
Army Reserve................................ 205,000 205,000 205,000 0 0
Naval Reserve............................... 87,000 87,800 87,800 0 800
Marine Corps Reserve........................ 39,558 39,558 39,558 0 0
Air National Guard.......................... 108,400 106,600 106,600 0 -1,800
Air Force Reserve........................... 74,700 75,600 75,600 0 900
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................... 864,658 864,558 864,558 0 -100
Coast Guard Reserve......................... 8,000 9,000 9,000 0 1,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 412--End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support of
the Reserves
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves as of
September 30, 2003:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2003 Change from
FY 2002 ------------------------------------------------------
Service authorized Committee FY 2003 FY 2002
Request recommendation request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard......................... 23,698 23,768 24,562 794 864
Army Reserve................................ 13,406 13,588 14,070 482 664
Naval Reserve............................... 14,811 14,572 14,572 0 -239
Marine Corps Reserve........................ 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0
Air National Guard.......................... 11,591 11,697 11,697 0 106
Air Force Reserve........................... 1,437 1,498 1,498 0 61
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................... 67,204 67,384 68,660 1,276 1,456
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee believes that full time manning is a crucial
component of readiness in the reserve components and for the
last several years has supported continued overall growth in
full-time manning. In that vein, the committee's recommendation
for fiscal year 2003 would provide for a 2.2 percent growth
over the previous year's end strength for reserves on active
duty in support of the reserves.
Section 413--End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status)
This section would authorize the following end strengths
for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30,
2003:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2003 Change from
------------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2002 Committee
authorized Request recommendation FY 2003 FY 2002
(floor) request authorized
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard 23,615 23,615 24,102 487 487
Army Reserve................................ 6,249 6,349 6,599 250 350
Air National Guard.......................... 22,422 22,495 22,495 0 73
Air Force Reserve........................... 9,818 9,911 9,911 0 93
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................... 62,104 62,370 63,107 737 1003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee's recommendation would provide for a 1.6
percent growth in the strength of military technicians above
the levels authorized in fiscal year 2002.
Section 414--Fiscal Year 2003 Limitation on Non-Dual Status Technicians
This section would establish the following limits on the
numbers of non-dual status technicians as of September 30,
2003:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2003 Change from
------------------------------------------------------
Service FY 2002 Committee
limit Request recommendation FY 2003 FY 2002
(limit) request limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Army National Guard......................... 1,600 1,600 1,600 0 0
Army Reserve................................ 1,095 995 995 0 -100
Air National Guard.......................... 350 350 350 0 0
Air Force Reserve........................... 90 0 90 90 0
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DOD Total............................... 3,135 2,945 3,035 90 -100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The committee's recommended increase in the number of Air
Force Reserve non-dual status technicians results from revised
data provided by that component subsequent to the committee's
receipt of the budget request. The committee notes that the
Army Reserve and the Air Force Reserve are required by section
10217 of title 10, United States Code, to reduce the total
number of non-dual status technicians in both components to no
more than 175 by September 30, 2007, and the committee urges
both components to coordinate their efforts to reach that
objective.
Subtitle C--Authorization of Appropriations
Section 421--Authorization of Appropriations for Military Personnel
This section would authorize $93,725.028 million to be
appropriated for military personnel. This authorization of
appropriations reflects both reductions and increases to the
budget request that are itemized below.
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military
personnel O&M
accounts accounts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended Increases
Active End Strength:
Army........................................ 247.00 ...........
Navy........................................ 201.00 ...........
Air Force................................... 102.00 ...........
RC End Strength:
Army National Guard AGRs.................... 28.40 ...........
Army Reserve AGRs........................... 11.50 ...........
Army National Guard Military Technicians.... ........... 11.30
Army Reserve Military Technicians........... ........... 8.00
Defense Health Program:
TRICARE Prime Remote........................ ........... 6.00
Marshall Island diabetes program............ ........... 2.0
Other Programs:
Military personnel funding in Defense 32.90 ...........
Emergency Response Fund....................
Naval Sea Cadets............................ ........... 1.00
National Guard Challenge.................... ........... 2.50
National Guard Youth Foundation............. ........... 2.50
Uniting Through Reading..................... ........... 0.13
-------------------------
Total Recommended Additions............. 622.80 33.43
Recommended Reductions
Effect of FY 2002 NDAA legislation on accrual 810.00 ...........
payment to Uniformed Services Retiree Health
Care Fund....................................
Savings from not adopting DOD legislative 29.20 ...........
proposals....................................
Savings from repeal of Special Stipend for 33.43 ...........
Severely Disabled............................
Transfer funding for wartime-related pays to 320.80 ...........
H.R. 4547....................................
-------------------------
Total Recommended Reductions.............. 1,193.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
OVERVIEW
The committee remains committed to providing military and
civilian personnel managers within the Department of Defense
the flexible authorities needed to promote efficient,
effective, equitable, and timely management practices.
Accordingly, the committee would include more flexible
legislative initiatives for promotion, retirement, education
programs, leave management, medical deferment of separation or
retirement, support for veterans' funerals, privately-owned
vehicle storage, and recruit candidate testing.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Absentee Voting for Military Members
Section 1604 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) requires the Secretary of
Defense to conduct during the November 2002 general election a
statistically valid demonstration project under which uniformed
voters may cast their absentee ballot through an electronic
voting system. The committee is aware that the Secretary of
Defense has exercised the discretionary authority included in
section 1604 to delay the electronic voting demonstration
project until the general election in November 2004. The
committee urges the Secretary of Defense to continue to
investigate the potential to participate in, and provide
funding for, smaller scale tests during the November 2002
election as preparation for the major effort envisioned for the
November 2004 election. The committee is aware of existing
initiatives that would benefit from the support of the
Department of Defense and would provide such an interim step
opportunity during the November 2002 election.
Compensation and Benefits for Reserve Component Members
The committee recognizes that the current level of reserve
component participation and responsibility in military
operations changed dramatically during the last decade of the
twentieth century. Today the reserve components represent a
significant portion of the capability of the total force and
are an essential element in the full spectrum of worldwide
military operations. Since 1996, the reserve components have
contributed between 12 and 13 million full time equivalent days
in direct support of DOD missions, a ten-fold increase over a
1989 benchmark period. In addition, the current national
military strategy calls for a significant number of military
occupational specialties and skills to reside solely in the
reserve components. The recent war on terrorism has required
the call-up of over 85,000 reservists to active duty, and the
current operational tempo gives no indication that there will
be significant reductions in the near future. This increase in
operations tempo of reserve forces raises questions about
compensation and benefits of particular concern to the citizen-
soldier.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Comptroller General
of the United States to review the terms and elements of
reserve compensation, benefit, and personnel support programs,
including the retirement system. The review should address the
effectiveness and adequacy of compensation and benefit
programs, income protection for reservists called to active
duty, family support programs, health care access, and other
programs of interest to reservists serving on active duty. The
review should assess the need for these programs to be improved
and, if appropriate, offer recommendations for achieving needed
improvements. The review should also include a comparison of
these programs to similar programs conducted for the benefit of
active duty forces to determine if the reserve programs are
fair and equitable given the increased contributions by reserve
forces to the defense of the nation.
Additionally, the review should include an examination of
the differences in benefits and protections provided to
reservists who are called to serve under different authorities
to include: title 10, United States Code; title 32, United
States Code; and state active duty. The review should assess
the need for benefits and protections to be made consistent
regardless of the authority under which reservists are called
to serve and, if appropriate, offer recommendations for
achieving that objective.
The committee directs the Comptroller General to report his
findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31,
2003.
Consideration of Innovative Readiness Training Initiatives
The committee recognizes the success of the Department of
Defense Civil Military Innovative Readiness Training Program,
which is authorized by section 2012 of title 10, United States
Code. This program provides military unit and individual
support and services to non-Department of Defense organizations
in a manner that accomplishes unit and individual training
requirements. The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to
consider training opportunities that provide a benefit to our
nation's youth and support the President's education
priorities. The committee recommends the secretary to consider
applications from local schools, particularly those in rural
and urban areas, for support of training initiatives to
establish computer networks in schools.
Review and Report on Increased Participation of U.S. Navy Officers in
Intermediary and Senior War Colleges
The committee is concerned about the challenges facing the
Navy in providing its officers with appropriate and timely
opportunities for professional military education. Therefore,
the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to review the
plans and progress achieved to increase participation of active
and reserve Navy officers in intermediate and senior war
colleges. The review should include an assessment of the
attendance objective for each level, as well as actions being
taken to achieve the objectives. Specific attention should be
given to responses that may require enabling congressional
action. The Secretary of the Navy shall provide the results of
the review to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the
House Committee on Armed Services by April 18, 2003.
Uniting Through Reading
The committee is pleased to note the success of the Navy's
Uniting Through Reading program. Uniting Through Reading
improves literacy and strengthens the quality of life for Navy
and Marine Corps families separated during deployments. This
popular family support program is currently available to all
ships preparing for deployment, and is being extended to the
Naval Construction Forces (Seabees), Marine Expeditionary
Units, the Naval Reserve Forces, individual deployers, and
deployed, shore-based squadrons. Uniting Through Reading helps
maintain the emotional bond between children and parents during
extended periods of separation. The committee recommends an
additional $130,000 for this important program.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--General Personnel Management Authorities
Section 501--Increase in Number of Deputy Commandants of the Marine
Corps
This section would increase the authorized number of deputy
commandants at Headquarters, United States Marine Corps, from
five to six. This authorization would permit the commander,
Marine Corps Combat Developments Command, to be designated a
deputy commandant, but would not increase the number of three-
star Marine Corps general officers on active duty because the
commander, Marine Corps Combat Developments Command, already
holds that rank.
Section 502--Extension of Good-of-the-Service Waiver Authority for
Officers Appointed to a Reserve Chief or Guard Director Position
This section would extend to December 31, 2004, the
authority of the Secretary of Defense to waive the requirement
for significant joint experience as a qualification for
appointment as the chief of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or
Marine Corps reserve or as director of the Army or Air National
Guard. The committee recommends the extension because it
understands that the requirement for significant joint
experience was established just two years ago with the
enactment of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398), and that the
Department and service secretaries will require a period of
time for future candidates for appointment as chiefs of the
reserve and national guard components to acquire that joint
experience. However, the committee also believes that unless
the Secretary of Defense acts aggressively, it could be many
years before senior reserve component officers will gain the
requisite experience. Therefore, this section would also
require the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress
regarding the steps that he, together with the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs and the secretaries of the military departments,
will take to ensure that no further extensions of this waiver
authority will be required after 2004.
Subtitle B--Reserve Component Management
Section 511--Reviews of National Guard Strength Accounting and
Management and Other Issues
This section, like section 512, is a result of the
committee's continued concerns about the national guard's unit
strength management, senior officer selection and oversight,
and whistleblower protections. This section would require both
the Comptroller General and the Secretary of Defense to conduct
reviews and to provide the committee assessments of:
(1) The effectiveness of the Department of Defense's
continuing effort to improve unit strength management
in the Army National Guard;
(2) The effectiveness of the federal recognition
process for senior national guard officers;
(3) The nature and extent of administrative and
judicial actions taken in cases of substantiated
misconduct by senior national guard officers;
(4) The effectiveness of federal protections for
whistleblowers and the national guard and the nature
and extent of corrective actions taken against those in
the national guard who retaliate against
whistleblowers; and
(5) The differing Army and Air Force policies for
taking adverse administrative actions against national
guard general officers serving in a state status.
Section 512--Courts-Martial for the National Guard When Not in Federal
Service
This section would amend title 32 United States Code, to
update and streamline the administration of military justice in
the national guard when it is not in a federal status.
Furthermore, reflecting the committee's support for the 1998
recommendation of the Department of Defense Panel to Study
Military Justice in the National Guard, this section would
require the Secretary of Defense to develop a model state
Uniform Code of Military Justice, as well as a model state
Manual for Courts-Martial, and undertake an effort to present
these two models for consideration and possible adoption by all
the states and territories. As noted in the panel's report,
such an effort would promote the modernization and uniformity
of the administration of military justice in the national guard
while in state status.
Section 513--Matching Funds Requirements Under National Guard Youth
Challenge Program
This section would revise the Department of Defense cost
share for each state's National Guard Challenge Program from 60
percent to 75 percent.
Subtitle C--Reserve Component Officer Personnel Policy
Section 521--Exemption from Active Status Strength Limitation for
Reserve Component General and Flag Officers Serving on Active Duty in
Certain Joint Duty Assignments Designated by the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff
This section would exempt the 10 reserve component general
and flag officers who are serving on active duty on the joint
staffs of the commanders of the unified and specified commands
from counting against the numbers of reserve component general
and flag officers authorized by section 12004 of title 10,
United States Code. These 10 reserve component general and flag
officers, the so-called ``Chairman's ten'' because the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff designates the joint staff
positions they fill on active duty, already are exempted by
section 526 of title 10, United States Code, from counting
against active duty general and flag officer limits. The
proposed exemption from reserve component general and flag
officer authorizations would enable the reserve components not
on active duty to fill 10 more general and flag officer
mobilization positions. The authority for this exemption would
expire on December 31, 2004.
Section 522--Eligibility for Consideration for Promotion to Grade of
Major General for Certain Reserve Component Brigadier Generals Who do
Not Otherwise Qualify for Consideration for Promotion Under the One-
Year Rule
Section 14301 of title 10, United States Code, precludes
promotion eligibility for reserve officers who are serving on
the reserve active-status list or the active-duty list (or
combination of both lists) for less than one year as of the
convening of the promotion board. This section would permit
reserve brigadier generals of the Army and Air Force to be
eligible for promotion with less than one year on the reserve
active-status list or the active-duty list (or combination of
both lists) when the following three factors apply to the
officer:
(1) The officer had been transferred from an inactive
status to the active status list during the one-year period
preceding the date of the convening of the promotion board.
(2) The officer had been in an inactive status for less
than one year immediately before the officer's most recent
transfer to an active status.
(3) The officer had continuously served for at least one
year on the reserve active status list, the active duty list
(or a combination of both lists) before the officer's most
recent transfer to an inactive status.
Section 523--Retention of Promotion Eligibility for Reserve Component
General and Flag Officers Transferred to an Inactive Status
Section 14317 of title 10, United States Code, requires
that reserve officers forfeit their status as a selectee for
promotion when they are transferred to inactive status. They
may be promoted upon return to active status, but only if
recommended for promotion by a subsequent promotion board. This
section would permit reserve officers selected for promotion to
major general and rear admiral to retain their promotion
eligibility and, if otherwise qualified, be promoted to the
higher grade upon returning to an active status from an
inactive status.
Section 524--Authority for Limited Extension of Medical Deferment of
Mandatory Retirement or Separation for Reserve Officers
This section would authorize the secretaries of the
military departments to defer mandatory retirement or
separation of reserve officers undergoing hospitalization or
medical observation when such hospitalization or medical
observation is part of an evaluation to determine the officer's
eligibility for disability retirement or separation. The
secretary of the military department would be authorized to
extend the retirement or separation for 30 days after
completion of the evaluation requiring hospitalization or
medical observation.
Subtitle D--Education and Training
Section 531--Authority for Phased Increase to 4,400 in Authorized
Strengths for the Service Academies
This section would permit the secretaries of the military
departments, beginning with classes entering the service
academies during the 2003-2004 academic year, to increase the
end strengths for cadets or midshipmen at their respective
service academies, in annual increments of up to 100, from the
current limit of 4,000 to 4,400. In addition, this section
would specify that the annual increase in service academy end
strength could not exceed the increase achieved during the
preceding year in enrollments in the senior Reserve Officers
Training Program (ROTC) of that service. This section also
urges the secretaries of the military departments to ensure
that by the 2006-2007 academic year the corresponding increase
in enrollments in the senior ROTC program are all scholarship
participants. The committee recommends a linkage between end
strengths at the service academies and senior ROTC enrollments
because it firmly believes that the long-term effectiveness of
the officer corps of the military services will be enhanced by
growth in both commissioning sources.
Section 532--Enhancement of Reserve Component Delayed Training Program
This section would authorize members who enlist in the
reserve delayed training program to remain in that program for
one year, a full three months longer than authorized in current
law. The one-year duration would be consistent with the active
duty delayed entry program.
Subtitle E--Decorations and Awards
Section 541--Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of Certain
Decorations to Certain Persons
This section would waive the statutory time limitations for
the award of the Distinguished Flying Cross to individuals
recommended for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross by the
service secretary concerned.
Section 542--Option To Convert Award of Armed Forces Expeditionary
Medal Awarded for Operation Frequent Wind to Vietnam Service Medal
This section would authorize participants in Operation
Frequent Wind, the evacuation of Vietnam conducted on April 29
and 30, 1975, to return the award of the Armed Forces
Expeditionary Medal and to receive the Vietnam Service Medal in
its place.
Subtitle F--Administrative Matters
Section 551--Staffing and Funding of the Defense Prisoner of War/
Missing Personnel Office
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
increase the military and civilian manning levels, as well the
annual funding, for the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in
Action Office (DPMO) in fiscal year 2004 and subsequent years
to enable the DPMO to adequately perform its full range of
missions. This section would also prohibit the secretary in
fiscal year 2003 from reducing the assigned military and
civilian personnel and funding below the levels requested in
the budget. The committee makes this recommendation because it
believes the DPMO plays a crucial role in the fulfillment of
the national commitment to provide a full accounting for the
prisoners of war and missing in action of the nation's wars.
The committee is disappointed that the secretary did not heed
the committee's direction in the committee report on H.R. 2586
(H. Rept. 107-194), to increase DPMO resources. The committee
also understands that the DPMO faces a potential reduction of
15 percent or more in fiscal year 2003 as part of the
secretary's plan to reduce the size of headquarters. The
committee believes such a reduction in DPMO to be imprudent.
Section 552--Three-Year Freeze on Reductions of Personnel of Agencies
Responsible for Review and Correction of Military Records
The committee considers the review boards agencies, and
specifically the boards for correction of military records,
within each military department as representing congressional
interests in safeguarding fairness and equity for all service
members. The committee views these boards differently from
other headquarters functions and becomes concerned when
announced management decisions to reduce manpower levels within
the boards threaten their efficiency and effectiveness.
Accordingly, this section would preclude the secretaries of
the military departments from reducing the number of military
and civilian personnel assigned to duty within the boards
through fiscal year 2005 until 90 days after the secretary of
the military department concerned submits a report that
describes the proposed reduction, provides the rationale for
the reduction, and specifies the number of personnel that will
be assigned to the board after the reduction is complete.
Section 553--Department of Defense Support for Persons Participating in
Military Funeral Honors Details
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
prescribe a flat-rate daily stipend for military retirees and
others who are not service members or government employees
participating in funeral honors details. The stipend would be
paid in lieu of separate payments for transportation and
miscellaneous expenses.
Section 554--Authority for Use of Volunteers as Proctors for
Administration of Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery Test
This section would authorize the secretaries concerned to
accept the voluntary services of educators and other
individuals to assist recruiters in administering the Armed
Services Vocational Aptitude Battery to high school students.
Section 555--Annual Report on Status of Female Members of the Armed
Forces
This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit an annual report to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on the
status of female members of the armed forces regarding
assignments and assignments policies, deployment, promotion and
retention rates, and sexual harassment.
Subtitle G--Benefits
Section 561--Voluntary Leave Sharing Program for Members of the Armed
Forces
This section would authorize a service member to transfer
accrued leave to another member when the recipient is likely to
require a prolonged absence from duty due to a medical
condition of a family member or other hardship condition. The
commander of the recipient and the commander of the contributor
would be required to approve such transfer of leave.
Section 562--Enhanced Flexibility in Medical Loan Repayment Program
This section would repeal the bar against providing loan
repayment benefits to participants in the armed forces health
professions scholarship and financial assistance program and
would remove the limit on the total benefit that may be paid.
Section 563--Expansion of Overseas Tour Extension Benefits
Section 705 of title 10, United States Code, authorizes
members who have been granted leave and transportation benefits
in connection with an extension of an overseas tour to travel
to the nearest port of entry within the 48 contiguous states
and return. This section would authorize members who have been
granted leave and transportation benefits in connection with an
extension of an overseas tour to travel to an alternative
location within the 48 contiguous states, so long as the cost
does not exceed the cost of transportation to the nearest port
of entry.
Section 564--Vehicle Storage in Lieu of Transportation When Member Is
Ordered to a Nonforeign Duty Station Outside Continental United States
This section would authorize members to store a privately-
owned vehicle when the member is ordered to a duty station in a
nonforeign area outside the continental United States and the
shipment of a vehicle is prohibited or contingent upon
completion of extensive modification.
Subtitle H--Military Justice Matters
Section 571--Right of Convicted Accused to Request Sentencing by
Military Judge
This section would amend chapter 47 of title 10, United
States Code, to permit the sentencing phase of trial in courts-
martial to be conducted by a military judge sitting alone,
rather than by court members.
Under the present courts-martial process, a military judge
alone may not sentence an accused if the accused elects to be
tried by court members. Such a result, however, has
disadvantages. Sentencing trials involving members may be more
lengthy and complicated than judge-alone proceedings, costing
the government time and expense and keeping court members away
from their regular duties for extended periods. Moreover,
military judges generally have as sound a sense of community
and disciplinary norms and mores as court members because they
typically preside over many cases at a single installation.
This section would permit a separate choice of forum
decision to be made following announcement of findings of guilt
or innocence by the court but before evidence on sentencing is
received. A request for sentencing by judge-alone could be made
orally on the record or in writing. Consistent with article 18
of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, section 818 of title
10, United States Code, and Rule for Courts-Martial
201(f)(1)(C), judge-alone sentencing would not be permitted in
capital cases.
This section would apply to offenses committed after
January 1, 2003. The committee notes that Congress considered a
similar provision last year but deferred legislative action
pending receipt of a report from the Secretary of Defense on
this issue. The report was due March 1, 2002, but has not been
received. The committee has been provided no explanation for
the failure to timely provide this report. The committee
anticipates receipt of the report in time to permit full
consideration of this issue before the effective date of this
provision.
Section 572--Report on Desirability and Feasibility of Consolidating
Separate Courses of Basic Instruction for Judge Advocates
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
study the feasibility and desirability of consolidating the
separate Army, Navy and Air Force courses on basic instruction
for judge advocates into a single course to be conducted at a
single location. Recent deployments of American military
personnel have demonstrated increased interoperability
requirements, as well as the likelihood that joint military
operations will be more common in the future. Given this
reality, questions must be asked about whether cost savings in
training activities can be achieved and whether common courses
of instruction among the services in certain disciplines
leading to better interoperability in joint operations make
sense.
In the context of the services' judge advocate officer
corps, the legal subjects officers should learn in order to be
successful military attorneys are not service-specific. For
example, the provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
and courts-martial practices are substantially the same for all
the services, as are the majority of laws pertaining to claims,
civil law and legal assistance. Moreover, overhead and
infrastructure cost savings could be achieved by consolidating
the physical facilities of the three service judge advocate
schools into a single location. Service-unique instruction or
acculturation could easily be provided as an adjunct to a
generic legal course of instruction. The result of this
consolidation could be well-trained legal officers who could
perform better in joint operational environments and whose
training costs are less than those of officers who attend the
separate courses of instruction provided at present. The
committee requires the secretary to report on his findings to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee
on Armed Services by February 28, 2003.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
OVERVIEW
The committee continues to believe that fully funded and
flexible compensation programs are essential to successful
recruiting and retention. Accordingly, the committee would
include a pay raise that combines both across-the-board and
targeted increases for mid-grade noncommissioned officers and
officers, increases to wartime pays and benefits and a new more
flexible approach to managing the retention of critical health
care providers.
The committee remains committed to achieving for disabled
military retirees concurrent receipt of military retired pay
and disability compensation from the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA). The committee is pleased that the Concurrent
Resolution on the Budget--Fiscal Year 2003 (H. Con. Res. 353),
adopted in the House includes an allocation of $5.8 billion
over 5 years in mandatory spending to fund full concurrent
receipt during fiscal year 2007 for disabled retirees rated by
the VA as 60 percent disabled and above. Accordingly, the
committee would include a provision that achieves full
concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability
compensation during fiscal year 2008 for military retirees
rated by the VA as 60 percent disabled and above.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Integrating Basic Allowance for Subsistence into Basic Pay
The committee has grown increasingly concerned that
similarly situated deployed service members receive disparate
treatment regarding receipt of basic allowance for subsistence
(BAS). Based on the type of deployment and service-unique
policies, some service members receive their full BAS while
others serving at the same duty location receive only a portion
of their BAS. While the committee remains committed to
resolving such inequities, this concern has prompted the
committee to question the larger issue of whether BAS continues
to be a useful management tool. It occurs to the committee that
the services would benefit from eliminating the administrative
burden and structure associated with managing BAS and
integrating the value of the allowance into basic pay for all
personnel. While such a strategy would raise the issue of how
to deal with the increase in the tax burden for individuals,
the committee notes that the increase in personal taxes would
be counterbalanced by an increase in the value of retired pay
for those that remain for a full career. The committee is aware
that the Seventh Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation
recognized the benefits of simplifying military pay systems and
made a recommendation that included the elimination of BAS.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to study this issue, examine the cost implications, develop
implementation strategies, and determine the Department of
Defense position. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense to report the findings of his review to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 31, 2003.
Montgomery G.I. Bill for Members of the Selected Reserve
The committee has received complaints that the benefits of
the Montgomery G.I. Bill for members of the selected reserve
have not kept pace with the benefits provided under the
Montgomery G.I. Bill for members serving on active duty. The
committee recognizes that there are necessary differences
between the programs and that benefit levels will be different
due to the different purposes of the programs. However, the
committee believes that some of the existing differences
between the programs are not justified and have resulted from
administrative oversight or neglect. Accordingly, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to study the differences
between the two programs and report the findings and
recommendations of his review to the Senate Committee on Armed
Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31,
2003.
Reducing the Gap Between Military and Private Sector Pay Increases
The committee believes that eliminating the gap in pay
raise rates between the military and the private sector is
fundamental to an effective compensation strategy and an
essential prerequisite to successful recruiting and retention.
While a variety of other allowances, special pays, and bonuses
must be constantly monitored and adjusted when required, basic
pay is the foundation upon which the other elements of
compensation are based and it must keep pace with private
sector pay raises.
Section 602 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65) requires that military pay
raises exceed the private sector rate by one-half of one
percent during fiscal years 2001 through 2006. The committee
recognizes that, depending on the pay raises planned for the
defense budgets through fiscal year 2006, the pay gap will
likely not be eliminated during fiscal year 2006. The committee
is inclined to extend beyond fiscal year 2006 the period of
time that military pay raises are required to exceed the
private sector pay raise rates. While such an action would
signal military forces and their leaders that the committee is
committed to restoring and maintaining parity between military
and private sector pay raises, it may also prematurely set a
goal that will ultimately be unnecessary.
Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to report the details of his long-term plan for military pay
raises and his estimate as to when the gap in pay raise rates
between the military and the private sector will be eliminated.
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the
report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2003.
Use of the Critical Skills Retention Bonus for Linguists
The committee urges the secretaries of the military
departments to fully utilize the flexibility provided in the
critical skills retention bonus to address the need to retain
qualified foreign language speakers. The war on terrorism has
highlighted the need to attract and retain foreign language
speakers, including, but not limited to, critical languages
such as Arabic, Korean, Mandarin Chinese, Persian-Farsi, and
Russian. For example, a January 2002 report by the General
Accounting Office (GAO) indicated thatthe Army had a
requirement for 608 Korean linguists, but was only able to fill 480
positions. This shortfall did not result because of inadequate training
levels. The Defense Language Institute has graduated 693 Korean
linguists over the previous 5 years, or 114 percent of the Army's total
requirement. The committee believes that more needs to be done to
retain skilled linguists to take advantage of the higher productivity
inherent with more experienced and proficient linguists. The committee
believes that the critical skill retention bonus offers the means to
achieve the needed improvement in the retention of military linguists.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
Section 601--Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2003
This section would increase basic pay a minimum of 4.1
percent for all members of the uniformed services. In addition,
the section would provide additional increases to mid-grade and
senior noncommissioned officers, and mid-grade officers to
maintain incentives to serve throughout the enlisted career and
to increase incentives to retain junior officers and highly
skilled enlisted members.
This raise would continue to fulfill Congress' commitment
to increasing pay for the uniformed services. The combined
across-the-board and targeted raise would be the equivalent of
a 4.7 percent across-the-board raise and would reduce the pay
gap between military and private sector pay increases over time
from 7.5 percent to 6.4 percent.
Section 602--Expansion of Basic Allowance for Housing Low-Cost or No-
Cost Moves Authority to Members Assigned to Duty Outside United States
This section would authorize the secretary concerned to pay
members assigned overseas who complete low-cost or no-cost
moves to continue to receive basic allowance for housing (BAH)
based on the BAH rate for the member's previous duty location
if the secretary determines that it would be inequitable to pay
the member the BAH rate for the member's new duty location. The
provision would bring the treatment of BAH rates for low-cost
or no-cost moves in an overseas area in line with the treatment
of BAH for similar moves inside the United States.
Subtitle B--Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays
Section 611--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay
Authorities for Reserve Forces
This section would extend the authority for the selected
reserve reenlistment bonus, the selected reserve enlistment
bonus, special pay for enlisted members of the selected reserve
assigned to certain high priority units, the selected reserve
affiliation bonus, the ready reserve enlistment and
reenlistment bonus, and the prior service enlistment bonus
until December 31, 2003.
Section 612--One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay
Authorities for Certain Health Care Professionals
This section would extend the authority for the nurse
officer candidate accession program, the accession bonus for
registered nurses, the incentive special pay for nurse
anesthetists, the special pay for selected reserve health care
professionals in critically short wartime specialties, and the
accession bonus for dental officers until December 31, 2003.
The provision would also extend the authority for repayment of
educational loans for certain health professionals who serve in
the selected reserve until January 1, 2004.
Section 613--One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities
for Nuclear Officers
This section would extend the authority for the special pay
for nuclear-qualified officers extending the period of active
service, nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career
annual incentive bonus until December 31, 2003.
Section 614--One-Year Extension of Other Bonus and Special Pay
Authorities
This section would extend the authority for the aviation
officer retention bonus, the reenlistment bonus for active
members, the enlistment bonus for active members, the retention
bonus for members with critical military skills, and the
accession bonus for new officers in critical skills until
December 31, 2003.
Section 615--Minimum Levels of Hardship Duty Pay for Duty on the Ground
in Antarctica or on Arctic Icepack
This section would specify a hardship duty pay rate of not
less than $240 per month for duty performed by service members
on the ground in Antarctica or on the Arctic icepack. The
provision would specify that the monthly rate be prorated and
paid for each day of qualified service.
Section 616--Increase in Maximum Rates for Prior Service Enlistment
Bonus
This section would increase the rates paid to reservists
with critical skills under the prior service enlistment bonus
from $5,000 to $8,000 in the case of a member who enlists for
six years, from $2,500 to $4,000 in the case of a member who
enlists for three years, and from $2,000 to $3,500 in the case
of a member who received a prior bonus for a three year
enlistment and who reenlists or extends for an additional three
years.
Section 617--Retention Incentives for Health Care Providers Qualified
in a Critical Military Skill
The committee recognizes that, in some cases, the
legislative authorities for health care provider special and
incentive pays and bonuses have not been updated for a decade
andhave lost their value to attract and retain quality
practitioners. The committee understands that the Department of Defense
is studying health care provider compensation and that a new structure
for these incentives will be forthcoming. In an effort to facilitate
the ultimate implementation of the new pay and bonus structure, the
committee elects to adopt a more flexible legislative authority for
this purpose that preserves through an annual report the capability of
Congress to provide oversight. Accordingly, this section would amend
the critical skill retention bonus to provide exceptions to the limits
on bonus amounts and years of service for bonuses paid to health care
providers.
Subtitle C--Travel and Transportation Allowances
Section 631--Extension of Leave Travel Deferral Period for Members
Performing Consecutive Overseas Tours of Duty
This section would authorize members who have been granted
travel and transportation benefits in connection with a
consecutive overseas tour to defer those benefits for the full
duration of the additional tour of duty. If the member is
unable to undertake the travel before the completion of the
additional tour because of duty in connection with a
contingency operation, the provision would authorize the member
to defer the travel and transportation for a year after the
contingency operation duty ends.
Subtitle D--Retired Pay and Survivors Benefits
Section 641--Phase-in of Full Concurrent Receipt of Military Retired
Pay and Veterans Disability Compensation for Military Retirees with
Disabilities Rated at 60 Percent or Higher
The committee is opposed to reducing retired pay due to
members of the uniformed services to offset the receipt of
compensation for service-connected disabilities paid by the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The committee believes
that retirees are entitled to receive both the retired pay for
which they contributed years of faithful service and the VA
compensation for a service-connected disability intended to
recognize a lifelong limitation on earning potential. The
committee intends to continue to promote concurrent receipt for
all eligible retirees and is committed to adopt the legislative
changes needed to achieve advances in concurrent receipt to the
extent that funding for this purpose is made available in
future concurrent budget resolutions.
Accordingly, and consistent with the Concurrent Resolution
on the Budget--Fiscal Year 2003 (H. Con. Res. 353) adopted in
the House, this section would authorize retirement-qualified
members of the uniformed services with disabilities rated as 60
percent and above to receive during the fifth year of a 5-year
transition program, full VA disability compensation without a
reduction in retired pay. In the case of a member who receives
a disability retirement, the section would allow the retired
pay to be reduced, but only to the extent that the member's
retired pay exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the
member would have been entitled based solely on the member's
years of service.
The transition program would provide the following amounts
to disabled retirees during fiscal year 2003:
(1) Members rated 100 percent disabled would receive $750
per month.
(2) Members rated 90 percent disabled would receive $500
per month.
(3) Members rated 80 percent disabled would receive $250
per month.
(4) Members rated 70 percent disabled would receive $250
per month.
(5) Members rated 60 percent disabled would receive $125
per month.
The transition program during fiscal years 2004, 2005, and
2006 would reduce for each retiree the difference between the
amount of retired pay received the previous year and full
concurrent receipt by 23 percent, 30 percent, and 64 percent,
respectively. During fiscal year 2007, all retirees with
disability rating of 60 percent and above would receive their
entire retired pay and VA disability compensation.
Section 642--Change in Service Requirements for Eligibility for Retired
Pay for Non-Regular Service
This section would reduce the number of years of continuous
reserve component service required immediately before
qualifying for non-regular retired pay from eight to six.
Section 643--Elimination of Possible Inversion in Retired Pay Cost-of-
Living Adjustment for Initial COLA Computation
This section would limit partial-year retired pay cost-of-
living adjustments (COLAs) in the first year of retirement to
be no greater than the COLA paid to retirees who were retired
for the entire year.
Section 644--Technical Revisions to So-Called ``Forgotten Widows''
Annuity Program
This section would make technical and administrative
changes to section 644 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85) that addressed
annuities for certain military surviving spouses.
Subtitle E--Reserve Component Montgomery GI Bill
Section 651--Extension of Montgomery G.I. Bill-Selected Reserve
Eligibility Period
This section would extend the eligibility window for
educational assistance for members of the selected reserve
through the Montgomery G.I. Bill from 10 to 14 years from the
date of first eligibility.
Subtitle F--Other Matters
Section 661--Addition of Definition of Continental United States in
Title 37
This section would amend section 101 of title 37, United
States Code, to include the definition of continental United
States as the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia
and amend other sections of title 37, United States Code, to
reflect the addition of the definition.
TITLE VII--HEALTH CARE MATTERS
OVERVIEW
Enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act of
Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) limited changes to
TRICARE in fiscal year 2002 to necessary improvements intended
to facilitate better implementation of TRICARE For Life or to
improve existing programs. The committee commends the Secretary
of Defense for the Department's efforts to ensure smooth
implementation of the new benefits for Medicare-eligible
military retirees and their eligible beneficiaries and other
improvements to TRICARE. With this in mind, the committee has
focused this year's legislation on several limited benefit
changes, necessary improvements to TRICARE's management and
business practices, the future of the managed care support
contracts, and optimization efforts.
The committee was encouraged that the defense health
program budget request relied on more realistic cost and
budgeting assumptions. The commitment to fully fund the defense
health program (DHP) is commendable. However, the committee
continues to urge the Department of Defense (DOD) to more fully
optimize the military treatment facilities. Although the direct
care system of military treatment facilities has received an
increase in the budget request, a sustained period of under-
investment in optimization, maintenance, and repair of these
facilities has eroded the capacity of the military hospitals
and clinics of the direct care system. The committee is
concerned that current funding for the direct care system
continues to undermine optimization efforts, forcing some
patients into the private sector. On balance, this phenomenon
drives up the cost of the defense health program and limits the
resources available for treating patients in the direct care
system. The committee expects to be kept informed of the
efforts to allocate defense health resources in a manner that
will maximize the effectiveness of the entire DHP.
For the past several years, the committee has focused its
efforts to reduce the high cost of TRICARE claims processing.
In testimony this year, the committee again heard from
providers and managed care support contractors that DOD's
unique claims processing system costs continue to far exceed
those of equivalent civilian systems for processing claims. The
testimony suggested that impediments to a cost-effective,
provider and beneficiary friendly system for TRICARE claims
processing continue to exist. Hearing testimony also suggested
that the committee needs to better understand the nature,
reasons, and extent of trends in the TRICARE network provider
instability, and the effectiveness of DOD's and TRICARE managed
care support contractors' efforts to measure and mitigate such
turbulence. The committee was encouraged by testimony from DOD
health officials that they would examine the policies and
practices associated with the managed care support contractors,
and the committee urges the Department to move forward and
examine and formulate plans to address these issues. However,
the committee is concerned about the long-term impact of these
issues on the program and requires the Comptroller General to
also study these areas.
The committee recognizes that DOD is negotiating extension
periods to existing managed care support contracts even as it
considers how to structure the next generation of TRICARE
contracts. Much remains to be known of the Department's plans
to redesign the contracts and possible initiatives to carve out
specific contract areas such as marketing and pharmacy
services. The committee notes DOD's intent to include suitable
best business practices found in the health care industry and
to incorporate mechanisms that share risk between TRICARE's
partners--the Department of Defense and the managed care
support contractors. The successful implementation of the new
contracts should also keep in mind the potential impact on the
beneficiaries. The committee urges the Department to continue
to ensure all stakeholders are included. The committee expects
to be kept fully informed as the Department approaches its
final design of new contract vehicles.
The committee continues to be pleased with the nature and
extent of DOD's engagement with the private non-governmental
associations representing the interests of the beneficiaries of
the military health care system during its deliberations on the
design of next generation contracts and implementation of
TRICARE programs. The committee encourages DOD to continue to
reach out to beneficiaries of the military health care system
and other key stakeholders including DOD's managed care support
contractors. The Department should consider broadening and
enhancing this outreach to include other health care
organizations and providers in more routine consultations
regarding benefit design and delivery, industry best practices,
management initiatives, and beneficiary and provider
communications and consultation. Such outreach could provide
valuable insight regarding provider and beneficiary incentives
and satisfaction.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Claims Processing for Under-65 Medicare-Eligible Beneficiaries
The committee is aware that Medicare-eligible beneficiaries
under the age of 65 are not currently able to have their health
care claims filed electronically because the Department has not
yet resolved cross-over claims issues. Until the Department
remedies this shortcoming, under-65 Medicare-eligible
beneficiaries are unable to fully participate in TRICARE For
Life (TFL) and, in essence are denied participation in the
program because they must pay their fees upfront. For many,
this is not a viable option. Until this cross-over claims issue
is resolved, these beneficiaries are effectively denied the
ready access to Medicare providers they are entitled to under
the TFL program. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to expeditiously resolve this barrier to TFL participation and
submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2003, on
actions taken to resolve claims processing problems for under-
65 Medicare-eligible beneficiaries.
Defense Enrollment and Eligibility Enrollment Reporting System
Improvements
The committee is concerned about the accuracy and
timeliness of the current process to update information in the
Defense Enrollment and Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS). In
particular, there appears to be some delay in entering updates
when changes occur in the sponsor's military status,
demographics, or duty station. The DEERS database determines
the eligibility and benefit program of service members. If
there are delays in accurately processing and transmitting
personnel changes to DEERSby the military services, then
beneficiaries are denied health care, or health care is delayed. The
committee believes the Department should set a goal of near real-time
updates with 100% accuracy. The committee directs the Secretary of
Defense, to assess the ability of the military services to update
information in DEERS in a more timely and accurate manner, and, if
necessary, implement a plan to make the improvements the secretary
believes are necessary. The secretary's report to the Senate Committee
on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services would be
required by September 30, 2003.
Force Health Protection
The committee remains strongly committed to ensuring that
the force health protection of our troops continues to remain a
high priority for the Department of Defense (DOD) and the
military services. The committee is pleased to note the
implementation of new clinical guidelines for use by DOD and
the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) physicians in caring
for the unique needs of military personnel and their families.
However, as utilization of the active, guard and reserve
components continues to increase to meet the growing demand for
deployments around the world, force health protection remains
at the forefront of our ability to meet these requirements. The
Department was tasked with developing a system that can be used
to track military personnel who are deployed, monitor in-
theatre medical requirements, and conduct post-deployment
assessments to ensure that DOD and the military services know
where and when our men and women are deployed, the environment
in which they are deployed, any medical requirements they are
subject to while in theatre, and any post-deployment health
developments. These issues were raised as a result of the
Persian Gulf War. In view of the continuing and increasing
deployments around the world, we need to ensure that we are
doing everything possible to protect the health of our troops.
The committee recently requested that the General Accounting
Office examine the DOD-VA medical surveillance system. In view
of this, the committee urges that the Secretary of Defense take
this opportunity to review the entire spectrum of force health
protection issues in order to ensure that a collaborative,
focused and adequately resourced effort is underway, and that
appropriate medical surveillance policies and procedures are in
place throughout the DOD and the military services.
Military Health Care System Information Management
The committee remains interested in developments by the
Department of Defense (DOD) to improve its health care
information management systems. The committee, therefore, is
concerned that the Department has yet to provide the interim
report requested in the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) to conduct a
comprehensive study of DOD medical data systems that will
facilitate management, clinical treatment, system performance
evaluations, costs, manpower and enrollment. The establishment
of a comprehensive medical data system is vital to the
Department on a number of levels, including improving benefits
and services to military personnel, retirees and their
families, increasing resource sharing activities between the
Department and the Department of Veterans Affairs or other
federal agencies and private organizations, improving resource
management and reducing barriers to ensure medical readiness.
The committee urges the Department to provide adequate
resources to ensure that the development and implementation of
these information management systems moves forward in a timely
manner.
TRICARE Access Standards for Appointments
The committee is aware of the many advantages available to
beneficiaries under TRICARE Prime, including the access
standards for the wait time for appointments. The committee is
concerned that these standards may not be uniformly met by all
managed care support contractors and military treatment
facilities, thereby impacting their ability to adequately
address the health care needs of TRICARE Prime enrollees. The
Department needs to ensure that beneficiaries calling for
appointments receive them within the required access standards.
The committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense
review and improve current processes to ensure that military
treatment facilities inform the managed care support
contractors of available appointments.
Waiver of TRICARE Senior Pharmacy Deductible for Beneficiaries in
Nursing Homes
The committee is concerned that TRICARE beneficiaries who
are patients in nursing homes are currently subject to the
annual deductible for using out-of-network pharmacy services.
Because TRICARE considers the pharmacy services used by nursing
homes in most states to be out-of-network pharmacies, the
committee believes the Department could resolve this inequity
by waiving the annual deductible for patients in nursing homes.
This non-network pharmacy deductible policy is aimed at
creating an incentive for beneficiaries to use the National
Mail Order Pharmacy or network pharmacies. However, the policy
unintentionally penalizes beneficiaries in nursing homes. The
committee directs the Secretary of Defense to implement such
policies and regulations or recommend any legislative changes
that may be necessary to waive the deductible for these
patients, and report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2003, on
actions taken.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Health Care Program Improvements
Section 701--Elimination of Requirement for TRICARE Preauthorization of
Inpatient Mental Health Care for Medicare-Eligible Beneficiaries
This section would eliminate the redundant TRICARE
preauthorization requirement for specific cases in which
Medicare has already authorized such care and Medicare is the
primary payer. This provision would take effect on October 1,
2004.
Section 702--Expansion of TRICARE Prime Remote for Certain Dependents
This section would extend the TRICARE Prime Remote benefit
to active duty family members who are not authorized to
accompany the member to the member's permanent duty station.
This benefit would apply in cases when the dependent continues
to reside at the location of the former duty assignment and
that location is more than 50 miles, or approximately 1 hour of
driving time, from the nearest military medical treatment
facility adequate to provide the needed care; or when there is
no reasonable expectation the member will return to the
location of the former duty assignment and the dependent moves
to a location that is more than 50 miles, or approximately 1
hour of driving time, from the nearest military medical
treatment facility adequate to provide the needed care. This
provision would take effect on October 1, 2002.
Section 703--Enabling Dependents of Certain Members Who Died While on
Active Duty to Enroll in the TRICARE Dental Program
This section would amend section 1076a(k)(2) of title 10,
United States Code, to permit the dependents of members who die
while serving on active duty tours of more than 30 days to
enroll in the TRICARE Dental Program under that section
regardless of the dependent's dental plan enrollment status on
the date of the member's death. Many dependents outside the
continental United States temporarily discontinue participation
in the premium sharing dental plan under section 1076 because
they receive their dental care in DOD dental facilities. In
cases where the member dies while assigned overseas, their
dependents' nonparticipation disadvantages their future
eligibility. This section would authorize these dependents to
participate in the dental plan in the same manner as other
dependents of members who die while on active duty.
Section 704--Improvements Regarding the Department of Defense Medicare-
Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund
This section would align the normal cost contribution
funding for the Department of Defense (DOD) Medicare-eligible
retiree health care fund with the military personnel accounts
since the payments into the fund are related to post-retirement
health benefits associated with military service, this change
would treat accrual funding for health benefits for Medicare-
eligible beneficiaries in a manner consistent with funding for
retirement pension costs under chapter 74 of title 10, United
States Code.
This section would mandate participation in the Uniformed
Services Retiree Health Care Fund by non-DOD uniformed
services. The National Defense Authorization Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-107), made participation in the fund
discretionary for the Coast Guard, the commissioned corps of
the Public Health Service, and the commissioned corps of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The committee
views the President's request to require such participation by
the secretaries of the federal departments administering non-
DOD uniformed services without prejudice and has included such
a provision.
Section 705--Certification of Institutional and Non-Institutional
Providers Under the TRICARE Program
This section would amend section 1079 of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe
regulations to allow, to the extent practicable, providers
authorized under title XVIII of the Social Security Act,
section 1395 et seg. of title 42, United States Code, to be
deemed TRICARE providers in addition to their current
certification as TRICARE For Life (TFL) providers. This
provision would allow the acceptance of Medicare certification
as the basis of TRICARE provider authorization. Moreover, this
provision reduces administrative requirements associated with
the credentialing of Medicare providers so that they may treat
TRICARE patients in addition to TFL patients. This provision
will take effect on October 1, 2003.
Section 706--Technical Correction Regarding Transitional Health Care
The transitional health care benefit for certain
involuntarily separated members made permanent in the National
Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-
107), inadvertently failed to include the dependents of the
service members. This technical correction ensures transitional
health care benefits for the dependents of the service members
entitled to such benefit.
Subtitle B--Reports
Section 711--Comptroller General Report on TRICARE Claims Processing
This section would require the Comptroller General to
evaluate the continuing impediments to a cost-effective,
provider and beneficiary friendly system for TRICARE claims
processing. The committee has long had an interest in claims
processing reform, including a range of reforms directed in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public
Law 106-65). Recently the committee heard testimony from
providers and industry that DOD's unique claims processing
system features individual claim costs far exceeding those of
equivalent civilian systems for processing claims. Moreover,
the requirements associated with DOD's claims processing system
may discourage some providers from participation in the TRICARE
program, thus creating an impediment to beneficiary access. The
committee is concerned that these issues were among those that
led to the reforms in the National Defense Authorization Act of
2000 (Public Law 106-65). The committee is also concerned that
on balance, the additional cost and administrative burdens
associated with this unique claims processing system may serve
as a hindrance to more efficient beneficiary care and
satisfaction, as well as improved provider participation. The
study mandated under this section would pay special attention
to:
(1) The extent of progress implementing improvements
in claims processing particularly the application of
best industry practices;
(2) The extent of progress in simplifying claims
processing procedures and eliminating or reducing the
reliance on and complexity of, the Health Care Service
Record;
(3) The suitability of a Medicare-compatible claims
processing system with regard to the data requirements
necessary to administer TRICARE and related information
systems; and
(4) The extent to which the TRICARE claims processing
system impedes provider participation and beneficiary
access, and provide recommendations for improvements.
The Comptroller General's report of findings and
recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services would be required by
March 31, 2003.
Section 712--Comptroller General Report on Provision of Care Under the
TRICARE Program
This section would require the Comptroller General to
evaluate the nature, reasons, and extent of trends in TRICARE
network provider turbulence, and the effectiveness of DOD's and
TRICARE support managed care contractors' efforts to measure
and mitigate such turbulence. The committee has heard testimony
that provider network instability exists in certain geographic
areas, that such instability may be associated with the
administrative requirements, preauthorization procedures and
the reimbursement rates of the TRICARE program, that the
measurement of past and future trends may be instructive, that
DOD's existing authority to adjust reimbursement rates to
address provider network adequacy in certain areas is largely
unused, and that the administrative requirements of the TRICARE
program merits review. The study mandated under this section
would pay special attention to:
(1) The adequacy of provider/network stability
measurement tools and their current use by DOD and/or
managed care support contractors to assess network
adequacy/stability;
(2) The relationship of reimbursement rates and
TRICARE administration requirements, (including
preauthorization requirements) to provider/network
turbulence;
(3) The current extent of the problem and likely
future trends with and without intervention using
existing authority;
(4) DOD's and TRICARE managed care support
contractors' use of existing authority to apply higher
reimbursement rates in specific geographic areas;
(5) Recommendations for improvements needed in
measurement tools or their application; and
(6) Recommendations for specific fiscally prudent
measures that could mitigate negative trends or improve
provider/network stability.
The Comptroller General's report of findings and
recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services would be required by
March 31, 2003.
Section 713--Repeal of Report Requirement
This section would repeal the reporting requirement
specified in section 712 of the Floyd D. Spence National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-
398). The committee notes that the reporting requirement has
been superceded by the TRICARE For Life program and obviated by
decisions by the Department of Defense and the Department of
Health and Human Services not to pursue the Medicare subvention
demonstration project.
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Acquisition Program Management
The Department of Defense acquisition programs continue to
experience significant cost increases and schedule delays. No
military service is exempt from this problem. Examples of major
acquisition programs with significant cost increases and
schedule delays include:
(1) Army--CH-47 helicopter upgrade and Comanche
helicopter.
(2) Navy--Virginia class submarine and LPD-17.
(3) Air Force--Space based infrared system and
advanced extremely high frequency communications
satellite.
(4) Marine Corps--UH-1/Cobra helicopter upgrades.
(5) Special Operations Command--Advanced seal
delivery system.
The continued prevalence and the pervasive nature of
unscheduled cost growths and schedule delays lead the committee
to conclude that the Department of Defense is not yet
practicing the improvements espoused to be included in the new
Department of Defense Directive 5000 series and Department of
Defense Instruction 5000 series.
Each military service has a program or programs that have
exceeded the Nunn-McCurdy limits, which necessitates review by
the Secretary of Defense, program re-base-lining, and re-
certification to Congress.
It is well recognized that cost growth and time delays are
often associated with poor program structure and unsatisfactory
program management, often involving both government and
contractors. Examples of poor management include:
(1) Contractors submitting low cost estimates--an
action inconsistent with best business practices.
(2) The Department failing to sufficiently analyze
the scope of work, estimate costs accurately, establish
affordable requirements and avoid requirement creep,
resulting in increased system development and
procurement cost.
(3) Both the Department and contractors establish
high performing program management teams, but then
disband the teams as other projects reach high profile.
(4) Discontinuity in program management.
(5) Allowing too many programs to progress to SDD/
EMD, without sufficient funding available to adequately
fund programs in the out years.
The committee believes that the issue is not to re-write
Department of Defense Directive 5000 series again, but rather
to properly baseline programs, beginning with the mission needs
statement and operational requirements specification. Programs
must be based on realistic cost estimates, which are fully
funded. Program operational requirements must be complete and
remain stable. The joint requirements oversight council (JROC)
must guard against requirements creep and ensure compliance
with applicable Department of Defense acquisition regulations,
including JROC validation and approval.
The committee also believes that in order to manage
acquisition properly, DOD must have and use a modern financial
control system, as is discussed elsewhere in this report.
Defense Logistics Agency's Best Value Contracting
The committee is aware of concerns over how the Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA) is implementing best value contracting
in the acquisition of select items. DLA is responsible for
acquiring and managing over 13,000 different items that outfit
military troops and civilian customers with uniforms, helmets,
body armor, chemical protective suite, footwear, tents, and
other related items. DLA is one of the Department of Defense's
principal buyers of goods and services, yet DLA's buying
practices have often come into question. The committee
understands the difficult task facing DLA and other defense
acquisition organizations in balancing the imperative to ensure
the best possible value for the military customer while also
providing for the broad participation of qualified private
sector suppliers. To better understand how DLA is performing in
executing this goal, the committee directs the Comptroller
General to conduct a review on whether DLA is properly
implementing applicable statutory and regulatory guidance for
best value purchases. In particular, the review should examine
DLA's use of past performance as an evaluation factor in the
selection of suppliers and the impact this practice is having
on the imperative to maintain an adequate domestic supplier
base for key items of supply. The report shall be provided to
the House Armed Services Committee no later than March 1, 2003.
Report on Small Business Concerns Owned and Controlled by Women
The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report
whether the Department of Defense has met its annual goal of
awarding procurement contracts to small business concerns owned
or controlled by women from fiscal years 1998--2002. To the
extent the Department of Defense has not met its goals the
Secretary of Defense shall include in the report actions taken
to try to meet its goal. This report shall be provided to the
House Committee on Armed Services no later than February 15,
2003.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 801--Plan for Acquisition Management Professional Exchange
Pilot Program
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop a pilot program for the exchange of personnel between
Department of Defense acquisition management community and the
private sector. The committee believes such an exchange program
would improve knowledge and foster understanding between the
two communities with the ultimate benefit of the Department
acquiring better quality products and services.
Section 802--Evaluation of Training, Knowledge, and Resources Regarding
Negotiation of Intellectual Property Arrangements
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
evaluate the adequacy of training, education and resources
within the acquisition community on the negotiation of
intellectual property. This section would require the Secretary
of Defense to report the results of the evaluation in a report
to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House
Committee on Armed Services. The report shall also include any
actions that should be taken to meet the Department's needs,
and the number of legal personnel within the Department of
Defense (DOD) who are trained in the negotiation of
intellectual property arrangements.
The committee is concerned that DOD does not have the
resources to adequately negotiate intellectual property rights
with the private sector. The committee notes that in 1995 DOD
updated the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations pertaining
to rights in technical data and computer software. The updates
resulted from the work of a Government-Industry Technical
Advisory Committee, established by the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law
102-190). The committee is concerned that the flexibility and
commercially-friendly intellectual property terms and
conditions contained in these regulations are not understood,
and are thus underutilized within DOD.
Section 803--Limitation Period for Task and Delivery Order Contracts
This section would amend sections 2304a and 2304b of title
10, United States Code, by proscribing the period of time for
which these contracts can be awarded, and by more clearly
characterizing advisory and service task order contracts as a
type of task and delivery order contract. The committee
believes it is appropriate to limit contract duration in order
to better promote the use of competition. The committee also
believes that all task and delivery order contracts should be
treated as congruently as is possible and appropriate.
Section 804--One-Year Extension of Program Applying Simplified
Procedure to Certain Commercial items; Report
This section would amend section 4202 of the Clinger-Cohen
Act of 1996 (divisions D and E of Public Law 104-106) by
extending for one more year the authority for the Secretary of
Defense to use simplified acquisition procedures for the
purchase of commercial items not greater then $5.0 million. The
section would also require the Secretary of Defense to report
to Congress, no later than January 15, 2003, whether authority
under the pilot program should be made permanent. The report
should also address the benefits and usefulness of this pilot
program.
Section 805--Authority to Make Inflation Adjustment to Simplified
Acquisition Threshold
This section would provide the Administrator of the Office
of Federal Procurement Policy with the authority to adjust the
simplified acquisition threshold every five years to account
for inflation.
Section 806--Improvement of Personnel Management Policies and
Procedures Applicable to the Civilian Acquisition Workforce
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop an implementation plan for improving the personnel
management policies and procedures for the Department of
Defense acquisition workforce based on the demonstration
project authorized by section 4308 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106).
The section would additionally require the Secretary of Defense
to provide a report to Congress by February 15, 2003,
containing the implementation plan and any areas within the
implementation plan needing legislative relief.
The committee supports the ongoing Department of Defense
(DOD) Civilian Acquisition Workforce Personnel Demonstration
Project, which is designed to determine the effectiveness of
initiatives to increase organizational efficiencies, enhance
retention rates and rewards for performance, and increase
quality of the workforce and the products it acquires. The
committee is concerned with the delay in commencing the
demonstration project and believes that the Secretary of
Defense must ensure that lessons learned from the first three
years of the demonstration project are incorporated into the
Department's overall acquisition management, organizational
structure, and personnel systems.
Section 807--Modification of Scope of Ball and Roller Bearings Covered
for Purposes of Procurement Limitation
This section would amend section 2534 of title 10, United
States Code, by expanding the definition of ball and roller
bearings to include unconventional or hybrid ball and roller
bearings, cam follower bearings, ball screws and other
derivatives of ball and roller bearings. This section would not
extend the time period for which the procurement limitation is
in place.
Section 808--Rapid Acquisition and Deployment Procedures
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
develop rapid procedures for the acquisition and the deployment
of items a commander of a unified combatant command urgently
requires. The procedures would require the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, the secretary
of the military service, as well as the Director, Operational
Test & Evaluation to work together in an expedited manner in
order to deliver to the commander of a unified combatant
command the item urgently needed to react to an enemy or to
provide safety.
Section 809--Quick-Reaction Special Projects Acquisition Team
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
establish a special projects acquisition team to examine and
address issues affecting expeditious procurements. The special
projects acquisition team shall specifically address industrial
base issues, lengthy acquisition procedures due to acquisition
regulations, environmental issues, small business concerns, and
the purchase of products made in the United States.
Section 810--Report on Development of Anti-Cyberterrorism Technology
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to Congress by February 1, 2003, on Department
of Defense efforts to enter into contracts with private
entities to develop anti-cyberterrorism technology.
Section 811--Contracting with Federal Prison Industries
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
acquire a product or service from Federal Prison Industries in
accordance with chapter 137 of title 10, United States Code.
This provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to
assure that Federal Prison Industries, Inc. does not provide
contractor services if an inmate were to have access to certain
information.
TITLE IX--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Regional Centers for Security Studies
The committee has been concerned that the Department of
Defense's regional centers for security studies, and some of
its staff, have not accurately represented the views and
policies of the United States government with regard to foreign
affairs and national security matters. As such, the committee
was inclined this year to propose legislative provisions that
would seek to redress this problem. However, the committee is
reassured by recent reports that senior officials in the
Department of Defense are reviewing how the regional centers
are organized, managed, and staffed, as well as studying a
number of ways to ensure coherence with regard to policy
matters and positions. As a result, the committee has withheld
action this year regarding this matter, but looks forward to
receiving the results of the Department's assessment, and its
plans, if any, for subsequent action.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 901--Change in Title of Secretary of the Navy to the Secretary
of the Navy and Marine Corps
This section would redesignate the title of the Secretary
of the Navy to the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps.
Section 902--Report on Implementation of United States Northern Command
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
House of Representatives a report by September 1, 2002,
containing an implementation plan for the United States
Northern Command that addresses organizational, legal,
diplomatic, budgetary, and personnel matters associated with
the establishment of the command.
Section 903--National Defense Mission of Coast Guard to be Included in
Future Quadrennial Defense Reviews
This section would amend section 118(d) of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to include the
national defense mission of the U.S. Coast Guard when
conducting the Quadrennial Defense Review. The committee
recognizes that the U.S. Coast Guard currently performs a range
of national security missions, and anticipates that in the
future the U.S. Coast Guard will increasingly be integrated
with the other military services in the conduct of deployments
and joint operations. Accordingly, the committee believes the
Secretary of Defense should assess and include the capabilities
of the U.S. Coast Guard as part of the Quadrennial Defense
Review process.
Section 904--Change in Year for Submission of Quadrennial Defense
Review
This section would amend section 118(a) of title 10, United
States Code, to move the submission of the Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR) to the second year after a year divisible by four.
The committee notes the importance of the QDR to the
Department's planning guidance and other important decisions.
While the committee believes the QDR allows a new
Administration the opportunity to lay out a blueprint for its
future defense plan and activities, it also recognizes that the
complexity of preparing the QDR can be compounded by the
lengthy confirmation process for Presidential appointees. The
committee feels that moving the submission of the QDR back a
year will give senior civilian Department of Defense leadership
more time to conduct the type of critical review of all aspects
of the Department's operations envisioned by the statute.
Section 905--Report on Effect of Operations Other Than War on Combat
Readiness of the Armed Forces
This section would require a report on the impact of
operations other than war on the combat readiness of the United
States Armed Forces. These operations include humanitarian
operations, counter-drug operations, peace operations
(including peace monitoring activities and observer missions),
and nation assistance, which is defined as the assistance
provided to a host nation to promote stability, develop
sustainability, and establish institutions responsive to the
needs of the people. In order to better account for,
understand, and highlight the impact of these operations on the
Department of Defense, and to assist Congress in assessing
these costs and benefits relative to the nation's foreign
policy and national security interests, the committee directs
the Secretary of Defense to prepare and submit to the
Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House a detailed
report on the pecuniary and non-pecuniary costs and benefits of
these operations.
Section 906--Conforming Amendment to Reflect Disestablishment of
Department of Defense Consequence Management Program Integration Office
This section would amend section 12310(c) of title 10,
United States Code, to conform to an internal Department of
Defense reorganization involving the Consequence Management
Program Integration Office.
TITLE X--GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Chartering of Special Purpose Vessels
Each year the Department of the Navy charters a number of
special purpose vessels in order to meet both its ongoing and
emergency requirements. These vessels generally include salvage
ships, oceanographic survey and research vessels, cable laying
ships, and other vessels not traditionally used in special
purpose roles. The committee notes that despite the Navy's
desire to increase competition for these charters, there have
been several instances where only one contractor submitted bids
for these charters. In some cases, the method of procurement or
the type of contract proposed for the charter may have served
to inadvertently eliminate a class of vessels that are capable
of performing these functions but are not technically
classified or cataloged as being able to perform the mission.
In view of this and the committee's desire to increase
competition in these programs, the committee directs the
Secretary of the Navy to prepare a report that will address the
following matters:
(1) Identification of barriers, including legal,
regulatory, administrative, or acquisition procedures,
that may exist with respect to the use of U.S.-flag
vessels or that otherwise may decrease competition;
(2) A market survey which identifies vessels capable
of performing the required activities;
(3) The need for increased use of innovative
contracting methods, including greater use of
performance based contracts;
(4) Identification of methods for increasing the use
of U.S.-flag vessels in such special purpose
activities;
(5) Any proposals for legislation or administrative
steps that the Secretary considers necessary to
increase competition and use of U.S.-flag vessels.
The report shall be submitted to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and to the House Committee on Armed Services not
later than February 1, 2003.
Counter-Drug Activities
Overview
The budget request for counter-drug activities maintained a
steady-state level of effort as compared with prior years. The
committee continues to support a robust counter-drug program
and is cognizant of the linkages between terrorist
organizations and the international narcotics trade. In that
regard, the committee is concerned with the lack of targeting
of opium storage facilities in Afghanistan that were identified
early in the conduct of Operation Enduring Freedom. The
committee understands that U.S. Central Command deemed that
opium in any form did not constitute a credible military
target. However, as well established, the ruling Taliban
maintained close ties to the narcotics trade in Afghanistan and
used illicit narcotics trafficking profits to bolster their
regime. Accordingly, the committee believes the Department of
Defense should review and revise its policy in this regard to
ensure that such targets are properly prosecuted in Afghanistan
and any future conflicts.
The committee is also aware that the U.S. Southern Command
Forward Operating Locations (FOLs) in El Salvador, Ecuador, and
Curacao are all nearing full operational capability. The
committee remains fully supportive of this important effort but
is concerned that recent statements by senior Ecuadorian
officials may restrict the use of the airfield at Manta,
Ecuador. The committee believes that U.S. aircraft based at
Manta should be available to conduct search and rescue and
humanitarian relief operations. Accordingly, the committee
urges the Administration to engage the government of Ecuador to
seek approval for use of the Manta FOL for these specific
purposes.
The budget request contained $848.9 million for drug
interdiction and counter-drug activities, in addition to $149.8
million for operational tempo which is included within the
operating budgets of the military services.
The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year
2003 Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
FY03 Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Request................. $848,900
Educate America's Youth................................... 27,100
Increase Safety of Citizens............................... 81,800
Reduce Health & Social Costs.............................. 82,500
Shield America's Frontiers................................ 335,700
Break Drug Sources of Supply.............................. 321,800
Recommended Decreases:
DEA Support............................................... 1,300
Riverine Training Deployments............................. 1,000
Tethered Aerostat Radar System............................ 5,000
Transit Zone Maritime Patrol Aircraft..................... 3,000
Recommended Increases:
Mexico Information Analysis Center........................ 1,500
National Guard C-26 Aircraft.............................. 2,100
Southwest Border Fence.................................... 6,700
Recommendation................................................ $848,900
Items of Special Interest
DEA support
The budget request contained $6.2 million for Department of
Defense support to federal law enforcement, namely the Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) for data processing and analysis.
While the committee fully supports the underlying merit of the
classified program, the committee strongly believes the Drug
Enforcement Agency (DEA) must assume responsibility for
adequately funding the program requirements. Accordingly, the
committee recommends a decrease of $1.3 million for this
activity.
Mexico information analysis center
The budget request contained $790,000 for the Mexico
Information Analysis Center (IAC). The committee is aware that
the IAC provides tactically actionable intelligence in support
of U.S. and Mexican counter-narcotics efforts and has
contributed to significant gains in this area. Accordingly, the
committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million for this
successful program.
National Guard C-26 aircraft
The budget request did not contain funds to complete the
upgrade of counter-narcotics National Guard C-26 aircraft with
Electro-Optical (EO) digital cameras. The committee is aware
that of the current fleet of 11 aircraft, only 10 C-26s are
outfitted with an EO camera. The committee understands the
requirement for the National Guard is to complete the
standardization and additionally procure two EO camera spares.
The committee supports this program and recommends $2.1 million
for this purpose.
Riverine training deployments
The budget request contained $4.1 million for worldwide
riverine deployments. The committee supports this activity but
is aware that deployments of this nature are frequently
postponed or delayed. Accordingly, the committee recommends a
decrease of $1.0 million for this program.
Southwest border fence
The Southwest border continues to be a heavily utilized
drug trafficking corridor into the United States. The committee
has been supportive of fence and road-building activities in
this area and continues to support this effort. Accordingly,
the committee recommends an increase of $6.7 million for this
purpose.
Tethered aerostat radar system
The budget request contained $40.7 million for the Tethered
Aerostat Radar System (TARS) which includes $13.3 million for
procurement of equipment as compared to $3.4 million in fiscal
year 2002. The committee is concerned with the relative size of
this increase and, therefore, recommends a decrease of $5.0
million in the TARS program.
Transit zone maritime patrol aircraft
The budget request contained $9.0 million for Transit Zone
Maritime Patrol Aircraft, a new contractor lease program to
assist in maritime surveillance. The committee understands the
basis for this initiative but is concerned that the total
budget request is not fully executable in fiscal year 2003.
Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $3.0
million for this program.
Principles of Federal Appropriation
The General Accounting Office wrote a comprehensive text on
the body of law governing federal appropriations, ``Principles
of Federal Appropriations Law,'' in 1982, with a second version
published in 1991. This committee considers this text to be a
useful resource in deciphering federal appropriations law. As
material in this publication is subject to change by statute or
through decision-making process, the committee requests that
the General Accounting Office update this text.
Security Requirements for Contractor Employees
The committee is concerned with the level of access
contractor employees have to military facilities and
installations within the United States. In today's environment
it is appropriate for any and all security risks to be
examined, and to the extent necessary precautions taken. The
committee, therefore, directs the Secretary of Defense to
evaluate the security risk that may be associated with
contractor employee's access to military facilities and
installations, and to report to the House Committee on Armed
Services and the Senate Committee on Armed Services, no later
than February 1, 2003, the results of the evaluation. The
evaluation shall include: A determination whether the
Department of Defense should require contractors to conduct
background investigations on contractor employees; if
background checks are appropriate, to describe the type of
background checks that should be implemented and the cost of
these background checks.
Strategic Force Structure Plan
The most recent Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), submitted to
Congress by the Department of Defense on January 8, 2002, is a
broad policy document. Despite setting levels for active
forward deployed strategic weapons of 3800 in fiscal year 2007
and 1700-2200 in fiscal year 2012, it contains no comprehensive
description of the baseline force structure required to execute
the national defense strategy that supports those levels. A
force structure plan, including the number of warheads by type
in both active (deployed, ``responsive'' and spares) and
inactive status, the number and type of each associated weapons
system, and the number and type of each associated delivery
platform, is the point of departure for making intelligent
decisions regarding weapons complex infrastructure
recapitalization, as well as investments in stockpile life
extension programs. Such a plan would also provide a framework
for Department of Defense investments in weapons systems and
delivery vehicles.
Accordingly, Section 1014 requires the Secretaries of
Defense and Energy to jointly prepare a baseline nuclear force
structure plan for the period covered by the NPR, and a budget
plan to support that force structure. It requires, in addition,
submission of a report on the force structure and supporting
budget plans to the congressional defense committees by January
1, 2003.
The committee recognizes and endorses the Administration's
efforts to reach an agreement with the Russian Federation on
future strategic force levels. The committee does not intend,
in this regard, to hinder or limit the President's options in
carrying outthe foreign policy of the United States.
Consequently, the committee has allowed an extension of the due date of
the report to Congress should the President determine that deferment is
in the national security interests of the United States.
U.S. Strategic Deterrent
The committee believes that a flexible, reliable, and
robust nuclear deterrent is critical to the national security
of the United States. Capable and credible strategic forces are
essential to deterring enemies and potential adversaries,
defending our friends and allies, promoting global stability,
and ensuring that the United States can protect and advance its
interests abroad.
Given these vitally important goals and interests,
juxtaposed against a strategic environment that is as
uncertain, dangerous, and complex as ever in history, the
committee has outlined in a Sense of Congress provision the
purposes and need for the United States to maintain a reliable,
flexible and robust strategic deterrent. The key to achieving
such a posture is revitalization of the nation's nuclear
weapons industry, and the retention and training of skilled
nuclear and weapons technicians, scientists, and engineers.
Finally, the committee firmly believes that improvements
and changes to the nation's strategic deterrent should be made
in accordance with the national defense strategy, the Nuclear
Posture Review, and the global strategic environment.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Financial Matters
Section 1001--Transfer Authority
This section would provide fiscal year 2003 transfer
authority to the Department of Defense for amounts up to $2.0
billion.
Section 1002--Authorization of Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal
Year 2002
This section would authorize amounts enacted in the
Emergency Supplemental Act, 2002 (Division B of Public Law 107-
117) for the Department of Defense and for the national
security activities of the Department of Energy.
This section would also authorize those defense items
appropriated pursuant to any fiscal year 2002 emergency
supplemental appropriations legislation enacted during the
second session of the 107th Congress.
This section would further limit the obligation of
emergency supplemental funds to the Department of Defense until
the Secretary submits a report to the congressional defense
committees detailing the appropriation accounts to which the
funds have been transferred and the purpose for which the
transferred amounts are to be used.
Section 1003--Uniform Standards Throughout Department of Defense for
Exposure of Personnel to Pecuniary Liability for Loss of Government
Property
This section would extend the authority for imposition of
pecuniary liability for government property that is lost,
damaged or destroyed to military members of the Navy and Marine
Corps, and to all civilian employees of the Department of
Defense. Currently, only military members and civilian
employees of the Departments of the Army and the Air Force are
subject to this liability. This section would also extend the
authority to deduct the amount of the pecuniary liability from
the pay of a member of the Navy and Marine Corps. Currently,
the authority to deduct the liability applies only to members
of the Army and Air Force.
Section 1004--Accountable Officials In the Department of Defense
This section would establish pecuniary liability for those
Department of Defense officials who submit illegal, improper,
or incorrect data or information to an official who could rely
on that data to make payment on a voucher. This provision
provides the Department the ability to enforce responsibilities
assigned to personnel in the management of purchase cards, as
well as other areas where personnel are required to review and
submit data that the Department will rely on to make payments.
Section 1005--Improvements in Purchase Card Management
This section would amend section 2784 of title 10, United
States Code, by enhancing the Secretary of Defense's
responsibilities for management and oversight of the Department
of Defense's purchase card program. Recent reports, including
the Department of Defense's March 2002 Inspector General Report
demonstrate that additional managerial steps are needed to
prevent negligence, misuse, or abuse of the purchase card. This
section would add those safeguards necessary to improve
internal controls over this program.
Section 1006--Authority to Transfer Funds Within a Major Acquisition
Program from Procurement to RDT&E
This section would amend Chapter 131 of title 10, United
States Code, to provide the Secretary of Defense limited
authority to transfer funds from Procurement to Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E), for the same
acquisition program when that program's development effort
cannot transition to procurement as planned.
This transfer authority is limited to a total of $250.0
million for any fiscal year and $20.0 million per acquisition
program per fiscal year. This authority also specifically
prohibits the use of transferred amounts for new starts.
Section 1007--Development and Procurement of Financial and Nonfinancial
Management Systems
This section would require: (1) the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the congressional defense committees
providing the goals and objectives of the department'sfinancial
management modernization plan; and (2) the approval of the Under
Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, prior to the expenditure of funds by
any department or agency within the Department of Defense for new or
upgraded financial management and non-financial feeder systems.
On July 19, 2001, the Secretary of Defense established the
Financial Management Modernization Program and directed the
program management office to ``develop a DOD-wide blueprint--an
Enterprise Architecture--that prescribes how the Department's
financial and non-financial feeder systems and business
processes will interact.'' The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107) authorized $100.0
million for the Financial Management Modernization Program in
PE 65016D8Z. The fiscal year 2003 budget request was $96.3
million.
The committee believes that this program is one of the most
important developmental programs within the Department. The
committee also believes that the major impediment to
implementing a viable financial management program within the
Department will be overcoming the cultural and bureaucratic
resistance to change.
Consequently the committee believes that strict control
over expenditures for new and upgraded financial and non-
financial feeder systems is required and that until the
architecture is established for the new system that no agency
or department within DOD should be permitted to commit funds
for new, upgraded or interim financial management systems
without the explicit approval of the Comptroller. In addition,
implementation of the objective system under prescribed
milestones must be mandatory.
This can only be accomplished if the responsible agency,
the Department's comptroller, is given total authority for all
funds authorized for obligation for financial management and
feeder systems within the Department.
Subtitle B--Reports
Section 1011--After-Action Reports on the Conduct of Military
Operations Conducted as Part of Operation Enduring Freedom
This section would require the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
the Commander-in-Chief of United States Central Command, and
the Director of Central Intelligence, to submit to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on Armed
Services, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence two reports on
the conduct of military operations conducted as part of
Operation Enduring Freedom. The first report, an interim
report, would be required not later than June 15, 2003, and the
final report not later than 180 days after the cessation of
hostilities associated with Operation Enduring Freedom.
The committee is aware that the campaign in Afghanistan
demonstrated new war fighting doctrine and concepts and
believes an appropriate record must be established as soon as
possible to assist in the conduct of future military
operations. Therefore, the committee supports a requirement for
the Secretary of Defense to produce two reports to address the
accomplishments and shortcomings of the overall military
operation, including personnel, readiness, basing, air and sea
lift, joint operations, and equipment matters. The committee
notes that after-action reports of Operation Desert Storm and
Operation Allied Force can serve as a guide for the Department
in this regard. The committee is particularly concerned with
the factors that promoted or inhibited the timely insertion of
Special Operations Forces (SOF) personnel and assets into the
theater of operations, their operational utility and
effectiveness once in Afghanistan, and the scope and adequacy
of logistical and operational support provided to both SOF and
Central Intelligence Agency personnel.
Section 1012--Report on Biological Weapons Defense and Counter-
Proliferation
This section would require a report on the Department's
biological weapons defense, nonproliferation, and counter-
proliferation programs. Given the anthrax letter attacks of
2001, efforts by the al Qaeda terrorist organization to acquire
dangerous pathogens, and continuing reports by the intelligence
community that several rogue states and other countries have
active biological warfare programs, the committee is concerned
about the United States' ability to halt, defend against, and
counter these present and emerging threats.
As a result, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense
to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services
and the House Committee on Armed Services on the Department's
programs and initiatives to defend against and counter the
development, production, and proliferation of biological
weapons agents, technology, and expertise to terrorist groups
and other states. The purpose of this report is to inform
Congress of the legal (including U.S. and international law),
policy, resource, and other impediments to the Department's
biological warfare defense, nonproliferation, and counter-
proliferation initiatives, activities, and programs.
Section 1013--Requirement That Department of Defense Reports to
Congress Be Accompanied by Electronic Version
This section would amend section 480(a) of title 10, United
States Code, to require the Department of Defense to submit to
Congress electronic versions of all unclassified required
reports, to include certifications, notifications, or other
written communications.
The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense
failed to comply with section 1042 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107-107)
which required the Department of Defense to provide electronic
reports only upon request from Congress. Accordingly, the
committee reaffirms its view that this requirement is
consistent with the Department's intention to make greater use
of electronic media and will facilitate broader dissemination
of, and wider access to, official DOD information.
Section 1014--Strategic Force Structure Plan for Nuclear Weapons and
Delivery Systems
This section would require the Secretaries of Defense and
Energy to jointly prepare a baseline nuclear force structure
plan for the period covered by, and consistent with, the
Nuclear Posture Review submitted to Congress on January 8,
2002. The planwould include the warheads, weapon systems, and
delivery vehicles required to execute the national defense strategy, as
well as the infrastructure, modernization and life extension plans, and
other elements of the defense program of the United States necessary to
sustain that force structure. The section would also require a budget
plan to support that force structure. The section would require
submission of a report on the force structure and supporting budget
plan to the congressional defense committees by January 1, 2003, but
would permit the President to defer submission of the report to a date
certain should the President determine that it is in the national
security interest of the United States to submit the report on a later
date.
Section 1015--Report on Establishment of a Joint National Training
Complex and Joint Opposing Forces
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and
the House Committee on Armed Services not later than six months
after the date of enactment that outlines a plan to develop and
operate a joint national training complex capable of supporting
field exercises and experimentation at the operational level of
war across a broad spectrum of adversary capabilities.
The committee notes that the Department of Defense
currently lacks the infrastructure to support joint high-
fidelity field exercises and experiments and is aware that the
National Defense Panel recommended in 1997 that the Department
establish a Joint National Training Complex to fully support
joint transformation initiatives. Accordingly, the committee
believes that the Department must assess the benefits of
establishing a Joint National Training Complex in order to
enhance future joint warfighting.
Section 1016--Repeal of Various Reports Required of the Department of
Defense
This section would repeal a number of reporting
requirements contained in title 10, United States Code, and
annual National Defense Authorization Acts.
Section 1017--Report on the Role of the Department of Defense in
Supporting Homeland Security
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
submit to the congressional defense committees a report by
December 31, 2002, on Department of Defense responsibilities,
missions, and plans for military support of homeland security,
with particular focus on defense against biological agents.
Section 1018--Study of Short-term and Long-term Effects of Nuclear
Earth Penetrator Weapon
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
request a report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS),
which will be submitted to the Congress with the Secretary's
comments as appropriate, on the short- and long-term effects on
a civilian population and/or U.S. military personnel in the
proximity of the target area, as a result of:
(1) The use of an earth-penetrating nuclear weapon,
to include the effects on the target area itself;
(2) The use of an above-ground nuclear detonation to
destroy hard or deeply-buried targets in the target
area;
(3) The use of an advanced conventional weapon to
destroy an adversary's weapons of mass destruction
storage or production facilities in the target area.
Section 1019--Study of Short-term and Long-term Effects of Nuclear-
tipped Ballistic Missile Interceptor
This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to
request a report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS),
which will be submitted to the Congress with the Secretary's
comments as appropriate, on the short- and long-term effects
of:
(1) The use of a nuclear-tipped ballistic missile
interceptor in the outer atmosphere on the civilian population
and U.S. military personnel in proximity to the target area;
(2) A nuclear weapon detonated above a major U.S. city on
the population of that city and on the nation as a whole.
Subtitle C--Other Matters
Section 1021--Sense of Congress on Maintenance of a Reliable, Flexible,
and Robust Strategic Deterrent
This section would express the Sense of Congress regarding
the purposes and need for the United States to maintain a
reliable, flexible and robust strategic deterrent in accordance
with the national defense strategy, the Nuclear Posture Review,
and the global strategic environment.
Section 1022--Time for Transmittal of Annual Defense Authorization
Legislative Proposal
This section would require the Secretary of Defense to
transmit to Congress the annual defense authorization request
for a fiscal year within 30 days of the date the President
transmits to Congress the budget for that fiscal year. In this
section ``defense authorization request'' is defined as a
legislative proposal submitted to Congress for enactment and
includes the authorization of appropriations for that fiscal
year as required by section 114 of title 10, United States
Code, personnel strengths for that fiscal year as required by
section 115 of title 10, United States Code, and any other
matter that is proposed by the Secretary of Defense for
enactment as part of the annual defense authorization bill for
that fiscal year.
Section 1023--Technical and Clerical Amendments
This section would make a number of technical and clerical
amendments to existing law of a non-substantive basis.
Section 1024--War Risk Insurance for Vessels in Support of NATO-
Approved Operations
This section would authorize the Secretary of
Transportation to provide war risk insurance to a commercial
vessel that is supporting a shared logistics military operation
approved by the North Atlantic Council. This section would also
authorize the Secretary of Transportation, with the concurrence
of the Secretary of State, to seek from another nation a
commitment to indemnify the United States for any amounts paid
by the United States for claims against such insurance.
Section 1025--Conveyance, Navy Drydock, Portland, Oregon
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
sell Navy Drydock No. YFD-69, located in Portland, Oregon, to
Portland Shipyard, LLC at an amount equal to the fair market
value at the time of the conveyance, as determined by the
Secretary.
Section 1026--Additional Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support
Teams
This section would express the sense of the Congress that
the Secretary of Defense should establish 23 additional Weapons
of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams, raising the total to
55, and provide at least one team be established in each state
and territory.
TITLE XI--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1101--Eligibility of Department of Defense Nonappropriated Fund
Employees For Long-Term Care Insurance
This section would amend sections 9001 and 9002 of title 5,
United States Code, to permit nonappropriated fund employees of
the Department of Defense to participate in the employee-funded
Federal Long Term Care Insurance program.
Section 1102--Extension of Department of Defense Authority to Make
Lump-Sum Severance Payments
This section would amend section 5595 of title 5, United
States Code, to extend the lump-sum severance payment authority
to employees of the Department of Defense who are involuntarily
separated from September 30, 2003, to September 30, 2006. This
section would also direct that the President report to Congress
within twelve months whether this new authority should be made
permanent or extended to other federal agencies.
Section 1103--Common Occupational and Health Standards for Differential
Payments as a Consequence of Exposure To Asbestos
This section would amend sections 5343 and 5545 of title 5,
United States Code, to establish a common standard for payment
of hazardous duty differential pay for reason of exposure to
asbestos for prevailing rate and general schedule federal
employees.
Section 1104--Continuation of Federal Employee Health Benefits Program
Eligibility
This section would amend section 8905a of title 5, United
States Code, to extend eligibility for health benefits to
Federal employees separated before October 1, 2006, or February
1, 2007, if specific notice of separation is given to the
employee before October 1, 2006.
Section 1105--Triennial Full-Scale Federal Wage System Wage Surveys
This section would amend section 5343 of title 5, United
States Code, to change the full-scale federal wage system wage
survey cycle conducted by the Office of Personnel Management
from two to three years.
TITLE XII--MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1201--Support of United Nations-Sponsored Efforts to Inspect
and Monitor Iraqi Weapons Activities
This section would extend the authority under section 1505
of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Control Act of 1992, section
5859a of title 22, United States Code, for the Department of
Defense to expend up to $15.0 million in fiscal year 2003 in
support of the United Nations efforts to account for Iraqi
weapons of mass destruction items, facilities, and
capabilities.
Section 1202--Strengthening the Defense of Taiwan
This section would strengthen the self-defense capability
of Taiwan and promote regional stability. The Taiwan Relations
Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-8) states that ``the United States
will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense
services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan
to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.'' This law
further stipulates that the President and Congress shall
determine the nature and quantity of such defense articles and
services based solely upon their judgment of the needs of
Taiwan. While the committee is generally satisfied with the
Administration's actual and proposed sales of defense articles
to Taiwan, China's missile buildup and arms acquisitions have
heightened concern about Taiwan's ability to defend itself. The
committee is concerned that if the balance of power in the
Taiwan Strait continues to shift in China's favor, China may be
tempted to seize Taiwan by force.
The United States has stated, through policy and law, that
it desires a peaceful resolution to the differences between
China and Taiwan. In 2000, the Department released a report
that stated, ``As long as Taiwan has a capable defense, the
environment will be more conducive to peaceful dialogue, and
thus the whole region will be more stable.''
Given these reports and assessments, the committee believes
that Taiwan's self-defense capability could be enhanced, and
regional stability promoted, through the conduct of operational
training and exchanges of senior officers between the armed
forces of the United States and the armed forces of Taiwan.
This training would cover a broad range of military matters, to
include improving civil-military relations. The committee
believes that weapons sales alone do not guarantee capability.
Rather, these systems are only as effective as the military
personnel trained to operate, integrate, and employ them.
The committee is confident that the preparation and
implementation of a comprehensive training plan by the
Department, for the conduct of training between the armed
forces of the United States and the armed forces of Taiwan,
will help Taiwan maintain a sufficient self-defense capability,
deter aggression, promote dialogue, and enhance regional
stability.
This section would also require that the Secretary of
Defense submit the joint training and exchange plan, at least
30 days before implementation, to the Congress,specifically the
Committees on Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the
Senate, the Committee on International Relations in the House of
Representatives, and the Committee on Foreign Relations in the Senate.
Section 1203--Administrative Services and Support for Foreign Liaison
Officers
This section would amend Title 10, United States Code, by
making clear that the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries
of the military departments may pay for, or provide without
cost, administrative services and support to foreign liaison
officers performing duties at military facilities in the United
States. Through the Department of Defense Foreign Liaison
Officer Program, military representatives of foreign
governments are temporarily assigned to components or commands
of U.S. armed forces. The administrative services and support
that could be provided under this section include base or
installation operation support services, office space,
utilities, copying services, fire and police protection, and
computer support. This section would not authorize the
Secretary to provide pay and allowances and other similar
benefits for foreign liaison officers. The U.S. government
would also not cover, among other things, the following costs
associated with foreign liaison officers stationed in the
United States: pay and allowances; travel by the officers and
their dependents; movement of the household effects of the
officers or their dependents; preparation and shipment of the
remains and funeral expenses associated with the death of an
officer or the officer's dependents; formal and informal
training of the officers; and expenses in connection with the
return of an officer whose assignment has been terminated or
expired, along with his dependents.
This provision was requested by the Department of Defense.
However, given the committee's concern that this authority
could evolve over time to cover costs and activities that would
be unauthorized under this provision (as outlined above), a
report shall be required before this authority is either
reauthorized or expires on September 30, 2005.
Section 1204--Additional Countries Covered by Loan Guarantee Program
This section would amend section 2540(b) of title 10,
United States Code, to expand the list of countries eligible
under the Defense Export Loan Guarantee Program to include
countries that are determined by the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretary of State, to be important to
the United States' efforts to combat drug trafficking
organizations or foreign terrorist organizations.
The committee continues to believe that the Defense Export
Loan Guarantee Program can serve as an alternative to U.S.
foreign assistance programs, and can support legitimate foreign
defense equipment requirements. However, the committee is
concerned that many nations, such as Colombia, that are
combating drug trafficking organizations or foreign terrorist
organizations do not currently qualify for the Defense Export
Loan Guarantee Program. Therefore, the committee believes that
it is in the interest of the United States to expand the list
of nations eligible to participate in the program.
Section 1205--Limitation on Funding for Joint Data Exchange Center in
Moscow
This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of more than 50 percent of fiscal year 2003 funds for
activities associated with the Joint Data Exchange Center in
Moscow, Russia, until 30 days after the Secretary of Defense
submits to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House
Committee on Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, and the House Committee on International Relations
the agreement required by section 1231 of the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public
Law 106-398) and an agreement exempting the United States from
Russian taxes and liability.
The committee remains concerned by Russia's apparent
unwillingness to move forward with this project by agreeing to
the same kinds of tax and liability exemptions that apply to
other U.S.-Russia cooperative programs. The committee urges the
Department of Defense to reach agreement with Russia on such
exemptions, or risk continued congressional support for this
endeavor.
Section 1206--Limitation on Number of Military Personnel in Colombia
This section would restrict funds available to the
Department of Defense to support or maintain more than 500 U.S.
military personnel in Colombia at any time. The amendment would
provide exemptions from the limitation for military personnel
assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Colombia as an attache, part of
the security assistance office or the Marine Corps security
contingent, participating in natural disaster relief efforts,
involved in non-operational transit through Colombia, engaged
in rescuing or retrieving U.S. military or governmental
personnel, or participating in a ship port call. The provision
would also provide the Secretary of Defense the authority to
waive the military personnel limitation should the Secretary
determine that such a waiver is in the national security
interests of the United States.
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER
SOVIET UNION
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $416.7 million for cooperative
threat reduction (CTR) activities, representing a 3.4 percent
increase from the $403 million appropriated for fiscal year
2002. The request included $239.9 million to dismantle former
Soviet Union (FSU) weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and
associated infrastructure; $94.4 million to consolidate and
secure FSU WMD and related technology and materials; $8.8
million to increase transparency and encourage higher standards
of conduct; $58.9 million to support defense and military
cooperation with the objective of preventing proliferation; and
$14.7 million for other program support, including
administrative and management costs. Finally, from these
program categories, $55.0 million would go toward preventing
the proliferation of biological weapons.
The committee recommends the budget request with
modifications.
The committee has traditionally supported the overriding
goal of the CTR program: to reduce the threat to the United
States posed by the former Soviet Union's residual weapons of
mass destruction and their delivery systems. Nevertheless, in
recent years the committee has raised numerous concerns,
including: the expansion in the program's scope; the
Department's willingness--especially in the absence of prior
congressional consultation--to absorb project costs that
Russia, in particular, has not funded; the difficulty in
determining whether assistance provided is accomplishing
intended objectives; the lack of appropriate access and
transparency agreements; the challenge of ensuring that
assistance provided is not directly or indirectly facilitating
the process of arms modernization; possible duplication and
redundancies in similar projects executed by multiple federal
agencies; fraud, waste, and mismanagement in the program; and
whether CTR activities are more appropriately funded outside
the Department of Defense.
This year, the committee faces a much more daunting
problem. Current law stipulates that United States assistance
for CTR projects may not be provided to any independent state
of the former Soviet Union for any year unless the President
certifies to Congress for that year that the proposed recipient
state is committed to a number of conditions that are in the
national interest of the United States. The President currently
has no authority to waive this certification or any of these
conditions.
These conditions and certification were mandated given the
amount of financial assistance being provided to these
countries, and the obvious need for reciprocal financial and
political commitment by recipient countries to the goals and
objectives of these threat reduction programs. Granting the
President unlimited waiver authority for the annual
certification, or any of the conditions that compose it, would
most certainly weaken the President's ability to insist that
recipient countries fully support, participate in, and share
the fundamental goals of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act
(Public Law 103-160). However, completely suspending these
programs would itself be contrary to U.S. interests in ensuring
the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The Administration informed Congress in early 2002 that the
President cannot certify that Russia is committed to complying
with relevant arms control agreements, specifically the
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC) and the Chemical
Weapons Convention (CWC). The purposes of these conventions are
to prevent the use of these types of weapons of mass
destruction by prohibiting any research, development,
production, or stockpiling of these weapons.
The purpose of the United States CTR programs with the
states of the former Soviet Union is to similarly prevent the
use of weapons of mass destruction, or their acquisition or
theft by third parties, by assisting these countries in
reducing their excess stockpiles, production facilities,
materials, and delivery systems, among other things. By doing
so, presumably the risk of proliferation, theft, and illicit or
accidental use--prevention of which are in the national
security interests of the United States and its allies--would
also be reduced.
If Russia is not committed, let alone not complying with,
its obligations under the BWC and CWC, then its illicit
activities undermine the purpose and goals of the CTR program.
Moreover, noncompliance with its arms control agreements calls
into question Russia's fundamental commitment to
nonproliferation and demilitarization, its credibility and
trustworthiness as a treaty partner, and its strategic
intentions and plans toward the United States and other
nations.
Given that the President has been forthright about Russia's
questionable activities, and has put Moscow on notice regarding
its commitment to comply with all relevant arms control
agreements, the committee is granting the President limited
waiver authority in Section 1308 so as to allow the CTR program
in Russia to continue. This waiver authority, however, is
limited in both duration and scope, and includes appropriate
reporting requirements to ensure that Congress is properly
apprised of the nature and extent of this ongoing matter, and
why it is important to the United States national security to
exercise this waiver authority.
Additionally, the President is required to develop a plan
or policy to promote Russian compliance with its relevant arms
control agreements. Needless to say, failure by Russia to take
immediate action to demonstrate its commitment to the BWC and
CWC risks further restrictions on CTR assistance to Russia.
The committee continues to believe that the focus of the
CTR program should be the elimination of those weapons that
pose the most serious and direct threat to U.S. security--first
and foremost, strategic nuclear weapons and associated
infrastructure. As such, the committee does not fully support
the Administration's budget request for chemical weapons
destruction in Russia, particularly when that country is
failing to meet its obligations under the CWC.
The committee also notes that the CTR program was
originally envisioned as a short-term emergency effort to
reduce the threat posed to the United States by the thousands
of nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles left behind
after the demise of the Soviet Union. However, the original
focus of the CTR program has expanded significantly in scope
since its inception. Now, there is an effort to expand the CTR
program beyond the FSU. The committee does not believe this is
wise given the amount of CTR work still needing to be done in
the FSU, and has therefore placed a prohibition on further
expansion of the CTR program.
The committee believes that the oversight provided by
Congress since the program's inception has served to improve
the overall management of the program and to increase its
effectiveness. As such, the committee remains troubled that the
Departmenthas not complied with the various reporting
requirements mandated by law that are designed to enhance congressional
visibility and oversight of the CTR program. Accordingly, the committee
recommends a provision (sec. 1303) that would prohibit or limit the
obligation or expenditure of all fiscal year 2003 CTR funds until the
necessary reports are submitted.
The committee expects the Department to consider carefully
and fully the concerns the committee has identified with
respect to the CTR program as the Department prepares its
budget and program request for fiscal year 2004.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Arms Elimination Projects in Russia
The budget request contained $70.5 million for strategic
offensive arms elimination projects in Russia, a 47 percent
decrease from the fiscal year 2002 appropriated amount of
$133.4 million. The committee recommends the budget request.
Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention
The budget request contained $55.0 million for biological
weapons proliferation prevention activities in the former
Soviet Union, a 223 percent increase from the fiscal year 2002
appropriated level of $17.0 million. The committee recommends
the budget request.
Although generally supportive of efforts to prevent the
proliferation of biological weapons expertise, the committee
remains concerned over the lack of transparency with respect to
Russia's biological weapons programs, the risk that
collaborative research on defensive biotechnology can be
applied to offensive weapons purposes, the perpetuation of a
knowledge and skills base among Russian scientists that may
increase their attractiveness to foreign states seeking to
develop biological weapons, the difficulty of verifying that
assistance provided is not being diverted to illicit purposes,
and the lack of an exit strategy for this activity.
Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia
The budget request contained $133.6 million for chemical
weapons elimination activities in Russia, which represents a
167 percent increase over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated
level of $50.0 million. The committee does not fully support
this request.
Rather, the committee supports funding this request at
$50.0 million, and making the balance of the DOD request--$83.6
million--also available for strategic offensive arms
elimination in the former Soviet Union and nuclear weapons
transportation and storage security in Russia.
As previously stated, the committee continues to believe
that the focus of the CTR program should be the elimination of
those weapons that pose the most serious and direct threat to
U.S. security: strategic nuclear weapons and associated
infrastructure. As such, the committee does not support a
budget request that proposes to spend $133.6 million on
chemical weapons destruction in Russia, particularly when that
country is failing to live up to its obligations under the
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
As it stands, Russia has failed to meet any of the time and
destruction milestones outlined in the CWC; in fact, Russia is
admittedly years behind schedule and shows little sign of
making progress in complying with the convention. While Russia
may claim economic hardship, and the failure of other
countries--particularly the United States--to help fund the
destruction activities outlined in the CWC, the committee notes
that Russia's obligations under the CWC are Russia's
responsibilities--not others'. Moreover, the Russian government
could meet its obligations under the CWC by freeing up funds
dedicated to the production of SS-27 ballistic missiles, the
development of other offensive arms, and the pursuit of
military modernization initiatives.
Finally, the committee is troubled by the fact that Russia
has yet to meet all of the necessary conditions, particularly
the requirement to provide full and accurate information
regarding its chemical weapons stockpile, before CTR funds can
be expended on the chemical weapons destruction facility
(CWDF). Because Russia has failed to meet these conditions, no
CTR funds have been expended on the destruction facility to
date. Given the totality of facts, the Committee has decided to
flat line this year's budget request for chemical weapons
destruction rather than endorse a 167% increase in funding for
this project. Additionally, continued Russian reluctance to
resolve these issues not only undermines congressional support
for the CTR program, it also jeopardizes continued funding for
the CWDF project in particular.
Defense and Military Contacts
The budget request contained $18.9 million for defense and
military contacts with the states of the former Soviet Union, a
slight increase over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level of
$18.3 million. The committee recommends the budget request.
Last year, the CTR program funded approximately 500 defense and
military contacts with the states of the former Soviet Union.
This year's budget request would also support 500 events.
However, the committee continues to believe that the utility of
these activities is difficult to quantify, yet fully expects
the Department to do so as it plans, implements and evaluates
these activities. As such, the committee has required a
detailed report on this program's activities before more than
50% of fiscal year 2003 CTR funds are obligated or expended.
Fissile Material Storage Facility
The budget request did not contain funding for this
activity. The committee notes that Russia continues not to seek
assistance to build a second wing at the Mayak storage facility
and that sufficient funds remain to complete activity on the
first wing. Accordingly, the committee supports the
Department's action not to seek additional funds for this
activity and recommends a provision (section 1305) that would
continue to prohibit CTR funds from being used for the design,
planning, or construction of a second wing. The committee notes
that Russia has consistently refused to agree to transparency
measures that would allow the United States to verify that the
fissile material stored at thefacility in Mayak, Russia, is
from dismantled nuclear weapons and reiterates its view that the
Department should continue to seek an agreement with Russia on this
issue.
Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia
The budget request contained $39.9 million for nuclear
weapons storage security in Russia, a 27 percent decrease from
the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level of $54.7 million. The
committee recommends the budget request, but reiterates the
need for the Secretary of Defense to seek an agreement with
Russia allowing appropriate U.S. access to nuclear weapons
storage sites for which CTR assistance is provided.
Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security
The budget request contained $19.7 million for nuclear
weapons transportation security in Russia, a 107 percent
increase from the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level of $9.5
million. The committee recommends the budget request. The
committee notes that these costs were previously paid by Russia
and again urges the Department to seek an agreement that would
once again shift the burden of financial responsibility for
this activity back to Russia.
Other Assessments and Administrative Support
The budget request contained $14.7 million for other
program support, including management and administrative costs,
project development, and audits and examinations, an 11 percent
increase over the fiscal year 2002 appropriated level of $13.2
million. The committee recommends the budget request.
The committee notes that a portion of these funds has
traditionally been applied to new initiatives in the concept
development stage. The committee understands that Russia has in
the past proposed various initiatives for CTR consideration,
including initiatives involving conventional weapons or
delivery platforms. The committee believes that the statutory
language of section 1303 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398), which prohibits
the use of CTR funds for conventional elimination purposes,
should be strictly adhered to and that CTR funds should not be
expended on concept development studies designed to assess the
viability of elimination projects specifically prohibited under
the statutory prohibition.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Infrastructure Elimination in Kazakhstan
The budget request contained $9.0 million for weapons of
mass destruction infrastructure elimination activities in
Kazakhstan, a 50 percent increase over the fiscal year 2002
appropriated level of $6.0 million. This would include funding
for activities related to the prevention of fissile and
radioactive material proliferation, and the elimination of
facilities used to support the deployment and operation of
weapons of mass destruction, including infrastructure at former
bomber bases. The committee recommends the budget request.
Weapons of Mass Destruction Infrastructure Elimination in Ukraine
The budget request contained $8.8 million for weapons of
mass destruction infrastructure elimination activities in
Ukraine, a 47 percent increase over the fiscal year 2002
appropriated level of $6.0 million. This would include funding
for activities related to the elimination of facilities used to
support the deployment and operation of weapons of mass
destruction, including facilities for storage and maintenance
of nuclear weapons. The committee recommends the budget
request.
Russian Proliferation to Iran
The committee is deeply concerned about continued Russian
proliferation to Iran, and the clear threat that this dangerous
activity presents to the national security and vital interests
of the United States. Needless to say, Russian proliferation to
Iran, and to other countries, conflicts with the purpose and
goals of the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, and
could undermine continued congressional support for threat
reduction efforts in Russia.
According to the U.S. intelligence community, Russian
proliferation to Iran consists primarily of nuclear and missile
technology, goods, and know-how, and dual-use items that could
contribute to the development of weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) and ballistic missiles. This proliferation also includes
other WMD technologies and advanced conventional weapons; and
Russian entities are also transferring similar items to other
countries, including China, Libya, and Syria.
As a result of Russian assistance, the intelligence
community estimates that Iran could attempt to launch an
intercontinental ballistic missile by 2005, and could possess a
nuclear weapon by 2010. Combined, these capabilities would
create a new strategic threat to the United States, and an
immediate threat to American forces, interests, allies and
friends in the region.
Unclassified intelligence reports indicate that Russian
proliferation to Iran takes place either covertly, under the
guise of peaceful cooperation, or through academic and
scientific exchanges that take place in both Russia and Iran.
In either case, this matter has been raised by United States
officials at the highest levels of the Russian government. Yet,
despite U.S. efforts, this activity continues with either the
knowledge or acquiescence of senior Russian officials, who
support these illicit transfers or are tolerating them for
strategic or financial reasons.
To make matters worse, Iran has a longstanding history of
providing safe harbor, money, arms and assistance to foreign
terrorist organizations. As a result, Iran has been rightly
designated a ``state sponsor of terrorism'' by the United
States. The most dangerous aspect of Russian proliferation to
Iran, therefore, is that weapons of mass destruction
technologies or materials might be passed onto foreign
terrorist organizations supported by Teheran. It goes without
saying that the combination of foreign terrorists organizations
and weapons of mass destruction would constitute a grave threat
to the national security of the United States, since an attack
of this nature would be extremely difficult to prevent, deter,
or defend against.
Therefore, it would be fair to state that the ongoing
proliferation of WMD technologies, materials, and know-how from
Russia to Iran represents a greater, broader,and more likely
threat to the national security and vital interests of the United
States than the potential proliferation of these same items from
Russia.
Russian proliferation to Iran and other countries raises
serious questions about Moscow's intentions, commitment to
nonproliferation, and desire for improved U.S.-Russian
relations. Thus, the President must make nonproliferation a top
priority when dealing with Moscow, and must demonstrate United
States resolve and commitment to nonproliferation through
clear, firm and coherent policies and strategies that employ
the full-range of diplomatic and economic tools at his
disposal, both positive and negative, to eliminate this
dangerous activity once and for always.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1301--Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs
and Funds
This section would specify the kinds of programs to be
funded under this title and would make fiscal year 2003
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) funds available for
obligation for three years.
Section 1302--Funding Allocations
This section would allocate fiscal year 2003 funding for
various CTR purposes and activities.
Section 1303--Prohibition Against Use of Funds Until Submission of
Reports
This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of fiscal year 2003 CTR funds until 30 days after the annual
report required by section 1308 of the Floyd D. Spence National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-
398), and the update for the multi-year plan required to be
submitted for fiscal year 2001, are submitted.
Section 1304--Report on Use of Revenue Generated by Activities Carried
Out Under Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs
This section would place a new reporting requirement, as
practicable, in the annual report required by section 1308 of
the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398) regarding use of the
revenue generated by CTR activities in the states of the former
Soviet Union.
Section 1305--Prohibition Against Use of Funds for Second Wing of
Fissile Material Storage Facility
This section would prohibit the use of CTR funds for the
design, planning, or construction of a second wing for the
fissile material storage facility in Mayak, Russia.
Section 1306--Sense of Congress and Report Requirement Regarding
Russian Proliferation to Iran
This section would express the Sense of Congress regarding
continued Russian proliferation of goods, technology, and know-
how that directly or indirectly contribute to Iran's
development of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic
missiles, and the threat that this illicit activity could pose
to United States national security and vital interests.
This section would also require the President to report to
the Senate Committee on Armed Services, the House Committee on
Armed Services, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and
the House Committee on International Relations regarding the
scope, nature, and extent of Russian proliferation to Iran, and
to other countries of concern; the impact this activity could
have on the United States and its national security interests;
and the plan, policy, or strategy that the President intends to
pursue to halt Russian proliferation.
Section 1307--Prohibition Against Use of Cooperative Threat Reduction
Funds Outside the States of the Former Soviet Union
This section would prohibit expanding the CTR program to
states outside of the former Soviet Union.
Section 1308--Limited Waiver of Restriction on Use of Funds
This section would provide limited authority for the
President to waive the certification requirement of paragraph
(d)(5), section 5952 of title 22, United Stated Code--which
states that Russia is committed to complying with all relevant
arms control agreements--for national security purposes.
This waiver authority is limited in both duration and
scope. It includes appropriate reporting requirements to ensure
that Congress is properly apprised of the nature and extent of
Russia's lack of commitment to all relevant arms control
agreements, why it is important to the United States national
security to exercise this waiver authority and continue CTR
activities with Russia, and the President's plan or policy to
promote Russian compliance with its relevant arms control
agreements.
The committee notes that while it may be in the national
security interest of the United States to continue CTR programs
in Russia, it is even more important to the nation's security
that Russia comply with all relevant arms control agreements,
particularly those involving weapons of mass destruction.
Section 1309--Limitation on Use of Funds Until Submission of Report on
Defense and Military Contacts Activities
This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure
of more than 50% of fiscal year 2003 CTR funds for ``Defense
and Military Activities'' until the Secretary of Defense
submits a report to Congress detailing the activities,
operation, and performance of the previous year's events under
this program.
TITLE XIV--UTAH TEST AND TRAINING RANGE
OVERVIEW
The Utah Test and Training Range is used for operational
training, testing of new systems, and missile motor storage,
testing and destruction. The range provides the largest
overland safety footprint available in the Department for
aircrew training and weapons testing. The continued operation
of the Utah Test and Training Range is vital for meeting test
and training requirements for the Air Force, allied forces,
other national agencies, civilian industry and civilian
academic institutions.
In order to fulfill its mission, the Air Force must
maintain overflight capability, including low-altitude
overflight, by manned and unmanned aircraft and vehicles as
well as the ability to undertake supersonic events. The Air
Force must protect established rights-of-way to existing ground
instrumentation and communications gear, and the capability to
upgrade or add additional equipment as necessary. The Air Force
also requires emergency access to certain areas and the ability
to control or restrict public access.
In 1990, the Bureau of Land Management recommended that
approximately 1.9 million acres in Utah be designated as
wilderness, including approximately 200,000 acres within the
Utah Test and Training Range. The Wilderness Act of 1964, P.L.
88-577, defines wilderness as lands upon which ``the imprint of
man's work [is] substantially unnoticeable'' such that the
lands provide ``outstanding opportunities for solitude.'' In
recent years, the Department's readiness capabilities have been
encroached by threatened litigation wherein parties have
asserted that military training activities conducted at or near
proposed wilderness areas nationwide are unlawful in instances
where the activities interfere with a solitude wilderness
experience.
Continued unrestricted access to the special use airspace
and lands that comprise the Utah Test and Training Range is a
national security priority that is compatible with the
protection and proper management of the natural, environmental,
cultural and other resources of these lands. This provision
would not amend the Wilderness Act, which is silent on the
issue of military activities above wilderness areas.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 1401-Definition of Utah Test and Training Range
This section would define the ``Utah Test and Training
Range'' as those portions of the military operating area of the
Utah Test and Training Area located solely in the State of
Utah, including the Dugway Proving Ground.
Section 1402--Military Operations and Overflights at Utah Test and
Training Range
This section would specify that the Wilderness Act would
not restrict the ability of the military to conduct overflights
or designate new training routes on the Utah Test and Training
Range. The section would specify that the Wilderness Act would
not require the removal of existing communication,
instrumentation or electronic tracking systems, and would
permit maintenance of or installation of any such equipment in
the future. This section would also instruct the Secretary of
the Air Force and the Secretary of Interior to enter into a
Memorandum of Understanding to determine procedures and
guidelines regarding emergency access, the restriction of
public access for safety and security reasons and the temporary
placement of communications equipment for training and testing
of military activities.
Section 1403--Designation and Management of Lands in Utah Test and
Training Range
This section would specify the Federal lands located in the
Utah Test and Training Range that will be designated as
wilderness. All areas designated as wilderness would be
administered by the Secretary of the Interior subject to the
conditions specified in the provision.
Section 1404--Designation of Pilot Range Wilderness
This section would designate specified Federal lands in Box
Elder County, Utah, as wilderness known as the Pilot Range
Wilderness Area.
Section 1405--Designation of Cedar Mountain Wilderness
This section would designate specified Federal lands in
Tooele County, Utah, as wilderness known as the Cedar Mountain
Wilderness Area.
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
PURPOSE
The purpose of Division B is to provide military
construction authorizations and related authority in support of
the military departments during fiscal year 2003. As approved
by the committee, Division B would authorize appropriations in
the amount of $9,953,476,000 for construction in support of the
active forces, reserve components, defense agencies, and the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) security
infrastructure fund for fiscal year 2003.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW
The Department of Defense requested $4,713,916,000 for
military construction and $4,220,133,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2003. Within the military construction request,
$545,138,000 was requested for implementation of base closure
and realignment actions. The committee recommends authorization
of $5,702,368,000 for military construction, including
$545,138,000 for base closure implementation, and
$4,251,108,000 for family housing.
Although the last two military construction budgets will be
the highest in several years, the committee remains concerned
about the state of our military installations and facilities.
Despite these two relatively robust budgets, the situation at
installation after installation remains grim, with little hope
for the future without a serious commitment to the
modernization of the Department's infrastructure. Even the
improved funding for sustainment, modernization and restoration
does not provide enough resources to keep the condition of
these facilities from falling further behind.
The budget request would have funded little more than
beddown of new missions and some quality of life projects.
While important, these projects do nothing to improve the
situation for long neglected current mission requirements,
which continue to suffer. To address some of this shortfall,
the committee recommends an increase in new budget authority of
$1,019,427,000, and carefully reviewed the projects contained
in the budget request. While the committee approved all but a
few of the requested projects, the committee withheld approval
of seemingly redundant projects overseas and withheld judgment
on the value of additional North Atlantic Treaty Organization
headquarters.
The committee is pleased that three of the four military
services expect to have all military families living in
adequate family housing by 2007 through the housing
privatization program. The committee has recommended further
enhancements to this program in the effort to hasten the day
when all military families will live in decent homes.
A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in
Division B for fiscal year 2003 follows:
TITLE XXI--ARMY
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $1,476,521,000 for Army
military construction and $1,405,620,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,521,433,000 for military construction and $1,400,700,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2003.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Planning and Design
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete
planning and design activities for the following project:
$1,600,000 for a railhead at Baumholder, Germany.
Unspecified Minor Construction
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army
execute the following project: $1,050,000 for sewage plant
environmental compliance upgrades at White Sands Missile Range,
New Mexico.
Water Tanks, Fort Bliss, Texas
The committee authorizes $10,200,000 for phase two of a
project to replace elevated water tanks at Fort Bliss, Texas,
and recommends authorization of appropriation of $5,200,000.
The committee notes that sufficient authorization of
appropriations to complete phase two of this project was
provided by section 2101 of the Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B of Public
Law 107-107).
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2101--Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section contains the list of authorized Army
construction projects for fiscal year 2003. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2102--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year
2003.
Section 2103--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2003.
Section 2104--Authorization of Appropriations, Army
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item contained in the Army's budget for fiscal year
2003. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount
the Army may spend on military construction projects.
Section 2105--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2002 Projects
This section would amend the table in section 2101 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
(division B of Public Law 107-107) to provide for an increase
in the amounts authorized for military construction at Fort
Carson, Colorado, and Fort Jackson, South Carolina.
TITLE XXII--NAVY
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $895,131,000 for Navy military
construction and $1,243,488,000 for family housing for fiscal
year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of
$1,245,585,000 for military construction and $1,245,404,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2003.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System Land Based Test Site
The committee commends the Secretary of the Navy for
including planning and design funding in the budget request for
the Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) Land Based
Test Site at Lakehurst Naval Air Engineering Station, New
Jersey. The committee believes this project is a critical
component of the CVN-X program and understands that the
Secretary of the Navy intends to request full funding for the
project in fiscal year 2004. The committee endorses the
secretary's plan to fund this project in fiscal year 2004.
North Chicago Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center And Naval
Hospital, Great Lakes, Illinois
The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to consult
with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and provide a report of
the plan required by the House of Representatives report on
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Report
107-333) to jointly make maximum use of the North Chicago
Veterans Affairs Medical Center. The report should be
transmitted to the committee by January 30, 2003.
The committee believes that efficiencies are possible if
the Department of the Navy and the Department of Veterans'
Affairs share a single, modern facility. The committee
recognizes the many bureaucratic impediments to such a
proposal, among them the reality that construction of medical
facilities for the military departments is managed and budgeted
by the Department of Defense (DOD). With the understanding that
the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
agree on the design of a new joint facility that will be no
more costly to each department than respective single use
facilities, the committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy
to submit a request to fund the DOD portion of a joint facility
to the Secretary of Defense for consideration in the fiscal
year 2004 or future medical construction budget requests.
The committee believes that any joint venture undertaken at
Great Lakes Naval Hospital and the North Chicago Veterans
Affairs Medical Center should meet jointly identified needs in
a cost effective manner, be mutually beneficial to the
beneficiaries of both departments, and incorporate the best
business practices and lessons learned from previous joint
ventures. To this end, the Secretary of the Navy, in
coordination with the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs shall consult on further development of
compatible budget, reimbursement and accounting systems,
andcompatible information technology goals. The consultation shall seek
to identify restrictive regulations, policies and regulatory
redundancies that inhibit resource sharing, and provide milestone dates
to address each identified issue.
Planning and Design
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Navy complete
planning and design activities for the following projects:
$1,100,000 for a child development center at North Island Naval
Air Station, California and $180,000 for a fire station at
Whidbey Island Naval Air Station, Washington.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2201--Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section contains the list of authorized Navy
construction projects for fiscal year 2003. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2202--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year
2003.
Section 2203--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2003.
Section 2204--Authorization of Appropriations, Navy
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Navy's budget for fiscal year 2003. This
section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Navy
may spend on military construction projects.
Section 2205--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2002 Project
This section would amend the table in section 2201 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002
(division B of Public Law 107-107) to provide for an increase
in the amounts authorized for military construction at Naval
Station Norfolk, Virginia.
TITLE XXIII--AIR FORCE
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $644,090,000 for Air Force
military construction and $1,521,113,000 for family housing for
fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends authorization of
$929,721,000 for military construction and $1,555,092,000 for
family housing for fiscal year 2003.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
C-17 Assault Strips
The committee endorses the decision by the Secretary of the
Air Force to base C-17 aircraft at March Air Reserve Base,
California, and Travis Air Force Base, California. The
committee notes that fully trained C-17 crews must practice
combat landings at assault strips located at air bases near
their home station. The committee has learned that a facility
at Bicycle Lake, Fort Irwin, California, may be able to serve
as an assault strip for March Air Reserve Base and Travis Air
Force Base crews with some minor improvements. The committee
urges the Secretary of the Air Force and the Secretary of the
Army to consider upgrading the facility at Fort Irwin for use
as an assault strip and urges the Secretary of the Air Force to
construct assault strips at locations at appropriate distances
from other bases where C-17 aircraft are stationed.
Planning and Design
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force
complete planning and design activities for the following
projects: $675,000 for an air traffic control tower at Dover
Air Force Base, Delaware, $2,160,000 for the 1st Air Force
operations support center at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida,
and $2,430,000 for corrosion control paint facility at Robins
Air Force Base, Georgia.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2301--Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section contains the list of authorized Air Force
construction projects for fiscal year 2003. The authorized
amounts are listed on an installation-by-installation basis.
The state list contained in this report is intended to be the
binding list of the specific projects authorized at each
location.
Section 2302--Family Housing
This section would authorize new construction and planning
and design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal
year 2003.
Section 2303--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2003.
Section 2304--Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Air Force's budget for fiscal year 2003.
This section also would provide an overall limit on the amount
the Air Force may spend on military construction projects.
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $687,535,000 for defense
agencies military construction and $47,912,000 for family
housing for fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends
authorization of $779,896,000 for military construction and
$47,912,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2003.
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Planning and Design
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for planning and design, the Secretary of Defense complete
planning and design activities for the following project:
$1,300,000 for the fifth building of the Uniformed Services
University of Health Sciences at Bethesda, Maryland.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2401--Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section contains the list of authorized defense
agencies construction projects for fiscal year 2003. The
authorized amounts are listed on an installation-by-
installation basis. The state list contained in this report is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
Section 2402--Improvements to Military Family Housing Units
This section would authorize improvements to existing units
of family housing for fiscal year 2003.
Section 2403--Energy Conservation Projects
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
carry out energy conservation projects.
Section 2404--Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies
This section would authorize specific appropriations for
each line item in the Defense Agencies' budget for fiscal year
2003. This section also would provide an overall limit on the
amount the defense agencies may spend on military construction
projects.
Section 2405--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 2000 Project
This section would amend the table in section 2401 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000
(division B of Public Law 106-65) to provide for an increase in
the amounts authorized for military construction at Blue Grass
Army Depot, Kentucky.
Section 2406--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 1999 Project
This section would amend the table in section 2401 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999
(division B of Public Law 105-261) to provide for an increase
in the amounts authorized for military construction at Newport
Army Depot, Indiana.
Section 2407--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal
Year 1997 Project
This section would amend the table in section 2401 of the
Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
(division B of Public Law 104-201) to provide for an increase
in the amounts authorized for military construction at Pueblo
Chemical Activity, Colorado.
TITLE XXV--NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $168,200,000 for the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) infrastructure fund (NATO
Security Investment Program) for fiscal year 2003. The
committee recommends $168,200,000.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2501--Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition
Projects
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
make contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
security investment program in an amount equal to the sum of
the amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this bill
and the amount of recoupment due to the United States for
construction previously financed by the United States.
Section 2502--Authorization of Appropriations, NATO
This section would authorize appropriations of $168,200,000
as the U.S. contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization security investment program.
TITLE XXVI--GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES
SUMMARY
The budget request contained $297,301,000 for military
construction of guard and reserve facilities for fiscal year
2003. The committee recommends authorization for fiscal year
2003 of $512,395,000 to be distributed as follows:
Army National Guard..................................... $ 170,793,000
Air National Guard...................................... 119,266,000
Army Reserve............................................ 86,789,000
Naval and Marine Corps Reserve.......................... 66,971,000
Air Force Reserve....................................... 68,576,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 512,395,000
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Dual Use Reserve Facilities
The committee understands that select Marine Reserve units
are developing innovative programs with local educational
institutions that may result in greater synergy between the
military and civilian community at the local level. The
committee is aware that these initiatives may involve
efficiencies in the form of dual use of some facilities. The
committee is interested in this initiative and directs the
Secretary of the Navy to report to the Senate Committee on
Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by
March 1, 2003, on the value of this program.
Joint Army Reserve and National Guard Reserve Center
The committee believes that the reserve components should
construct joint facilities wherever possible. The committee
understands that both the Army National Guard and Army Reserve
have inadequate facilities in Scranton, Pennsylvania. The
committee urges the Secretary of the Army to consider
establishing a joint Army Reserve and Army National Guard
center in the Scranton, Pennsylvania area to properly support
the reserve components in northeast Pennsylvania. The committee
is also aware that the Army National Guard and Army Reserve are
considering such a joint project in the Moreno Valley,
California, area, and urges the Secretary of the Army to
complete this needed joint facility as soon as possible.
Planning and Design, Air National Guard
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force
complete planning and design activities for the following
projects: $1,650,000 for a fire crash rescue station and
control tower at Otis Air National Guard Base, Massachusetts,
$1,110,000 for an aircraft maintenance complex at Duluth
International Airport, Minnesota, and $347,000 for phase two of
an aircraft maintenance complex in Nashville, Tennessee.
Planning and Design, Army National Guard
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete
planning and design activities for the following projects:
$990,000 for an armed forces reserve center in Haleyville,
Alabama, $1,126,000 for an aviation transformation readiness
center at Windsor Locks, Connecticut, $1,580,000 for an
aviation support facility at Fort Stewart, Georgia, $659,000
for a readiness center in Methuen, Massachusetts, $2,014,000
for an aviation support facility at North Kingstown, Rhode
Island, and $856,000 for an information operations armory at
Camp Murray, Washington.
Unspecified Minor Construction
The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts
for unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army
execute the following project: $586,000 for readiness center
utilities upgrades at Worcester, Massachusetts.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2601--Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land
Acquisition Projects
This section would authorize appropriations for military
construction for the guard and reserve by service component for
fiscal year 2003. The state list contained in this report is
intended to be the binding list of the specific projects
authorized at each location.
TITLE XXVII--EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 2701--Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to Be
Specified by Law
This section would provide that authorizations for military
construction projects, repair of real property, land
acquisition, family housing projects and facilities,
contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
infrastructure program, and guard and reserve projects will
expire on October 1, 2005 or the date of enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2006, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to
authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated
before October 1, 2005 or the date of enactment of an act
authorizing funds for these projects, whichever is later.
Section 2702--Extensions of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2000
Projects
This section would provide for selected extension of
certain fiscal year 2000 military construction authorizations
until October 1, 2003, or the date of the enactment of an act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2004, whichever is later.
Section 2703--Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1999
Projects
This section would provide for selected extension of
certain fiscal year 1999 military construction authorizations
until October 1, 2003, or the date of the enactment of the act
authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year
2004, whichever is later.
Section 2704--Effective Date
This section would provide that Titles XXI, XXII, XXIII,
XXIV, XXV, and XXVI of this bill shall take effect on October
1, 2002, or the date of the enactment of this act, whichever is
later.
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Impact of Privatized Housing on Local School Systems
The committee commends the Secretary of Defense's
initiative to eliminate substandard military family housing by
2007 by aggressive use of housing privatization authorities.
The committee believes that such initiatives, while worthy,
should carefully consider the impact on all local support
facilities, especially local school systems. It is particularly
challenging for Department of Defense Education Activity
Schools to respond effectively to sudden shifts in student
population, since these schools must accommodate all students
on a given installation, and since new school construction must
be approved in the Department's military construction budget
request. Local education activities feel the effects as well,
and have little chance to react as federal impact payments are
slow to adjust. The committee notes that service secretaries
are authorized to include new school facilities in privatized
housing contracts, and is concerned that this authority has not
been used to its fullest advantage. In order to understand how
the Department is addressing this issue both at installations
with and without Department of Defense schools, the committee
directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Senate
Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed
Services by March 1, 2003, the impact of privatized housing on
local and any Department of Defense schools at Fort Bragg,
North Carolina, Fort Hood, Texas, and Lackland Air Force Base,
Texas, together with the measures taken to ameliorate those
impacts.
Integrated Water Management System on Guam
The committee recognizes the need for efficient management,
utilization and conservation of water resources for the
civilian and military communities on Guam. For some years, the
committee has encouraged the military services to privatize
utility systems where possible. In that regard, the committee
encourages the Department of Defense to work collaboratively
with the Government of Guam for a comprehensive and integrated
water supply system and wastewater system on the island. To
achieve this goal, the committee urges the exploration of a
public-private partnership to manage the distribution and
supply of potable water on a more efficient basis in Guam.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing
Changes
Section 2801--Changes to Alternative Authority for Acquisition and
Improvement of Military Housing
This section would amend several provisions of subchapter
IV of chapter 169, title 10, United States Code, to provide the
secretaries of the military departments with additional
flexibility in the management of family and unaccompanied
housing underalternate authorities. This section would amend
section 2872a of title 10, United States Code, to add police and fire
protection services to the services that may be provided by a service
secretary under these authorities; would amend section 2874 of title
10, United States Code, to permit service secretaries to lease existing
housing and incorporate such housing into contracts negotiated under
these authorities; would repeal section 2879 of title 10, United States
Code; would amend section 2880 of title 10, United States Code, to
remove restrictions on space limitations by grade for unaccompanied
housing provided under these authorities on a military installation;
and would amend section 2883 of title 10, United States Code, to
consolidate the existing separate family housing and unaccompanied
housing improvement funds into a single fund.
Section 2802--Modification of Authority to Carry Out Construction
Projects as Part of Environmental Response Action
This section would amend section 2810 of title 10, United
States Code, to clarify that the secretaries of the military
departments are required to notify Congress of their intent
carry out military construction projects not otherwise
authorized by law necessary to carry out an environmental
response action when the cost of that project exceeds the minor
construction threshold.
Section 2803--Leasing of Military Family Housing in Korea
This section would amend section 2828 of title 10, United
States Code, to authorize the Secretary of the Army to lease in
Korea no more than 2,400 units of family housing for a maximum
lease amount of $35,000 per year and no more than 1,175 units
of family housing for a maximum of $25,000 per year.
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
Section 2811--Agreements with Private Entities to Limit Encroachments
and Other Constraints on Military Training, Testing, and Operations
This section would authorize the secretary of a military
department to enter into an agreement with a private
organization whose principal purpose is the conservation of
natural resources to acquire an interest in land near military
installations for the purpose of preserving natural habitat and
limiting commercial development near military installations.
The committee believes that judicious use of this initiative
will help to preserve the last refuge habitat of some
endangered species and will reduce the risk of urban
encroachment impacting training at military installations.
Section 2812--Conveyance of Surplus Real Property for Natural Resource
Conservation Purposes
This section would authorize the secretary of a military
department to convey surplus real property under the
administrative control of the secretary to an entity of state
or local government or a nonprofit conservation organization
for the purpose of maintaining the property for the
conservation of natural resources in perpetuity.
Section 2813--National Emergency Exemption From Screening and Other
Requirements of McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act for Property
Used in Support of Response Activities
This section would amend section 11411 of title 42, United
States Code, to provide an exception to the requirement to
screen excess or surplus property for various other uses when
the property may be needed by federal, state, or local agencies
to support emergency efforts in times of war, national
emergency, or the occurrence of a major disaster.
Section 2814--Demonstration Program on Reduction in Long-Term Facility
Maintenance Costs
This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to
conduct a demonstration program to assess whether the inclusion
of facility maintenance requirements in military construction
contracts may reduce the long-term facility maintenance costs
of the military departments. This program is limited to 12
contracts, but is in addition to similar authority provided to
the Secretary of the Army by section 2814 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B
of Public Law 107-107).
Section 2815--Expanded Authority to Transfer Property at Military
Installations to Be Closed to Persons Who Construct or Provide Military
Family Housing
This section would amend section 204 of the Defense
Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act
(Public Law 100-526) and section 2905 of the Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510) to
provide greater flexibility to the secretary of a military
department to exchange property at a closed military
installation for needed military family housing.
Subtitle C--Land Conveyances
Part I--Army Conveyances
Section 2821--Land Conveyances, Lands in Alaska No Longer Required for
National Guard Purposes
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey to the State of Alaska, a local government entity, or
Indian tribe in the State of Alaska certain parcels of real
estate in the National Wildlife Refuge System in Alaska that
are excess to the needs of the Alaska National Guard.
Section 2822--Land Conveyance, Fort Campbell, Kentucky
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property at
Fort Campbell, Kentucky, consisting of approximately 50 acres
containing an abandoned railroad spur, to the city of
Hopkinsville, Kentucky. The property is to be used by the city
for storm water management, recreation, and other public
purposes. The cost of any surveys necessary for the conveyance
shall be borne by the city.
Section 2823--Land Conveyance, Army Reserve Training Center, Buffalo,
Minnesota
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property, with
improvements, to the Buffalo Independent School District 877 of
Buffalo, Minnesota. The property is to be used by the school
district as a learning center. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance shall be borne by the school
district.
Section 2824--Land Conveyance, Fort Bliss, Texas
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property at
Fort Bliss, Texas, consisting of approximately 44 acres with
and without improvements to the State of Texas. The property is
to be used by the State for the construction of a veterans'
nursing home. The cost of any surveys necessary for the
conveyance shall be borne by the State.
Section 2825--Land Conveyance, Fort Hood, Texas
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to
convey, without consideration a parcel of real estate at Fort
Hood, Texas, consisting of approximately 174 acres with and
without improvements, to the Veterans Land Board of the State
of Texas. The property is to be used by the State to establish
a State run veterans' cemetery. The cost of any surveys
necessary for the conveyance shall be borne by the board.
Part II--Navy Conveyances
Section 2831--Land Conveyance, Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, San
Diego, California
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
convey a parcel of real property at Marine Corps Air Station
Miramar, San Diego, California, to ENPEX Corporation for
consideration. The section would require that the corporation
construct family housing in the San Diego area and convey such
housing and underlying real estate to the Secretary of the Navy
as consideration for the parcel to be conveyed by the
secretary. The section would also require that the value of the
housing and real estate to be acquired by the secretary be of
at least equal value to real estate being conveyed, and would
restrict the use of the land conveyed by the secretary to the
generation of electric power.
Section 2832--Boundary Adjustments, Marine Corps Base, Quantico, and
Prince William Forest Park, Virginia
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of the Navy to adjust the boundaries of
Marine Corps Base, Quantico, Virginia, and Prince William
Forest Park, Virginia. The boundary adjustment will require the
Secretary of the Navy to transfer approximately 352 acres of
land to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the
Interior, and will require the Secretary of the Interior to
transfer approximately 3,400 acres of land to the
administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Navy.
Part III--Air Force Conveyances
Section 2841--Land Conveyance, Wendover Air Force Base Auxiliary Field,
Nevada
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of the Air Force to convey certain parcels of
real property at Wendover Air Force Base Auxiliary Field,
Nevada, to the City of West Wendover, Nevada, and Tooele
County, Utah, without consideration, for the purpose of
establishing a runway protection zone and the development of an
industrial park.
Subtitle D--Other Matters
Section 2861--Easement for Construction of Roads or Highways, Marine
Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California
This section would amend section 2867 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B
of Public Law 107-107) to clarify that any state law that would
restrict the construction of the proposed road through Camp
Pendleton, California, has no effect on the authority of the
Secretary of the Navy to grant the easement or on the
Transportation Corridor Agency to construct and operate the
road.
Section 2862--Sale of Excess Treated Water and Wastewater Treatment
Capacity, Marine Corps Base, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
This section would permit the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into an agreement that would allow Camp Lejeune, North
Carolina, to provide treated water and wastewater treatment
services to Onslow County, North Carolina, if the secretary
determines that such an agreement is in the public interest and
will not interfere with current or future utility needs at Camp
Lejeune. The section would also require the county to reimburse
the Navy for the fair market value of the services provided and
specify that any amounts paid would be credited to the base
operations and maintenance accounts of Camp Lejeune.
Section 2863--Ratification of Agreement Regarding Adak Naval Complex,
Alaska, and Related Land Conveyances
This section would ratify an agreement made by the
Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Navy, and the
Aleut Corporation in September 2000 concerning the reuse of the
Adak Naval Complex, Alaska, and other related land conveyances.
The agreement would provide that real estate on Adak Island
withdrawn for use by the Secretary of the Navy may be
transferred to the Aleut Corporation without regard to the
requirements of section 1621 of title 42, United States Code,
pertaining to lands in the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife
Refuge. In return, the Aleut Corporation would agree to
transfer to the Secretary of the Interior at least 36,000 acres
of land suitable for inclusion in the Alaska Maritime National
Wildlife Refuge. The committee believes that this agreement
promotes the public interest by equitably preserving wildlife
habitat and allowing the Secretary of the Navy to divest of
unneeded real property.
Section 2864--Special Requirements for Adding Military Installations to
Closure List
This section would amend section 3003 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division B
of Public Law 107-107) to require that the base closure
commission vote unanimously to add an installation to the list
of bases being considered for closure and that at least two
commissioners must visit any base ultimately recommended for
closure.
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
OVERVIEW
The budget request contained $15,434.0 million for the
national security activities of the Department of Energy for
fiscal year 2003. Of this amount, $8,038.7 million is for the
programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration and
$7,395.2 million is for environmental and other defense
activities. The committee recommends $15,400.9 million, the
amount requested less $33.1 million for retirement accrual,
representing an increase of $1,324.2 million from the amount
authorized for fiscal year 2002. The following table summarizes
the budget request and the committee recommendations.
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Full Funding for Retiree Costs in the Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Request
The Administration proposed legislation to require
agencies, beginning in fiscal year 2003, to pay the full
government share of the accruing cost of retirement for current
Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) employees and to pay the
full accruing cost of postretirement health benefits for
current civilian employees who are enrolled in the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB). At the present time,
agencies pay about half of the employer's share for accruing
benefits, and the remainder is covered by a mandatory general
fund payment. The Administration's proposed change would
require specific legislation to move the full government share
to each agency's budget.
The committee understands that the appropriate committee
with jurisdiction to initiate this change has declined to
consider the required legislation and, therefore, recommends
continuing the current practice of funding these benefits. The
fiscal year 2003 budget request for the atomic energy defense
activities of the Department of Energy (DOE) includes $33.1
million to fund this proposed change in the CSRS and the FEHB
program. The following represents the total budget request for
funding for CSRS and FEHB that has not been included in the
committee's recommendation for the atomic energy defense
activities of the Department of Energy:
Program
National Nuclear Security Administration:dollars]
Weapons Activities--Secure Transportation Asset program
direction............................................... 2,379
Naval Reactors--program direction......................... 1,230
Office of the Administrator............................... 11,776
Environmental Management: Defense Environmental Restoration
and Waste Management--program direction................... 14,227
Other Defense Activities:
Office of Security--program direction..................... 1,703
Intelligence.............................................. 313
Counterintelligence....................................... 128
Independent oversight and performance assurance............... 185
Environmental, Safety and Health--program direction........... 869
Worker and community transition--program direction............ 91
Office of Hearings and Appeals................................ 203
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................. 33,104
National Nuclear Security Administration
Overview
The budget request contained $8,038.7 million for the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) for fiscal year
2003. The committee recommends $8,034.3 million, representing
an increase of $913.3 million from the amount authorized for
fiscal year 2002.
Items of Special Interest
Adjustments to the budget request
The committee recommends $8,034.3 million for the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), including reductions
for retirement accrual, and makes adjustments to individual
programs.
The budget request contained a record $5,869.4 million for
Weapons Activities, including $1,234.5 million for directed
stockpile work. The committee remains concerned that NNSA
nuclear weapon life extension program goals are not properly
matched to Department of Defense needs, as evidenced by life
extension and modernization activities for the weapon systems,
and the delivery vehicles designed to carry those warheads and
bombs.
The budget request contained a record $1,113.6 million for
Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation programs. The committee
remains concerned that, as evidenced by a pattern of high
unobligated balances, many international cooperative programs
have been funded at a rate in excess of what the programs can
effectively absorb.
Reductions
The budget request contained $14.6 million for
international nuclear safety programs. The committee recommends
$11.6 million, a reduction of $3.0 million. The committee
cautions that other federal and international entities already
have nuclear safety as a primary mission.
The budget request contained $49.3 million for the
elimination of weapons-grade plutonium production program. The
committee recommends $19.3 million, a reduction of $30.0
million. The committee notes that this program is being
transferred from the Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat
Reduction program, with $57.8 million in unobligated balances.
The committee believes that NNSA's request for an additional
$49.3 million in fiscal year 2003 is excessive, especially
given that the Administration has no detailed plan for
execution of the program, or even a formal agreement with the
Russian Federation with regard to cost sharing and shut down of
the reactors at Seversk and Zheleznogorsk.
The budget request contained $98.0 million for Russian
surplus fissile materials disposition. The committee recommends
$88.0 million, a reduction of $10.0 million specifically to
program support and oversight in the United States. The
committee notes that the budget request more than doubles funds
for these activities in fiscal year 2003 to over one-third of
the request for the program. The committee has cautioned NNSA
in the past regarding excessive levies on international
programs.
The budget request, less retirement accrual, contained
$335.9 million for the Office of the Administrator. The
committee recommends $315.9 million, a reduction of $20.0
million to hold this appropriation account to the comparable
fiscal year 2002 level. The committee expects economies to
result from the organizational streamlining and management
efficiencies that Congress in large part created NNSA to
effect.
Increases
The budget request contained $949.9 million in Readiness in
Technical Base and Facilities for operations of facilities. The
committee recommends $994.9 million, an increase of $45.0
million. The committee is aware of the poor condition of
weapons complex infrastructure, particularly at the production
plants, and the continuing need to address maintenance
backlogs. The committee recommends $25.0 million for
infrastructure maintenance and mission essential upgrades and
replacements at the Pantex Plant. The committee recommends an
additional $20.0 million for repairs of facilities and priority
upgrades at the Y-12 Plant.
The budget request contained $451.8 million for the high
energy density physics (HEDP) campaign, including $237.7
million for operations and maintenance, and $214.0 million for
National Ignition Facility construction. The committee
recommends $262.7 million, an increase of $25.0 million, for
HEDP campaign operations and maintenance. The HEDP campaign
comprises experimental programs directed towards developing
data on the properties and behavior of matter under extreme
conditions of temperature and pressure, and is critical to
gaining a scientific understanding of how nuclear weapons work.
Data developed in HEDP programs are used to validate computer
simulations, which in turn are used to assess weapon
characteristics, and excursions from nominal performance. In
particular, the committee is concerned by reductions and
terminations in the budget request of high technical quality
programs such as the high average power laser program and the
petawatt initiative.
The budget request contained $194.0 million for U.S.
surplus materials disposition programs. The committee
recommends $198.0 million, an increase of $4.0 million to
investigate alternative technologies and fuel cycles for
disposition of weapons grade plutonium excess to defense needs.
The committee understands that the Administration has selected
fabrication of mixed oxide fuel (MOX) for consumption in
commercial power reactors as its baseline approach. However,
the committee is aware that, in the longer term, other
approaches such as fuel cycles based on thorium could offer
significant advantages in terms of proliferation resistance and
efficiency of plutonium consumption. The committee encourages
NNSA to work with both the private sector and the Russian
Federation to assess the technical feasibility and economic
viability of thorium-based fuel cycles.
Federal workforce restructuring
A number of independent assessments have described federal
management of the nuclear weapons complex as burdened by
excessive, and in some cases duplicative, staffing.
In its 1999 Report on Security Problems at the U.S.
Department of Energy, the President's Foreign Intelligence
Advisory Board (PFIAB) described a management structure
comprising ``layer upon layer of bureaucracy'' that made it
nearly impossible toassign responsibility or accountability.
The PFIAB singled out for special comment the field offices, which have
been described as redundant ``shadow headquarters,'' pressing their own
agendas and priorities, concluding that the weapons labs reported to
``far too many DOE masters''. The PFIAB report was highly instrumental
in triggering Congress to pass in 1999 the National Nuclear Security
Administration Act, title XXXII of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65), leading to establishment
of a semi-autonomous agency within the Department to manage the weapons
complex.
In its report NNSA Management: Progress in the
Implementation of Title 32 dated December 12, 2001, GAO noted
that longstanding issues of organizational roles and
responsibilities remained unaddressed in a substantive way, and
that NNSA reform efforts appeared to be losing momentum in some
areas.
In its FY 2001 Report to Congress of the Panel to Assess
the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States
Nuclear Stockpile of March 15, 2002, the Panel emphasized a
continuing need to reduce duplicative and non-value added
management practices, and correspondingly to implement
significant reductions in NNSA staff. The Panel recommended
that this smaller government organization focus on oversight
and policy responsibilities, and ``restore management
responsibility, authority and accountability to the laboratory
directors and plant managers for meeting requirements,
standards, timelines, and budgets''.
The committee concurs with these assessments. While NNSA's
Report to Congress on the Organization and Operations of the
National Nuclear Security Administration of February 25, 2002
appears to anticipate that ``streamlined processes and
redefined roles'' will lead to a ``significant reduction'' in
federal staff, the report provides no specifics on the size of
the reductions or the timeline over which they will occur. In
the meantime, the committee notes that justification materials
submitted with the budget request show that federal staffing
levels at NNSA have actually grown since fiscal year 2001. The
committee strongly urges the Administrator to move forward
decisively and expeditiously with a restructuring of the NNSA
federal workforce, and start NNSA on the path to realizing the
organizational streamlining and management efficiencies
Congress intended in passing the NNSA Act in 1999.
Foster Panel Assessment of NNSA Reform Efforts
The last underground test of a nuclear weapon at the Nevada
Test Site occurred a decade ago. Since that time the United
States has observed a moratorium on testing, relying instead on
a science-based stewardship program to certify the continued
viability of the nation's nuclear stockpile. Concerns regarding
the efficacy of this approach led Congress in 1998 to establish
a panel to assess the process for certifying the safety,
reliability and performance of nuclear weapons in the absence
of testing. Section 3159 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105-261)
established the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and
Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile (commonly know
as the Foster Panel after its chairman, Dr. John S. Foster).
The Panel, established for a period of three years, has
consistently noted in its annual reports ``* * * the disturbing
gap between the nation's policy that maintaining a safe and
reliable nuclear stockpile is a supreme national interest and
the actions taken to support this policy''. The committee has
benefited greatly from the Panel's independent assessments, and
expresses its appreciation for the contributions to national
security of its members.
In 1999, Congress fundamentally restructured how the
Department of Energy manages defense nuclear activities. Title
32 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2000 (Public Law 106-65), the National Nuclear Security
Administration Act, established a semi-autonomous NNSA within
DOE. In passing the Act, Congress intended to address
significant and long-standing problems relating to DOE's
management of defense nuclear programs by establishing an
organization that would be responsible for, and accountable
for, management of the nation's nuclear stockpile and related
programs. NNSA was statutorily established over two years ago,
on March 1, 2000. The committee has been fortunate that the
Panel's tenure has included the first two years of NNSA's
organizational life.
In standing up and staffing a new organization, Congress
has provided a rare opportunity to address the difficult and
important problems that have confounded efforts to properly
manage the nation's nuclear stockpile. On March 15, 2002, the
Foster Panel submitted its fiscal year 2001 report to
Congress--Expectations for the U.S. Nuclear Stockpile
Stewardship Program. In it, the Panel notes that some progress
has been made. However, the report also states:
There remains an urgent need for NNSA to address the
fundamental problems that Congress created it to
correct. The start-up phase is now over. If NNSA cannot
within the current year achieve the autonomy and
provide the leadership Congress intended, it is
appropriate for Congress to revisit other options for
managing the nuclear weapons program.
The committee concurs with this assessment.
The committee regards the current year as a watershed,
during which NNSA's organizational and management reform
efforts are likely to succeed or fail. Because of the value the
committee places on independent assessment, and the critical
need for attaining a functional nuclear weapons complex, the
committee, in Section 3141, extends the termination date of the
Panel to April 1, 2003.
Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign
The budget request contained $194.5 million for plutonium
pit manufacturing and certification programs. The committee
recommends the budget request.
The United States remains the only nuclear power without
the ability to produce all the components of a nuclear weapon.
In particular, the United States has not produced a plutonium
pit, a critical weapon component, since manufacturing
operations ceased at Rocky Flats in 1989. The goal of the
manufacturing campaign is to produce a certifiable W88 pit in
fiscal year 2003, and establish a limited production capability
of 10 pits per year at Los Alamos National Laboratory by 2007.
The National Nuclear Security Administration intends to be able
to certify a W88 pit without underground testing by fiscal year
2009, with a goal of sooner achieving this capability in 2007.
The campaign as described above is designed to meet a
limited need for W88 surveillance pits for destructive
evaluation purposes. Ultimately the nation will require the
ability to produce replacement pits at a far higher rate in
order to meet the needs of the enduring stockpile. While the
effects of aging, and consequently the lifetime of pits, are
not known with certainty, and international agreements may
further affect requirements for new pits, the committee
believes that prudence dictates a need to proceed immediately,
with preliminary steps to re-establish a large scale pit
production facility, especially given that site selection and
permitting will likely entail an extended process. The
committee is somewhat concerned that the budget request of $2.0
million for design of a modern pit facility, half that
appropriated in fiscal year 2004, is not commensurate with the
seriousness of the need.
Robust nuclear earth penetrator
The committee understands that the NNSA intends to
reprogram $7.0 million of fiscal year 2002 funds, and requests
$15.0 million in fiscal year 2003, to begin formal design
studies for a robust nuclear earth penetrator (RNEP). The 6.2/
6.2a design study has been approved by the Nuclear Weapons
Council with a cost to completion of $46.0 million, and will
involve repackaging of an existing stockpile warhead. The
committee understands that RNEP is not a new design, is not a
low yield ``mini nuke'', and is not ``clean'' in the sense that
fallout and collateral damage can be contained. Consequently
the committee does not believe that RNEP represents a
significant departure from current stockpile weapons. The
committee expects to be informed of any changes to the
parameters of this study.
Stockpile certification
In 1995 the President established a requirement for annual
certification of the nuclear stockpile. The committee believes
this annual certification, including an assessment of the need
to resume underground tests, provides a valuable measure of the
health of the nation's strategic deterrent. In section 3144,
the committee has taken action to strengthen this certification
process by requiring an assessment of other factors that have
strong bearing on the certification process, including the
adequacy of the tools and methods on which those certifications
are based, and the ability of the weapons complex
infrastructure to detect and resolve problems in the stockpile.
The committee has also taken measures to strengthen peer review
in the certification process.
Test readiness
The President has stated that resumption of underground
nuclear testing is not required at this time, and the
Administration continues to observe the moratorium on nuclear
testing. As reflected in justification materials submitted to
Congress in support of the President's fiscal year 2003 budget
request, the policy of the NNSA is to be capable of resuming
underground testing within two to three years, should the
President determine that such tests are necessary. The NNSA
Administrator has stated that the current test readiness
posture of the weapons complex is closer to three years.
The most recent Nuclear Posture Review, submitted to
Congress by the Department of Defense on January 8, 2002,
supports reduction of the Department of Energy's test readiness
lead-time.
In its fiscal year 2001 report to Congress submitted on
March 15, 2002, the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety,
and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile recommends
a test readiness of 3 months to a year depending on the type of
test. The Panel notes that the test ``pedigree'' of existing
weapons is deteriorating with time, and that prudence dictates
that the President should have a ``realistic option'' to resume
nuclear testing if technical or political events so require.
The committee concurs with these recommendations. The
committee believes that test readiness could be greatly
enhanced by, among other actions, planning for specific tests,
conducting site preparation activities, laying in diagnostics,
and maintaining test articles at the Nevada Test Site. Section
3145 requires the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with the
NNSA Administrator, to develop and report to Congress on a plan
and budget to achieve a one-year readiness posture within one
year of a decision to do so.
Tritium readiness campaign
The budget request contained $126.3 million for the tritium
readiness campaign. The committee recommends the budget
request.
Tritium is a perishable radioactive element that is
essential to the proper functioning of stockpile weapons, and
consequently must periodically be replaced. The United States
has not had the capability to produce tritium since 1988, and
has relied on reserves, and tritium recovered and recycled from
dismantled weapons, to maintain the stockpile. The committee
understands that the tritium readiness campaign is on schedule
to begin irradiation of tritium producing bars in commercial
light water reactors at Watts Bar and Sequoyah in fiscal year
2003, and to begin production extraction for the stockpile in
fiscal year 2006 at the Savannah River Site. The committee
urges the National Nuclear Security Administration to continue
to maintain the schedule for this critical project.
Environmental and Other Defense Activities
Overview
The budget request contained $7,395.2 million for
environmental and other defense activities for fiscal year
2003. The committee recommends $7,366.5 million, including
reductions for retirement accrual, representing an increase of
$410.9 million from the amount authorized for fiscal year 2002.
Items of Special Interest
Adjustments to the Budget Request
The budget request, less retirement accrual, contained
$99.0 million for Other Defense Activities environment, safety,
and health (ES&H) programs. The committee recommends $94.0
million, a reduction of $5.0 million. The committee notes that
the budget had increased in recent years to accommodate
administrative functions associated with assessment and
compensation programs that should present a relatively short
term increase in funding requirements, and that other worker
health studies should be nearing completion.
The budget request, less retirement accrual, contained
$25.7 million for Other Defense Activities worker and community
transition programs. The committee recommends $19.7, a
reduction of $6.0 million to hold these programs to fiscal year
2002 levels.
Environmental management cleanup reform program
The budget request contained $800.0 million to establish a
new environmental management cleanup reform program. This new
program is designed to provide the vehicle for implementing the
recommendations of the Department of Energy's recently
completed ``top to bottom review'' of its environmental
management programs (EM). As structured today, this review
concluded that the EM program now has a life cycle cost of $220
billion and, that without significant change in business
processes, the cost estimate could easily increase to more than
$300 billion. In fact only about one-third of the EM program
budget is going toward actual cleanup and risk reduction work.
The remainder is spent on maintenance, fixed costs, and other
activities required to support safety and security. Not only
have the dollar estimates proven to be overly optimistic, the
schedule estimates have followed a similar path. Numerous sites
are already unable to meet their commitments as outlined in an
earlier 1998 Departmental report. Moreover, the three largest
sites--Savannah River, Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, and Hanford--have such long term
completion dates (2038, 2050, and 2070, respectively) that the
estimates for cost and schedule are highly uncertain and
subject to change. The reality of an extended cleanup schedule
is that eventually it could lead to more prolonged and
potentially severe public health and environmental risks.
With these facts not in dispute, it was critical for the
Department to seek alternative cleanup approaches that would be
designed to produce more real risk reduction, accelerated
cleanup, and cost and schedule improvements. This new program
is established for the purpose of meeting these goals. Evidence
does suggest that a program can be turned around if a site can
adopt an approach similar to that taken at Rocky Flats,
Colorado. By adopting a risk based management approach,
combined with a clear mission, a culture of urgency, and a
performance based contract, the cleanup at Rocky Flats is now
scheduled to be completed 50 years ahead of schedule and $30
billion below the original baseline. The goal of the new
program is in essence to take the successes at Rocky Flats and
apply those principles complex-wide.
Under this new cleanup reform program it is contemplated
that the Department will work with the States and federal
regulators with a goal of reaching an agreement on an
accelerated and risk-based cleanup--a cleanup that eliminates
unneeded activities. Once an agreement or ``site performance
management plan'' is reached and a new cost savings and funding
profile is established for the acceleration or alternate
cleanup strategy, funds will be made available from the EM
Cleanup Reform account to fund or supplement existing funding
of a site's base budget. The committee expects that the site's
entire budget for cleanup will be used for activities addressed
and agreed to in the site performance management plan. Finally,
this new program is designed to ensure that constant or greater
funding levels are available to those States whose cooperative
efforts lead to greater and faster risk reduction. In that
regard, the committee understands that the Department has been
in initial discussions with state officials representing the
sites most affected by this new program. As a result of these
discussions, the committee has been advised that a ``letter of
intent'' has been signed with the State of Washington to
accelerate cleanup at that state's Hanford site. The agreement
proposes an allocation of approximately $433.0 million from
this new cleanup reform account. This agreement, if and when it
is fully implemented, would accelerate cleanup by 35-45 years
and result in cost savings of $33 billion over the current
projected costs. The committee understands that negotiations
with the State of South Carolina are moving rapidly toward a
similar agreement. The committee understands that this
agreement, if finalized, will result in a substantial monetary
increase above the site's base budget for fiscal year 2003 of
$961.1 million and at the same time result in an accelerated
cleanup and risk reduction. The committee is encouraged by
these efforts and urges other sites to develop proposals for an
accelerated and risk-based cleanup.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Subtitle A--National Security Programs Authorizations
Section 3101--National Nuclear Security Administration
This section would authorize funds for the National Nuclear
Security Administration for fiscal year 2003, including funds
for weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation
programs, naval reactors programs, and the Office of the
Administrator.
Section 3102--Environmental and Other Defense Activities
This section would authorize funds for environmental and
other defense activities for fiscal year 2003, including funds
for defense environmental restoration and waste management,
defense environmental management cleanup reform, defense
facilities closure projects, defense environmental management
privatization, other defense activities, and defense nuclear
waste disposal.
Subtitle B--Department of Energy National Security Authorizations
General Provisions
Section 3120--Short Title; Definitions
This section would designate this subtitle as the
``Department of Energy National Security Authorizations General
Provisions Act''. This Act will make permanent lawcertain
recurring provisions governing the use of funds authorized for national
security programs of the Department of Energy. This section would also
define the terms ``DOE national security authorization'',
``congressional defense committee'', and the term ``minor construction
project''.
Section 3121--Reprogramming
This section would prohibit the reprogramming of funds in
excess of the amount authorized for the program until the
Secretary of Energy has notified the congressional defense
committees and a period of 30 days has elapsed after the date
on which the notification is received.
Section 3122--Minor Construction Projects
This section would limit the initiation of a minor
construction project if the current estimated cost for the
project exceeds $5.0 million, and would require the Secretary
of Energy to notify the congressional defense committees in the
event the estimated cost of any project exceeds $5.0 million
and the reasons for the cost variation.
Section 3123--Limits on Construction Projects
This section would permit the initiation and continuation
of any construction project only if the estimated cost for the
project does not exceed 125 percent of the higher of: (1) the
amount authorized for the project; or (2) the most recent total
estimated cost presented to Congress as justification for such
project. To exceed this limit, the Secretary of Energy must
report in detail the reason therefore to the congressional
defense committees and the report must be before the committees
for 30 legislative days. This section would also specify that
the 125 percent limitation would not apply to projects
estimated to cost under $5.0 million.
Section 3124--Fund Transfer Authority
This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to
transfer funds to other agencies of the government for
performance of work for which funds were authorized and
appropriated. The provision would permit the merger of such
funds with the funds made available to the agency to which they
are transferred.
Section 3125--Authority for Conceptual and Construction Design
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
certify that a conceptual design for a construction project has
been completed prior to requesting funding for that project,
except in the case of emergencies.
Section 3126--Authority for Emergency Planning, Design, and
Construction Activities
This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to
perform planning and design for construction activities
utilizing available funds for any Department of Energy national
security program whenever the Secretary determines that the
design must proceed expeditiously to protect the public health
and safety, to meet the needs of national defense, or to
protect property.
Section 3127--Funds Available for all National Security Programs of the
Department of Energy
This section would authorize, subject to section 3121 of
this act, amounts appropriated for management and support
activities and for general plant projects to be made available
for use in connection with all national security programs of
the Department of Energy.
Section 3128--Availability of Funds
This section would allow funds authorized for atomic energy
activities of the Department of Energy to remain available
until expended, except for amounts appropriated for the
National Nuclear Security Administration pursuant to a DOE
national security authorization. Amounts appropriated for the
Office of the Administrator for Nuclear Security will remain
available until the end of that fiscal year and all other
amounts appropriated to the National Nuclear Security
Administration will remain available for a total of three
fiscal years.
Section 3129--Transfer of Defense Environmental Management Funds
This section would provide the manager of each field office
of the Department of Energy with limited authority to transfer
defense environmental management funds from a program or
project under the jurisdiction of the office to another such
program or project.
Section 3130--Transfer of Weapons Activities Funds
This section would provide the manager of each field office
of the Department of Energy with limited authority to transfer
weapons activities funds from a program or project under the
jurisdiction of the office to another such program or project.
Section 3131--Scope of Authority to Carry Out Plant Projects
This section would clarify that the authority of the
Secretary of Energy to carry out plant projects includes
authority for maintenance, restoration, planning, construction,
acquisition, modification of facilities, and continuation of
projects authorized in prior years, and related land
acquisition.
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
Section 3141--One-year Extension of Panel to Assess the Reliability,
Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile
This section would extend the statutory termination date of
the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of
the United States Nuclear Stockpile (also known as the Foster
Panel) to April 1, 2003. The section would also require an
additional report from the Panel on February 1, 2003.
Section 3142--Transfer to National Nuclear Security Administration of
the Department of Defense's Cooperative Threat Reduction Program
Relating to Elimination of Weapons Grade Plutonium in Russia
This section would transfer the Cooperative Threat
Reduction program relating to elimination of weapons grade
plutonium production in Russia from the Department of Defense
(DOD) to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) of
the Department of Energy. The section would transfer specified
assets of the program to the NNSA, including any unexpended
balances of appropriations. The provision would not remove
program limitations or restrictions, including the period of
availability of funds for obligation. The section would also
transfer responsibility for obligations under federal law from
officers of DOD to those of NNSA.
Section 3143--Repeal of Requirement for Reports on Obligations of Funds
for Programs on Fissile Materials in Russia
This section repeals a duplicative reporting requirement
related to programs to improve the protection, control, and
accountability of fissile materials in Russia.
Section 3144--Annual Certification to the President and Congress on the
Condition of the United States Nuclear Weapons Stockpile
This section would require an annual certification to the
President and Congress on the safety, reliability, and
performance of each nuclear weapon type in the active stockpile
of the United States. The certifications would be required from
the directors of the National Laboratories and the commander of
United States Strategic Command for each weapon type for which
they are responsible. The section would also require a report
from the aforementioned on other matters related to the
certifications, including an assessment of the need for the
United States to resume underground nuclear testing, and would
require the National Laboratory directors to use certain ``red
team'' procedures for the certification process. The section
would require the submission of the certifications and reports
to the Secretaries of Defense and Energy, as appropriate, by
January 15th of each year, and would require that the
Secretaries forward the certifications and reports unchanged to
the President and Congress not later than February 1st of each
year.
Section 3145--Plan for Achieving One-Year Readiness for Resumption by
the United States of Underground Nuclear Weapons Tests
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
submit to Congress with the fiscal year 2004 budget request a
report on a plan and a budget to enhance underground nuclear
test readiness. The report would detail the plan and budget
required to achieve a one-year readiness posture for resumption
of underground nuclear weapons tests. A one-year readiness
posture is the capability of the Department of Energy to resume
underground tests not later than one year after so directed by
the President, should the President determine that such tests
are necessary. The provision would require that the plan and
budget provide for attainment of a one-year readiness posture
within one year of a decision to execute the plan.
Subtitle D--Provisions Relating to Defense Environmental Management
Section 3151--Defense Environmental Management Cleanup Reform Program
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to carry
out a program to reform the Department's environmental
management activities using the funds authorized in section
3102(a)(2) of this act. The Secretary would be authorized to
transfer funds to each site upon the execution of a site
performance management plan and upon its submission to the
congressional defense committees. The site performance
management plan for a site is defined as a plan, agreed to by
the applicable federal and state agencies with regulatory
jurisdiction with respect to the site, that provides for the
performance of activities that will accelerate the reduction of
environmental risk and will also accelerate the environmental
cleanup at the site. Upon the transfer and merger of the funds,
all funds in the merged account are available only to carry out
the site performance management plan at the site.
Section 3152--Report on Status of Environmental Management Initiatives
to Accelerate the Reduction of Environmental Risks and Challenges Posed
by the Legacy of the Cold War
This section would require the Secretary of Energy to
prepare a report on the status of the management initiatives
recommended in the Department's report entitled ``Top-to-Bottom
Review of the Environmental Management Program'' and dated
February 4, 2002. Specifically, this report is to address the
progress being made in streamlining risk reduction processes,
contract management, acquisition strategy, and consolidation of
special nuclear materials. This section would require the
report to be submitted to the congressional defense committees
with the submission of the Department's budget justification
materials for fiscal year 2004.
TITLE XXXII--DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD
ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Full Funding for Retiree Costs in the Fiscal Year 2003 Budget Request
The Administration proposed legislation to require
agencies, beginning in fiscal year 2003, to pay the full
government share of the accruing cost of retirement for current
Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) employees and to pay the
full accruing cost of post-retirement health benefits for
current civilian employees who are enrolled in the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB). At the present time,
agencies pay about half of the employer's share for accruing
benefits, and the remainder is covered by a mandatory general
fund payment. The Administration's proposed change would
require specific legislation to move the full government share
to each agency's budget. The committee understands that the
appropriate committee with jurisdiction to initiate this change
has declined to consider the required legislation and,
therefore, recommends continuing the current practice of
funding these benefits. The fiscal year 2003 budget request for
the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board includes $0.5
million to fund this proposed change in the CSRS and the FEHB
program. The committee recommendation does not include this
amount.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3201--Authorization
This section would authorize $19.0 million for the Defense
Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2003.
TITLE XXXIII--NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3301--Authorized Uses Of Stockpile Funds
This section would authorize $76.4 million from the
National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operation
and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal
year 2003. The provision would also permit the use of
additional funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45
days after a notification to Congress.
TITLE XXXIV--NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3401--Authorization of Appropriations
This section would authorize $21.1 million for fiscal year
2003 for the operation of the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale
Reserves.
TITLE XXXV--MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST
Full Funding for Retiree Costs in the Fiscal Year 2003 Budget
The Administration proposed legislation to require
agencies, beginning in fiscal year 2003, to pay the full
Government share of the accruing cost of retirement for current
Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) employees and to pay the
full accruing cost of post-retirement health benefits for
current civilian employees who are enrolled in the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB). At the present time,
agencies pay about half of the employer's share for accruing
benefits, and the remainder is covered by a mandatory general
fund payment. The Administration's proposed change would
require specific legislation to move the full Government share
to each agency's budget.
The committee understands that the appropriate committee
with jurisdiction to initiate this change has declined to
consider the required legislation and, therefore, recommends
continuing the current practice of funding these benefits. The
fiscal year 2003 budget request included $4.4 million dollars
for the Maritime Administration to fund this proposed change in
the CSRS and the FEHB program. The following represents the
total budget request for funding for CSRS and FEHB that has not
been included in the committee's recommendation for the
Maritime Administration.
[In thousands of dollars]
Operations and Training....................................... 4,089
Title XI Administrative Expenses.............................. 356
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 4,445
Blanket Approval of Vessel Time Charters
Section 9 of the Shipping Act, 1916, (46 App. United States
Code 808), requires prior approval of the Secretary
Transportation of vessel charters to persons who are not U.S.
citizens. In 1992, the Maritime Administration, which is
charged with responsibility for administering section 9, issued
regulations that granted ``blanket'' prior approval of time
charters and other forms of temporary use agreements to persons
who are not U.S. citizens. The committee urges the Maritime
Administration to review this policy, as implemented by this
regulation, to determine whether changes should be made in
light of recent concerns over the security in our nation's
ports. The committee expects to receive a report on the
Maritime Administration's findings and any recommendations for
legislative changes, by November 1, 2002.
Financial Assistance to States to Prepare Vessels for Use as Artificial
Fish Reefs
The budget request contained $11.1 million for the disposal
of four vessels from the National Defense Reserve Fleet. The
committee recommends $20.0 million, an increase of $8.9 million
above the budget request for disposal of obsolete
vesselsincluding assistance to states. The National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-398) required
the Maritime Administration to dispose of all vessels in the National
Defense Fleet that are not otherwise assigned to the Ready Reserve
Force or otherwise designated for a specific purpose by September 30,
2006. The cost to accomplish this goal will likely exceed $350.0
million based on current estimates. While scrapping of certain vessels
is the only method of disposal, there also appears to be a substantial
demand for use of a number of these obsolete vessels as artificial
fishing reefs.
While the Maritime Administration's artificial reef program
was established in 1972, it has not been utilized to the extent
possible since the individual states that take title to these
vessels must pay for the cost of moving the vessel to the
location for sinking, pay for the cost of removal of oil and
other hazardous substances, and pay for the cost of sinking the
vessel. In order to make this program more appealing to the
states and to help offset the cost of reefing a vessel, the
committee has established a new program which will allow the
Secretary of Transportation, acting through the Maritime
Administrator, to provide financial assistance to a state to
prepare the vessel for use as an artificial reef. This
assistance will include the cost of environmental remediation,
towing, and sinking. The committee has not set a specific
amount of assistance that can be awarded to a state but rather
allows the Maritime Administrator to consider a number of
elements including the total amount of funding available in the
program. The committee understands that it may be substantially
less expensive to sink a vessel for use as a reef than paying
for the scrapping of the vessel.
The committee recognizes that the process of obtaining
approval to sink a vessel as an artificial reef involves the
coordination with various agencies of government, including the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the United States Coast Guard,
and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, however
this new program of financial assistance is intended to remove
at least one obstacle in the system. While nothing in this
section alters or removes any current environmental
requirements, the committee urges the responsible agencies to
work together to establish national standards for the cleaning
of hazardous materials from ships prior to their sinking as
artificial reefs. The committee understands that it typically
takes nine months for a state to complete the federal agency
coordination. The committee expects that the financial
assistance provided in this act, coupled with a uniform
national standard, can result in a cost effective and
environmentally responsible partial alternative to traditional
vessel disposal techniques.
Loan Guarantee Program
The budget request, excluding the accrued agency costs of
Civil Service Retirement and Federal Health benefits, contained
$4.1 million to fund administrative expense associated with the
management of the title XI loan guarantee program. The budget
request contained no funds for costs, as defined in section 502
of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 93-344).
The committee recommends $54.1 million for the title XI
program, an increase of $50 million above the budget request.
Marketing Efforts to Reduce Potential Losses
The committee is concerned with the recent defaults that
have occurred in the title XI loan guarantee programs as a
result of the bankruptcy filing by American Classic Voyages and
the potential costs of these defaults on the United States
Treasury. Although the recent defaults occurred for a variety
of reasons, including the downturn in the economy and the
events of September 11, 2001, the committee is also concerned
that the Maritime Administration may be moving ahead too
quickly in its efforts to dispose of the assets which it has or
will receive as a result of the bankruptcy filing. It was
indeed unfortunate that two of the ships in question were
partially completed at the time of the filing; however, the
committee is of the opinion that the Maritime Administration
should use every effort possible to avoid scrapping these
ships. In that regard, the committee strongly urges the
Maritime Administration to explore options that will allow
these ships to be completed as originally designed, including
an aggressive marketing effort to find a new buyer. The
committee likewise urges the shipyard where these partially
completed ships are located to join in that effort. The
committee believes that completion of these ships offers the
best long-term opportunity for reducing the ultimate cost to
the title XI program. In that regard, the committee expects to
be advised on a regular basis of the progress being made in
securing a suitable buyer for these ships.
LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS
Section 3501--Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2003
This section would authorize a total of $167.3 million for
fiscal year 2003, an increase of $54.4 million above the budget
request for the Maritime Administration. Of the funds
authorized, $93.1 million would be for operations and training
programs, $50.0 million would be for the costs as defined in
section 502 of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (Public
Law 93-344), of loan guarantees authorized by title XI of the
Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, (46 App. United States
Code 1271 et seq.), $4.1 million would be for administrative
expenses related to providing these loan guarantees, and $20.0
million would be for the disposal of obsolete ships in the
National Defense Reserve Fleet.
Section 3502--Authorization to Transfer the USS Sphinx
This section would authorize the Secretary of
Transportation to convey the vessel USS SPHINX to the Dunkirk
Historical Lighthouse and Veterans Park Museum for use as a
military museum.
Section 3503--Financial Assistance to States for Preparation of
Obsolete Vessels for Use as Artificial Reefs
This section will allow the Secretary of Transportation to
provide financial assistance to states to offset the cost of
transferring the vessel to the state and preparing the vessel
for use as an artificial reef. The specific amount of funding
provided shall be based on the availability of funds, the
benefit to the program, and the cost effectiveness compared to
other ship disposal options.
Section 3504--Independent Analysis of Title XI Insurance Guarantee
Applications
This section would grant authority to the Secretary to
obtain an independent analysis of an application for a
guarantee or commitment to guarantee under the Title XI
program. It would also, subject to limits contained in current
law, allow the Secretary to be reimbursed for the cost of this
outside independent analysis.
DEPARTMENTAL DATA
The Department of Defense requested legislation, in
accordance with the program of the President, as illustrated by
the correspondence set out below:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, April 19, 2002.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Defense proposes the
enclosed draft legislation, ``To authorize appropriations for
fiscal year 2003 for military activities of the Department of
Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal
year 2003, and for other purposes.''
This legislative proposal is part of the Department of
Defense Legislative Program for the Second Session of the 107th
Congress and is necessary to carry out the President's budget
plans for fiscal year 2003. The Office of Management and Budget
advises that there is no objection to the presentation of this
proposal to the Congress, and that its enactment would be in
accord with the program of the President.
Sincerely,
William J. Haynes II,
General Counsel.
Enclosures.
----------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION REQUEST
Department of Defense,
Office of General Counsel,
Washington, DC, March 25, 2002.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker of the House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: The Department of Defense proposes the
enclosed bill, Military Construction Authorizations, as part of
its legislative program for the Second Session of the 107th
Congress, and we urge its enactment.
The enclosed bill will authorize military construction and
facility management for the military departments, the defense
agencies, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security
Investment program, and the National Guard and Reserve
components. It will enhance our efforts to mitigate
encroachment on and around our installations and facilities
through both partnering with natural resource conservation
organizations to purchase property and conveying surplus real
property to conservation organizations. Revisions to the house
privatization legislation will improve program execution and
enable privatization of barracks. We also propose to purchase
land near the Pentagon on Boundary Channel Drive in Arlington,
Virginia, in order to build a new office building that meets
anti-terrorism force protection standards and consolidates
activities currently in leased space. Our proposed military
construction legislation also includes legislation that will
increase our freedom to manage and help us to achieve greater
efficiency in our installation management.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is
no objection, from the standpoint of the Administration's
program, to the presentation of these initiatives for your
consideration and the consideration of the Congress.
Sincerely,
William J. Haynes II,
General Counsel.
Enclosures.
----------
COMMITTEE POSITION
On May 1, 2002 the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum
being present, approved H.R. 4546, as amended, by a vote of 57-
1.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES
House of Representatives,
Committee of Resources,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2002.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for contacting me with regard
to several provisions within H.R. 4546, the Defense
Authorization Act of 2003. Specifically, you requested to know
the Resources Committee's recommended disposition with regard
to:
Section 311--Incidental Taking of Migratory Birds
During Military Readiness Activity
Section 312--Military Readiness and the Conservation
of Protected Species
Section 601--Increase in Basic Pay
Section 602--Expansion of Basic Allowance for Housing
Section 614--One-Year Extension of Other Bonus and
Special Pay Authorities
Section 615--Minimum Hardship Duty Pay for Antarctica
and Artic Icepack
Section 631--Extension of Leave Travel Deferral
Period
Section 641--Concurrent Receipt of Military Retired
Pay and Veterans Disability
Section 2821--Land Conveyance, Lands in Alaska
Section 2832--Boundary Adjustments, Marine Corps
Base, Quantico
Section 2841--Land Conveyances, Wendover Air Force
Base Auxiliary Field, Nevada
Section 2863--Ratification of Agreement Regarding
Adak Naval Complex, Alaska
Section 3503--Financial Assistance to States for
Preparation of Transferred Obsolete Ships for Use as
Artificial Reefs
Title XIV--Utah Test and Training Range
Because of the urgent need to bring this bill to the floor
of the House in order to provide crucial support of our
military, I am writing to inform you that I have reviewed
theabove-referenced provisions and am in full support of their
inclusion in H.R. 4546. Therefore, I will not seek a sequential
referral of the bill. This action does not affect any future
jurisdictional claims over these, or similar, provisions. In addition,
I would request that the Committee on Resources be represented during
any conference proceedings on all matters within its jurisdiction.
I recognize that our two committees have historically
worked very closely together on matters of mutual interest, and
I am pleased that I have had a hand in the drafting of several
of these provisions. I also greatly appreciate the assistance
and competence of your staff, and look forward to continuing to
work with you to ensure that H.R. 4546 is enacted into law.
Sincerely yours,
James V. Hansen, Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ways and Means,
Washington, DC, April 30, 2002.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing concerning H.R. 4546, the
``National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003,''
which is scheduled for action by your committee this week.
As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has
jurisdiction over matters concerning Medicare. Section 713 of
the bill repeals the report requirement on the Medicare
Subvention Demonstration Project. However, in order to expedite
this legislation for floor consideration, we will not take
action on this particular proposal. This is being done with the
understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the
Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its
jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation.
I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming
this understanding with respect to H.R. 4546 and would ask that
a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in
your committee report.
Best Regards,
Bill Thomas, Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 1, 2002.
Hon. Bill Thomas,
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of April 30,
2002 regarding H.R. 4546, the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2003.
I agree that the Committee on Ways and Means has valid
jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important
legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to
request such a referral in the interest of expediting
consideration of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a
sequential referral, the Committee on Ways and Means is not
waiving its jurisdiction. Further, as you requested, this
exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report on
the bill.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Bob Stump, Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC
Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter concerns the jurisdictional
interest of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
in H.R. 4546, the Department of Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003.
H.R. 4546, as ordered reported by the Committee on Armed
Services, contains many provisions over which the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure has jurisdiction. These
include all sections that affect the pay, benefits, and
personnel of the United States Coast Guard and the United
States Coast Guard Reserve as well as provisions concerning war
risk insurance.
Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4546 and
the need for this legislation to move expeditiously. While we
have a valid claim to jurisdiction over several provisions, I
do not intend to request a sequential referral of the bill.
This is, of course, conditional on our mutual understanding
that nothing in this legislation waives or affects the
jurisdiction of the Transportation Committee, that every effort
will be made to include any agreements worked out by our staffs
as the bill is taken to the Floor, and that a copy of this
letter and your response will be included in the Committee
Report and as part of the Record during consideration of the
bill by the House.
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also
asks that you support our request to be conferees on the
provisions over which we have jurisdiction during any House-
Senate conference.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Don Young, Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of May 2, 2003
regarding H.R. 4546, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003.
I agree that the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure has valid jurisdictional claims to certain
provisions in this important legislation, and I am most
appreciative of your decision not to request such a referral in
the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree
that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee
onTransportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its jurisdiction.
Further, as you requested, this exchange of letters will be included in
the Committee report on the bill.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Bob Stump, Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I wish to inform the Committee on Armed
Services that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs hereby waives
any jurisdiction it may have over sections 641 and 651 of Title
VI of the Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2003, has
no objection to them and does not desire their referral.
Sincerely,
Christopher H. Smith, Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for working with me in your
development of H.R. 4546, the ``National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2003,'' specifically:
1. Section 341, ``Assistance to Local Educational Agencies
that Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and
Department of Defense Civilian Employees.''
2. Section 342, ``Availability of Quarters Allowance for
Unaccompanied Defense Department Teacher Required to Reside on
Overseas Military Installation.''
3. Section 343, ``Provision of Summer School Programs for
Students who Attend Defense Dependent's Education System.''
4. Section 366, ``Amendments to Certain Education and
Nutrition Laws Relating to Acquisition and Improvement of
Military Housing.''
As you know, these provisions are within the jurisdiction
of the Education and the Workforce Committee. While I do not
intend to seek sequential referral of H.R. 4546, the Committee
does hold an interest in preserving its future jurisdiction
with respect to issues raised in the aforementioned provisions
and its jurisdictional prerogatives should the provisions of
this bill or any Senate amendments thereto be considered in a
conference with the Senate. We would expect to be appointed as
conferees on these provisions should a conference with the
Senate arise.
I do have concerns regarding the change made in Committee
to the length of the authorization amending the National School
Lunch Act; however, I am certain that we can work together to
address our mutual goals.
Again, I thank you for working with me in developing the
amendments to H.R 4546 and look forward to working with you on
these issues in the future.
Sincerely,
John Boehner, Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: On May 1, 2002, the Committee on Armed
Services ordered reported H.R. 4546, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. As ordered reported by
the Committee on Armed Services, this legislation contains a
number of provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. These provisions include the
following:
Section 601. Increase in basic pay for fiscal year 2003.
Section 602. Increase basic allowance for subsistence for
members forced to purchase meal outside messing facilities.
Section 612. One-year extension of certain bonus and
special pay authorities for certain health care professionals.
Section 614. One-year extension of other bonus and special
pay authorities.
Section 615. Minimum levels of hardship duty pay for duty
on the ground in Antarctica or Arctic icepack.
Section 631. Extension of leave travel deferral period for
members.
Section 641. Phase-in of full concurrent receipt of
military retired pay and veterans disability compensation for
military retirees with disabilities rated at 60 percent or
higher.
Section 704. Improvements regarding the Department of
Defense Medicare-eligible retiree health care fund.
Section 713. Repeal of report requirement.
Section 3201. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
Authorization.
Recognizing your interest in bringing this legislation
before the House expeditiously, the Committee on Energy and
Commerce agrees not to seek a sequential referral of the bill
based on the provisions listed above. By agreeing not to seek a
sequential referral, the Committee on Energy and Commerce does
not waive its jurisdiction over these provisions or any other
provisions of the bill that may fall within its jurisdiction.
In addition, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reserves its
right to seek conferees on any provisions within its
jurisdiction which are considered in the House-Senate
conference, and asks for your support in being accorded such
conferees.
I request you include this letter as part of the report on
H.R. 4546 and as part of the Record during consideration of
this bill by the House.
Sincerely,
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC, May 2, 2002.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that on Wednesday, May 1,
2002, the Committee on Armed Services ordered favorably
reported H.R. 4546, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2003. The bill includes a number of provisions that
fall within the legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on
International Relations pursuant to Rule X(k) of the House of
Representatives.
The specific provisions within our committee's jurisdiction
are: (1) Section 1201, Support of United Nations-Sponsored
Efforts to Inspect and Monitor Iraqi Weapons Activities; (2)
Section 1202, Strengthening the Defense of Taiwan; (3) Section
1204, Additional Countries Covered by Loan Guarantee Program;
(4) Title XIII, Cooperative Threat Reduction with States of the
Former Soviet Union; (5) Section 3142, Transfer to National
Nuclear Security Administration of Department of Defense
Cooperative Threat Reduction Program Relating to Elimination of
Weapons Grade Plutonium in Russia; and (6) Section 3143, Repeal
of Requirement for Reports on Obligation of Funds for Programs
on Fissile Materials in Russia.
Pursuant to Chairman Dreier's expected announcement that
the Committee on Rules will move expeditiously to consider a
rule for H.R. 4546 and your desire to have the bill considered
on the House floor next week, the Committee on International
Relations will not seek a sequential referral of the bill as a
result of including these provisions, without waiving or ceding
now or in the future this committee's jurisdiction over the
provisions in question. I will seek to have conferees appointed
for these provisions during any House-Senate conference
committee.
I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of
the report on H.R. 4546 and as part of the record during
consideration of the bill by the House of Representatives.
With best wishes,
Henry J. Hyde, Chairman.
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, April 30, 2002.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I understand that Representative Van
Hilleary may offer an amendment to the FY 2003 DOD
Authorization bill relating to Federal Prison Industries. I
have reviewed the amendment and support it. If it is included
in the DOD Authorization bill, I do not intend to seek a
referral on behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman.
FISCAL DATA
Pursuant to clause 3(d) Rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual
outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2003 and the
following four years. The results of such efforts are reflected
in the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which is included in this
report pursuant to clause 3(c)(3)
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House
of Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the
Congressional Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows:
May 3, 2002.
Hon. Bob Stump,
Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 4546, the Bob
Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.
The CBO staff contact is Kent Christensen, who can be
reached at 226-2840. If you wish further details on this
estimate, we will be pleased to provide them.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
Summary: H.R. 4546 would authorize appropriations totaling
$382 billion for fiscal year 2003 and an estimated $14 billion
in additional funding for 2002 for the military functions of
the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Energy.
It also would prescribe personnel strengths for each active-
duty and selected reserve component of the U.S. armed forces.
CBO estimates that appropriation of the authorized amounts for
2002 and 2003 would result in additional outlays of $392
billion over the 2002-2007 period.
The bill also contains provisions that would raise the
costs of discretionary defense programs over the 2004-2007
period. CBO estimates that those provisions would require
appropriations of $7.0 billion over those four years.
The bill contains provisions that would increase direct
spending by an estimated $5.8 billion over the 2003-2007 period
and $17.7 billion over the 2003-2012 period, primarily from the
phase-in of concurrent payment of retirement annuities with
veterans' disability compensation to retirees from the military
and the other uniformed services who have service-connected
disabilities rated at 60 percent or greater. Because it would
affect direct spending, the bill would be subject to pay-as-
you-go procedures.
H.R. 4546 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary
impact of H.R. 4546 is shown in Table 1. Most of the costs of
this legislation fall within budget function 050 (national
defense).
TABLE 1.--BUDGETARY IMPACT OF H.R. 4546, THE BOB STUMP NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-----------------------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Spending Under Current Law for Defense Programs:
Budget Authority a.............................. 346,285 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............................... 346,878 116,344 38,941 13,273 5,536 2,724
Proposed Changes:
Authorizations of Supplemental Appropriations
for 2002:
Estimated Authorization Level b............. 14,048 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays b......................... 5,345 5,782 1,941 660 174 79
Authorization of Appropriations for 2003:
Estimated Authorization Level............... 0 381,522 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays........................... 0 252,982 86,639 27,346 7,944 2,726
Spending Under H.R. 4546 for Defense Programs:
Estimated Authorization Level a................. 360,333 381,522 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............................... 352,223 375,108 127,521 41,279 13,654 5,529
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Estimated Budget Authority.......................... 0 509 637 1,021 1,599 1,997
Estimated Outlays................................... 0 509 637 1,021 1,599 1,997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: This table excludes estimated authorizations of appropriations for years after 2003. (Those additional
authorizations are shown in Table 3.)
a The 2002 level is the amount appropriated for programs authorized by the bill.
b The estimates shown for the 2002 supplemental are amounts contained in the Administration's supplemental
request for defense programs. The outlay estimate for 2003 includes $5,684 million of spending from funds
requested as emergency appropriations. Excluding emergency spending would lower total outlays in 2003 to
$369,424 million.
Basis of Estimate
Spending Subject to Appropriation
The bill would specifically authorize appropriations
totaling $381.4 billion in 2003 (see Table 2) and additional
amounts as may be necessary for supplemental appropriations for
defense in 2002, which CBO estimates would total $14 billion
based on the Administration's request.\1\ Most of those costs
would fall within budget function 050 (national defense). H.R.
4546 also would specifically authorize appropriations of $113
million for the Maritime Administration (function 400--
transportation), $70 million for the Armed Forces Retirement
Home (function 600--income security), and $21 million for the
Naval Petroleum Reserves (function 270--energy).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ After adding the $92 million estimated authorization for the
Coast Guard Reserve, the bill would authorize appropriations of
slightly more than $381.5 million for 2003.
\2\ The authorization shown here for the Maritime Administration
does not include any amounts for maritime loan guarantees and related
administrative costs because they are already authorized under existing
law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The estimate assumes that the estimated authorization
amount for 2002 is appropriated by the end of June 2002, and
that the amounts authorized for 2003 will be appropriated
before the start of fiscal year 2003. Outlays are estimated
based on historical spending patterns.
The bill also contains provisions that would affect various
costs, mostly for personnel, that would be covered by the
fiscal year 2003 authorization and by authorizations in future
years. Table 3 contains estimates of those amounts. In addition
to the costs covered by the authorizations in the bill for
2003, these provisions would raise estimated costs by $7.0
billion over the 2004-2007 period. The following sections
describe the provisions identified in Table 3 and provide
information about CBO's cost estimates for those provisions.
TABLE 2.--SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS IN H.R. 4546
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
Category -------------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Military Personnel:
Authorization Level a..................................... 93,670 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................................... 88,612 4,402 281 94 0
Operation and Maintenance:
Authorization Level....................................... 130,159 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................................... 96,425 26,006 5,538 1,186 378
Procurement:
Authorization Level....................................... 73,160 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays 20,860.................................. 27,671 15,218 5,170 1,789
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation:
Authorization Level....................................... 56,424 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................................... 31,792 20,381 3,286 591 151
Military Construction and Family Housing:
Authorization Level....................................... 9,954 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................................... 2,687 3,718 2,192 793 324
Atomic Energy Defense Activities:
Authorization Level....................................... 15,420 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................................... 10,369 4,094 826 74 55
Other Accounts:
Authorization Level....................................... 2,643 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................................... 1,874 418 125 96 49
General Transfer Authority:
Authorization Level....................................... 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................................... 280 -60 -120 -60 -20
-------------------------------------------------
Total
Authorization Level b..................................... 381,430 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays......................................... 252,899 86,630 27,346 7,944 2,726
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a This authorization is for discretionary appropriations and does not include $55 million for mandatory payments
from appropriations for military personnel.
b These amounts comprise nearly all of the proposed changes for authorizations of appropriations for 2003 shown
in Table 1; they do not include the estimated authorization of $92 million for the Coast Guard Reserve, which
is shown in Table 3.
TABLE 3.--ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED PROVISIONS IN H.R. 4546
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars
Category -------------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT
Virginia Class Submarine...................................... -37 -54 -60 -73 -93
C-130J Aircraft............................................... 15 -63 -121 -142 -162
FORCE STRUCTURE
DoD Military Endstrengths..................................... 528 1,089 1,122 1,155 1,191
Coast Guard Reserve Endstrengths.............................. 92 0 0 0 0
COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS (DoD)
Military Pay Raises........................................... 276 381 398 415 430
Expiring Bonuses and Allowances............................... 706 796 417 234 152
Education and Training........................................ 3 6 9 13 10
DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM
TRICARE Prime Remote.......................................... 12 10 9 8 8
Transitional Health Care...................................... 7
5 3 2 1
OTHER PROVISIONS
National Guard Challenge Program.............................. 16 16 17 17 18
Asbestos Payments............................................. -110 -110 -110 -110 -110
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program..................... 0 2 3 3 3
School Impact Aid............................................. 0 0 0 14 14
Military Housing Privatization Initiative..................... 0 0 80 80 80
TOTAL ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS
Estimated Authorization Level................................. 1,508 2,078 1,767 1,616 1,542
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: For every item in this table except the authorization for the Coast Guard, the 2003 levels are included in
the amounts specifically authorized to be appropriated in the bill. Those amounts are shown in Table 2.
Amounts shown in this table for 2004 through 2007 are not included in Table 1.
Multiyear Procurement
In most cases, purchases of weapon systems are authorized
annually, and as a result, DoD negotiates a separate contract
for each annual purchase. In a small number of cases, the law
permits multiyear procurement; that is, it allows DoD to enter
into a contract to buy specified annual quantities of a system
for up to five years. In those cases, DoD can negotiate lower
prices because its commitment to purchase the weapons gives the
contractor an incentive to find more economical ways to
manufacture the weapon, including cost-saving investments.
Annual funding is provided for these multiyear contracts, but
potential termination costs are covered by an initial
appropriation.
Section 111 would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to
enter into a multiyear contract for procurement of Virginia
class submarines starting in fiscal year 2003. This authority
would be conditional on the prime contractor for the Virginia
class submarine program entering into a binding agreement with
the U.S. government to expend from its own funds an amount not
less than $385 million for nuclear and non-nuclear components
purchased in economic quantities.
Based on information provided by the Navy, CBO assumes that
the Navy would buy five Virginia class submarines over the
2003-2007 period if this agreement can be reached. CBO
estimates that savings from buying these submarines under a
multiyear contract would total $317 million, or just over $60
million a submarine, over the 2003-2007 period. CBO estimates
that funding requirements to purchase these submarines, as well
as funding the advance purchase of components for future boats,
would total about $13 billion over the 2003-2007 period
(instead of the more than $13.3 billion that would be needed
under annual contracts).
Section 121 would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force
to enter into a multiyear contract to purchase C-130J aircraft
beginning in 2003 after the Secretary of Defense certifies that
two variants of the C-130J--the CC-130J airlift aircraft and
the KC-130J tanker aircraft--are operationally effective and
suitable. The Secretary of Defense also must certify that this
multiyear contract will result in substantial savings relative
to the cost of annual contracts, that requirements for the
system and the design of the system are stable, and that the
program is fully funded in the department's plans for
subsequent outyear budgets. Based on information provided by
the Air Force, CBO assumes that DoD will procure 64 aircraft
over the 2003-2008 period--40 CC-130J aircraft for the Air
Force and 24 KC-130J aircraft for the Marine Corps. CBO also
assumes that the CC-130J and KC-130J aircraft would be
purchased under one contract administered by the Air Force and
covering six years of production beginning in 2003. CBO
estimates that savings from buying these aircraft under a
multiyear contract would total $473 million, or about $95
million a year, over the 2003-2007 period. CBO also estimates
that additional savings of $182 million would accrue in 2008.
Funding requirements to purchase these aircraft would total
just under $3.4 billion over the 2003-2007 period (instead of
the almost $3.9 billion that would be needed under annual
contracts).
Multiyear procurement of C-130Js would raise costs in 2003
because the KC-130J did not receive advance procurement in 2002
in anticipation of multiyear procurement starting in 2003, and
because the Air Force would need to provide advance procurement
for the aircraft that it would purchase in 2004.
Military endstrength
The bill would authorize active and reserve endstrength
levels for 2003 and would increase the minimum endstrength
authorization in permanent law. The authorized endstrengths for
active-duty personnel and personnel in the selected reserve
would total about 1,400,000 and 865,000, respectively. Of those
selected reservists, about 69,000 would serve on active duty in
support of the reserves. The bill would specifically authorize
appropriations of $93.7 billion for the discretionary costs of
military pay and allowances in 2003. The authorized endstrength
represents a net increase of 12,552 servicemembers that would
boost costs for salaries and other expenses by $528 million in
the first year and about $1.1 billion annually in subsequent
years, compared to the authorized strengths for 2002.
The bill also would authorize an endstrength of 9,000 in
2003 for the Coast Guard Reserve. This authorization would cost
about $92 million and would fall under budget function 400
(transportation).
Section 403 would allow the service secretaries to increase
endstrength by 1 percent above the level authorized by the
Congress. Under current law, only the Secretary of Defense has
this authority. While there is the potential for increased
costs, the service secretaries would still have to manage their
resources given the finite amount of money appropriated each
year for military personnel. As such, CBO estimates that this
provision would not significantly increase costs.
Compensation and benefits
H.R. 4546 contains several provisions that would affect
military compensation and benefits for uniformed personnel.
Military Pay Raises. Section 601 would raise basic pay by
4.1 percent across-the-board and authorize additional targeted
pay raises, ranging from 0.9 percent to 4.4 percent, for
individuals with specific ranks and years of service at a total
cost of about $2.3 billion in 2003. Because the pay raises
would be above those projected under current law, CBO estimates
that the incremental costs associated with the larger pay raise
would be about $276 million in 2003 and total $1.9 billion over
the 2003-2007 period.
Expiring Bonuses and Allowances. Several sections would
extend DoD's authority to pay certain bonuses and allowances to
current personnel. Under current law, most of these authorities
are scheduled to expire in December 2002, or three months into
fiscal year 2003. The bill would extend these authorities
through December 2003. Based on data provided by DoD, CBO
estimates that the costs of these extensions would be as
follows:
Payment of reenlistment bonuses for active-
duty personnel would cost $327 million in 2003 and $191
million in 2004; enlistment bonuses for active-duty
personnel would cost $133 million in 2003 and $361
million in 2004;
Various bonuses for the Selected and Ready
Reserve would cost $99 million in 2003 and $114 million
in 2004;
Special payments for aviators and nuclear-
qualified personnel would cost $67 million in 2003 and
$72 million in 2004;
Retention bonuses for officers and enlisted
members with critical skills would cost $29 million in
2003 and $19 million in 2004;
Accession bonuses for new officers with
critical skills would cost $14 million in 2003 and $5
million in 2004; and
Authorities to make special payments and
give bonuses to certain health care professionals would
cost $37 million in 2003 and $34 million in 2004.
Most of these changes would result in additional, smaller costs
in subsequent years because payments are made in installments.
Education and Training. Section 531 would allow the
military services to increase the number of students at each of
the service academies from the current ceiling of 4,000 to
4,400 students over a four-year period at a maximum rate of 100
students a year for academic years 2003-2004 through 2007-2008.
Under this provision, the annual increase in service-academy
students could not exceed the increase in the number of
students in the Reserve Officer Training Corp (ROTC) for the
previous academic year.
Based on information from DoD, CBO expects that only the
Navy would increase its service-academy strength and that it
would bring on about 50 extra academy students a year, as well
as an additional 50 ROTC students, at an average annual cost of
about $34,000 per student. According to the Navy, these
additional students would not be used to increase overall
officer endstrength, but rather to offset a desired drawdown in
the number of officers commissioned through the Officer
Candidate School (OCS) program. Thus, the actual cost of the
increase for the academy and ROTC students would be offset
somewhat by the cost of the OCS graduates they would replace.
Because the OCS program lasts less than one year, the
offsetting costs would not begin to affect net outlays until
2007, when the first of the additional academy and ROTC
students would graduate and be commissioned. CBO estimates the
cost of implementing this provision would be $1 million in 2003
and $31 million over the 2003-2007 period, assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts.
Section 651 would extend the period during which eligible
reservists may use their education benefits from 10 years to 14
years. In 2001, over 82,000 reservists trained under this
program and received an average annual benefit of $1,653. These
benefits are paid by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from the
DoD Education Benefits Fund. Each month, DoD pays into the fund
the net present value of the education benefit granted to each
person who enlisted in the previous month. Based on information
from DoD about current contributions to the fund and expected
accessions, CBO estimates section 651 would increase payments
into the fund by about $2 million each year. (CBO estimates
that there also would be direct spending of about $29 million
over the 2003-2012 period for increased outlays from the fund.
CBO's estimate of those costs is discussed below under the
heading of ``Direct Spending.'')
Defense health program
Title VII contains several provisions that would affect DoD
health care and benefits. Tricare is the name of DoD's health
care program; Tricare Prime and Tricare Prime Remote are
managed care programs, and Tricare Standard is a fee-for-
service program.
Tricare Prime Remote. Section 702 would affect dependents
of servicemembers on active duty who live in a remote area,
which is defined as roughly a one-hour or more driving distance
from a military treatment facility. Under certain conditions,
this sectionwould allow dependents of personnel on active duty
who live in a remote area to participate in Tricare Prime Remote if the
servicemember is transferred to a different duty station and is not
allowed to bring his or her family. Section 702 also would allow the
family members of reservists called to active duty to participate in
the Tricare Prime Remote program if they live in a remote area. Under
current law, dependents of personnel on active duty living in remote
areas must reside with the active-duty member to participate in Tricare
Prime Remote. If the active-duty servicemember is transferred to a duty
station where he or she cannot bring family members, the family can no
longer participate in the Tricare Prime Remote program. Families of
reservists called to active duty also are not allowed to participate in
this program.
Based on information provided by DoD, CBO estimates that
about 36,000 dependents of personnel on active duty and about
50,000 dependents of reservists called to active duty would be
affected by this provision. While CBO expects the number of
family members of active-duty personnel to remain fairly
constant, CBO assumes that the more than 80,000 reservists
currently on active duty will decline to about 65,000 in 2003
and 10,000 by 2006. If the number of reservists called to
active duty were to remain at current levels over the 2003-2007
period, then the estimated costs would be correspondingly
higher.
According to DoD, about 40 percent of those dependents who
would be eligible for Tricare Prime Remote under this section
already participate in Tricare Standard. Based on data provided
by the department, CBO estimates that the additional
incremental cost of providing Tricare Prime Remote to those
individuals would be $113 per person. In addition, CBO
estimates that the new benefit would attract about 4,300
dependents to Tricare Prime Remote who had not previously used
any Tricare program at an estimated annual cost of $1,900 per
person. Thus, CBO estimates that the cost of providing Tricare
Prime Remote to more individuals would be $12 million in 2003
and $47 million over the 2003-2007 period, assuming
appropriation of the estimated amounts.
Transitional Health Care. Under section 706, family members
of reservists who were called to active duty for more than 30
days would be eligible for health care coverage under Tricare
for 60 days after the reservist is released from active duty.
Under current law, only the reservist is eligible for health
care coverage under Tricare for the 60 days after he or she is
released from active duty. While there are currently more than
80,000 reservists on active duty, CBO assumes for this estimate
that the number of reserves will fall to about 65,000 in 2003
and 10,000 by 2006. If the number of reservists remains at
current levels over the 2003-2007 period, the estimated costs
would be correspondingly higher.
Based on data from DoD and the General Accounting Office,
CBO estimates that about 50 percent of the reservists have
families and that about 40 percent of those families would use
the transitional health care. CBO further estimates that
providing an additional 60 days of health care coverage to
those families would cost, on average, about $600 per family.
After accounting for inflation and the assumed decline in the
level of reservists called to active duty, CBO estimates that
this provision would cost $7 million in 2003, and $18 million
over the 2003-2007 period, assuming appropriation of the
estimated amounts.
National Guard Challenge Program
Section 513 would allow DoD to reimburse a state program of
the National Guard Challenge Program for up to 75 percent of
the cost of operating the state program in a fiscal year. If
fully implemented, CBO estimates that implementing this
provision would cost $84 million over the 2003-2007 period. CBO
estimates that raising the federal contribution to these
programs to 75 percent would increase the annual federal cost
for each participant by approximately $2,500. Applying this
annual cost to the 6,400 participants in the program would
increase the cost by about $17 million per year over the 2003-
2007 period.
Asbestos differential pay
Under section 1103, federal wage-grade employees would be
subject to the same standards as general schedule employees
when determining eligibility for environmental differential pay
(EDP), based on exposure to asbestos. Under current law,
general schedule employees are entitled to 8 percent hazard
differential pay if they are exposed to asbestos that exceeds
the permissible exposure limits established by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The current EDP
standard for wage-grade employees entitles them to the same 8
percent of pay, but does not set an objective measure for
determining the level of asbestos exposure necessary to qualify
for EDP. In several instances where wage-grade employees have
sought back pay for EDP, arbitrators found in favor of the
employees when asbestos levels were below those consistent with
OSHA standards. Based on information from DoD on prior and
pending arbitration rulings, CBO expects that implementing
section 1103 would reduce the amount of back pay federal
agencies would be required to pay for EDP based on asbestos
exposure. Assuming these cases would be handled
administratively, CBO estimates establishing OSHA standards for
asbestos EDP would save $110 million in 2003 and $550 million
over the 2003-2007 period, assuming appropriations are reduced
by the estimated amounts.
Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program
Section 1104 would extend a provision of law into fiscal
year 2007 that allows DoD and certain Department of Energy
employees whose employment is terminated because of a
reduction-in-force action to continue to participate in the
FEHB health insurance program and only pay the regular
employee's share of the insurance premium. The respective
departments would be responsible for paying the normal
employer's share of the premium. Under current law, this
provision expires in fiscal year 2004. Based on information
from DoD and the Office of Personnel Management, CBO estimates
that this provision would affect about 500 people a year at an
average annual cost of $5,500 per person over the 2003-2007
period. CBO estimates that extending this provision into fiscal
year 2007 would cost $2 million in 2004, and $11 million over
the 2004-2007 period, assuming appropriation of the estimated
amounts.
School impact aid
Section 366 would allow school districts with a large
percentage of children from military families to continue to
receive heavy impact aid when military families are temporarily
relocated. Heavy impact aid is federal funding earmarked for
school districtswith large military populations. Many military
families in those school districts live on federal installations and do
not contribute to the local property tax base that is used to help
finance school operations. Heavy impact aid helps to offset this loss
of local tax revenue. Under current law, schools can only receive heavy
impact aid if they meet strict criteria for numbers of federal students
located in their districts, local tax rates, and per pupil
expenditures. Because of population relocations associated with certain
military housing initiatives, some school districts would temporarily
be unable to meet these criteria and would lose their heavy impact aid
for several years.
Based on data from the Department of Education and the
Military Impacted Schools Association, CBO estimates that about
four school districts would initially be affected by housing
privatization and that these school districts receive about $18
million in heavy impact aid annually. Because applications for
heavy impact aid are based on school district statistics from
three years prior, CBO estimates that the cost of implementing
this section would not occur until 2006. After adjusting for
the changes in student population within the affected
districts, CBO estimates that restoration of this aid would
cost about $14 million per year. Since the requirements of the
School Impact Aid program are not always fully funded, CBO
expects that the Department of Education would likely fund this
increase through reductions in aid to other school districts.
CBO expects this cost would reoccur annually only for the
duration of the privatization effort within the affected school
districts, which CBO estimates to be about three years.
Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI)
Section 2801 would increase the value of budget authority
that DoD can use to finance special authorities for the
construction and renovation of military family housing and
military unaccompanied housing. Those authorities allow DoD to
use direct loans, loan guarantees, long-term leases, rental
guarantees, barter, direct government investment, and other
financial arrangements to encourage private-sector
participation in building military housing. Funding for those
activities comes from the Family Housing Improvement Fund which
is financed by appropriations made to the fund, transfers from
other accounts, receipts from property sales and rents, returns
on any capital, and other income from operations or
transactions connected with the program. Currently the amounts
in the fund are available for use by DoD to acquire housing
using the various techniques mentioned above, but the total
value of budget authority for all contracts and investments
undertaken is limited to $1 billion ($850 million for family
housing and $150 million for unaccompanied housing). Under the
bill, those limits would be increased to $2 billion ($1.7
billion for family housing and $300 million for unaccompanied
housing).
To date, DoD has signed contracts for 16 family housing
projects and is proceeding with solicitations for or
considering plans for close to 60 other projects over the next
few years. Based on how the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has recorded obligations from DoD's use of this
authority, DoD has only recorded obligations of about $250
million--well below the current $1 billion limit. Given DoD's
plans for future projects, CBO estimates that the department
will reach the current limit by the end of 2004. As a result,
CBO estimates that raising the limit effectively authorizes
additional appropriations beginning in 2005. Based on recent
trends and DoD's current plans, CBO estimates these
authorizations would total about $80 million a year over the
2005-2007 period.
CBO, however, continues to believe that OMB's current
accounting for MHPI initiatives is at odds with government-wide
standards for recording obligations and outlays. Those
standards call for different treatments depending on the
character of the transaction. The OMB accounting treats certain
initiatives primarily as credit and other transactions that
have relatively little cost in terms of recorded obligations
and outlays. In contrast, CBO considers many MHPI projects as
having characteristics of lease-purchases or of public-private
partnerships, both of which require the Administration to
record higher levels of obligations and outlays. Currently the
Administration's approach allows DoD to obligate significantly
more federal resources than the existing $1 billion limitation
for such projects. Consequently, if the limitation is increased
to $2 billion, DoD would be allowed to obligate much more than
that figure.
Government-Wide Accounting Principles. Some of the options
available for use of the Family Housing Improvement Fund
involve up-front commitments of government resources that would
be spent over a long period of time. According to standard
principles of federal accounting, obligations of the fund
should reflect the full amount of the financial liability
incurred when the government makes such a commitment. In the
case of a long-term capital lease or rental guarantee, for
example, obligations should equal the total amount of lease or
rental payments over the life of the contract, and
appropriations to cover the full amount of such obligations
should be available before entering into the lease or
guarantee. Some commitments could take the form of lease-
purchases, which would require the recording of both
obligations and outlays up front. Still others could be public-
private partnerships formed to borrow private funds in order to
construct housing on a military base; in those instances,
obligations should equal the borrowing authority--a form of
budget authority--used for that project. If direct loans are
used to help finance an on-base project, the value of future
appropriations that will be passed through to developers--by
servicemembers who pay rent with their housing allowances--
should be viewed as a subsidy, which would increase
obligations.
In effect, the Administration's accounting is allowing DoD
to record the costs of the projects incrementally over time
rather than up front. CBO believes this is counter to the
government-wide principles that require costs from such
projects to be recorded up front in the budget. In future
years, CBO's approach would reduce the amount of budget
authority and outlays the Administration would need to record
each year in the military personnel accounts--which fund
housing allowances--since such costs would already be recorded.
CBO plans to consult with the Committee on the Budget in
both the House and the Senate on how to score future
legislation that expands or extends these authorities.
Depending on the outcome of those consultations, CBO may score
such future legislation as direct spending.
Matters relating to other nations
Section 1204 would expand the list of countries eligible
for loan financing under the defense export loan guarantee
program to include countries combating drug trafficking
organizations or combating foreign terrorist organizations, as
determined by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
State. CBO estimates that implementing this provision would
have no significant budgetary effect because CBO believes that
the authority would not be used. The section would not
authorize appropriations for the costof any loan guarantees, as
defined by the Federal Credit Reform Act. Without a subsidy
appropriation, the borrowing country would be required to pay fees
sufficient to cover the cost of the contingent liability of the United
States under the guarantee plus administrative expenses. CBO estimates
that the required fees would render the total cost of financing no more
attractive to potential borrowers than financing without a government
guarantee. CBO also estimates that the other limitations and
authorizations provided in title 12 would have little effect on the
spending of funds otherwise authorized to be appropriated.
Direct Spending
The bill contains provisions that would increase direct
spending, primarily from the phase-in of concurrent payment of
retirement annuities with veterans' disability compensation to
retirees from the military and the other uniformed services who
have service-connected disabilities rated at 60 percent or
greater. The bill also contains a few provisions with small
direct spending savings. On balance, CBO estimates that
enacting H.R. 4546 would result in a net increase in direct
spending totaling $5.8 billion over the 2003-2007 period (see
Table 4).
Concurrent receipt
Section 641 would phase in over five years total or partial
concurrent payment of retirement annuities together with
veterans' disability compensation to retirees from the
uniformed services who have service-connected disabilities
rated at 60 percent or greater. The uniformed services include
all branches of the U.S. military, the Coast Guard, and
uniformed members of the Public Health Service (PHS) and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Under current law, disabled veterans who are retired from
the uniformed services cannot receive both full retirement
annuities and disability compensation from the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA). Because of this prohibition on
concurrent receipt, such veterans forgo a portion of their
retirement annuity equal to the nontaxable veterans' benefit.
This section would permit, beginning in 2007, individuals who
have significant service-connected disabilities and have a
retirement annuity based on years of service, to receive both
benefits in full without the reduction called for under current
law. Individuals whose retirement pay is based on their degree
of disability would continue to forgo retirement pay equal to
the VA compensation payment, but only to the extent that their
disability had entitled them to a larger retirement annuity
than they would have received based on years of service.
TABLE 4.--ESTIMATED DIRECT SPENDING FROM CONCURRENT RECEIPT AND OTHER PROVISIONS IN H.R. 4546
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
-------------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Section 641--Concurrent Receipt:
Estimated Budget Authority................................ 516 643 1,029 1,608 2,006
Estimated Outlays......................................... 516 643 1,029 1,608 2,006
Section 362--Armed Forces Retirement Home Fee:
Estimated Budget Authority................................ -7 -7 -7 -7 -7
Estimated Outlays......................................... -7 -7 -7 -7 -7
Section 643--Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) Inversion:
Estimated Budget Authority................................ -3 -3 -4 -4 -4
Estimated Outlays......................................... -3 -3 -4 -4 -4
Section 644--Forgotten Widows:
Estimated Budget Authority................................ -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Estimated Outlays......................................... -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
Section 651--Education Benefits for Selected Reserves:
Estimated Budget Authority................................ 4 4 3 2 2
Estimated Outlays......................................... 4 4 3 2 2
Section 701--Mental Health Benefits:
Estimated Budget Authority................................ 0 1 1 1 1
Estimated Outlays......................................... 0 1 1 1 1
TOTAL CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Estimated Budget Authority.................................... 509 637 1,021 1,599 1,997
Estimated Outlays............................................. 509 637 1,021 1,599 1,997
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section also would repeal a program that partially
compensates certain severely disabled retirees for this
reduction in their retirement annuities. This program currently
pays a fixed benefit of $50 to $300 a month, depending on
degree of disability. Taken together, CBO estimates that
implementing section 641 would increase direct spending for
retirement annuities and veterans' disability compensation by a
net amount of about $516 million in 2003, $5.8 billion over the
2003-2007 period, and $17.8 billion over the 2003-2012 period
(see Table 5).
TABLE 5.--ESTIMATED CHANGES IN RETIREE BENEFITS UNDER H.R. 4546
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
Description of Benefits Program -------------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retirement Annuities:
Nondisability............................................. 490 591 887 1,370 1,744
Disability................................................ 83 97 135 194 234
Veterans Compensation Payments................................ 0 13 67 104 89
Survivor Benefit Plan Payments................................ 8 8 8 9 9
Special Compensation for Severely Disabled.................... -65 -66 -68 -69 -70
-------------------------------------------------
Total Changes in Retiree Benefits....................... 516 643 1,029 1,608 2,006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retirement Annuities. Since the proposed legislation would
treat retirees differently based on their type of retirement--
nondisability or disability, the potential costs of the
legislation depend on the number of beneficiaries, their type
of retirement, their disability levels, and their benefit
amounts.
Nondisability Retirees. A nondisability retirement is
granted based on length of service--usually 20 or more years.
Section 641 would allow those longevity retirees whose degree
of disability has been rated as 60 percent or greater to
receive full retirement annuities and veterans' disability
benefits with no offset in 2007, and to receive an increasing
portion of their retirement annuities over the 2003-2006
period. Data from the uniformed services indicate that in 2001
the prohibition on paying both benefits concurrently caused
about $1.3 billion to be withheld from the annuity payments of
about 74,000 eligible DoD retirees with nondisability
retirements, and about 900 eligible Coast Guard, PHS, and NOAA
retirees. Using current rates of net growth in the population
of new beneficiaries, CBO estimates this caseload would rise to
about 78,000 nondisability retirees in 2003, and 96,000
nondisability retirees by 2012. CBO assumes that future benefit
payments will increase consistent with current rates of growth
in average disability levels and also increase from cost-of-
living adjustments. After phasing the benefits in over five
years as specified in the provision, CBO estimates that
enacting the legislation would increase direct spending on
retirement annuities for nondisability retirees of the
uniformed services by $490 million in 2003, $5.1 billion over
the 2003-2007 period, and $15.6 billion over the 2003-2012
period.
Disability Retirees. Servicemembers who are found to be
unable to perform their duties because of service-related
disabilities may be granted a disability retirement. Section
641 would allow eligible disability retirees to receive
retirement annuities based on their years of service and
veterans' disability benefits with no offset in 2007, and
partial concurrent receipt of these payments in 2003 through
2006. Disability retirees would be eligible to obtain
concurrent receipt of their retirement annuity and veterans'
disability compensation if they served 20 or more years in the
uniformed services and had a disability rating of 60 percent or
greater.
Data from the uniformed services indicate that in 2001, the
prohibition on paying both benefits concurrently caused about
$200 million to be withheld from annuity payments of about
11,400 eligible DoD retirees with disability retirements, and
about 500 eligible Coast Guard, PHS, and NOAA retirees. An
analysis of retiree records by DoD indicates that, under the
criteria set forth in this section, these retirees would be
eligible to receive about 95 percent of their retirement
annuity concurrently with their VA disability benefit. Assuming
continuation of current trends in population and benefit
growth, and phasing the benefit in over five years as specified
in this section, CBO estimates that, of the disability retirees
who would be receiving VA disability benefits in fiscal year
2003,about 12,100 would be entitled to an additional $83
million in retirement annuities. CBO estimates their retirement
annuities would increase by $743 million over the 2003-2007 period and
$2 billion over the 2003-2012 period.
Other Effects of Concurrent Receipt. Enacting section 641
also would affect Veterans' Disability Compensation, receipts
to the Treasury for Survivor Benefit Payments, Special
Compensation to Severely Disabled Retirees, and the level of
contributions to the Military Retirement Trust Fund.
Veterans' Disability Compensation. Data from DoD indicates
that an additional 15,100 disability retirees of the uniformed
services--14,500 from DoD and about 600 from the other
uniformed services--do not currently receive VA disability
benefits that they are entitled to receive. Since many
disability retirees are not taxed on their annuities, there is
no incentive under current law for these retirees to apply for
the tax-free VA benefits, as they will be offset, dollar-for-
dollar, against their retirement annuities. Section 641 would
provide a significant incentive for the more disabled of these
individuals to apply for VA disability benefits. CBO estimates
that about 7,000 disability retirees might be eligible for
concurrent receipt under section 641, but, because many of
these retirees are both disabled and quite elderly, CBO expects
that only about half of that number would become aware of this
improved benefit and successfully complete the application
process. Based on their DoD-assessed degree of disability, CBO
estimates that outlays for VA disability benefits would
increase by $13 million in 2004, about $270 million over the
2003-2007 period, and $760 million over the 2003-2012 period.
Because of the time needed for individuals to prepare and
submit their applications and the current backlog in processing
applications, CBO estimates that enacting this legislation
would not increase outlays for veterans' disability
compensation in 2003.
Survivor Benefit Plan Offsetting Receipts. Many retirees
have a Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) premium payment deducted
from their retirement annuity. The SBP was established in
Public Law 92-425 to create an opportunity for military
retirees to provide annuities for their survivors. Those
retirees who are not receiving a paycheck from DoD because
their retirement annuity is totally offset by their VA
disability benefit may still participate in the SBP by paying
the monthly premium to the U.S. Treasury. These payments are
recorded as offsetting receipts to DoD. According to DoD,
approximately 34,000 military retirees paid $23 million in SBP
premiums to the Treasury in 2001. DoD also indicates that about
$7 million of that amount was paid by about 8,000 retirees who
would begin to receive annuity checks under section 641. CBO's
estimate of the increase in retirement outlays presented above
assumes that the SBP premiums of retirees who benefit from the
legislation would be deducted from the retirees' annuities, and
their payments to the Treasury would cease. Assuming
continuation of current trends in population and benefit
growth, CBO estimates these offsetting receipts (a credit
against direct spending) would decrease by about $8 million in
2003, $40 million over the 2003-2007 period, and $90 million
over the 2003-2012 period.
Repeal of Special Compensation for Severely Disabled
Retirees. Section 641 also would repeal a special compensation
program that currently pays a fixed benefit of $50 to $300 a
month to certain uniformed service retirees who were determined
to be 60 percent to 100 percent disabled within four years of
their retirement. Based on information from DoD and assuming
the population growth trends continue, CBO estimates that about
36,000 DoD retirees and about 600 retirees of the other
uniformed services will receive an average monthly benefit of
$150 in 2002. Under current law, this benefit is scheduled to
increase over the next two years to $172 a month. CBO estimates
that the savings from repealing this program would be $65
million in 2003, $338 million over the 2003-2007 period, and
$706 million over the 2003-2012 period.
Increased Accrual Payment Financing. The military
retirement system is financed in part by an annual payment from
appropriated funds (an outlay in budget function 050) to the
Military Retirement Fund, based on an estimate of the system's
accruing liabilities. If this provision is enacted, the yearly
contribution to the fund would increase to reflect the added
liability from the expected increase in annuities to future
retirees. Under section 641, however, this incremental increase
in the accrual payment would be paid to the Military Retirement
Fund by the Secretary of the Treasury from the general fund of
the Treasury. Using information from DoD, CBO estimates that
the accrual payment from the Treasury would be $569 million in
2003, and about $3 billion over the 2003-2007 period.
Armed Forces Retirement Home fee
Section 362 would increase the fee that certain military
personnel pay toward the operation of the Armed Forces
Retirement Home. Currently, these personnel--which include
active-duty enlisted personnel, warrant officers, and limited-
duty officers--are required to pay a fee of 50 cents per month,
which is used to offset the costs of operating the retirement
home. Section 362 would set the fee at $1.00 per month. Based
on information provided by the Department of Defense, CBO
estimates this provision would increase offsetting receipts (a
credit against direct spending) by $7 million per year.
Cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) inversion
Under current law, the annual COLA for military retirement
annuities, which takes effect every December, is calculated
based on the amount of the increase in the consumer price index
(CPI) over the course of the previous fiscal year. Members of
the uniformed services who are newly retired are credited with
only a partial-year COLA the first December of their
retirement. The size of this partial-year COLA depends on when
during the year they retired, and their retirement plan.
Because the CPI declined during the fourth quarter of 2001,
retirees whose ``COLA clock'' started counting during that
period of deflation will receive a larger COLA than those
retirees whose COLA is calculated from the previous, higher-
growth quarter. Section 643 would prevent this ``COLA
inversion'' by capping retirees' initial COLAs at the level of
the full-year COLA received by the rest of the retiree
population.
Based on data from DoD, CBO estimates that enacting this
legislation would reduce the COLA adjustment of about 43,000
servicemen who retire during fiscal year 2002 by less than half
a percentage point. CBO estimates that the retirement annuities
they would otherwise receive in 2003 would be reduced by a
total of about $3 million. This reduction in annuities would
increase over time by the amount of future COLA increases that
would otherwise have applied to the original $3 million. CBO
estimates section 643 would reduce retiree annuities by about
$18 million over the 2003-2007 period and by $38 million over
the 2003-2012 period.
Forgotten widows
Section 644 would modify a program to compensate surviving
spouses of certain active-duty servicemembers and reservists
who died before they were able to enroll in the Survivor
Benefit Plan. This program, which began in December 1997, is
currently providing a monthly annuity of $186 to over 2,500
beneficiaries. Under current law, benefits are retroactive to
the inception of the program. CBO estimates that a survivor
enrolling in the program in 2003 would receive, in addition to
the monthly annuity, a lump-sum payment of over $11,000 and
that by 2012, the lump-sum payment would increase to almost
$32,000. Section 644 would eliminate the retroactive portion of
the benefit, so that survivors who enroll in the program after
enactment of this legislation would receive the annuity, but
not the lump-sum payment. Data from DoD indicates that the
eligible population is elderly, and the recent growth rate has
been limited to between 100 and 150 surviving spouses a year.
Without the lump-sum payment incentive, CBO assumes even fewer
new enrollees would seek to become eligible each year. CBO
estimates eliminating the lump-sum payment would save about $9
million over the 2003-2012 period.
Education benefits for the selected reserve
Section 651 would extend the period during which eligible
reservists may use their education benefits from 10 years to 14
years. VA reported that, in 2001, over 82,000 reservists
trained under this program and received an average annual
benefit of $1,653. This average benefit includes both the basic
benefit and a supplemental benefit that DoD can offer to
enhance accessions or re-enlistment in critical skill
specialties. This benefit increases each year by a COLA and by
the level of supplemental benefits being offered. Based on
current usage rates, CBO estimates that enacting this extension
would result in an extra 2,500 trainees in fiscal year 2003 and
a somewhat smaller number of additional trainees in subsequent
years. The number of trainees will be larger in the first
several years because reservists who are currently excluded
from using their benefits because they have exceeded the 10-
year limit would be expected to use the newly available benefit
more intensively. Based on information from DoD and VA, CBO
estimates that enacting this legislation would increase
education outlays by $4 million in 2003, $15 million over the
2003-2007 period and by $29 million over the 2003-2012 period.
Since DoD makes monthly payments into the DoD Education
Benefits Fund in the amount of the net present value of the
benefits granted during the previous month, this increase in
usage of the education benefit would necessitate an increase in
payments to the fund. (The discretionary costs associated with
these payments are discussed earlier in the ``Spending Subject
to Appropriation'' section under the heading of ``Education and
Training.'')
Mental health benefits
Section 701 would remove a statutory requirement that
inpatient mental health care be preauthorized for retirees and
dependents who are eligible for Medicare beginning in 2004.
Under current law, Tricare for Life (TFL), another medical
program run by DoD, pays all Medicare copayments and
deductibles for those benefits that are covered by both
programs. Beginning in 2003, TFL spending for Medicare-eligible
retirees and dependents will be considered direct spending.
Under current law, Medicare does not require a preauthorization
for inpatient mental health care but Tricare does. Removing
this requirement would make the mental health benefits
identical and reduce confusion among beneficiaries and health
care providers.
Although most individuals would seek preauthorization
before receiving inpatient mental health care, CBO expects
that, under current law, some individuals would fail to obtain
the necessary preauthorization from Tricare and would have to
pay the copayments and deductibles on their own. Because DoD
does not have any available data on the frequency or costs of
inpatient mental health care for Medicare-eligible retirees and
dependents, CBO extrapolated this data from the general
Medicare population. Under section 701, CBO estimates that in
2004 TFL would cover the copayments and deductibles for about
600 additional people at an average cost of about $1,800 per
person. Thus, CBO estimates section 701 would raise direct
spending by $1 million in 2004, $4 million over the 2004-2007
period, and $14 million over the 2004-2012 period.
Land conveyance and other property transactions
Titles XXVIII and XIV would authorize a variety of property
transactions involving both large and small parcels of land.
Section 2841 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to convey to the city of West Wendover, Nevada, and Tooele
County, Utah, without consideration, two parcels of federal
land located in those states and identified in the bill.
According to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), those lands,
which are withdrawn for military purposes, currently generate
no offsetting receipts and are not expected to in the
foreseeable future. Hence, CBO estimates that conveying the
lands would not affect offsetting receipts. According to the
U.S. Air Force, portions of the lands that could be conveyed
have been used as a bombing range by the Air Force. Under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, the agency would have to remediate any expended
and unexploded ordnance prior to conveying those lands. Any
federal spending for remediation, which could be significant,
would be subject to appropriation. At this time, CBO does not
have sufficient information to estimate remediation costs.
CBO estimates that other provisions in title XXVIII would
not result in significant costs to the federal government
because they would either authorize DoD to exchange one piece
of property for another or would authorize DoD to convey land
that under current law is unlikely to be declared excess and
sold or is likely to be given away.
Title XIV of H.R. 4546 would designate as wilderness more
than 539,000 acres of federal lands throughout the state of
Utah. Subject to valid existing rights, the bill would withdraw
most of those lands from programs to develop mineral and
geothermal resources. Withdrawing those lands from leasing and
development could result in forgone offsetting receipts if,
under current law, the lands would generate receipts from those
activities. According to BLM, however, the lands currently
generate no significant receipts and are not expected to over
the next 10 years. Hence, we estimate that any resulting
changes in offsetting receipts would be negligible.
Title XIV also would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior
from issuing permits for rights-of-way through certain federal
lands in Utah. According to BLM, the agency collects less than
$100,000 a year from such permits; hence, CBO estimates that
anyresulting loss of offsetting receipts (a credit against
direct spending) would not exceed that amount in any year.
Other provisions
The following provisions would have an insignificant
budgetary impact on direct spending:
Section 364 would extend the arsenal support
program initiative (ASPI) through 2004. ASPI allows
government owned and operated arsenals to sign
contracts with private companies for the use of excess
plant space and equipment. The arsenal can then use the
rents and fees from these contracts to reduce overhead
costs. To date, these contracts have generated less
than $500,000 a year in proceeds.
Section 366 would allow the basic allowance
for housing (BAH) for service members who live in
privatized housing to be disregarded as income when
determining eligibility for free and reduced meals in
the school lunch program. Under current law, the BAH is
counted as income. The provision would allow more
children to be eligible for free and reduced price
meals for the one year period after enactment. CBO
estimates that this section would increase direct
spending in the child nutrition program in 2003, but
that the costs would not be significant. (If this bill
is enacted before the start of fiscal year 2003, then
there would be some insignificant cost in 2002 also.)
Section 2862 would allow the Navy to provide
wastewater treatment services from its facilities at
Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, to Onslow County and
other public entities near the base. In exchange for
those services, the Navy would receive cash or in-kind
payment. This provision would have no net impact on
direct spending because it would allow the Navy to
spend any cash that it collects.
Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. The net
changes in direct spending that are subject to pay-as-you-go
procedures are shown in Table 6. For the purposes of enforcing
pay-as-you-go procedures, only the effects through fiscal year
2006 are counted.
TABLE 6.--ESTIMATED IMPACT OF H.R. 4546 ON DIRECT SPENDING AND RECEIPTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays.............................................. 0 509 637 1,021 1,599 1,997 2,123 2,256 2,386 2,524 2,672
Changes in receipts............................................. Not applicable
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT
H.R. 4546 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state,
local, or tribal governments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Defense Outlays: Kent
Christensen. Military Construction: David Newman. Military and
Civilian Personnel: Michelle Patterson and Dawn Regan. Armed
Forces Retirement Home: Geoffrey Gerhardt. Military Retirement:
Sarah Jennings. Health Programs: Sam Papenfuss. Multiyear
Procurement: David Newman and Raymond Hall. Conservation and
Land Management: Megan Carroll. Maritime Administration:
Deborah Reis. Naval Petroleum Reserves: Lisa Cash Driskill.
Nutrition Programs: Valerie Womer. Operation and Maintenance:
Matt Schmit. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments:
Elyse Goldman. Impact on the Private Sector: R. William Thomas.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE
Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee generally concurs with
the estimates as contained in the report of the Congressional
Budget Office.
OVERSIGHT FINDINGS
With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, this legislation results from
hearings and other oversight activities conducted by the
committee pursuant to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X.
With respect to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not
include any new spending or credit authority, nor does it
provide for any increase or decrease in tax revenues or
expenditures. The bill does, however, authorize appropriations.
Other fiscal features of this legislation are addressed in the
estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974.
With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the committee has not received a
report from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
pertaining to the subject matter of H.R. 4546.
GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, this legislation would address
several general and outcome-related performance goals and
objectives. The general goal and objective of this legislation
is to improve the quality of life for military personnel and
their families, military readiness, the modernization and
eventual transformation of the armed forces, to enhance the
development of ballistic missile defenses, and to improve the
condition of military housing and facilities.
With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving the
quality of life for military personnel and their families, the
objective of this legislation is to:
(1) ensure the largest one-year growth in active duty
end strength since 1986 by adding 12,650 personnel,
enabling all the military services to begin meeting
long-standing manpower shortages, as well as new
manning requirements.
(2) provide every military service member a pay raise
of between 4.1 and 6.5 percent effective January 1,
2003;
(3) reduce out-of-pocket housing costs for military
personnel to less than 8 percent during fiscal year
2003;
(4) eliminate unfair provisions in current law,
thereby allowing those rated 60 percent disabled or
greater to receive by 2007 their full military retired
pay and full veteran's disability compensation.
With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving
military readiness, the objective of this legislation is to:
(1) increase funding for key readiness accounts by
$4.6 billion above the fiscal year 2002 level;
(2) satisfy approximately $200 million of the service
chiefs' unfunded readiness requirements;
With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving the
modernization and eventual transformation of the armed forces
and enhancing the development of ballistic missile defenses,
the objective of this legislation is to:
(1) increase funding for military procurement
accounts by $2.9 billion;
(2) satisfy more than $2 billion of the unfunded
procurement requirements identified by the service
chiefs; and
(3) increase funding for military research and
development accounts by $914 million.
With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving
military housing and facilities, the objective of this
legislation is to:
(1) provide $10 billion for military construction and
military family housing programs, including $2 billion
for quality of life enhancements;
(2) provide several enhancements to the authority
provided by current law to privatize military housing
that will provide the military services more
flexibility to procure adequate military family
housing.
With respect to the outcome-related goal of increasing
homeland and troop defenses against terrorist and ballistic
missile attacks, the objective of this legislation is to:
(1) support the President's request for $7.3 billion
to combat terrorism; and
(2) support the approach of the President's ballistic
missile defense program and to increase funding for
ballistic missile defense programs by $8.4 million
above the fiscal year 2002 level.
CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT
Pursuant to Rule XIII, clause 3 (d)(1) of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for
this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States
Constitution.
STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES
Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104-4, this
legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state,
local, and tribal governments, nor with respect to the private
sector. Similarly, the bill provides no federal
intergovernmental mandates.
RECORD VOTES
In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, record and voice votes were taken
with respect to the committee's consideration of H.R. 4546. The
record of these votes is attached to this report.
The committee ordered H.R. 4546 reported to the House with
a favorable recommendation by a vote of 57-1, a quorum being
present.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--General Military Law
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 2--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Sec.
111. Executive department.
* * * * * * *
113a. Transmission of annual defense authorization request.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 113a. Transmission of annual defense authorization request
(a) Time for Transmittal.--The Secretary of Defense shall
transmit to Congress the annual defense authorization request
for a fiscal year during the first 30 days after the date on
which the President transmits to Congress the budget for that
fiscal year pursuant to section 1105 of title 31.
(b) Defense Authorization Request Defined.--In this section,
the term ``defense authorization request'', with respect to a
fiscal year, means a legislative proposal submitted to Congress
for the enactment of the following:
(1) Authorizations of appropriations for that fiscal
year, as required by section 114 of this title.
(2) Personnel strengths for that fiscal year, as
required by section 115 of this title.
(3) Any other matter that is proposed by the
Secretary of Defense to be enacted as part of the
annual defense authorization bill for that fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 115. Personnel strengths: requirement for annual authorization
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Upon determination by the Secretary of a military
department that such action would enhance manning and readiness
in essential units or in critical specialties or ratings, the
Secretary may increase the end strength authorized pursuant to
subsection (a)(1)(A) for a fiscal year for the armed force
under the jurisdiction of that Secretary or, in the case of the
Secretary of the Navy, for any of the armed forces under the
jurisdiction of that Secretary. Any such increase for a fiscal
year--
(1) shall be by a number equal to not more than 1
percent of such authorized end strength; and
(2) shall be counted as part of the increase for that
armed force for that fiscal year authorized under
subsection (c)(1).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 118. Quadrennial defense review
(a) Review Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall every
four years, [during a year] during the second year following a
year evenly divisible by four, conduct a comprehensive
examination (to be known as a ``quadrennial defense review'')
of the national defense strategy, force structure, force
modernization plans, infrastructure, budget plan, and other
elements of the defense program and policies of the United
States with a view toward determining and expressing the
defense strategy of the United States and establishing a
defense program for the next 20 years. Each such quadrennial
defense review shall be conducted in consultation with the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
* * * * * * *
(d) Submission of QDR to Congressional Committees.--The
Secretary shall submit a report on each quadrennial defense
review to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and
the House of Representatives. The report shall be submitted not
later than September 30 of the year in which the review is
conducted. The report shall include the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(14) The national defense mission of the Coast Guard.
[(14)] (15) Any other matter the Secretary considers
appropriate.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 5--JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF
* * * * * * *
Sec. 153. Chairman: functions
(a) Planning; Advice; Policy Formulation.--Subject to the
authority, direction, and control of the President and the
Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
shall be responsible for the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 8--DEFENSE AGENCIES AND DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FIELD ACTIVITIES
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--MISCELLANEOUS DEFENSE AGENCY MATTERS
Sec.
201. Certain intelligence officials: consultation and concurrence
regarding appointments; evaluation of performance.
[203. Director of Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.]
203. Director of Missile Defense Agency.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 203. Director of Ballistic Missile Defense Organization]
Sec. 203. Director of Missile Defense Agency
If an officer of the armed forces on active duty is appointed
to the position of Director of the [Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization] Missile Defense Agency, the position shall be
treated as having been designated by the President as a
position of importance and responsibility for purposes of
section 601 of this title and shall carry the grade of
lieutenant general or general or, in the case of an officer of
the Navy, vice admiral or admiral.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 9--DEFENSE BUDGET MATTERS
Sec.
221. Future-years defense program: submission to Congress; consistency
in budgeting.
* * * * * * *
[230. Amounts for declassification of records.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 223. Ballistic missile defense programs: program elements
(a) Program Elements Specified.--In the budget justification
materials submitted to Congress in support of the Department of
Defense budget for any fiscal year (as submitted with the
budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title 31), the
amount requested for activities of the [Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization] Missile Defense Agency shall be set forth
in accordance with program elements governing functional areas
as follows:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 224. Ballistic missile defense programs: display of amounts for
research, development, test, and evaluation
(a) Requirement.--Any amount in the budget submitted to
Congress under section 1105 of title 31 for any fiscal year for
research, development, test, and evaluation for a Department of
Defense missile defense program described in subsection (b)
shall be set forth under the account of the Department of
Defense for Defense-wide research, development, test, and
evaluation and, within that account, under the subaccount (or
other budget activity level) for the [Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization] Missile Defense Agency.
(b) Transfer Criteria.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
establish criteria for the transfer of responsibility for a
ballistic missile defense program from the Director of the
[Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense Agency
to the Secretary of a military department. The criteria
established for such a transfer shall, at a minimum, address
the following:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Notification of Transfer.--Before responsibility for a
ballistic missile defense program is transferred from the
Director of the [Ballistic Missile Defense Organization]
Missile Defense Agency to the Secretary of a military
department, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees notice in writing of the
Secretary's intent to make that transfer. The Secretary shall
include with such notice a certification that the program has
met the criteria established under subsection (b) for such a
transfer. The transfer may then be carried out after the end of
the 60-day period beginning on the date of such notice.
(d) Conforming Budget and Planning Transfers.--When a
ballistic missile defense program is transferred from the
[Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense Agency
to the Secretary of a military department in accordance with
this section, the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that all
appropriate conforming changes are made to proposed or
projected funding allocations in the future-years defense
program under section 221 of this title and other Department of
Defense program, budget, and planning documents.
(e) Follow-on Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation.--
The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that, [before a] for each
ballistic missile defense program [is] transferred from the
Director of the [Ballistic Missile Defense Organization]
Missile Defense Agency to the Secretary of a military
department, [roles and responsibilities for research,
development, test, and evaluation related to system
improvements for that program are clearly defined.]
responsibility for research, development, test, and evaluation
related to system improvements for that program remains with
the Director.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 228. Monthly reports on allocation of funds within operation and
maintenance budget subactivities
(a) Monthly Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit
[to Congress] to the congressional defense committees a monthly
report on the allocation of appropriations to O&M budget
activities and to the subactivities of those budget activities.
Each such report shall be submitted not later than 60 days
after the end of the month to which the report pertains.
* * * * * * *
[(e) O&M Budget Activity Defined.--For purposes of this
section, the] (e) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``O&M budget activity'' means a budget
activity within an operation and maintenance
appropriation of the Department of Defense for a fiscal
year.
(2) The term ``congressional defense committees''
means the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee
on Appropriations of the Senate and the Committee on
Armed Services and the Committee on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 230. Amounts for declassification of records
[The Secretary of Defense shall include in the budget
justification materials submitted to Congress in support of the
Department of Defense budget for any fiscal year (as submitted
with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title
31) specific identification of the amounts required to carry
out programmed activities during that fiscal year to declassify
records pursuant to Executive Order No. 12958 (50 U.S.C. 435
note) or any successor Executive order or to comply with any
statutory requirement, or any request, to declassify Government
records. Identification of such amounts in such budget
justification materials shall be in a single display that shows
the total amount for the Department of Defense and the amount
for each military department and Defense Agency.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 23--MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS
Sec.
480. Reports to Congress: submission in electronic form.
* * * * * * *
488. Status of female members of the armed forces: annual report.
Sec. 480. Reports to Congress: submission in electronic form
(a) Requirement.--Whenever the Secretary of Defense or any
other official of the Department of Defense submits to Congress
(or any committee of either House of Congress) a report that
the Secretary (or other official) is required by law to submit,
the Secretary (or other official) [shall, upon request by any
committee of Congress to which the report is submitted or
referred, provide to Congress (or each] shall provide to
Congress (or such committee) a copy of the report in an
electronic medium.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 488. Status of female members of the armed forces: annual report
(a) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress an annual report on the status of female members of
the armed forces. Information in the report shall be shown for
the Department of Defense as a whole and separately for each of
the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
(b) Matters To Be Included.--Each report under subsection (a)
shall include, at a minimum, the following information with
respect to female members:
(1) Access to health care.
(2) Positions open.
(3) Assignment policies.
(4) Joint spouse assignments.
(5) Deployment availability rates.
(6) Promotion and retention rates.
(7) Assignments in nontraditional fields.
(8) Assignments to command positions.
(9) Selection for service schools.
(10) Sexual harassment.
* * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 32--OFFICER STRENGTH AND DISTRIBUTION IN GRADE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 525. Distribution of commissioned officers on active duty in
general officer and flag officer grades
(a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
(2)(A) * * *
(B) No appointment may be made in a grade above major general
in the Marine Corps if that appointment would result in more
than [16.2] 17.5 percent of the general officers of the Marine
Corps on active duty being in grades above major general.
(5)(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) This paragraph shall cease to be effective at the end of
[September 30, 2003] December 31, 2004.
* * * * * * *
(8) An officer while serving in a position designated by the
Secretary of Defense as Senior Military Assistant to the
Secretary of Defense, if serving in the grade of lieutenant
general or vice admiral, is in addition to the number that
otherwise would be permitted for that officer's armed force for
that grade under paragraph (1) or (2). Only one officer may be
designated as Senior Military Assistant to the Secretary of
Defense for purposes of this paragraph.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 526. Authorized strength: general and flag officers on active duty
(a) * * *
(b) Limited Exclusion for Joint Duty Requirements.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) This subsection shall cease to be effective on [October
1, 2002] December 31, 2004.
[(c) Notice to Congress Upon Change in Grade for Certain
Positions.--(1) Not later than 60 days before an action
specified in paragraph (2) may become effective, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives a report providing notice of the intended
action and an analytically based justification for the intended
action.
[(2) Paragraph (1) applies in the case of the following
actions:
[(A) A change in the grade authorized as of July 1,
1994, for a general officer position in the National
Guard Bureau, a general or flag officer position in the
Office of a Chief of a reserve component, or a general
or flag officer position in the headquarters of a
reserve component command.
[(B) Assignment of a reserve component officer to a
general officer position in the National Guard Bureau,
to a general or flag officer position in the Office of
a Chief of a reserve component, or to a general or flag
officer position in the headquarters of a reserve
component command in a grade other than the grade
authorized for that position as of July 1, 1994.
[(C) Assignment of an officer other than a general or
flag officer as the military executive to the Reserve
Forces Policy Board.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 35--TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS IN OFFICER GRADES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 604. Senior joint officer positions: recommendations to the
Secretary of Defense
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Expiration.--This section shall cease to be effective at
the end of [September 30, 2003] December 31, 2004.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 38--JOINT OFFICER MANAGEMENT
* * * * * * *
Sec. 663. Education
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Duration of Principal Course of Instruction at Joint
Forces Staff College.--(1) * * *
(2) In this subsection, the term ``principal course of
instruction'' means any course of instruction offered at the
[Armed Forces Staff College] Joint Forces Staff College as
Phase II joint professional military education.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 39--ACTIVE DUTY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 691. Permanent end strength levels to support two major regional
contingencies
(a) * * *
(b) Unless otherwise provided by law, the number of members
of the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard) on active duty
at the end of any fiscal year shall be not less than the
following:
(1) For the Army, [480,000] 484,800.
(2) For the Navy, [376,000] 379,457.
(3) For the Marine Corps, [172,600] 175,000.
(4) For the Air Force, [358,800] 360,795.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 40--LEAVE
Sec.
701. Entitlement and accumulation.
* * * * * * *
709. Voluntary transfers of leave.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 705. Rest and recuperative absence for qualified enlisted members
extending duty at designated locations overseas
(a) * * *
(b) The benefits authorized by subsection (a) are--
(1) * * *
(2) a period of rest and [recuperative] recuperation
absence for not more than 15 days and round-trip
transportation at Government expense from the location
of the extended tour of duty to the nearest port in the
48 contiguous States and return, or to an alternate
location at a cost not to exceed the cost of
transportation to the nearest port in the 48 contiguous
States, and return.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 709. Voluntary transfers of leave
(a) Program.--The Secretary concerned shall, by regulation,
establish a program under which leave accrued by a member of an
armed force may be transferred to another member of the same
armed force who requires additional leave because of a
qualifying emergency. Any such transfer of leave may be made
only upon the voluntary written application of the member whose
leave is to be transferred.
(b) Approval of Commanding Officer Required.--Any transfer of
leave under a program under this section may only be made with
the approval of the commanding officer of the leave donor and
the leave recipient.
(c) Qualifying Emergency.--In this section, the term
``qualifying emergency'', with respect to a member of the armed
forces, means a circumstance that--
(1) is likely to require the prolonged absence of the
member from duty; and
(2) is due to--
(A) a medical condition of a member of the
immediate family of the member; or
(B) any other hardship that the Secretary
concerned determines appropriate for purposes
of this section.
(d) Military Department Regulations.--Regulations prescribed
under this section by the Secretaries of the military
department shall be as uniform as practicable and shall be
subject to approval by the Secretary of Defense.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 41--SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS, ASSIGNMENTS, DETAILS, AND DUTIES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 721. General and flag officers: limitation on appointments,
assignments, details, and duties outside an
officer's own service
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Treatment of Officers Holding Multiple Positions.--[(1)]
If an officer described in subsection (b) simultaneously holds
both a position external to that officer's armed force and
another position not external to that officer's armed force,
the Secretary of Defense shall determine whether that officer
shall be counted for the purposes of this section.
[(2) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress an
annual report on the number of officers to whom paragraph (1)
was applicable during the year covered by the report. The
report shall set forth the determination made by the Secretary
under that paragraph in each such case.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 47--UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER VII--TRIAL PROCEDURE
Sec.
Art.
836.
36.
President may prescribe rules.
* * * * * * *
852a.
52a.
Right of accused to request sentencing by military judge rather than by
members.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 852a. Art. 52a. Right of accused to request sentencing by military
judge rather than by members
(a) In the case of an accused convicted of an offense by a
court-martial composed of a military judge and members, the
sentence shall be tried before and adjudged by the military
judge rather than the members if, after the findings are
announced and before evidence in the sentencing proceeding is
introduced, the accused, knowing the identity of the military
judge and after consultation with defense counsel, requests
orally on the record or in writing that the sentence be tried
before and adjudged by the military judge rather than the
members.
(b) This section shall not apply with respect to an offense
for which the death penalty may be adjudged unless the case has
been previously referred to trial as a noncapital case.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 49--MISCELLANEOUS PROHIBITIONS AND PENALTIES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 986. Security clearances: limitations
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(e) Annual Report.--Not later than February 1 each year, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed
Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report
identifying each waiver issued under subsection (d) during the
preceding year with an explanation for each case of the
disqualifying factor in subsection (c) that applied, and the
reason for the waiver of the disqualification.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 54--COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE BENEFITS
Sec.
1061. Survivors of certain Reserve and Guard members.
* * * * * * *
[1063a. Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities: members of
National Guard serving in federally declared disaster.]
1063a. Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities: members of
National Guard serving in federally declared disaster or
national emergency.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 1063a. Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities:
members of National Guard serving in federally
declared disaster]
Sec. 1063a. Use of commissary stores and MWR retail facilities: members
of National Guard serving in federally declared
disaster or national emergency
(a) Eligibility of Members.--A member of the National Guard
who, although not in Federal service, is called or ordered to
duty in response to a federally declared disaster or national
emergency shall be permitted to use commissary stores and MWR
retail facilities during the period of such duty on the same
basis as members of the armed forces on active duty.
* * * * * * *
(c) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) National emergency.--The term ``national
emergency'' means a national emergency declared by the
President or Congress.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 55--MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1076a. TRICARE dental program
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(k) Eligible Dependent Defined.--In this section, the term
``eligible dependent''--
(1) * * *
(2) includes any such dependent of a member who dies
while on active duty for a period of more than 30 days
or a member of the Ready Reserve if the dependent is
enrolled on the date of the death of the member in a
dental benefits plan established under subsection (a)
(or, if not enrolled, if the member discontinued
participation under subsection (f)), except that the
term does not include the dependent after the end of
the three-year period beginning on the date of the
member's death.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1079. Contracts for medical care for spouses and children: plans
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Except in the case of an emergency or in the case of a
person eligible for health care benefits under section
1086(d)(2) of this title for whom payment for such services is
made under subsection 1086(d)(3) of this title, the Secretary
of Defense shall require preadmission authorization before
inpatient mental health services may be provided to persons
covered by this section or section 1086 of this title. In the
case of the provision of emergency inpatient mental health
services, approval for the continuation of such services shall
be required within 72 hours after admission.
* * * * * * *
(p)(1)(A) Subject to such exceptions as the Secretary of
Defense considers necessary, coverage for medical care under
this section for the dependents [referred to in subsection (a)
of a member of the uniformed services referred to in section
1074(c)(3) of this title who are residing with the member]
described in subparagraph (B), and standards with respect to
timely access to such care, shall be comparable to coverage for
medical care and standards for timely access to such care under
the managed care option of the TRICARE program known as TRICARE
Prime.
(B) A dependent referred to in subparagraph (A) is--
(i) a dependent referred to in subsection (a) of a
member of the uniformed services referred to in section
1074(c)(3) of this title, who is residing with the
member; or
(ii) a dependent referred to in subsection (a) of a
member of the uniformed services with a permanent duty
assignment for which the dependent is not authorized to
accompany the member and one of the following
circumstances exists:
(I) The dependent continues to reside at the
location of the former duty assignment of the
member (or residence in the case of a member of
a reserve component ordered to active duty for
a period of more than 30 days), and that
location is more than 50 miles, or
approximately one hour of driving time, from
the nearest military medical treatment facility
that can adequately provide needed health care.
(II) There is no reasonable expectation the
member will return to the location of the
former duty assignment, and the dependent moves
to a location that is more than 50 miles, or
approximately one hour of driving time, from
the nearest military medical treatment facility
that can adequately provide needed health care.
(q) For purposes of designating institutional and non-
institutional health care providers authorized to provide care
under this section, the Secretary of Defense shall prescribe
regulations (in consultation with the other administering
Secretaries) that will, to the extent practicable and subject
to the limitations of subsection (a), so designate any provider
authorized to provide care under title XVIII of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1095. Health care services incurred on behalf of covered
beneficiaries: collection from third-party payers
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g)[(1)] Amounts collected under this section from a third-
party payer or under any other provision of law from any other
payer for health care services provided at or through a
facility of the uniformed services shall be credited to the
appropriation supporting the maintenance and operation of the
facility and shall not be taken into consideration in
establishing the operating budget of the facility.
[(2) Not later than February 15 of each year, the Secretary
of Defense shall submit to Congress a report specifying for
each facility of the uniformed services the amount credited to
the facility under this subsection during the preceding fiscal
year.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 56--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MEDICARE-ELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH CARE
FUND
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1111. Establishment and purpose of Fund; definitions; authority to
enter into agreements
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) The Secretary of Defense [may enter into an agreement
with any other administering Secretary] shall enter into an
agreement with each other administering Secretary (as defined
in section 1072(3) of this title) for participation in the Fund
by a uniformed service under the jurisdiction of that
Secretary. [Any] Each such agreement shall require that
Secretary to determine contributions to the Fund on behalf of
the members of the uniformed service under the jurisdiction of
that Secretary in a manner comparable to the determination with
respect to contributions to the Fund made by the Secretary of
Defense under section 1116 of this title, and such
administering Secretary may make such contributions.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1116. Payments into the Fund
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Amounts paid into the Fund under subsection (a) shall be
paid from funds available for the health care programs of the
participating uniformed services under the jurisdiction of the
respective administering Secretaries.]
(c) Amounts paid into the Fund under subsection (a) shall be
paid from funds available for the pay of members of the
participating uniformed services under the jurisdiction of the
respective administering Secretaries.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 58--BENEFITS AND SERVICES FOR MEMBERS BEING SEPARATED OR
RECENTLY SEPARATED
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1145. Health benefits
(a) Transitional Health Care.--(1) For the applicable time
period described in paragraph (3), a member of the armed forces
who is separated from active duty as described in paragraph (2)
(and the dependents of the member) shall be entitled to
receive--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 71--COMPUTATION OF RETIRED PAY
Sec.
1401. Computation of retired pay.
* * * * * * *
[1413. Special compensation for certain severely disabled uniformed
services retirees.
[1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected
disabilities: payment of retired pay and veterans' disability
compensation; contingent authority.]
1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected
disabilities rated at 60 percent or higher: concurrent payment
of retired pay and veterans' disability compensation.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1401a. Adjustment of retired pay and retainer pay to reflect
changes in Consumer Price Index
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) First COLA Adjustment for Members With Retired Pay
Computed Using Final Basic Pay.--
(1) First adjustment with intervening increase in
basic pay.--Notwithstanding subsection (b) but subject
to subsection (f)(2), if a person described in
paragraph (3) becomes entitled to retired pay based on
rates of monthly basic pay that became effective after
the last day of the calendar quarter of the base index,
the retired pay of the member or former member shall be
increased on the effective date of the next adjustment
of retired pay under subsection (b) only by the percent
(adjusted to the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent) by
which--
(A) the price index for the base quarter of
that year, exceeds
(B) the price index for the calendar quarter
immediately before the calendar quarter in
which the rates of monthly basic pay on which
the retired pay is based became effective.
(2) First adjustment with no intervening increase in
basic pay.--If a person described in paragraph (3)
becomes entitled to retired pay on or after the
effective date of an adjustment in retired pay under
subsection (b) but before the effective date of the
next increase in the rates of monthly basic pay, the
retired pay of the member or former member shall be
increased (subject to subsection (f)(2) as applied to
other members whose retired pay is computed on the
current rates of basic pay in the most recent
adjustment under this section), effective on the date
the member becomes entitled to that pay, by the percent
(adjusted to the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent) by
which--
(A) the base index, exceeds
(B) the price index for the calendar quarter
immediately before the calendar quarter in
which the rates of monthly basic pay on which
the retired pay is based became effective.
(d) First COLA Adjustment for Members With Retired Pay
Computed Using High-Three.--Notwithstanding subsection (b) but
subject to subsection (f)(2), the retired pay of a member or
former member of an armed force who first became a member of a
uniformed service before August 1, 1986, or on or after August
1, 1986, if the member or former member did not elect to
receive a bonus under section 322 of title 37 and whose retired
pay base is determined under section 1407 of this title shall
be increased on the effective date of the first adjustment of
retired pay under subsection (b) after the member or former
member becomes entitled to retired pay by the percent (adjusted
to the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent) equal to the difference
between the percent by which--
(1) the price index for the base quarter of that
year, exceeds
(2) the price index for the calendar quarter
immediately before the calendar quarter during which
the member became entitled to retired pay.
(e) Pro Rating of Initial Adjustment.--Notwithstanding
subsection (b) but subject to subsection (f)(2), the retired
pay of a member or former member of an armed force who first
became a member of a uniformed service on or after August 1,
1986, and elected to receive a bonus under section 322 of title
37 shall be increased on the effective date of the first
adjustment of retired pay under subsection (b) after the member
or former member becomes entitled to retired pay by the percent
(adjusted to the nearest one-tenth of 1 percent) equal to the
difference between--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Prevention of Pay Inversions.--
(1) Prevention of retired pay inversions.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the monthly
retired pay of a member or a former member of an armed
force who initially became entitled to that pay on or
after January 1, 1971, may not be less than the monthly
retired pay to which he would be entitled if he had
become entitled to retired pay at an earlier date based
on the grade in which the member is retired, adjusted
to reflect any applicable increases in such pay under
this section. In computing the amount of retired pay to
which such a member or former member would have been
entitled on that earlier date, the computation shall be
based on his grade, length of service, and the rate of
basic pay applicable to him at that time, except that
such computation may not be based on a rate of basic
pay for a grade higher than the grade in which the
member is retired. This subsection does not authorize
any increase in the monthly retired pay to which a
member was entitled for any period before October 7,
1975.
(2) Prevention of cola inversions.--The percentage of
the first adjustment under this section in the retired
pay of any person, as determined under subsection
(c)(1), (c)(2), (d), or (e), may not exceed the
percentage increase in retired pay determined under
subsection (b)(2) that is effective on the same date as
the effective date of such first adjustment.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 1413. Special compensation for certain severely disabled
uniformed services retirees
[(a) Authority.--The Secretary concerned shall pay to each
eligible disabled uniformed services retiree a monthly amount
determined under subsection (b). If the provisions of
subsection (a) of section 1414 of this title become effective
in accordance with subsection (f) of that section, payments
under this section shall be terminated effective as of the
month beginning on the effective date specified in subsection
(e) of that section.
[(b) Amount.--The amount to be paid to an eligible disabled
uniformed services retiree in accordance with subsection (a) is
the following:
[(1) For payments for months beginning with February
2002 and ending with December 2002, the following:
[(A) For any month for which the retiree has
a qualifying service-connected disability rated
as total, $300.
[(B) For any month for which the retiree has
a qualifying service-connected disability rated
as 90 percent, $200.
[(C) For any month for which the retiree has
a qualifying service-connected disability rated
as 80 percent or 70 percent, $100.
[(D) For any month for which the retiree has
a qualifying service-connected disability rated
as 60 percent, $50.
[(2) For payments for months beginning with January
2003 and ending with September 2004, the following:
[(A) For any month for which the retiree has
a qualifying service-connected disability rated
as total, $325.
[(B) For any month for which the retiree has
a qualifying service-connected disability rated
as 90 percent, $225.
[(C) For any month for which the retiree has
a qualifying service-connected disability rated
as 80 percent, $125.
[(D) For any month for which the retiree has
a qualifying service-connected disability rated
as 70 percent, $100.
[(E) For any month for which the retiree has
a qualifying service-connected disability rated
as 60 percent, $50.
[(3) For payments for months after September 2004,
the following:
[(A) For any month for which the retiree has
a qualifying service-connected disability rated
as total, $350.
[(B) For any month for which the retiree has
a qualifying service-connected disability rated
as 90 percent, $250.
[(C) For any month for which the retiree has
a qualifying service-connected disability rated
as 80 percent, $150.
[(D) For any month for which the retiree has
a qualifying service-connected disability rated
as 70 percent, $125.
[(E) For any month for which the retiree has
a qualifying service-connected disability rated
as 60 percent, $50.
[(c) Eligible Members.--An eligible disabled uniformed
services retiree referred to in subsection (a) is a member of
the uniformed services in a retired status who--
[(1) completed at least 20 years of service in the
uniformed services that are creditable for purposes of
computing the amount of retired pay to which the member
is entitled; and
[(2) has a qualifying service-connected disability.
[(d) Qualifying Service-Connected Disability Defined.--In
this section, the term ``qualifying service-connected
disability'' means a service-connected disability that--
[(1) was incurred or aggravated in the performance of
duty as a member of a uniformed service, as determined
by the Secretary concerned; and
[(2) is rated as not less than 60 percent disabling--
[(A) by the Secretary concerned as of the
date on which the member is retired from the
uniformed services; or
[(B) by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
within four years following the date on which
the member is retired from the uniformed
services.
[(e) Status of Payments.--Payments under this section are not
retired pay.
[(f) Source of Funds.--Payments under this section for any
fiscal year shall be paid out of funds appropriated for pay and
allowances payable by the Secretary concerned for that fiscal
year.
[(g) Other Definitions.--In this section:
[(1) The term ``service-connected'' has the meaning
given that term in section 101 of title 38.
[(2) The term ``disability rated as total'' means--
[(A) a disability that is rated as total
under the standard schedule of rating
disabilities in use by the Department of
Veterans Affairs; or
[(B) a disability for which the scheduled
rating is less than total but for which a
rating of total is assigned by reason of
inability of the disabled person concerned to
secure or follow a substantially gainful
occupation as a result of service-connected
disabilities.
[(3) The term ``retired pay'' includes retainer pay,
emergency officers' retirement pay, and naval pension.
[Sec. 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected
disabilities: payment of retired pay and veterans'
disability compensation; contingent authority
[(a) Payment of Both Retired Pay and Compensation.--Subject
to subsection (b), a member or former member of the uniformed
services who is entitled to retired pay (other than as
specified in subsection (c)) and who is also entitled to
veterans' disability compensation is entitled to be paid both
without regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38, subject
to the enactment of qualifying offsetting legislation as
specified in subsection (f).
[(b) Special Rule for Chapter 61 Career Retirees.--The
retired pay of a member retired under chapter 61 of this title
with 20 years or more of service otherwise creditable under
section 1405 of this title at the time of the member's
retirement is subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 5305
of title 38, but only to the extent that the amount of the
member's retired pay under chapter 61 of this title exceeds the
amount of retired pay to which the member would have been
entitled under any other provision of law based upon the
member's service in the uniformed services if the member had
not been retired under chapter 61 of this title.
[(c) Exception.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a member
retired under chapter 61 of this title with less than 20 years
of service otherwise creditable under section 1405 of this
title at the time of the member's retirement.
[(d) Definitions.--In this section:
[(1) The term ``retired pay'' includes retainer pay,
emergency officers' retirement pay, and naval pension.
[(2) The term ``veterans' disability compensation''
has the meaning given the term ``compensation'' in
section 101(12) of title 38.
[(e) Effective Date.--If qualifying offsetting legislation
(as defined in subsection (f)) is enacted, the provisions of
subsection (a) shall take effect on--
[(1) the first day of the first month beginning after
the date of the enactment of such qualifying offsetting
legislation; or
[(2) the first day of the fiscal year that begins in
the calendar year in which such legislation is enacted,
if that date is later than the date specified in
paragraph (1).
[(f) Effectiveness Contingent on Enactment of Offsetting
Legislation.--(1) The provisions of subsection (a) shall be
effective only if--
[(A) the President, in the budget for any fiscal
year, proposes the enactment of legislation that, if
enacted, would be qualifying offsetting legislation;
and
[(B) after that budget is submitted to Congress,
there is enacted qualifying offsetting legislation.
[(2) In this subsection:
[(A) The term ``qualifying offsetting legislation''
means legislation (other than an appropriations Act)
that includes provisions that--
[(i) offset fully the increased outlays to be
made by reason of the provisions of subsection
(a) for each of the first 10 fiscal years
beginning after the date of the enactment of
such legislation;
[(ii) expressly state that they are enacted
for the purpose of the offset described in
clause (i); and
[(iii) are included in full on the PayGo
scorecard.
[(B) The term ``PayGo scorecard'' means the estimates
that are made by the Director of the Congressional
Budget Office and the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget under section 252(d) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of
1985 (2 U.S.C. 902(d)) with respect to the ten fiscal
years following the date of the enactment of the
legislation that is qualifying offsetting legislation
for purposes of this section.]
Sec. 1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected
disabilities rated at 60 percent or higher:
concurrent payment of retired pay and veterans'
disability compensation
(a) Payment of Both Retired Pay and Compensation.--Subject to
subsection (b), a member or former member of the uniformed
services who is entitled for any month to retired pay and who
is also entitled for that month to veterans' disability
compensation for a qualifying service-connected disability
(hereinafter in this section referred to as a ``qualified
retiree'') is entitled to be paid both for that month without
regard to sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38. For fiscal years
2003 through 2006, payment of retired pay to such a member or
former member is subject to subsection (c).
(b) Special Rules for Chapter 61 Disability Retirees.--
(1) Career retirees.--The retired pay of a member
retired under chapter 61 of this title with 20 years or
more of service otherwise creditable under section 1405
of this title at the time of the member's retirement is
subject to reduction under sections 5304 and 5305 of
title 38, but only to the extent that the amount of the
member's retired pay under chapter 61 of this title
exceeds the amount of retired pay to which the member
would have been entitled under any other provision of
law based upon the member's service in the uniformed
services if the member had not been retired under
chapter 61 of this title.
(2) Disability retirees with less than 20 years of
service.--Subsection (a) does not apply to a member
retired under chapter 61 of this title with less than
20 years of service otherwise creditable under section
1405 of this title at the time of the member's
retirement.
(c) Phase-in of Full Concurrent Receipt.--For fiscal years
2003 through 2006, retired pay payable to a qualified retiree
shall be determined as follows:
(1) Fiscal year 2003.--For a month during fiscal year
2003, the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified
retiree is the amount (if any) of retired pay in excess
of the current baseline offset plus the following:
(A) For a month for which the retiree
receives veterans' disability compensation for
a qualifying service-connected disability rated
as total, $750.
(B) For a month for which the retiree
receives veterans' disability compensation for
a qualifying service-connected disability rated
as 90 percent, $500.
(C) For a month for which the retiree
receives veterans' disability compensation for
a qualifying service-connected disability rated
as 80 percent, $250.
(D) For a month for which the retiree
receives veterans' disability compensation for
a qualifying service-connected disability rated
as 70 percent, $250.
(E) For a month for which the retiree
receives veterans' disability compensation for
a qualifying service-connected disability rated
as 60 percent, $125.
(2) Fiscal year 2004.--For a month during fiscal year
2004, the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified
retiree is the sum of--
(A) the amount specified in paragraph (1) for
that qualified retiree; and
(B) 23 percent of the difference between (i)
the current baseline offset, and (ii) the
amount specified in paragraph (1) for that
member's disability.
(3) Fiscal year 2005.--For a month during fiscal year
2005, the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified
retiree is the sum of--
(A) the amount determined under paragraph (2)
for that qualified retiree; and
(B) 30 percent of the difference between (i)
the current baseline offset, and (ii) the
amount determined under paragraph (2) for that
qualified retiree.
(4) Fiscal year 2006.--For a month during fiscal year
2006, the amount of retired pay payable to a qualified
retiree is the sum of--
(A) the amount determined under paragraph (3)
for that qualified retiree; and
(B) 64 percent of the difference between (i)
the current baseline offset, and (ii) the
amount determined under paragraph (3) for that
qualified retiree.
(d) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Retired pay.--The term ``retired pay'' includes
retainer pay, emergency officers' retirement pay, and
naval pension.
(2) Veterans' disability compensation.--The term
``veterans' disability compensation'' has the meaning
given the term ``compensation'' in section 101(13) of
title 38.
(3) Service-connected.--The term ``service-
connected'' has the meaning given that term in section
101(16) of title 38.
(4) Qualifying service-connected disability.--The
term ``qualifying service-connected disability'' means
a service-connected disability or combination of
service-connected disabilities that is rated as not
less than 60 percent disabling by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs.
(5) Disability rated as total.--The term ``disability
rated as total'' means--
(A) a disability, or combination of
disabilities, that is rated as total under the
standard schedule of rating disabilities in use
by the Department of Veterans Affairs; or
(B) a disability, or combination of
disabilities, for which the scheduled rating is
less than total but for which a rating of total
is assigned by reason of inability of the
disabled person concerned to secure or follow a
substantially gainful occupation as a result of
service-connected disabilities.
(6) Current baseline offset.--
(A) In general.--The term ``current baseline
offset'' for any qualified retiree means the
amount for any month that is the lesser of--
(i) the amount of the applicable
monthly retired pay of the qualified
retiree for that month; and
(ii) the amount of monthly veterans'
disability compensation to which the
qualified retiree is entitled for that
month.
(B) Applicable retired pay.--In subparagraph
(A), the term ``applicable retired pay'' for a
qualified retiree means the amount of monthly
retired pay to which the qualified retiree is
entitled, determined without regard to this
section or sections 5304 and 5305 of title 38),
except that in the case of such a retiree who
was retired under chapter 61 of this title,
such amount is the amount of retired pay to
which the member would have been entitled under
any other provision of law based upon the
member's service in the uniformed services if
the member had not been retired under chapter
61 of this title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 74--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MILITARY RETIREMENT FUND
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1465. Determination of contributions to the Fund
(a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) At the same time that the Secretary of Defense makes the
determination required by paragraph (1) for any fiscal year,
the Secretary shall determine the amount of the Treasury
contribution to be made to the Fund for the next fiscal year
under section 1466(b)(2)(D) of this title. That amount shall be
determined in the same manner as the determination under
paragraph (1) of the total amount of Department of Defense
contributions to be made to the Fund during that fiscal year
under section 1466(a) of this title, except that for purposes
of this paragraph the Secretary, in making the calculations
required by subparagraphs (A) and (B) of that paragraph, shall
use the single level percentages determined under subsection
(c)(4), rather than those determined under subsection (c)(1).
(c)(1) Not less often than every four years, the Secretary of
Defense shall carry out an actuarial valuation of Department of
Defense military retirement and survivor benefit programs. Each
actuarial valuation of such programs shall include--
(A) a determination (using the aggregate entry-age
normal cost method) of a single level percentage of
basic pay for members of the armed forces (other than
the Coast Guard) on active duty (other than active duty
for training) or full-time National Guard duty (other
than full-time National Guard duty for training only),
to be determined without regard to section 1414 of this
title; and
(B) a determination (using the aggregate entry-age
normal cost method) of a single level percentage of
basic pay and of compensation (paid pursuant to section
206 of title 37) for members of the Ready Reserve of
the armed forces (other than the Coast Guard and other
than members on full-time National Guard duty other
than for training) who are not otherwise described by
subparagraph (A), to be determined without regard to
section 1414 of this title.
Such single level percentages shall be used for the purposes of
subsection (b)(1) and section 1466(a) of this title.
* * * * * * *
(4) Whenever the Secretary carries out an actuarial valuation
under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall include as part of
such valuation the following:
(A) A determination of a single level percentage
determined in the same manner as applies under
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), but based only upon
the provisions of section 1414 of this title.
(B) A determination of a single level percentage
determined in the same manner as applies under
subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1), but based only upon
the provisions of section 1414 of this title.
Such single level percentages shall be used for the purposes of
subsection (b)(3).
[(4)] (5) Contributions to the Fund in accordance with
amortization schedules under paragraphs (2) and (3) shall be
made as provided in section 1466(b) of this title.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1466. Payments into the Fund
(a) * * *
(b)(1) At the beginning of each fiscal year the Secretary of
the Treasury shall promptly pay into the Fund from the General
Fund of the Treasury the amount certified to the Secretary by
the Secretary of Defense under paragraph (3). Such payment
shall be the contribution to the Fund for that fiscal year
required by [sections 1465(a) and 1465(c)] sections 1465(a),
1465(b)(3), 1465(c)(2), and 1465(c)(3) of this title.
(2) At the beginning of each fiscal year the Secretary of
Defense shall determine the sum of the following:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) The amount for that year determined by the
Secretary of Defense under section 1465(b)(3) of this
title for the cost to the Fund arising from increased
amounts payable from the Fund by reason of section 1414
of this title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 75--DECEASED PERSONNEL
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--DEATH BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1491. Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Support.--[To provide a](1) To support a funeral honors
detail under this section, the Secretary of a military
department may provide the following:
[(1) Transportation, or reimbursement for
transportation, and expenses for a person who
participates in the funeral honors detail and is not a
member of the armed forces or an employee of the United
States.]
(A) For a person who participates in a funeral honors
detail (other than a person who is a member of the
armed forces not in a retired status or an employee of
the United States), either transportation (or
reimbursement for transportation) and expenses or the
daily stipend prescribed under paragraph (2).
[(2) Materiel, equipment, and training for] (B) For
members of a veterans organization or other
organization referred to in subsection (b)(2) and for
members of the armed forces in a retired status,
materiel, equipment, and training.
[(3) Articles of clothing for] (C) For members of a
veterans organization or other organization referred to
in subsection (b)(2), articles of clothing that, as
determined by the Secretary concerned, are appropriate
as a civilian uniform for persons participating in a
funeral honors detail.
(2) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe annually a flat
rate daily stipend for purposes of paragraph (1)(A). Such
stipend shall be set at a rate so as to encompass typical costs
for transportation and other miscellaneous expenses for persons
participating in funeral honors details who are members of the
armed forces in a retired status and other persons are not
members of the armed forces or employees of the United States.
(3) A stipend paid under this subsection to a member of the
armed forces in a retired status is in addition to any
compensation to which the member is entitled under section
435(a)(2) of title 37 and any other compensation to which the
member may be entitled.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 76--MISSING PERSONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1501. System for accounting for missing persons
(a) Office for Missing Personnel.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall establish within the Office of the Secretary of
Defense an office to have responsibility for Department of
Defense policy relating to missing persons. Such office shall
be known as the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel
Office. Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the
Secretary of Defense, the responsibilities of the office shall
include--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5)(A) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the office
is provided sufficient military and civilian personnel levels,
and sufficient funding, to enable the office to fully perform
its complete range of missions. The Secretary shall ensure that
Department of Defense programming, planning, and budgeting
procedures are structured so as to ensure compliance with the
preceding sentence for each fiscal year.
(B) For any fiscal year, the number of military and civilian
personnel assigned or detailed to the office may not be less
than the number requested in the President's budget for fiscal
year 2003, unless a level below such number is expressly
required by law.
(C) For any fiscal year, the level of funding allocated to
the office within the Department of Defense may not be below
the level requested for such purposes in the President's budget
for fiscal year 2003, unless such a level of funding is
expressly required by law.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 79--CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
Sec.
1551. Correction of name after separation from service under an assumed
name.
* * * * * * *
1559. Personnel limitation.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1559. Personnel limitation
(a) Limitation.--During fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005,
the Secretary of a military department may not carry out any
reduction in the number of military and civilian personnel
assigned to duty with the service review agency for that
military department below the baseline number for that agency
until--
(1) the Secretary submits to Congress a report that--
(A) describes the reduction proposed to be
made;
(B) provides the Secretary's rationale for
that reduction; and
(C) specifies the number of such personnel
that would be assigned to duty with that agency
after the reduction; and
(2) a period of 90 days has elapsed after the date on
which the report is submitted.
(b) Baseline Number.--The baseline number for a service
review agency under this section is--
(1) for purposes of the first report with respect to
a service review agency under this section, the number
of military and civilian personnel assigned to duty
with that agency as of January 1, 2002; and
(2) for purposes of any subsequent report with
respect to a service review agency under this section,
the number of such personnel specified in the most
recent report with respect to that agency under this
section.
(c) Service Review Agency Defined.--In this section, the term
``service review agency'' means--
(1) with respect to the Department of the Army, the
Army Review Boards Agency;
(2) with respect to the Department of the Navy, the
Board for Correction of Naval Records; and
(3) with respect to the Department of the Air Force,
the Air Force Review Boards Agency.
CHAPTER 81--CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1588. Authority to accept certain voluntary services
(a) Authority To Accept Services.--Subject to subsection (b)
and notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, the Secretary
concerned may accept from any person the following services:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) Voluntary services as a proctor for
administration to secondary school students of the test
known as the ``Armed Services Vocational Aptitude
Battery''.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 87--DEFENSE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IV--EDUCATION AND TRAINING
Sec.
1741. Policies and programs: establishment and implementation.
* * * * * * *
[2410h.] 1747. Acquisition fellowship program.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2410h.] Sec. 1747. Acquisition fellowship program
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 88--MILITARY FAMILY PROGRAMS AND MILITARY CHILD CARE
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--MILITARY CHILD CARE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1798. Child care services and youth program services for
dependents: financial assistance for providers
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) Biennial Report.--(1) Every two years the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the exercise of
authority under this section. The report shall include an
evaluation of the effectiveness of that authority for meeting
the needs of members of the armed forces or employees of the
Department of Defense for child care services and youth program
services. The report may include any recommendations for
legislation that the Secretary considers appropriate to enhance
the capability of the Department of Defense to meet those
needs.
[(2) A biennial report under this subsection may be combined
with the biennial report under section 1799(d) of this title
into a single report for submission to Congress.]
Sec. 1799. Child care services and youth program services for
dependents: participation by children and youth
otherwise ineligible
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) Biennial Report.--(1) Every two years the Secretary of
Defense shall submit to Congress a report on the exercise of
authority under this section. The report shall include an
evaluation of the effectiveness of that authority for achieving
the objectives set out under subsection (c). The report may
include any recommendations for legislation that the Secretary
considers appropriate to enhance the capability of the
Department of Defense to attain those objectives.
[(2) A biennial report under this subsection may be combined
with the biennial report under section 1798(d) of this title
into a single report for submission to Congress.]
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING AND EDUCATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 101--TRAINING GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2010. Participation of developing countries in combined exercises:
payment of incremental expenses
(a) * * *
[(b) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a
report each year, not later than March 1, containing--
[(1) a list of the developing countries for which
expenses have been paid by the United States under this
section during the preceding year; and
[(2) the amounts expended on behalf of each
government.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 103--SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS' TRAINING CORPS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2107. Financial assistance program for specially selected members
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h)(1) [Not more than 29,500 cadets and midshipmen appointed
under this section may be in the financial assistance programs
at any one time.] The Secretary of Defense shall determine the
number of cadets and midshipmen appointed under this section
who may be in the financial assistance programs at any one time
in each military department.
* * * * * * *
(i) The Secretary of each military department shall seek to
achieve an increase in the number of agreements entered into
under this section so as to achieve an increase, by the 2006-
2007 academic year, of not less than 400 in the number of
cadets or midshipmen, as the case may be, enrolled under this
section, compared to such number enrolled for the 2002-2003
academic year. In the case of the Secretary of the Navy, the
Secretary shall seek to ensure that not less than one-third of
such increase in agreements under this section are with
students enrolled (or seeking to enroll) in programs of study
leading to a baccalaureate degree in nuclear engineering or
another appropriate technical, scientific, or engineering field
of study.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 105--ARMED FORCES HEALTH PROFESSIONS FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATE ACCESSION PROGRAM
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2130a. Financial assistance: nurse officer candidates
(a) Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person described in subsection
(b) who, during the period beginning on November 29, 1989, and
ending on December 31, [2002] 2003, executes a written
agreement in accordance with subsection (c) to accept an
appointment as a nurse officer may, upon the acceptance of the
agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an accession
bonus of not more than $5,000. The bonus shall be paid in
periodic installments, as determined by the Secretary concerned
at the time the agreement is accepted, except that the first
installment may not exceed $2,500.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 109--EDUCATIONAL LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2173. Education loan repayment program: commissioned officers in
specified health professions
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Certain Persons Ineligible.--[Participants of the Armed
Forces Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance
program under subchapter I of chapter 105 of this title and
students] Students of the Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences established under section 2112 of this title
are not eligible for the repayment of an education loan under
this section.
(e) Loan Repayments.--(1) * * *
(2) For each year of obligated service that a person agrees
to serve in an agreement described in subsection (b)(3), the
Secretary of the military department concerned may pay not more
than $22,000 on behalf of the person. This maximum amount shall
be increased annually by the Secretary of Defense effective
October 1 of each year by the percentage equal to the percent
increase in the average annual cost of educational expenses and
stipend costs of a single scholarship under the Armed Forces
Health Professions Scholarship and Financial Assistance
program. [The total amount that may be repaid on behalf of any
person may not exceed an amount determined on the basis of a
four-year active duty service obligation.]
* * * * * * *
PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 131--PLANNING AND COORDINATION
Sec.
2201. Apportionment of funds: authority for exemption; excepted
expenses.
* * * * * * *
2214a. Transfer of funds: transfers from procurement accounts to
research and development accounts for major acquisition
programs.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2214a. Transfer of funds: transfers from procurement accounts to
research and development accounts for major
acquisition programs
(a) Transfer Authority Within Major Programs.--Subject to
subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may transfer amounts
provided in an appropriation Act for procurement for a covered
acquisition program to amounts provided in the same
appropriation Act for research, development, test, and
evaluation for that program.
(b) Congressional Notice-and-Wait.--A transfer may be made
under this section only after--
(1) the Secretary submits to the congressional
defense committees notice in writing of the Secretary's
intent to make such transfer, together with the
Secretary's justification for the transfer; and
(2) a period of 30 days has elapsed following the
date of such notification.
(c) Limitations.--From amounts appropriated for the
Department of Defense for any fiscal year for procurement--
(1) the total amount transferred under this section
may not exceed $250,000,000; and
(2) the total amount so transferred for any
acquisition program may not exceed $20,000,000.
(d) Covered Acquisition Programs.--In this section, the term
``covered acquisition program'' means an acquisition program of
the Department of Defense that is--
(A) a major defense acquisition program for purposes
of chapter 144 of this title; or
(B) any other acquisition program of the Department
of Defense--
(i) that is designated by the Secretary of
Defense as a covered acquisition program for
purposes of this section; or
(ii) that is estimated by the Secretary of
Defense to require an eventual total
expenditure for research, development, test,
and evaluation of more than $140,000,000 (based
on fiscal year 2000 constant dollars) or an
eventual total expenditure for procurement of
more than $660,000,000 (based on fiscal year
2000 constant dollars.)
(e) Transfer Back of Unused Transferred Funds.--If funds
transferred under this section are not used for the purposes
for which transferred, such funds shall be transferred back to
the account from which transferred and shall be available for
their original purpose.
(f) Additional Authority.--The transfer authority provided in
this section is in addition to any other transfer authority
available to the Secretary of Defense.
CHAPTER 137--PROCUREMENT GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2304a. Task and delivery order contracts: general authority
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Contract Modifications.--(1) A task or delivery order may
not increase the scope, period, or maximum value of the task or
delivery order contract under which the order is issued. The
scope, period, or maximum value of the contract may be
increased only by modification of the contract.
(2) Unless use of procedures other than competitive
procedures is authorized by an exception in subsection (c) of
section 2304 of this title and approved in accordance with
subsection (f) of such section, competitive procedures shall be
used for making such a modification.
(3) Notice regarding the modification shall be provided in
accordance with section 18 of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416) and section 8(e) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(e)).
[(f) Inapplicability to Contracts for Advisory and Assistance
Services.--Except as otherwise specifically provided in section
2304b of this title, this section does not apply to a task or
delivery order contract for the procurement of advisory and
assistance services (as defined in section 1105(g) of title
31).]
(f) Limitation on Contract Period.--The base period of a task
order contract or delivery order contract entered into under
this section may not exceed five years unless a longer period
is specifically authorized in a law that is applicable to such
contract. The contract may be extended for an additional 5
years (for a total contract period of not more than 10 years)
through modifications, options, or otherwise.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2304b. Task order contracts: advisory and assistance services
[(a) Authority To Award.--(1) Subject to the requirements of
this section, section 2304c of this title, and other applicable
law, the head of an agency may enter into a task order contract
(as defined in section 2304d of this title) for procurement of
advisory and assistance services.
[(2) The head of an agency may enter into a task order
contract for procurement of advisory and assistance services
only under the authority of this section.
[(b) Limitation on Contract Period.--The period of a task
order contract entered into under this section, including all
periods of extensions of the contract under options,
modifications, or otherwise, may not exceed five years unless a
longer period is specifically authorized in a law that is
applicable to such contract.]
(a) In General.--A task order contract (as defined in section
2304d of this title) for procurement of advisory and assistance
services shall be subject to the requirements of this section,
sections 2304a and 2304c of this title, and other applicable
provisions of law.
[(c)] (b) Content of Notice.--The notice required by section
18 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C.
416) and section 8(e) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C.
637(e)) shall reasonably and fairly describe the general scope,
magnitude, and duration of the proposed task order contract in
a manner that would reasonably enable a potential offeror to
decide whether to request the solicitation and consider
submitting an offer.
[(d) Required Content of Solicitation and Contract.--(1) The
solicitation for the proposed task order contract shall include
the information (regarding services) described in section
2304a(b) of this title.
[(2) A task order contract entered into under this section
shall contain the same information that is required by
paragraph (1) to be included in the solicitation of offers for
that contract.]
(c) Required Content of Contract.--A task order contract
described in subsection (a) shall contain the same information
that is required by section 2304a(b) to be included in the
solicitation of offers for that contract.
[(e)] (d) Multiple Awards.--(1) The head of an agency may, on
the basis of one solicitation, award separate task order
contracts [under this section] described in subsection (a) for
the same or similar services to two or more sources if the
solicitation states that the head of the agency has the option
to do so.
(2) If, in the case of a task order contract for advisory and
assistance services to be entered into [under this section],
the contract period is to exceed three years and the contract
amount is estimated to exceed $10,000,000 (including all
options), the solicitation shall--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(f) Contract Modifications.--(1) A task order may not
increase the scope, period, or maximum value of the task order
contract under which the order is issued. The scope, period, or
maximum value of the contract may be increased only by
modification of the contract.
[(2) Unless use of procedures other than competitive
procedures is authorized by an exception in subsection (c) of
section 2304 of this title and approved in accordance with
subsection (f) of such section, competitive procedures shall be
used for making such a modification.
[(3) Notice regarding the modification shall be provided in
accordance with section 18 of the Office of Federal Procurement
Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 416) and section 8(e) of the Small
Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(e)).
[(g) Contract Extensions.--(1) Notwithstanding the limitation
on the contract period set forth in subsection (b) or in a
solicitation or contract pursuant to subsection (e), a task
order contract entered into by the head of an agency under this
section may be extended on a sole-source basis for a period not
exceeding six months if the head of such agency determines
that--
[(A) the award of a follow-on contract has been
delayed by circumstances that were not reasonably
foreseeable at the time the initial contract was
entered into; and
[(B) the extension is necessary in order to ensure
continuity of the receipt of services pending the award
of, and commencement of performance under, the follow-
on contract.
[(2) A task order contract may be extended under the
authority of paragraph (1) only once and only in accordance
with the limitations and requirements of this subsection.]
[(h)] (e) Inapplicability to Certain Contracts.--This section
does not apply to a contract for the acquisition of property or
services that includes acquisition of advisory and assistance
services if the head of an agency entering into such contract
determines that, under the contract, advisory and assistance
services are necessarily incident to, and not a significant
component of, the contract.
[(i)] (f) Advisory and Assistance Services Defined.--In this
section, the term ``advisory and assistance services'' has the
meaning given such term in section 1105(g) of title 31.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2306b. Multiyear contracts: acquisition of property
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) Defense Acquisitions Specifically Authorized by Law.--(1)
* * *
* * * * * * *
(4)(A) Unless otherwise authorized by law, the Secretary of
Defense may obligate funds for procurement of an end item under
a multiyear contract for the purchase of property only for
procurement of a complete and usable end item.
(B) Unless otherwise authorized by law, the Secretary of
Defense may obligate funds appropriated for any fiscal year for
advance procurement under a multiyear contract for the purchase
of property only for the procurement of those long-lead items
necessary in order to meet a planned delivery schedule for
complete major end items that are programmed under the contract
to be acquired with funds appropriated for a subsequent fiscal
year.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2327. Contracts: consideration of national security objectives
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Waiver.--(1)(A) If the Secretary of Defense determines
under paragraph (2) that entering into a contract with a firm
or a subsidiary of a firm described in subsection (b) is not
inconsistent with the national security objectives of the
United States, the head of an agency may enter into a contract
with such firm or subsidiary [after the date on which such head
of an agency submits to Congress a report on the contract] if
in the best interests of the Government.
[(B) A report under subparagraph (A) shall include the
following:
[(i) The identity of the foreign government
concerned.
[(ii) The nature of the contract.
[(iii) The extent of ownership or control of the firm
or subsidiary concerned (or, if appropriate in the case
of a subsidiary, of the firm that owns the subsidiary)
by the foreign government concerned or the agency or
instrumentality of such foreign government.
[(iv) The reasons for entering into the contract.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 138--COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH NATO ALLIES AND OTHER
COUNTRIES
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--OTHER COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
Sec.
2350a. Cooperative research and development agreements: NATO
organizations; allied and friendly foreign countries.
* * * * * * *
2350m. Administrative services and support for foreign liaison
officers.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2350f. Procurement of communications support and related supplies
and services
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee
on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives copies of all
documents evidencing an arrangement entered into under
subsection (a) not later than 45 days after entering into such
an arrangement.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2350k. Relocation within host nation of elements of armed forces
overseas
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) Annual Report to Congress.--Not later than 30 days after
the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report specifying--
[(1) the amount of the contributions accepted by the
Secretary during the preceding fiscal year under
subsection (a) and the purposes for which the
contributions were made; and
[(2) the amount of the contributions expended by the
Secretary during the preceding fiscal year and the
purposes for which the contributions were expended.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2350m. Administrative services and support for foreign liaison
officers
(a) Authority To Provide Services and Support.--The Secretary
of Defense may provide administrative services and support for
foreign liaison officers performing duties while such officers
temporarily are assigned to components or commands of the armed
forces. Such administrative services and support may include
base or installation operation support services, office space,
utilities, copying services, fire and police protection, and
computer support. The Secretary may provide such administrative
services and support with or without reimbursement, as the
Secretary considers appropriate.
(b) Expiration of Authority.--The authority under this
section shall expire on September 30, 2005.
CHAPTER 139--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Sec.
2351. Availability of appropriations.
* * * * * * *
2359a. Technology Transition Initiative.
2359b. Defense Acquisition Challenge Program.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2359a. Technology Transition Initiative
(a) Initiative Required.--The Secretary of Defense, acting
through the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics, shall carry out an initiative, to be
known as the Technology Transition Initiative (hereinafter in
this section referred to as the ``Initiative''), to facilitate
the rapid transition of new technologies from science and
technology programs of the Department of Defense into
acquisition programs of the Department for the production of
such technologies.
(b) Objectives.--The Initiative shall have the following
objectives:
(1) To accelerate the introduction of new
technologies into appropriate acquisition programs.
(2) To successfully demonstrate new technologies in
relevant environments.
(3) To ensure that new technologies are sufficiently
mature for production.
(c) Management of Initiative.--(1) The Initiative shall be
managed by a senior official in the Office of the Secretary of
Defense designated by the Secretary (hereinafter in this
section referred to as the ``Manager''). In managing the
Initiative, the Manager shall report directly to the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics.
(2) The Secretary shall establish a board of directors
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Board''),
composed of the acquisition executive of each military
department, the members of the Joint Requirements Oversight
Council, and the commander of the Joint Forces Command. The
Board shall assist the Manager in managing the Initiative.
(3) The Secretary shall establish, under the auspices of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, a panel of highly qualified scientists and
engineers. The panel shall advise the Under Secretary on
matters relating to the Initiative.
(d) Duties of Manager.--The Manager shall have following
duties:
(1) To identify, in consultation with the Board,
promising technologies that have been demonstrated in
science and technology programs of the Department.
(2) To identify potential sponsors in the Department
to undertake the transition of such technologies into
production.
(3) To work with the science and technology community
and the acquisition community to develop memoranda of
agreement, joint funding agreements, and other
cooperative arrangements to provide for the transition
of such technologies into production.
(4) Provide funding support for projects selected
under subsection (e).
(e) Jointly Funded Projects.--(1) The acquisition executive
of each military department shall identify technology projects
of that military department to recommend for funding support
under the Initiative and shall submit to the Manager a list of
such recommended projects, ranked in order of priority. Such
executive shall identify such projects, and establish
priorities among such projects, using a competitive process, on
the basis of the greatest potential benefits in areas of
interest identified by the Secretary of that military
department.
(2) The Manager, in consultation with the Board, shall select
projects for funding support from among the projects on the
lists submitted under paragraph (1). From the funds made
available to the Manager for the Initiative, the Manager shall
provide funds for each selected project in an amount determined
by mutual agreement between the Manager and the acquisition
executive of the military department concerned, but not less
than 50 percent of the total cost of the project.
(3) The acquisition executive of the military department
concerned shall manage each project selected under paragraph
(2) that is undertaken by the military department. Memoranda of
agreement, joint funding agreements, and other cooperative
arrangements between the science and technology community and
the acquisition community shall be used in carrying out the
project if the acquisition executive determines that it is
appropriate to do so to achieve the objectives of the project.
(f) Requirement for Program Element.--In the budget
justification materials submitted to Congress in support of the
Department of Defense budget for any fiscal year (as submitted
with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title
31), the amount requested for activities of the Initiative
shall be set forth in a separate program element within amounts
requested for research, development, test, and evaluation for
Defense-wide activities.
(g) Definition of Acquisition Executive.--In this section,
the term ``acquisition executive'', with respect to a military
department, means the official designated as the senior
procurement executive for that military department under
section 16(3) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act
(41 U.S.C. 414(3)).
Sec. 2359b. Defense Acquisition Challenge Program
(a) Program Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall carry
out a program to provide opportunities for the increased
introduction of innovative and cost-saving technology in
acquisition programs of the Department of Defense. The program,
to be known as the Defense Acquisition Challenge Program
(hereinafter in this section referred to as the ``Challenge
Program''), shall provide any person or activity within or
outside the Department of Defense with the opportunity to
propose alternatives, to be known as challenge proposals, at
the component, subsystem, or system level of an existing
Department of Defense acquisition program that would result in
improvements in performance, affordability, manufacturability,
or operational capability of that acquisition program.
(b) Panel.--(1) In carrying out the Challenge Program, the
Secretary shall establish a panel of highly qualified
scientists and engineers (hereinafter in this section referred
to as the ``Panel'') under the auspices of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. The duty
of the Panel shall be to carry out evaluations of challenge
proposals under subsection (c).
(2) A member of the Panel may not participate in any
evaluation of a challenge proposal under subsection (c) if at
any time within the previous five years that member has, in any
capacity, participated in or been affiliated with the
acquisition program for which the challenge proposal is
submitted.
(c) Evaluation by Panel.--(1) Under procedures prescribed by
the Secretary, a person or activity within or outside the
Department of Defense may submit challenge proposals to the
Panel.
(2) The Panel shall carry out an evaluation of each challenge
proposal submitted under paragraph (1) to determine each of the
following criteria:
(A) Whether the challenge proposal has merit.
(B) Whether the challenge proposal is likely to
result in improvements in performance, affordability,
manufacturability, or operational capability at the
component, subsystem, or system level of the applicable
acquisition program.
(C) Whether the challenge proposal could be
implemented rapidly in the applicable acquisition
program.
(3) If the Panel determines that a challenge proposal
satisfies each of the criteria specified in paragraph (2), the
person or activity submitting that challenge proposal shall be
provided an opportunity to submit such challenge proposal for a
full review and evaluation under subsection (d).
(d) Full Review and Evaluation.--(1) Under procedures
prescribed by the Secretary, for each challenge proposal
submitted for a full review and evaluation as provided in
subsection (c)(3), the office carrying out the applicable
acquisition program, and the prime system contractor carrying
out such program, shall jointly conduct a full review and
evaluation of the challenge proposal.
(2) The full review and evaluation shall, independent of the
determination of the Panel under subsection (c)(2), determine
each of the matters specified in subparagraphs (A), (B), and
(C) of such subsection.
(e) Action Upon Favorable Full Review and Evaluation.--(1)
Under procedures prescribed by the Secretary, each challenge
proposal determined under a full review and evaluation to
satisfy each of the criteria specified in subsection (c)(2)
shall be considered by the prime system contractor for
incorporation into the applicable acquisition program as a new
technology insertion at the component, subsystem, or system
level.
(2) The Secretary shall encourage the adoption of each
challenge proposal referred to in paragraph (1) by providing
suitable incentives to the office carrying out the applicable
acquisition program and the prime system contractor carrying
out such program.
(f) Access to Technical Resources.--The Secretary shall
ensure that the Panel (in carrying out evaluations of challenge
proposals under subsection (c)) and each office and prime
system contractor (in conducting a full review and evaluation
under subsection (d)) have the authority to call upon the
technical resources of the laboratories, research, development,
and engineering centers, test and evaluation activities, and
other elements of the Department.
(g) Elimination of Conflicts of Interest.--In carrying out
each evaluation under subsection (c) and full review under
subsection (d), the Secretary shall ensure the elimination of
conflicts of interest.
(h) Report.--The Secretary shall submit to Congress, with the
submission of the budget request for the Department of Defense
for each fiscal year during which the Challenge Program is
carried out, a report on the Challenge Program for that fiscal
year. The report shall include the number and scope of
challenge proposals submitted, evaluated, subjected to full
review, and adopted.
(i) Sunset.--The authority to carry out this section shall
terminate on September 30, 2007.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 141--MISCELLANEOUS PROCUREMENT PROVISIONS
Sec.
2381. Contracts: regulations for bids.
* * * * * * *
2397. Rapid acquisition and deployment procedures.
* * * * * * *
2403. Quick-reaction special projects acquisition team.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2397. Rapid acquisition and deployment procedures
(a) Establishment.--The Secretary of Defense shall establish
tailored rapid acquisition and deployment procedures for items
urgently needed to react to an enemy threat or to respond to
significant and urgent safety situations.
(b) Procedures.--The procedures established under subsection
(a) shall include the following:
(1) A process for streamlined communications between
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
acquisition community, and the testing community.
(2) A process for expedited technical, programmatic,
and financial decisions.
(3) An expedited procurement and contracting process.
(c) Specific Steps To Be Included.--The procedures
established under subsection (a) shall provide for the
following:
(1) The commander of a unified combatant command may
notify the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the
need for an item described in subsection (a) that is
currently under development.
(2) The Chairman may request the Secretary of Defense
to use rapid acquisition and deployment procedures with
respect to the item.
(3) The Secretary of Defense shall decide whether to
use such procedures with respect to the item and shall
notify the Secretary of the appropriate military
department of the decision.
(4) If the Secretary of Defense decides to use such
procedures with respect to the item, the Secretary of
the military department shall prepare a funding
strategy for the rapid acquisition of the item and
shall conduct a demonstration of the performance of the
item.
(5) The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation
shall immediately evaluate the existing capability of
the item (but under such evaluation shall not assess
the capability of the item as regards to the function
the item was originally intended to perform).
(6) The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall
review the evaluation of the Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation and report to the Secretary of
Defense regarding whether the capabilities of the
tested item are able to meet the urgent need for the
item.
(7) The Secretary of Defense shall evaluate the
information regarding funding and rapid acquisition
prepared pursuant to paragraph (4) and approve or
disapprove of the acquisition of the item using the
procedures established pursuant to subsection (a).
(d) Limitation.--The quantity of items of a system procured
using the procedures established under this section may not
exceed the number established for low-rate initial production
for the system, and any such items shall be counted for
purposes of the number of items of the system that may be
procured through low-rate initial production.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2399. Operational test and evaluation of defense acquisition
programs
(a) Condition for Proceeding Beyond Low-Rate Initial
Production.--(1) * * *
(2) In this subsection, the term ``major defense acquisition
program'' [means--] means a conventional weapons system that--
(A) [a conventional weapons system that] is a major
system within the meaning of that term in section
2302(5) of this title; and
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2403. Quick-reaction special projects acquisition team
The Secretary of Defense shall establish a quick-reaction
special projects acquisition team, the purpose of which shall
be to advise the Secretary on actions that can be taken to
expedite the procurement of urgently needed systems. The team
shall address problems with the intention of creating
expeditious solutions relating to--
(1) industrial-base issues such as the limited
availability of suppliers;
(2) compliance with acquisition regulations and
lengthy procedures;
(3) compliance with environmental requirements;
(4) compliance with requirements regarding small-
business concerns; and
(5) compliance with requirements regarding the
purchase of products made in the United States.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 146--CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE OF CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL OR
INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS
Sec.
2460. Definition of depot-level maintenance and repair.
* * * * * * *
[2469a. Use of competitive procedures in contracting for performance
of depot-level maintenance and repair workloads formerly
performed at certain military installations.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2461. Commercial or industrial type functions: required studies
and reports before conversion to contractor
performance
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Notification of Decision.--(1) If, as a result of the
completion of the examinations under subsection (b)(3), a
decision is made to change the commercial or industrial type
function that was the subject of the analysis to performance by
the private sector, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress a report describing that decision. The report shall
contain the following:
[(A) The date when the analysis of that commercial or
industrial type function for possible change to
performance by the private sector was commenced.
[(B) An indication that the examinations required
under subsection (b)(3) have been completed.
[(C) The Secretary's certification that the
Government calculation of the cost of performance of
the function by Department of Defense civilian
employees is based on an estimate of the most cost
effective manner for performance of the function by
Department of Defense civilian employees.
[(D) The number of Department of Defense civilian
employees who were performing the function when the
analysis was commenced, the number of such employees
whose employment was terminated or otherwise affected
in implementing the most efficient organization of the
function, and the number of such employees whose
employment would be terminated or otherwise affected by
changing to performance of the function by the private
sector.
[(E) The Secretary's certification that the factors
considered in the examinations performed under
subsection (b)(3), and in the making of the decision to
change performance, did not include any predetermined
personnel constraint or limitation in terms of man
years, end strength, full-time equivalent positions, or
maximum number of employees.
[(F) The Secretary's certification that the
examination required by subsection (b)(3)(A) as part of
the analysis demonstrates that the performance of the
function by the private sector will result in savings
to the Government over the life of the contract.
[(G) A statement of the potential economic effect of
the change on each affected local community, as
determined in the examination under subsection
(b)(3)(B)(ii).
[(H) The Secretary's certification that the entire
analysis is available for examination.
[(I) A schedule for completing the change to
performance of the function by the private sector.
[(2) If the commercial or industrial type function to be
changed to performance by the private sector is performed at a
Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence designated under
section 2474(a) of this title or an Army ammunition plant--
[(A) the report required by this subsection shall
also include a description of the effect that the
performance and administration of the resulting
contract will have on the overhead costs of the center
or ammunition plant, as the case may be; and
[(B) notwithstanding paragraph (3), the change of the
function to contractor performance may not begin until
at least 60 days after the submission of the report.
[(3) The change of the function to contractor performance may
not begin until after the submission of the report required by
this subsection.]
(c) Submission of Analysis Results.--(1) Upon the completion
of an analysis of a commercial or industrial type function
described in subsection (a) for possible change to performance
by the private sector, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress a report containing the results of the analysis,
including the results of the examinations required by
subsection (b)(3).
(2) The report shall also contain the following:
(A) The date when the analysis of the function was
commenced.
(B) The Secretary's certification that the Government
calculation of the cost of performance of the function
by Department of Defense civilian employees is based on
an estimate of the most cost effective manner for
performance of the function by Department of Defense
civilian employees.
(C) The number of Department of Defense civilian
employees who were performing the function when the
analysis was commenced and the number of such employees
whose employment was or will be terminated or otherwise
affected by changing to performance of the function by
the private sector or by implementation of the most
efficient organization of the function.
(D) The Secretary's certification that the factors
considered in the examinations performed under
subsection (b)(3), and in the making of the decision
regarding changing to performance of the function by
the private sector or retaining performance in the most
efficient organization of the function, did not include
any predetermined personnel constraint or limitation in
terms of man years, end strength, full-time equivalent
positions, or maximum number of employees.
(E) A statement of the potential economic effect of
implementing the decision regarding changing to
performance of the function by the private sector or
retaining performance in the most efficient
organization of the function on each affected local
community, as determined in the examination under
subsection (b)(3)(B)(ii).
(F) A schedule for completing the change to
performance of the function by the private sector or
implementing the most efficient organization of the
function
(G) In the case of a commercial or industrial type
function performed at a Center of Industrial and
Technical Excellence designated under section 2474(a)
of this title or an Army ammunition plant, a
description of the effect that the manner of
performance of the function, and administration of the
resulting contract if any, will have on the overhead
costs of the center or ammunition plant, as the case
may be.
(H) The Secretary's certification that the entire
analysis is available for examination.
(3)(A) If a decision is made to change the commercial or
industrial type function that was the subject of the analysis
to performance by the private sector, the change of the
function to contractor performance may not begin until after
the submission of the report required by paragraph (1).
(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in the case of a
commercial or industrial type function performed at a Center of
Industrial and Technical Excellence designated under section
2474(a) of this title or an Army ammunition plant, the change
of the function to contractor performance may not begin until
at least 60 days after the submission of the report.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2464. Core logistics capabilities
(a) Necessity for Core Logistics Capabilities.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The core logistics capabilities identified under
paragraphs (1) and (2) shall include [those capabilities that
are necessary to maintain and repair the weapon systems] those
logistics capabilities (including acquisition logistics, supply
management, system engineering, maintenance, and modification
management) that are necessary to sustain the weapon systems
and other military equipment (including mission-essential
weapon systems or materiel not later than four years after
achieving initial operational capability, but excluding systems
and equipment under special access programs, nuclear aircraft
carriers, and commercial items described in paragraph (5)) that
are identified by the Secretary, in consultation with the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as necessary to enable
the armed forces to fulfill the strategic and contingency plans
prepared by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under
section 153(a) of this title.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2465. Prohibition on contracts for performance of firefighting or
security-guard functions
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) The Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of a military
department may waive the prohibition under subsection (a)
regarding contracting for the performance of security-guard
functions at a military installation or facility under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary if such functions--
(1) are or will be performed by members of the armed
forces in the absence of a waiver; or
(2) were not performed at the installation or
facility before September 11, 2001.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2469a. Use of competitive procedures in contracting for
performance of depot-level maintenance and repair
workloads formerly performed at certain military
installations
[(a) Definitions.--In this section:
[(1) The term ``closed or realigned military
installation'' means a military installation where a
depot-level maintenance and repair facility was
approved in 1995 for closure or realignment under the
Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part
A of title XXIX of Public Law 101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687
note).
[(2) The term ``military installation'' includes a
former military installation that was a military
installation when it was approved in 1995 for closure
or realignment under the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 and that has been closed or
realigned under the Act.
[(3) The terms ``realignment'' and ``realigned'' mean
a decision under the Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Act of 1990 that results in both a
reduction and relocation of functions and civilian
personnel positions.
[(b) Covered Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair Workloads.--
Except as provided in subsection (c), this section applies with
respect to any depot-level maintenance and repair workload
that--
[(1) was performed as of January 1, 1997, at a
military installation that was approved in 1995 for
closure or realignment under the Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Act of 1990 and that has been closed or
realigned under the Act; and
[(2) is proposed to be converted from performance by
Department of Defense personnel to performance by a
private sector source.
[(c) Exceptions.--This section shall not apply with respect
to--
[(1) a depot-level maintenance and repair workload
that is to be consolidated to another military
installation (other than a closed or realigned military
installation) as a result of a base closure or
realignment action or a decision made by the Secretary
concerned or the Defense Depot Maintenance Council;
[(2) a workload necessary to maintain a core
logistics capability identified under section 2464 of
this title; or
[(3) any contract originally entered into before
November 18, 1997.
[(d) Conditions and Solicitation.--A solicitation of offers
for the performance of any depot-level maintenance and repair
workload described in subsection (b) may be issued, and a
contract may be awarded pursuant to such a solicitation, only
if the following conditions are met with respect to the
contract and the solicitation specifically states the
conditions:
[(1) The source selection process used in the case of
the solicitation and contract permits the consideration
of offers submitted by private sector sources and
offers submitted by public sector sources.
[(2) The source selection process used in the case of
the solicitation and contract requires that, in the
comparison of offers, there be taken into account--
[(A) the fair market value (or if fair market
value cannot be determined, the estimated book
value) of any land, plant, or equipment from a
military installation that is proposed by a
private offeror to be used to meet a specific
workload (whether these assets are provided to
the offeror by a local redevelopment authority
or by any other source approved by an official
of the Department of Defense); and
[(B) the total estimated direct and indirect
costs that will be incurred by the Department
of Defense and the total estimated direct and
indirect savings (including overhead) that will
be derived by the Department of Defense.
[(3) The cost standards used to determine the
depreciation of facilities and equipment shall, to the
maximum extent practicable, provide identical treatment
to all public and private sector offerors.
[(4) Any offeror, whether public or private, may
offer to perform the workload at any location or
locations selected by the offeror and to team with any
other public or private entity to perform that workload
at one or more locations, including a Center of
Industrial and Technical Excellence designated under
section 2474 of this title.
[(5) No offeror may be given any preferential
consideration for, or in any way be limited to,
performing the workload in-place or at any other single
location.
[(e) Contracts for Multiple Workloads.--(1) A solicitation
may be issued for a single contract for the performance of
multiple depot-level maintenance and repair workloads described
in subsection (b) only if--
[(A) the Secretary of Defense determines in writing
that the individual workloads cannot as logically and
economically be performed without combination by
sources that are potentially qualified to submit an
offer and to be awarded a contract to perform those
individual workloads;
[(B) the Secretary submits to Congress a report
setting forth the determination together with the
reasons for the determination; and
[(C) the solicitation of offers for the contract is
issued more than 60 days after the date on which the
Secretary submits the report.
[(2) The Comptroller General shall review each report
submitted under paragraph (1)(B) and, not later than 30 days
after the report is submitted to Congress, shall submit to
Congress the Comptroller General's views regarding the
determination of the Secretary that is set forth in the report,
together with any other findings that the Comptroller General
considers appropriate.
[(f) Competitive Procedures Required.--Section 2304(c)(7) of
this title shall not be used as the basis for an exception to
the requirement to use competitive procedures for any contract
for a depot-level maintenance and repair workload described in
subsection (b).
[(g) Reviews of Competitive Procedures.--If a solicitation of
offers for a contract for, or award of, any depot-level
maintenance and repair workload described in subsection (b) is
issued, the Comptroller General shall--
[(1) within 45 days after the issuance of the
solicitation, review the solicitation and report to
Congress on whether the solicitation--
[(A) provides substantially equal opportunity
for public and private offerors to compete for
the contract without regard to the location at
which the workload is to be performed; and
[(B) is in compliance with the requirements
of this section and all applicable provisions
of law and regulations; and
[(2) within 45 days after any contract or award
resulting from the solicitation is entered into or
made, review the contract or award, including the
contracting or award process, and report to Congress on
whether--
[(A) the procedures used to conduct the
competition--
[(i) provided substantially equal
opportunity for public and private
offerors to compete for the contract
without regard to the location at which
the workload is to be performed; and
[(ii) were in compliance with the
requirements of this section and all
applicable provisions of law and
regulations;
[(B) appropriate consideration was given to
factors other than cost in the selection of the
source for performance of the workload; and
[(C) the contract or award resulted in the
lowest total cost to the Department of Defense
for performance of the workload.
[(h) Resolution of Workload Award Objections.--Any public or
private entity may, pursuant to procedures established by the
Secretary, object to a solicitation of offers under this
section for the performance of any depot-level maintenance and
repair workload, or the award or proposed award of any workload
pursuant to such a solicitation. The Secretary may designate a
qualified individual or entity to review the objection;
however, the Secretary shall not designate the Source Selection
Authority or any individual from the same military department
as the Source Selection Authority to review the objection. The
Secretary shall take appropriate action to address any defect
in the solicitation or award in the event that the objection is
sustained.
[(i) Oversight of Contracts Awarded Public Entities.--The
Secretary of Defense or the Secretary concerned may not impose
on a public sector entity awarded a contract for the
performance of any depot-level maintenance and repair workload
described in subsection (b) any requirements regarding
management systems, reviews, oversight, or reporting that are
significantly different from the requirements used in the
performance and management of other similar or identical depot-
level maintenance and repair workloads by the entity, unless
the requirements are specifically provided in the solicitation
for the contract or are necessary to ensure compliance with the
terms of the contract.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2474. Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence: designation;
public-private partnerships
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Exclusion of Certain Expenditures From Percentage
Limitation.--(1) * * *
(2) The funds referred to in paragraph (1) are funds
available to the military departments and Defense Agencies for
depot-level maintenance and repair workloads [for fiscal years
2002 through 2005].
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 147--COMMISSARIES AND EXCHANGES AND OTHER MORALE, WELFARE, AND
RECREATION ACTIVITIES
Sec.
2482. Commissary stores: operation.
* * * * * * *
2494. Uniform funding and management of morale, welfare, and recreation
programs.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2492. Overseas commissary and exchange stores: access and purchase
restrictions
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Annual Report.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit to
Congress an annual report describing the host nation laws and
the treaty obligations of the United States, and the conditions
within host nations, that necessitate the use of quantity or
other restrictions on purchases in commissary and exchange
stores located outside the United States.]
Sec. 2493. Fisher Houses: administration as nonappropriated fund
instrumentality
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(f) Special Authority for Navy.--The Secretary of the Navy
shall provide base operating support for Fisher Houses
associated with health care facilities of the Navy. The level
of the support shall be equivalent to the base operating
support that the Secretary provides for morale, welfare, and
recreation category B community activities (as defined in
regulations, prescribed by the Secretary, that govern morale,
welfare, and recreation activities associated with Navy
installations).
[(g) Annual Report.--Not later than January 15 of each year,
the Secretary of each military department shall submit to
Congress a report describing the operation of Fisher Houses and
Fisher Suites associated with health care facilities of that
military department. The report shall include, at a minimum,
the following:
[(1) The amount in the fund established by that
Secretary under subsection (d) as of October 1 of the
previous year.
[(2) The operation of the fund during the preceding
fiscal year, including--
[(A) all gifts, fees, and interest credited
to the fund; and
[(B) all disbursements from the fund.
[(3) The budget for the operation of the Fisher
Houses and Fisher Suites for the fiscal year in which
the report is submitted.]
(f) Base Operating Support.--The Secretary of a military
department may provide base operating support for Fisher Houses
associated with health care facilities of that military
department.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2494. Uniform funding and management of morale, welfare, and
recreation programs
(a) Authority for Uniform Funding and Management.--Under
regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, funds
appropriated to the Department of Defense and available for
morale, welfare, and recreation programs may be treated as
nonappropriated funds and expended in accordance with laws
applicable to the expenditures of nonappropriated funds. When
made available for morale, welfare, and recreation programs
under such regulations, appropriated funds shall be considered
to be nonappropriated funds for all purposes and shall remain
available until expended.
(b) Conditions on Availability.--Funds appropriated to the
Department of Defense may be made available to support a
morale, welfare, or recreation program only if the program is
authorized to receive appropriated fund support and only in the
amounts the program is authorized to receive.
(c) Conversion of Employment Positions.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense may identify positions of employees in morale, welfare,
and recreation programs within the Department of Defense who
are paid with appropriated funds whose status may be converted
from the status of an employee paid with appropriated funds to
the status of an employee of a nonappropriated fund
instrumentality.
(2) The status of an employee in a position identified by the
Secretary under paragraph (1) may, with the consent of the
employee, be converted to the status of an employee of a
nonappropriated fund instrumentality. An employee who does not
consent to the conversion may not be removed from the position
because of the failure to provide such consent.
(3) The conversion of an employee from the status of an
employee paid by appropriated funds to the status of an
employee of a nonappropriated fund instrumentality shall be
without a break in service for the concerned employee. The
conversion shall not entitle an employee to severance pay, back
pay or separation pay under subchapter IX of chapter 55 of
title 5, or be considered an involuntary separation or other
adverse personnel action entitling an employee to any right or
benefit under such title or any other provision of law or
regulation.
(4) In this subsection, the term ``an employee of a
nonappropriated fund instrumentality'' means an employee
described in section 2105(c) of title 5.
CHAPTER 148--NATIONAL DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL BASE, DEFENSE
REINVESTMENT, AND DEFENSE CONVERSION
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER III--PROGRAMS FOR DEVELOPMENT, APPLICATION, AND SUPPORT OF
DUAL-USE TECHNOLOGIES
Sec.
2511. Defense dual-use critical technology program.
* * * * * * *
2520. Transfer of technology items and equipment in support of homeland
security.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2520. Transfer of technology items and equipment in support of
homeland security
The Secretary of Defense shall enter into an agreement with
an independent, nonprofit, technology-oriented entity that has
demonstrated the ability to facilitate the transfer of defense
technologies, developed by both the private and public sectors,
to aid Federal, State, and local first responders. Under the
agreement the entity shall develop and deploy technology items
and equipment, through coordination between Government agencies
and private sector, commercial developers and suppliers of
technology, that will enhance public safety and shall--
(1) work in coordination with the InterAgency Board
for Equipment Standardization and Interoperability;
(2) develop technology items and equipment that meet
the standardization requirements established by the
Board;
(3) evaluate technology items and equipment that have
been identified using the standards developed by the
Board and other state-of-the-art technology items and
equipment that may benefit first responders;
(4) identify and coordinate among the public and
private sectors research efforts applicable to national
security and homeland security;
(5) facilitate the timely transfer of technology
items and equipment between public and private sources;
(6) eliminate redundant research efforts with respect
to technologies to be deployed to first responders;
(7) expedite the advancement of high priority
projects from research through implementation of
initial manufacturing; and
(8) establish an outreach program, in coordination
with the Board, with first responders to facilitate
awareness of available technology items and equipment
to support crisis response.
SUBCHAPTER IV--MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2521. Manufacturing Technology Program
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Five-Year Plan.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
[prepare a five-year plan for the program which establishes--
[(A) the overall manufacturing technology goals,
milestones, priorities, and investment strategy for the
program; and
[(B) for each of the five fiscal years covered by the
plan, the objectives of, and funding for the program
by, each military department and each Defense Agency
participating in the program.
[(2) The plan shall include the following:
[(A) An assessment of the effectiveness of the
program, including a description of all completed
projects and status of implementation.
[(B) An assessment of the extent to which the costs
of projects are being shared by the following:
[(i) Commercial enterprises in the private
sector.
[(ii) Department of Defense program offices,
including weapon system program offices.
[(iii) Departments and agencies of the
Federal Government outside the Department of
Defense.
[(iv) Institutions of higher education.
[(v) Other institutions not operated for
profit.
[(vi) Other sources.] prepare and maintain a
five-year plan for the program.
(2) The plan shall establish the following:
(A) The overall manufacturing technology objectives,
milestones, priorities, and investment strategy for the
program.
(B) The specific objectives of, and funding for the
program by, each military department and each Defense
Agency participating in the program.
(3) The plan shall be updated [annually] biennially and shall
be included in the budget justification documents submitted in
support of the budget of the Department of Defense [for a
fiscal year] for each even-numbered fiscal year (as included in
the budget of the President submitted to Congress under section
1105 of title 31).
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER V--MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGY BASE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2534. Miscellaneous limitations on the procurement of goods other
than United States goods
(a) Limitation on Certain Procurements.--The Secretary of
Defense may procure any of the following items only if the
manufacturer of the item satisfies the requirements of
subsection (b):
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) Ball bearings and roller bearings.--Ball bearings
and roller bearings, in accordance with subpart
[225.71] 225.70 of part 225 of the Defense Federal
Acquisition Regulation Supplement, as in effect on
[October 23, 1992] April 27, 2002. In this section the
term ``ball bearings and roller bearings'' includes
unconventional or hybrid ball and roller bearings and
cam follower bearings, ball screws, and other
derivatives of ball and roller bearings.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER VI--DEFENSE EXPORT LOAN GUARANTEES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2540. Establishment of loan guarantee program
(a) * * *
(b) Covered Countries.--The authority under subsection (a)
applies with respect to the following countries:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) A country that, as determined by the Secretary of
Defense in consultation with the Secretary of State,
assists in combatting drug trafficking organizations or
foreign terrorist organizations.
* * * * * * *
(d) Report.--The Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of
State, whenever the Secretaries consider such action to be
warranted, shall jointly submit to the Committees on Armed
Services and Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committees
on Armed Services and International Relations of the House of
Representatives a report enumerating those countries to be
added or removed under subsection (b).
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 152--ISSUE OF SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND FACILITIES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2563. Articles and services of industrial facilities: sale to
persons outside the Department of Defense
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Conditions for Sales.--(1) * * *
(2) The Secretary of Defense may waive the condition in
paragraph (1)(A) and subsection (a)(1) that an article or
service must be not available from a United States commercial
source in the case of a particular sale if the Secretary
determines that the waiver is necessary for reasons of national
security [and notifies Congress regarding the reasons for the
waiver].
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 155--ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS AND SERVICES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2611. Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies: acceptance of
foreign gifts and donations
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(e) Notice to Congress.--If the total amount of funds
accepted under subsection (a) in any fiscal year exceeds
$2,000,000, the Secretary shall notify Congress of the amount
of those donations for that fiscal year. Any such notice shall
list each of the contributors of such amounts and the amount of
each contribution in that fiscal year.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 157--TRANSPORTATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2634. Motor vehicles: transportation or storage for members on
change of permanent station or extended deployment
(a) * * *
[(b)(1) In lieu of transportation authorized by this section,
if a member is ordered to make a change of permanent station to
a foreign country and the laws, regulations, or other
restrictions imposed by the foreign country or the United
States preclude entry of a motor vehicle described in
subsection (a) into that country, or would require extensive
modification of the vehicle as a condition to entry, the member
may elect to have the vehicle stored at the expense of the
United States at a location approved by the Secretary
concerned.
[(2) If a member is transferred or assigned in connection
with a contingency operation to duty at a location other than
the permanent station of the member for a period of more than
30 consecutive days, but the transfer or assignment is not
considered a change of permanent station, the member may elect
to have a motor vehicle described in subsection (a) stored at
the expense of the United States at a location approved by the
Secretary concerned.]
(b)(1) When a member receives a vehicle storage qualifying
order, the member may elect to have a motor vehicle described
in subsection (a) stored at the expense of the United States at
a location approved by the Secretary concerned. In the case of
a vehicle storage qualifying order that is to make a change of
permanent station, such storage is in lieu of transportation
authorized by subsection (a).
(2) In this subsection, the term ``vehicle storage qualifying
order'' means any of the following:
(A) An order to make a change of permanent station to
a foreign country in a case in which the laws,
regulations, or other restrictions imposed by the
foreign country or by the United States either--
(i) preclude entry of a motor vehicle
described in subsection (a) into that country;
or
(ii) would require extensive modification of
the vehicle as a condition to entry.
(B) An order to make a change of permanent station to
a nonforeign area outside the continental United States
in a case in which the laws, regulations, or other
restrictions imposed by that area or by the United
States either--
(i) preclude entry of a motor vehicle
described in subsection (a) into that area; or
(ii) would require extensive modification of
the vehicle as a condition to entry.
(C) An order under which a member is transferred or
assigned in connection with a contingency operation to
duty at a location other than the permanent station of
the member for a period of more than 30 consecutive
days but which is not considered a change of permanent
station.
* * * * * * *
(h) In this section:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) The term ``nonforeign area outside the
continental United States'' means any of the following:
the States of Alaska and Hawaii, the Commonwealths of
Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, and any
possession of the United States.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 159--REAL PROPERTY; RELATED PERSONAL PROPERTY; AND LEASE OF
NONEXCESS PROPERTY
Sec.
2661. Miscellaneous administrative provisions relating to real
property.
* * * * * * *
2684a. Agreements to limit encroachments and other constraints on
military training, testing, and operations.
* * * * * * *
2694a. Conveyance of surplus real property for natural resource
conservation.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2677. Options: property required for military construction
projects
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c)(1) Before acquiring an option on real property under
subsection (a), the Secretary of a military department shall
review the most recent inventory of real property assets
published by the Resolution Trust Corporation under section
21A(b)(11)(F) of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act (12 U.S.C.
1441a(b)(11)(F)) and determine whether any real property listed
in the inventory is suitable for use by the military department
for the purposes for which the real property is sought.
[(2) The requirement for the review referred to in paragraph
(1) shall terminate on September 30, 1996.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2680. Leases: land for special operations activities
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Reports.--Not later than March 1 of each year, the
Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on [the]
Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed
Services of the House of Representatives a report that--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2684a. Agreements to limit encroachments and other constraints on
military training, testing, and operations
(a) Agreements Authorized.--The Secretary of a military
department may enter into an agreement with a private entity
described in subsection (b) to address the use or development
of real property in the vicinity of a military installation for
purposes of--
(1) limiting any development or use of the property
that would otherwise be incompatible with the mission
of the installation; or
(2) preserving habitat on the property in a manner
that is compatible with both--
(A) current or anticipated environmental
restrictions that would or might otherwise
restrict, impede, or otherwise interfere,
whether directly or indirectly, with current or
anticipated military training, testing, or
operations on the installation; and
(B) current or anticipated military training,
testing, or operations on the installation.
(b) Covered Private Entities.--A private entity referred to
in subsection (a) is any private entity that has as its stated
principal organizational purpose or goal the conservation,
restoration, or preservation of land and natural resources, or
a similar purpose or goal, as determined by the Secretary
concerned.
(c) Inapplicability of Certain Contract Requirements.--
Chapter 63 of title 31 shall not apply to any agreement entered
into under this section.
(d) Acquisition and Acceptance of Property and Interests.--
(1) An agreement with a private entity under this section--
(A) may provide for the private entity to acquire all
right, title, and interest in and to any real property,
or any lesser interest in the property, as may be
appropriate for purposes of this section; and
(B) shall provide for the private entity to transfer
to the United States, upon the request of the United
States, any property or interest so acquired.
(2) Property or interests may not be acquired pursuant to an
agreement under this section unless the owner of the property
or interests, as the case may be, consents to the acquisition.
(3) An agreement under this section providing for the
acquisition of property or interests under paragraph (1)(A)
shall provide for the sharing by the United States and the
private entity concerned of the costs of the acquisition of the
property or interests.
(4) The Secretary concerned shall identify any property or
interests to be acquired pursuant to an agreement under this
section. The property or interests shall be limited to the
minimum property or interests necessary to ensure that the
property concerned is developed and used in a manner
appropriate for purposes of this section.
(5) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary
concerned may accept on behalf of the United States any
property or interest to be transferred to the United States
under paragraph (1)(B).
(6) The Secretary concerned may, for purposes of the
acceptance of property or interests under this subsection,
accept an appraisal or title documents prepared or adopted by a
non-Federal entity as satisfying the applicable requirements of
section 301 of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4651) or
section 355 of the Revised Statutes (40 U.S.C. 255) if the
Secretary finds that the appraisal or title documents
substantially comply with the requirements.
(e) Additional Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary concerned
may require such additional terms and conditions in an
agreement under this section as the Secretary considers
appropriate to protect the interests of the United States.
(f) Funding.--(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), funds
authorized to be appropriated for operation and maintenance of
the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Defense-wide
activities, including funds authorized to be appropriated for
the Legacy Resources Management Program, may be used to enter
into agreements under this section.
(2) In the case of a military installation operated primarily
with funds authorized to be appropriated for research,
development, test, and evaluation, funds authorized to be
appropriated for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or
Defense-wide activities for research, development, test, and
evaluation may be used to enter into agreements under this
section with respect to the installation.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2694a. Conveyance of surplus real property for natural resource
conservation
(a) Authority to Convey.--The Secretary of a military
department may convey to an eligible recipient described in
subsection (b) any surplus real property that--
(1) is under the administrative control of the
Secretary;
(2) is suitable and desirable for conservation
purposes;
(3) has been made available for public benefit
transfer for a sufficient period of time to potential
claimants; and
(4) is not subject to a pending request for transfer
to another Federal agency or for conveyance to any
other qualified recipient for public benefit transfer
under the real property disposal processes and
authorities established pursuant to the Federal
Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40
U.S.C. 471, et seq.).
(b) Eligible Recipients.--The conveyance of surplus real
property under subsection (a) may be made to any of the
following:
(A) A State or political subdivision of a
State.
(B) A nonprofit organization that exists for
the primary purpose of conservation of natural
resources on real property.
(c) Revisionary Interest and Other Deed Requirements.--(1)
The deed of conveyance of any surplus real property conveyed
under subsection (a) disposed of under this subsection shall
require the property to be used and maintained for the
conservation of natural resources in perpetuity. If the
Secretary of the military department that made the conveyance
determines at any time that the property is not being used or
maintained for such purpose, then, at the option of the
Secretary, all or any portion of the property shall revert to
the United States.
(2) The deed of conveyance may permit the recipient of the
property--
(A) to convey the property to another eligible entity
described in subsection (b), subject to the approval of
the Secretary of the military department that made the
conveyance and subject to the same covenants and terms
and conditions as provided in the deed from the United
States; and
(B) to conduct incidental revenue-producing
activities on the property that are compatible with the
use of the property for conservation purposes.
(3) The deed of conveyance may contain such additional terms,
reservations, restrictions, and conditions as the Secretary of
the military department considers appropriate to protect the
interests of the United States.
(d) Release of Covenants.--The Secretary of the military
department that conveys real property under subsection (a),
with the concurrence of the Secretary of Interior, may grant a
release from a covenant included in the deed of conveyance of
the property under subsection (c) on the condition that the
recipient of the property pay the fair market value, as
determined by the Secretary of the military department, of the
property at the time of the release of the covenant. The
Secretary of the military department may reduce the amount
required to be paid under this subsection to account for the
value of the natural resource conservation benefit that has
accrued to the United States during the period the covenant was
in effect, if the benefit was not taken into account in
determining the original consideration for the conveyance.
(e) Limitations.--A conveyance under subsection (a) shall not
be used in settlement of any litigation, dispute, or claim
against the United States, or as a condition of allowing any
defense activity under any Federal, State, or local permitting
or review process. The Secretary of a military department may
make a conveyance under subsection (a), with the restrictions
specified in subsection (c), to establish a mitigation bank,
but only if the establishment of the mitigation bank does not
occur in order to satisfy any condition for permitting military
activity under a Federal, State, or local permitting or review
process.
(f) Consideration.--In fixing the consideration for the
conveyance of real property under subsection (a) or in
determining the amount of any reduction of the amount to be
paid for the release of a covenant under subsection (d), the
Secretary of the military department concerned shall take into
consideration any benefit that has accrued or may accrue to the
United States from the use of such property for the
conservation of natural resources.
(g) Relation to Other Conveyance Authorities.--(1) The
Secretary of a military department may not make a conveyance
under this section of any real property to be disposed of under
a base closure law in a manner that is inconsistent with the
requirements and conditions of the base closure law.
(2) In the case of real property on Guam, the Secretary of a
military department may not make a conveyance under this
section unless the Government of Guam has been first afforded
the opportunity to acquire the real property as authorized by
section 1 of Public Law 106-504 (114 Stat. 2309).
(h) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``State'' includes the District of
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas, and the
territories and possessions of the United States.
(2) The term ``base closure law'' means the following:
(A) Section 2687 of this title.
(B) Title II of the Defense Authorization
Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act
of 1988 (10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
(C) The Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law
101-510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note).
(D) Any other similar authority for the
closure or realignment of military
installations that is enacted after the date of
the enactment of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003.
Sec. 2695. Acceptance of funds to cover administrative expenses
relating to certain real property transactions
(a) * * *
(b) Covered Transactions.--Subsection (a) applies to the
following transactions involving real property under the
control of the Secretary of a military department:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) The conveyance of real property under section
2694a of this title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 160--ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2701. Environmental restoration program
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Services of Other Agencies.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the
Secretary may enter into agreements on a reimbursable
or other basis with any other Federal agency, [with any
State or local government agency, or with any Indian
tribe,] any State or local government agency, any
Indian tribe, or any nonprofit conservation
organization to obtain the services of the agency to
assist the Secretary in carrying out any of the
Secretary's responsibilities under this section.
Services which may be obtained under this subsection
include the identification, investigation, and cleanup
of any off-site contamination resulting from the
release of a hazardous substance or waste at a facility
under the Secretary's jurisdiction.
* * * * * * *
[(3) Definition.--In this subsection, the term
``Indian tribe'' has the meaning given such term in
section 101(36) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42
U.S.C. 9601(36)).]
(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) The term ``Indian tribe'' has the meaning
given such term in section 101(36) of
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42
U.S.C. 9601(36)).
(B) The term ``nonprofit conservation
organization'' means any non-governmental
nonprofit organization whose primary purpose is
conservation of open space or natural
resources.
* * * * * * *
(k) UXO Program Manager.--(1) The Secretary of Defense shall
establish a program manager who shall serve as the single point
of contact in the Department of Defense for policy and
budgeting issues involving the characterization, remediation,
and management of explosive and related risks with respect to
unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, and
munitions constituents at defense sites (as such terms are
defined in section 2710 of this title) that pose a threat to
human health or safety.
(2) The Secretary of Defense may delegate this authority to
the Secretary of a military department, who may delegate the
authority to the Under Secretary of that military department.
The authority may not be further delegated.
(3) The program manager may establish an independent advisory
and review panel that may include representatives of the
National Academy of Sciences, nongovernmental organizations
with expertise regarding unexploded ordnance, discarded
military munitions, or munitions constituents, the
Environmental Protection Agency, States (as defined in section
2710 of this title), and tribal governments. If established,
the panel would report annually to Congress on progress made by
the Department of Defense to address unexploded ordnance,
discarded military munitions, or munitions constituents at
defense sites and make such recommendations as the panel
considered appropriate.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 165--ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
Sec.
2771. Final settlement of accounts: deceased members.
* * * * * * *
2773a. Departmental accountable officials.
* * * * * * *
[2784. Management of credit cards.]
2784. Management of purchase cards.
* * * * * * *
2787. Reports of survey.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2773a. Departmental accountable officials
(a) Designation.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may designate
as a ``departmental accountable official'' any civilian
employee of the Department of Defense or member of the armed
forces under the Secretary's jurisdiction who is described in
paragraph (2). Any such designation shall be in writing.
(2) An employee or member of the armed forces described in
this paragraph is an employee or member who is responsible in
the performance of the employee's or member's duties for
providing to a certifying official of the Department of Defense
information, data, or services that are directly relied upon by
the certifying official in the certification of vouchers for
payment.
(b) Pecuniary Liability.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may
impose pecuniary liability on a departmental accountable
official to the extent that an illegal, improper, or incorrect
payment results from the information, data, or services that
that official provides to a certifying official and upon which
the certifying official directly relies in certifying the
voucher supporting that payment.
(2) The pecuniary liability of a departmental accountable
official under this subsection for such an illegal, improper,
or incorrect payment is joint and several with that of any
other officials who are pecuniarily liable for such payment.
(c) Relief from Liability.--The Secretary of Defense shall
relieve a departmental accountable official from liability
under subsection (b) if the Secretary determines that the
illegal, improper, or incorrect payment was not the result of
fault or negligence by that official.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2784. Management of credit cards
[(a) Management of Credit Cards.--The Secretary of Defense,
acting through the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller),
shall prescribe regulations governing the use and control of
all credit cards and convenience checks that are issued to
Department of Defense personnel for official use. Those
regulations shall be consistent with regulations that apply
Government-wide regarding use of credit cards by Government
personnel for official purposes.
[(b) Required Safeguards and Internal Controls.--Regulations
under subsection (a) shall include safeguards and internal
controls to ensure the following:
[(1) That there is a record in the Department of
Defense of each holder of a credit card issued by the
Department of Defense for official use, annotated with
the limitations on amounts that are applicable to the
use of each such card by that credit card holder.
[(2) That the holder of a credit card and each
official with authority to authorize expenditures
charged to the credit card are responsible for--
[(A) reconciling the charges appearing on
each statement of account for that credit card
with receipts and other supporting
documentation; and
[(B) forwarding that statement after being so
reconciled to the designated disbursing office
in a timely manner.
[(3) That any disputed credit card charge, and any
discrepancy between a receipt and other supporting
documentation and the credit card statement of account,
is resolved in the manner prescribed in the applicable
Government-wide credit card contract entered into by
the Administrator of General Services.
[(4) That payments on credit card accounts are made
promptly within prescribed deadlines to avoid interest
penalties.
[(5) That rebates and refunds based on prompt payment
on credit card accounts are properly recorded.
[(6) That records of each credit card transaction
(including records on associated contracts, reports,
accounts, and invoices) are retained in accordance with
standard Government policies on the disposition of
records.]
Sec. 2784. Management of purchase cards
(a) Management of Purchase Cards.--The Secretary of Defense,
acting through the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller),
shall prescribe regulations governing the use and control of
all purchase cards and convenience checks that are issued to
Department of Defense personnel for official use. Those
regulations shall be consistent with regulations that apply
Government-wide regarding use of purchase cards by Government
personnel for official purposes.
(b) Required Safeguards and Internal Controls.--Regulations
under subsection (a) shall include safeguards and internal
controls to ensure the following:
(1) That there is a record in the Department of
Defense of each holder of a purchase card issued by the
Department of Defense for official use, annotated with
the limitations on amounts that are applicable to the
use of each such card by that purchase card holder.
(2) That the holder of a purchase card and each
official with authority to authorize expenditures
charged to the purchase card are responsible for--
(A) reconciling the charges appearing on each
statement of account for that purchase card
with receipts and other supporting
documentation; and
(B) forwarding that statement after being so
reconciled to the designated disbursing office
in a timely manner.
(3) That any disputed purchase card charge, and any
discrepancy between a receipt and other supporting
documentation and the purchase card statement of
account, is resolved in the manner prescribed in the
applicable Government-wide purchase card contract
entered into by the Administrator of General Services.
(4) That payments on purchase card accounts are made
promptly within prescribed deadlines to avoid interest
penalties.
(5) That rebates and refunds based on prompt payment
on purchase card accounts are properly recorded.
(6) That records of each purchase card transaction
(including records on associated contracts, reports,
accounts, and invoices) are retained in accordance with
standard Government policies on the disposition of
records.
(7) That an annual review is performed of the use of
purchase cards issued by the Department of Defense to
determine whether each purchase card holder has a need
for the purchase card.
(8) That the Inspectors General of the Department of
Defense and the military services perform periodic
audits with respect to the use of purchase cards issued
by the Department of Defense to ensure that such use is
in compliance with regulations.
(9) That appropriate annual training is provided to
each purchase card holder and each official with
responsibility for overseeing the use of purchase cards
issued by the Department of Defense.
(c) Penalties for Violations.--The Secretary shall provide in
the regulations prescribed under subsection (a)--
(1) that procedures are implemented providing for
appropriate punishment of employees of the Department
of Defense for violations of such regulations and for
negligence, misuse, abuse, or fraud with respect to a
purchase card, including dismissal in appropriate
cases; and
(2) that a violation of such regulations by a person
subject to chapter 47 of this title (the Uniform Code
of Military Justice) is punishable as a violation of
section 892 of this title (article 92 of the Uniform
Code of Military Justice).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2787. Reports of survey
(a) Regulations.--Under such regulations as the Secretary of
Defense may prescribe, any officer of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, or Marine Corps or any civilian employee of the
Department of Defense designated by the Secretary may act upon
reports of surveys and vouchers pertaining to the loss,
spoilage, unserviceability, unsuitability, or destruction of,
or damage to, property of the United States under the control
of the Department of Defense.
(b) Finality of Action.--Action taken under subsection (a) is
final, except that action holding a person pecuniarily liable
for loss, spoilage, destruction, or damage is not final until
approved by the Secretary.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 169--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER I--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2810. Construction projects for environmental response actions
[(a) Subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may
carry out a military construction project not otherwise
authorized by law (or may authorize the Secretary of a military
department to carry out such a project) if the Secretary of
Defense determines that the project is necessary to carry out a
response action under chapter 160 of this title or under the
Comprehensive Environmental Reponse, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).]
(a) Authority to Carry Out Unauthorized Construction
Projects.--The Secretary concerned may carry out a military
construction project not otherwise authorized by law if the
Secretary determines that the project is necessary to carry out
a response under chapter 160 of this title or the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).
(b)[(1) When a decision is made to carry out a military
construction project under this section, the Secretary of
Defense shall submit a report in writing to the appropriate
committees of Congress on that decision.] Congressional
Notification.--(1) When a decision is made to carry out a
military construction project under this section that exceeds
the amount specified in section 2805(b)(1) of this title, the
Secretary concerned shall submit a report in writing to the
appropriate committees of Congress on that decision. Each such
report shall include--
(A) the justification for the project and the current
estimate of the cost of the project; and
(B) the justification for carrying out the project
under this section.
(2) The project may then be carried out only after the end of
the 21-day period beginning on the date the notification is
received by such committees.
(c) Response Defined.--In this section, the term ``response
[action]'' has the meaning given that term in section 101 of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2814. Special authority for development of Ford Island, Hawaii
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) Use of Account.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3)[(A) The Secretary may transfer funds from the Ford Island
Improvement Account to the following funds:
[(i) The Department of Defense Family Housing
Improvement Fund established by section 2883(a)(1) of
this title.
[(ii) The Department of Defense Military
Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund established by
section 2883(a)(2) of this title.] (A) The Secretary
may transfer funds from the Ford Island Improvement
Account to the Department of Defense Housing
Improvement Fund established by section 2883(a) of this
title.
(B) Amounts transferred under subparagraph (A) to [a fund]
the Fund referred to in that subparagraph shall be available in
accordance with the provisions of section 2883 of this title
for activities authorized under subchapter IV of this chapter
at Ford Island.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2815. Joint use military construction projects: annual evaluation
(a) * * *
(b) Annual Evaluation.--In the case of the budget submitted
under section 1105 of title 31 [for fiscal year 2003 and each
fiscal year thereafter] for any fiscal year, the Secretary of
Defense shall include in the budget justification materials
submitted to Congress in support of the budget a certification
by each Secretary concerned that, in evaluating military
construction projects for inclusion in the budget for that
fiscal year, the Secretary concerned evaluated the feasibility
of carrying out the projects as joint use military construction
projects.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2828. Leasing of military family housing
(a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
(2) Except as provided in paragraphs (3) and (4),
expenditures for the rental of housing units under subsection
(a) (including the cost of utilities, maintenance, and
operation) may not exceed $12,000 per unit per year, as
adjusted from time to time under paragraph (5).
* * * * * * *
(e)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(3) In addition to the 450 units of family housing referred
to in paragraph (1) for which the maximum lease amount is
$25,000 per unit per year, the Secretary of the Army may lease
not more than 800 units of family housing in Korea subject to
that maximum lease amount.]
(3) In addition to the 450 units of family housing referred
to in paragraph (1) for which the maximum lease amount is
$25,000 per unit per year, the Secretary of the Army may lease
in Korea--
(A) not more than 1,175 units of family housing
subject to that maximum lease amount; and
(B) not more than 2,400 units of family housing
subject to a maximum lease amount of $35,000 per unit
per year.
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IV--ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITY FOR ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF
MILITARY HOUSING
Sec.
2871. Definitions.
* * * * * * *
[2874. Leasing of housing to be constructed.]
2874. Leasing of housing.
* * * * * * *
[2879. Interim leases.]
* * * * * * *
[2883. Department of Defense Housing Funds.]
2883. Department of Defense Housing Improvement Fund.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2871. Definitions
In this subchapter:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) The term ``Fund'' means the [Department of
Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund or the
Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing
Improvement Fund] Department of Defense Housing
Improvement Fund established under section 2883(a) of
this title.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2872a. Utilities and services
(a) * * *
(b) Covered Utilities and Services.--The utilities and
services that may be furnished under subsection (a) are the
following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(11) Firefighting and fire protection services.
(12) Police protection services.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2874. Leasing of housing to be constructed
[(a) Build and Lease Authorized.--The Secretary concerned may
enter into contracts for the lease of military family housing
units or military unaccompanied housing units to be constructed
under this subchapter.]
Sec. 2874. Leasing of housing
(a) Lease Authorized.--(1) The Secretary concerned may enter
into contracts for the lease of housing units that the
Secretary determines are suitable for use as military family
housing or military unaccompanied housing.
(2) The Secretary concerned shall utilize housing units
leased under paragraph (1) as military family housing or
military unaccompanied housing, as appropriate.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2875. Investments
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Congressional Notification Required.--Amounts in the
[Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund or the
Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied Housing
Improvement Fund] Department of Defense Housing Improvement
Fund may be used to make a cash investment under this section
in an eligible entity only after the end of the 30-day period
beginning on the date the Secretary of Defense submits written
notice of, and justification for, the investment to the
appropriate committees of Congress.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2879. Interim leases
[Pending completion of a project to acquire or construct
military family housing units or military unaccompanied housing
units under this subchapter, the Secretary concerned may
provide for the interim lease of such units of the project as
are complete. The term of a lease under this section may not
extend beyond the date of the completion of the project
concerned.]
Sec. 2880. Unit size and type
(a) * * *
(b) Inapplicability of Limitations on Space by Pay Grade.--
(1) * * *
(2) The regulations prescribed under section 2856 of this
title shall not apply to any military unaccompanied housing
unit acquired or constructed under this subchapter [unless the
unit is located on a military installation].
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 2883. Department of Defense Housing Funds
[(a) Establishment.--There are hereby established on the
books of the Treasury the following accounts:
[(1) The Department of Defense Family Housing
Improvement Fund.
[(2) The Department of Defense Military Unaccompanied
Housing Improvement Fund.
[(b) Commingling of Funds Prohibited.--(1) The Secretary of
Defense shall administer each Fund separately.
[(2) Amounts in the Department of Defense Family Housing
Improvement Fund may be used only to carry out activities under
this subchapter with respect to military family housing.
[(3) Amounts in the Department of Defense Military
Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund may be used only to
carry out activities under this subchapter with respect to
military unaccompanied housing.
[(c) Credits to Funds.--(1) There shall be credited to the
Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement Fund the
following:
[(A) Amounts authorized for and appropriated to that
Fund.
[(B) Subject to subsection (f), any amounts that the
Secretary of Defense transfers, in such amounts as
provided in appropriation Acts, to that Fund from
amounts authorized and appropriated to the Department
of Defense for the acquisition or construction of
military family housing.
[(C) Proceeds from the conveyance or lease of
property or facilities under section 2878 of this title
for the purpose of carrying out activities under this
subchapter with respect to military family housing.
[(D) Income derived from any activities under this
subchapter with respect to military family housing,
including interest on loans made under section 2873 of
this title, income and gains realized from investments
under section 2875 of this title, and any return of
capital invested as part of such investments.
[(E) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy
transfers to that Fund pursuant to section 2814(i)(3)
of this title, subject to the restrictions on the use
of the transferred amounts specified in that section.
[(2) There shall be credited to the Department of Defense
Military Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund the following:
[(A) Amounts authorized for and appropriated to that
Fund.
[(B) Subject to subsection (f), any amounts that the
Secretary of Defense transfers, in such amounts as
provided in appropriation Acts, to that Fund from
amounts authorized and appropriated to the Department
of Defense for the acquisition or construction of
military unaccompanied housing.
[(C) Proceeds from the conveyance or lease of
property or facilities under section 2878 of this title
for the purpose of carrying out activities under this
subchapter with respect to military unaccompanied
housing.
[(D) Income derived from any activities under this
subchapter with respect to military unaccompanied
housing, including interest on loans made under section
2873 of this title, income and gains realized from
investments under section 2875 of this title, and any
return of capital invested as part of such investments.
[(E) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy
transfers to that Fund pursuant to section 2814(i)(3)
of this title, subject to the restrictions on the use
of the transferred amounts specified in that section.]
Sec. 2883. Department of Defense Housing Improvement Fund
(a) Establishment.--There is hereby established on the books
of the Treasury an account to be known as the Department of
Defense Housing Improvement Fund (in this section referred to
as the ``Fund'').
(b) Credits to Fund.--There shall be credited to the Fund the
following:
(1) Amounts authorized for and appropriated to the
Fund.
(2) Subject to subsection (e), any amounts that the
Secretary of Defense transfers, in such amounts as are
provided for in appropriation Acts, to the Fund from
amounts authorized and appropriated to the Department
of Defense for the acquisition or construction of
military family housing or military unaccompanied
housing.
(3) Proceeds from the conveyance or lease of property
or facilities under section 2878 of this title for the
purpose of carrying out activities under this
subchapter with respect to military family housing or
military unaccompanied housing.
(4) Income derived from any activities under this
subchapter with respect to military family housing or
military unaccompanied housing, income and gains
realized from investments under section 2875 of this
title, and any return of capital invested as part of
such investments.
(5) Any amounts that the Secretary of the Navy
transfers to the Fund pursuant to section 2814(i)(3) of
this title, subject to the restrictions on the use of
the transferred amounts specified in that section.
[(d)] (c) Use of Amounts in [Funds] Fund.--(1) In such
amounts as provided in appropriation Acts and except as
provided in subsection [(e)] (d), the Secretary of Defense may
use amounts in the [Department of Defense Family Housing
Improvement] Fund to carry out activities under this subchapter
with respect to military family housing, including activities
required in connection with the planning, execution, and
administration of contracts entered into under the authority of
this subchapter. The Secretary may also use for expenses of
activities required in connection with the planning, execution,
and administration of such contracts funds that are otherwise
available to the Department of Defense for such types of
expenses.
[(2) In such amounts as provided in appropriation Acts and
except as provided in subsection (e), the Secretary of Defense
may use amounts in the Department of Defense Military
Unaccompanied Housing Improvement Fund to carry out activities
under this subchapter with respect to military unaccompanied
housing, including activities required in connection with the
planning, execution, and administration of contracts entered
into under the authority of this subchapter. The Secretary may
also use for expenses of activities required in connection with
the planning, execution, and administration of such contracts
funds that are otherwise available to the Department of Defense
for such types of expenses.]
[(3)] (2) Amounts made available under this subsection shall
remain available until expended. The Secretary of Defense may
transfer amounts made available under this subsection to the
Secretaries of the military departments to permit such
Secretaries to carry out the activities for which such amounts
may be used.
[(e)] (d) Limitation on Obligations.--The Secretary may not
incur an obligation under a contract or other agreement entered
into under this subchapter in excess of the unobligated
balance, at the time the contract is entered into, of the Fund
[required to be used to satisfy the obligation].
[(f)] (e) Notification Required for Transfers.--A transfer of
appropriated amounts to [a Fund under paragraph (1)(B) or
(2)(B) of subsection (c)] the Fund under subsection (b)(2) may
be made only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on
the date the Secretary of Defense submits written notice of,
and justification for, the transfer to the appropriate
committees of Congress.
[(g)] (f) Limitation on Amount of Budget Authority.--The
total value in budget authority of all contracts and
investments undertaken using the authorities provided in this
subchapter shall not exceed--
(1) [$850,000,000] $1,700,000,000 for the acquisition
or construction of military family housing; and
(2) [$150,000,000] $300,000,000 for the acquisition
or construction of military unaccompanied housing.
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Army
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 305--THE ARMY STAFF
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3038. Office of Army Reserve: appointment of Chief
(a) * * *
(b) Appointment.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Until [October 1, 2003] December 31, 2004, the Secretary
of Defense may waive subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) with
respect to the appointment of an officer as Chief of Army
Reserve if the Secretary of the Army requests the waiver and,
in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense--
(A) the officer is qualified for service in the
position; and
(B) the waiver is necessary for the good of the
service.
Any such waiver shall be made on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 307--THE ARMY
Sec.
3061. Regulations.
* * * * * * *
3084. Chief of Veterinary Corps: grade.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3084. Chief of Veterinary Corps: grade
The Chief of the Veterinary Corps of the Army serves in the
grade of brigadier general. An officer appointed to that
position who holds a lower grade shall be appointed in the
grade of brigadier general.
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 403--UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4342. Cadets: appointment; numbers, territorial distribution
(a) The authorized strength of the Corps of Cadets of the
Academy (determined for any year as of the day before the last
day of the academic year) is 4,000 or such higher number as may
be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army under subsection
(j). Subject to that limitation, cadets are selected as
follows:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) For purposes of the limitation in subsection (a)
establishing the aggregate authorized strength of the Corps of
Cadets, the Secretary of the Army may for any year [(beginning
with the 2001-2002 academic year)] permit a variance in that
limitation by not more than one percent. In applying that
limitation, and any such variance, the last day of an academic
year shall be considered to be graduation day.
(j)(1) Beginning with the 2003-2004 academic year, the
Secretary of the Army may prescribe annual increases in the
cadet strength limit in effect under subsection (a). For any
academic year, any such increase shall be by no more than 100
cadets or such lesser number as applies under paragraph (3) for
that year. Such annual increases may be prescribed until the
cadet strength limit is 4,400. However, no increase may be
prescribed for any academic year after the 2007-2008 academic
year.
(2) Any increase in the cadet strength limit under paragraph
(1) with respect to an academic year shall be prescribed not
later than the date on which the budget of the President is
submitted to Congress under section 1105 of title 31 for the
fiscal year beginning in the same year as the year in which
that academic year begins. Whenever the Secretary prescribes
such an increase, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a
notice in writing of the increase. The notice shall state the
amount of the increase in the cadet strength limit and the new
cadet strength limit, as so increased, and the amount of the
increase in Senior Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps
enrollment under each of sections 2104 and 2107 of this title.
(3) The amount of an increase under paragraph (1) in the
cadet strength limit for an academic year may not exceed the
increase (if any) for the preceding academic year in the total
number of cadets enrolled in the Army Senior Reserve Officers'
Training Corps program under chapter 103 of this title who have
entered into an agreement under section 2104 or 2107 of this
title.
(4) In this subsection, the term ``cadet strength limit''
means the authorized maximum strength of the Corps of Cadets of
the Academy.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4357. Acceptance of guarantees with gifts for major projects
(a) Acceptance Authority.--[Subject to subsection (c), the
Secretary] The Secretary of the Army may accept from a donor or
donors a qualified guarantee for the completion of a major
project for the benefit of the Academy.
* * * * * * *
[(c) Notice of Proposed Acceptance.--The Secretary of the
Army may not accept a qualified guarantee under this section
for the completion of a major project until after the
expiration of 30 days following the date upon which a report of
the facts concerning the proposed guarantee is submitted to
Congress.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 407--SCHOOLS AND CAMPS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4416. Academy of Health Sciences: admission of civilians in
physician assistant training program
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(f) Annual Report.--(1) Each year, the Secretary shall
submit to Congress a report on the exchange of services under
this section during the year. The report shall contain the
following:
[(A) The number of civilian students who receive
instruction at the Academy under this section.
[(B) An assessment of the benefits derived by the
United States.
[(2) Reports are required under paragraph (1) only for years
during which an agreement is in effect under this section.]
* * * * * * *
PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 453--ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
Sec.
4831. Custody of departmental records and property.
* * * * * * *
[4835. Reports of survey.]
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 4835. Reports of survey
[(a) Under such regulations as the Secretary of the Army may
prescribe, any officer of the Army or any civilian employee of
the Department of the Army designated by him may act upon
reports of surveys and vouchers pertaining to the loss,
spoilage, unserviceability, unsuitability, or destruction of or
damage to property of the United States under the control of
the Department of the Army.
[(b) Action taken under subsection (a) is final, except that
action holding a person pecuniarily liable for loss, spoilage,
destruction, or damage is not final until approved by the
Secretary or the Secretary's designee. The Secretary may
designate officers of the Army or civilian employees of the
Department of the Army to approve such action.]
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Navy and Marine Corps
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 506--HEADQUARTERS, MARINE CORPS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5045. Deputy Commandants
There are in the Headquarters, Marine Corps, not more than
[five] six Deputy Commandants, detailed by the Secretary of the
Navy from officers on the active-duty list of the Marine Corps.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 513--BUREAUS; OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL
Sec. 5143. Office of Naval Reserve: appointment of Chief
(a) * * *
(b) Appointment.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Until [October 1, 2003] December 31, 2004, the Secretary
of Defense may waive subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) with
respect to the appointment of an officer as Chief of Naval
Reserve if the Secretary of the Navy requests the waiver and,
in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense--
(A) the officer is qualified for service in the
position; and
(B) the waiver is necessary for the good of the
service.
Any such waiver shall be made on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5144. Office of Marine Forces Reserve: appointment of Commander
(a) * * *
(b) Appointment.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Until [October 1, 2003] December 31, 2004, the Secretary
of Defense may waive subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) with
respect to the appointment of an officer as Commander, Marine
Forces Reserve, if the Secretary of the Navy requests the
waiver and, in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 544--TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5721. Temporary promotions of certain Navy lieutenants
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Limitation on Number of Eligible Positions.--[(1)] An
appointment under this section may only be made for service in
a position designated by the Secretary of the Navy for purposes
of this section. The number of positions so designated may not
exceed 325.
[(2) Whenever the Secretary makes a change to the positions
designated under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit
notice of the change in writing to Congress.]
* * * * * * *
PART III--EDUCATION AND TRAINING
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 603--UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 6954. Midshipmen: number
(a) The authorized strength of the Brigade of Midshipmen
(determined for any year as of the day before the last day of
the academic year) is 4,000 or such higher number as may be
prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy under subsection (h).
Subject to that limitation, midshipmen are selected as follows:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h)(1) Beginning with the 2003-2004 academic year, the
Secretary of the Navy may prescribe annual increases in the
midshipmen strength limit in effect under subsection (a). For
any academic year, any such increase shall be by no more than
100 midshipmen or such lesser number as applies under paragraph
(3) for that year. Such annual increases may be prescribed
until the midshipmen strength limit is 4,400. However, no
increase may be prescribed for any academic year after the
2007-2008 academic year.
(2) Any increase in the midshipmen strength limit under
paragraph (1) with respect to an academic year shall be
prescribed not later than the date on which the budget of the
President is submitted to Congress under section 1105 of title
31 for the fiscal year beginning in the same year as the year
in which that academic year begins. Whenever the Secretary
prescribes such an increase, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a notice in writing of the increase. The notice shall
state the amount of the increase in the midshipmen strength
limit and the new midshipmen strength limit, as so increased,
and the amount of the increase in Senior Navy Reserve Officers'
Training Corps enrollment under each of sections 2104 and 2107
of this title.
(3) The amount of an increase under paragraph (1) in the
midshipmen strength limit for an academic year may not exceed
the increase (if any) for the preceding academic year in the
total number of midshipmen enrolled in the Navy Senior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps program under chapter 103 of this
title who have entered into an agreement under section 2104 or
2107 of this title.
(4) In this subsection, the term ``midshipmen strength
limit'' means the authorized maximum strength of the Brigade of
Midshipmen.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 6975. Acceptance of guarantees with gifts for major projects
(a) Acceptance Authority.--[Subject to subsection (c), the
Secretary] The Secretary of the Navy may accept from a donor or
donors a qualified guarantee for the completion of a major
project for the benefit of the Naval Academy.
* * * * * * *
[(c) Notice of Proposed Acceptance.--The Secretary of the
Navy may not accept a qualified guarantee under this section
for the completion of a major project until after the
expiration of 30 days following the date upon which a report of
the facts concerning the proposed guarantee is submitted to
Congress.]
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Air Force
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 805--THE AIR STAFF
* * * * * * *
Sec. 8038. Office of Air Force Reserve: appointment of Chief
(a) * * *
(b) Appointment.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Until [October 1, 2003] December 31, 2004, the Secretary
of Defense may waive subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) with
respect to the appointment of an officer as Chief of Air Force
Reserve if the Secretary of the Air Force requests the waiver
and, in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense--
(A) the officer is qualified for service in the
position; and
(B) the waiver is necessary for the good of the
service.
Any such waiver shall be made on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * * * *
PART III--TRAINING
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 903--UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 9342. Cadets: appointment; numbers, territorial distribution
(a) The authorized strength of Air Force Cadets of the
Academy (determined for any year as of the day before the last
day of the academic year) is 4,000 or such higher number as may
be prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force under
subsection (j). Subject to that limitation, Air Force Cadets
are selected as follows:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(j)(1) Beginning with the 2003-2004 academic year, the
Secretary of the Air Force may prescribe annual increases in
the cadet strength limit in effect under subsection (a). For
any academic year, any such increase shall be by no more than
100 cadets or such lesser number as applies under paragraph (3)
for that year. Such annual increases may be prescribed until
the cadet strength limit is 4,400. However, no increase may be
prescribed for any academic year after the 2007-2008 academic
year.
(2) Any increase in the cadet strength limit under paragraph
(1) with respect to an academic year shall be prescribed not
later than the date on which the budget of the President is
submitted to Congress under sections 1105 of title 31 for the
fiscal year beginning in the same year as the year in which
that academic year begins. Whenever the Secretary prescribes
such an increase, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a
notice in writing of the increase. The notice shall state the
amount of the increase in the cadet strength limit and the new
cadet strength limit, as so increased, and the amount of the
increase in Senior Air Force Reserve Officers' Training Corps
enrollment under each of sections 2104 and 2107 of this title.
(3) The amount of an increase under paragraph (1) in the
cadet strength limit for an academic year may not exceed the
increase (if any) for the preceding academic year in the total
number of cadets enrolled in the Air Force Senior Reserve
Officers' Training Corps program under chapter 103 of this
title who have entered into an agreement under section 2104 or
2107 of this title.
(4) In this subsection, the term ``cadet strength limit''
means the authorized maximum strength of Air Force Cadets of
the Academy.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 9356. Acceptance of guarantees with gifts for major projects
(a) Acceptance Authority.--[Subject to subsection (c), the
Secretary] The Secretary of the Air Force may accept from a
donor or donors a qualified guarantee for the completion of a
major project for the benefit of the Academy.
* * * * * * *
[(c) Notice of Proposed Acceptance.--The Secretary of the Air
Force may not accept a qualified guarantee under this section
for the completion of a major project until after the
expiration of 30 days following the date upon which a report of
the facts concerning the proposed guarantee is submitted to
Congress.]
* * * * * * *
PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 953--ACCOUNTABILITY AND RESPONSIBILITY
Sec.
9831. Custody of departmental records and property.
* * * * * * *
[9835. Reports of survey.]
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 9835. Reports of survey
[(a) Under such regulations as the Secretary of the Air Force
may prescribe, any officer of the Air Force designated by him
may act upon reports of surveys and vouchers pertaining to the
loss, spoilage, unserviceability, unsuitability, or destruction
of or damage to property of the United States under the control
of the Department of the Air Force.
[(b) Action taken under subsection (a) is final, except that
action holding a person pecuniarily liable for loss, spoilage,
destruction, or damage is not final until approved by the
Secretary or an officer of the Air Force designated by him.]
* * * * * * *
Subtitle E--Reserve Components
* * * * * * *
PART I--ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1007--ADMINISTRATION OF RESERVE COMPONENTS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 10217. Non-dual status technicians
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Permanent Limitations on Number.--(1) * * *
(2) [Effective October 1, 2002, the] The total number of non-
dual status technicians employed by the National Guard may not
exceed 1,950. If at any time [after the preceding sentence
takes effect] the number of non-dual status technicians
employed by the National Guard exceeds the number specified in
the limitation in the preceding sentence, the Secretary of
Defense shall require that the Secretary of the Army or the
Secretary of the Air Force, or both, take immediate steps to
reduce the number of such technicians in order to comply with
such limitation.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1011--NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU
* * * * * * *
Sec. 10506. Other senior National Guard Bureau officers
(a) Additional General Officers.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3)(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) Until [October 1, 2003] December 31, 2004, the Secretary
of Defense may waive clause (ii) of subparagraph (B) with
respect to the appointment of an officer as Director, Army
National Guard, or as Director, Air National Guard, if the
Secretary of the military department concerned requests the
waiver and, in the judgment of the Secretary of Defense--
(i) the officer is qualified for service in the
position; and
(ii) the waiver is necessary for the good of the
service.
Any such waiver shall be made on a case-by-case basis.
* * * * * * *
PART II--PERSONNEL GENERALLY
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1201--AUTHORIZED STRENGTHS AND DISTRIBUTION IN GRADE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12004. Strength in grade: reserve general and flag officers in an
active status
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f)(1) A general or flag officer who is on active duty but
who is not counted under section 526(a) of this title by reason
of section 526(b)(2)(B) of this title shall also be excluded
from being counted under subsection (a).
(2) This subsection shall cease to be effective on the date
specified in section 526(b)(3) of this title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1203--ENLISTED MEMBERS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12103. Reserve components: terms
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense, or the Secretary of Transportation with respect to the
Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy,
a non-prior-service person who is qualified for induction for
active duty in an armed force and who is not under orders to
report for induction into an armed force under the Military
Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), except as
provided in section 6(c)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii) of such Act, may
be enlisted in the Army National Guard or the Air National
Guard, or as a Reserve for service in the Army Reserve, Naval
Reserve, Air Force Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, or Coast
Guard Reserve, for a term of not less than six years nor more
than eight years. Each person enlisted under this subsection
shall perform an initial period of active duty for training of
not less than twelve weeks to commence insofar as practicable
within [270 days] one year after the date of that enlistment.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1209--ACTIVE DUTY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12302. Ready Reserve
(a) * * *
(b) To achieve fair treatment as between members in the Ready
Reserve who are being considered for recall to duty without
their consent, consideration shall be given to--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such policies and
procedures as he considers necessary to carry out this
subsection. [He shall report on those policies and procedures
at least once a year to the Committee on Armed Services of the
Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives.]
* * * * * * *
[(d) Whenever one or more units of the Ready Reserve are
ordered to active duty, the President shall, on the first day
of the second fiscal year quarter immediately following the
quarter in which the first unit or units are ordered to active
duty and on the first day of each succeeding six-month period
thereafter, so long as such unit is retained on active duty,
submit a report to the Congress regarding the necessity for
such unit or units being ordered to and retained on active
duty. The President shall include in each such report a
statement of the mission of each such unit ordered to active
duty, an evaluation of such unit's performance of that mission,
where each such unit is being deployed at the time of the
report, and such other information regarding each unit as the
President deems appropriate.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12310. Reserves: for organizing, administering, etc., reserve
components
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Duties Relating to Defense Against Weapons of Mass
Destruction.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) A Reserve may perform duties described in paragraph (1)
[only--
[(A) while assigned to the Department of Defense
Consequence Management Program Integration Office; or
[(B) while assigned] only while assigned to a reserve
component rapid assessment element team and performing
those duties within the geographical limits of the
United States, its territories and possessions, the
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1223--RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR SERVICE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 12731. Age and service requirements
(a) Except as provided in subsection (c), a person is
entitled, upon application, to retired pay computed under
section 12739 of this title, if the person--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) performed the last [eight] six years of
qualifying service while a member of any category named
in section 12732(a)(1) of this title, but not while a
member of a regular component, the Fleet Reserve, or
the Fleet Marine Corps Reserve; and
* * * * * * *
PART III--PROMOTION AND RETENTION OF OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-
STATUS LIST
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1405--PROMOTIONS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 14301. Eligibility for consideration for promotion: general rules
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(g) A reserve component brigadier general of the Army or the
Air Force who is in an inactive status is eligible
(notwithstanding subsection (a)) for consideration for
promotion to major general by a promotion board convened under
section 14101(a) of this title if the officer--
[(1) has been in an inactive status for less than one
year as of the date of the convening of the promotion
board; and
[(2) had continuously served for at least one year on
the reserve active status list or the active duty list
(or a combination of both) immediately before the
officer's most recent transfer to an inactive status.]
(g) Brigadier Generals.--(1) An officer who is a reserve
component brigadier general of the Army or the Air Force who is
not eligible for consideration for promotion under subsection
(a) because the officer is not on the reserve active status
list (as required by paragraph (1) of that subsection for such
eligibility) is nevertheless eligible for consideration for
promotion to the grade of major general by a promotion board
convened under section 14101(a) of this title if--
(A) as of the date of the convening of the promotion
board, the officer has been in an inactive status for
less than one year; and
(B) immediately before the date of the officer's most
recent transfer to an inactive status, the officer had
continuously served on the reserve active status list
or the active-duty list (or a combination of the
reserve active status list and the active-duty list)
for at least one year.
(2) An officer who is a reserve component brigadier general
of the Army or the Air Force who is on the reserve active
status list but who is not eligible for consideration for
promotion under subsection (a) because the officer's service
does not meet the one-year-of-continuous-service requirement
under paragraph (2) of that subsection is nevertheless eligible
for consideration for promotion to the grade of major general
by a promotion board convened under section 14101(a) of this
title if--
(A) the officer was transferred from an inactive
status to the reserve active status list during the
one-year period preceding the date of the convening of
the promotion board;
(B) immediately before the date of the officer's most
recent transfer to an active status, the officer had
been in an inactive status for less than one year; and
(C) immediately before the date of the officer's most
recent transfer to an inactive status, the officer had
continuously served for at least one year on the
reserve active status list or the active-duty list (or
a combination of the reserve active status list and the
active-duty list).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 14317. Officers in transition to and from the active-status list
or active-duty list
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Effect of Transfer of Officers in Pay Grade O-7 to
Inactive Status.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), if a reserve
officer on the active-status list in the grade of brigadier
general or rear admiral (lower half) is transferred to an
inactive status after having been recommended for promotion to
the grade of major general or rear admiral under this chapter,
or after having been found qualified for Federal recognition in
the grade of major general under title 32, but before being
promoted, the officer shall retain promotion eligibility and,
if otherwise qualified, may be promoted to the higher grade
after returning to an active status.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1407--FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR PROMOTION AND INVOLUNTARY
SEPARATION
Sec.
14501. Failure of selection for promotion.
* * * * * * *
14519. Deferment of retirement or separation for medical reasons.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 14519. Deferment of retirement or separation for medical reasons
(a) If the Secretary of the military department concerned
determines that the evaluation of the physical condition of a
Reserve officer and determination of the officer's entitlement
to retirement or separation for physical disability require
hospitalization or medical observation and that such
hospitalization or medical observation cannot be completed with
confidence in a manner consistent with the officer's well-being
before the date on which the officer would otherwise be
required to be separated, retired, or transferred to the
Retired Reserve under this title, the Secretary may defer the
separation, retirement, or transfer of the officer under this
title.
(b) A deferral under subsection (a) of separation,
retirement, or transfer to the Retired Reserve may not extend
for more than 30 days after completion of the evaluation
requiring hospitalization or medical observation.
* * * * * * *
PART IV--TRAINING FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1606--EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED
RESERVE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 16133. Time limitation for use of entitlement
(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the period during
which a person entitled to educational assistance under this
chapter may use such person's entitlement expires (1) at the
end of the [10-year] 14-year period beginning on the date on
which such person becomes entitled to such assistance, or (2)
on the date the person is separated from the Selected Reserve,
whichever occurs first.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1609--EDUCATION LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 16302. Education loan repayment program: health professions
officers serving in Selected Reserve with wartime
critical medical skill shortages
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) The authority provided in this section shall apply only
in the case of a person first appointed as a commissioned
officer before January 1, [2003] 2004.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 216 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS
1992 AND 1993
SEC. 216. MANAGEMENT OF NAVY MINE COUNTERMEASURES PROGRAMS.
(a) Responsibility.--Subject to the authority, direction, and
control of the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition and Technology shall have the primary
responsibility for developing and testing naval mine
countermeasures systems during fiscal years 1996 [through 2003]
through 2008.
* * * * * * *
----------
STROM THURMOND NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 246. PILOT PROGRAM FOR REVITALIZING THE LABORATORIES AND TEST AND
EVALUATION CENTERS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.
(a) Pilot Program.--(1) The Secretary of Defense may carry
out a pilot program to demonstrate improved cooperative
relationships with universities and other private sector
entities for the performance of research and development
functions, and to demonstrate improved efficiency in the
performance of the research, development, test, and evaluation
functions of the Department of Defense.
* * * * * * *
(4) The Secretary may carry out the pilot program at each
selected laboratory and center [for a period of three years
beginning not later than March 1, 1999.] until March 1, 2008.
(b) Reports.--(1) * * *
(2) [Promptly after the expiration of the period for
participation of a laboratory or center in the pilot program,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a final
report on the participation of the laboratory or center in the
pilot program. The report shall contain] Not later than
December 31 of each year, the Secretary of Defense shall submit
to the congressional defense committees a report on the
activities of the pilot program during the preceding fiscal
year. Each such report shall contain, for each laboratory or
center in the pilot program, the following:
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Not later than March 1, 2007, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the committees referred to in paragraph (2) the
Secretary's recommendation as to whether, and to what extent,
the authority to carry out the pilot program should be
extended.
* * * * * * *
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE.
This division may be cited as the ``Military Construction
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2404(a)(1), the Secretary of Defense may acquire real property
and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Defense Agencies: Inside the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Installation or location Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Demilitarization.................... Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland... $223,950,000
Newport Army Depot, Indiana......... [$191,550,000] $293,853,000
* * * * * * *
----------------------------
Total........................... [$727,616,000] $829,919,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2404. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, DEFENSE AGENCIES.
(a) * * *
(b) Limitation of Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variation authorized by section 2853
of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variation
authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out
under section 2401 of this Act may not exceed--
(1) * * *
(2) [$162,050,000] $264,353,000 (the balance of the
amount authorized under section 2401(a) for the
construction of the Ammunition Demilitarization
Facility at Newport Army Depot, Indiana); and
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Land Conveyances
* * * * * * *
PART II--NAVY CONVEYANCES
SEC. 2851. CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENT, MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP PENDLETON,
CALIFORNIA.
(a) Easement Authorized.--The Secretary of the Navy may grant
an easement, in perpetuity, to the Foothill/Eastern
Transportation Corridor Agency (in this section referred to as
the ``Agency'') over a parcel of real property at Marine Corps
Base, Camp Pendleton, California, consisting of approximately
340 acres to permit the recipient of the [easement to
construct, operate, and maintain, notwithstanding any provision
of State law to the contrary, a restricted access highway.]
easement to construct, operate, and maintain a restricted
access highway, notwithstanding any provision of State law that
would otherwise prevent the Secretary from granting the
easement or the Agency from constructing, operating, or
maintaining the restricted access highway. The area covered by
the easement shall include slopes and all necessary incidents
thereto.
* * * * * * *
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3159. PANEL TO ASSESS THE RELIABILITY, SAFETY, AND SECURITY OF THE
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR STOCKPILE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Report.--Not later than October 1 of 1999 and 2000, and
not later than [February 1, 2002,] February 1 of 2002 and 2003,
the panel shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of
the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of
Representatives a report setting forth its findings and
conclusions resulting from the review and assessment carried
out for the year covered by the report. The report shall be
submitted in classified and unclassified form.
* * * * * * *
(g) Termination of Panel.--The panel shall terminate [three
years after the date of the appointment of the member
designated as chairman of the panel.] April 1, 2003.
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 232. PROGRAM ELEMENTS FOR BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION.]
SEC. 232. PROGRAM ELEMENTS FOR MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Internal DOD Reviews.--(1) The officials and elements of
the Department of Defense specified in paragraph (2) shall on
an ongoing basis--
(A) * * *
(B) provide to the Secretary of Defense and the
Director of the [Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization] Missile Defense Agency any comments on
such matters as considered appropriate.
* * * * * * *
(f) Demonstration of Critical Technologies.--(1) The Director
of the [Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense
Agency shall develop a plan for ensuring that each critical
technology for a missile defense program is successfully
demonstrated in an appropriate environment before that
technology enters into operational service as part of a missile
defense program.
(2) The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation of the
Department of Defense shall monitor the development of the plan
under paragraph (1) and shall submit to the Director of the
[Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense Agency
any comments regarding that plan that the Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation considers appropriate.
(g) Comptroller General Assessment.--(1) At the conclusion of
each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003, the Comptroller General of
the United States shall assess the extent to which the
[Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense Agency
achieved the goals established under subsection (c) for such
fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
(h) Annual OT&E Assessment of Test Program.--(1) The Director
of Operational Test and Evaluation shall each year assess the
adequacy and sufficiency of the [Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization] Missile Defense Agency test program during the
preceding fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
* * * * * * *
SEC. 602. BASIC PAY RATE FOR CERTAIN RESERVE COMMISSIONED OFFICERS WITH
PRIOR SERVICE AS AN ENLISTED MEMBER OR WARRANT
OFFICER.
(a) Service Credit.--Section 203(d) of title 37, United
States Code, is amended--
(1) * * *
(2) by striking ``active service as a warrant officer
or as a warrant officer and [an] enlisted member'' and
inserting ``service described in paragraph (2)''; and
* * * * * * *
TITLE XIV--ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1410. CONFORMING AND CLERICAL AMENDMENTS AND REPEALS OF OBSOLETE
PROVISIONS.
(a) Conforming Amendments.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Section 1520 (24 U.S.C. 420), relating to disposition of
effects of deceased persons and unclaimed property, is
amended--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) in subsection (e), by striking ``Directors'' both
places it appears and inserting ``Director of the
facility''.
* * * * * * *
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
SEC. 2001. SHORT TITLE; DEFINITION.
(a) Short Title.--This division may be cited as the
``Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2002''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXI--ARMY
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2101. AUTHORIZED ARMY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2104(a)(1), the Secretary of the Army may acquire real property
and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Army: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................... Anniston Army Depot..... $5,150,000
* * * * * * *
Colorado..................... Fort Carson............. [$66,000,000]
$67,000,000
* * * * * * *
South Carolina............... Fort Jackson............ [$65,650,000]
$68,650,000
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, ARMY.
(a) * * *
(b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section 2853
of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variation
authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out
under section 2101 of this Act may not exceed--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) [$41,000,000] $42,000,000 (the balance of the
amount authorized under section 2201(a) for
construction of phase 1 of a barracks complex, Nelson
Boulevard, at Fort Carson, Colorado);
(4) [$36,000,000] $39,000,000 (the balance of the
amount authorized under section 2201(a) for
construction of phase 1 of a basic combat training
complex at Fort Jackson, South Carolina); and
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXII--NAVY
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2201. AUTHORIZED NAVY CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2204(a)(1), the Secretary of the Navy may acquire real property
and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Navy: Inside the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Installation or location Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona.................................... Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma. $22,570,000
* * * * * * *
Naval Station, Norfolk......... [$139,270,000] $139,550,000
* * * * * * *
-----------------------------------
Total:....................... [$1,058,750,000] $1,059,030,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, NAVY.
(a) * * *
(b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variations authorized by section 2853
of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variation
authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out
under section 2201 of this Act may not exceed--
(1) * * *
(2) [$33,240,000] $33,520,000 (the balance of the
amount authorized under section 2201(a) for replacement
of a pier, increment I, at Naval Station, Norfolk,
Virginia); and
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXVIII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Real Property and Facilities Administration
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2814. DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM ON REDUCTION IN LONG-TERM FACILITY
MAINTENANCE COSTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) Reporting Requirements.--Not later than January 31,
2005, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to Congress a
report on the demonstration program, including the following:
[(1) A description of all contracts that contain
requirements referred to in subsection (a) for the
purpose of the demonstration program.
[(2) An evaluation of the demonstration program and a
description of the experience of the Secretary with
respect to such contracts.
[(3) Any recommendations, including recommendations
for the termination, continuation, or expansion of the
demonstration program, that the Secretary considers
appropriate.]
[(e)] (d) Expiration.--The authority under subsection (a) to
include requirements referred to in that subsection in
contracts under the demonstration program shall expire on
September 30, 2006.
[(f)] (e) Funding.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated for
the Army for a fiscal year for military construction shall be
available for the demonstration program under this section in
such fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXX--REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE OF MILITARY INSTALLATIONS AND
PREPARATION OF INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN FOR THE NUCLEAR WEAPONS COMPLEX
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3007. TECHNICAL AND CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Other Clarifying Amendments.--(1) That Act is further
amended by inserting ``or realignment'' after ``closure'' each
place it appears in the following provisions:
(A) Section 2905(b)(3).
(B) Section 2905(b)(5).
(C) Section [2905(b)(7)(B)(iv)] 2905(b)(7)(C)(iv).
* * * * * * *
----------
FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Department of Defense Industrial Facilities
* * * * * * *
SEC. 343. ARSENAL SUPPORT PROGRAM INITIATIVE.
(a) Demonstration Program Required.--To help maintain the
viability of the Army manufacturing arsenals and the unique
capabilities of these arsenals to support the national security
interests of the United States, the Secretary of the Army shall
carry out a demonstration program under this section during
fiscal years 2001 [and 2002] through 2004 at each manufacturing
arsenal of the Department of the Army.
* * * * * * *
(g) Reporting Requirements.--(1) Not later than July 1 of
each year in which a guarantee issued under subsection (d) is
in effect, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to Congress a
report specifying the amounts of loans guaranteed under such
subsection during the preceding calendar year. No report is
required after fiscal year [2002] 2004.
(2) [Not later than July 1, 2001, the Secretary of the Army
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report
on the implementation of the demonstration program.] Not later
than July 1, 2003, the Secretary of the Army shall submit to
the congressional defense committees a report on the results of
the demonstration program since its implementation, including
the Secretary's views regarding the benefits of the program for
Army manufacturing arsenals and the Department of the Army and
the success of the program in achieving the purposes specified
in subsection (b). The report shall contain a comprehensive
review of contracting at the Army manufacturing arsenals
covered by the program and such recommendations as the
Secretary considers appropriate regarding changes to the
program.
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
* * * * * * *
Subtitle G--Other Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 577. NATIONAL GUARD CHALLENGE PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
(b) Sources of Federal Support.--Subsection (b) of such
section is amended--
(1) * * *
(2) by striking ``, except that [Federal] Department
of Defense expenditures under the program may not
exceed $62,500,000 for any fiscal year''; and
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--Pay and Allowances
* * * * * * *
SEC. 612. INCREASE IN MONTHLY SUBSISTENCE ALLOWANCE FOR MEMBERS OF
PRECOMMISSIONING PROGRAMS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Conforming and Stylistic Amendments.--Section 209 of such
title is further amended--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) in subsection (d)--
(A) * * *
(B) by striking ``the same rate as that
prescribed by subsection (a)[,]'' and inserting
``a monthly rate prescribed under subsection
(a)''.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VIII--ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED
MATTERS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle B--Information Technology
* * * * * * *
SEC. 814. NAVY-MARINE CORPS INTRANET.
(a) * * *
(b) Phased Implementation.--(1) * * *
(2) Not more than 15 percent of the total number of work
stations to be [provided] ordered under the Navy-Marine Corps
Intranet program may be [provided] ordered in the first
increment of implementation of the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet
contract.
(3) No work stations in excess of the number permitted by
paragraph (2) may be [provided] ordered under the program
until--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) Duration of Navy-Marine Corps Intranet Contract.--
Notwithstanding section 2306c of title 10, United States Code,
the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet contract may have a term in
excess of five years, but not more than seven years.
[(i)] (j) Definitions.--(1) In this section, the term ``Navy-
Marine Corps Intranet contract'' means a contract providing for
a long-term arrangement of the Department of the Navy with the
commercial sector that imposes on the contractor a
responsibility for, and transfers to the contractor the risk
of, providing and managing the significant majority of desktop,
server, infrastructure, and communication assets and services
of the Department of the Navy.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER
SOVIET UNION
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1308. REPORTS ON ACTIVITIES AND ASSISTANCE UNDER COOPERATIVE
THREAT REDUCTION PROGRAMS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Matters To Be Included.--The report under subsection (a)
in a year shall set forth the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) To the maximum extent practicable, a description
of how revenue generated by activities carried out
under Cooperative Threat Reduction programs in
recipient States is being utilized, monitored, and
accounted for.
* * * * * * *
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 3132. ENHANCED COOPERATION BETWEEN NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION AND BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE
ORGANIZATION.]
SEC. 3132. ENHANCED COOPERATION BETWEEN NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION AND MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY.
(a) * * *
(b) Requirements for Projects.--The projects referred to in
subsection (a) shall--
(1) be carried out by the National Nuclear Security
Administration and the [Ballistic Missile Defense
Organization] Missile Defense Agency; and
* * * * * * *
(c) Participation by NNSA in Certain [BMDO] MDA Activities.--
The Administrator for Nuclear Security and the Director of the
[Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense Agency
shall implement mechanisms that increase the cooperative
relationship between those organizations. Those mechanisms may
include participation by personnel of the National Nuclear
Security Administration in the following activities of the
[Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense
Agency:
(1) Peer reviews of technical efforts.
(2) Activities of so-called ``red teams''.
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Programs
* * * * * * *
SEC. 233. COOPERATIVE BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM.
(a) Requirement for New Program Element.--The Secretary of
Defense shall establish a program element for the [Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense Agency, to be
referred to as the ``Cooperative Ballistic Missile Defense
Program'', to support technical and analytical cooperative
efforts between the United States and other nations that
contribute to United States ballistic missile defense
capabilities. Except as provided in subsection (b), all
international cooperative ballistic missile defense programs of
the Department of Defense shall be budgeted and administered
through that program element.
* * * * * * *
(c) Relationship to Other Program Elements.--The program
element established pursuant to subsection (a) is in addition
to the program elements for activities of the [Ballistic
Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense Agency required
under section 251 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 233; 10 U.S.C.
221 note).
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D--Retired Pay, Survivor Benefits, and Related Matters
* * * * * * *
SEC. 644. ANNUITIES FOR CERTAIN MILITARY SURVIVING SPOUSES.
(a) Survivor Annuity.--(1) The Secretary concerned shall pay
an annuity to the qualified surviving spouse of each member of
the uniformed services who--
(A) became entitled to retired or retainer pay before
September 21, 1972, died before March 21, 1974, and was
entitled to retired or retainer pay on the date of
death; or
(B) [was a member of a reserve component of the Armed
Forces] died before October 1, 1978, and at the time of
his death would have been entitled to retired pay under
chapter 67 of title 10, United States Code (as in
effect before December 1, 1994), but for the fact that
he was under 60 years of age.
(2) A qualified surviving spouse for purposes of this section
is a surviving spouse who has not remarried [and who is not
eligible for an annuity under section 4 of Public Law 92-425
(10 U.S.C. 1448 note)].
(b) Amount of Annuity.--(1) An annuity under this section
shall be paid at the rate of [$165] $185.58 per month, as
adjusted from time to time under paragraph (3).
[(2) An annuity paid to a surviving spouse under this section
shall be reduced by the amount of any dependency and indemnity
compensation (DIC) to which the surviving spouse is entitled
under section 1311(a) of title 38, United States Code.]
(2) The amount of an annuity to which a surviving spouse is
entitled under this section for any period shall be reduced
(but not below zero) by any amount paid to that surviving
spouse for the same period under any of the following
provisions of law:
(A) Section 1311(a) of title 38, United States Code
(relating to dependency and indemnity compensation
payable by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs).
(B) Chapter 73 of title 10, United States Code.
(C) Section 4 of Public Law 92-425 (10 U.S.C. 1448
note).
(3) Whenever after [the date of the enactment of this Act]
May 1, 2002, retired or retainer pay is increased under section
1401a(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, each annuity that
is payable under this section shall be increased at the same
time and by the same total percent. [The amount of the increase
shall be based on the amount of the monthly annuity payable
before any reduction under this section.]
* * * * * * *
(d) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) * * *
(2) The term ``surviving spouse'' has the meaning
given [the terms ``widow'' and ``widower'' in
paragraphs (7) and (8)] such term in paragraph (9) of
section 1447 of title 10, United States Code.
(e) Prospective Applicability.--(1) Annuities under this
section shall be paid for months beginning after [the month in
which this Act is enacted] November 1997.
(2) No benefit shall accrue to any person by reason of the
enactment of this section for any period before [the first
month that begins after the month in which this Act is enacted]
December 1997.
(3) In the case of a person entitled to an annuity under this
section who applies for the annuity after the date of the
enactment of this paragraph, such annuity shall be paid only
for months beginning after the date on which such application
is submitted.
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1995
* * * * * * *
SEC. 234. THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE ARCHITECTURE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Program Accountability Report.--(1) As part of the annual
report of the [Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile
Defense Agency required by section 224 of Public Law 101-189
(10 U.S.C. 2431 note), the Secretary of Defense shall describe
the technical milestones, the schedule, and the cost of each
phase of development and acquisition (together with total
estimated program costs) for each core and follow-on theater
missile defense program.
* * * * * * *
DIVISION C--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND
OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS
TITLE XXXI--DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3131. AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT PROGRAM RELATING TO FISSILE MATERIALS.
[(a) Authority.--]The Secretary of Energy may conduct
programs designed to improve the protection, control, and
accountability of fissile materials in Russia.
[(b) Semi-Annual Reports on Obligation of Funds.--(1) Not
later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act,
and thereafter not later than April 1 and October 1 of each
year, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to Congress a report
on each obligation during the preceding six months of funds
appropriated for a program described in subsection (a).
[(2) Each such report shall specify--
[(A) the activities and forms of assistance for which
the Secretary of Energy has obligated funds;
[(B) the amount of the obligation;
[(C) the activities and forms of assistance for which
the Secretary anticipates obligating funds during the
six months immediately following the report, and the
amount of each such anticipated obligation; and
[(D) the projected involvement (if any) of any
department or agency of the United States (in addition
to the Department of Energy) and of the private sector
of the United States in the activities and forms of
assistance for which the Secretary of Energy has
obligated funds referred to in subparagraph (A).]
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994
* * * * * * *
DIVISION A--DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION
* * * * * * *
Subtitle C--Missile Defense Programs
* * * * * * *
SEC. 235. THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE MASTER PLAN.
(a) * * *
(b) TMD Master Plan.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit
to Congress a report (which shall constitute the TMD master
plan) containing a thorough and complete analysis of the future
of theater missile defense programs. The report shall include
the following:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) An evaluation of the cost and relative
effectiveness of each interceptor and sensor under
development as part of a Theater Missile Defense system
by the [Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile
Defense Agency.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 243. TRANSFER OF FOLLOW-ON TECHNOLOGY PROGRAMS.
(a) * * *
(b) Waiver Authority.--The Secretary may waive the provisions
of subsection (a) in the case of a particular program, project,
or activity if the Secretary certifies to the congressional
defense committees that it is in the national security interest
of the United States to provide management and budget
responsibility for that program, project, or activity through
the [Ballistic Missile Defense Organization] Missile Defense
Agency.
(c) Report Required.--As a part of the report required by
section 231(e), the Secretary shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report identifying--
(1) each program, project, and activity with respect
to which the Secretary has transferred management and
budget responsibility from the [Ballistic Missile
Defense Organization] Missile Defense Agency in
accordance with subsection (a);
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 3 OF THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT
Sec. 3. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) Section 2 shall not apply to the incidental taking of
a migratory bird by a member of the Armed Forces during a
military readiness activity authorized by the Secretary of
Defense or the Secretary of the military department concerned.
(2)(A) In this subsection, the term ``military readiness
activity'' includes--
(i) all training and operations of the Armed Forces
that relate to combat; and
(ii) the adequate and realistic testing of military
equipment, vehicles, weapons, and sensors for proper
operation and suitability for combat use.
(B) The term does not include--
(i) the routine operation of installation operating
support functions, such as administrative offices,
military exchanges, commissaries, water treatment
facilities, storage facilities, schools, housing, motor
pools, laundries, morale, welfare, and recreation
activities, shops, and mess halls;
(ii) the operation of industrial activities; or
(iii) the construction or demolition of facilities
used for a purpose described in clause (i) or (ii).
----------
SECTION 4 OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973
determination of endangered species and threatened species
Sec. 4. (a) General.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3)(A) The Secretary, by regulation promulgated in accordance
with subsection (b) and to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable--
[(A)] (i) shall, concurrently with making a
determination under paragraph (1) that a species is an
endangered species or a threatened species, designate
any habitat of such species which is then considered to
be critical habitat; and
[(B)] (ii) may, from time-to-time thereafter as
appropriate, revise such designation.
(B)(i) The Secretary may not designate as critical habitat
any lands or other geographical areas owned or controlled by
the Department of Defense, or designated for its use, that are
subject to an integrated natural resources management plan
prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a),
if the Secretary determines that such plan addresses special
management considerations or protection (as those terms are
used in section 3(5)(A)(i)).
(ii) Nothing in this subparagraph affects the requirement to
consult under section 7(a)(2) with respect to an agency action
(as that term is defined in that section).
(iii) Nothing in this subparagraph affects the obligation of
the Department of Defense to comply with section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, including the prohibition
preventing extinction and taking of endangered species and
threatened species.
(b) Basis for Determinations.--(1) * * *
(2) The Secretary shall designate critical habitat, and make
revisions thereto, under subsection (a)(3) on the basis of the
best scientific data available and after taking into
consideration the economic impact, the impact on national
security, and any other relevant impact, of specifying any
particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude
any area from critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweight the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he
determines, based on the best scientific and commercial data
available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species concerned.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 7 OF THE DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OVERSEAS TEACHERS PAY AND PERSONNEL
PRACTICES ACT
quarters, quarters allowances, and storage
Sec. 7. (a) * * *
(b) Each teacher (other than a teacher employed in a
substitute capacity) shall be entitled, for each school year
for which he performs services as a teacher, to quarters or a
quarters allowance equal to those authorized by [the Act of
June 26, 1930 (5 U.S.C. 118a)] section 5912 of title 5, United
States Code. If the teacher is unaccompanied by dependents and
is required to reside on a United States military installation
in an overseas area, the teacher may receive a quarters
allowance to reside in excess family housing at the
installation notwithstanding the availability single room
housing at the installation.
(c) Each teacher (other than a teacher employed in a
substitute capacity) who is performing services as a teacher at
the close of a school year and agrees in writing to serve as a
teacher for the next school year may be authorized, for the
recess period immediately preceding such next school year--
(1) quarters or a quarters allowance equal to those
authorized by [the Act of June 26, 1930 (5 U.S.C.
118a)] section 5912 of title 5, United States Code, or
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 1402 OF THE DEFENSE DEPENDENTS' EDUCATION ACT OF 1978
establishment of defense dependents' education system
Sec. 1402. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d)(1) The Secretary of Defense may provide optional summer
school programs in the defense dependents' education system.
[(2) The Secretary shall provide in regulations for fees to
be charged for the students enrolling in a summer school
program under this subsection in amounts determined on the
basis of family income.]
(2) Individuals eligible to receive a free public education
under subsection (a) may enroll without charge in a summer
school program offered under this subsection. Students who are
required under section 1404 to pay tuition to enroll in a
school of the defense dependents' education system shall also
be charged a fee, at a rate established by the Secretary, to
attend a course offered as part of the summer school program.
* * * * * * *
----------
TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 1--DEFINITIONS
Sec. 101. Definitions
In addition to the definitions in sections 1-5 of title 1,
the following definitions apply in this title:
(1) The term ``United States'', in a geographical
sense, means the States and the District of Columbia.
The term ``continental United States'' means the 48
contiguous States and the District of Columbia.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 5--SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 301b. Special pay: aviation career officers extending period of
active duty
(a) Bonus Authorized.--An aviation officer described in
subsection (b) who, during the period beginning on January 1,
1989, and ending on December 31, [2002] 2003, executes a
written agreement to remain on active duty in aviation service
for at least one year may, upon the acceptance of the agreement
by the Secretary concerned, be paid a retention bonus as
provided in this section.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302d. Special pay: accession bonus for registered nurses
(a) Accession Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person who is a
registered nurse and who, during the period beginning on
November 29, 1989, and ending on December 31, [2002] 2003,
executes a written agreement described in subsection (c) to
accept a commission as an officer and remain on active duty for
a period of not less than four years may, upon the acceptance
of the agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an
accession bonus in an amount determined by the Secretary
concerned.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302e. Special pay: nurse anesthetists
(a) Special Pay Authorized.--(1) An officer described in
subsection (b)(1) who, during the period beginning on November
29, 1989, and ending on December 31, [2002] 2003, executes a
written agreement to remain on active duty for a period of one
year or more may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by the
Secretary concerned, be paid incentive special pay in an amount
not to exceed $15,000 for any 12-month period.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302g. Special pay: Selected Reserve health care professionals in
critically short wartime specialties
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Agreement Authority.--No agreement under
this section may be entered into after December 31, [2002]
2003.
Sec. 302h. Special pay: accession bonus for dental officers
(a) Accession Bonus Authorized.--(1) A person who is a
graduate of an accredited dental school and who, during the
period beginning on September 23, 1996, and ending on December
31, [2002] 2003, executes a written agreement described in
subsection (c) to accept a commission as an officer of the
armed forces and remain on active duty for a period of not less
than four years may, upon the acceptance of the agreement by
the Secretary concerned, be paid an accession bonus in an
amount determined by the Secretary concerned.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 302j. Special pay: accession bonus for pharmacy officers
(a) Accession Bonus Authorized.--A person who is a graduate
of an accredited pharmacy school and who, during the period
beginning on the date of the enactment of the Floyd D. Spence
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 and
ending on September 30, 2004, executes a written agreement
described in subsection [(c)] (d) to accept a commission as an
officer of a uniformed service and remain on active duty for a
period of not less than 4 years may, upon acceptance of the
agreement by the Secretary concerned, be paid an accession
bonus in an amount determined by the Secretary concerned.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 305. Special pay: hardship duty pay
(a) * * *
(b) Duty in Certain Locations.--(1) In the case of duty at a
location described in paragraph (2) at any time during a month,
the member of a uniformed service performing that duty is
entitled to special pay under this section at a monthly rate of
not less than $240, but not to exceed the monthly rate
specified in subsection (a). For each day of that duty during
the month, the member shall receive an amount equal to \1/30\
of the monthly rate prescribed under this subsection.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies with respect to duty performed on
the ground in Antarctica or on the Arctic icepack.
[(b)] (c) Regulations.--The Secretary of Defense shall
prescribe regulations for the provision of hardship duty pay
under subsection (a), including the specific monthly rates at
which the special pay will be available.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 308. Special pay: reenlistment bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) No bonus shall be paid under this section with respect to
any reenlistment, or voluntary extension of an active-duty
reenlistment, in the armed forces entered into after December
31, [2002] 2003.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 308b. Special pay: reenlistment bonus for members of the Selected
Reserve
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Authority.--No bonus may be paid under
this section to any enlisted member who, after December 31,
[2002] 2003, reenlists or voluntarily extends his enlistment in
a reserve component.
Sec. 308c. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Selected Reserve
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any enlisted
member who, after December 31, [2002] 2003, enlists in the
Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of an armed force.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 308d. Special pay: enlisted members of the Selected Reserve
assigned to certain high priority units
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Additional compensation may not be paid under this
section for inactive duty performed after December 31, [2002]
2003.
Sec. 308e. Special pay: bonus for reserve affiliation agreement
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any person for
a reserve obligation agreement entered into after December 31,
[2002] 2003.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 308h. Special pay: bonus for reenlistment, enlistment, or
voluntary extension of enlistment in elements of
the Ready Reserve other than the Selected Reserve
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Termination of Authority.--A bonus may not be paid under
this section to any person for a reenlistment, enlistment, or
voluntary extension of an enlistment after December 31, [2002]
2003.
Sec. 308i. Special pay: prior service enlistment bonus
(a) * * *
(b) Bonus Amounts; Payment.--(1) The amount of a bonus under
this section may not exceed--
(A) [$5,000] $8,000, in the case of a person who
enlists for a period of six years;
(B) [$2,500] $4,000, in the case of a person who,
having never received a bonus under this section,
enlists for a period of three years; and
(C) [$2,000] $3,500, in the case of a person who,
having received a bonus under this section for a
previous three-year enlistment, reenlists or extends
the enlistment for an additional period of three years.
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Authority.--No bonus may be paid under
this section to any person for an enlistment after December 31,
[2002] 2003.
Sec. 309. Special pay: enlistment bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Duration of Authority.--No bonus shall be paid under this
section with respect to any enlistment in the armed forces made
after December 31, [2002] 2003.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 312. Special pay: nuclear-qualified officers extending period of
active duty
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in
the case of officers who, on or before December 31, [2002]
2003, execute the required written agreement to remain in
active service.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 312b. Special pay: nuclear career accession bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) The provisions of this section shall be effective only in
the case of officers who, on or before December 31, [2002]
2003, have been accepted for training for duty in connection
with the supervision, operation, and maintenance of naval
nuclear propulsion plants.
Sec. 312c. Special pay: nuclear career annual incentive bonus
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) For the purposes of this section, a ``nuclear service
year'' is any fiscal year beginning before December 31, [2002]
2003.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 314. Special pay or bonus: qualified enlisted members extending
duty at designated locations overseas
(a) Covered Members.--This section applies with respect to an
enlisted member of an armed force who--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) has completed a tour of duty (as defined in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary
concerned) at a location outside [the 48 contiguous
States and the District of Columbia] the continental
United States that is designated by the Secretary
concerned for the purposes of this section; and
* * * * * * *
Sec. 323. Special pay: retention incentives for members qualified in a
critical military skill
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Maximum Bonus Amount.--(1) A member may enter into an
agreement under this section, or reenlist or voluntarily extend
the member's enlistment, more than once to receive a bonus
under this section. However, a member may not receive a total
of more than $200,000 in payments under this section.
(2) The limitation in paragraph (1) on the total bonus
payments that a member may receive under this section does not
apply with respect to an officer who is assigned duties as a
health care provider.
(e) Certain Members Ineligible.--(1) A retention bonus may
not be provided under subsection (a) to a member of the armed
forces who--
[(1)] (A) has completed more than 25 years of active
duty; or
[(2)] (B) will complete the member's twenty-fifth
year of active duty before the end of the period of
active duty for which the bonus is being offered.
(2) The limitations in paragraph (1) do not apply with
respect to an officer who is assigned duties as a health care
provider during the period of active duty for which the bonus
is being offered.
* * * * * * *
(i) Termination of Bonus Authority.--No bonus may be paid
under this section with respect to any reenlistment, or
voluntary extension of an enlistment, in the armed forces
entered into after December 31, [2002] 2003, and no agreement
under this section may be entered into after that date.
Sec. 324. Special pay: accession bonus for new officers in critical
skills
(a) * * *
(b) Designation of Critical Officer Skills.--[(1)] The
Secretary concerned shall designate the critical officer skills
for the purposes of this section. A skill may be designated as
a critical officer skill for an armed force under this
subsection if--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Termination of Authority.--No agreement under this
section may be entered into after December 31, [2002] 2003.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 7--ALLOWANCES
* * * * * * *
Sec. 403. Basic allowance for housing
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Basic Allowance for Housing Outside the United States.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) In the case of a member who is assigned to duty outside
of the United States, the location or the circumstances of
which make it necessary that the member be reassigned under the
conditions of low-cost or no-cost permanent change of station
or permanent change of assignment, the member may be treated as
if the member were not reassigned if the Secretary concerned
determines that it would be inequitable to base the member's
entitlement to, and amount of, a basic allowance for housing on
the cost of housing in the area to which the member is
reassigned.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 403b. Cost-of-living allowance in the continental United States
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) Other Definitions.--In this section:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(6) The term ``continental United States'' means the
48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 409. Travel and transportation allowances: house trailers and
mobile homes
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(e) In this section, the term ``continental United States''
means the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 411b. Travel and transportation allowances: travel performed in
connection with leave between consecutive overseas
tours
[(a)(1)] (a) Allowances Authorized.--Under uniform
regulations prescribed by the Secretaries concerned, a member
of a uniformed service stationed outside [the 48 contiguous
States and the District of Columbia] the continental United
States who is ordered to a consecutive tour of duty at the same
duty station or who is ordered to make a change of permanent
station to another duty station outside [the 48 contiguous
States and the District of Columbia] the continental United
States may be paid travel and transportation allowances in
connection with authorized leave from his last duty station to
a place approved by the Secretary concerned, and from that
place to his designated post of duty. Such allowances may be
paid for the member and for the dependents of the member who
are authorized to, and do, accompany him at his duty stations.
[(2) Under the regulations referred to in paragraph (1), a
member may defer the travel for which the member is paid travel
and transportation allowances under such paragraph until not
more than one year after the date on which the member begins
the consecutive tour of duty at the same duty station or
reports to another duty station under the order involved, as
the case may be. If the member is unable to undertake the
travel before the end of such one-year period as a result of
duty in connection with a contingency operation, the member may
defer the travel for one additional year beginning on the date
the duty of the member in connection with the contingency
operation ends.]
(b) Authority to Defer Travel; Limitations.--(1) Under the
regulations referred to subsection (a), a member may defer the
travel for which the member is paid travel and transportation
allowances under this section until anytime before the
completion of the consecutive tour at the same duty station or
the completion of the tour of duty at the new duty station
under the order involved, as the case may be.
(2) If a member is unable to undertake the travel before
expiration of the deferral period under paragraph (1) because
of duty in connection with a contingency operation, the member
may defer the travel until not more than one year after the
date on which the member's duty in connection with the
contingency operation ends.
[(b) The allowances] (c) Limitation on Allowance Rate.--
prescribed under this section may not exceed the rate
authorized under section 404(d) of this title. Authorized
travel under this section is performed in a duty status.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 411d. Travel and transportation allowances: transportation
incident to personal emergencies for certain
members and dependents
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) In this section, the term ``continental United States''
means the 48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 430. Travel and transportation: dependent children of members
stationed overseas
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(f) Definitions.--In this section:
[(1) The term ``continental United States'' means the
48 contiguous States and the District of Columbia.
[(2) The term ``formal education'' means the
following:
[(A) A secondary education.
[(B) An undergraduate college education.
[(C) A graduate education pursued on a full-
time basis at an institution of higher
education (as defined in section 101 of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001)).
[(D) Vocational education pursued on a full-
time basis at a post-secondary vocational
institution (as defined in section 102(c) of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1002(c))).]
(f) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) The term ``formal education'' means the
following:
(A) A secondary education.
(B) An undergraduate college education.
(C) A graduate education pursued on a full-
time basis at an institution of higher
education.
(D) Vocational education pursued on a full-
time basis at a postsecondary vocational
institution.
(2) The term ``institution of higher education'' has
the meaning given that term in section 101 of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001).
(3) The term ``postsecondary vocational institution''
has the meaning given that term in section 102(c) of
the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002(c)).
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 19--ADMINISTRATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1007. Deductions from pay
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) The amount of any damage, or cost of repairs, to arms or
equipment caused by the abuse or negligence of a member of the
[Army or the Air Force] Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps,
as the case may be, who had the care of, or was using, the
property when it was damaged, shall be deducted from his pay.
* * * * * * *
(i)(1) There shall be deducted each month from the pay of
each enlisted member, warrant officer, and limited duty officer
of the armed forces on active duty [an amount (determined under
paragraph (3)) not to exceed $1.00.] an amount equal to $1.00
and such additional amount as may be determined under paragraph
(3).
* * * * * * *
(3) The Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the
Armed Forces Retirement Home Board, shall determine from time
to time [the amount] the additional amount to be deducted under
paragraph (1) from the pay of enlisted members, warrant
officers, and limited duty officers on the basis of the
financial needs of the Armed Forces Retirement Home. [The
amount] The additional amount to be deducted may be fixed at
different amounts on the basis of grade or length of service,
or both.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 8003 OF THE ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT OF 1965
SEC. 8003. PAYMENTS FOR ELIGIBLE FEDERALLY CONNECTED CHILDREN.
(a) * * *
(b) Basic Support Payments and Payments With Respect to
Fiscal Years in Which Insufficient Funds Are Appropriated.--
(1) * * *
(2) Basic Support Payments for Heavily Impacted Local
Educational Agencies.--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(H) Eligibility for heavily impacted local
educational agencies affected by privatization
of military housing.--
(i) Eligibility.--For any fiscal year
beginning with fiscal year 2003, a
heavily impacted local educational
agency that received a basic support
payment under subparagraph (A) for the
prior fiscal year, but is ineligible
for such payment for the current fiscal
year under subparagraph (B) or (C), as
the case may be, by reason of the
conversion of military housing units to
private housing described in clause
(iii), shall be deemed to meet the
eligibility requirements under
subparagraph (B) or (C), as the case
may be, for the period during which the
housing units are undergoing such
conversion.
(ii) Amount of payment.--The amount
of a payment to a heavily impacted
local educational agency for a fiscal
year by reason of the application of
clause (i), and calculated in
accordance with subparagraph (D) or (E)
(as the case may be), shall be based on
the number of children in average daily
attendance in the schools of such
agency for the fiscal year.
(iii) Conversion of military housing
units to private housing described.--
For purposes of clause (i),
``conversion of military housing units
to private housing'' means the
conversion of military housing units to
private housing units pursuant to
subchapter IV of chapter 169 of title
10, United States Code, or pursuant to
any other related provision of law.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 9 OF THE RICHARD B. RUSSELL NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH ACT
NUTRITIONAL AND OTHER PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
Sec. 9. (a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) Any child who is a member of a household whose income, at
the time the application is submitted, is at an annual rate
which does not exceed the applicable family size income level
of the income eligibility guidelines for free lunches, as
determined under paragraph (1), shall be served a free lunch.
Any child who is a member of a household whose income, at the
time the application is submitted, is at an annual rate greater
than the applicable family size income level of the income
eligibility guidelines for free lunches, as determined under
paragraph (1), but less than or equal to the applicable family
size income level of the income eligibility guidelines for
reduced price lunches, as determined under paragraph (1), shall
be served a reduced price lunch. The price charged for a
reduced price lunch shall not exceed 40 cents. For the one-year
period beginning on the date of the enactment of this sentence,
the amount of a basic allowance provided under section 403 of
title 37, United States Code, on behalf of an individual who is
a member of the uniformed services for housing that is acquired
or constructed under the authority of subchapter IV of chapter
169 of title 10, United States Code, or any other related
provision of law, shall not be considered to be income for
purposes of determining the eligibility of a child of the
individual for free or reduced price lunches under this Act.
* * * * * * *
----------
TITLE 32, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 3--PERSONNEL
Sec.
301. Federal recognition of enlisted members.
* * * * * * *
[327. General courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service.
[328. Special courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service.
[329. Summary courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service.
[330. Confinement instead of fine.
[331. Dismissal or dishonorable discharge.
[332. Compelling attendance of accused and witnesses.
[333. Execution of process and sentence.]
327. Courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service: convening
authority.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 326. Courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service:
composition, jurisdiction, and procedures
In the National Guard not in Federal service, there are
general, special, and summary courts-martial constituted like
similar courts of the Army and the Air Force. They have the
jurisdiction and powers, except as to punishments, and shall
follow the forms and procedures, provided for those courts.
Punishments shall be as provided by the laws of the respective
States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of
Columbia.
[Sec. 327. General courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal
service
[(a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, general
courts-martial may be convened by the President or by the
governor of a State or Territory, Puerto Rico or by the
commanding general of the National Guard of the District of
Columbia.
[(b) A general court-martial may sentence to--
[(1) a fine of not more than $200;
[(2) forfeiture of pay and allowances;
[(3) a reprimand;
[(4) dismissal or dishonorable discharge;
[(5) reduction of a noncommissioned officer to the
ranks; or
[(6) any combination of these punishments.
[Sec. 328. Special courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal
service
[(a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, the
commanding officer of a garrison, fort, post, camp, air base,
auxiliary air base, or other place where troops are on duty, or
of a brigade, regiment, wing, group, detached battalion,
separate squadron, or other detached command, may convene
special courts-martial. Special courts-martial may also be
convened by superior authority.
[(b) A special court-martial may not try a commissioned
officer.
[(c) A special court-martial has the same powers of
punishment as a general court-martial, except that a fine
imposed by a special court-martial may not be more than $100
for a single offense.
[Sec. 329. Summary courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal
service
[(a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, the
commanding officer of a garrison, fort, post, camp, air base,
auxiliary air base, or other place where troops are on duty, or
of a regiment, wing, group, detached battalion, detached
squadron, detached company, or other detachment, may convene a
summary court-martial consisting of one commissioned officer.
The proceedings shall be informal.
[(b) A summary court-martial may sentence to a fine of not
more than $25 for a single offense, to forfeiture of pay and
allowances, and to reduction of a noncommissioned officer to
the ranks.
[Sec. 330. Confinement instead of fine
[In the National Guard not in Federal service, a court-
martial may, instead of imposing a fine, sentence to
confinement for not more than one day for each dollar of the
authorized fine.
[Sec. 331. Dismissal or dishonorable discharge
[In the National Guard not in Federal service, no sentence of
dismissal or dishonorable discharge may be executed until it is
approved by the governor of the State or Territory, Puerto
Rico, or whichever is concerned, or, in the case of the
National Guard of the District of Columbia, by its commanding
general.
[Sec. 332. Compelling attendance of accused and witnesses
[In the National Guard not in Federal service, the president
of a court-martial or a summary court officer may--
[(1) issue a warrant for the arrest of any accused
person who, having been served with a warrant and a
copy of the charges, disobeys a written order by the
convening authority to appear before the court;
[(2) issue subpenas duces tecum and other subpenas;
[(3) enforce by attachment the attendance or
witnesses and the production of books and papers; and
[(4) sentence for refusal to be sworn or to answer,
as provided in actions before civil courts.
[Sec. 333. Execution of process and sentence
[In the National Guard not in Federal service, the processes
and sentences of its courts-martial shall be executed by the
civil officers prescribed by the laws of the States concerned.
In a State where no provision is made for executing those
processes and sentences, and in the Territories, Puerto Rico
and the District of Columbia, the process or sentence shall be
executed by a United States marshal or deputy marshal, who
shall make a return to the military officer issuing the process
or the court imposing the sentence.]
Sec. 327. Courts-martial of National Guard not in Federal service:
convening authority
(a) In the National Guard not in Federal service, general,
special, and summary courts-martial may be convened as provided
by the laws of the States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the
District of Columbia.
(b) In addition to convening authorities as provided under
subsection (a), in the National Guard not in Federal service--
(1) general courts-martial may be convened by the
President;
(2) special courts-martial may be convened--
(A) by the commanding officer of a garrison,
fort, post, camp, air base, auxiliary air base,
or other place where troops are on duty; or
(B) by the commanding officer of a division,
brigade, regiment, wing, group, detached
battalion, separate squadron, or other detached
command; and
(3) summary courts-martial may be convened--
(A) by the commanding officer of a garrison,
fort, post, camp, air base, auxiliary air base,
or other place where troops are on duty; or
(B) by the commanding officer of a division,
brigade, regiment, wing, group, detached
battalion, detached squadron, detached company,
or other detachment.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 5--TRAINING
* * * * * * *
Sec. 509. National Guard Challenge Program of opportunities for
civilian youth
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(d) Matching Funds Required.--The amount of assistance
provided under this section to a State program of the National
Guard Challenge Program may not exceed--
[(1) for fiscal year 1998, 75 percent of the costs of
operating the State program during that year;
[(2) for fiscal year 1999, 70 percent of the costs of
operating the State program during that year;
[(3) for fiscal year 2000, 65 percent of the costs of
operating the State program during that year; and
[(4) for fiscal year 2001 and each subsequent fiscal
year, 60 percent of the costs of operating the State
program during that year.]
(d) Matching Funds Required.--The amount of assistance
provided under this section to a State program of the National
Guard Challenge Program for a fiscal year may not exceed 75
percent of the costs of operating the State program during that
fiscal year.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 1896 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
MEDICARE SUBVENTION DEMONSTRATION PROJECT FOR MILITARY RETIREES
Sec. 1896. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(k) Evaluation and Reports.--
(1) * * *
[(2) Report on extension and expansion of
demonstration project.--Not later than 6 months after
the date of the submission of the final report by the
Comptroller General of the United States under
paragraph (1), the administering Secretaries shall
submit to Congress a report containing their
recommendation as to--
[(A) whether there is a cost to the health
care program under this title in conducting the
demonstration project, and whether the
demonstration project could be expanded without
there being a cost to such health care program
or to the Federal Government;
[(B) whether to extend the demonstration
project or make the project permanent; and
[(C) whether the terms and conditions of the
project should be continued (or modified) if
the project is extended or expanded.]
----------
SECTION 4202 OF THE CLINGER-COHEN ACT OF 1996
SEC. 4202. APPLICATION OF SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURES TO CERTAIN COMMERCIAL
ITEMS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Effective Date.--The authority to issue solicitations for
purchases of commercial items in excess of the simplified
acquisition threshold pursuant to the special simplified
procedures authorized by section 2304(g)(1) of title 10, United
States Code, section 303(g)(1) of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949, and section 31(a) of the
Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended by this
section, shall expire January 1, [2003] 2004. Contracts may be
awarded pursuant to solicitations that have been issued before
such authority expires, notwithstanding the expiration of such
authority.
----------
SECTION 4 OF THE OFFICE OF FEDERAL PROCUREMENT POLICY ACT
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS.
As used in this Act:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(11) The term ``simplified acquisition threshold''
means $100,000, except that such amount may be adjusted
by the Administrator every five years to the amount
equal to $100,000 in constant fiscal year 2002 dollars
(rounded to the nearest $10,000).
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 553 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR
1995
SEC. 553. PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF ADDITIONAL CHARGES OR FEES FOR
ATTENDANCE AT CERTAIN ACADEMIES.
(a) * * *
(b) Exception.--The prohibition specified in subsection (a)
shall not apply with respect to any item or service provided to
cadets or midshipmen at an academy named in subsection (c) for
which a charge or fee is imposed as of the date of the
enactment of this Act. [The Secretary of Defense or the
Secretary of Transportation, as the case shall be, shall notify
Congress of any change made by an academy in the amount of a
charge or fee authorized under this subsection.]
* * * * * * *
----------
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000
* * * * * * *
TITLE V--MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY
* * * * * * *
Subtitle H--Matters Relating to Recruiting
* * * * * * *
SEC. 573. ARMY COLLEGE FIRST PILOT PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
(b) Delayed Entry With Allowance for Higher Education.--Under
the pilot program, the Secretary may--
(1) * * *
(2) subject to paragraph (2) of subsection (d) and
except as provided in paragraph (3) of that subsection,
pay an allowance to a person accepted for enlistment
under paragraph (1)(A) for each month of the period
during which that person is enrolled in and pursuing a
program described in paragraph (1)(B).
* * * * * * *
TITLE XIII--COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE FORMER
SOVIET UNION
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1305. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CHEMICAL WEAPONS DESTRUCTION.
No fiscal year 2000 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds, and
no funds appropriated for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs
after the date of the enactment of this Act, may be obligated
or expended for planning, design, or construction of a chemical
weapons destruction facility in Russia until the Secretary of
Defense submits to Congress a certification that there has
been--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(6) a demonstrated commitment from the international
community to fund and build infrastructure needed to
support and operate the facility[.].
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2403(a)(1), the Secretary of Defense may acquire real property
and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Defense Agencies: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Agency location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Demilitarization....... Blue Grass Army [$254,030,000]
Depot, Kentucky.. $290,325,000
* * * * * * *
-------------------
Total........... [$711,950,000]
$748,245,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2405. MODIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN FISCAL YEAR
2000 PROJECTS.
(a) * * *
(b) Limitation of Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variation authorized by section 2853
of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variations
authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out
under section 2401 of this Act may not exceed--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) [$231,230,000] $267,525,000 (the balance of the
amount authorized under section 2401(a) for the
construction of a chemical demilitarization facility at
Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky).
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 516 OF TITLE 14, UNITED STATES CODE
Sec. 516. Presentation of United States flag upon retirement
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) No Cost to Recipient.--The presentation of a flag under
[his section] this section shall be at no cost to the
recipient.
* * * * * * *
----------
MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1936
* * * * * * *
TITLE XI--FEDERAL SHIP MORTGAGE INSURANCE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1104A. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) The Secretary may obtain independent analysis of an
application for a guarantee or commitment to guarantee under
this title.
* * * * * * *
(f) The Secretary shall charge and collect from the obligor
such amounts as he may deem reasonable for the investigation of
applications for a guarantee (including for obtaining
independent analysis under subsection (d)(4)), for the
appraisal of properties offered as security for a guarantee,
for the issuance of commitments, for services in connection
with the escrow fund authorized by section 1108 and for the
inspection of such properties during construction,
reconstruction, or reconditioning: Provided, That such charges
shall not aggregate more than one-half of 1 per centum of the
original principal amount of the obligations to be guaranteed.
* * * * * * *
TITLE XII--WAR RISK INSURANCE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1205. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Insurance of Vessels in Support of NATO-Approved
Operations.--(1) Upon request made under subsection (b), the
Secretary may provide insurance for a vessel, regardless of the
country in which the vessel is registered and the citizenship
of its owners, that is supporting a military operation approved
by the North Atlantic Council, including a vessel that is not
operating under contract with a department or agency of the
United States.
(2) If a vessel is insured under paragraph (1) in response to
a request made pursuant to an international agreement providing
for the sharing among nations of the risks involved in mutual
or joint operations, the Secretary of Transportation, with the
concurrence of the Secretary of State, may seek from another
nation that is a party to such agreement a commitment to
indemnify the United States for any amounts paid by the United
States for claims against such insurance.
(3) Amounts received by the United States as indemnity from a
nation pursuant to paragraph (2) shall be deposited into the
insurance fund created under section 1208.
(4) Any obligation of a department or agency of the United
States to indemnify the Secretary or the insurance fund for any
claim against insurance provided under this subsection is
extinguished to the extent of any indemnification received from
a nation pursuant to paragraph (2) with respect to the claim.
* * * * * * *
----------
TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
PART III--EMPLOYEES
* * * * * * *
Subpart D--Pay and Allowances
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 53--PAY RATES AND SYSTEMS
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IV--PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5343. Prevailing rate determinations; wage schedules; night
differentials
(a) * * *
(b) The Office of Personnel Management shall schedule full-
scale wage surveys every [2 years] 3 years and shall schedule
interim surveys to be conducted between each 2 consecutive
full-scale wage surveys. The Office may schedule more frequent
surveys when conditions so suggest[.], based on criteria
developed by the Office.
(c) The Office of Personnel Management, by regulation, shall
prescribe practices and procedures for conducting wage surveys,
analyzing wage survey data, developing and establishing wage
schedules and rates, and administering the prevailing rate
system. The regulations shall provide--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) for proper differentials, as determined by the
Office, for duty involving unusually severe working
conditions or unusually severe hazards, and for any
hardship or hazard related to asbestos, such
differentials shall be determined by applying
occupational safety and health standards consistent
with the permissible exposure limit promulgated by the
Secretary of Labor under the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970;
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 55--PAY ADMINISTRATION
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER V--PREMIUM PAY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5545. Night, standby, irregular, and hazardous duty differential
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) The Office shall establish a schedule or schedules of pay
differentials for duty involving unusual physical hardship or
hazard, and for any hardship or hazard related to asbestos,
such differentials shall be determined by applying occupational
safety and health standards consistent with the permissible
exposure limit promulgated by the Secretary of Labor under the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. Under such
regulations as the Office may prescribe, and for such minimum
periods as it determines appropriate, an employee to whom
chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of this title
applies is entitled to be paid the appropriate differential for
any period in which he is subjected to physical hardship or
hazard not usually involved in carrying out the duties of his
position. However, the pay differential--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER IX--SEVERANCE PAY AND BACK PAY
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5595. Severance pay
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) This subsection applies with respect to severance pay
payable under this section for separations taking effect on or
after February 10, 1996, and before October 1, [2003] 2006.
* * * * * * *
Subpart G--Insurance and Annuities
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 89--HEALTH INSURANCE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 8905a. Continued coverage
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4)(A) * * *
(B) This paragraph shall apply with respect to any individual
whose continued coverage is based on a separation occurring on
or after the date of enactment of this paragraph and before--
(i) October 1, [2003] 2006; or
(ii) February 1, [2004] 2007, if specific notice of
such separation was given to such individual before
October 1, [2003] 2006.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 90--LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 9001. Definitions
For purposes of this chapter:
(1) Employee.--The term ``employee'' means--
(A) * * *
(B) an individual described in section
2105(e); [and]
(C) an individual employed by the Tennessee
Valley Authority[,]; and
(D) an employee of a nonappropriated fund
instrumentality of the Department of Defense
described in section 2105(c),
but does not include an individual employed by the
government of the District of Columbia.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 9002. Availability of insurance
(a) * * *
(b) Discretionary Authority Regarding Nonappropriated Fund
Instrumentalities.--The Secretary of Defense may determine that
a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department of
Defense is covered under this chapter or is covered under an
alternative long-term care insurance program.
[(b)] (c) General Requirements.--Long-term care insurance may
not be offered under this chapter unless--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c)] (d) Documentation Requirement.--As a condition for
obtaining long-term care insurance coverage under this chapter
based on one's status as a qualified relative, an applicant
shall provide documentation to demonstrate the relationship, as
prescribed by the Office.
[(d)] (e) Underwriting Standards.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(e)] (f) Guaranteed Renewability.--The benefits and coverage
made available to eligible individuals under any insurance
contract under this chapter shall be guaranteed renewable (as
defined by section 7A(2) of the model regulations described in
section 7702B(g)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986),
including the right to have insurance remain in effect so long
as premiums continue to be timely made. However, the authority
to revise premiums under this chapter shall be available only
on a class basis and only to the extent otherwise allowable
under section 9003(b).
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 1505 OF THE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CONTROL ACT OF 1992
SEC. 1505. INTERNATIONAL NONPROLIFERATION INITIATIVE.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) Termination of Authority.--The authority of the Secretary
of Defense to provide assistance under this section terminates
at the close of fiscal year [2002] 2003.
* * * * * * *
----------
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997
* * * * * * *
DIVISION B--MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS
* * * * * * *
TITLE XXIV--DEFENSE AGENCIES
SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND LAND
ACQUISITION PROJECTS.
(a) Inside the United States.--Using amounts appropriated
pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section
2406(a)(1), and, in the case of the projects described in
paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 2406(b), other amounts
appropriated pursuant to authorizations enacted after this Act
for the projects, the Secretary of Defense may acquire real
property and carry out military construction projects for the
installations and locations inside the United States, and in
the amounts, set forth in the following table:
Defense Agencies: Inside the United States
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation or
Agency location Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical Demilitarization Pueblo Chemical [$203,500,000]
Program........................ Activity, $261,000,000
Colorado.........
Defense Finance & Accounting Charleston, South $6,200,000
Service........................ Carolina.........
* * * * * * *
-------------------
Total:.......... [$549,954,000]
$607,454,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2406. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, DEFENSE AGENCIES.
(a) * * *
(b) Limitation on Total Cost of Construction Projects.--
Notwithstanding the cost variation authorized by section 2853
of title 10, United States Code, and any other cost variations
authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out
under section 2401 of this Act may not exceed--
(1) * * *
(2) [$203,500,000] $261,000,000 (the balance of the
amount authorized under section 2401(a) of this Act for
the construction of a chemical demilitarization
facility at Pueblo Army Depot, Colorado); and
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 501 OF THE MCKINNEY-VENTO HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT
SEC. 501. USE OF UNUTILIZED AND UNDERUTILIZED PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND REAL
PROPERTY TO ASSIST THE HOMELESS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i) Applicability to Certain Property During Emergencies.--
The screening requirements and other provisions of this section
shall not apply to any property that is excess property or
surplus property or that is described as unutilized or
underutilized property if the property is subject to a request
for conveyance or use for the purpose of directly supporting
activities in response to--
(1) a war or national emergency declared in
accordance with the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C.
1601 et seq.); or
(2) an emergency or major disaster declared in
accordance with the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.).
[(i)] (j) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 204 OF THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION AMENDMENTS AND BASE CLOSURE
AND REALIGNMENT ACT
SEC. 204. IMPLEMENTATION
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Transfer Authority in Connection With Construction or
Provision of Military Family Housing.--(1) Subject to paragraph
(2), the Secretary may enter into an agreement to transfer by
deed real property or facilities located at or near an
installation closed or to be closed under this title with any
person who agrees, in exchange for the real property or
facilities, to transfer to the Secretary housing units that are
constructed or provided by the person and located at or near a
military installation at which there is a shortage of suitable
housing to meet the requirements of members of the Armed Forces
and their dependents. [The Secretary may not select real
property for transfer under this paragraph if the property is
identified in the redevelopment plan for the installation as
items essential to the reuse or redevelopment of the
installation.]
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 2914 OF THE DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACT OF 1990
SEC. 2914. SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
REALIGNMENTS AND CLOSURES FOR 2005 ROUND;
COMMISSION CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(d) Commission Review and Recommendations.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) Limitation on authority to recommend additional
installation for closure.--Notwithstanding paragraph
(3), the decision of the Commission to add a military
installation to the Secretary's list of installations
recommended for closure must be unanimous, and at least
two members of the Commission must have visited the
installation during the period of the Commission's
review of the list.
[(4)] (5) Testimony by secretary.--The Commission
shall invite the Secretary to testify at a public
hearing, or a closed hearing if classified information
is involved, on any proposed change by the Commission
to the Secretary's recommendations.
[(5)] (6) Comptroller general report.--The
Comptroller General report required by section
2903(d)(5)(B) analyzing the recommendations of the
Secretary and the selection process in 2005 shall be
transmitted to the congressional defense committees not
later than July 1, 2005.
* * * * * * *
----------
ACT OF AUGUST 22, 1972
(Public Law 92-402)
AN ACT To authorize appropriations for the fiscal year 1973 for certain
maritime programs of the Department of Commerce, and for related
purposes.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 4. If, after consideration of such comments and views as
are received pursuant to section 3(c), the Secretary finds that
the use of Liberty ships proposed by a State will not violate
any Federal law, contribute to degradation of the marine
environment, create undue interference with commercial fishing
or navigation, and is not frivolous, he may transfer without
consideration to the State all right, title, and interest of
the United States in and to any Liberty ships which are
available for transfer under this Act if--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) the transfer would be at no cost to the
Government (except for any financial assistance
provided under section 7) with the State taking
delivery of such obsolete ships at fleetside of the
National Defense Reserve Fleet in an ``as is-where is''
condition.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 7. FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE TO PREPARE TRANSFERRED SHIP.
(a) Assistance Authorized.--The Secretary, subject to the
availability of appropriations, may provide, to any State to
which an obsolete ship is transferred under this Act, financial
assistance to prepare the ship for use as an artificial reef,
including for--
(1) environmental remediation;
(2) towing; and
(3) sinking.
(b) Amount of Assistance.--The Secretary shall determine the
amount of assistance under this section with respect to an
obsolete ship based on--
(1) the total amount available for providing
assistance under this section;
(2) the benefit achieved by providing assistance for
that ship; and
(3) the cost effectiveness of disposing of the ship
by transfer under this Act and provision of assistance
under this section, compared to other disposal options
for the vessel.
(c) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary--
(1) shall require a State seeking assistance under
this section to provide cost data and other information
determined by the Secretary to be necessary to justify
and document the assistance; and
(2) may require a State receiving such assistance to
comply with terms and conditions necessary to protect
the environment and the interests of the United States.
Sec. [7] 8. For purposes of sections 3, 4, 5, and 6, the term
``obsolete ship'' means any vessel owned by the Department of
Transportation that has been determined to be of insufficient
value for commercial or national defense purposes to warrant
its maintenance and preservation in the national defense
reserve fleet and has been designated as an artificial reef
candidate.
* * * * * * *
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
While we strongly support the overall defense authorization
bill, we would like to express our views on the wisdom of the
nuclear policy that was adopted and some of the amendments on
this subject that were not. We agree with the bill's provision
requiring that the Department of Defense provide the detailed
force structure plan that should have been part of the
administration's Nuclear Posture Review. We also are pleased
that two amendments offered by Mr. Allen were accepted by the
committee. The National Academy of Sciences' studies called for
by those amendments will help Congress and the Department of
Defense understand the short- and long-term effects of the
possible use of nuclear earth-penetrators and nuclear-tipped
ballistic missile interceptors. Previous effect studies may not
reflect all current information and any future decision about
the utility of these weapons must take their effects into
account.
We are disappointed, however, that the sense of congress
contained in Section 1021 was not modified as proposed in the
amendment by Mrs. Tauscher and Mr. Allen. Further, we believe
the amendments offered by Mr. Spratt and Mr. Allen prohibiting
the development or deployment of nuclear-tipped ballistic
missile interceptors and by Mr. Spratt requiring Congressional
notification in advance of any future underground nuclear test
would have improved the quality of our nuclear policy and the
strength of the U.S. negotiating position with Russia and
others on security issues. We all agree that nuclear deterrence
remains a critical component of U.S. national security and that
the United States should maintain sufficient nuclear forces to
execute its Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). The
amendments offered, however, would have improved the chairman's
mark in three critical ways.
First, the Tauscher-Allen sense of Congress amendment would
have retained the President's flexibility in his current
negotiations with Russia by removing a minimum requirement of
operationally-deployed weapons at 1,700. The amendment would
have allowed him to go lower than that figure if he negotiated
a bilateral agreement to that effect. U.S. security is enhanced
by encouraging Russia to eliminate as many nuclear weapons as
possible. For our own purposes, retaining a large ``responsive
force'' of non-operationally deployed nuclear weapons well
above the levels required by the SIOP is counter-productive and
costly. It encourages Russia to retain larger stockpiles than
it otherwise would and supports the rationale for nuclear
build-up of other states like China which are assessing the
appropriate size of their nuclear force.
Second, both the Tauscher-Allen amendment and the Spratt-
Allen amendment speak to the need for caution in expanding
applications of nuclear use. The Tauscher-Allen sense of
Congress would have focused our policy for countering the very
real threat of hard and deeply-buried targets on advanced
conventional weapons and enhanced intelligence. The amendment
would not have ruled out the use of existing nuclear
capabilities, but highlighted that the focus of scientific
research and development should be on non-nuclear capabilities
first, given the collateral damage involved and the
destabilizing potential of using tactical nuclear options.
Similarly, the Spratt prohibition of nuclear-tipped ballistic
missile interceptors would have put Congress on record against
an option dismissed twenty years ago when the Reagan
administration launched the Strategic Defense Initiative. We
don't believe the public would support such nuclear use and
this is not an option we should be advocating in any missile
defense program.
Finally, the Spratt amendment on Congressional notification
before the conduct of any future underground nuclear test would
have provided critical oversight of any potential change in
administration policy. If the administration chooses to resume
testing, Congress should have an opportunity to investigate why
the test is necessary and the implications of conducting it.
The twelve-month notification was designed to accommodate the
authorization bill cycle and does not tie the administration's
hands in any way, as the current test readiness posture is 24-
36 months. DOE officials, in fact, indicate that it will cost
tens of millions of dollars and take at least two years to
reduce this to 18 months. Congress has a duty to oversee our
deterrence and defense capability; this amendment would have
strengthened our ability to do so.
We all agree on the need to maintain U.S. national security
and the deterrent capability of our nuclear forces. These
amendments would have enhanced both. We look forward to
opportunities on the House floor and in the future to continue
to advance these goals.
Ike Skelton.
John Spratt.
Lane Evans.
Neil Abercrombie.
Marty Meehan.
Tom Allen.
Loretta Sanchez.
Ellen O. Tauscher.
Robert A. Brady.
Robert E. Andrews.
Baron P. Hill.
Jim Langevin.
Rick Larsen.
Adam Smith.
Robert A. Underwood.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
As the Committee marked up the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, the matters put before
the members were appropriate for our consideration with one
glaring exception, Title XIV concerning the Utah Test and
Training Range.
We believe that every Member of the House has a stake in
the committee process. If any issue under the jurisdiction of
the Armed Services Committee were to be added to the Chairman's
mark in another committee, the Armed Services Committee members
would be right to object in the most strenuous terms.
That's why we feel that the inclusion of title XIV in the
chairman's mark was a procedural foul.
First, when this language was previously introduced as
legislation (H.R. 3035-106th Congress and H.R. 2488-107th
Congress), it was referred solely to the Resources Committee.
Its lack of success there is not because it did not have a
strong champion or lacked exposure. It had both but has not
passed the House.
Second, language this important and comprehensive deserves
one or more hearings in this committee. It has had none.
Third, the language was inserted into the Chairman's mark
and not exposed to the regular amendment process. We all know
bill language is more easily adopted when it is included in the
mark, rather than when it is added by amendment.
As to the substance of this legislation, it is important to
note that the proponents of Title XIV and the language of the
title have created confusion as to just what is the Utah Test
and Training Range (UTTR). The UTTR and the adjacent Dugway
Proving Grounds encompass approximately 1.7 million acres
withdrawn from public use and under the administration of the
Department of Defense. Title XIV speaks to not only these 1.7
million acres but to an additional six million acres of public
lands and national forests administered by the Departments of
the Interior and Agriculture that underlie military airspace
for the UTTR.
We believe the following point must be made perfectly
clear. There is no designated or proposed wilderness within the
boundaries of the UTTR and the Dugway Proving Grounds. There
are however, 25,000 acres of designated wilderness and several
hundred thousand acres of Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) on
national forests and public lands beneath military airspace in
Utah, and it is these lands as well as the millions of acres of
adjacent public lands that would be adversely affected by Title
XIV.
Even more troubling than that inconsistency and the
procedure used to include Title XIV are the provisions
themselves. The military use language of Title XIV is
unprecedented and not found in any other law. Ironically, these
provisions set a standard for wilderness management that would
provide less protection to the wilderness areas designated by
Title XIV than the protections available to non-designated
public lands. Millions of acres of designated wilderness and
millions more acres of public land underlie military airspace
across the United States. None of these lands have or need the
restrictive language that Title XIV would apply to wilderness
and public lands in Utah.
Language in Title XIV would strip the authority of the
Secretary of the Interior to determine where and whether
facilities and equipment are placed on public lands within
wilderness areas. Another provision allows the Secretary of the
Air Force to unilaterally close or restrict access to
wilderness and WSAs outside the boundaries of the UTTR and the
Dugway Proving Grounds. These provisions are unprecedented, and
no clear rationale has been given to warrant this change from
existing law. Moreover, Title XIV creates a different standard
for access and military use for land in Utah than is applicable
to all other public land areas of the United States.
Furthermore, Title XIV requires the Secretary of the
Interior to gain the prior concurrence of the Secretary of the
Air Force and the commander-in-chief of the military forces of
the State of Utah before developing, maintaining, or revising
land use plans required by Federal law for millions of acres of
public lands in Utah. Is it unwise policy, to say the least,
for a Cabinet secretary's role to be subordinate to a service
secretary and a state military commander.
The bottom line is two fold. All House members have a stake
in preserving the committee process. House rules on committee
jurisdiction exist for a reason, and we should abide by them
absent some compelling exceptional justification. None has been
provided here.
Second, it is wrong to ram through any committee
contentious provisions of sweeping scope and substantive
import. This wrong has been exacerbated in this case by the
absence of committee hearings and the legislative legerdemain
of embedding a previously unseen title of the bill in the
chairman's mark.
We cannot sanction procedural and substantive
transgressions of this magnitude.
Ike Skelton.
Robert E. Andrews.
Lane Evans.
Ellen O. Tauscher.
Marty Meehan.
Vic Snyder.
John Spratt.
Susan A. Davis.
Rick Larsen.
Silvestre Reyes.
James H. Maloney.
John B. Larson.
Loretta Sanchez.
Baron P. Hill.
Tom Allen.
Robert A. Brady.
Cynthia McKinney.
Adam Smith.
Jim Langevin.
Ciro D. Rodriguez.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE W. TODD AKIN
The Committee's recently drafted Fiscal Year 2003 National
Defense Authorization bill contains a number of provisions and
initiatives that will greatly benefit our service men and
women. These include initial funding for a joint replacement
aircraft for the EA-6B ``Prowler'' and funding to initiate a T-
45 multi-year procurement contract.
We cannot move quickly enough to replace the EA-6B. Though
the Prowler has served us well for nearly 30 years, all
indications are that 2008 is the target date by which a
replacement aircraft must enter the fleet. If a decision is
made this summer, an EA-18 could readily meet that timeline and
at a developmental cost of approximately $1.6 billion. On the
other hand, the years of development necessary to develop the
already-accelerated JSF and then develop a follow-on EA-JSF
design indicate that a JSF variant would not be available until
at least 2013, and only at much higher cost. Knowing this, and
given the critical importance of our electronic warfare
capabilities, we should not delay further a decision on
replacing the Prowler.
Knowing this, the committee authorized $10 million to
support preliminary risk reduction engineering for an EA-6B
replacement. Given the sustained high operational tempo, and
ongoing deterioration, of the Prowler fleet, we cannot move
quickly enough toward a joint follow-on aircraft.
In addition, the committee included $10 million to support
a possible multi-year procurement of the Navy's T-45
``Goshawk'' jet trainer. This is an excellent idea. Given the
need to complete modernization of the Navy's training fleet and
the anticipated future-years funding shortfall in the Navy
aviation budget, which becomes particular difficult beginning
in fiscal year 2007, it makes excellent sense to initiate a
three-year procurement contract for T-45s for fiscal years
2004-06. This would allow us to complete the Navy's requirement
for 234 T-45s before 2007 and in the process purchase these
aircraft at approximately 25 percent less per unit than if we
did so through the annual budgeting process at eight aircraft
per year.
W. Todd Akin.
DISSENTING VIEW OF CONGRESSWOMAN CYNTHIA McKINNEY
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2002, H.R. 4546,
represents the largest real increase to defense spending since
1966. This bill contains over $40 billion more spending than
last year's defense authorization, which too was egregiously
large. H.R. 4546 provides for over $383 billion in spending for
the Department of Defense and the weapons programs of the
Department of Energy. Unfortunately this new spending comes at
the expense of many valuable and effective government programs.
As the Bush Administration's tax cut enacted last year has
reduced the ability of the federal government to fully fund
many important programs, the massive increase in defense
spending is accompanied by cuts to programs for job training,
drug elimination in public housing, prescription drug benefits,
conservation spending, and much more. Such one-sided spending
indicates a misdirected view of our nation's true national
security reflecting a belief that relies on warfighting
capabilities and which neglects the domestic issues and quality
of life that are also essential to a secure nation.
In addition to the singular focus of our national security
attention, there are problems within the Pentagon that raise
questions about such immense spending. On September 10, 2001,
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stated that ``[a]ccording to some
estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.''
Such a lack of financial accountability not only undermines the
integrity of the Pentagon, it causes severe inefficiencies that
cause further financial loss, and undoubtedly leads to wasteful
spending. If there were ever to be activities obscured from the
public's eye, projects pursued without authorization, or other
questionable action or spending, how could it ever be
discovered when the level of unaccounted transactions is so
high? In any other arena, either private sector or public,
financial accountability would be insured prior to increasing
expenditures, not the opposite.
Yet the basis for such a large increase in spending is
wholly unjustified. The events of September 11, 2001 were a
tragedy to the entire nation. However, the attacks in New York,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia were not prompted by any failure of
the United States military, but instead were the result of a
breakdown in our intelligence community. In fact, just this
week Yahoo News reported that CIA Deputy Director of Operation
James Pavitt ``dismissed charges the CIA was caught unaware by
September 11 suicide attacks in the United States'' and that
``[t]he CIA knew the network led by Saudi-born militant Osama
bin Laden was planning a major strike.''
Similarly, a Washington Post article dated May 3, 2002
stated ``[t]wo months before the suicide hijackings, an FBI
agent in Arizona alerted Washington headquarters that several
Middle Easterners were training at a U.S. aviation school and
recommended contacting other schools nationwide,'' and further
that ``[l]aw enforcement officials said in retrospect the FBI
believes it should have accelerated the suggested check of U.S.
flight schools.'' The intelligence community has received
substantial increases in resources in order to address these
shortcomings. As there was no apparent defense shortcoming, it
appears that the increases contained in the defense
authorization serve to increase the armed forces' ability to
wage war in foreign nations, replace regimes such as Iraq, and
accelerate the expansion of war on a worldwide scale.
The increased defense authorization also permits prodigal,
unneeded, and archaic projects and weapons systems to proceed.
One such weapons system is the Crusader, an artillery system
originally intended to defeat Soviet tanks on a large
battlefield. Though it is widely assumed that the U.S. will not
confront such a battle environment, the Army has continued its
drive to develop and procure this weapon. Logistically, this
artillery system has been found to be difficult to transport,
and at 40 tons for each the artillery system and the adjoining
resupply vehicle, the Crusader would be difficult to adhere to
the Army's evolving mobility goals. In considering the
continued pursuit of the Crusader, it is important to note that
the prime contractor for this weapon system, United Defense, is
owned by the Carlyle Group, which in turn is chaired by Frank
Carlucci, former Secretary of Defense under President Ronald
Reagan, and which also employs former President George H.W.
Bush.
Nonetheless, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz has
been reported to be planning to cut this expensive and
unnecessary weapon, thus saving the $475 million earmarked for
the Crusader to be used for other expenditures. I would welcome
such an announcement. However, contrary to reports, this
defense authorization leads me to believe that the Crusader
program will survive. Included in H.R. 4546 is language that
``directs that there be no change to the Crusader development
schedule, funding or procurement requirements, to include
termination.'' It is unfortunate that, even when the Pentagon
seeks to shelve needless and wasteful programs, this defense
authorization and the defense industry are capable of keeping
the Crusader and other questionable projects alive.
Furthermore, this defense authorization charts the course
toward dangerous waters in terms of our nation's nuclear
weapons policy, the development of missile defense, and
environmental stewardship.
Section 1021 of the defense authorization bill details the
proposed nuclear policy of the United States, which aptly calls
for sharp reductions in the nation's nuclear weapons stock.
However, the value of those reductions is lost on the fact that
the policy also calls for the U.S. to ``maintain a responsive
force of non-deployed nuclear weapons for potential
contingencies.'' It is difficult to conceive a contingency
where the 1,700 nuclear weapons to which our stock would be
reduced would be insufficient. The maintenance of such a ready
reserve also provokes international concern and would incur
significant future costs to the U.S. in terms of maintenance,
stockpile stewardship and security. Sec. 1021 also encourages
the development of new nuclear weapons for the purpose of
defeating hardened and deeply buried targets. This language is
an affront to the Non-Proliferation Treaty that the U.S. has
ratified. This provocative section also neglects the physical
science that nuclear weapons would not serve to defeat such
buried targets, would have significant radioactive fallouts,
and would hinder U.S. personnel from conducting damage
assessments. It was unfortunate that the Committee did not pass
an amendment offered by Representatives Ellen Tauscher and Tom
Allen that would have improved and removed this dangerous
language.
Additionally, Section 1021 urges the Administration to
develop a plan to be able to resume underground nuclear testing
within one year of a decision to conduct such tests.
Underground nuclear tests have not been conducted in the U.S.
since September 1992, and when they have been conducted in
other nations, the U.S. has responded with strong rebukes and
sanctions. The development of such a resumption plan is
unnecessary, is internationally inflammatory, and is likely not
the desire of a majority of Americans. In sum, Section 1021
sets forth a nuclear weapons policy that is unlikely to insure
greater safety for Americans and could result in encouraging
other nations to further their own nuclear weapons programs.
With regard to missile defense, H.R. 4546 continues the
road to development of this dangerous and unreliable system.
This authorization provides $7.8 billion for missile defense,
following on the nearly $8 billion that was authorized for
missile defense last year. Not only is this an unusually high
amount of money to be devoting to a weapon system of
questionable reliability, the need for the missile shield being
sought is not apparent. The CIA's own National Intelligence
Estimate states that North Korea has the greatest and soonest
likelihood of attacking the U.S. with a missile, but that they
will be unable to do so before 2015; the same NIE states that
attacks are much more likely using weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) via other untraditional routes such as trucks, ships, or
airplanes.
Rather than relying on a missile defense system, which may
well lead America to a false sense of security, missile defense
should be re-shelved, as it was in 1976. Cooperative
international arms control and disarmament agreements will be
far more effective in advancing peace and security in the years
ahead and will cost far less than a Star Wars type missile
shield.
Evidently, the current prevailing concept for missile
defense, known as hit-to-kill, which had garnered the support
of many in this Committee, is not as reliable as had been
thought. It was reported a few weeks ago that the Secretary of
Defense had given approval to proceed with the study of
nuclear-tipped missile defense. Despite the fact that this
concept had already been pursued in the 1960s and 1970s and
correctly cancelled, nuclear-tipped missile defense has
apparently risen from the dead. An amendment offered by
Representative John Spratt would have prohibited the
development of such a missile defense concept. However, the
Committee unfortunately defeated this amendment. While debate
in opposition to the amendment noted the need to provide the
Pentagon as much latitude in pursuing missile defense options,
the fact that the atmospheric nuclear explosion would cause
enormously destructive electro-magnetic pulses to wreak havoc
on both domestic and space-based electronics, not to mention
the horrible human health impacts from the ensuing radiological
fallout, were evidently ignored by a majority of the Committee.
Nuclear tipped missile defense was pursued once, and was then
cast aside when financial and other costs were observed to be
greater than the benefits. The Committee should have considered
this history when voting on the amendment, and I find it
inevitable that nuclear-tipped missile defense will again find
a similar fate.
For a multitude of reasons, the environmental provisions of
this bill are inappropriate and disappointing. The Readiness
Subcommittee included in their mark, language that will carve
out special exemptions so that the Department of Defense will
not have to adhere to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). First, when the Subcommittee
conducted hearings on these issues, only Administration
officials were permitted to testify, and local and state
officials and environmental organizations were not provided
similar opportunities to share their viewpoints. With such
contentious, wide-ranging, and important issues under
consideration, these stakeholders should have been given an
opportunity to be heard. Second, with regard to the Endangered
Species Act, a provision already exists within the law that
would permit the Secretary of Defense to request a waiver from
compliance with the ESA for purposes of national security. The
Defense Department has never made use of this provision, and
with such an avenue for relief currently available, there is no
reason that the law should be amended.
Finally, parliamentary rules of Congress provide for
sequential referral to multiple committees for issues that span
the jurisdiction of more than one committee for good reason. In
this case, the Resources Committee has jurisdiction over these
important environmental laws, and the opportunity for this
committee to conduct hearings on these law changes should not
have been circumvented.
In addition to the exemptions of these two important
wildlife protection laws, Title XIV of the Chairman's mark is a
very disappointing foray of the Armed Services Committee into
the arena of public lands management. The Committee never
conducted hearings on this specific provision. This section
releases hundreds of thousands of acres from Wilderness Study
Areas designation, permits unprecedented entry and activity in
wilderness areas, cedes management authority of public lands to
the Secretary of the Air Force and again denies the appropriate
jurisdictional oversight of the Resources Committee. If the
intent of Title XIV was to protect public land and insure
emergency access for the military, there is undoubtedly a more
democratic and comprehensive approach that could have been
taken.
In an issue that was addressed by an amendment offered, and
then withdrawn, by Representative Lindsey Graham, the
Department of Energy has dangerously discarded the idea of
immobilizing plutonium obtained through the dismantling of
Russian and American nuclear weapons. The pursuit of the mixed-
oxide (MOX) alternative, whereby the excess plutonium is not
encased in a non-reactive, immobile matrix, but instead is
processed into a fuel that energy companies can use in nuclear
power generation is unwise. The safer and more sensible
approach to this issue would have been for the DOE and the
Savannah River Site to pursue the immobilization alternative,
maintain a set of alternatives in case any proposed solution
proves technically unfeasible, and not to provide a subsidy to
the nuclear industry in the form of this MOX fuel.
As was the case with last year's authorization
consideration, Representative Loretta Sanchez offered an
amendment to permit service women and female military
dependents to obtain privately funded abortions in overseas
military hospitals. In this amendment medical practitioners in
these hospitals who choose not to conduct such procedures would
not have been required to conduct them. Though the Supreme
Court has affirmed a woman's right to obtain an abortion, the
Committee sees fit to maintain its own discretion of this
constitutional right, and did not approve of this amendment. It
is unfortunate that service women and female dependents must
now choose between seeking abortions that can be unsafe or
illegal in foreign nations, or otherwise forfeit their rights
to privacy by the necessity of informing superior officers when
seeking military transport to a location suitable for abortion
procedures.
Though it deeply troubles me that one of the first acts of
our President after declaring this War On Terrorism was to sign
an Executive Order denying promised high deployment overtime
pay to our service men and women, the overall mark that was
reported from the Personnel Subcommittee is commendable. The
bill provides for a 4.1 percent across-the-board pay raise that
aptly recognizes the hard work and dedication of our nation's
service personnel. This pay raise will also serve to aid in the
recruitment and retention of personnel, as the increase is
consistently above private sector pay increases. Additionally,
the Personnel mark provides for higher raises for certain
specialties and for non-commissioned officers, thereby
improving force strength in essential fields and compensating
many of tomorrow's leaders. Though I have dissented in this
Act, I greatly respect the individual members of our armed
services for their service and sacrifice in the name of our
nation.
Additionally, the Personnel Subcommittee included language
that will permit the payment of concurrent receipt for some
retired military personnel who are also disabled veterans. For
too long disabled veterans have been forced to choose between
their retirement pay and their well-deserved disability
benefits. Though H.R. 4546 provides only for immediate
concurrent receipt to veterans who are rated 60 percent
disabled or greater, I believe that the Committee has made an
improvement from the previous ban on concurrent receipt and I
hope that the program will continue to be expanded to provide
concurrent receipt to all retired military personnel who are
also disabled veterans. I doubt anyone would question that they
have earned it.
Cynthia McKinney.