" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 107TH CONGRESS

1st Session

REPORT

107–194

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON

H.R. 2586

together with

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

SEPTEMBER 4, 2001.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House

on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

1

74–948

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 107TH CONGRESS

1st Session

REPORT

2001

107–194

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON

H.R. 2586

together with

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

SEPTEMBER 4, 2001.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House

on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

BOB STUMP, Arizona, Chairman

FLOYD D. SPENCE, South Carolina

DUNCAN HUNTER, California

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California

J.C. WATTS, JR., Oklahoma

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee

JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina

JIM RYUN, Kansas

BOB RILEY, Alabama

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

KEN CALVERT, California

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida

MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

ED SCHROCK, Virginia

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

IKE SKELTON, Missouri

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas

LANE EVANS, Illinois

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii

MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas

THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas

JIM TURNER, Texas

ADAM SMITH, Washington

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California

JAMES H. MALONEY, Connecticut

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania

ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

MIKE THOMPSON, California

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island

RICK LARSEN, Washington

ROBERT S. RANGEL, Staff Director

(III)

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 Table of Authorizations ...................................................................... 3

Rationale for the Committee Bill ........................................................................... 12

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 18

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION .................... 19

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT ................................................................................... 19

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 19

Aircraft Procurement, Army ............................................................................ 22

Overview ........................................................................................................ 22

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 27

AH–64 modifications ................................................................................. 27

Air traffic control ....................................................................................... 27

Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) ................................................... 27

CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications ..................................................... 28

Longbow ..................................................................................................... 28

UH–60 modifications ................................................................................. 28

Missile Procurement, Army ............................................................................. 29

Overview ........................................................................................................ 29

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 33

Missile procurement army (MPA) transfers ............................................ 33

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army ............................................. 33

Overview ........................................................................................................ 33

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 38

Abrams upgrade program ......................................................................... 38

Bradley base sustainment ........................................................................ 38

Ammunition Procurement, Army .................................................................... 39

Overview ........................................................................................................ 39

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 44

Army ammunition procurement ............................................................... 44

Remote area denial artillery munition (RADAM) ................................... 44

White phosphorus production facility ...................................................... 44

Other Procurement, Army ............................................................................... 44

Overview ........................................................................................................ 44

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 56

Artillery accuracy equipment ................................................................... 56

Combat support medical ........................................................................... 56

Combat training centers instrumentation support ................................. 56

Deployable universal combat earthmovers (DEUCE) ............................ 57

Earthmoving scrapers ............................................................................... 57

High mobility trailers ............................................................................... 57

Improved high frequency radio (IHFR) ................................................... 58

Modification of in service equipment ....................................................... 58

Nonsystem training devices ...................................................................... 58

Product improved combat vehicle crewman (PICVC) ............................. 59

Reserve component automation system (RCAS) ..................................... 59

Ribbon bridge ............................................................................................. 59

Special equipment for user testing .......................................................... 60

Super high frequency (SHF) terminal ..................................................... 60

Tactical unmanned aerial vehicle (TUAV) .............................................. 61

Water distributors ..................................................................................... 61

Page

IV

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army ..................................... 61

Overview ........................................................................................................ 61

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 63

Chemical agents and munitions destruction ........................................... 63

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ............................................................................ 63

Overview ........................................................................................................ 63

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 69

AV–8B modifications ................................................................................. 69

Calibration test equipment ....................................................................... 69

E–2 modifications ...................................................................................... 69

F/A–18E/F .................................................................................................. 70

HH/UH–1N reclamation and conversion program .................................. 70

Joint primary air training system (JPATS) ............................................ 70

SH–60 series modifications ....................................................................... 70

T–45 training system (TS) ........................................................................ 71

Tactical air reconnaissance pod system (TARPS)-completely digital

(CD) ......................................................................................................... 71

Weapons Procurement, Navy ........................................................................... 71

Overview ........................................................................................................ 71

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 76

MK 46 Mod 0 lightweight machine gun .................................................. 76

Tomahawk missile ..................................................................................... 76

Trident II missile ...................................................................................... 76

Ammunition Procurement Navy/Marine Corps ............................................. 77

Overview ........................................................................................................ 77

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy ................................................................ 81

Overview ........................................................................................................ 81

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 85

Completion of prior year shipbuilding programs .................................... 85

Minehunter small waterplane area twin hull (SWATH) ....................... 85

Outfitting ................................................................................................... 85

SSGN conversion ....................................................................................... 86

Other Procurement, Navy ................................................................................ 86

Overview ........................................................................................................ 86

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 97

Operating forces industrial plant equipment .......................................... 97

Other navigation equipment .................................................................... 97

Other supply support equipment ............................................................. 97

Other training equipment ......................................................................... 98

Radar support ............................................................................................ 98

Satellite communications systems ........................................................... 98

Procurement, Marine Corps ............................................................................. 99

Overview ........................................................................................................ 99

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 105

Container family ........................................................................................ 105

Expeditionary warfare .............................................................................. 105

Family of construction equipment ........................................................... 106

Night vision equipment ............................................................................. 106

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ...................................................................... 106

Overview ........................................................................................................ 106

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 114

B–2 .............................................................................................................. 114

C–130 .......................................................................................................... 114

C–17 ............................................................................................................ 115

CV–22 ......................................................................................................... 115

Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP), line 55 .................. 116

F–15 modifications .................................................................................... 116

F–16 modifications .................................................................................... 117

Fixed aircrew standardized seats ............................................................ 117

MC–130 simulation training upgrades .................................................... 118

Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) ............................................... 118

Ammunition Procurement, Air Force .............................................................. 119

Overview ........................................................................................................ 119

Missile Procurement, Air Force ....................................................................... 122

Overview ........................................................................................................ 122

Other Procurement, Air Force ......................................................................... 126

Overview ........................................................................................................ 126

Page

V

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 133

Air national guard air traffic control tower radio upgrade .................... 133

Combat arms training system (CATS) .................................................... 133

Laser eye protection .................................................................................. 133

Senior scout ............................................................................................... 134

Supply asset tracking system (SATS) ...................................................... 134

Theater air control system improvement (TACSI) ................................. 134

Procurement, Defense-Wide ............................................................................. 135

Overview ........................................................................................................ 135

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 141

Chemical/biological defense procurement program ................................ 141

Anthrax vaccination immunization program ....................................... 141

Chemical/biological defense collective protection shelters .................. 141

Portable intelligence collection and relay capability (PICRC) ............... 141

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense ................................. 141

Overview ........................................................................................................ 141

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 144

Chemical agents and munitions destruction ........................................... 144

Review of program for destruction of lethal chemical agents and

munitions ........................................................................................ 144

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 145

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 145

Sections 101–107—Authorization of Appropriations ................................. 145

Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 145

Section 111—Extension of Multiyear Contract for Family of Medium

Tactical Vehicles .................................................................................... 145

Section 112—Repeal of Limitation on Number of Bunker Defeat Munitions that May Be Acquired .................................................................. 145

Subtitle C—Air Force Programs ...................................................................... 145

Section 121—Responsibility of Air Force for Contracts for All Defense

Space Launches ...................................................................................... 145

Section 122—Multiyear Procurement of C–17 Aircraft ............................. 145

Subtitle D—Chemical Munitions Destruction ................................................ 146

Section 141—Destruction of Existing Stockpile of Lethal Chemical

Agents and Munitions ........................................................................... 146

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION .......... 147

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 147

Army RDT&E ................................................................................................... 149

Overview ........................................................................................................ 149

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 160

Advanced display technology .................................................................... 160

All Source Analysis System ...................................................................... 160

Applied communications and information networking program ........... 161

Army missile defense systems integration .............................................. 161

Aviation engineering development ........................................................... 161

Brooks Air Force Base energy and sustainability laboratory ................ 161

Collaboration in biotechnology research .................................................. 162

Combat ready food safety ......................................................................... 162

Combustion-driven eye safe laser ............................................................ 162

Comanche ................................................................................................... 162

Combat vehicle and automotive advance technology ............................. 163

Crusader ..................................................................................................... 163

Dismounted situational awareness system ............................................. 163

Electronics and electronic devices ............................................................ 164

Electronic warfare (EW) development ..................................................... 164

Environmental quality technology ........................................................... 164

Full authority digital engine control ....................................................... 164

Funding transfers to support transformation ......................................... 165

High-energy laser-low aspect target tracking ......................................... 165

Hybrid track technology ............................................................................ 165

Hyperspectral long-wave imager for the tactical environment ............. 166

Infantry support weapons ......................................................................... 166

International medical program global satellite system .......................... 166

Landmine warfare/barrier engineering development ............................. 167

Lightweight x-band radar antenna .......................................................... 167

Medical advanced technology ................................................................... 167

Medical technology .................................................................................... 167

Page

VI

MedTeams .................................................................................................. 168

Missile and rocket advanced technology ................................................. 168

Missile technology ..................................................................................... 168

Night vision advanced technology ............................................................ 169

Passive millimeter-wave imaging ............................................................ 169

Silent sentry surveillance test .................................................................. 169

Soldier-Centered Design Tools for the Army Transformation ............... 169

Survival radios .......................................................................................... 170

Tactical high energy laser ........................................................................ 170

Tactical unmanned aerial vehicle ............................................................ 170

Weapons and munitions ............................................................................ 171

Weapons and munitions advanced technology ........................................ 171

Navy RDT&E .................................................................................................... 171

Overview ........................................................................................................ 171

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 184

Advanced anti-radiation guided munition (AARGM) ............................. 184

Advanced composite sail phase II ............................................................ 184

Advanced multi-band surveillance systems ............................................ 184

Aegis combat systems engineering .......................................................... 185

Aviation-shipboard information technology initiative ............................ 185

Combat systems integration ..................................................................... 185

Common command and decision system .............................................. 186

Wideband optically multiplexed beam-forming architecture ............. 186

Common picture applied research ........................................................... 186

Hybrid fiber optic wireless communication ......................................... 186

SEADEEP ............................................................................................... 187

E2–C2 eight-blade composite propeller ................................................... 187

Electronic warfare (EW) development ..................................................... 187

Electro optical framing reconnaissance ................................................... 188

Embedded software engineering research initiative .............................. 188

Expeditionary warfare testbed-supporting arms technology insertion . 188

Extending the littoral battlespace ........................................................... 189

F/A–18 improvements ............................................................................... 189

Fuel cell second source .......................................................................... 189

Joint helmet mounted cueing system (JHMCS) .................................. 189

Force protection advanced technology ..................................................... 190

Advanced water jet AWJ–21 ................................................................. 190

DC Homopolar Motor ............................................................................ 190

Direct ship service fuel cell ................................................................... 190

Electric propulsion/ship power systems distributed test bed ............. 191

Littoral support craft-experimental ..................................................... 191

SEALs Mark V patrol craft modification ............................................. 192

Funding transfers to support transformation ......................................... 192

Land attack standard missile ................................................................... 193

Laser aim scoring system (LASS) ............................................................ 193

Laser welding and cutting ........................................................................ 194

Marine Corps ground combat/support system ........................................ 194

Metrology Projects ..................................................................................... 195

Multipurpose processor ............................................................................. 195

Navy’s intelligent agent security module ................................................ 195

Navy logistics productivity ....................................................................... 196

Compatible processor upgrade program .............................................. 196

Rapid retargeting ................................................................................... 196

Non-acoustic anti-submarine warfare ...................................................... 196

Oceanographic survey of continental shelf beyond U.S. exclusive economic zone .......................................................................................... 197

Organ transfer technology ........................................................................ 197

Photovoltaic energy savings initiative ..................................................... 198

Power projection advanced technology .................................................... 198

Affordable weapon ................................................................................. 198

DP–2 thrust vectoring system concept demonstration ....................... 198

Precision targeting systems modernization and enhancement ............. 199

Project Bear Trap ...................................................................................... 199

Radiation-hardened electronics applications ........................................... 200

SPAWAR enhanced modeling and simulation initiatives ...................... 200

Submarine electrical power ...................................................................... 200

Supply Chain Best Practices .................................................................... 201

Page

VII

Surface navy integrated undersea tactical technology ........................... 201

Surface ship torpedo defense .................................................................... 201

Telemedicine for minimally invasive surgery ......................................... 201

Titanium watertight door and hatch cover ............................................. 202

Torpedo rapid COTS insertion ................................................................. 202

Vacuum electronics ................................................................................... 203

VECTOR study and analysis .................................................................... 203

Warfighter sustainment advanced technology ........................................ 204

Naval environmental compliance operations monitoring system ...... 204

Real time heart rate variability monitor ............................................. 204

Warfighter sustainment applied research ............................................... 204

Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) carbon fiber qualification .............. 204

Detection and identification of human pathogens .............................. 204

Formable aligned carbon thermo sets .................................................. 205

Knowledge-based ship system diagnosis and repair ........................... 205

Air Force RDT&E ............................................................................................. 205

Overview ........................................................................................................ 205

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 216

Access to space ........................................................................................... 216

Advanced aerospace sensors ..................................................................... 216

Aerospace propulsion ................................................................................ 216

Aging landing gear life extension (ALGLE) program ............................. 216

Airborne reconnaissance systems ............................................................ 217

Assessment relating to gasoline and diesel engine fuel systems .......... 217

Bipolar wafer cell nickel-metal hydride battery ..................................... 217

Commercial imagery strategy .................................................................. 218

Free electron laser ..................................................................................... 218

Funding transfers to support transformation ......................................... 218

GPS jammer detection and location system ............................................ 219

High Accuracy Network Demonstration System .................................... 219

Joint precision approach landing system ................................................ 219

Joint STARS multi-platform radar technology insertion program ........ 220

Joint strike fighter (JSF) alternate engine ............................................. 220

Low cost autonomous attack system ....................................................... 220

Low cost launch technology ...................................................................... 221

Major T&E investment ............................................................................. 221

Materials technologies for aging aircraft ................................................. 221

Missile Technology demonstration-3B ..................................................... 221

Non-space SIGINT architecture ............................................................... 222

Precision location and identification (PLAID) ......................................... 222

Satellite planning information network (SPIN) ...................................... 223

Space and missile rocket propulsion ........................................................ 223

Special aerospace metals and manufacturing processes ........................ 223

Synthetic Theater Operations Research Model ...................................... 224

Texas regional institute for environmental studies ................................ 224

Defense-Wide RDT&E ...................................................................................... 224

Overview ........................................................................................................ 224

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 233

Aircraft affordability initiative ................................................................. 233

Backscatter mobile truck system ............................................................. 233

Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) .................................... 233

Technology .............................................................................................. 234

Ballistic missile defense system ........................................................... 234

Terminal defense segment .................................................................... 234

Midcourse defense segment .................................................................. 235

Boost defense segment .......................................................................... 235

Sensors segment .................................................................................... 236

Chemical/biological defense research, development, test and evaluation program ....................................................................................... 236

Research in percutaneous, optical, and pulmonary effects of mustard agent ........................................................................................ 237

Optical computing device materials for chemical sensors .................. 237

Chemical/biological regenerative air filtration systems ..................... 237

Chemical and biological mass spectrometer ........................................ 238

Mobile chemical agent detector ............................................................ 238

Asymmetric protocols for biological defense ........................................ 238

Complex systems design ........................................................................... 238

Page

VIII

Counterproliferation analysis and planning system .............................. 239

Defense imagery and mapping program ................................................. 239

Distributed common ground station/networking ISR assets ................. 239

Distributed operational testing capabilities ............................................ 240

Electrostatic decontamination system ..................................................... 240

Facial recognition technology ................................................................... 241

Funding transfers to support transformation DW ................................. 241

DARPA ‘‘Exoskeleton Project’’ .............................................................. 241

Global infrastructure data conversion initiative & document exploitation ................................................................................................... 242

High energy laser research and development ......................................... 242

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator ..................................................... 243

Joint Technology Applications Analysis Pilot Program ......................... 243

Medical free electron laser ........................................................................ 244

Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) sensors ................................. 244

More efficient science and technology investment .................................. 244

Special operations forces acquisition ....................................................... 245

Tactical missile recycling .......................................................................... 245

Thermobaric warhead development ......................................................... 245

U.S.-Israel boost phase intercept ............................................................. 246

Warfighter rapid acquisition programs ................................................... 246

Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense .................................................... 247

Overview ........................................................................................................ 247

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 250

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 250

Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations ........................................... 250

Section 202—Amount for Basic and Applied Research ............................. 250

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 250

Section 211—Cooperative Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Research Program ............................................ 250

Section 212—Advanced Land Attack Missile Program .............................. 250

Section 213—Collaborative Program for Development of Advanced

Radar Systems for Naval Applications ................................................ 251

Subtitle C—Ballistic Missile Defense ............................................................. 252

Section 231—Transfer of Responsibility for Procurement for Missile

Defense Programs from Ballistic Missile Defense Organization to

Military Departments ............................................................................ 252

Section 232—Repeal of Program Element Requirements for Ballistic

Missile Defense Programs ..................................................................... 253

Section 233—Support of Ballistic Missile Defense Activities of the Department of Defense by the National Laboratories of the Department of Energy ....................................................................................... 253

Section 234—Missile Defense Testing Initiative ........................................ 253

Section 235—Missile Defense System Test Bed Facilities ........................ 254

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 254

Section 241—Establishment of unmanned aerial vehicle joint operational test bed system .......................................................................... 254

Section 242—Demonstration Project to Increase Small Business and

University Participation in Office of Naval Research Efforts to

Extend Benefits of Science and Technology Research to Fleet .......... 255

Section 243—Management Responsibility for Navy Mine Countermeasures Programs ............................................................................... 256

Section 244—Program to Accelerate the Introduction of Innovative

Technology in Defense Acquisition Programs ..................................... 256

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................ 258

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 258

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 289

Budget Request Adjustments .......................................................................... 289

Department of the Army Adjustments: [in millions of dollars] ................. 289

Department of the Navy Adjustments: [in millions of dollars] ................. 289

Department of the Air Force Adjustments: [in millions of dollars] .......... 289

Office, Secretary of Defense Adjustments: [in millions of dollars] ............ 289

Defense-wide Activities Adjustments: [in millions of dollars] ................... 290

Advisory and Assistance Services ................................................................ 290

Excess Foreign Currencies Reductions ....................................................... 290

Strategic Sourcing (A–76) ............................................................................. 290

Other Items of Special Interest ....................................................................... 291

Page

IX

Corrosion Prevention and Control ............................................................... 291

Information Systems ..................................................................................... 292

Enterprise Resource Planning ..................................................................... 292

Environmental Issues ...................................................................................... 292

Environmental Restoration Activities ......................................................... 292

Vernon Hills NIKE Missile Site .................................................................. 293

Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Issues ......................................................... 293

Access to Slot Machines ............................................................................... 293

Military Exchange Private Label Manufacturers ....................................... 293

Other Issues ...................................................................................................... 294

Army’s Capital Investment Program for Depot Facilities ......................... 294

Army Workload and Performance System .................................................. 294

Automated Document Conversion System Program .................................. 295

Automatic Inventory Technology ................................................................. 295

Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities ............................... 295

Distance Learning Implementation Program ............................................. 296

Hunter Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ................................................ 296

Navy-Marine Corps Intranet ....................................................................... 296

Non-nuclear Ship Maintenance ................................................................... 297

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 297

Subtitle A—Authorization Of Appropriations ................................................ 297

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding .................................. 297

Section 302—Working Capital Funds ......................................................... 297

Section 303—Armed Forces Retirement Home .......................................... 297

Section 304—Transfer From National Defense Stockpile Transaction

Fund ........................................................................................................ 297

Subtitle B—Environmental Provisions ........................................................... 298

Section 311—Inventory of Explosive Risk Sites at Former Military

Ranges .................................................................................................... 298

Section 312—National Security Impact Statements .................................. 298

Section 313—Reimbursement for Certain Costs in Connection with

Hooper Sands Site, South Berwick, Maine .......................................... 298

Section 314—River Mitigation Studies ....................................................... 298

Section 315—Elimination of Annual Report on Contractor Reimbursement for Costs of Environmental Response Actions ........................... 298

Subtitle C—Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities . 298

Section 321—Reserve Component Commissary Benefits .......................... 298

Section 322—Reimbursement for Noncommissary Use of Commissary

Facilities ................................................................................................. 298

Section 323—Civil Recovery for Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality

Costs Related to Shoplifting ................................................................. 299

Subtitle D—Workforce and Depot Issues ....................................................... 299

Section 331—Fiscal year 2002 Limitations on Workforce Reviews .......... 299

Section 332—Applicability of Core Logistics Capability Requirements

to Nuclear Aircraft Carriers ................................................................. 299

Section 333—Continuation of Contractor Manpower Reporting System

in Department of the Army .................................................................. 299

Section 334—Limitation on Expansion of Wholesale Logistics Modernization Program ................................................................................ 300

Section 335—Pilot Project for Exclusion of Certain Expenditures from

Limitation on Private Sector Performance of Depot-Level Maintenance ....................................................................................................... 300

Section 336—Protections for Purchasers of Articles and Services Manufactured or Performed by Working-Capital Funded Industrial Facilities of the Department of Defense ................................................... 300

Subtitle E—Defense Dependents Education .................................................. 300

Section 341—Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that Benefit

Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department

of Defense Civilian Employees ............................................................. 300

Section 342—Availability of Auxiliary Services of Defense Dependents’

Education System for Dependents Who Are Home School Students 300

Section 343—Report Regarding Compensation for Teachers Employed

in Teaching Positions in Overseas Schools Operated by the Department of Defense ..................................................................................... 301

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 301

Page

X

Section 351—Availability of Excess Defense Personal Property to Support Department of Veterans Affairs Initiative to Assist Homeless

Veterans ................................................................................................. 301

Section 352—Continuation of Limitations on Implementation of NavyMarine Corps Intranet Contract .......................................................... 301

Section 353—Completion and Evaluation of Current Demonstration

Programs to Improve Quality of Personal Property Shipments of

Members ................................................................................................. 301

Section 354—Expansion of Entities Eligible for Loan, Gift, and Exchange of Documents, Historical Artifacts, and Obsolete Combat

Materiel .................................................................................................. 301

Subtitle G—Service Contracting Reform ........................................................ 302

Section 361—Short Title .............................................................................. 302

Section 362—Required Cost Savings Level for Change of Function to

Contractor Performance ........................................................................ 302

Section 363—Applicability of Study and Reporting Requirements to

New Commercial or Industrial Type Functions .................................. 302

Section 364—Repeal of Waiver for Small Function ................................... 302

Section 365—Requirement for Equity in Public-Private Competitions .... 302

Section 366—Reporting Requirements Regarding Department of Defense’s Service Contractor Workforce ................................................... 302

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS ............................... 303

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 303

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 303

Section 401—End Strengths for Active Forces ........................................... 303

Section 402—Revision in Permanent End Strength Minimum Levels ..... 303

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 303

Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve ..................................... 303

Section 412—End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in Support

of the Reserves ....................................................................................... 304

Section 413—End Strength for Military Technicians (Dual Status) ........ 304

Section 414—Fiscal Year 2002 Limitation on Non-Dual Status Technicians ........................................................................................................ 304

Section 415—Limitations on Numbers of Reserve Personnel Serving

on Active Duty or Full-Time National Guard Duty in Certain

Grades for Administration of Reserve Components ............................ 305

Subtitle C—Other Matters Relating to Personnel Strengths ....................... 305

Section 421—Increase in Percentage by Which Active Component End

Strengths for any fiscal year may be increased .................................. 305

Section 422—Active Duty End Strength Exemption for National Guard

and Reserve Personnel Performing Funeral Honors Functions ......... 305

Section 423—Increase in Authorized Strengths for Air Force Officers

on Active Duty in the Grade of Major .................................................. 305

Subtitle D—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 305

Section 431—Authorization of Appropriations for Military Personnel ..... 305

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY ..................................................... 307

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 307

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 307

Alternative Recruiting Media ...................................................................... 307

Army Reserve Military Technician Positions ............................................. 308

Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Office ..................................... 308

Improved Use of Existing Military Centers for Scientific and Technological Education .................................................................................... 309

Review of General and Flag Officer Authorizations .................................. 309

Uniting Through Reading ............................................................................ 309

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 310

Subtitle A—General Personnel Management Authorities ............................ 310

Section 501—Enhanced Flexibility for Management of Senior General

and Flag Officer Positions ..................................................................... 310

Section 502—Original Appointments in Regular Grades for Academy

Graduates and Certain other New Officers ......................................... 310

Section 503—Temporary Reduction of the Time-in-Grade Requirement

for Eligibility for Promotion for Certain Active-Duty List Officers

in Grades of First Lieutenant and Lieutenant (Junior Grade) .......... 310

Section 504—Increase in Senior Enlisted Active Duty Grade Limit for

Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force ..................................................... 311

Page

XI

Section 505—Authority for Limited Extension of Medical Deferment

of Mandatory Retirement or Separation .............................................. 311

Section 506—Authority for Limited Extension on Active Duty of Members Subject to Mandatory Retirement or Separation ........................ 311

Section 507—Clarification of Disability Severance Pay Computation ..... 311

Section 508—Officer in Charge of United States Navy Band ................... 311

Section 509—One-Year Extension of Expiration Date for Certain Force

Management Authorities ....................................................................... 311

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Personnel Policy ........................................ 311

Section 511—Placement on Active-Duty List of Certain Reserve Officers

on Active Duty for a Period of Three Years or Less ........................... 312

Section 512—Expanded Application of Reserve Special Selection

Boards ..................................................................................................... 312

Section 513—Exception to Baccalaureate Degree Requirement for Appointment of Reserve Officers to Grades Above First Lieutenant ..... 312

Section 514—Improved Disability Benefits for Certain Reserve Component Members ........................................................................................ 312

Section 515—Time-in-Grade Requirement for Reserve Component Officers with a Non-Service Connected Disability .................................... 312

Section 516—Reserve Members Considered to be Deployed for Purposes

of Personnel Tempo Management ........................................................ 313

Section 517—Funeral Honors Duty Performed by Reserve and Guard

Members to be Treated as Inactive-Duty Training for Certain Purposes ........................................................................................................ 313

Section 518—Members of the National Guard Performing Funeral Honors Duty While in Non-Federal Status ................................................ 313

Section 519—Use of Military Leave for Funeral Honors Duty by Reserve Members and National Guardsmen ........................................... 313

Subtitle C—Joint Specialty Officers and Joint Professional Military Education .......................................................................................................... 313

Section 521—Nominations for Joint Specialty ........................................... 313

Section 522—Joint Duty Credit ................................................................... 314

Section 523—Retroactive Joint Service Credit for Duty in Certain Joint

Task Forces ............................................................................................ 315

Section 524—Revision to Annual Report on Joint Officer Management .. 315

Section 525—Requirement for Selection for Joint Specialty Before Promotion to General or Flag Officer Grade ............................................. 315

Section 526—Independent Study of Joint Officer Management and

Joint Professional Military Education Reforms .................................. 316

Section 527—Professional Development Education ................................... 316

Section 528—Authority for National Defense University to Enroll Certain Private Sector Civilians ................................................................. 316

Section 529—Continuation of Reserve Component Professional Military

Education Test ....................................................................................... 316

Subtitle D—Military Education and Training ............................................... 317

Section 531—Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center ...... 317

Section 532—Authority for the Marine Corps University to Award Degree of Master of Strategic Studies ...................................................... 317

Section 533—Increase in Number of Foreign Students Authorized to

be Admitted to the Service Academies ................................................. 317

Section 534—Increase in Maximum Age for Appointment as a Cadet

or Midshipman in Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps Scholarship Programs ........................................................................................ 317

Section 535—Active Duty Participation as a Cadet or Midshipman in

Senior ROTC Advanced Training ......................................................... 317

Section 536—Authority to Modify the Service Obligation of Certain

ROTC Cadets in Military Junior Colleges Receiving Financial Assistance ................................................................................................... 317

Section 537—Modification of Nurse Officer Candidate Accession Program Restriction on Students Attending Educational Institutions

with Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Programs ............................... 318

Section 538—Repeal of Limitation on Number on Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) Units .................................................... 318

Section 539—Reserve Health Professionals Stipend Program Expansion .......................................................................................................... 318

Section 540—Housing Allowance for the Chaplain for the Corps of

Cadets, United States Military Academy ............................................ 318

Page

XII

Subtitle E—Decorations, Awards, and Commendations ............................... 318

Section 541—Authority for Award of the Medal of Honor to Humbert

R. Versace for Valor During the Vietnam War ................................... 318

Section 542—Review Regarding Award of Medal of Honor to Certain

Jewish American and Hispanic American War Veterans .................. 318

Section 543—Authority to Issue Duplicate Medal of Honor ...................... 319

Section 544—Authority to Replace Stolen Military Decorations .............. 319

Section 545—Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of Navy Distinguished Flying Cross to Certain Persons ............................................. 319

Section 546—Korea Defense Service Medal ............................................... 319

Section 547—Cold War Service Medal ........................................................ 319

Section 548—Option to Convert Award of Armed Forces Expeditionary

Medal Awarded for Operation Frequent Wind to Vietnam Service

Medal ...................................................................................................... 319

Subtitle F—Matters Relating to Voting .......................................................... 320

Section 551—Voting Assessments and Assistance for Members of the

Uniformed Services ................................................................................ 320

Section 552—Electronic Voting Demonstration Project ............................. 320

Subtitle G—Matters Relating to Military Spouses and Family Members ... 320

Section 561—Improved Financial and Other Assistance to Military

Spouses for Job Training and Education ............................................. 320

Section 562—Authority to Conduct Surveys of Dependents and Survivors of Military Retirees .................................................................... 321

Section 563—Clarification of Treatment of Classified Information Concerning Persons in a Missing Status .................................................... 321

Section 564—Transportation to Annual Meeting of Next-of-Kin of Persons Unaccounted for from Conflicts after World War II ................... 321

Section 565—Amendments to Charter of Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence ............................................................................................. 321

Subtitle H—Military Justice and Legal Matters ........................................... 322

Section 571—Requirement that Courts-Martial Consist of Not Less

than 12 Members in Capital Cases ...................................................... 322

Section 572—Right of Convicted Accused to Request Sentencing by

Military Judge ........................................................................................ 322

Section 573—Codification of Requirement for Regulations for Delivery

of Military Personnel to Civil Authorities When Charged with Certain Offenses .......................................................................................... 323

Section 574—Authority to Accept Voluntary Legal Services for Members of the Armed Foces ........................................................................ 323

Subtitle I—Other Matters ................................................................................ 323

Section 581—Shipment of Privately Owned Vehicles When Making Permanent Change of Station Moves Within the United States ............. 323

Section 582—Payment of Vehicle Storage Costs in Advance .................... 323

Section 583—Permanent Authority for Use of Military Recruiting

Funds for Certain Expenses at Department of Defense Recruiting

Functions ................................................................................................ 323

Section 584—Clarification of Military Recruiter Access to Secondary

School Directory Information About Students .................................... 323

Section 585—Repeal of Requirement for Final Comptroller General Report Relating to Army end Strength Allocations ................................. 324

Section 586—Posthumous Army Commission in the Grade of Captain

in the Chaplains corps to Ella E. Gibson for Service as Chaplain

of the First Wisconsin Heavy Artillery Regiment During the Civil

War ......................................................................................................... 324

Section 587—National Guard Challenge Program ..................................... 324

Section 588—Payment of FEHBP Premiums for Certain Reservists

Called to Active Duty in Support of Contingency Operations ........... 324

Section 589—18-month Enlistment Pilot Program .................................... 324

Section 590—Per Diem Allowance for Lengthy or Numerous Deployments ...................................................................................................... 325

Section 591—Congressional Review Period for Change in Ground Combat Exclusion Policy ............................................................................... 326

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS .......... 327

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 327

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 328

Additional Reporting Instructions Concerning the Supplemental Subsistence Allowance for Low-Income Members with Dependents ....... 328

Page

XIII

Personal and Family Financial Management Programs ........................... 328

The Right of Former Prisoners of War Forced to Work as Slave Laborers During World War II to Sue Japanese Corporations for Mistreatment ................................................................................................ 329

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 329

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 329

Section 601—Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2002 ......................... 329

Section 602—Basic Pay Rate for Certain Reserve Commissioned Officers with Prior Service as an Enlisted Member or Warrant Officer . 329

Section 603—Subsistence Allowances ......................................................... 329

Section 604—Eligibility for Basic Allowance for Housing While Between

Permanent Duty Stations ..................................................................... 330

Section 605—Uniform Allowance for Officers ............................................. 330

Section 606—Family Separation Allowance for Certain Members Electing to Serve Unaccompanied Tour of Duty .......................................... 330

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special and Incentive Pays ................................... 330

Section 611—One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay

Authorities for Reserve Forces ............................................................. 330

Section 612—One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special Pay

Authorities for Nurse Officer Candidates, Registered Nurses, and

Nurse Anesthetists ................................................................................ 331

Section 613—One-Year Extension of Other Bonuses and Special Pays

Authorities .............................................................................................. 331

Section 614—Conforming Accession Bonus for Dental Officers Authority

with Authorities for Other Special Pay and Bonuses ......................... 331

Section 615—Additional Type of Duty Resulting in Eligibility for Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay ................................................................... 331

Section 616—Equal Treatment of Reservists Performing Inactive-Duty

Training for Receipt of Aviation Career Incentive Pay ...................... 331

Section 617—Secretarial Discretion in Prescribing Submarine Duty Incentive Pay Rates .................................................................................. 331

Section 618—Imposition of Critical Wartime Skill Requirement for Eligibility for Individual Ready Reserve Bonus ....................................... 332

Section 619—Installment Payment Authority for 15-year Career Status

Bonus ...................................................................................................... 332

Section 620—Accession Bonus for New Officers ........................................ 332

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances ...................................... 332

Section 631—Minimum Per Diem Rate for Travel and Transportation

Allowance for Travel Performed Upon a Change of Permanent

Station and Certain Other Travel ........................................................ 332

Section 632—Payment or Reimbursement of Temporary Subsistence

Expenses ................................................................................................. 332

Section 633—Increased Weight Allowance for Transportation of Baggage and Household Effects for Junior Enlisted Members ................ 332

Section 634—Reimbursement of Members for Mandatory Pet Quarantine Fees for Household Pets ............................................................ 333

Section 635—Availability of Dislocation Allowance for Married Member,

Whose Spouse is a Member, Assigned to Military Family Housing .. 333

Section 636—Elimination of Prohibition on Receipt of Dislocation Allowance by Members Ordered to First Duty Station .......................... 333

Section 637—Partial Dislocation Allowance Authorized for Housing

Moves Ordered for Government Convenience ..................................... 333

Section 638—Allowances for Travel Performed in Connection with

Members Taking Authorized Leave Between Consecutive Overseas

Tours ....................................................................................................... 333

Section 639—Funded Student Travel as Part of School-Sponsored Exchange Programs ................................................................................... 334

Subtitle D—Retirement and Survivor Benefit Matters ................................. 334

Section 641—Contingent Authority for Concurrent Receipt of Military

Retired Pay and Veterans’ Disability Compensation .......................... 334

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 334

Section 651—Funeral Honors Duty Allowance for Retired Members ...... 334

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS ......................................................... 335

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 335

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 336

Health Care Benefits for Members of the Reserve Components ............... 336

Military Health Care System Information Management .......................... 336

Page

XIV

North Chicago Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center and

Naval hospital, Great Lakes, Illinois ................................................... 337

TRICARE in Illinois ...................................................................................... 337

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 338

Subtitle A—TRICARE Program ...................................................................... 338

Section 701—Implementing Cost-Effective Payment Rates Under the

TRICARE Program ................................................................................ 338

Section 702—Waiver of Nonavailability Statement or Preauthorization

Requirement ........................................................................................... 338

Section 703—Improvements in Administration of the TRICARE Program ........................................................................................................ 338

Section 704—Sub-Acute and Long-Term Care Program Reform .............. 339

Section 705—Reimbursement of Travel Expenses of a Parent, Guardian

or Responsible Family Member of a Minor Covered Beneficiary ....... 339

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 339

Section 711—Prohibition Against Requiring Military Retirees to Receive Health Care Solely Through the Department of Defense ......... 339

Section 712—Trauma and Medical Care Pilot Program ............................ 339

Section 713—Enhancement of Medical Product Development .................. 340

Section 714—Repeal of Obsolete Report Requirement .............................. 340

Section 715—Clarifications and Improvements Regarding the Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund ......... 340

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND

RELATED MATTERS ...................................................................................... 341

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 341

Extraordinary Contractual Actions ................................................................. 341

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 341

Subtitle A—Acquisition Policy and Management .......................................... 341

Section 801—Acquisition Milestones ........................................................... 341

Section 802—Acquisition Workforce Qualifications ................................... 341

Section 803—Two-Year Extension of Program Applying Simp342lified

Procedures to Certain Commercial Items ............................................ 342

Section 804—Contracts for Services to Be Performed Outside the

United States ......................................................................................... 342

Section 805—Codification and Modification of ‘‘Berry Amendment’’ Requirements .............................................................................................. 342

Subtitle B—Erroneous Payments Recovery ................................................... 342

Section 811—Short Title .............................................................................. 342

Section 812—Identification of Errors Made by Executive Agencies in

Payments to Contractors and Recovery of Amounts Erroneously

Paid ......................................................................................................... 342

Section 813—Disposition of Recovered Funds ............................................ 343

Section 814—Sources of Recovery Services ................................................ 343

Section 815—Management Improvement Programs .................................. 343

Section 816—Reports .................................................................................... 343

Section 817—Relationship to Authority of Inspectors General ................. 343

Section 818—Privacy Protections ................................................................ 343

Section 819—Definition ................................................................................ 343

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND

MANGEMENT .................................................................................................. 344

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 344

Regional Centers and China Center ............................................................ 344

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 344

Section 901—Further Reductions in Defense Acquisition and Support

Workforce ............................................................................................... 344

Section 902—Sense of Congress on Establishment of an Office of Transformation in the Department of Defense ............................................. 345

Section 903—Revised Joint Report On Establishment of National Collaborative Information Analysis Capability ........................................ 346

Section 904—Elimination of Triennial Report by Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces ............... 346

Section 905—Repeal of Requirement for Semiannual Reports Through

March 2003 on Activities of Joint Requirements Oversight Council 346

Section 906—Correction of References to Air Mobility Command ............ 346

Section 907—Organizational Alignment Change for Director for Expeditionary Warfare ...................................................................................... 347

Page

XV

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 348

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 348

Arms Control Implementation ......................................................................... 348

Counter-Drug Activities ................................................................................... 348

Overview ........................................................................................................ 348

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 349

Counter-drug tanker operations ............................................................... 349

Operation Caper Focus ............................................................................. 349

Peru support .............................................................................................. 349

Southwest border fence ............................................................................. 349

Tethered Aerostat Radar System ............................................................. 349

OTHER MATTERS .............................................................................................. 350

Classification of Foreign Military Training Reports .................................. 350

Counter-Drug Forward Operating Locations .............................................. 350

Information Security Scholarship Program ................................................ 350

Potential Reallocation of Radio Frequency Spectrum for Third Generation Mobile Wireless Communications ................................................. 350

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 352

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 352

Section 1001—Transfer Authority ............................................................... 352

Section 1002—Incorporation of Classified Annex ...................................... 352

Section 1003—Limitation on Funds for Bosnia and Kosovo Peacekeeping Operations for Fiscal Year 2002 ............................................. 352

Section 1004—Increase in Limitations on Administrative Authority of

the Navy to Settle Admiralty Claims ................................................... 353

Subtitle B—Naval Vessels ............................................................................... 353

Section 1011—Revision in Types of Excess Naval Vessels for which

Approval by Law Is Required for Disposal to Foreign Nations ......... 353

Subtitle C—Counter-Drug Activities .............................................................. 353

Section 1021—Extension of Reporting Requirement Regarding Department of Defense Expenditures to Support Foreign Counter-Drug

Activities ................................................................................................. 353

Section 1022—Authority to Transfer Tracker Aircraft Currently Used

by Armed Forces for Counter-Drug Purposes ..................................... 354

Section 1023—Authority to Transfer Tethered Aerostat Radar System

Currently Used by Armed Forces for Counter-Drug Purposes .......... 354

Subtitle D—Reports ......................................................................................... 354

Section 1031—Requirement that Department of Defense Reports to

Congress be Accompanied by Electronic Version ................................ 354

Section 1032—Report on Department of Defense Role in Homeland

Security Matters .................................................................................... 354

Section 1033—Revision of Annual Report to Congress on National

Guard and Reserve Component Equipment ........................................ 354

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 355

Section 1041—Department of Defense Gift Authorities ............................ 355

Section 1042—Termination of Referendum Requirement Regarding

Continuation of Military Training on Island of Vieques, Puerto

Rico, and Imposition of Additional conditions on closure of LiveFire Training Range .............................................................................. 355

Section 1043—Repeal of Limitation on Reductions in Peacekeeper

ICBM Missiles ........................................................................................ 355

Section 1044—Sense of Congress on the Importance of the Kwajalein

Missile Range/Ronald Reagan Defense Initiative Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll ............................................................................................... 355

Section 1045—Transfer of Vietnam Era F–4 Aircraft to Nonprofit Museum ........................................................................................................ 356

Section 1046—Bomber Force Structure ...................................................... 356

Section 1047—Technical and Clerical Amendments .................................. 356

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL .................................................................... 357

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 357

Section 1101—Undergraduate Training Program for Employees of the

National Imagery and Mapping Agency .............................................. 357

Section 1102—Pilot Program for Payment of Retraining Expenses ......... 357

Section 1103—Payment of Expenses to Obtain Professional Credentials 357

Section 1104—Retirement Portability Elections for Certain Department

of Defense and Coast Guard Employees .............................................. 357

Page

XVI

Section 1105—Removal of Requirement that Granting Civil Service

Compensatory Time be Based on Amount of Irregular or Occasional

Overtime Work ....................................................................................... 357

Section 1106—Applicability of Certain Laws to Certain Individuals Assigned to Work in the Federal Government ........................................ 358

Section 1107—Limitation on Premium Pay ................................................ 358

Section 1108—Use of Common Occupational and Health Standards

as a Basis for Differential Payments Made as a Consequence of

Exposure to Asbestos ............................................................................. 358

Section 1109—Authority for Designated Civilian Employees Abroad to

Act as a Notary ...................................................................................... 358

Section 1110—‘‘Monroney Amendment’’ Restored to its Prior Form ........ 358

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS .............................. 359

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 359

Section 1201—Clarification of Authority to Furnish Nuclear Test Monitoring Equipment to Foreign Governments ......................................... 359

Section 1202—Acquisition of Logistical Support for Security Forces ....... 359

Section 1203—Report on the Sale and Transfer of Military Hardware,

Expertise, and Technology from States of the Former Soviet Union

to the People’s Republic of China ......................................................... 360

Section 1204—Limitation on Funding for Joint Data Exchange Center .. 360

Section 1205—Extension of Authority to Provide Assistance Under

Weapons of Mass Destruction Act for Support of United NationsSponsored Efforts to Inspect and Monitor Iraqi Weapons Activities 360

Section 1206—Repeal of Requirement for Reporting to Congress on

Military Deployments to Haiti .............................................................. 361

Section 1207—Report by Comptroller General on Provision of Defense

Articles, Services, and Military Education and Training to Foreign

Countries and International Organizations ........................................ 361

Section 1208—Limitation on Number of Military Personnel in Colombia ........................................................................................................... 361

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF

THE FORMER SOVIET UNION .................................................................... 362

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 362

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 364

Arms Elimination Projects in Russia .............................................................. 364

Arms Elimination Projects in Ukraine ........................................................... 365

Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention in Russia ................................ 365

Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia ...................................................... 365

Defense and Military Contacts ........................................................................ 367

Elimination of Plutonium Production in Russia ............................................ 367

Fissile Material Processing and Packaging .................................................... 368

Fissile Material Storage Facility ..................................................................... 368

Nuclear Weapons Storage Security in Russia ................................................ 368

Nuclear Weapons Transportation Security .................................................... 368

Other Assessments and Administrative Support ........................................... 368

Weapons of Mass Destruction Infrastructure Elimination in Kazakhstan . 369

Weapons of Mass Destruction Infrastructure Elimination in Ukraine ........ 369

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 369

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs

and Funds ............................................................................................... 369

Section 1302—Funding Allocations ............................................................. 369

Section 1303—Prohibition Against Use of Funds Until Submission of

Reports .................................................................................................... 369

Section 1304—Report on Use of Revenue Generated by Activities Carried Out Under Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs .................. 370

Section 1305—Prohibition Against Use of Funds for Second Wing of

Fissile Material Storage Facility .......................................................... 370

Section 1306—Prohibition on Use of Funds for Construction or Refurbishment of Fossil Fuel Energy Plants ................................................ 370

Section 1307—Reports on Activities and Assistance Under Cooperative

Threat Reduction Programs .................................................................. 370

Section 1308—Report on Responsibility for Carrying Out Cooperative

Threat Reduction Programs .................................................................. 370

Section 1309—Chemical Weapons Destruction .......................................... 370

TITLE XIV—DEFENSE SPACE REORGANIZATION ........................................ 371

Page

XVII

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 371

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 371

Section 1401—Short Title ............................................................................ 371

Section 1402—Authority to Establish Position of Under Secretary of

Defense for Space, Intelligence, and Information ............................... 371

Section 1403—Authority to Designate Under Secretary of the Air Force

as Acquisition Executive for Space of the Department of Defense .... 371

Section 1404—Major Force Program Category for Space Programs ......... 371

Section 1405—Comptroller General Assessment of Implementation of

Recommendations of Space Commission ............................................. 371

Section 1406—Commander of Air Force Space Command ........................ 372

Section 1407—Authority to Establish Separate Career Field in the

Air Force for Space ................................................................................ 372

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS ................... 373

PURPOSE ............................................................................................................. 373

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW ...................................................... 373

TITLE XXI—ARMY ................................................................................................. 396

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 396

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 396

Planning and Design ........................................................................................ 396

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 396

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects ................................................................................................... 396

Section 2102—Family Housing .................................................................... 396

Section 2103—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 396

Section 2104—Authorization of Appropriations, Army .............................. 396

Section 2105—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal

Year 2001 Project ................................................................................... 396

TITLE XXII—NAVY ................................................................................................ 398

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 398

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 398

Improvements to Military Family Housing .................................................... 398

Planning and Design ........................................................................................ 398

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 398

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects ................................................................................................... 398

Section 2202—Family Housing .................................................................... 398

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 398

Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy .............................. 399

Section 2205—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Fiscal Year 2000

Project ..................................................................................................... 399

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE .................................................................................... 400

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 400

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 400

Improvements to Military Family Housing .................................................... 400

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 400

Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects ................................................................................................... 400

Section 2302—Family Housing .................................................................... 400

Section 2303—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 400

Section 2304—Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force ....................... 400

Section 2305—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal

Year 2001 Project ................................................................................... 401

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES .................................................................. 402

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 402

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 402

Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land Acquisition Projects ................................................................................... 402

Section 2402—Energy Conservation Project ............................................... 402

Section 2403—Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies .......... 402

Section 2404—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Fiscal Year 2001

Project ..................................................................................................... 402

Section 2405—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Fiscal Year 2000

Project ..................................................................................................... 402

Section 2406—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Fiscal Year 1999

Project ..................................................................................................... 403

Page

XVIII

Section 2407—Modification of Authority To Carry Out Fiscal Year 1995

Project ..................................................................................................... 403

Section 2408—Prohibition on Expenditures to Develop Forward Operating Location on Aruba for United States Southern Command

Counter-Drug Detection and Monitoring Flights ................................ 403

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE .................................................................................................... 404

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 404

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 404

Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects ................................................................................................... 404

Section 2502—Authorization of Appropriations, NATO ............................ 404

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES ........................ 405

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 405

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 405

Planning and Design, Air National Guard ..................................................... 405

Unspecified Minor Construction, Army National Guard ............................... 405

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 405

Section 2601—Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land

Acquisition Projects ............................................................................... 405

TITLE XXVII—EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS ..... 406

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 406

Section 2701—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to

be Specified by Law ............................................................................... 406

Section 2702—Extensions of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1999

Projects ................................................................................................... 406

Section 2703—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 1998

Projects ................................................................................................... 406

Section 2704—Effective Date ....................................................................... 406

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS ........................................................... 407

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 407

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing

Changes ...................................................................................................... 407

Section 2801—Increase in Certain Unspecified Minor Military Construction Project Thresholds ................................................................. 407

Section 2802—Exclusion of Unforeseen Environmental Hazard Remediation From Limitation on Authorized Cost Variations ....................... 407

Section 2803—Repeal of Annual Reporting Requirement on Military

Construction and Military Family Housing Activities ........................ 407

Section 2804—Permanent Authorization for Alternative Authority for

Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing ............................ 407

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 407

Section 2811—Use of Military Installations for Certain Recreational

Activities ................................................................................................. 407

Section 2812—Base Efficiency Project at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas . 408

Subtitle C—Defense Base Closure and Realignment .................................... 408

Section 2821—Lease Back of Base Closure Property ................................ 408

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances Generally ..................................................... 408

Part I—Army Conveyances .......................................................................... 408

Section 2831—Transfer of Jurisdiction, Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois ..... 408

Section 2832—Modification of Land Conveyance, Fort Dix, New Jersey . 408

Section 2833—Lease Authority, Fort Derussy, Hawaii ............................. 408

Section 2834—Land Exchange and Consolidation, Fort Lewis, Washington ...................................................................................................... 409

Section 2835—Land Conveyance, Whittier-Anchorage Pipeline Tank

Farm, Anchorage, Alaska ...................................................................... 409

Part II—Navy Conveyances ......................................................................... 409

Section 2841—Transfer of Jurisdiction, Centerville Beach Naval Station, Humboldt County, California ....................................................... 409

Section 2842—Land Conveyance, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve

Plant, Toledo, Ohio ................................................................................ 409

Section 2843—Modification of Authority for Conveyance of Naval Computer and Telecommunications Station, Cutler, Maine ...................... 410

Section 2844—Modification of Land Conveyance, Former United States

Marine Corps Air Station, Eagle Mountain, Texas ............................ 410

Page

XIX

Section 2845—Land Transfer and Conveyance, Naval Security Group

Activity, Winter Harbor, Maine ............................................................ 410

Part III—Air Force Conveyances ................................................................. 410

Section 2851—Water Rights Conveyance, Andersen Air Force Base,

Guam ...................................................................................................... 410

Section 2852—Reexamination of Land Conveyance, Lowry Air Force

Base, Colorado ....................................................................................... 411

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 411

Section 2861—Transfer of Jurisdiction for Development of Armed

Forces Recreational Facility, Park City, Utah .................................... 411

Section 2862—Selection of Site for United States Air Force Memorial

and Related Land Transfers for the Improvement of Arlington

Cemetery, Virginia ................................................................................ 411

Section 2863—Management of the Presidio of San Francisco .................. 412

Section 2864—Effect of Limitation on Construction of Roads or Highways, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California ..................... 412

Section 2865—Establishment of World War II Memorial at Additional

Location on Guam .................................................................................. 413

TITLE XXIX—FORT IRWIN MILITARY LAND WITHDRAWAL ...................... 415

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 415

Section 2901—Short Title ............................................................................ 415

Section 2902—Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands for National

Training Center ..................................................................................... 415

Section 2903—Map and Legal Description ................................................. 415

Section 2904—Management of Withdrawn and Reserved Lands ............. 415

Section 2905—Water Rights ........................................................................ 415

Section 2906—Environmental Compliance and Environmental Response Requirements ............................................................................. 415

Section 2907—West Mojave Coordinated Management Plan .................... 415

Section 2908—Release of Wilderness Study Areas .................................... 415

Section 2909—Training Activity Separation From Utility Corridors ....... 415

Section 2910—Duration of Withdrawal and Reservation .......................... 415

Section 2911—Extension of Initial Withdrawal and Reservation ............. 415

Section 2912—Termination and Relinquishment ....................................... 416

Section 2913—Delegation of Authority ....................................................... 416

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATION AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ..................................... 417

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................. 417

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 417

Environmental and Other Defense Activities ................................................ 435

Overview ........................................................................................................ 435

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 435

Defense Environmental Management Privatization .............................. 435

Hanford Site Operations, Richland, Washington .................................... 435

Plutonium Stabilization and Packaging .................................................. 436

Post 2006 Completion ............................................................................... 436

National Nuclear Security Administration .................................................... 436

Overview ........................................................................................................ 436

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 436

Budget Structure of the National Nuclear Security Administration .... 436

Computer Security .................................................................................... 438

Critical Weapons Components ................................................................. 438

Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence Budget ......................................... 438

Directed Stockpile Work ........................................................................... 438

Facilities and Infrastructure .................................................................... 439

International Nuclear Safety .................................................................... 439

Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention and the Nuclear Cities Initiative ....................................................................................................... 440

National Ignition Facility ......................................................................... 440

National Nuclear Security Administration’s Planning, Programming,

and Budgeting System ....................................................................... 441

National Nuclear Security Administration’s Reorganization Plan ....... 441

Naval Reactors Program ........................................................................... 442

Recruitment and Retention ...................................................................... 442

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 442

Page

XX

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 442

Section 3101—National Nuclear Security Administration ........................ 442

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management ........................................................................................................ 443

Section 3103—Other Defense Activities ...................................................... 443

Section 3104—Defense Environmental Management Privatization ......... 443

Section 3105—Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ........................................ 443

Subtitle B—Recurring General Provisions ..................................................... 443

Section 3121—Reprogramming .................................................................... 443

Section 3122—Limits on General Plant Projects ....................................... 443

Section 3123—Limits on Construction Projects ......................................... 443

Section 3124—Fund Transfer Authority ..................................................... 443

Section 3125—Authority for Conceptual and Construction Design .......... 444

Section 3126—Authority for Emergency Planning, Design and Construction Activities ................................................................................. 444

Section 3127—Funds Available for All National Security Programs of

the Department of Energy .................................................................... 444

Section 3128—Availability of Funds ........................................................... 444

Section 3129—Transfers of Defense Environmental Management Funds

at Field Offices of the Department of Energy ..................................... 444

Section 3130—Transfers of Weapons Activities Funds at National Security Laboratories and Nuclear Weapons Production Facilities .......... 444

Subtitle C—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 445

Section 3131—Termination Date of Office of River Protection, Richland,

Washington ............................................................................................ 445

Section 3132—Organizational Modifications for National Nuclear Security Administration ................................................................................ 445

Section 3133—Consolidation of Nuclear Cities Initiative Program with

Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program ................................ 445

Section 3134—Disposition of Surplus Plutonium at Savannah River

Site, Aiken, South Carolina .................................................................. 445

Section 3135—Support for Public Education in the Vicinity of Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico ................................................ 446

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ............. 447

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 447

Section 3201—Authorization ........................................................................ 447

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE ........................................ 448

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 448

Section 3301—Definitions ............................................................................ 448

Section 3302—Authorized Uses of Stockpile Funds ................................... 448

Section 3303—Disposal of Excess Materials from the National Defense

Stockpile ................................................................................................. 448

Section 3304—Expedited Implementation of Authority to Dispose of

Cobalt From National Defense Stockpile ............................................. 448

TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES ........................................... 449

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 449

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations ......................................... 449

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION ................................................. 450

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 450

Merchant Marine Academy .......................................................................... 450

Ship Scrapping .............................................................................................. 450

Title XI Loan Guarantee Program .............................................................. 451

Transfer of the Maritime Security Program to the Department of Defense ........................................................................................................ 451

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 451

Section 3501—Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002 ...... 451

Section 3502—Define ‘‘War Risks’’ to Vessels to Include Confiscation,

Expropriation, Nationalization, and Deprivation of the Vessels ....... 451

Section 3503—Holding Obligor’s Cash as Collateral Under Title XI

of Merchant Marine Act, 1936 .............................................................. 452

Departmental Data .................................................................................................. 453

Department of Defense Authorization Request ................................................. 453

Military Construction Authorization Request ................................................... 453

Committee Position ................................................................................................. 454

Communications From Other Committees ............................................................ 454

Fiscal Data ............................................................................................................... 460

Page

XXI

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ............................................................... 460

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ...................................................... 460

Committee Cost Estimate .................................................................................... 483

Oversight Findings .................................................................................................. 483

General Performance Goals and Objectives .......................................................... 484

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 485

Statement of Federal Mandates ............................................................................. 485

Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 485

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 493

Additional and Dissenting Views ........................................................................... 706

Additional views of Lane Evans .......................................................................... 708

Additional views of Tom Allen ............................................................................ 710

Additional views of Ike Skelton, John Spratt, Lane Evans, Silvestre Reyes,

Tom Allen, John B. Larson, Loretta Sanchez, James R. Langevin, Rick

Larsen, Ellen O. Tauscher, Robert E. Andrews, Cynthia A. McKinney,

Adam Smith, Jim Turner, Rod R. Blagojevich, Susan A. Davis, Solomon

P. Ortiz, James H. Maloney, Marty Meehan, Vic Snyder, Robert A. Brady,

Mike Thompson, Neil Abercrombie, Ciro D. Rodriguez, Baron P. Hill ........ 706

Dissenting Views of Cynthia A. McKinney ........................................................ 713

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107–194

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 2002

SEPTEMBER 4, 2001.—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

REPORT

together with

ADDITIONAL AND DISSENTING VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 2586]

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill

(H.R. 2586) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002 for

military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2002, 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 of 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. 2586. 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.

2

PURPOSE

The bill would—(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002

for procurement and for research, development, test and evaluation

(RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3)

Authorize for fiscal year 2002: (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 2002 for military construction and family

housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002 for the

Department of Energy national security programs; (7) Modify provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (8) Authorize

appropriations for fiscal year 2002 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 $343.3 billion for

the national defense budget function for fiscal year 2002. Of this

amount, the President requested $328.0 billion for the Department

of Defense (including $10.0 billion for military construction and

family housing) and $13.8 billion for Department of Energy national security programs and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety

Board.

The committee recommends an overall level of $343.2 billion in

budget authority. This amount is consistent with the discretionary

defense spending limitations imposed by the Balanced Budget Act

of 1997 and it represents an increase of approximately $33.3 billion

from the amount authorized for appropriation by the Floyd D.

Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001

(Public Law 106–398).

3

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.

4


Insert offset folio 27 here 74948.001
5


Insert offset folio 28 here 74948.002
6


Insert offset folio 29 here 74948.003
7


Insert offset folio 30 here 74948.004
8


Insert offset folio 31 here 74948.005
9


Insert offset folio 32 here 74948.006
10


Insert offset folio 33 here 74948.007
11


Insert offset folio 34 here 74948.008
12

RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL

To ‘‘provide for the common defense’’ is one of the most important

responsibilities vested in the federal government. Article I, section

8, of the Constitution grants Congress the power ‘‘to raise and support armies’’ and ‘‘to provide and maintain a navy,’’ in order to provide for the common defense. It is a solemn responsibility Congress

must exercise with diligence, wisdom, and foresight.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002

continues the process of rebuilding America’s defenses and restoring the health of the military. The policies, programs, and priorities

it supports are intended to ensure continued U.S. military preeminence for decades to come and to provide America’s men and

women in uniform with the training and tools necessary to deal

successfully with the security challenges of the future.

The committee bill would authorize $343.3 billion for defense

during fiscal year 2002—matching the President’s amended budget

request and marking the most significant increase to the defense

budget since fiscal year 1986. Restoring the health of America’s

military will take years of work. Secretary of Defense Donald

Rumsfeld, in testimony before the committee on June 28, 2001,

noted that a one year increase in spending ‘‘does not get us well.

The underinvestment went on far too long, the gap is too great,

and there is no way it can be fixed in a year or, in my view, even

in six.’’

In the committee’s view, significant increases in defense spending are long overdue. The committee is pleased with the new Administration’s recognition that defense spending in the post-Cold

War era has fallen too far too fast and applauds the Administration’s commitment to reverse this trend. The U.S. military for too

long has been living off the defense investments made in the 1980s.

Military equipment is being utilized beyond its service life, weapons systems are becoming costlier to maintain, and military readiness has declined virtually across the board. The U.S. military has

been called on to do more with less, deploying with increasing frequency around the globe. Morale and quality of life have suffered.

This is the unfortunate legacy of years of underfunding.

This year, the challenge facing the Administration and Congress

is to ensure that the most immediate modernization, readiness, and

personnel needs are met, while preparing to transition the armed

forces into a more capable force prepared to meet emerging threats.

The Strategic Defense Review and U.S. National Military Strategy

The committee supports the efforts of the Department of Defense

(DOD) to assess defense requirements in light of the potential and

emerging threats to U.S. interests expected to materialize over the

next decade and beyond. For the past several months, the Department of Defense has been conducting an extensive and multifaceted

review of U.S. national military strategy. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld formed more than a dozen Task Forces to review the

assumptions and strategic underpinnings of U.S. defense policy.

Separate Task Forces were established on Strategy, Transformation, Acquisition Reform, Quality of Life, Nuclear Forces,

Conventional Forces, Intelligence and Space, National Missile Defense, and a variety of other issues. The underlying premise of

13

these reviews was that resources and force levels should flow from

strategy, not the other way around.

The results of the DOD strategy review will be incorporated into

the next Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), scheduled to be completed by September 30, 2001. The results of the QDR will, in turn,

be factored into the Administration’s defense budget request for fiscal year 2003. The committee expects that the 2001 QDR will be

strategy-based and not budget-driven. In the meantime, U.S. military strategy continues to be guided by the tenets outlined in the

1997 QDR. The 1997 QDR, building upon its predecessor, the 1993

Bottom-Up Review, postulated that the sizing and composition of

U.S. military forces should be based on the requirement to fight

two nearly simultaneous major theater wars. This force-sizing construct has been called into question by the Administration.

The Administration has indicated that the two major theater war

construct may need to be replaced with a different force sizing metric. Although Secretary Rumsfeld has cautioned that no final decision has been made, he has also noted that DOD is ‘‘looking carefully at an alternative.’’ That alternative would be to replace the

traditional ‘‘threat-based’’ military strategy with one that is ‘‘capability-based’’ and designed to deal with the kinds of asymmetric

threats that might emerge in the future.

The committee believes that the two major theater war standard

has served as a useful planning tool and is concerned that its abandonment could be viewed as an attempt to scale back U.S. military

strategy to conform to budgetary realities. Such an approach would

be ill-advised. Jettisoning the two major theater war construct

without an effective alternative would lead to acceptance of a greater than prudent level of risk. Indeed, Secretary Rumsfeld has stated that ‘‘you don’t tear down what is unless you have something

better....’’ The committee expects to work closely with the Administration in the coming year to ensure that any changes to U.S. military strategy are based on sound strategic principles and do not result in increased risk to U.S. national security.

Although Department of Defense officials have emphasized the

need for the U.S. armed forces to transform themselves into a more

capable force able to successfully confront the more difficult challenges in the future, the Department’s budget request for fiscal

year 2002 is not a ‘‘transformation’’ budget. At minimum, it properly addresses many of the deficiencies that plague existing forces

without laying the groundwork for significant structural changes.

In his testimony before the committee on June 28, 2001, Secretary

of Defense Rumsfeld stated that even a budget of nearly $350 million ‘‘would just be holding where we are’’ and ‘‘would not make a

significant contribution to transformation.’’

As the Department of Defense wrestles with options for transforming the U.S. military in the long-term, the committee’s approach this year has been guided by an effort to develop a defense

budget that is more responsive to the post-Cold War threats faced

by the United States and commensurate with America’s global responsibilities—and, in so doing, to ensure that U.S. forces can successfully execute their missions at the lowest possible level of risk.

14

The Administration’s Defense Budget Request

The President’s defense budget request for fiscal year 2002 reflects the most significant real increase in defense funding since

the mid-1980s. Nevertheless, despite the increases proposed by the

Administration this year, serious problems continue to exist in

readiness, modernization, and quality of life. The previous Administration significantly underfunded the defense budget and overcommitted U.S. military forces to a variety of peacekeeping and humanitarian missions. The result was a high operating tempo, degraded morale, aging equipment, reduced training, and decaying

infrastructure. General Henry Shelton, Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff, testified before the committee on June 28, 2001,

that since 1995 there has been ‘‘a 133 percent increase in the number of military personnel committed to joint operations. These are

real-world events, not exercises, and we are doing it with nine percent fewer people.’’

Although the fiscal year 2002 defense budget request reflects

nearly a $33 billion increase over the fiscal year 2001 level, significant shortfalls remain unaddressed. In particular, the service

chiefs have identified more than $32 billion in critical unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2002, roughly twice the amount they

identified last year. These shortfalls were not addressed in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill recently passed by

the Congress and signed by the President. Moreover, the Army is

the smallest it has been since 1950, the Navy has shrunk to 317

ships—more than 40 percent fewer than a decade ago and the

smallest fleet since 1933, and the average age of the Air Force’s

aircraft is 22 years.

With this in mind, the committee has sought to address in this

year’s budget the most serious aspects of the shortfalls in readiness, modernization, and quality of life.

Restoring the Bond of Trust with Our Men and Women in Uniform

Ensuring a decent quality of life for military personnel and their

families remains one of the most important national defense priorities. America’s military is only as good as the people who serve in

it. Recruiting and retaining top-notch personnel remains vital to

ensuring that the U.S. armed forces are the best in the world.

With the efforts of Congress over the past six years, the quality

of living for U.S. military personnel and their families has improved, and recruiting and retention trends have improved. Nevertheless, meeting the challenge of recruiting and retaining sufficient

numbers of high quality personnel remains difficult, and the troublesome trend of the continued departure of many of the best and

brightest mid-career enlisted and officer personnel continues.

Continuing its effort to improve quality of life and ensure adequate military pay and bonuses, the committee recommends the

largest single-year increase in military personnel funding since

1985—a total increase of $6.9 billion over the fiscal year 2001 level.

The committee bill also would fund the largest military pay raise

since 1982, thereby fully supporting the President’s proposal to add

$1.0 billion to military pay. This pay raise provides five to six percent across-the-board pay raises for all military personnel, as well

as targeted pay increases for mid-career service members that

15

range above 10 percent. In addition, the bill would boost military

special pay and enhance incentives to join the Reserve Officers

Training Corps (ROTC). Moreover, the committee bill would improve the recruiting and retention efforts of the services and would

provide for enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses. The committee

bill also contains the increases for military housing contained in

the budget request. Further, the committee bill recommends an additional effort: innovative programs to reduce the significant out-ofpocket costs experienced by military personnel as a result of permanent change of station moves. Importantly, the committee bill

satisfies $95 million of the service chiefs’ unfunded personnel requirements.

The committee bill also would increase funding for defense med- ical programs of over $6 billion. With this authorization, the committee bill would provide the funding needed this coming fiscal

year to implement fully the new TRICARE For Life program enacted last year.

These actions follow up on the efforts of Congress last year to reform the military health care system and compensation practices.

The quality of life improvements contained in the committee bill

this year represent the most significant step toward making a real

improvement in military quality of life in nearly two decades. However, this is just one step forward, and real progress in this area

will require additional actions over the next several years.

Enhancing Readiness

Restoring military readiness remains a key priority for the committee, as U.S. military readiness is essential to securing America’s

future as the world’s sole superpower. Over the past six years, Congress has led the effort to identify and reverse the declining state

of military readiness. Today, there is bipartisan agreement that

U.S. military readiness has declined due to an increased pace of operations combined with inadequate funding and escalating maintenance costs of aging equipment. The committee bill would make

real progress toward reversing this decline by providing significant

increases to key operations, maintenance, and training accounts.

Despite the increases in the Administration’s fiscal year 2002 defense budget request, readiness remains a serious concern. Existing

readiness problems include a shortage of spare parts, aging equipment, decaying infrastructure, growing equipment and facilities’ backlogs, insufficient training, and personnel shortages. In the

past, essential modernization was deferred to provide for near-term

readiness requirements. In addition, maintaining the readiness of

‘‘first-to-fight’’ forces has led to the diversion of resources from

other operational support units, including strategic airlift, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, combat service support

units, and training bases. As General Henry Shelton, Chairman of

the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the committee on June 28,

2001, ‘‘The bottom line is, I do not believe that we will be able to

sustain our long-term readiness under these conditions.’’ Secretary of the Army, Thomas White, testifying before the committee on July 18, 2001, stated, ‘‘After a decade of underfunding

and overworking our force, we are clearly in a hole, and getting out

will require a significant investment.’’ Secretary of the Air Force

James Roche and Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Ryan,

16

testified before the committee on July 11, 2001, that ‘‘overall Air

Force readiness is lower than any time since June 1987.’’ The Chief

of Naval Operations, Admiral Vern Clark, testified on July 12,

2001, ‘‘The challenge of sustaining our current readiness while investing in key future capabilities remains a very difficult balancing

act. . . . [T]his is an area where we do not meet the goals and the

targets that we need in this budget.’’ Despite this challenge, Admiral Clark stated, ‘‘I believe this is the best readiness budget that

we have seen in at least a decade.’’ The committee bill seeks to improve both the near-term and

long-term readiness of U.S. military forces by addressing critical

readiness priorities. Specifically, the committee bill would increase

key readiness accounts by $7.5 billion above the fiscal year 2001

level. Unfortunately, the decision to halt combined arms naval

training on the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico, beginning in 2003

will negatively impact the readiness of the armed forces. The committee bill would ensure that live-fire training could continue on

the island until such time as an alternative site is found that

would provide for at least an equivalent level of training.

Modernizing and Equipping the Force of the Future

Despite the end of the Cold War, the U.S. military has not fully

adapted to meet the new challenges of the post-Cold War environment. For the United States to ensure that U.S. service members

retain the technological edge on the battlefields of tomorrow— thereby saving lives and winning wars—the U.S. military must ensure that it has the weapons, equipment, and strategies to successfully meet future challenges.

While the exact path for transforming the military to meet these

future challenges is not yet clear, modernizing the force with new

technologies and advanced capabilities to fight and win future conflicts is vital. Until this path is clear, the transformation effort

must take place on two fronts—maintaining the current force

through a steady procurement program and developing revolutionary technologies through an aggressive research and development program.

The committee notes that today’s military is continuing to live off

the investment in equipment made decades ago. In his testimony

before the committee on June 28, 2001, Secretary Rumsfeld stated,

‘‘We have been living off the substantial investments of the 1970s

and 1980s.’’ Unfortunately, the Administration’s request for procurement programs was the weakest aspect in an otherwise strong defense

budget. Secretary White, in testimony before the committee on July

18, 2001, stated that ‘‘there will continue to be shortfalls in a number of critical areas such as modernization and recapitalization of

our current force.’’ Secretary of the Navy, Gordon England, testifying on July 12, 2001, stated, ‘‘What this increase does not do,

however, is adequately address our infrastructure and procurement

shortfalls.’’ In effect, the fiscal year 2002 amended defense budget request

for procurement would place modernization efforts on hold, pending

completion of DOD’s strategic review. Instead, the committee bill

would provide $62 billion ($442.1 million more than the President’s

request) to procure weapons, ammunition, and equipment, while

17

careful reprioritization of the budget enabled the committee to

meet $253.4 million of the service chiefs’ unfunded requirements.

The resulting procurement budget will slow the erosion of the force

while laying the foundation for transformation into the future military force.

By contrast, the Administration’s research and development

(R&D) budget represents the first significant increase in the past

decade and the first time in six years that the requested amount

for R&D was greater than the amount provided by Congress in the

previous year. This significant level of support for R&D programs

will likely ensure rapid progress in developing innovative technologies, deploying ballistic missile defenses, and testing and evaluating transformation programs. Therefore, the committee bill

would provide $47.7 billion ($228.5 million more than the President’s request and $6.7 billion more than the fiscal year 2001 level)

for research and development programs, including funds for ballistic missile defense programs.

Defending Americans From Ballistic Missile Threats

Today, Americans at home and abroad are within striking range

of thousands of ballistic missile warheads. The risk of accidental or

unauthorized launch of ballistic missiles remains real, and the proliferation of missile technology has allowed nations like North

Korea to develop and test ballistic missiles capable of reaching U.S.

soil.

Furthermore, American military forces and allies around the

world have no effective defense against the ballistic missile threat.

Over 100,000 U.S. troops in South Korea and Japan live under the

threat of ballistic missile attack, as do American forward-based air

and naval forces in Northeast Asia, the Mediterranean, and the

Persian Gulf. Even vital U.S. allies including South Korea, Japan,

and Taiwan face known ballistic missile threats and have no effective defense.

Unfortunately, ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction

technology are proliferating faster than the U.S. ability to defend

against them. Secretary Rumsfeld, in testimony before the committee on June 28, 2001, warned against underestimating the

threat posed by ballistic missiles and the weapons they carry. ‘‘We

would be making a terrible mistake to not be attentive to the

spread of weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver

them,’’ he stated. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, testifying before the committee on July 19, 2001, explained the reason

other states seek ballistic missile capabilities: ‘‘To those who wonder why so many of the regimes hostile to the United States—

many of them desperately poor—are investing such enormous sums

of money to acquire ballistic missiles, I suggest this possible answer: They know we don’t have any defenses.’’

Ten years after 28 U.S. service personnel lost their lives as a result of a single Iraqi Scud missile attack during the Persian Gulf

War, Americans remain vulnerable to ballistic missile threats. For

this reason, the committee supports efforts to accelerate research,

development, and deployment of effective ballistic missile defenses.

The committee believes that America’s total vulnerability to ballistic missiles must end. Unfortunately, missile defense programs

have never received the level of support and funding necessary to

18

support such an important mission. As a result, the committee bill

would support the Administration’s request for a significant increase in funding for ballistic missile defense programs as the first

step toward the day when all Americans are protected against ballistic missile attack. The committee endorses the President’s approach to ballistic missile defense, and is encouraged that the proposed missile defense program includes plans for a layered defense

system and realistic testing, and explores a full range of technologies. As such, the committee endorses the Administration’s

missile defense program, with modest adjustments, and recommends $8.2 billion, $2.9 billion more than the fiscal year 2001

level, for the continued development of ballistic missile defenses.

The Committee Bill: A Significant Step Forward on the Path

Toward Ensuring U.S. National Security

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 represents a significant step forward in the committee’s efforts to ensure that U.S. national security is protected and that the U.S.

armed forces are second-to-none. It contains significant improvements in personnel, readiness, and modernization designed to keep

America’s military on the cutting edge of technology and able to defeat any potential military challenge. This bill accomplishes much,

but much more remains to be done.

Modernizing and maintaining today’s military forces—and transforming them to meet future challenges—will require a serious and

sustained commitment of resources. The committee understands

that in the current prolonged period of peace, additional investments in national defense are seen by some as unnecessary. However, the cost of keeping the peace is always less than the cost of

failing to do so. Clearly, defense increases are not only affordable

but also essential if the United States is to remain a superpower

able to promote and protect its global interests.

HEARINGS

Committee consideration of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 2002 results from hearings that began on

March 22, 2001 and that were completed on July 18, 2001. The full

committee conducted 7 sessions. In addition, a total of 20 sessions

were conducted by five different subcommittees and two panels of

the committee on various titles of the bill.

(19)

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT

OVERVIEW

The committee did not receive the Administration’s amendment

to its February 2001 ‘‘Budget Blueprint’’ for the Department of Defense (DOD) until the end of June. During this period, Secretary

Rumsfeld initiated over twenty separate review panels to examine

various topics, ranging from overall defense strategy to the size

and shape of conventional forces. The recommendations of these

panels are still being studied and are expected to be considered

during the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which is

to be submitted to Congress September 30th. Consequently, no decisions were made with regard to major weapons systems in the fiscal year 2002 amended budget. Although the Administration has

spoken of the need to transform the military to deal with new challenges of the 21st century, the transformation process is expected

to be a lengthy one that cannot be implemented with a single fiscal

year’s budget. The Secretary’s description of the fiscal year 2002

procurement request concedes that there would be less real transformation-related change from fiscal year 2001 programs than previously thought, due to the overwhelming need to, as he put it, ‘‘repair potholes.’’

The fiscal year 2002 DOD procurement request of $61.6 billion

is notably the weakest link in an otherwise strong defense budget.

Many analysts, as well as prior DOD senior officials, have argued

that an additional $20.0 to $30.0 billion above this amount is necessary annually to ensure military capabilities are adequately modernized.

The committee recommends a net increase of $442.1 million to

the Department’s procurement request, which includes an add of

almost $525.0 million. While this amount is modest by comparison

to committee actions over the past several years, it, nevertheless,

represents the seventh consecutive year that the committee has

provided an increase to the procurement accounts.

20


Insert offset folio 43 here 74948.009
21


Insert offset folio 44 here 74948.010
22

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,925.5 million for Aircraft Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends

authorization of $1,987.5 million for fiscal year 2002.

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.

23


Insert offset folio 46 here 74948.011
24


Insert offset folio 47 here 74948.012
25


Insert offset folio 48 here 74948.013
26


Insert offset folio 49 here 74948.014
27

Items of Special Interest

AH–64 modifications

The budget request contained $38.5 million for AH–64 modifications but included no funds to continue procurement of the oil debris detection system (ODDS) or the vibration management enhancement program (VMEP).

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 VMEP is an Army National Guard (ARNG) effort currently

directed toward resolving vibration management problems on the

ARNG’s AH–64 Apache fleet.

Since the ODDS, which has been successfully integrated into

other Department of Defense aircraft, both reduces aircraft maintenance costs and enhances aircrew safety, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to incorporate the ODDS on

the AH–64 Apache. The committee also recommends an increase of $7.0 million to continue procurement of VMEP systems for the

ARNG Apache fleet and to transition this technology to the UH– 60 Blackhawk and the CH–47 Chinook.

In total, the committee recommends $50.5 million for AH–64

modifications, an increase of $12.0 million.

Air traffic control

The budget request contained $68.9 million to procure air traffic

control systems but included no funds for the procurement of cold

cathode portable landing lights.

Cold cathode portable landing lights are commercial-off-the-shelf

items that provide airfield taxiway, runway, and heliport edge

lighting for both permanent and temporary locations, thereby enhancing ground safety and flight operations. The committee understands that the Army has an unfunded requirement for 100 systems of this type of lighting and recommends $78.9 million for air

traffic control systems, an increase of $10.0 million, for procurement of cold cathode portable landing lights.

Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE)

The budget request contained $32.8 million for the procurement

of ASE, but included no funds for AN/AVR–2A laser detecting sets

(LDS). The 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 aboveand-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 also notes

the Army Chief of Staff’s $28.3 million fiscal year 2002 unfunded

requirement to continue LDS kit installation on AH–64A Apaches,

28

AH–64D Apache Longbows, MH–47D Chinook and MH–60L

Blackhawk Special Operations Aircraft. Based on a growing laser

threat to Army helicopters, its desire to continue fielding this system beyond force package one units, and the Chief’s unfunded requirement, the committee recommends $52.8 million for ASE, an

increase of $20.0 million, for procurement of AN/AVR–2A LDS kits.

CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications

The budget request contained $277.5 million for CH–47 cargo

helicopter modifications, but included no funds for crashworthy

cockpit seats.

While existing pilot and co-pilot seats offer some protection in

the event of a hard impact landing or a crash, crashworthy cockpit

seats 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. Accordingly, the committee recommends $281.5 million for CH–47 modifications, an increase of $4.0 million, to procure crashworthy cockpit seats for CH– 47 cargo helicopters.

Longbow

The budget request contained $888.6 million to upgrade 60 AH– 64A aircraft to the AH–64D Longbow variant, including $70.2 million for Apache Longbow recapitalization.

The committee understands that the Army entered into a

multiyear procurement contract in October 2000 for the remanufacture of 269 AH–64A analog variant aircraft to the digital Longbow

variant. The committee notes that because of numerous problems

over the last several years resulting in grounding of the Apache

fleet, this contract was restructured to upgrade fewer aircraft and

apply the resultant funds to meet recapitalization requirements.

The committee also notes that the Army Chief of Staff identified

a $47.0 million fiscal year 2002 unfunded requirement for recapitalization of the Apache Longbow fleet.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $898.6 million for

Apache Longbow upgrades, an increase of $10.0 million, for Apache

Longbow recapitalization.

UH–60 modifications

The budget request contained $52.3 million for UH–60 modifications, of which $17.3 million was for crashworthy external fuel systems. However, the budget request included no funds for these systems for Army National Guard (ARNG) UH–60 combat search and

rescue aircraft.

UH–60 crashworthy external fuel systems are self-sealing,

ballistically-tolerant tanks that replace existing 230 gallon noncrashworthy 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, creating safety risks to flight crews,

passengers, and aircraft, which require individual mission waivers

by individual commands. As a result of the safety risks imposed by

these existing systems and expanding ARNG search and rescue

mission requirements, the committee recommends $58.3 million for

29

UH–60 modifications, an increase of $6.0 million, for crashworthy

external fuel systems for ARNG combat search and rescue aircraft.

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,859.6 million for Missile Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends

authorization of $1,097.3 million for fiscal year 2002.

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.

30


Insert offset folio 53 here 74948.015
31


Insert offset folio 54 here 74948.016
32


Insert offset folio 55 here 74948.017
33

Items of Special Interest

Missile procurement army (MPA) transfers

The budget request contained $1,859.6 million for the procurement of Army missile systems.

The committee recommends the following transfers from MPA to

the program elements listed, as requested by the Army.

[In millions of dollars]

Program FY 2002 authorization request

Committee change

form request

FY 2002 committee recommendation

Stinger System Summary .................................................................... $45,890 ($22,500) $23,390

Line Of Sight Anti-Tank System ......................................................... 11,427 (2,000) 9,427

MLRS Launcher Systems ..................................................................... 148,294 (10,250) 138,044

Army Tactical Missile System ............................................................. 34,263 (9,000) 25,263

Patriot Mods ........................................................................................ 37,617 (12,510) 25,107

Avenger Mods ...................................................................................... 17,991 (6,114) 11,877

ITAS/TOW Mods ................................................................................... 96,204 (35,400) 60,804

MLRS Mods ......................................................................................... 23,599 (3,000) 20,599

Combat Vehicle Improvement Programs (PE 203735) ....................... 195,602 20,000 215,602

Tractor Card (PE 203808) .................................................................. 6,551 5,000 11,551

LOSAT (PE 603654) ............................................................................. 57,384 13,072 70,456

Comanche (PE 604223) ...................................................................... 732,890 28,500 761,390

Brilliant Anti-Armor Submunition (PE 604768) .................................. 123,899 9,000 132,899

Javelin (PE 604611) ............................................................................ 492 5,202 5,694

WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $2,276.7 million for procurement of

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army for fiscal year 2002.

The committee recommends authorization of $2,367.0 million for

fiscal year 2002.

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.

34


Insert offset folio 57 here 74948.018
35


Insert offset folio 58 here 74948.019
36


Insert offset folio 59 here 74948.020
37


Insert offset folio 60 here 74948.021 A
38

Items of Special Interest

Abrams upgrade program

The budget request contained $395.8 million for the upgrade of

104 M1 Abrams tanks to the M1A2 system enhancement program

(SEP) variant.

The committee notes that the Army’s M1A2 SEP upgrades are

currently obtained under a three-year multiyear procurement

(MYP) contract at 104 SEP tank upgrades per year. Congress authorized a combined M1A2 SEP tank and Wolverine Heavy Assault

Bridge (HAB) MYP contract in fiscal year 2000, a year earlier than

the planned fiscal year 2001 contract award year, based upon the

estimated $118.0 million in savings that could be accrued from the

80 percent commonality of SEP and HAB chassis and component

upgrades and its belief that both of the vehicles met the stable design criteria to enter into a MYP contract. The committee is concerned, however, by the 74 percent increase requested for systems

technical support in fiscal year 2002 for 104 SEP upgrades, compared to the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2001 systems

technical support for 100 SEP upgrades.

The committee believes that the cost growth in systems technical

support is unjustified and, therefore, recommends $385.8 million

for the Abrams upgrade program, a decrease of $10.0 million.

Bradley base sustainment

The budget request contained $400.8 million for the procurement

of Bradley A3 fighting vehicle upgrades, including $1.7 million for

fielding Army National Guard (ARNG) A2 Operation Desert Storm

(ODS) variants.

The Bradley A2ODS is derived from upgrading the first-generation Bradley A0’s 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 majority of

the ARNG’s Bradley fleet, on the other hand, will remain unmodified and be comprised mainly of first-generation A0 vehicles, which,

because of major survivability deficiencies, 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 as a result of active

force reductions, the committee recommends $460.8 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.

39

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,193.4 million for Ammunition

Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends authorization of $1,208.6 million for fiscal year 2002.

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.

40


Insert offset folio 63 here 74948.022
41


Insert offset folio 64 here 74948.023
42


Insert offset folio 65 here 74948.024
43


Insert offset folio 66 here 74948.025
44

Items of Special Interest

Army ammunition procurement

The budget request contained $1,193.3 million for procurement of

ammunition and production base support. The committee recommends $1,208.6 million, an increase of $15.2 million, for the following types of ammunition programs:

[Dollars in millions]

Mortar Ammunition:

81mm M816 ..................................................................................................... $8.0

CTG 120mm Illum XM930 w/MTSQ Fuze (Production line upgrade) ....... 2.8

CTG 120mm IR Illum XM983 ....................................................................... 5.0

Rockets: Bunker Defeating Munition ................................................................... 10.0

Demolition Munitions, All Types: Modernization Demolition Initiators ........... 3.0

Signals, All Types: XM–211/XM–212 AIRCM ..................................................... 6.2

Production Base Support: ARMS Initiative ......................................................... 7.6

Remote area denial artillery munition (RADAM)

The budget request contained $48.2 million for RADAM procurement. The committee understands that the Army does not plan to

obligate $27.4 million of fiscal year 2001 funds for RADAM prior

to the beginning of fiscal year 2002. As a result, the committee believes that these funds can be used to meet fiscal year 2002 requirements. Accordingly, the committee recommends $20.8 million

for RADAM, a decrease of $27.4 million.

White phosphorus production facility

The budget request contained no funds to upgrade the white

phosphorous production facility at the Pine Bluff Arsenal.

The committee is aware of plans to upgrade the production line

at the Pine Bluff Arsenal, the only production facility for white

phosphorous ammunition in the western hemisphere. The committee views this as an important effort and recommends $2.8 million for design work leading to replacement of the production line.

The committee also directs the Secretary of the Army to examine

and to refine further these plans in preparation for the submission

of the fiscal year 2003 budget request.

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $3,961.7 million for Other Procurement, Army in fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends authorization of $4,144.0 million for fiscal year 2002.

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.

45


Insert offset folio 69 here 74948.026
46


Insert offset folio 70 here 74948.027
47


Insert offset folio 71 here 74948.028
48


Insert offset folio 72 here 74948.029
49


Insert offset folio 73 here 74948.030
50


Insert offset folio 74 here 74948.031
51


Insert offset folio 75 here 74948.032
52


Insert offset folio 76 here 74948.033
53


Insert offset folio 77 here 74948.034
54


Insert offset folio 78 here 74948.035
55


Insert offset folio 79 here 74948.036
56

Items of Special Interest

Artillery accuracy equipment

The budget request contained $10.4 million to procure the artil- lery accuracy equipment, including $6.8 million for the procurement of seven Meteorological Measuring System (MMS) units for

the Army National Guard (ARNG). The MMS provides weather

data to field artillery units that improves the firing accuracy of

those units.

The committee is encouraged that the Army has budgeted for

MMSs for the ARNG; however, it recognizes that accelerated fielding of MMS to the ARNG would benefit total Army mission requirements, since the ARNG provides nearly 70 percent of the total

Army’s artillery fire support. Therefore, the committee recommends $14.9 million for artillery accuracy equipment, an increase of $4.5

million, to accelerate procurement of the MMS for the ARNG.

Combat support medical

The budget request contained $16.7 million to procure deployable medical systems and field medical equipment, of which $641 thousand was for surgical temper tents. However, the budget request

included no funds for rapid intravenous (IV) infusion pumps.

Surgical temper tents offer medical personnel and surgical teams

shelter to provide medical and trauma care to soldiers in forward

deployed sites. As a result of increased deployment of Army Reserve medical units, additional surgical temper tents are required

to replace those that have been left behind in humanitarian missions.

The rapid IV infusion pump is a miniature, portable, lightweight

pump specifically designed for life-saving intravenous fluid resuscitation by a medic in the field to restore blood pressure of victims

with severe blood loss or dehydration. The committee notes 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 committee understands the benefits of clean, sterile field

medical treatment areas and, therefore, recommends an increase of

$1.0 million for replacement of surgical temper tents for the Army

Reserve. Also, the committee is impressed with the potential life

saving capability that rapid IV infusion pumps offer and recommends an increase of $6.0 million to procure these pumps. In

total, the committee recommends $23.7 million for combat support

medical equipment.

Combat training centers instrumentation support

The budget request contained $10.3 million for combat training

centers instrumentation support but included no funds for the

Army National Guard (ARNG) deployable force-on-force instrumented range system (DFIRST).

Encouraged by the fact that the DFIRST system was chosen over

all current force-on-force instrumentation systems by the All Service Combat Identification Evaluation Team (ASCIET) as the instrumentation system for the fiscal year 1999 Joint Exercise, in the

57

committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106–162), the committee

recommended a pilot program at two ARNG training sites to explore the capabilities and benefits of DFIRST systems to increase

the readiness of ARNG units through more effective training with

greater safety and at a lower cost. To continue this force-on-force,

simulation-based training at regional training centers, the committee recommends $16.3 million for combat training centers instrumentation support, an increase of $6.0 million, for additional

DFIRSTs for the ARNG.

Deployable universal combat earthmovers (DEUCE)

The budget request contained $5.3 million to procure 12

DEUCEs for the interim brigade combat teams. The DEUCE is a

military-unique, high speed, earthmoving tractor capable of clearing, leveling, and excavating operations for light and airborne divisions.

Although, the committee understands that the DUECE will be a

critical piece of equipment for the Army’s interim medium brigades,

it notes that the Army Chief of Staff has identified a $7.8 million

unfunded requirement in fiscal year 2002 to procure 19 DEUCEs

for Army war reserve requirements and to prevent a break in the

production line.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $21.3 million for

DEUCE, an increase of $16.0 million, for additional war reserve

DEUCEs and to address industrial base concerns.

Earthmoving scrapers

The budget request contained $7.2 million to procure 17 commercial, self-propelled elevating scrapers.

This commercial, self-propelled elevating scraper is sectionalized

into two pieces for external sling load helicopter transport. It will

be used by airborne and air assault combat engineers for road and

airfield construction and maintenance to support early entry forces.

This new start program supports the Army’s legacy-to-objective

transformation campaign plan, enabling forces to more rapidly deploy and be sustained by quickly constructed infrastructure.

Therefore, the committee recommends $13.2 million for

earthmoving scrapers, an increase of $6.0 million, to accelerate the

procurement of commercial, self-propelled elevating scrapers.

High mobility trailers

The budget request contained no funds for safety modifications

for high mobility trailers.

The Army has procured 5,116 high mobility trailers since fiscal

year 1994 is unable to field these trailers due to an inability to

meet mobility and safety requirements. The committee understands that the Army has an ongoing program to correct these deficiencies that is scheduled to be completed in fiscal year 2002. The

committee also understands that the Army plans to conduct a recompetition for these trailers in fiscal year 2003 and, in conducting

its market survey for this competition, expects the Secretary of the

Army to determine if there is a requirement for low cost, state-ofthe-art, lightweight, detachable equipment storage and equipment

58

transport carriers for non-combat missions, logistics support, and

fire fighting services.

Improved high frequency radio (IHFR)

The budget request contained no funds to procure IHFRs.

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-ofsight Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System. To date,

only 215 systems have been fielded to the Army Reserve due to

budget constraints; consequently, the Army Reserve must continue

to maintain a mixture of older and unsupportable HF communications radios. For this reason, the Chief of the Army Reserve has

identified a $38.5 million fiscal year 2002 unfunded requirement

for 1,003 IHFRs.

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to procure IHFRs for the Army Reserve.

Modification of in service equipment

The budget request contained $49.2 million for modifications of

in service equipment, but included no funds for the procurement of

a rubber wheel-to-track conversion system.

The committee understands that there is an existing rubber

track system, capable of converting both commercial and military

four-wheel drive vehicles weighing up to 1.5 tons, such as the high

mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle (HMMWV), into true allterrain vehicles in about 30 minutes. The committee believes this

track system could enable HMMWVs to greatly expand their operational domain into all types of off-road conditions, such as soft

sand, deep snow, and swampy areas.

Based on the potential to expand the HMMWV’s off-road capability, the committee recommends $59.2 million for modifications of

in service equipment, an increase of $10.0 million, to procure a

wheel-to-track conversion system.

Nonsystem training devices

The budget request contained $74.5 million to procure nonsystem

training devices, but included no funds for Army Aviation Institutional Training Simulators (AAITS), BEAMHIT laser marksmanship training systems (LMTS) for the Army Reserve, or fire fighter

training systems (FFTS).

The committee understands that the AAITS provide full-motion,

reconfigurable cockpit simulation for AH–64 Apache, UH–60

Blackhawk, and OH–58D Kiowa Warrior helicopters and notes that

a shortfall exists for the simulators at the Army Aviation Center.

The committee notes that the Army Reserve lacks adequate

BEAMHIT LMTS to maintain markmanship training skills, required to fulfill increasingly greater contingency operations and

59

missions. Furthermore, the committee is aware that a shortfall of

commercially-available, mobile FFTS remains, despite the increases for this system in prior fiscal years provided by the committee as well as the committee’s prior recommendations that the

Secretary of the Army adequately budget for this system.

In view of these concerns, the committee recommends $111.7 million for nonsystems training devices, an increase of $37.2 million,

including $20.0 million for AAITS, $14.2 million for BEAMHIT

LMTS for the Army Reserve, and $3.0 million for FFTS.

Product improved combat vehicle crewman (PICVC) headset

The budget request contained no funds to procure PICVC headsets.

The committee is aware that loss of communications in CVC

headsets was identified in late fiscal year 1998 during Force XXI

Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) testing and evaluation in armored vehicles. This testing revealed that electromagnetic

interference (EMI) generated by Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio Systems installed in armored vehicles to transmit

FBCB2 data created intermittent communication problems. The

committee believes that intermittent communications caused by

EMI could endanger crews as a result of not receiving complete

command and control and targeting information in a high operational tempo or combat environment.

Since the PICVC headset eliminates EMI communication losses,

the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million to procure

PICVC headsets to address this safety issue.

Reserve component automation system (RCAS)

The budget request contained $89.3 million for the procurement

of RCAS components.

The committee expects the Army to continue to provide adequate

funding for the on-going information technology support to the National Guard and the Army Reserve. Currently, the RCAS program

provides integrated support for mobilization and day-to-day management in both the Army National Guard (ARNG) and Army Reserve. In setting future priorities, the committee believes that

funds should be provided to ensure that the ARNG and Army Reserve can continue to equip and support their full IT needs, including their requirements to upgrade the equipment originally installed under RCAS. Consequently, the committee expects the

Army to provide funds for these requirements so that the ARNG

and Army Reserve can meet their national security, homeland security, civil support, and national missile defense missions.

Ribbon bridge

The budget request contained $48.2 million for ribbon bridge

equipment, but included no funds to procure this equipment for

Army National Guard (ARNG) multi-role bridge companies

(MRBC). Ribbon bridge equipment consists of 10-ton, 8-wheel drive

M1977 Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Truck Common Bridge

Transporters, M15 Bridge Adaptor Pallets, and M14 Improved Boat

Cradles.

60

The committee understands that the ARNG will establish seven

MRBCs in fiscal year 2001 and will equip them with existing engineer bridging equipment and older, lower-capacity, five-ton trucks.

However, the committee also understands that without additional

funds, these new MRBCs will not convert to the new equipment required for their mission until fiscal year 2004. Therefore, the committee recommends $59.4 million for ribbon

bridging equipment, an increase of $11.2 million, to accelerate the

fielding of two ARNG MRBCs.

Special equipment for user testing

The budget request contained $16.4 million for the procurement of special equipment for user testing, including $10.1 million for 1

XM Target Acquisition Radar—Agile Multi-Beam (XMTARAMB)

system, but included no funds for Target Receiver Injection Module

(TRIM) threat simulators.

The XMTARAMB is an advanced air defense acquisition and targeting radar which incorporates advanced frequency hopping, agile,

multi-beam, three-dimensional targeting technology with an associated command, control, and communication facility. This system is

critical to the ability of the United States and its allies to counter

threats with enhanced technologies, as well as to develop proper

tactics, techniques and procedures to ensure maximum protection

for personnel and their weapon systems. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million to procure an additional XMTARAMB system.

The committee is also aware of the benefits of TRIM, which,

when inserted in antenna cables of Army information collection,

transmission, or dissemination systems, stimulate the system with

threat signals. This capability will replace current open-air radiations of radio frequency threats, which are becoming obsolete and

prohibited by the Federal Communications Commission due to the

growing number of threats now required to be simulated. Understanding the benefits derived from threat simulations, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for TRIM.

In total, the committee recommends $32.4 million for special

equipment for user testing, an overall increase of $16.0 million.

Super high frequency (SHF) terminal

The budget request contained $17.0 million for the procurement

of 8 SHF Tri-Band Advanced Range Extension Terminals (STAR–

T).

The committee is aware that this system has been plagued with

cost overruns and technical and understands that, subsequent to

the submission of the budget request to Congress, the Army terminated the program because of default by its contractor. The committee further understands that there are no program termination

costs to the Army and that the service intends to recoup $24.0 million of unliquidated progress payments from the contractor.

The committee outlined its concerns with STAR-T program

delays in the committee report on H.R. 1401 (H. Rept. 106–162)

and agrees with the Army’s termination action. Because no contract termination fees are required, the committee recommends no

funds for STAR-T, a decrease of $17.0 million.

61

Tactical unmanned aerial vehicle (TUAV)

The budget request contained $84.3 million to procure 9 TUAV

systems and 5 attrition air vehicles.

The TUAV system will provide Army maneuver commanders

with dedicated reconnaissance, surveillance, and target recognition

and battle damage assessment from information collected through

its electro-optical and infrared sensor payloads down-linked to

ground control units. The committee notes that the Army Chief of

Staff has identified a $16.2 million fiscal year 2002 unfunded requirement to upgrade low rate initial production TUAVs with a

synthetic aperture radar/moving target indicator (SAR/MTI) all

weather sensor, a digital tactical control data link (TCDL), and an

improved avionics suite. The committee supports these enhancements to the TUAV despite the program’s recent delays as a result

of several crashes during testing. The committee therefore recommends $91.6 million for TUAV, an increase of $7.3 million for

SAR/MTI, TCDL, and improved avionics upgrades.

Water distributors

The budget request contained $1.0 million to procure four 2,000-

gallon capacity module water distributors for use by tactical fire

fighting teams.

These new distributors will replace currently fielded 6,000-gallon

water distributors, which suffer from poor mobility, safety issues

when transported with partial loads, and maintenance problems.

This new start program supports the Army’s legacy-to-objective

transformation campaign plan, enabling tactical fire fighting teams

to rapidly deploy with enhanced cross country mobility.

Therefore, the committee recommends $5.0 million for water distributors, an increase of $4.0 million, to accelerate procurement of

2,000-gallon capacity module water distributors.

CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, ARMY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,153.6 million for Chemical

agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, for fiscal year 2002. The

committee recommends no funds for fiscal year 2002.

62


Insert offset folio 86 here 74948.037
63

Items of Special Interest

Chemical agents and munitions destruction

The budget request contained $1,153.6 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 military department. The committee notes that for the third 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 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 valid in 1986, when the estimated

cost of the chemical stockpile demilitarization program was approximately $1.5 billion and is even more valid today, when the estimated cost of the program has grown more than ten-fold.

Accordingly, the committee recommends no funds for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army, a decrease of $1,153.6

million. The committee recommends an increase of $1,078.6 million

for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense, as described elsewhere in this report.

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview

The budget request contained $8,252.5 million for Aircraft Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends

authorization of $8,337.2 million for fiscal year 2002.

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.

64


Insert offset folio 88 here 74948.038
65


Insert offset folio 89 here 74948.039
66


Insert offset folio 90 here 74948.040
67


Insert offset folio 91 here 74948.041
68


Insert offset folio 92 here 74948.042
69

Items of Special Interest

AV–8B modifications

The budget request contained $49.5 million for various AV–8B

modifications but included no funds for the Litening II, a precision

targeting system that allows the AV–8B aircraft to autonomously

detect and track targets and to deliver precision munitions.

The committee understands that the Marine Corps has a requirement for 98 Litening II targeting pod systems but has thus far only

procured 56. The committee also notes that the Commandant of the

Marine Corps included this system among his unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. Consequently, the committee recommends $79.5 million for AV–8B modifications, an increase of

$30.0 million, to procure additional Litening II targeting pods.

Calibration test equipment

The budget request contained $18.2 million for aircraft industrial

facilities, of which $8.8 million was included for calibration equipment.

Calibration equipment provides the Navy with products and

services to maintain accurate test equipment used for maintenance

of weapons, aircraft, ships, submarines, and Marine Corps ground

systems. The committee notes that without calibration equipment,

test equipment drifts to inaccurate performance levels which could

induce errors in weapons systems or result in serviceable components being removed for unnecessary maintenance or unserviceable

components remaining in a system. The committee also notes that

during the past 10 years funding for the Navy’s calibration test

equipment has decreased by over 60 percent and that this situation

has resulted in a corresponding decrease in the availability of calibrated equipment from 86 percent to 74 percent.

Since the committee understands that the budget request for

calibration test equipment funds only 59 percent of the fiscal year

2002 requirement, the committee recommends $22.7 million for aircraft industrial facilities, an increase of $4.5 million, for additional

calibration test equipment.

E–2 modifications

The budget request contained $14.6 million for E–2 modifications

but included no funds to upgrade an E–2 mission computer test

aircraft to the Hawkeye 2000 configuration.

The Hawkeye 2000 configuration is an upgrade to older-model E–

2 aircraft that integrates satellite communications, a commercialoff-the-shelf, high-capacity mission computer and associated

workstations, and cooperative engagement capability equipment.

The committee understands that the Navy’s E–2 aircraft inventory

includes a mission computer test aircraft that can be economically

upgraded to the Hawkeye 2000 configuration and, therefore, recommends $39.6 million for E–2 modifications, an increase of $25.0

million, to upgrade the Navy’s mission computer E–2 test aircraft

to the Hawkeye 2000 configuration.

70

F/A–18E/F

The committee notes that the F/A–18E/F aircraft is currently

procured under a multiyear contract, but notes further that the aircraft’s F414 propulsion system is not procured under either this

contract or a separate multiyear contract.

To promote further F/A–18E/F acquisition savings, the committee

strongly urges that the Department of the Navy evaluate the benefits of a five-year multiyear procurement structure for the F414

propulsion system beginning in fiscal year 2002.

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 groundbased 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.

The committee notes that, although the Navy has already procured 12 T–6A aircraft in fiscal year 2000 and 24 T–6As in fiscal

year 2001, it plans to discontinue JPATS acquisition between fiscal

years 2002 and 2007. Expressing concern about this decision, the

committee also notes that the report accompanying H.R. 2216 (H.

Rept. 107–148) directed the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees detailing

the business case for the Navy’s deferring JPATS acquisition. The

committee believes that JPATS procurement for the Navy would

not only reduce procurement costs for both the Navy and the Air

Force but would reduce operations and maintenance costs as well.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the

committee within 90 days after enactment of this Act his plan to

begin full implementation of the JPATS program beginning in fiscal year 2003.

SH–60 series modifications

The budget request contained $1.7 million for SH–60 series modifications but included no funds for the SH–60F’s AN/AQS–13F dipping sonar upgrade or for the advanced helicopter emergency

egress lighting system (ADHEELS).

The SH–60F is the Navy’s anti-submarine warfare helicopter

based aboard aircraft carriers and uses the AN/AQS–13F as its

principal dipping sonar to detect submarines near the aircraft carrier. The committee understands that a pre-planned product improvement program for the AN/AQS–13F could achieve improved

shallow-water detection capability and provide increased system reliability. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of

$11.0 million to upgrade the SH–60F’s AN/AQS–13 dipping sonar.

The ADHEELS provides crew escape lighting for H–60 series helicopters in the event of water impact. The committee understands

that the Department of the Navy has selected ADHEELS as its future helicopter escape lighting system due to its superior performance, significantly increased operational reliability, and lower lifecycle costs. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase

of $3.2 million to accelerate the installation of ADHEELS in the

Navy’s H–60 helicopter fleet.

71

In total, the committee recommends $15.9 million, an increase of

$14.2 million, for SH–60 series modifications.

T–45 training system (TS)

The budget request contained $179.3 million to procure 6 T–45C

aircraft and associated ground-based training equipment but included no funds for T–45C operational flight trainers. 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 the Navy is replacing older-model T– 45As with new-production T–45Cs but understands that all bases

planned for upgrade to the T–45C are not scheduled to receive T– 45C operational flight trainers upon arrival of the new-production

aircraft.

Since the T–45C operational flight trainer will provide improved

replication of the T–45C cockpit configuration and performance characteristics, he recommends $192.3 million, an increase of $13.0

million, for two additional T–45C operational flight trainers.

Tactical air reconnaissance pod system (TARPS)-completely digital

(CD)

The budget request contained $27.6 million for other production

charges but included no funds for the TARPS-CD system, an

electro-optic sensor upgrade designed to validate digital imaging

technologies and to mitigate development risks for the next-generation shared reconnaissance pod (SHARP) system.

Since the SHARP system remains in development, the committee

understands that the Navy is upgrading several TARPS-CD cameras with an 18–lens configuration which improves the system’s

standoff and survivability capabilities.

To upgrade all remaining TARPS-CD systems to a common 18– lens configuration, the committee recommends $30.6 million for

other production charges, an increase of $3.0 million, for the

TARPS-CD 18–lens configuration and for spares and support costs.

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview

The budget request contained $1,433.5 million for Weapons Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends

authorization of $1,476.7 million for fiscal year 2002.

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.

72


Insert offset folio 96 here 74948.043
73


Insert offset folio 97 here 74948.044
74


Insert offset folio 98 here 74948.045
75


Insert offset folio 99 here 74948.046
76

Items of Special Interest

MK 46 Mod 0 lightweight machine gun

The budget request contained $910 thousand for small arms and

weapons but included no funds for the MK 46 Mod 0 lightweight

machine gun.

The MK 46 Mod 0 lightweight machine gun is a variant of the

existing M249 squad automatic weapon designed to meet the

unique lower-weight and reliability requirements for the Navy’s

sea-air-land (SEAL) teams and other special operations forces.

The committee understands that the Navy’s SEAL teams and

special operations forces require approximately 1875 MK 46 Mod 0

lightweight machine guns and, consequently, recommends $6.1 million for small arms and weapons, an increase of $5.2 million, to

procure MK 46 Mod 0 lightweight machine guns.

Tomahawk missile

The budget request contained $50.1 million for the first 34 block

IV low-rate initial production tactical tomahawk (TACTOM) missiles but included no funds for special tooling and test equipment

for rate production of the block IV TACTOM missile.

The Tomahawk missile is a long-range, precision strike cruise

missile launched from surface ships or submarines, and the block

IV TACOM missile will provide improved performance at a lower

unit cost than previous missile versions. The committee understands that subsequent to the block IV TACTOM contract award

in 1998, the Navy has had to switch to a different engine manufacturer than originally planned and that this decision requires increased funding for special tooling and test equipment to accommodate rate production of the TACTOM missiles equipped with the

newly-selected engine. Accordingly, the committee recommends $70.1 million for the tomahawk missile, an increase of $20.0 million, to procure the special tooling and test equipment necessary for rate production of the

block IV TACTOM.

Trident II missile

The budget request contained $559.0 million for Trident II missiles, including $143.7 million for D5 continuous production life extension.

The Trident II D5 missile is carried on the Ohio class fleet ballistic missile submarines to provide a highly survivable strategic

ballistic missile deterrent. The Trident II D5 continuous production

life extension (CPLE) program sustains the production of Trident

II D5 missile motors and other critical components. The committee

views the Trident II as critically important strategic deterrence

and strongly supports the fiscal year 2002 budget request for 12

Trident D5 missiles and associated funding for the CPLE program.

While the Navy has not provided the committee with its Trident

II D5 CPLE program budget projections beyond fiscal year 2002, it

notes that the Navy has recently extended the hull life of its Ohio

class fleet ballistic missile submarines from 30 to 44 years and is

concerned that the CPLE program may not be fully funded in the

future years defense program commensurate with the extended

77

submarine hull life. Therefore, the committee urges the Department to include funds for the CPLE program in its fiscal year 2003

budget and in the future years defense program to preclude both

the loss of the critical missile motor production base and the possibility that expensive start-up costs may be incurred at a future

date to regenerate Trident II missile production capability.

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, NAVY/MARINE CORPS

Overview

The budget request contained $457.0 million for Ammunition

Procurement, Navy/Marine Corps in fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends authorization of $463.5 million for fiscal year

2002.

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.

78


Insert offset folio 102 here 74948.047
79


Insert offset folio 103 here 74948.048
80


Insert offset folio 104 here 74948.049
81

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY

Overview

The budget request contained $9,344.1 million for Shipbuilding

and Conversion, Navy in fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends authorization of $9,321.1 million for fiscal year 2002.

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.

82


Insert offset folio 106 here 74948.050
83


Insert offset folio 107 here 74948.051
84


Insert offset folio 108 here 74948.052
85

Items of Special Interest

Completion of prior year shipbuilding programs

The budget request contained $800.0 million to cover increases in

the costs to complete construction of certain ships for which Congress authorized and appropriated funds in prior fiscal years. Included in this amount was $248.0 million for the first of the San

Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships, the LPD–17.

The committee notes that the Department of Defense requested a supplemental appropriation of $65.0 million in fiscal year 2001,

in addition to the $248 million in the budget request, to cover the

increased costs of the LPD–17. The committee also notes, Congress approved the $65.0 million supplemental request, but understanding that the fiscal year 2002 budget request did not contain

funds for construction of the fifth and sixth ships of the class, as

had been anticipated, Congress rescinded $75.0 million of advance

procurement funds for these two ships appropriated in fiscal year

2001 and applied the funds to the LPD–17. The committee does not

believe such action would have been taken if it were going to result

in a requirement to payback those funds at a later date.

Since the LPD–17 received an additional $75.0 million in the

Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 107–80), the

committee concludes that $75.0 million of the $248.0 million in the

budget request is not required. Consequently, the committee recommends $725.0 million for prior year shipbuilding, a decrease of

$75.0 million.

Minehunter small waterplane area twin hull (SWATH)

The budget request contained no funds for the Minehunter

SWATH.

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, during the past two years, the Minehunter SWATH

has completed highly successful testing in the Pacific theater and

notes that senior naval officers support its immediate acquisition

and deployment to meet shallow water minehunting requirements.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million

for the procurement of the Minehunter SWATH.

Outfitting

The budget request contained $307.2 million for outfitting, of

which $208.6 million was for outfitting and $96.0 million was for

post delivery. Outfitting funds are used to acquire items necessary

in the pre-commissioning activities of ship construction, and post

delivery funds are used to fix items for which the government is

responsible after ship delivery.

The committee believes that $3.2 million of outfitting funds

budgeted for ships which are scheduled to begin construction in fiscal year 2002 and $6.8 million budgeted for ships which are

planned for delivery in fiscal year 2003 are premature. Consequently, the committee recommends $297.2 million for outfitting,

a decrease of $10.0 million.

86

SSGN conversion

The budget request contained $86.4 million for the advance procurement of products and materials necessary to refuel and convert

two fleet ballistic missile carrying submarines (SSBN) to a conventional cruise missile carrying submarine (SSGN) configuration but

included no funds for the advance planning necessary to refuel two

additional SSBNs.

Once refueled and converted, SSGNs will be capable of both delivering up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles and deploying special

operations forces. Although four SSBNs are available for the SSGN

refueling and conversion program, the Department of the Navy has

only budgeted for the conversion of two. The committee strongly

supports the SSGN conversion program and believes that all four

SSBNs should be converted to the SSGN configuration.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $137.4 million, an increase of $51.0 million, for the advance planning necessary to refuel the remaining two SSBNs in preparation for their conversion

to the SSGN configuration.

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview

The budget request contained $4,097.6 million for Other Procurement, Navy in fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends authorization of $4,157.3 million for fiscal year 2002.

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.

87


Insert offset folio 111 here 74948.053
88


Insert offset folio 112 here 74948.054
89


Insert offset folio 113 here 74948.055
90


Insert offset folio 114 here 74948.056
91


Insert offset folio 115 here 74948.057
92


Insert offset folio 116 here 74948.058
93


Insert offset folio 117 here 74948.059
94


Insert offset folio 118 here 74948.060
95


Insert offset folio 119 here 74948.061
96


Insert offset folio 120 here 74948.062
97

Items of Special Interest

Operating forces industrial plant equipment

The budget request contained $27.5 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 fully supports the EMF concept and, accordingly,

recommends $28.0 million for operating forces industrial plant

equipment, an increase of $500 thousand, for procurement of EMF.

Other navigation equipment

The budget request contained $45.9 million for the procurement

of other navigation equipment but included no funds to procure

force protection thermal imaging equipment for military sealift

command ships.

As a result of the committee’s investigation into the attack on the

U.S.S. Cole, the committee is keenly aware of the lack of force protection equipment and sensors on board Naval warships and supply

ships to identify and counter unconventional threats. The committee is also aware of, and supports, the Navy’s rapid request for

emergency funds to meet many of these requirements for its warships. However, military sealift command ships, which often steam

independently and make port calls in remote and hostile areas separate from battle groups, lack adequate thermal imaging sensors to

identify potential threats and hazards at ranges that would allow

a timely response to avoid a collision or counter a terrorist attack.

Understanding new threats and vulnerabilities of U.S. ships

while underway and at anchor, the committee recommends $55.9

million for other navigation equipment, an increase of $10.0 million, for the procurement of military sealift command force protection thermal imaging equipment.

Other supply support equipment

The budget request contained $7.5 million for the procurement of

other supply support equipment, of which $741 thousand was for

automatic identification technology (AIT) in support of the serial

number tracking system (SNTS).

The SNTS will use commercial AIT to provide web-based, cradleto-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 readily achieved by implementing AIT and has recommended increases for this technology

98

for maintenance and ammunition tracking systems for other services in prior fiscal years.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $13.5 million for other

supply support equipment, an increase of $6.0 million, for the

SNTS.

Other training equipment

The budget request contained $37.2 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 provided funds in fiscal years 2000

and 2001 to upgrade the BFTT system in order to provide an air

traffic control (ATC) training capability for aircraft carrier crews.

However, the committee understands that additional BFTT ATC

upgrades are required on both landing helicopter assault (LHA)

and landing helicopter dock (LHD) amphibious ships for integrated

battle group training. Because of the enhanced benefits to ships’

crews from integrated battle group training, the committee recommends $41.2 million for other training equipment, an increase

of $4.0 million, to procure BFTT ATC upgrades for 5 LHAs and 7

LHDs.

Radar support

The budget request contained no funds to procure radar support

equipment.

The committee understands that an upgrade to the Mk92 Mod 1

system, which provides surveillance and gunfire control on medium-sized ships is required because the current system relies on

obsolete components that are no longer manufactured, resulting in

a spare parts inventory incapable of sustaining it beyond fiscal

year 2002. The committee believes this situation should be avoided

and, therefore, recommends an increase of $15.0 million to upgrade

Mk92 Mod 1 radars to the Mod 2 variant.

Satellite communications systems

The budget request contained $198.1 million to procure satellite

communication systems, of which $9.6 million is for the procurement of digital modular radios (DMR).

The DMR is a software programmable radio which replaces AN/

WCS–3 transceivers and TD–1271 multiplexer modems that are

not compliant with Joint Chiefs of Staff directives. The DMR is

backward compatible with existing radios and cryptographic devices, while being 90 percent compatible with the next-generation

Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) common architecture. The committee understands that additional software development is required for DMRs to maintain compliance with JTRS software compliance architecture (SCA) and, therefore, recommends $213.1 million for satellite communications systems, an increase of $15.0 million, to migrate the DMR to the JTRS SCA version 2.0 software.

99

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS

Overview

The budget request contained $981.7 million for Procurement,

Marine Corps in fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends authorization of $1,025.6 million for fiscal year 2002.

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.

100


Insert offset folio 124 here 74948.063
101


Insert offset folio 125 here 74948.064
102


Insert offset folio 126 here 74948.065
103


Insert offset folio 127 here 74948.066
104


Insert offset folio 128 here 74948.067
105

Items of Special Interest

Container family

The budget request contained $5.9 million to procure container

handling equipment but included no funds to conduct a service life

extension program (SLEP) for the tractor, rubber tired, articulated

steering, multi-purpose (TRAM).

The TRAM, a multi-purpose material handling and earthmoving

machine capable of lifting up to 10,000 pounds, provides the primary heavy lift and earth moving capability for the Marine Corps.

Since this system has been heavily relied upon to facilitate expeditionary operations, it requires a SLEP to extend its service life for

an additional 10 years. The committee notes that the Commandant

of the Marine Corps has identified a $7.4 million fiscal year 2002

unfunded requirement to conduct a SLEP for 521 of the 617

TRAMs on hand. Because the committee understands the vital mobility requirements that this system fulfills, the committee recommends $13.3 million for container family equipment, an increase

of $7.4 million, for TRAM SLEP.

Expeditionary warfare

The committee supports the Department of the Navy’s efforts in

developing expeditionary warfare capabilities to address threats of

the 21st century. The committee believes that an expeditionary

force capable of rapid, sustained employment that possesses the

ability to conduct forcible entry is a necessary military asset. However, the committee is concerned that programmed funding is inadequate to execute the full spectrum of expeditionary warfare operations. This disparity was highlighted in a recent General Accounting Office report, which concluded that it will be another 10 to 20

years before the Navy and the Marine Corps have the capabilities

needed to successfully execute littoral warfare operations against

competent enemy forces. The committee also notes that testimony

provided by Navy and Marine Corps officials acknowledged that

the nation’s sea service lacks a number of key warfighting capabilities and that these deficiencies place at risk expeditionary warfare

operations.

Consequently, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to

provide a report to the congressional defense committees by March

1, 2002, that examines the relationship between expeditionary warfare funding and mission requirements. At a minimum, the report

shall contain the following information:

(1) Identification of those missions which are assigned to and

can best be carried out by expeditionary warfare forces;

(2) Identification of major programs that directly support

execution of expeditionary warfare and a comparison between

required and actual funding for these programs over the past

three fiscal years as well as a comparison between required

and planned funding for them as identified in the future years

defense program; and

(3) An explanation of the risks of underfunding these programs, including any impact on personnel morale, retention

and effectiveness.

106

Family of construction equipment

The budget request contained $8.3 million for the remanufacture

or product improvement of D–7G dozers, 621B scrapers, and 130G

graders. The dozer/scraper/grader fleet is used throughout Marine

Corps combat engineer and support units for airfield construction,

as well as for combat clearing and debris excavation.

The committee notes that the service’s rapidly deteriorating

dozer, scraper and grader fleet is over 15 years old and that the

Commandant of the Marine Corps has identified a fiscal year 2002

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 $25.3 million for the family of construction equipment,

an increase of $17.0 million, to remanufacture/product improve D–

7G dozers, scrapers, and graders.

Night vision equipment

The budget request contained $22.4 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, postVietnam era AN/PVS–4 sights. The committee notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps has identified a $16.5 million fiscal

year 2002 unfunded requirement to procure 3,682 AN/PVS–17

night vision sights, which would complete this system’s acquisition

objective. The committee recognizes the increased benefits of generation III technology, and, therefore, recommends $36.9 million for

night vision equipment, an increase of $14.5 million, for AN/PVS–

17 night vision sights.

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview

The budget request contained $10,744.5 million for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends authorization of $10,705.7 million for fiscal year 2002.

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.

107


Insert offset folio 131 here 74948.068
108


Insert offset folio 132 here 74948.069
109


Insert offset folio 133 here 74948.070
110


Insert offset folio 134 here 74948.071
111


Insert offset folio 135 here 74948.072
112


Insert offset folio 136 here 74948.073
113


Insert offset folio 137 here 74948.074
114

Items of Special Interest

B–2

The budget request contained $11.9 million for B–2 modifications, of which $11.3 million was included to upgrade one B–2 aircraft with satellite communications (SATCOM). The budget request

also contained $155.0 million in PE 64240F but included no funds

for the link 16, center instrument display and in-flight replanner

(Link16/CID/IFR) upgrade, or for integration of the enhanced guided bomb unit (EGBU)–28 weapon. 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 upgrade provides beyond-line-of-sight secure

voice and data communications that will ensure global command

and control of this aircraft, and the committee believes that the entire fleet of 21 B–2 aircraft should be upgraded with SATCOM. Ac- cordingly, the committee recommends $44.9 million for B–2 modifications, an increase of $33.0 million, to upgrade all 21 B–2s with

SATCOM.

The B–2 link 16 provides networked battlefield situational

awareness for improved survivability and flexible targeting, while

the center instrument display and in-flight replanner portions of

this upgrade provide an improved tactical situation picture and a

capability to adjust mission planning while enroute. The EGBU–28

weapon will replace the aging, B–2 unique GBU–37B with a common weapon to continue the B–2’s capability to attack hard and

deeply buried targets. The committee views the Link16/CID/IFR

and EGBU–28 upgrades as critical to future B–2 effectiveness.

Consequently, the committee recommends $245.0 million in PE

64240F, an increase of $90.0 million—$63.0 million to accelerate

the Link 16/CID/IFR upgrade and $27.0 million to complete engineering and manufacturing development activities for the EGBU– 28 upgrade.

Additionally, the committee notes that the Air Force’s concept of

a global strike task force includes F–22 and B–2 aircraft and believes that its implementation may require procurement of additional B–2s. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the

Air Force to provide a report to the congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2003 budget request

that describes the number and type of aircraft required to implement this concept and the acquisition strategy to procure these aircraft.

C–130

The committee notes that the Air Force has developed a longrange plan called the ‘‘C–130 Roadmap,’’ to assist in the planning,

budgeting and beddown of the newest aircraft in the C–130 fleet.

The C–130 aircraft has been the workhorse of the military’s tactical

airlift fleet supporting operations around the globe for over four

decades. The committee strongly supports the beddown of C–130Js

as depicted in the ‘‘C–130 Roadmap.’’ The committee expects the

Air Force to continue to work closely with Congress on its beddown

plan for the C–130J fleet and on the proposed C–130J–30

multiyear procurement. The committee encourages the Air Force to

115

use similar roadmaps as the baseline to plan, budget, and beddown

other aircraft in order to modernize and replace aging systems.

C–17

The budget request contained $2,875.8 million to procure 15 C– 17 aircraft and $228.1 million for advance procurement of 12 aircraft in fiscal year 2003. The C–17 aircraft is currently procured

under a seven-year multiyear procurement contract that ends in

fiscal year 2003.

The committee notes that the recent Mobility Requirements

Study–2005 concluded that the currently programmed airlift fleet

is not adequate to meet requirements for the existing national military strategy. While the Department of Defense’s on-going strategic

review and upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review may change

strategy or requirements for combat force structure, the committee

believes that fiscal year 2003 procurement of C–17s will need to be

maintained at current levels to replace the aging C–141 aircraft

fleet scheduled for retirement. Accordingly, the committee recommends a transfer of $36.0 million from C–17 procurement to C– 17 advance procurement in order to provide for the more efficient

production rate of 15 C–17s in fiscal year 2003, rather than the 12

now planned. Therefore, the committee recommends $2,839.8 million for the

procurement of 15 C–17s, a decrease of $36.0 million, and $264.1

million, an increase of $36.0 million for the advance procurement

for 15 C–17s in fiscal year 2003.

The committee has included a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to proceed with a follow-on C–17 multiyear

procurement contract if the Secretary certifies the necessity to do

so prior to enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2002.

CV–22

The budget request contained $95.1 million for CV–22 engineering and support costs, $15.0 million for the advance procurement

for three CV–22 tiltrotor aircraft in fiscal year 2003, and $26.4 million for CV–22 spares. The budget request also contained $28.2 million, In Procurement, Defense-Wide, to procure Special Operations

Forces (SOF)-unique CV–22 long-lead items, peculiar training

equipment, publications, and technical data. Additionally, the

budget request contained $546.7 million in PE 64262N, of which

$100.0 million was included to continue the development of two

CV–22 aircraft for initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E)

activities.

The V–22 is a tilt-rotor vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that

is being developed first for the Marine Corps as an MV–22 variant,

followed by a CV–22 variant for the Air Force’s SOF, and an HV–

22 variant for the Navy. The committee notes that following two

mishaps involving the MV–22 last year, the Marine Corps grounded its fleet pending a review of the program by a panel appointed

by the Secretary of Defense. In April 2001, the panel recommended

a near-term decrease in V–22 production along with increased design and re-engineering efforts to improve the aircraft’s safety and

reliability. These actions have delayed both the full-rate MV–22

116

production decision and the development activities of the CV–22

variant. The committee further notes that the report accompanying

H.R 2216 (H. Rept. 107–148) included the rescission of a portion

of the fiscal year 2001 funds for MV–22 and CV–22 production and

for CV–22 test articles pending the correction of the MV–22 deficiencies.

Consequently, the committee believes that CV–22 procurement

funds and CV–22 test article development funds are not required

in fiscal year 2002 and recommends the following amounts: no

funds for CV–22 procurement, a decrease of $95.1 million; no funds

for CV–22 advance procurement, a decrease of $15.0 million; no

funds for CV–22 spare parts, a decrease of $26.4 million; no funds

in Procurement, Defense-Wide to procure SOF-unique CV–22 long- lead items, a decrease of $28.2 million; and $446.7 million for PE

64262N, a decrease of $100.0 million for development of two CV– 22 aircraft for IOT&E activities.

Defense airborne reconnaissance program (DARP), line 55

The budget request contained $195.0 million for various RC–135,

U–2 and C–130 aircraft modifications but included no funds to

modify the RC–135S Cobra Ball to a dual-sided, three-channel optics and signal collection configuration.

The RC–135S Cobra Ball fleet consists of three aircraft configured for airborne measurement and signature intelligence

(MASINT) and signals intelligence (SIGINT) collection missions to

monitor and verify treaty agreements and to provide ballistic missile defense information to theater commanders. The committee

notes that, of the RC–135S three-aircraft fleet, only one is configured with the dual-sided, three-channel optics and signal collection

modification that allows it to collect MASINT and SIGINT on both

sides of the aircraft with improved accuracy. The committee believes that one additional RC–135S Cobra Ball aircraft should be

upgraded with this capability. Consequently, the committee recommends $206.0 million for

DARP, line 55, an increase of $11.0 million, to modify one RC–135S

Cobra Ball aircraft to the dual-sided three-channel optics and signal collection configuration.

F–15 modifications

The budget request contained $212.2 million for F–15 modifications, of which $24.4 million was included to convert the F100 engine to the F100–220E configuration and $39.9 million was included for the ALQ–135 Band 1.5 countermeasures system modification. However, the budget request included no funds for F–15E

fighter data link (FDL)-16 modification.

Conversion kits for the F–15’s F100 engine, also known as ‘‘Ekits,’’ provide increased thrust, greater reliability, better fuel efficiency, and reduced operations and maintenance costs. For fiscal

year 2001, the committee recommended a $70.0 million increase to

accelerate this modification and notes that $36.0 million was appropriated for this purpose.

The committee continues to support this upgrade and, therefore,

recommends an increase of $25.0 million to accelerate the conversion of the F–15 fleet’s engines to the F100–220E configuration.

117

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–15’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 deficiencies

identified subsequent to Operation Allied Force in 1999, as well as

those in current combat operations. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for the ALQ–135 Band 1.5 countermeasures system modification. While the committee notes that the budget estimates for fiscal

years 2003 to 2007 do not reflect the Department’s strategic review

results, the committee strongly urges 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.

The F–15E FDL–16 modification provides the F–15E with a tactical data link radio which significantly improves operational effectiveness by providing real-time, jam-resistant digital data and voice

transfer capability. The committee understands that this continuous automated exchange of data between aircraft provides our pilots with a significant increase in situational awareness and improves survivability by four times. The committee notes that the

final increment of F–15E FDL–16 funding is currently planned for

fiscal year 2004 but believes that such timing will result in an F– 15E FDL–16 production break with a concomitant increase in costs

to restart production and higher unit costs at the later date. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $19.5

million to accelerate the final increment of F–15E FDL–16 procure- ment. In total, the committee recommends $264.7 million for F–15

modifications, an increase of $52.5 million.

F–16 modifications

The budget request contained $232.0 million for various F–16

modifications but included no funds for advanced concept ejection

seat (ACES) co-operative improvement program (CIP).

The committee understands that, as a result of pilot demographic

changes, 17 percent of the pilot population is outside the weight

threshold for existing ejection seats, and that the ACES CIP will

address this safety concern by improving seat stability and limb restraint to accommodate a wider range of pilot sizes.

Consequently, the committee recommends $234.0 million for F–

16 modifications, an increase of $2.0 million, to begin the incorporation of ACES CIP safety improvements and expects the Department of the Air Force to budget for this upgrade in its future years

defense program.

Fixed aircrew standardized seats

The budget request contained $51.0 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

118

against aircraft crash loads up to 16 times the force of gravity. In

prior years, the committee has supported the development of the

FASS 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. Accordingly, the committee recommends $55.8 million for other modifications, an increase of $4.8 million, to begin procurement of

FASS.

MC–130 simulation training upgrades

The budget request contained $1.4 million for C–130 post-production support but included no funds for an MC–130P weapon system

trainer (WST) software upgrade or for an MC–130H simulator visual scene and sensor display.

The committee notes that the MC–130P simulator software is

three versions behind the software installed on MC–130P aircraft

and fails to properly interface with critical navigation and defensive avionics systems. The committee understands that this training limitation results in the development of poor MC–130P student

aircrew habits that negatively affect mission accomplishment. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million

for an MC–130P WST software upgrade to correct this deficiency.

The committee also understands that the current MC–130H simulator uses a visual display system that limits the aircrew’s cockpit

field of view, resulting in poor night vision training. Accordingly,

the committee recommends an increase of $1.3 million to upgrade

the MC–130H simulator’s visual scene and sensor display to improve aircrew night vision training. In total, the committee recommends $4.2 million for C–130 post-production support, an in- crease of $2.8 million.

Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)

The budget request contained $19.6 million for procurement of

six Predator UAV systems but included no funds for the Predator

B, a larger, faster variant with increased payload capacity. Each

Predator UAV system consists of four air vehicles, one ground control station, a communications suite, and associated ground support

equipment. The budget request also contained $10.4 million for

Predator modifications but included no funds for a structured reliability and maintainability program.

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, 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 improved speed and payload capacity

are necessary.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $39.6 million for Predator procurement, an increase of $20.0 million, for the acquisition

of the follow-on Predator B variant.

However, the committee notes that the Predator UAV system is

accumulating significant flying hours and believes that the longterm sustainment of current reliability and maintainability levels

119

is imperative. Consequently, the committee recommends $16.4 million for Predator modifications, an increase of $6.0 million, to facilitate the implementation of a structured reliability and maintainability program.

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview

The budget request contained $865.3 million for Ammunition

Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends authorization of $871.3 million for fiscal year 2002.

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.

120


Insert offset folio 144 here 74948.075
121


Insert offset folio 145 here 74948.076
122

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview

The budget request contained $3,233.5 million for Missile Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends authorization of $3,226.3 million for fiscal year 2002.

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.

123


Insert offset folio 147 here 74948.077
124


Insert offset folio 148 here 74948.078
125


Insert offset folio 149 here 74948.079
126

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview

The budget request contained $8,159.5 million for Other Procurement, Air Force in fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends authorization of $8,250.8 million for fiscal year 2002.

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.

127


Insert offset folio 151 here 74948.080
128


Insert offset folio 152 here 74948.081
129


Insert offset folio 153 here 74948.082
130


Insert offset folio 154 here 74948.083
131


Insert offset folio 155 here 74948.084
132


Insert offset folio 156 here 74948.085
133

Items of Special Interest

Air national guard air traffic control tower radio upgrade

The budget request contained $4.7 million for air traffic control

and landing systems but included no funds to upgrade the air traffic control tower radio systems at McEntire Air National Guard

Base (ANGB).

The committee notes that current plans for this new air traffic

control tower anticipate the continued use of outdated radio systems and believes that flight safety will be significantly enhanced

with the installation of modern digital radios.

Consequently, the committee recommends $5.2 million for air

traffic control and landing systems, an increase of $500 thousand,

to upgrade the air traffic control tower radio system at McEntire

ANGB.

Combat arms training system (CATS)

The budget request contained $12.0 million for base procured

equipment but included no funds for CATS. CATS is a computerbased simulation system that provides marksmanship training for

security force personnel as well as training to deal with less-thanlethal judgmental scenarios.

The committee notes that the Air Force has also recognized the

value of CATS and has authorized Air Force reserve component

category ‘‘C’’ personnel to qualify on this trainer instead of conducting live-fire training, which saves substantial live training ammunition costs. The committee also notes the need for additional

CATS for Air National Guard (ANG) security force units to meet

the demanding training requirement for both their wartime and

peacetime missions. These units must be capable of performing

both combat and police missions, which requires that they be fully

trained to respond to situations of varying levels of threat, including anti-terrorism training, to protect the 72 ANG sites located

throughout the United States. Since the Air Force increasingly relies on ANG security forces for overseas deployments and for antiterrorism missions, the committee views the training proficiency

provided by CATS to be imperative.

Therefore, the committee recommends $17.0 million for base procured equipment, an increase of $5.0 million, for the CATS.

Laser eye protection

The budget request contained $7.7 million for items less than

$5.0 million, of which $2.8 million was included for clear laser eye

protection for infrared (CLEPIR) spectacles.

CLEPIR spectacles reflect infrared laser energy wavelengths

away from the eye while allowing the transmission of other light

wavelengths such that CLEPIR spectacles can be used day or night

and in conjunction with night vision goggles. The committee understands that the Air Force requires additional CLEPIR spectacles

for use in Europe and Southwest Asia and notes that increased

CLEPIR spectacle production in fiscal year 2002 would provide for

a more economic production rate.

134

Accordingly, the committee recommends $11.7 million for items less than $5.0 million, an increase of $4.0 million, for CLEPIR

spectacles.

Senior scout

The budget request contained $2.0 million for intelligence communications equipment but included no funds to upgrade Senior

Scout equipment. Senior Scout is an intelligence, surveillance, and

reconnaissance suite of equipment, configured in a shelter capable

of installation on C–130E or C–130H aircraft, that provides communications and electronic signals intelligence collection.

The committee notes that Senior Scout mission data management processors currently use 16–year old technology and are not

compatible with modern data storage or retrieval systems. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $820 thousand to update the Senior Scout data management processor.

The committee also notes that joint tactical information dissemination system (JTIDS) capability is not fully implemented in the

Senior Scout suite and recommends an increase of $3.6 million to

procure and install JTIDS connectivity equipment.

The committee understands that of the three existing Senior

Scout shelters, one is an older configuration and requires updating

to avoid the future operating costs of maintaining two different

configurations. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase

of $2.8 million to modernize the third Senior Scout shelter.

Finally, the committee has learned that the Senior Scout ground

data reduction (GDR) system, used to refine emitter location data,

contains legacy computer equipment that is no longer commercially

supportable. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of

$1.6 million to modernize the GDR system. In total, the committee recommends $10.8 million for intelligence communications equipment, an increase of $8.8 million, to upgrade

Senior Scout equipment.

Supply asset tracking system (SATS)

The budget request contained $14.4 million for mechanized material handling equipment but included no funds for SATS.

SATS provides total asset visibility and reduces documentation

at the base level by incorporating radio frequency terminals and

smart cards that electronically confirm each transaction and eliminate documentation in the delivery process.

The committee notes that Congress has provided additional

funds for SATS installation over the past two years and, consistent

with these actions, recommends $22.4 million for mechanized material handling equipment, an increase of $8.0 million, to continue

the installation of this system at Air Force bases worldwide.

Theater air control system improvement (TACSI)

The budget request contained $15.1 million for TACSI, but included no funds to initiate a technology insertion and sustainment

program for the Air National Guard’s (ANG) AN/TYQ–23 modular

control equipment (MCE) operations modules.

The AN/TYQ–23 MCE operations module is used to manage air

operations in a deployed location. The committee notes that the

135

Marine Corps also uses the AN/TYQ–23 MCE and has embarked

on a technology insertion program to replace their operations modules with new software and hardware that improves performance

and is more sustainable. The committee understands that this

technology insertion and sustainment upgrade program will ensure

that the AN/TYQ–23 MCE operations modules are viable to perform contingency operational deployment missions for at least 10

additional years. Consequently, the committee recommends $30.1 million for TACSI, an increase of $15.0 million, to initiate a technology insertion and sustainment program for the ANG’s AN/TYQ–23 MCE operations modules.

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE

Overview

The budget request contained $1,604.0 million for Procurement,

Defense-Wide in fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends authorization of $2,267.3 million for fiscal year 2002.

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.

136


Insert offset folio 160 here 74948.086
137


Insert offset folio 161 here 74948.087
138


Insert offset folio 162 here 74948.088
139


Insert offset folio 163 here 74948.089
140


Insert offset folio 164 here 74948.090
141

Items of Special Interest

Chemical/biological defense procurement program

The budget request also contained a total of $348.7 million for chemical/biological defense (CBD) procurement, including $114.3

million for procurement of individual protection equipment, $15.2

million for decontamination, $155.9 million for the joint biological

defense program, $38.9 million for collective protection, and $24.3

million for contamination avoidance.

Anthrax vaccination immunization program

The committee is concerned with the lack of progress in the completion of the contractor submitting a Biologic License Application

Supplement for production of Anthrax Vaccine Adsorbed (AVA). Accordingly, if by February 1, 2002, the Secretary of Defense determines that the contractor has failed to submit to the U.S. Food and

Drug Administration (FDA) a completed Biologic License Application Supplement for production of AVA, then the committee directs

that the Secretary review all contracts for the production, fill and

packaging of the AVA and report to the congressional defense committees the results of this review no later than April 1, 2002. If

based on that review, or at the conclusion of FDA’s review of the

Biologic License Application Supplement, discrepancies are found

that cannot be resolved in a fiscally prudent manner then the Secretary should not request funds to continue the current production

contract in future budget submissions, but should take action to

procure a suitable vaccine from an alternative source.

Chemical/biological defense collective protection shelters

The committee recommends $51.9 million for procurement of collective protection equipment, an increase of $13.0 million, for procurement of CBD collective protection shelters.

Portable intelligence collection and relay capability (PICRC)

The budget request contained $8.1 million for special operations

forces (SOF) intelligence systems but included no funds for the

PICRC.

The PICRC 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 relaying 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. Therefore, the committee recommends $13.1 million for SOF intelligence systems, an

increase of $5.0 million, for procurement of PICRC systems.

CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, DEFENSE

Overview

As described elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends

transferring the budget request of $1,153.6 million for Chemical

142

Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army (CAMD, A) to Chemical

Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (CAMD, D), and recommends a total of $1,078.6 million for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense, including $192.9 million for research,

development, test, and evaluation, $157.2 million for procurement,

and $728.5 for operations and maintenance. Unless otherwise specified, adjustments are without prejudice and based on affordability

consideration.

143


Insert offset folio 167 here 74948.091
144

Items of Special Interest

Chemical agents and munitions destruction

The committee notes that chemical demilitarization facilities for

95 percent of the stockpile at eight stockpile storage sites in the

continental United States are either in operation, under construction, or have had permits granted. To date, 22 percent of the total

U.S. stockpile has been destroyed in operational demilitarization

facilities at Johnston Atoll and Tooele, Utah. Stockpile demilitarization operations at the former facility have been completed

and shutdown of that facility begun. Construction of the Anniston,

Alabama, facility was completed in June 2001 and systematization

operations have begun at that location, while construction of the

Umatilla, Oregon, facility is 98 percent complete and the Pine

Bluff, Arkansas, facility is 53 percent complete. Only facilities at

the Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado, and Lexington-Blue Grass

Army Depot, Kentucky, which are being addressed by the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment (ACWA), are not yet covered.

Current law requires the Secretary of Defense to provide recommendations on alternative disposal technologies for these two facilities by the end of the calendar year. The ACWA program evaluation of potential alternative technologies for assembled weapons

has been completed and a Defense Acquisition Board review of the

program is underway that is expected to provide the basis for Secretary of Defense decision in December 2001, and report to Congress on the demilitarization technologies that will be used at

Pueblo and Blue Grass. The review will also assess the overall

management and funding of the program and the ability of the program to complete destruction of the stockpile by April 29, 2007, as

required by the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Review of program for destruction of lethal chemical agents

and munitions

Section 141(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) required the Secretary of Defense to conduct an assessment of the current program for destruction of the United States stockpile of chemical agents and munitions, including the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment, for

the purposes of significantly reducing the cost of the program and

ensuring its completion in accordance with the obligations of the

United States under the Chemical Weapons Convention while

maintaining maximum protection of the general public, the personnel involved in the program, and the environment. The provision required the Secretary of Defense to report the results of the

assessment to Congress by March 1, 2000, including those actions

taken, or planned to be taken by the Secretary and any recommendations for additional legislation required to achieve the

purposes of the assessment and of the chemical agents and munitions destruction program.

The committee notes that the Secretary of Defense has initiated

a Defense Acquisition Board review of the chemical agents and munitions destruction program to assess the results of the Assembled

Chemical Weapons Assessment, to make recommendations for the

possible use of alternative technologies for destruction of the stockVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.030 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
145

pile, and to review the overall management and conduct of the program. As a part of this review, the committee directs the Secretary

of Defense to update the assessment required by Public Law 106–

65 and to report the results of that updated assessment to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sections 101–107—Authorization of Appropriations

These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year

2002 funding levels for all procurement accounts.

SUBTITLE B—ARMY PROGRAMS

Section 111—Extension of Multiyear Contract for Family of

Medium Tactical Vehicles

This section would amend Section 112 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85) to authorize the Secretary of the Army to extend the existing multiyear

procurement contract for one year to continue procuring ‘‘A1’’

variants of the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles if the Secretary

determines that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent a break

in production.

Section 112—Repeal of Limitation on Number of Bunker Defeat

Munitions that May Be Acquired

This section would repeal Section 116 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103–337).

SUBTITLE C—AIR FORCE PROGRAMS

Section 121—Responsibility of Air Force for Contracts for All

Defense Space Launches

This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to prepare, negotiate, execute, and manage all Department of Defense

contracts for space launch vehicles and space launch services and

to report to the congressional defense and intelligence committees

on the implementation of this requirement.

Section 122—Multiyear Procurement of C–17 Aircraft

This section would, beginning in fiscal year 2002, authorize the

Secretary of Defense to enter into a follow-on multi-year contract

or extend the current multi-year contract in order to procure up to

60 additional C–17 aircraft if the Secretary certifies to the congressional defense committees prior to the enactment of the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 that it is in the interest of the Department of Defense to proceed with either of these

two options.

146

SUBTITLE D—CHEMICAL MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION

Section 141—Destruction of Existing Stockpile of Lethal Chemical

Agents and Munitions

This section would amend section 152 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104–106; 50

U.S.C. note) to add to the requirements that must be satisfied before the Secretary of Defense may initiate destruction of the chemical munitions stockpile stored at a chemical stockpile destruction

site the requirement that emergency preparedness and response capabilities have been established at the site and in the surrounding

communities. The section would require the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) to convene an independent oversight board to make a recommendation to the Under

Secretary, no later than six months after the board is convened,

whether the destruction of the chemical munitions stockpile should

be initiated at a particular chemical stockpile destruction site. Finally, the section would require that the Under Secretary, after

considering a negative recommendation of the board, may not recommend beginning destruction of the chemical munitions stockpile

at a site until 90 days after the Under Secretary notifies the Congress of his intent to recommend initiation of live agents and munitions destruction operations.

The committee notes that the live chemical agents and munitions

destruction operations are scheduled to begin at Anniston Chemical

Activity, Alabama, in the third quarter of fiscal year 2002 and encourages the Under Secretary to convene the oversight board for

the Anniston site immediately upon enactment of this act. For the

other sites for which live agent and munitions destruction operations are scheduled to begin upon completion of construction and

systematization operations at the site, the committee recommends

that the Under Secretary convene the oversight board no later than

nine months prior to the date scheduled for beginning live agents

and munitions destruction operations. The committee also recommends the Under Secretary to establish as a goal for the panel

appointed for each site the completion of the panel’s review of the

readiness to begin live agents and munitions destruction operations

at the site no later that 120 days prior to the scheduled initiation

of such operations.

(147)

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND

EVALUATION

OVERVIEW

The budget request contained $47,429.4 million for research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), representing an increase

to the amount of $41,008.6 million provided for fiscal year 2001.

The committee recommends $47,735.2 million, an increase of

$230.5 million to the budget request. The committee also recommends $65.3 million, the requested amount, for Defense Health

Program RDT&E funding.

The committee notes that the fiscal year 2002 request for

RDT&E funding represents the first significant increase in the past

decade, and the first time in six years that the requested amount

for RDT&E was greater than the amount provided by Congress in

the previous year.

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.

While supportive of these transformation efforts, the committee remains concerned 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 reviewed these program increases and recommended a number of funding transfers specified in the report from mature systems development accounts to science & technology programs

which are more representative of transformation.

The committee believes that the amount requested for RDT&E

for fiscal year 2002 represents an appropriate level of funding to

support initial transformation efforts, but this level of funding is

insufficient to support both transformation of the services and continued modernization of legacy capabilities. The committee urges

the Secretary of Defense to outline clearly the priorities for RDT&E

investment strategies in consonance with the results of the Quadrennial Defense Review results and in coordination with Congress.

148


Insert offset folio 172 here 74948.092
149

ARMY RDT&E

Overview

The budget request contained $6,693.9 million for Army RDT&E.

The committee recommends authorization of $6,749.0 million, an

increase of $235.8 million and the transfer of $180.7 million for

missile defense programs from Army RDT&E to Defense-wide

RDT&E.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2002 Army

RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes

to the Army request are discussed following the table.

150


Insert offset folio 174 here 74948.093
151


Insert offset folio 175 here 74948.094
152


Insert offset folio 176 here 74948.095
153


Insert offset folio 177 here 74948.096
154


Insert offset folio 178 here 74948.097
155


Insert offset folio 179 here 74948.098
156


Insert offset folio 180 here 74948.099
157


Insert offset folio 181 here 74948.100
158


Insert offset folio 182 here 74948.101
159


Insert offset folio 183 here 74948.102
160

Items of Special Interest

Advanced display technology

The budget request contained $27.8 million in PE 62705A for ap- plied research in electronics and electronic devices; $71.3 million in

PE 62236N for warfighter sustainment applied research; and $69.1

million in PE 62202F for human effectiveness applied research, including $4.4 million for applied research in advanced visual displays. No funds were included for advanced high definition displays

in the budget request for the Defense Advanced Research Project

Agency (DARPA).

The committee notes that the responsibility for supporting the

development of advanced high definition display technologies for

military applications, which cannot be met by commercial industry,

has transitioned from DARPA to the research and development

programs of the military departments. The committee report on H.

R. 4205 (H. Rept. 106–616) directed the Secretary of Defense to develop a strategy for meeting the Department’s requirement for advanced high definition displays and to report the proposed strategy

and budget requirements to the congressional defense committees

with the submission of the fiscal year 2002 budget request. The

Secretary’s report indicated that the Department of Defense will

make use of global industrial capability where it is available, relying on an highly competitive and rapidly evolving global market.

Research and development investments within the Department will

be focused on those needs where industry is not yet leading the

way and a military advantage is foreseen. DARPA funding for large

area, high definition displays ends in fiscal year 2001. Servicefunded work in micro-displays for cockpits and immersive headmounted systems continues through 2005. New initiatives in 25

megapixel and true three-dimensional displays will support transition of the technology for both commercial and military applications.

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

62705A, an increase of $4.0 million in PE 62236N, and an increase

of $5.0 million in PE 62202F for applied research in advanced high

definition displays for military applications.

All source analysis system

The budget request included $42.2 million in PE 64321A for the

All Source Analysis System (ASAS), but included no funds to develop a multi-discipline capability for the Army’s stability and support operations.

The committee strongly endorses the Army’s objective force concept and supports the effort to transform the current force to a

lighter, leaner, stealthier, more lethal, and more mobile one. Further, the committee supports the plan to transition to the objective

force by initially fielding interim brigade combat teams. However,

the committee is concerned with the Department’s lack of commitment to concurrently develop an open-architecture data-exchange

capability suitable for both the interim and objective forces at all

echelons of command. The committee is aware of the stated plans

to develop ASAS-Light as the baseline automated support system

for intelligence and electronic warfare for the interim brigades and

161

the First Digitized Division. To maintain interoperability between

ASAS-Light and other automated battle management systems, the

committee encourages the Army to develop a multi-discipline capability for the Army’s stability and support operations.

Therefore, the committee recommends $45.7 million in PE

64321A, an increase of $3.5 million, to develop this capability.

Applied communications and information networking program

The budget request contained no funds in PE 64805A for the Applied Communications and Information Networking (ACIN) program.

The committee understands that the ACIN program includes

projects aimed at integrating commercial off-the-shelf components

and adapting commercial technologies to fulfill military communications applications for 21st century warfare. Consistent with its

prior years actions to promote increased partnering with commercial industry, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 64805A for ACIN.

Army missile defense systems integration

The budget request contained $19.5 million in PE 63308A for

Army missile defense systems integration, but did not include

funds for super-cluster memory technology, or P3 micro-power devices. The committee notes that designing defensive missile systems requires sophisticated, powerful simulations that accurately

characterize missile flight. The committee is aware that super-cluster distributed memory technology holds promise as a low-cost

means to run required simulations quickly.

The committee is also aware that missile defense systems require

micro-power devices for autonomous and remote applications.

The committee recommends $31.5 million in PE 63308A, an increase of $4.0 million for the Army Space and Missile Defense

Command supervised super-cluster distributed memory technology

demonstration, $3.0 million for P3 micro power devices, $3.0 million for family of systems simulators, $3.0 million for thermionics

technology, and a decrease of $1.0 million for management savings.

Aviation engineering development

The budget request contained $2.3 million in PE 64801A for aviation engineering development but included no funds for the development of the cockpit air bag system (CABS) for CH–47 Chinook

aircraft.

The committee is highly supportive of technological advances

that contribute to improved aircraft crashworthiness and aircrew

safety, and, therefore, recommends $4.8 million in PE 64801A, an

increase of $2.5 million, for the integration of the CABS into the

CH–47 Chinook upgrade program.

Brooks Air Force Base energy and sustainability laboratory

The budget request contained $42.9 million in PE 62784A for

military engineering technology, but included no funds for the Energy and Sustainability Laboratory (ESL) at Brooks Air Force

Base.

162

The laboratory is a consortium of Air Force and university partners working to improve life-cycle effectiveness of real assets and

the infrastructure on the base.

The committee recommends $45.9 million in PE 62784A, an increase of $3.0 million for Army Corps of Engineers’ Construction

Research Laboratory collaboration with the ESL.

Collaboration in biotechnology research

The budget request contained $69.1 million in PE 61104A for

university and industry research, including federated laboratories.

The committee notes that the federated laboratories program is

a very successful peer reviewed program. The committee is aware

that biotechnology is increasingly important and offers many potential applications in support of the Army’s transition to the objective

force, such as casualty reduction, improved nutrition, protection

from infectious diseases, and chemical/biological agents.

The committee supports effective collaboration between the government, industry and academia and recommends $79.1 million in

PE 61104A, an increase of $10.0 million for biotechnology collaborative research.

Combat ready food safety

The budget request contained $27.1 million in PE 62786A for

warfighter technology, and included $5.0 million for joint service

combat feeding technology.

The committee notes that continued improvement in food processing is important to ensure the safety of ready-to-eat meals.

The committee recommends $30.1 million in PE 62786A, an increase of $3.0 million for research and development of improved

meal ready-to-eat processing.

Combustion-driven eye safe laser

The budget request contained $20.6 million in PE 62709A for

night vision, but included no funds for combustion-driven eye-safe

laser.

The committee is aware that eye-safe lasers are important for

military applications, and that the combustion-driven eye-safe laser

has potential to meet requirements for several applications.

The committee recommends $22.6 million in PE 2709A, an increase of $2.0 million to complete development of the combustiondriven eye-safe laser.

Comanche

The budget request contained $787.9 million in PE 64223A for

Comanche.

The committee notes that the Comanche armed reconnaissance

helicopter is the only new Army aviation system under development. The committee further notes that Comanche will provide key

capability for the objective force with its state-of-the-art stealthy

platform, multiple sensors, and advanced weapons.

The committee continues to support Comanche and recommends

the budget request and increases described elsewhere in this report.

163

Combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology

The budget request contained $193.9 million in PE 63005A for

combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, but included

no funds for standardized exchange of product data, document conversion, or the medium brigade composite bridge.

The committee notes that standardized exchange of product data

has the potential to increase efficiency and reduce costs of parts,

and is aware that the National Automotive Center standardized exchange of product data (N–STEP) initiative is intended to fill this

void. The committee is aware that many existing documents require conversion to 2–dimension/3–dimension computer aided design format.

The committee is aware of the need for a lightweight bridge for

medium brigades.

The committee recommends $201.9 million in PE 63005A, an increase of $7.0 million for N–STEP, an increase of $9.0 million for

Army medium brigade composite bridge, an increase of $2.0 million

for conversion of technical manuals, and an undistributed decrease

of $10.0 million.

Crusader

The budget request contained $447.9 million in PE 63854A for

Crusader.

The committee is aware that the Army considers the Crusader

self-propelled howitzer an essential war fighting capability as it

transforms itself to a lighter, more lethal, and more logistically efficient force.

The committee notes that developmental firing testing has clearly demonstrated a significantly increased capability. The committee

further notes that many attributes such as the high degree of automation, imbedded diagnostics, and improved mobility are clearly

technology carriers for future autonomous and semi-autonomous

vehicles. The committee is concerned that funds allocated to management appear to be excessive, and directs that $17.9 million of

the funds allocated within the program for management be redirected within the Crusader program to develop technology, in particular, to reduce Crusader weight and production costs.

The committee strongly supports continued Crusader development and recommends the budget request.

Dismounted situational awareness system

The budget request contained $29.3 million for digitization in PE

23758A, but included no funds for the dismounted situational

awareness system.

The committee is aware that situational awareness is critical for

dismounted soldiers. The committee notes that the dismounted situational awareness system (DISM), the result of a very successful

commercial-off-the-shelf technology-based small business innovative research effort, is being transitioned to the Army’s force XXI

battle command brigade and below (FBCB2) as a dismounted extension of the vehicle based system.

The committee recommends $31.3 million in PE 23758A, an increase of $2.0 million, for full scale testing of DISM.

164

Electronics and electronic devices

The budget request contained $27.8 million in PE 62705A for

electronics and electronic devices.

The committee notes that hybrid power systems and other fuel

cell applications have the potential to provide more cost effective

portable power for future military systems. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

62705A for hybrid battery-fuel cell and other fuel cell power

sources.

Electronic warfare (EW) development

The budget request contained $57.0 million in PE 64270A for the development of EW equipment, of which $43.8 million was for continued development of the Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures/Common Missile Warning System (ATIRCM/CMWS).

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.

The committee is aware of a critical requirement to upgrade

Army test facilities in order to perform effective tests on integrated

helicopter self-protection systems installed on the AH–64D Apache

Longbow against multi-mode missile seekers. Accordingly, the committee recommends $66.0 million for PE 64270A, an increase of $9.0 million, for this purpose.

Environmental quality technology

The budget request contained $7.5 million in PE 63779A for environmental quality technology, but included no funds for either an

asbestos removal pilot project or the Porta Bella environmental

cleanup technology demonstration.

The committee is aware that asbestos remediation remains a

problem within the Department of Defense and notes the need for

research to find better, more cost-effective means of remediation,

including asbestos conversion.

The committee also notes that while the cleanup of ordnance and

explosive wastes at the Porta Bella site is important to the Army

and the local community, it has much broader potential benefits because the new technology developed under this pilot program can

be used at similar sites elsewhere.

The committee recommends $14.0 million in PE 63779A, an increase of $2.0 million for asbestos conversion research and technology development, an increase of $7.0 million for completion of

the Porta Bella environmental cleanup technology demonstration,

and a general decrease of $2.5 million.

Full authority digital engine control

The budget request contained $13.0 million in PE 23752A for air- craft engine component improvement, including $11.0 million for

improvements to the T700 engine family.

The committee notes that full authority digital engine control

(FADEC) improves capability and reliability of aircraft engines.

165

The committee further notes that development of a dual-channel

FADEC will improve engine reliability and aircraft safety.

The committee recommends $21.0 million in PE 23752A, an increase of $8.0 million for completion of FADEC development.

Funding transfers to support transformation

The committee is concerned that the largest area of growth in

Army research and development investments has occurred in the

category of fielded system development and other mature technologies. While these programs are important, the committee does

not believe they support the highest priority efforts directly related

to Army transformation. Therefore, the committee recommends the

following decreases to Army accounts, to be transferred to other

programs within the Army that support higher transformation priorities:

63003A .................................................................................................... $9,000,000

63639A .................................................................................................... 2,986,000

63747A .................................................................................................... 3,482,000

63774A .................................................................................................... 2,756,000

63782A .................................................................................................... 5,000,000

65103A .................................................................................................... 3,000,000

65326A .................................................................................................... 10,000,000

65801A .................................................................................................... 9,000,000

65803A .................................................................................................... 5,000,000

23735A .................................................................................................... 12,000,000

23744A .................................................................................................... 5,000,000

23802A .................................................................................................... 6,000,000

78045A .................................................................................................... 10,000,000

High energy laser—low aspect target tracking

The budget request contained no funds for the high energy

laser—low aspect target tracking HEL–LATT program.

The committee is aware of the Navy’s interest in high energy

laser weapons systems for ship self defense. This application is particularly challenging because the inbound target presents a low aspect view to the defender, and the weapons system must track the

target in the presence of intense laser reflection. The program will

use an existing megawatt class high energy laser and beam director at the Department of Defense high energy laser test facility,

and full size targets to verify that a small cross section low altitude

target can be simultaneously engaged and tracked.

The committee recommends a $10.0 million increase to PE

65605A and a $10.0 million increase to PE 63114N to support this

new start.

Hybrid track technology

The budget request contained $89.0 million in PE 65712A for

support of operational testing, but included no funds for testing hybrid track technologies.

The committee is aware that the MATTRACKS program is a

commercial version of a technologically advanced independent rubber track system. The committee notes MATTRACKS is a simple

bolt-in-place replacement for wheels for vehicles, including the

HMMWV, that provides increased traction.

166

The committee recommends $99.0 million in PE 65712A, an increase of $10.0 million for continued testing and evaluation of hybrid track technology.

Hyperspectral long-wave imager for the tactical environment

The budget request included $6.9 million for Airborne Reconnaissance Operational Systems Development in PE 35206A, but included no funds for hyperspectral long wave imager.

The committee notes the potential benefits of imagery intelligence, measurement and signature intelligence applications, and

supports further development of hyperspectral sensors for these

uses. The committee is aware of the unique day/night, all-terrain

capability offered by the hyperspectral long wave imagery, and supports additional development of enhanced target detection algorithms and improved target detection hardware. The committee

further notes the potential tactical applications of long wave infrared and medium wave infrared hyperspectral technology as a

means for augmenting U–2 and Global Hawk platforms.

Accordingly, the committee authorizes $14.9 million in PE

35206A, an increase of $8 million for hyper-spectral long wave

imager.

Infantry support weapons

The budget request contained no funds in PE 64601A for the development of infantry support weapons.

The XM303 prototype is a lightweight, multi-shot, magazine-fed,

semi-automatic delivery system that attaches under both M–16 series and M–4 carbine barrels and launches a variety of non-lethal

blunt-force, dye-marking, malodorant, or illuminating projectiles.

The committee understands that this system was initially developed by the Marine Corps, the Department of Defense’s executive

agent for non-lethal weapons development, but that the Army is

now interested in the system’s capabilities. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 64601A for

accelerated development of the XM303 for Army units and so that

it may enter into low-rate initial production sooner.

International medical program global satellite system

The budget request contained $15.5 million in PE 63807A medical systems, and included $1.6 million for telemedicine.

The committee is aware that the International Medical Program

Global Satellite System (IMPGSS) successfully demonstrated the

medical education component of its program in the Republic of

Georgia. The integration of commercially reliable telecommunication capabilities, particularly ‘spot-casting’, with the education

component, however, has yet to be proven.

As a result, the committee recommends $18.5 million in PE

63807A, an increase of $3.0 million for IMPGSS integrated development and delivery concept in at least two countries and strongly

recommends that IMPGSS continue to be managed by the Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center at Fort

Detrick, Maryland.

167

Landmine warfare/barrier engineering development

The budget request contained $89.2 million in PE 64808A for landmine warfare/barrier engineering development, of which $21.2

million was for non-self-destruct anti-personnel landmine alternatives (NSD–A).

The committee understands that the Army does not plan to obli- gate $37.2 million of fiscal year 2001 NSD-A funds prior to the beginning of fiscal year 2002. As a result, the committee believes that

these funds can be used to meet fiscal year 2002 requirements. Accordingly, the committee recommends $69.2 million in PE 64808A for fiscal year 2002, a decrease of $20.0 million.

Lightweight x-band radar antenna

The budget request contained $30.4 million in PE 12419A for the

Aerostat Joint Project, but included no funds for micro-mechanical

electronics systems (MEMS) based lightweight radar antenna.

The committee is aware that development of a lightweight,

MEMS based, electronically steerable x-band radar antenna has

the potential to improve performance while reducing weight and

power requirements for the joint elevated netted sensor (JLENS). The committee recommends $32.4 million in PE 12419A, an increase of $2.0 million for design of a lightweight, MEMS based, and

electronically steerable antenna.

Medical advanced technology

The budget request contained $17.5 million in PE 63002A for

medical advanced technology, but included no funds for special operations medical diagnostic system (SOMDS), or volumetrically

controlled manufacturing (VCM).

The committee is aware that the clinical assessment and recording environment (CARE) is being adapted to support special operations forces. The committee notes that the first SOMDS, a beta

version of CARE, has undergone successful testing.

The committee also notes that VCM offers the potential to eliminate the current mode of failure in composites, de-lamination, and

polymer-fiber interface breakdown, and may also improve composite applications in aerospace and other manufacturing The committee recommends $23.5 million in PE 63002A, an increase of $1.0 million for SOMDS, and an increase of $5.0 million

for VCM. The committee further recommends an increase of $3.5

million in PE 63313A for aerospace applications of VCM.

Medical technology

The budget request contained $82.5 million in PE 62787A for

medical technology, but included no funds for hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier.

The committee notes that the military has identified a need for

an oxygen carrier capability that is both readily and easily employed in the treatment of combat casualties, and stable at room

temperature. The committee is aware that a recent Department of

Defense (DOD) Inspector General audit of the Armed Services

Blood program indicated that the DOD blood program cannot currently meet its stated requirements, and noted specifically that a

hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier would minimize or eliminate the

168

storage and transportation problems identified in the report. The

committee is also aware that unlike human blood, a hemoglobinbased oxygen carrier has an extended life, making it more adaptive

to a wide range of military deployment conditions. The committee

believes that a hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier offers significant

potential benefits for the military.

The committee is also aware that a need exists to develop technologies that would permit the long-term storage of cells and tissues needed to treat battlefield casualties.

The committee recommends $91.5 million in PE 62787A, an increase of $7.0 million for room temperature stable oxygen therapeutic drugs, in particular hemoglobin-based oxygenated carriers,

and an increase of $2.0 million for metabolically engineered tissues

for trauma care.

MedTeams

The budget request contained $16.5 million in PE 62716A for

human factors engineering, but included no funds for the Emergency Team Coordination program (MedTeams).

The committee notes that the Army MedTeams research in emergency departments showed an 80 percent reduction in clinically significant errors. The committee recognizes that MedTeams research

has significant life saving potential in a broader base of medical

settings.

The committee recommends an increase of $7.8 million in PE

62716A for MedTeams.

Missile and rocket advanced technology

The budget request contained $59.5 million in PE 63313A for

missile and rocket advanced technology, but included no funds for

the Army composites manufacturing program.

The committee notes that many existing weapon systems are

being extended beyond their planned life. The committee is aware

of new manufacturing and materials technologies that are being

developed that have potential use to cost-effectively extend existing

systems lives.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

63313A for composites manufacturing and maintenance technology.

Missile technology

The budget request contained $40.1 million in PE 62303A for

missile technology, including funds for integrated guidance systems, but no funds for short-range missile defense with optimized

radar distribution (SWORD).

The committee notes that the Army has initiated a competitive

development program for highly integrated, jam-proof, microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) based inertial measurement

unit-geo positioning systems (IMU–GPS) that is essential to achieving the goal of affordable precision weapons. The committee also

notes that development of these technologies including deep integration have the potential to reduce the cost of precision weapons

and other devices, thereby saving billions of dollars for the Department of Defense.

169

The committee is also aware that the Army over the last ten

years has investigated interferometry to develop a highly accurate

radar system. The committee notes that the current SWORD concept uses this technology to support the counter air munitions defense mission to protect against saturation attacks. Therefore, the committee recommends $65.1 million in PE

62303A, an increase of $20.0 million for continued development of

a fully integrated IMU–GPS, and an increase of $5.0 million for

continued evaluation of SWORD.

Night vision advanced technology

The budget request contained $37.1 million in PE 63710A for

night vision.

The committee notes that superiority in night vision is fundamental to successful warfighting. The committee is aware that recent advances in digital fusion of image intensification and infrared

have been demonstrated to significantly improve night vision.

The committee is also aware that the Army prototype helmet

mounted infrared sensor has direct applicability to Department of

Defense and civilian firefighting personnel, and increases safety in

smoke and other obscurants.

The committee recommends $49.1 million in PE 63710A, an increase of $9.0 million for continued development of digital night vision fusion technology, and an increase of $3.0 million for helmet

mounted infrared sensor.

Passive millimeter-wave imaging

The budget request contained $25.8 million in PE 62120A for

sensors and electronic survivability, but included no funds for passive millimeter-wave (PMW) imaging.

The committee is aware that PMW imaging has demonstrated

the potential to improve airborne remote sensing capability in the

dark and obscurant environments such as smoke and fog. The committee notes that terrain and obstacle avoidance benefits have also

been demonstrated.

The committee recommends $30.8 million in PE 62120A, an increase of $5.0 million for continued development of PMW advanced

imaging technology.

Silent sentry surveillance test

The budget request contained $27.8 million in PE 65604A for

survivability/lethality analysis, but included no funds for Silent

Sentry, a passive medium range surveillance technology that exploits commercial radio and television signals.

The committee recommends $32.8 million in PE 65604A, an increase of $5.0 million for Silent Sentry surveillance testing.

Soldier-centered design tools for the Army transformation

The budget request included $16.5 million for Human Factors

Engineering Technology in PE 62716A, but included no funding for

the Army’s manpower and personnel integration (MANPRINT) program.

The committee views MANPRINT modeling technologies as an

excellent initiative for reducing the Department’s operations and

170

maintenance costs through improvements in weapon systems design integrated of manpower, personnel, training, health hazard,

safety, human factors and soldier survivability concerns. The committee further believes that MANPRINT modeling successes on the

Comanche weapon system can serve as a basis for optimizing the

performance of the Army’s anticipated objective force. The committee encourages the Army to examine the full potential of

MANPRINT’s soldier-centered design that may enhance and improve objective force performance during a wider range of operations and in extreme environments.

Therefore, the committee recommends $19.5 million in PE

62716A, an increase of $3.0 million for MANPRINT.

Survival radios

The budget request contained $9.1 million in PE 63801A for aviation system improvement, but included no funds to continue improvement of survival radios.

The committee notes that the combat survivor evader locator

(CSEL) is not yet fielded. The committee is aware that until CSEL

is operational, the PRC–112 survival radio capability must be

maintained to support the warfighter. The committee supports the

Army’s Sustainment Center program to provide reliability,

supportability, and commercial technology insertion enhancements

to improve the functionality of the PRC–112 survival radio until

the replacement is fully fielded. The committee therefore recommends $19.1million in PE 63801A,

an increase of $10.0 million for the PRC–112 survival radio.

Tactical high energy laser

The budget request included no funds to the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL), a high energy chemical laser system jointly developed by the United States and Israel, and designed to demonstrate the feasibility of defeating short range rockets using directed energy.

The committee is aware of THEL test activities at White Sands

Missile Range, New Mexico, which have recently culminated in the

simultaneous engagement of two targets. The committee understands that the original scope of work for THEL is complete, but

believes options to develop a mobile version should be explored.

The committee recommends a $10.0 million increase to PE

65605A for THEL in fiscal year 2002, and urges the Secretary of

Defense to continue cooperative development efforts with Israel for

this important new capability.

Tactical unmanned aerial vehicle

The budget request contained $38.2 million in PE 35204A for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles.

The committee notes that despite a thorough competitive selection of a commercial-off-the-shelf tactical unmanned aerial vehicle

(TUAV), development has been slowed by a series of seemingly unrelated mishaps. The committee is aware that an independent review panel, created to assess the program, is expected to make recommendations soon, and a six-month to a year delay in fielding is

expected.

171

Therefore the committee recommends $18.2 million in PE

35204A, a reduction of $20 million, without prejudice.

Weapons and munitions

The budget request contained $7.0 million in PE 64802A for the

development of weapons and munitions but included no funds for

airworthiness testing and development and flight safety certification of M240D helicopter door-mounted machine guns.

The committee understands that the Army has a new requirement for M240D door guns for UH–60 Blackhawks. The committee

also understands that the cost to complete the necessary airworthiness and flight safety certifications for the ‘‘D’’ variant to enter into

low rate initial production is $3.5 million, and that without these

funds a three to four year delay in fielding this weapon could occur.

In order to complete flight testing, airworthiness certification,

and begin procuring new M240D helicopter door-mounted machine

guns at low-rate initial production sooner, the committee recommends $10.5 million in PE 64802A, an increase of $3.5 million.

Weapons and munitions advanced technology

The budget request contained $29.7 million in PE 63004A for

weapons and munitions advanced technology, but included no

funds for a large caliber training round or the trajectory correctable

munition.

The committee is aware that past efforts to develop large caliber

training rounds with reduced explosive charges has been difficult

due to production costs for small quantities of such rounds. The

committee believes that new technology may offer a potential solution to this problem.

The committee is aware that the trajectory correctable munition

being developed through the memorandum of understanding between the United States and Sweden has made significant progress

and met key milestones. The committee notes that precision weapons are essential for the objective force.

The committee recommends $51.7 million in PE 63004A, an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63004A for development of affordable,

low explosive 120mm and 155mm training rounds and an increase

of $17.0 million for TCM.

NAVY RDT&E

Overview

The budget request contained $11,123.4 million for Navy

RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $10,863.3

million, an increase of $128.4 million, and the transfer of $388.5

million for missile defense programs from Navy RDT&E to Defense-wide RDT&E.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2002 Navy

RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major changes

to the Navy request are discussed following the table.

172


Insert offset folio 198 here 74948.103
173


Insert offset folio 199 here 74948.104
174


Insert offset folio 200 here 74948.105
175


Insert offset folio 201 here 74948.106
176


Insert offset folio 202 here 74948.107
177


Insert offset folio 203 here 74948.108
178


Insert offset folio 204 here 74948.109
179


Insert offset folio 205 here 74948.110
180


Insert offset folio 206 here 74948.111
181


Insert offset folio 207 here 74948.112
182


Insert offset folio 208 here 74948.113
183


Insert offset folio 209 here 74948.114
184

Items of Special Interest

Advanced anti-radiation guided munition (AARGM)

The budget request contained $13.6 million in PE 25601N for improvements in the High-speed Anti-radiation Missile, but included

no funds for the advanced anti-radiation guided munition

(AARGM) program.

The committee notes the AARGM program development of advanced seeker, guidance and control technologies that, when integrated on the existing High-speed Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM)

airframe, should provide a significant improvement in the U.S. capability for suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD). The committee understands that AARGM test firings indicate substantial

progress to date and that four additional test firings in 2001 will

complete the demonstration program. The committee further understands that the AARGM program will compete for funding and

entry into the system design and development phase in the Navy’s

fiscal year 2003 program objective memorandum.

The committee has strongly supported the development and demonstration of AARGM and believes that this Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) program and the Quick Bolt Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration program utilizing AARGM both

offer the potential to satisfy critical military requirements for lethal SEAD and attack of time-critical targets. The committee recommends $23.6 million in PE 25601N, an increase of $10.0 million

for continuation of the risk reduction and productibility phase of

the AARGM program.

Advanced composite sail phase II

The budget request contained $110.8 million in PE 63561N for

advanced submarine system development, demonstration, and validation, including $6.1 million for continued development of the advanced composite sail.

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

sail program is intended to provide substantial additional payload

capacity and stealth improvements over conventional submarine

sails. Program milestones include completion of advanced composite sail development and transition of the project to the Virginia

class submarine program. The committee understands that the results of the program and lessons learned from other Navy composites programs have identified the need for a phase II advanced

composite sail development program that will incorporate full-scale

design features and meet the complete spectrum of full-scale load

specifications that were not addressed in phase I of the program.

The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE

63561N for Phase II of the Advanced Composite Sail development

program.

Advanced multi-band surveillance systems

The budget request contained $29.2 million in PE 35207N for

manned reconnaissance systems operational systems development.

185

The committee recommends $34.2 million in PE 35207N, an increase of $5.0 million to accelerate the development of advanced

multi-band surveillance systems as discussed in the classified

annex.

Aegis combat systems engineering

The budget request contained $262.0 million in PE 64307N for

Aegis combat systems engineering, of which $345 thousand was included for continued development of the operational readiness test

system (ORTS) on Aegis combat systems.

The ORTS is the primary testing and condition assessment system for the Aegis SPY 1 radar and the Aegis Mk99 fire control

radar system.

The committee also notes the need for system engineering and

development of equipment upgrades and replacements for major

Aegis weapon system computer peripheral subsystems. For example, Aegis Baselines 1–6, Phase III, utilize several types and

variants of obsolete peripheral equipment to upload computer programs to the critical UYK–7 and UYK–43 tactical computers used

for command and decision, weapons control, and fire control processing. The committee believes that technology refreshment and

consolidation of this peripheral equipment will ensure the continued operational integrity of the Aegis weapon system, as well as reduce its ownership cost.

Therefore, the committee recommends $276.9 million in PE

64307N, an increase of $6.0 million to accelerate ORTS upgrades

for the Aegis SPY 1 radar and Mk99 fire control radar system, and

an increase of $8.9 million for additional computer peripheral technology refreshment and consolidation in the Aegis weapon system.

In total, the committee recommends an increase of $14.9 million for

Aegis combat systems engineering.

Aviation-shipboard information technology initiative

The budget request contained $16.4 million in PE 64512N for

shipboard aviation systems development but included no funds for

development of the integrated aviation-shipboard information technology initiative (IAS/ITI), which would upgrade and integrate aircraft carrier information systems to improve the effectiveness of

carrier aircraft launch and recovery operations.

The committee notes that the Navy views the IAS/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.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $21.4 million in PE

64512N, an increase of $5.0 million, for development of the IAS/ITI.

Combat systems integration

The budget request contained $42.9 million in PE 63582N for

combat systems integration demonstration and validation.

186

Common command and decision system

The common command and decision (CC&D) program is a preplanned product improvement (P3I) to the Aegis Weapon System

(AWS) and the Ship Self Defense System (SSDS) Mk2 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 Surface Navy ships. The committee report on H.R. 4205

(H. Rept. 106–616) directed the Secretary of the Navy to report to

the congressional defense committees on the Navy’s program plan

and funding for the CC&D P3I program.

The committee notes that the Navy has established a collaborative development program involving the AWS and SSDS Mk 2

combat systems integrators, innovative small business experts in

the use of middleware, and Navy combat system development experts all working together in an integrated process team. The

phased program will build on the 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. The Secretary’s report, however, notes that it

is technically and programmatically possible to develop an executable CC&D capability by early calendar year 2005 but funding constraints do not currently support this timeline.

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. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $25.9 million in

PE 63582N to accelerate development of the CC&D system.

Wideband optically multiplexed beam-forming architecture

The committee notes that Congress previously provided funds for

a cooperative program for research, development, and demonstration of a prototype optically multiplexed, wideband, radar beamforming array that uses optical wavelength-division multiplexing

(WDM). The committee also notes that the use of optical WDM is

expected to reduce hardware complexity and system cost in a wideband electronically-steered active radar antenna that has high instantaneous bandwidth and the resolution necessary for theater

ballistic missile defense and ship self defense in a littoral environment.

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

63582N to complete the demonstration project for the wideband optically multiplexed beam-forming architecture.

Common picture applied research

The budget request contained $83.6 million in PE 62235N for

common picture applied research.

Hybrid fiber optic wireless communication

The committee notes the progress in the development of an advanced hybrid fiber optic/wireless communication system with very

high bandwidth, mobility, and low probability of intercept. The

187

overall goal of the program is to develop a versatile, mobile, secure

communication system for military and commercial use, which

combines the most desirable features of fiber optic and wireless

communications technologies. The first year effort resulted in production of critical components of the system and a proof of concept

demonstration.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

62235N to continue the program for applied research in hybrid

fiber optic wireless communications.

SEADEEP

The committee recognizes that integration of the submarine into

emerging naval tactical missions requires a rapid transfer of large

volumes of data that is not currently available to submarines operating at speed and depth in the ocean. This limitation severely constrains the submarine’s tactical operational role in support of expeditionary and strike operations. The committee believes that the

advent of new technology and new communications architectures

presents the opportunity to revisit the concept of submarine laser

communications.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE

62235N for SEADEEP, a project to develop a system concept of operations and demonstrate the feasibility of high-speed data transmission using laser communications between a high altitude aircraft and submarine.

E–2/C–2 eight-blade composite propeller

The budget request contained $20.6 million in PE 24152N for E– 2 squadrons operational systems development, including $7.1 million for E–2C improvements, but included no funds for completion

of an eight-blade composite propeller for E–2C and C–2A aircraft.

The committee notes that the Navy is seeking solutions to operational limitations encountered with the propeller systems used on

E–2C and C–2A aircraft. In response to directions contained in the

committee report on H.R. 1110 (H. Rept. 105–132) the Navy began

a program for design, development, test, and production of the

eight-blade composite propeller for the E–2C and C–2A. Congress

provided an additional $4.0 million for the program in fiscal year

2001 to flight test the new propeller system on the C–2A aircraft

sequentially with the E–2C flight test program.

The committee recommends $30.6 million in PE 24152N, an increase of $10.0 million to complete the program for development

and evaluation of an eight bladed composite propeller system for

the E–2C and C–2A aircraft.

Electronic warfare (EW) development

The budget request contained $112.5 million in PE 64270N for

electronic warfare development, but included no funds to evaluate

the location of global positioning system interferers (LOCO GPSI)

system in fleet operations or for follow-on support jamming aircraft

pre-engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) risk reduction activities.

LOCO GPSI is a state-of-the-art precision surveillance and targeting system for location of global positioning systems interferers

188

that is designed to protect global positioning system-guided weapons against jamming and interference. The committee understands

that naval operational fleet commanders have requested that the

LOCO GPSI system participate in several fleet exercises in fiscal

year 2002 to demonstrate and evaluate the military utility of this

system. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0

million to evaluate LOCO GPSI capabilities in fleet operations.

The committee understands that the Airborne Electronic Attack

Analysis of Alternatives is scheduled to be complete in December

2001 and believes that this analysis will conclude that development

of a follow-on support jamming aircraft will be required to replace

the aging EA–6B. To accelerate the development of an EA–6B successor, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for

pre-EMD risk reduction activities. In total, the committee recommends $126.5 million in PE

64270N, an increase of $14.0 million.

Electro optical framing reconnaissance

The budget request contained $5.7 million in PE 35206N for airborne reconnaissance, but included no funds for electro-optical (EO)

framing.

The committee is aware of developmental EO framing processing

techniques that will provide real-time precision strike targeting capability. The committee recommends an increase of $9.5 million in PE

35206N for continuation of F–14 TARPS/CD precision strike hardware development, continued development of integrated electronic

shutter upgrade to SHARP sensors, and evaluation and systems

engineering of cellular neural network technology in support of EO

framing processing techniques.

Embedded software engineering research initiative

The budget request contained $66.3 million in PE 62114N for

power projection applied research.

The committee notes that a majority of all current computer applications are embedded systems and almost all defense systems

have one or more embedded computers. While embedded software

is becoming increasingly large and complex, advances in technology

for development of embedded software systems is lagging, resulting

in high development costs, long development cycles, and errorprone products.

The committee recommends $70.3 million in PE 62114N, an increase of $4.0 million to begin an initiative in Embedded Software

Engineering Research, focused on the development of structured

design and manufacturing capabilities for the deployment, control,

integration and utilization of embedded software systems.

Expeditionary warfare testbed—supporting arms technology insertion

The budget request contained $24.4 million in PE 24413N for

amphibious tactical support units operational systems development.

The committee recognizes the need for better integration and

interoperability of expeditionary forces. Force commanders have

189

identified the need for additional development and integration in

the supporting arms coordinating center (SACC) of the force headquarters. The committee understands that the Naval Sea Systems

Command’s expeditionary warfare test bed will be used to develop

applications of new technologies and refine technology requirements for SACC systems used in expeditionary operations.

To support this initiative the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 24413N for supporting arms technology insertion in the expeditionary warfare testbed.

The committee encourages the Assistant Secretary of the Navy

(Research, Development, and Acquisition) to oversee and guide this

expeditionary warfare program and to use the Navy’s National

Technology Alliance in support of technology development.

Extending the littoral battlespace

The budget request contained $48.6 million in PE 63235N for common picture advanced technology development, including $1.0

million for the extended littoral battlespace project.

The committee notes that the Office of Naval Research sponsored

the Extending The Littoral Battlespace Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ELB ACTD) to provide command, control,

communications and intelligence in an extended littoral

battlespace. The ELB ACTD integrates commercial-off-the-shelf

and government-furnished technology in a military setting to showcase the benefits of advanced networking, global positioning systems, and other information technology applications. The committee notes that the budget request supports the transition of

technologies, hardware, and software to the military user; demonstration/post-demonstration analysis and assessment of the military utility of the ELB system concept; and residual support of

equipment fielded with the Amphibious Ready Group/Marine Expeditionary Unit that participated in the ACTD. The committee recommends $50.6 million in PE 63235N, an increase of $2.0 M for support and upgrade/technical refreshment of

the ELB ACTD equipment fielded with the ARG/MEU.

F/A–18 improvements

The budget request contained $253.3 million in PE 24136N for

F/A–18 squadrons operational systems development.

Fuel cell second source

The committee understands that the Navy currently has only a

single vendor that is qualified to manufacture polyurethane fuel

cells for the F/A–18 aircraft. Due to the increased demand for fuel

cells for the aircraft and insufficient production capacity, the Navy

is not able to meet all operational requirements and is investigating additional manufacturing capability for F/A–18 fuel cells.

The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE

24136N for qualification of an additional production source for F/

A–18 fuel cells.

Joint helmet mounted cueing system (JHMCS)

The budget request included $0.4 million to complete development of the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System.

190

The committee notes that the joint helmet mounted cueing system, when combined with state of the art missile systems currently

in development provides a significant improvement in air-to-air

combat capability and survivability. The committee is also aware

that this improved capability is essential to the success of the

Navy’s F/A–18 E/F strike fighter aircraft currently being deployed.

For fiscal year 2001, Congress provided $3.5 million for continued

development of the joint helmet mounted cueing systems for the F/

A–18C/D fighter.

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE

24136N to accelerate the completion of development, evaluation,

and fielding of the Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System for the

F/A–18 and other aircraft.

Force protection advanced technology

The budget request contained $85.3 million in PE 63123N for

force protection advanced technology development.

Advanced water jet AWJ–21

The committee notes that the advanced waterjet propulsor

(AWJ–21) was originally developed in a three-year industry/government cost-shared project under the Maritime Technology

(MARITECH) program. The committee also notes that potential applications of the advanced water jet propulsor technology are being

considered for the Navy’s small combat craft program. The committee understands that the AWJ–21 has the potential for being a

low-cost/high-performance propulsor option for future ships that require reduced signature and increased operational maneuverability.

The committee also understands that additional testing at a onefourth-scale level demonstrator at sea and testing in the large cavitation tunnel will be required to validate analytical predictions of

critical performance parameters.

The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE

63123N for continuation of the AWJ–21 development and demonstration project.

DC Homopolar Motor

The budget request included $60.3 million for advanced development of surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and electrical

technology that includes the development of superconducting and

permanent magnetic ship-propulsion electric motors.

The committee understands that the Office of Naval Research

has initiated a project for development of a 5000 shaft-horsepower

superconducting, direct current, homopolar motor that may be used

in the experimental littoral support craft program.

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

63123N to complete development and at-sea testing of the DC

homopolar motor.

Direct ship service fuel cell

The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE

63123N for development of a direct ship service fuel cell technology

demonstrator for technology validation and training of ship sysVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00214 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.041 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
191

tems engineers, designers, system integrators, operators and engineering students.

Electric propulsion/ship power systems distributed test bed

The committee notes that the Navy’s next generation surface

combatants will rely heavily on the use of electrical power and its

applications to naval ship systems including integrated power systems, electric drive, and configurable zonal systems. New technologies, manufacturing processes, innovative approaches, techniques and method, and advanced materials will be on the critical

path for the development and integration of these high power, electricity-based systems. The committee notes that an understanding

of these factors and the interactions of the various components, and

the ability to design and evaluate the performance of the system,

both in simulation and with hardware-in-the-loop will be critical to

the design of efficient and cost-effective electrical propulsion systems that meet naval requirements and of the all-electric ship

itself. 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 $10.0 million in PE

63123N to continue the program for advanced development of a distributed test bed for electric propulsion and ship power systems.

Littoral support craft—experimental

The budget request in PE 63123N contained $85.3 million for

force protection advanced technology development, including $20.0

million for the development and demonstration of experimental

craft for littoral support operations.

The committee notes progress made by the Office of Naval Research 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. The craft would be

compliant with the Navy concept for operations in the littoral and

would fulfill fleet requirements for providing supporting command,

control, communications and combat systems in the region from the

shore to other surface combatants operating 75 miles or greater

from the shore. The committee also notes the progress that ONR

has made in the development and evaluation of important components and sub-systems that might be used on a littoral support

craft. 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.

Accordingly, the committee recommends a total of $39.0 million

in PE 63123N for development and demonstration of the LSC–X,

including an increase of $19.0 million to the ONR program for deVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00215 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.041 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
192

velopment and demonstration of experimental craft for littoral support operations.

SEALs Mark V patrol craft modification

The committee report on H.R. 4205 (H. Rept. 106–616) directed

the Secretary of the Navy to report to the congressional defense

committees on the Navy’s plan for transition of Project M (an active noise and vibration cancellation system developed in the advanced submarine technology program) from the Navy’s science

and technology base to potential applications in Navy propulsion

and other machinery systems. Subsequently, the Office of Naval

Research advised the committee that a project had been established 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.

The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE

63123N for continuation of the program for application of Project

M technology to mitigate physical shock to crew and passengers in

the Mark V patrol craft.

Funding transfers to support transformation

The committee is concerned that the largest area of growth in

Navy research and development investments has occurred in the

category of fielded system development and other mature technologies. While these programs are important, the committee does

not believe they support the highest priority efforts directly related

to Navy transformation. In light of the delay in the program downselect decision, the committee also notes its concerns about the

ability of the Navy to execute the DD–21 land attack destroyer. Finally, the committee notes that no justification was provided for an

apparent new program start in PE 63237N.

Therefore, the committee recommends the following decreases to

Navy accounts to be transferred to other programs within the Navy

that support higher transformation priorities.

62235N .................................................................................................... $1,912,000

62805N .................................................................................................... 8,000,000

63114N .................................................................................................... 10,000,000

63123N .................................................................................................... 5,297,000

63236N .................................................................................................... 5,000,000

63271N .................................................................................................... 15,000,000

63216N .................................................................................................... 17,900,000

63237N .................................................................................................... 50,000,000

63382N .................................................................................................... 3,458,000

63513N .................................................................................................... 25,000,000

63561N .................................................................................................... 10,457,000

63563N .................................................................................................... 1,949,000

63564N .................................................................................................... 10,000,000

63570N .................................................................................................... 2,100,000

63582N .................................................................................................... 4,900,000

63611M ................................................................................................... 23,066,000

63851M ................................................................................................... 10,000,000

64262N .................................................................................................... 100,000,000

65152N .................................................................................................... 2,679,000

65853N .................................................................................................... 3,000,000

65864N .................................................................................................... 7,414,000

11402N .................................................................................................... 4,205,000

24136N .................................................................................................... 50,000,000

193

24163N .................................................................................................... 10,900,000

24229N .................................................................................................... 2,222,000

24413N .................................................................................................... 10,000,000

24575N .................................................................................................... 2,300,000

25604N .................................................................................................... 7,700,000

25620N .................................................................................................... 3,900,000

27163N .................................................................................................... 1,000,000

33109N .................................................................................................... 10,000,000

35160N .................................................................................................... 1,900,000

35188N .................................................................................................... 13,618,000

72207N .................................................................................................... 4,972,000

Land attack standard missile

The budget request contained $131.0 million in PE 63795N for

Land Attack Technology, including $34.5 million for development of

the Land Attack Standard Missile (LASM). The committee recommends the budget request for LASM. As addressed elsewhere in

this report, the committee notes that the Department of Defense

has decided to endorse the Navy’s proposal to acquire LASM as an

interim capability for the Navy land attack mission and to develop

an Advanced Land Attack Missile (ALAM) as soon as possible for

the DD–21 land attack destroyer and for other Navy combatants.

LASM, an adaptation of the Navy’s Standard Missile, entered engineering and manufacturing development in July 2000, completed a

preliminary design review in December 2000, and also conducted a

successful warhead test in February 2001. Initial operational capability for LASM is planned in fiscal year 2004. The committee also

notes a number of informal proposals for development of more advanced warheads for LASM.

The committee has strongly supported the LASM program, as

well as the development of ALAM. Elsewhere in this report, the

committee has recommended a legislative provision (Sec. 212) that

would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a competitive

program for the development of ALAM, would provide $20.0 million

for that program, and would require the Secretary to report the

program plan, schedule, and funding required for the Advanced

Land Attack Missile program to the congressional defense committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2003 budget request.

The committee directs that the Secretary also provide a report that

describes the operational requirement for LASM and the program

plan, schedule, and funding for development and acquisition of

LASM with the submission of the fiscal year 2003 budget request.

Laser aim scoring system (LASS)

The budget request contained $64.4 million in PE 64212N for

anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and other helicopter development

but included no funds for the sea-target LASS.

The sea-target LASS would be mounted on a Navy remote-controlled target boat, which, when lased by a pilot practicing delivery

of a Hellfire missile, would provide immediate aiming feedback to

the pilot that would inform where the missile would have hit or

why it would have missed. The committee understands that combat

delivery of the Hellfire missile requires considerable pilot laser

aiming skill since it is conducted in a moving helicopter and directed at a moving at-sea target. The committee further understands that the Navy’s SH–60 and HH–60 pilots have limited proVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00217 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.042 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
194

ficiency in this skill since Hellfire pilot laser aiming training is accomplished in a ground-based flight trainer which lacks the both

the helicopter and target motion and the ability to determine why

a missile would have been ineffective against its intended target.

The committee notes that Army helicopter pilots maintain Hellfire

laser aiming proficiency by using a stationary LASS on their target

practice ranges, and believes that a similar sea-target LASS could

address the Navy training deficiency by allowing in-flight practice

laser designation against a moving at-sea target while also providing immediate laser aiming result feedback to the pilot. Accordingly, the committee recommends $66.4 million in 64212N, an increase of $2.0 million, to develop the sea-target LASS.

Laser welding and cutting

The budget request contained $62.1 million in PE 62271N for

radio frequency systems applied research.

The committee understands that the technology of laser welding

and cutting applied to ship construction is anticipated to reduce

ship construction costs significantly and afford greater design flexibility. The committee encourages the development of laser welding

technologies that have demonstrated the potential to provide higher quality and lower costs for building Navy ships. The committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million in PE

62271N for the development and application to naval ship construction of laser welding and cutting technology and techniques.

Marine Corps ground combat/support system

The budget request contained $26.0 million in PE 63635M com- bat supporting arms systems and included $18.2 million for the

lightweight 155mm towed howitzer, but no funds for the Marine

Corps urban environmental laboratory for low observable signature

ejection technology.

The committee continues to support development of the lightweight 155mm towed howitzer for the Marine Corps and Army.

The committee is aware that a Marine Corps urban environmental

laboratory has been established to provide assessment, analysis

and remediation of capabilities to ensure predictable and minimum

environmental damage from traditional and non-traditional capabilities used in urban missions. The committee also notes that the

Marine Corps needs weapons with low observable ejection signatures.

The committee recognizes that the Marine Corps will require a

capability non-explosive fire from enclosures in order to operate effectively in military operations in urbanized terrain engagements.

Innovative standoff door-breaching munition (ISOD) technology will

enable forces engaged in the urban battleground to breach doors

and other similar structures from a standoff distance of up to 100

meters without exposing Marines to direct hostile fire. The committee is encouraged by the Marine Corps’ pursuit of this technology and supports the Marine Corps’ efforts to examine the broad

application of ISOD to both regular and special operations forces.

The committee requests that the Commandant of the Marine Corps

keep the defense committees informed of the progress of this initiative.

195

The committee recommends $41.0 million in PE 63635M, an increase of $5.0 million for the lightweight 155mm towed howitzer,

an increase of $5.0 million for the urban environmental laboratory,

and an increase of $5.0 million for low observable signature ejection technology.

Metrology projects

The budget request contained $120.6 million in PE 64215N for

standards development, but included no funds for the Navy metrology program. The budget request also included $1.5 million in PE

72207F for Air Force metrology program research and development. The metrology program develops new measurement standards and capabilities to support the development, test, evaluation,

and maintenance of the leading-edge technology deployed in emerging military systems.

The committee understands that shortfalls in metrology budgets

have led to the erosion of critical calibration standards development and measurement services and that this situation negatively

affects the development and support of new weapons systems. Consequently, the committee recommends $127.1 million in PE 64215N, an increase of $6.5 million for the Navy metrology program. The committee also recommends $5.5 million in PE 72207F,

an increase of $4.0 million for the Air Force metrology program.

Multipurpose processor

The budget request contained $43.7 million in PE 64503N for submarine system equipment development, including $36.0 million

for submarine sonar improvements that also included the acoustic

rapid commercial-off-the-shelf insertion (A–RCI) program.

The A–RCI program upgrades current submarine sonar systems

with open architecture commercial-off-the-shelf computer technology that uses advanced processing builds (APB) and multipurpose processor (MPP) middleware architecture developed under

small business innovative research to provide continued upgrades

as technology develops. Full implementation is currently planned

for fiscal year 2008, but conversion of all submarines can be accelerated to fiscal year 2004 with additional funds.

The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations identified $225.0 million in fiscal year 2002 unfunded requirements for

A–RCI in submarine sonar systems. The committee believes that

this technology upgrade is essential for the submarine fleet and,

therefore, recommends $68.7 million in PE 64503N, an increase of

$25.0 million to accelerate the A-RCI program for application of the

APB/MPP technology insertion process in submarine and other

naval sonar systems.

Navy’s intelligent agent security module

The budget request contained $20.9 million in PE 33140N for the

Navy’s information systems security program.

The committee notes the progress being made in the development

of intelligent agent security modules (IASM) in the Navy’s information systems security program, but also notes the need to improve

IASM system capability to identify and respond to attacks on the

information network. The Navy has stated that the IASM is inVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00219 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.043 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
196

tended for deployment at the tactical network operations center,

shipboard, and at the fleet information warfare center. The IASM

will enhance network security by correlating information from multiple security products; derive a concise, accurate assessment of

malicious actions and unauthorized use; and recommend actions to

respond to and terminate an attack to network administrators. Accordingly, the committee recommends $45.9 million in PE 33140N, an increase of $25.0 million to increase the capability of

the IASM system to identify and respond to attacks on the network, expand the period through which attack trends can be assessed, and provide enhanced countermeasures to respond to a specific type of attack.

Navy logistics productivity

The budget request contained $11.7 million in PE 63739N for

Navy logistics productivity demonstration and validation.

Compatible processor upgrade program

The committee understands that compatible processor upgrade

program (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 $3.5 million 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. The committee recommends an increase of $6.5 million in PE

63739N for continuation of the compatible processor upgrade program (CPUP).

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-offthe-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 to continue the rapid retargeting project.

Non-acoustic anti-submarine warfare

The budget request contained $76.5 million in PE 62747N for undersea warfare applied research and $56.3 million in PE 63747N

for undersea warfare advanced technology development.

The committee recommends $86.5 million in PE 62747N, an increase of $10.0 million for applied research in non-acoustic antisubmarine warfare technology and $66.3 million in PE 63747N, an

increase of $10.0 million for advanced development in non-acoustic

197

anti-submarine warfare technology. Elsewhere in this report the

committee has recommended an increase of $10.0 million to investigate the ability of the JSTARS radar to image the ocean surface.

Oceanographic survey of continental shelf beyond U.S. exclusive economic zone

The committee notes that Articles 76 and 77 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea secure coastal States’ sovereign rights over the natural resources of the continental shelf

and establish a formula for determining whether and how a State

may claim an outer shelf limit beyond the State’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). The United Nations Commission on the Limits

of the Continental Shelf has established guidelines on the scientific

and technical evidence, including undersea bathymetric and seismic data from the continental shelf, that will be considered with

respect to coastal State submissions. The outer limits based on the

commission’s recommendations will be final and binding under the

Convention. The committee also notes that, although the United

States is not now a party to the Convention, should it accede to the

treaty in the future, it should be able to establish final and binding

limits to two areas adjacent to its EEZ off the coast of Alaska, the

Chukchi Cap and part of the Donut Hull, and smaller areas in the

Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean. The committee believes that

the United States should have the data available that would be

necessary to determine whether claims from other coastal States

might overlap with potential U.S. claims.

The committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy, in conjunction with the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to identify the scope of the bathymetric,

seismic, and other data that would need to be gathered to support

United States’ claims for establishment of outer shelf limits under

the Convention, develop a plan for gathering that data, and determine the surface and subsurface oceanographic survey resources

that would need to be committed to the effort.

Organ transfer technology

The budget request contained $17.7 million in PE 63729N for

warfighter protection advanced technology development.

The committee notes developments in 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.

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. In fiscal year 2001, the

Chief of Naval Research initiated a program to capitalize on these

newly developed methods of treatment and Congress provided $3.0

million to initiate a clinical trials program.

The committee recommends $21.7 million in PE 63729N, an increase of $4.0 million to continue the program for clinical trials in

organ transplant and transfer technology. The committee urges the

Chief of Naval Research to include funding for completion of the

clinical trials program in future budget requests.

198

Photovoltaic energy savings initiative

The budget request contained $1.7 million in PE 63725N for

demonstration and validation of improvements in naval facilities.

The committee notes that rising energy costs and increased concerns among the military services about the effect of gaseous emissions on the environment have sparked greater interest in developing renewable energy sources. The committee understands that

proposals have been made for development of a multi-megawatt

photovoltaic energy park on naval installations to generate electricity from the sun for this purpose. Under the proposal, a cooperative agreement would be established between industry and the

federal government that would result in fuel savings under the federally funded share of the program being returned to the federal

government. The committee recommends $4.1 million in PE 63725N, including an increase of $2.4 million in PE 63725N for demonstration of the

photovoltaic energy savings initiative.

Power projection advanced technology

The budget request contained $76.4 million in PE 63114N for

power projection advanced technology development.

Affordable weapon

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) affordable weapons program

is an advanced technology demonstration to design, develop and

build a 600 mile range, 200lbs. payload, precision strike missile

with global positioning system/inertial navigation system guidance

and control and a data link. The missile is built using commercialoff-the-shelf components (COTS) and will have an estimated cost in

production of approximately $30,000 per missile and fly within two

years of contract initiation. The objective of the ONR program is

to demonstrate the breakthroughs in (1) technology and systems integration that permit the development of a low-cost, precision guided missile using primarily COTS components and (2) acquisition

reform that permits definition of costs within the first ten production units and manufacturing changes that can be accomplished at

low cost with small unit buys. The committee notes that ONR initiated the program in July 1999 and accomplished air vehicle first

flight in September 2000. The committee believes that, if successful, the ONR affordable missile program will establish a new paradigm for the development and production of precision strike missile

systems. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE

63114N for advanced technology development and demonstration of

the affordable weapon.

DP–2 thrust vectoring system concept demonstration

The budget request contained no funds for continuation of the

DP–2 thrust vectoring system proof-of-concept demonstration.

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.

199

The committee notes the progress to date in the DP–2 program

in the design and fabrication of large, precise composite structures,

the design of the flight control system, and ground test of the system leading to the initial hover test in June 2001. The committee

also notes technical issues that were encountered during the hover

test that will necessitate additional analysis and potential redesign

before a successful hover test can be accomplished. The committee

believes that the potential of the DP–2 proof-of-concept program

justifies these efforts.

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 63114N to continue the project for development and

demonstration of the DP–2 thrust vectoring system in an affordable

airframe.

Precision targeting systems modernization and enhancement

The budget request contained $4.5 million in PE 35208N for distributed ground systems operational systems development.

The committee notes that the Joint Service Imagery Processing

System—Navy (JSIPS–N), the Navy’s portion of the distributed

common ground system, is being installed on aircraft carriers, amphibious assault ships, selected fleet flagships, and shore sites to

receive and exploit imagery reports from multiple sensors and assist strike and amphibious operations planners and tactical aviators in planning the delivery of precision weapons. The committee

understands that the digital imagery workstation suite (DIWS)

component of JSIPS–N should be upgraded to provide a state-ofthe-art targeting capability, smaller equipment footprint aboard

ship, and increased reliability.

The committee recommends $5.5 million in PE 35208N, an increase of $1.0 million to accelerate the program for development,

testing, and integration of the upgraded DIWS.

Project Bear Trap

The budget request contained $12.9 million in PE 63254N for

anti-submarine warfare systems demonstration and validation, including support for Project Bear Trap.

The budget request supports hardware and software development

for the rapid prototyping of advanced capability acoustic and nonacoustic ASW sensors, as well as data collection and analysis for

threat assessment and environmental characterization. The committee notes the progress being made in the evaluation and development of the phenomena of nonlinear dynamics and stochastic

resonance (NDSR) for acoustic, magnetic, and other ASW sensor

and signal processing applications.

The committee recommends $17.9 million in PE 63254N, an increase of $5.0 million for Project Beartrap to continue the development, demonstration, and evaluation of NDSR technology for ASW

applications and to continue the Beartrap environmental characterization program.

Radiation-hardened electronics applications

The budget request contained $43.3 million in PE 11221N for

strategic submarine and weapons systems support.

200

Radiation-hardened integrated circuits are necessary for systems

such as the guidance system for the Trident missile. The radiationhardened electronics application program (RHEAP) is a Navy-sponsored initiative to improve the efficiency of production of critical,

radiation-hardened integrated circuits through the use of advanced

simulation and modeling tools. The program addresses the transition between the science and technology that develops more capable integrated circuit chips and the commercial production of those

next generation chips. Benefits of RHEAP include improving the

return on the science and technology investment in the development of advanced microelectronics, reducing the cost of production

by commercial laboratories, and reducing the time and effort required to mature a research and development semi-conductor wafer

prototype to a production-ready product

The committee recommends $53.1 million in PE 11221N, including an increase of $9.8 million for development of advanced

RHEAP tools for modeling, simulation and fabrication of radiationhardened circuits.

SPAWAR enhanced modeling and simulation initiatives

The budget request contained $7.8 million in PE 38601N for support of Navy modeling and simulation.

The committee notes continued advances in modeling and simulation for command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems. These

advances demonstrate the use of efficient systems engineering and

business practices and leverage simulation-based acquisition applied to the assessment, planning, testing, and technology insertion

for C4ISR systems. The committee also notes continuing progress

in modeling and simulation systems engineering initiatives that aid

operations analysis, and engineering assessment. The committee

supports the development and understanding of new modeling and

simulation tools that will assist in more effective decision-making

and in the design of C4ISR systems and information architectures.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $10.8 million in PE

38601N, an increase of $3.0 million to continue initiatives for the

development of improvements in C4ISR modeling and simulation.

Submarine electrical power

The budget request contained $117.1 million in PE 62123N for

force protection applied research.

The committee notes that some nuclear submarines, which are

nearing the end of their hull service life and being decommissioned

may still have significant life remaining in the submarine nuclear

reactor core that could, with appropriate modification to the steam

generating system, provide a source of power for on-shore activities

when connected to the on-shore power grid. Such a capability

would be useful in augmenting the power grid in an area where

there is a submarine basing and support capability.

The committee recommends $117.4 million in PE 62123N, an increase of $300 thousand to initiate a study on the potential utility

and application of submarine-generated steam and electrical power

for augmentation of on-shore power grids.

201

Supply chain best practices

The budget request contained $1.0 million 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 life cycle costs of new

and modernized Navy systems. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE

654804N 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 expects that the Office of Naval Research will include funding for this program in future Navy budgets.

Surface navy integrated undersea tactical technology

The budget request contained $135.3 million in PE 63502N for

surface and shallow water mine countermeasures systems demonstration and validation.

The committee understands that in order to effectively conduct

the Navy’s core anti-submarine warfare (ASW) and mine warfare

(MIW) missions, naval forces must be able to reliably detect, locate,

and target mines and enemy submarines, respond rapidly and decisively to these hostile contacts, and provide all commanders with

a common picture of the undersea battlespace. The committee notes

the need for development of a common undersea picture that would

incorporate input data from existing and enhanced undersea warfare systems. The committee recommends $147.3 million in PE 63502N, an increase of $12.0 million for the Surface Navy Integrated Undersea

Tactical Technology project. The committee expects that this effort

will be coordinated with other Navy and joint programs for development of technology and systems to provide a common picture of

the tactical undersea battlespace.

Surface ship torpedo defense

The budget request contained $4.8 million in PE 63506N for surface ship torpedo defense (SSTD) demonstration and validation.

The committee understands that the fiscal year 2002 plan for the

SSTD program includes continued development of the tripwire torpedo defense system for large deck ships and DDG–51 Flight IIA

ships and continued development of the anti-torpedo torpedo countermeasure for surface ships. The committee recommends $9.8 million in PE 63506N, an increase of $5.0 million to accelerate the program for development

and fielding of SSTD systems to the fleet.

Telemedicine for minimally invasive surgery

The committee notes the progress made in the application of telemedicine to surgical procedures that allow an experienced surgeon

to perform a procedure from a remote location using telecommunications technology and sophisticated robotic systems. The committee believes that the technology has the potential to increase

significantly the availability of specialized surgical skills to deployed military personnel and the civilian community throughout

the world. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in conVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00225 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.046 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
202

sultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to review the telemedicine program and consider the establishment of

a pilot project for further application of telemedicine technology to

minimally invasive surgical procedures. The committee believes

that such a project would provide valuable data on human subject

outcomes, equipment use and set-up, the quality of data transmission for remote applications, and the infrastructure required to

support such telesurgery. The committee directs that the Secretary

of the Navy report the results of the review and recommendations

regarding the establishment of such a pilot project with the submission of the fiscal year 2003 budget request.

Titanium watertight door and hatch cover

The budget request contained $130.4 million in PE 64567N for

ship contract design/live fire test and evaluation but included no

funds for evaluating a watertight door or hatch cover made from

titanium.

The committee is concerned about the continuing high cost to

maintain weather decks of surface combatants and notes that the

use of titanium, rather than steel, to construct these decks could

produce potentially significant life-cycle cost savings, since titanium is lighter, stronger, and easier to maintain than steel, as well

non-corrosive in seawater. Therefore, from within the funds requested, which the committee recommends, the committee strongly

urges the Secretary of the Navy to use $1.0 million to initiate a

pilot program, using titanium, to produce a watertight door and

hatch cover on a flight 2A DDG–51 destroyer.

Torpedo rapid COTS insertion

The budget request contained $17.1 million in PE 25632N for

MK–48 Advanced Capability Torpedo operational systems development, but included no funding for insertion of advanced commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) technology into the Mk 48 ADCAP torpedo.

The committee is concerned that the performance of the MK–48

submarine-launched torpedo in littoral waters is far less than desired. The committee is 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 small business innovative research, has successfully

and very cost effectively improved the performance of submarine

sonar systems. The committee believes that a similar A–RCI program for the MK–48 torpedo, which leverages the experience

gained in the submarine sonar program, could have significant potential to cost effectively improve performance of the MK–48 torpedo in the demanding littoral waters sonar environment.

Therefore, the committee recommends $27.1 million in PE

25632N, an increase of $10.0 million to extend the application of

the advanced processing build/multipurpose processor technology

insertion process to the MK–48 ADCAP torpedo.

Vacuum electronics

The budget request contained $62.1 million in PE 62271N for applied research in radio frequency technology, including $6.5 million

203

for vacuum electronics; and $76.9 million in PE 63271N for radio

frequency advanced technology development.

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 recent 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 recommends $16.5 million in PE 62271N for ap- plied research in vacuum electronics, an increase of $10.0 million;

and an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63271N for vacuum electronics advanced technology development. The committee has recommended a legislative provision (Section 244) that would accelerate the program for development of advanced solid state, wide

bandgap semiconductor technology. 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.

VECTOR study and analysis

The budget request contained $11.6 million in PE 63790N for the

cooperative NATO research and development program.

The committee is aware that a funding shortfall has developed

in the VECTOR program, which is due in large part to a lowerthan-expected contribution provided by the Federal Republic of

Germany for fiscal year 2002. The committee is concerned with the

numerous executability problems experienced in this program and

remains concerned about the feasibility and follow-on applications

of this technology.

The committee recommends that the Secretary of the Navy review VECTOR’s technological feasibility, assess its potential followon applications in accordance with the Navy’s future force structure

plans, and examine in particular the possible incorporation of VECTOR technology applied to manned and unmanned naval aircraft

in the inventory.

The committee recommends $11.6 million in PE 63790 N, including $1.0 million for the VECTOR study and analysis program.

Warfighter sustainment advanced technology

The budget request contained $48.6 million in PE 63236N for

warfighter sustainment advanced technology development.

204

Naval environmental compliance operations monitoring system

The committee understands that proposals have been made for

establishment of a naval environmental compliance operations

monitoring system (NECOSM), a two-pronged effort to increase capabilities for situational awareness and pollution prevention. The

first effort would involve implementing monitoring and control

technology modules that were identified during a previously funded

baseline survey and cost analysis. The second effort would use environmental analysis, cost, and compliance driven needs assessment to identify high priority projects for implementation of

NECOSM. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million

in PE 63236N for development and application of advanced technology leading to a Naval Environmental Compliance Operations

Monitoring System.

Real time heart rate variability monitor

The committee understands that real time heart rate variability

technology has the potential for enhancing on-site assessment of

disease and trauma by enabling physiological measurement of

nervous system functioning and balance. The committee believes

that improvements in these areas can lead to improved treatment

and victim survivability. The committee also believes that the technology may permit the early detection and treatment of the effects

of weapons of mass destruction. The committee recommends an increase of $8.9 million in PE

63236N for advanced development and demonstration of applications for real time heart rate variability technology.

Warfighter sustainment applied research

The budget request contained $71.3 million in PE 62236N for

warfighter sustainment applied research.

Commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) carbon fiber qualification

The committee notes that Navy and other DOD aircraft and

weapons systems must use a high-priced carbon fiber available

only from a single source to reinforce composite structures. As a result of the development of a new qualification protocol, the Navy

and the Joint Strike Fighter program now have the means to qualify new commercially available fibers for use in advanced composite

structures.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

62236N for qualification of commercially available carbon fibers for

aircraft and missile applications.

Detection and identification of human pathogens

Recent advances and maturing of design and technology have enabled portable, cost-effective fabrication and demonstration of highsensitivity, high spectral-resolution sensors for the detection and

identification of spectral signatures emitted by pathogens. The

committee believes that such sensors provide the potential for the

development of active, high-resolution, broadband spectral sensing

instruments for real-time in vivo detection and identification of

human pathogens.

205

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

62236N for applied research in the detection and identification of

human pathogens.

Formable aligned carbon thermo sets

The committee understands that a new composite technology

known as formable aligned carbon thermo sets (FACTS) has the potential for markedly reducing the cost of composites and for enabling the production of more complex composite structures in aircraft structures and other applications where flexibility in design

and fabrication of the structure is needed. Successful development

of the technology will lead to reductions in the cost of production

of existing composite structures, increase the percentage of composites in the system design, and significantly reduce operations and

maintenance costs.

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

62236N to accelerate the Navy’s program research and development program in formable aligned carbon thermo sets.

Knowledge-based ship system diagnosis and repair

The committee notes the establishment 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 that are part of the ship’s crew in ship maintenance and repair. The committee believes that successful development and implementation of this new approach to knowledge-based

system diagnosis and repair could be increasingly important as the

Navy make the transition to ships with reduced number 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

62236N for applied research in knowledge-based ship system diagnosis and repair.

AIR FORCE RDT&E

Overview

The budget request contained $14,344.0 million for Air Force

RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $14,455.6

million, an increase of $111.7 million.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2002 Air

Force RDT&E program are identified in the table below. Major

changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the table.

206


Insert offset folio 234 here 74948.115
207


Insert offset folio 235 here 74948.116
208


Insert offset folio 236 here 74948.117
209


Insert offset folio 237 here 74948.118
210


Insert offset folio 238 here 74948.119
211


Insert offset folio 239 here 74948.120
212


Insert offset folio 240 here 74948.121
213


Insert offset folio 241 here 74948.122
214


Insert offset folio 242 here 74948.123
215


Insert offset folio 243 here 74948.124 A
216

Items of Special Interest

Access to space

The budget request included $26.3 million for the demonstration

and transition of Aerospace Structures in PE 63211F.

The committee recognizes the growing significance of space operational capability and that dependable and low-cost access to space

may require the use of highly-specialized aerospace vehicles and

structures. To address these evolving challenges, the committee

urges the Secretary of the Air Force to establish a joint program

office with Army and Navy representation to define required technology investments for access-to-space, to perform current and future Air Force capability assessments, to develop an integrated

plan for low-cost access to space, and initiate studies and development activities in support of such a plan. Further, the committee

strongly urges coordination between the Aeronautical Systems Center, the Space and Missile Center, the Air Force Research Laboratory, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA).

Accordingly, the committee authorizes $28.3 million in PE

63211F, an increase of $2.0 million to address this access-to-space

priority.

Advanced aerospace sensors

The budget request contained $55.8 million in PE 63203F for advanced aerospace sensors.

The committee believes that advanced sensors are essential to

support future warfighter requirements and therefore recommends

$60.8 million in PE 63203F, an increase of $5.0 million for advanced aerospace sensors.

Aerospace propulsion

The budget request contained $149.2 million in PE 62203F for

aerospace propulsion.

The committee notes the recent efforts by the Department of Defense to ensue adequate funding in this critical Air Force applied

research account. The committee is aware of a small business innovative research effort, the Pulse Detonation Engine (PDE), which

has been in development for several years and appears ready for

fabrication and test of a flight-worthy PDE. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 62203F to contain PDE

efforts.

The committee also continues to support Air Force investments

in Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology (IHPRPT)

and recommends an increase of $9.5 million in PE 62203F and an

increase of $6.5 million on PE 63302F for continued investments in

IHPRPT.

Aging landing gear life extension (ALGLE) program

The budget request contained $20.1 million in PE 65011F for development of products and services to improve the performance of

aging aircraft systems but included no funds for the ALGLE program.

217

The ALGLE program addresses the operational, safety and maintenance consequences of increased mishaps resulting from landing

gear failures as well as unacceptable mission incapable 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

$46.0 million and believes that this program should continue to address the Air Force’s aging landing gear problems in fiscal year

2002 and in subsequent years. Accordingly, the committee recommends $35.1 million in PE 65011F, an increase of $15.0 million, for continuation of the

ALGLE program.

Airborne reconnaissance system

The budget request contained $77.8 million in PE 35206F for airborne systems, but included no funds for theater airborne reconnaissance system (TARS) or Combat Sent passive airborne ranging. The committee recommends $97.3 million in PE 35206F, an increase of $4.5 million for Combat Sent passive airborne ranging

and an increase of $15.0 million for TARS development.

Assessment relating to gasoline and diesel engine fuel systems

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to assess the

potential for developing a program that would require all military

services to maintain gasoline and diesel engine fuel systems using

engine decarbonizing systems. The assessment should address the

costs and benefits of a requirement that the equipment and cleaning agents used in decarbonizing engines be tested and approved

by entities such as the Management and Equipment Evaluation

Program (MEEP) of the Department of the Air Force or similar

testing entities in the other military services. Consideration should

be given to requirements that cleaning agents are non-carcinogenic,

non-flammable, and non-hazardous, as documented by the Material

Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) required by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, and that the use of transmission fluid exchange

equipment that is capable of exchanging virtually all contaminated

automatic transmission fluid (ATF) with new ATF.

Bipolar wafer cell nickel-metal hydride battery

The budget request contained $53.8 million in PE 78011F for the

Air Force’s manufacturing technology program.

The committee notes that the Air Force has been developing a bipolar wafer-cell nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) replacement battery

for the F–16 aircraft that has the potential to provide significantly

higher power than nickel-cadmium batteries. The committee understands that the use of bipolar wafer-cell NiMH batteries could lead

to significant savings from reduced procurement and maintenance

of existing nickel-cadmium batteries.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE

78011F for to complete manufacturing technology development and

testing of a bipolar wafer-cell NiMH battery for the F–16 aircraft.

218

Commercial imagery strategy

The committee believes that the United States should prioritize

the use of commercial remote sensing as envisioned in Presidential

Decision Directive–23. Moreover, the committee believes that allocating certain imagery requirements to the U.S. commercial remote

sensing industry will permit National Technical Means to focus on

high priority intelligence requirements. Thus, the committee continues to support use of commercial satellite imagery and geo-spatial products and services to satisfy the non-time-critical low and

medium resolution requirements of the Secretary of Defense, including the regional Commanders-in-Chief, and the Intelligence

Community.

The committee also understands that the Administration is developing a commercial imagery strategy to support these requirements and strongly endorses the development and implementation

of such a strategy. The committee believes, however, that the U.S.

government must become a reliable, long-term customer of commercial imagery if the strategy is to be successful. The committee

recognizes that there are budgetary and contract authority issues,

but does not believe they are beyond solution.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of Central Intelligence, to plan and

carry out a program to purchase a majority of their non-time-critical low and medium resolution imagery requirements from the

U.S. commercial remote sensing industry by 2005.

Free electron laser

The budget request contained $77.2 million in PE 62102F for

Materials, but included no funds for free electron laser.

The committee notes the progress achieved in Navy free electron

laser (FEL) development and urges the Secretary of the Air Force

to continue collaborative efforts including the addition of ultra violet capability to the Navy’s FEL demonstration to examine aerospace applications.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million in PE

62102F for FEL.

Funding transfers to support transformation

The committee is concerned that the largest area of growth in

Air Force research and development (R&D) investments has occurred in the category of fielded system development and other mature technologies. Other areas included increases greater than previously forecast, apparently excessive management funding, or unobligated prior year funding. The committee believes that the highest priority for R&D investments should be to fund efforts directly

related to transformation and future capabilities. Therefore, the

committee recommends the following decreases to Air Force accounts, to be transferred to other programs within the Air Force

that support transformation and future system development:

62204F .................................................................................................... $14,100,000

62605F .................................................................................................... 5,700,000

62702F .................................................................................................... 5,200,000

63605F .................................................................................................... 5,000,000

63430F .................................................................................................... 27,000,000

219

63432F .................................................................................................... 5,000,000

63438F .................................................................................................... 10,000,000

63850F .................................................................................................... 3,000,000

63856F .................................................................................................... 4,433,000

63859F .................................................................................................... 2,688,000

65101F .................................................................................................... 5,000,000

65807F .................................................................................................... 13,600,000

99980F .................................................................................................... 10,000,000

27028F .................................................................................................... 29,400,000

27133F .................................................................................................... 30,000,000

27134F .................................................................................................... 25,500,000

27138F .................................................................................................... 15,100,000

27268F .................................................................................................... 25,500,000

27277F .................................................................................................... 1,961,000

27410F .................................................................................................... 10,000,000

35910F .................................................................................................... 20,000,000

41119F .................................................................................................... 30,000,000

41134F .................................................................................................... 22,500,000

GPS jammer detection and location system

The budget request contained $10.8 million in 27247F for Air

Force tactical exploitation of national capabilities, but included no

funds for GPS jammer detection and location system (GPS–JLOC).

The committee notes that mission planning tools, tactics, and

procedures must be developed for countering jamming of GPS. The

committee is aware that a GPS jammer detection and location system has been developed under a Phase II small business innovative

research (SBIR) program and further notes that GPS–JLOC appears ready to transition to an operational capability under SBIR

Phase III.

The committee recommends $3.8 million in PE 27247F, an increase of $3.0 million for GPS–JLOC.

High accuracy network demonstration system

The budget program included $50.5 million in PE 65864F for the

Space Test Program (STP).

The committee supports the STP initiative as an effort for advancing space technology and enabling future U.S. space superiority in a cost effective manner. The committee is aware of an

orbit-identification and determination capability that may reduce

errors and costs in the current space-object maintenance catalog.

The technology may improve ephemeris determination for Defense

Support Program satellites by as much as 50 percent through the

use of highly accurate angular observations from a family of lowcost optical sensors called the High Accuracy Network Determination System (HANDS). The committee notes the expected low-cost

nature of HANDS and encourages the Air Force to pursue opportunities in this area.

Accordingly, the committee authorizes $55.5 million in PE

65864F for HANDS, an increase of $5.0 million over the request.

Joint precision approach landing system

The budget request contained $9.6 million in PE 63860F for joint

precision approach landing systems (JPALS).

The committee is aware that the basic requirement for joint precision approach landing system is to provide a rapidly deployable,

adverse weather and terrain, survivable, maintainable, interoperable precision approach and landing system for land and sea. The

220

committee notes that JPALS will replace existing, obsolete landing

systems in the fleet and ashore. The committee recommends $14.6 million in PE 63860F for

JPALS.

Joint STARS multi-platform radar technology insertion program

The budget request contained $147.8 million in PE 27581F for

Joint STARS system development, but contained no funds for

Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program (RTIP).

The committee notes the tremendous contributions of Joint

STARS aircraft to ground warfare and warfighter situational

awareness and fully supports the planned improvements inherent

in the RTIP effort that will enhance ground surveillance, precision

targeting, and battlefield coordination. However, the committee is

concerned with the operational limitations experienced by the Joint

STARS fleet refurbished airframes and believes that the Air Force

should thoroughly assess utilization of RTIP technology on other,

more modern, airframes.

Therefore, the committee recommends $246.8 million in PE

27581F, an increase of $89.0 million for Multi-Platform RTIP and

an increase of $10.0 million for Joint STARS ocean surveillance capability testing.

Joint strike fighter (JSF) alternate engine

The budget request contained $769.5 million in PE 64800F to

begin the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the

JSF program, but included no funds to reduce development schedule risk of the alternate engine common hardware components.

The JSF program will develop and field a family of aircraft that

meets the needs of the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and allies

with commonality among the variants to minimize life cycle costs.

The committee notes that the JSF joint program office (JPO) has

encouraged two engine manufacturers to work together on the codevelopment of propulsion components which are common to both

the JSF’s current F–119 engine and the F–120 alternate engine

and understands that this effort will develop two interchangeable

propulsion systems while preserving the proprietary interests of

each manufacturer. The committee also understands that the JPO

supports production of the F–120 alternate engine as part of the

low-rate initial JSF production scheduled for fiscal year 2009 but

believes that increased funding in fiscal year 2002 is required to reduce development schedule risk of the common hardware components.

Accordingly, the committee recommends $779.5 million in PE

64800F, an increase of $10.0 million, to reduce development schedule risk of the JSF alternate engine common hardware components.

Low cost autonomous attack system

The budget request contained $37.6 million in PE 63601F, including $8.0 million for the Low Cost Autonomous Attack System

(LOCAAS).

The committee supports continued development of precision guided munitions (PGMs) such as LOCAAS and notes that the

LOCAAS program is preparing for final development to address the

221

PGM requirements for area search weapons not addressed by the

Air Force Small Diameter Bomb development program.

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE

63601F to continue LOCAAS development.

Low cost launch technology

The budget request contained $54.5 million in PE 63401F for advanced spacecraft technology, but included no funds for low cost

launch technology. The committee is aware of several low cost

launch concepts and technologies that offer the potential to reduce

space launch costs tremendously. The committee notes that the

Scorpius program has successfully demonstrated reduced cost

launch capabilities.

The committee recommends $69.5 million in PE 63401F, an increase of $15.0 million for low cost launch technologies, including

Scorpius.

Major T&E investment

The budget request contained $49.9 million in PE 64759F for test

& evaluation investments, but included no funds for the Propulsion

Wind Tunnel (PWT) Upgrade project or the Laser Induced Surface

Improvement (LISI) project.

The committee notes that previous year budget requests by the

Air Force included funding to initiate the PWT Upgrade project,

but sufficient funding has not yet been committed to complete this

project. The committee also notes that the Air Force has explored

the cost savings and improved wear and corrosion resistance demonstrated by components treated with the LISI process.

Therefore, the committee recommends $59.9 million in PE

64759F, an increase of $4.0 million, for completion of the PWT Upgrade project and an increase of $6.0 million for continued development of the LISI project.

Materials technologies for aging aircraft

The budget request included $32.7 million in PE 63112F for Advanced Materials for Weapon Systems.

The committee recognizes that future aeronautical capability will

largely depend on significant improvements in advanced materials

technologies that promise to extend the lifespan and reduce the

total life cycle costs of future aerospace vehicles. While the committee notes that the Air Force has experienced some success in developing and implementing new aging aircraft technologies, it encourages the service to increase overall effort in this area.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million

in PE 63112F to address this priority.

Missile Technology demonstration-3B

The budget request contained $8.5 million in PE 65860F for rocket systems launch programs, but included no funds for the Missile

Technology Demonstration (MTD)–3B.

The committee notes that the MTD effort represents the primary

high-speed weapon system technology platform within the Department of Defense and urges the Secretary of the Air Force to reasVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00245 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.052 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
222

sess funding priorities giving full weight to the importance of the

MTD program. The committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million to PE

65860F for continued support of MTD–3B.

Non-space SIGINT architecture

The committee notes that the programs that make up the Joint

SIGINT Architecture Family (JSAF) continue to experience significant programmatic setbacks despite the efforts of program officials

and their industry partners. The Low Band Subsystem (LBSS) program was recently terminated after a seemingly endless series cost,

schedule and performance difficulties and the High Band Subsystem program is reportedly facing similar difficulties with eventual termination possible. Moreover, the reported ability of the

JSAF programs to allow full interoperability within emerging Department of Defense command, control, communications and intelligence architectures as originally envisioned was never realized

and was not even possible without coordinated wide-band communications improvements throughout all the ISR platforms. The committee is concerned that the JSAF efforts have drained funding

from reasonable alternatives for the near term.

The committee believes the JSAF program has failed with respect to its original objectives. The committee believes that this is

not just another case of poor program performance, but indeed, this

was a management approach failure that has denied the Department an achievable joint SIGINT architecture and the very objectives it was to solve. As a result, an adequate joint SIGINT architecture is still not available, critical SIGINT modernization efforts

have not occurred, and interoperability is limited. The committee

is convinced a joint architecture, replete with the ability to share

system upgrades is achievable. But, it will have to be done by the

platform program offices working together in a collaborative set of

efforts. The committee believes that this cannot be realized by a

program office independent of the platform developers, nor can it

be done without a plan for achieving system-level interoperability.

Accordingly, the committee directs that Secretary of the Air

Force, as principal acquisition executive for JSAF programs, to develop a comprehensive, non-space SIGINT system architecture plan

for the post 2007 time frame. This plan shall provide for a digital,

open architecture that uses only non-proprietary commercial standards and standardized, well-defined interfaces. Further, the systems in this architecture must include the ability to be reprogrammed through software changes to be periodically upgraded as

well as to meet emerging time-critical requirements. The non-space

SIGINT architecture plan shall be provided to the congressional defense and intelligence committees not later than May 31, 2002.

Precision location and identification (PLAID)

The budget request contained $41.3 million in PE 64270F for

electronic warfare (EW) development, of which $1.8 million was included for the PLAID technology program.

The PLAID technology program will enhance aircrew situational

awareness by providing accurate ground emitter location and unambiguous identification. The committee understands that the Air

223

Force plans to conduct a competition to advance the engineering

manufacturing and development (EMD) phase of the PLAID technology program and further understands that, upon completion of

the EMD phase, the PLAID upgrade will be installed on over 1,800

Air Force aircraft. Due to its successful flight and ground test evaluations, the committee believes that the PLAID technology EMD

phase should be accelerated.

Therefore, the committee recommends $54.6 million in PE

64270F, an increase of $13.3 million, to accelerate the PLAID technology EMD phase.

Satellite planning information network (SPIN)

The budget request contained $232.1 million in PE 64479F for

development of the military strategic and tactical relay (MILSTAR)

communications satellite, but included no funds for the SPIN development.

The SPIN is a web-based satellite communications management

technology that utilizes the Department’s existing secret internet

protocol router to expand the flexibility and efficiency of military

satellite communications. The committee notes that the demand for

military satellite communications continues to rise, and believes

that development efforts of programs such as the SPIN should be

undertaken to more efficiently use these resources.

Consequently, the committee recommends $238.6 million in PE

64479F, an increase of $6.5 million, to develop the SPIN technology.

Space and missile rocket propulsion

The budget request contained no funds in PE 63302F for Space

and Missile Rocket Propulsion.

The committee notes the importance of continued investments in

advanced space and missile propulsion technology and recommends

an increase of $12.6 million in PE 63302F to modernize Air Force

Research Laboratory large rocket test stands for higher pressure

requirements and improved instrumentation.

Special aerospace metals and manufacturing processes

The budget request contained $77.2 million in PE 62102F for applied research and $32.7 million in PE 63122F for advanced development of materials technologies for aerospace systems and $53.8

million in PE 78011F for the Air Force’s manufacturing technology

program.

The committee continues to support the need for advances in special aerospace metals and metal alloys for aircraft and space vehicle structures, propulsion, components, and weapon systems. The

Department of Defense needs materials that are lightweight, high

strength, high performance, and capable of withstanding the stressing environments that are experienced by terrestrial and aerospace

systems, and for the development and optimization of manufacturing processes for these materials.

The committee recommends increases of $4.5 million in PE

62102F, $4.5 million in PE 63112F, and $3.5 million in PE 78011F

to continue the program for the development and demonstration of

224

special aerospace materials and materials manufacturing processes.

Synthetic Theater Operations Research Model

The budget request included $25.3 million in PE 27601F for Modeling and Simulation, but included no funding for the Synthetic

Theater Operations Research Model (STORM).

The committee supports the Air Force Modeling and Simulation

program and recognizes the potential savings and enhanced training levels associated with these initiatives. As training costs escalate, the committee continues to encourage alternative cost-saving

training techniques particularly as potential threats continue to

evolve. The committee is aware that STORM, a program in its fifth

year of development, is a next generation simulation designed specifically to meet needs for a greater understanding of the impact

of information technology on force structure and operational concepts. Therefore, the committee recommends $27.3 million in PE

27601F, an increase of $2.0 million for the continued development

of STORM.

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 demonstration program, and recommends $3.0 million in PE

63723F for a joint TRIES—Brooks Air Force Base Institute of Environment, Safety and Occupational Health Risk environmental demonstration program addressing environmental issues unique to the

southwest border region.

DEFENSE-WIDE RDT&E

Overview

The budget request contained $15,050.8 million for Defense-Wide

RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization of $15,374.6

million, a decrease of $245.2 million and the transfer of $569.2 million for missile defense programs from Army and Navy RDT&E to

Defense-wide RDT&E.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2002 Defense-Wide RDT&E program are identified in the table below.

Major changes to the Defense-Wide request are discussed following

the table.

225


Insert offset folio 255 here 74948.125
226


Insert offset folio 256 here 74948.126
227


Insert offset folio 257 here 74948.127
228


Insert offset folio 258 here 74948.128
229


Insert offset folio 259 here 74948.129
230


Insert offset folio 260 here 74948.130
231


Insert offset folio 261 here 74948.131
232


Insert offset folio 262 here 74948.132 A
233

Items of Special Interest

Aircraft affordability initiative

The budget request contained $10.8 million in PE 64805D8Z for

the Department of Defense Commercial Operations and Support

Savings Initiative (COSSI).

The committee notes that the stated goal of COSSI is to adapt

commercial technologies to reduce operations and support (O&S)

costs and improve overall weapons systems performance.

The committee is aware of a promising technology for improving

electronic warfare (EW) performance and reducing the overall cost

of future and existing aircraft. Initiated in fiscal year 2001, the digital EW product improvement program (EW PIP) has utilized recent technological advancements to permit the conversion of analogue-based EW receivers to digital electronics. The committee understands that digital receivers will substantially decrease the

supportability cost and risk of an aircraft’s EW system and simultaneously increase combat performance. The committee further understands that if introduced to the F–22 fighter, the digital EW

PIP should reduce aircraft weight by more than 30 pounds and

power consumption by more than 600 watts. The committee is encouraged by these anticipated gains and improvements and urges

the Department to also consider the introduction of digital EW PIP

on other aircraft, such as the Joint Strike Fighter, F–15s, and as

well as other military and space platforms. The committee recommends $17.0 million in PE 6480D8Z to complete requisite systems software development and to design, build,

and bench-test the F–22 RW/DF Digital Receiver and two associated modules.

Backscatter mobile truck system

The budget request contained $33.5 million in PE 63228D8Z for

demonstration and validation of physical security equipment.

The committee notes the requirement for deployed forces to be

capable of detecting explosives, weapons, or other systems or items

of potential use in acts of terrorism. The committee also notes that

there are commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) mobile truck-mounted

systems capable of detecting organic materials in confused and

cluttered operational environments using both backscatter and

standard transmission x-ray technology, that, if successful and

cost-effective in comparison to other cargo screening and surveillance systems, could be used to improve the anti-terrorism posture

of U.S. military bases and forces.

The committee recommends $49.5 million in PE 63228D8Z, an

increase of $16.0 million to test and evaluate COTS mobile truckmounted cargo screening and surveillance systems that employ

backscatter and standard transmission x-ray technology.

Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO)

The budget request contained $7,036.5 million for the RDT&E

program elements of BMDO.

The committee recommends $7,470.7 million, an increase of

$434.2 million. The increase results from disapproving the requested transfer of RDT&E activities for Patriot Advanced CapaVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00257 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.054 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
234

bility-3 (PAC–3), Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS),

and Navy Area to the military departments.

Technology

The budget request contained $112.0 million in PE 63175C for

advanced technology development.

The committee recommends the budget request for technology.

The committee strongly believes that a robust technology development program is the key to enhanced future capabilities to counter

more sophisticated threats. The committee notes that BMDO investment in technology is only 1.5 percent of the total budget request, and strongly recommends significantly increasing this investment in future budget cycles.

Ballistic missile defense system

The budget request contained $779.6 million in PE 63880C for

ballistic missile defense (BMD) system development. The committee recommends $754.6 million, a decrease of $25.0

million. The committee believes that two systems engineering and

integration fourth quarter starts, for updates to the manufacturing

technology program and the threat systems engineering library,

can be deferred to fiscal year 2003.

The committee notes that the BMD system segment consolidates

activities conducted under a number of program elements in previous years. They include battle management command and control

development, family of systems integration activities, threat representative target development, and countermeasures programs.

The committee is especially encouraged by the increased priority

given to assessment of countermeasures, and specifically the Hercules project, which provides a venue for vetting potential countermeasures against projected system capabilities.

The committee observes that this program element, which includes target development and countermeasures assessment, is essential to the implementation of an operationally realistic test capability.

Terminal defense segment

The budget request contained $988.2 million in PE 63881C for

the terminal defense segment.

The committee recommends $1,577.4 million, an increase of

$589.2 million. This increase reflects incorporation of RDT&E activities for PAC–3, MEADS, and Navy Area into this program element as a result of the committee’s recommendation to disapprove

the transfer of those programs to the services. The committee also

recommends an increase of $30.0 million to accelerate development

of the Arrow System Improvement Program to counter advanced

threats to the national security of Israel posed by emerging systems, as represented by the Shahab series of ballistic missiles. The

committee believes that technical development of missile defense

by the Department of Defense benefits from continued cooperation

with the government of Israel.

The budget request included $73.6 million for MEADS in Army

research and development. The committee recommends transfer of

MEADS back to BMDO, but supports the objective of providing a

235

mobile theater defense capability for the U.S. and the allies, and

encourages greater participation in the program by the members of

North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The committee is concerned by the significant projected cost overrun and schedule slip recently announced in the Navy Area program. Production delivery of the Navy Area interceptor appears to

be delayed by approximately 20 months until fiscal year 2007. The

committee notes that Navy Area is the Navy’s ‘‘first to field’’ antiballistic missile capability and first unit equipped was to have

closely followed the fielding schedule of PAC–3. Further, the committee is disturbed by the absence of Navy commitment to vigorously pursue this effort given other demands on its budget, and disapproves the transfer of Navy Area from BMDO to the Navy. The

committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million for this program.

Midcourse defense segment

The budget request contained $3,940.5 million in PE 63882C for

the midcourse defense segment. The committee recommends $3,910.5 million for the midcourse

defense segment, including a decrease of $30.0 million to the seabased midcourse project. Within the sea-based mid-course project,

the committee recommends the budget request of $260.0 million for

the Aegis LEAP Interceptor demonstration program, the precursor

to a Navy theater wide capability to defeat ballistic missiles. The

committee recommends $30.0 million, a decrease of $30.0 million,

for concept definition studies related to a new sea-based midcourse

capability against intermediate and long range threats. The committee believes that ongoing, competitive radar development activities will greatly influence the course this effort will take. The committee recommends $3,230.7 million, the budget request, for the ground based midcourse project, including $786.5 million for

the fiscal year 2004 Pacific missile defense test bed, including infrastructure upgrades and construction at Fort Greely, Kodiak Island, Shemya Island, and Kwajelein Atoll. The committee believes

that such improvements to the infrastructure that add operational

realism to testing, coupled with an aggressive test program, are

crucial to the expeditious development and demonstration of a viable ground-based midcourse defense. The committee notes that the

upgraded test infrastructure will also, in the near term, support

testing of sea-based and integrated ‘‘family of systems’’ concepts.

Boost defense segment

The budget request contained $685.4 million in PE 63883C for

the boost phase defense segment.

The committee recommends $610.4 million, a decrease of $75.0

million, for this program element. The committee recommends

$25.0 million, a decrease of $25.0 million, for the sea-based boost

project, reflecting the committee’s view that concept definition and

operational assessment should precede hardware design, development, and testing. The committee recommends $400.0 million for

the air-based boost project (airborne laser), a decrease of $10.0 million. The block 2008 full power optics for the airborne laser are not

required for the fiscal year 2003 half power shoot down demonstraVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00259 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.055 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
236

tion, which the committee sees as a critical indicator of the continued viability of the effort. The committee recommends $152.0 million, a decrease of $38.0 million, for the space-based boost defense

project. The committee is concerned that the space-based laser

(SBL) integrated flight experiment, has requested funding of $200

million this year, with the experiment a decade or more out. The

committee recommends a decrease of $28.0 million to hold SBL to

the level of the original fiscal year 2002 program of record, and

suggests that BMDO consider other, more near term space-based

demonstrations. The committee recommends $5.0 million for spacebased kinetic energy boost phase intercept concept definition, a decrease of $10.0 million, and believes $2.0 million in savings can be

found in program operations savings in this program element.

Sensors segment

The budget request contained $495.6 million in PE 63884C for

sensor development. The committee recommends $470.6 million, a decrease of $25.0

million from the budget request. The committee notes that the

Space-based Infrared System-low (SBIRS) has experienced significant growth over the level forecast for fiscal year 2001. The committee fully supports SBIRS-low, but places lower near term priority on SBIRS than other elements in the budget request as the

first satellites will not be available to begin supporting test activities until fiscal year 2007. The committee recommends the budget request of $75.3 million

to complete detailed design for the Russian-American Observation

Satellite program. The committee believes that cooperative threat

reduction should include missile defense activities that reduce the

risk of an undetected launch event.

Chemical/biological defense research, development, test and evaluation program

The budget request contained a total of $507.7 million for chemical/biological defense, including $39.1 million in PE 61384BP for

basic research, $125.5 million in PE 62384BP for applied research,

$69.2 million in PE 63384BP for advanced technology development,

$82.6 million in PE 63884BP for demonstration/validation, $159.9

million in PE 64384BP for engineering and manufacturing development, and $31.3 million in PE 65384BP for RDT&E management

support. The budget request also contained $140.1 million in PE

62383E for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

(DARPA) biological defense research program.

The committee recommends a total of $502.7 million for chemical/biological defense RDT&E, a decrease of $5.0 million to the

budget request. The committee also recommends a total of $150.1

million in PE 62383E for the DARPA biological warfare defense

program, an increase of $10.0 million. Elsewhere in this report the

committee has recommended an increase of $13.0 million for the

procurement of collective protection shelters, and has also provided

guidance regarding the contracts for procurement of anthrax vaccine.

In order to insure an integrated chemical/biological defense program within the Department of Defense (DOD), section 1793 of the

237

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public

Law 103–160) mandated the coordination and integration of all

DOD chemical/biological defense programs and the funding of these

programs in a defense-wide account, separate from the accounts of

the military departments. The committee believes that the Department has made considerable progress in improving cooperation

among the military departments. The committee has previously

noted a growing tendency to fund individual chemical/biological defense projects within the military services and again emphasizes

that this practice violates the intent and purpose of Congress in establishing the consolidated program.

The committee also emphasizes the necessity for the objectives of

the DARPA biological defense program to be coordinated closely

and integrated with the overall Department of Defense chemical

and biological defense program, and expects the Secretary of Defense to ensure that such an integrated program is established and

maintained.

The committee continues to support initiatives for research, development, and demonstration of advanced chemical and biological

defense technologies and systems. These initiatives should compete

for funding within the appropriate program elements of the joint

chemical and biological defense program and the DARPA biological

defense program on the basis of technical merit and the anticipated

ability of the technology or system to meet joint and service unique

needs.

Research in percutaneous, optical, and pulmonary effects of

mustard agent

The committee notes that the United States concentrated its research in the effects of mustard agent on the human body on the

percutaneous effects of mustard on the skin, while U.S. allies focused on the effects of mustard agent and agent vapors on the eyes

and on the pulmonary system. The committee understands that the

research activities of U.S. allies in these areas have been reduced

and that the U.S. research program in the effects of mustard agent

now focuses on all three areas: percutaneous, optical, and pulmonary. The committee encourages a balanced, threat-focused research effort on the effects of mustard and other chemical agents

on the human body and the identification and development of

promising technologies for protection and treatment against such

agents.

Optical computing device materials for chemical sensors

The committee recommends $41.1 million in PE 61384BP, an increase of $2.0 million to continue the basic research program in organic and inorganic optical computing device materials for use in

standoff sensors for detection and identification of chemical agents.

Chemical/biological regenerative air filtration systems

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

62384BP to accelerate the program for applied research in chemical/biological regenerative air filtration technology.

238

Chemical and biological mass spectrometer

The committee understands that the Army’s Chemical and Biological Mass Spectrometer (CBMS II) upgrade project will provide

the capability to detect and identify chemical and biological warfare

agents in very low concentrations. The committee recommends an

increase of $10.0 million in PE 63884BP to continue the capability

assessment, system optimization, and enhanced field-testing the

chemical and biological agent mass spectrometer upgrade.

Mobile chemical agent detector

The committee notes the progress made in the development of a

mobile chemical agent detector (MCAD) for the Marine Corps’

Chemical/Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF) and the recent testing of the system. The committee also notes the Marine

Corps Systems Command’s efforts to integrate, test and develop

concepts for an aerial chemical agent detection system for manned

and unmanned air platforms in support of the CBIRF and strongly

recommends that the technology be assessed for application to the

operational requirements for standoff chemical and biological agent

detectors for all the military services as an integral part of the Defense-wide chemical/biological defense program.

The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE

63884BP for continued development, demonstration, and validation

of the MCAD for support of the Marine Corps CBIRF and for the

other military services.

Asymmetric protocols for biological defense

The committee recommends $150.1 million in PE 62383E for the

DARPA biological defense research program, including $10.0 million for research, development, and demonstration of asymmetric

protocols for biological defense with emphasis on enhancing individual non-specific immunities to and blocking pathogens from biological threat agents.

Complex systems design

The budget request contained $11.0 million in PE 63704D8Z for

special technical support, but included no funds for complex systems design.

The committee notes that the effort to develop an integrated digital environment for complex systems design has progressed significantly and remains ahead of schedule. The committee is aware that

this development is fundamental to improving the acquisition process and minimizing life-cycle costs for future systems. The committee further notes that manpower, personnel, training, health

hazard, human factors, and personnel survivability (MANPRINT)

are among important factors to be addressed during the complex

design process.

The committee strongly supports improvements in the acquisition process and recommends $21.0 million in PE 63704D8Z, an increase of $10.0 million for complex systems design, and an increase

of $2.5 million in PE 65326A for MANPRINT activities within complex system design.

239

Counterproliferation analysis and planning system

The budget request contained $89.8 million in PE 63160BR for

advanced development of counterproliferation technologies, including $9.0 million for the counterproliferation and analysis system

(CAPS).

The CAPS program responds to the need for a comprehensive

and timely counterproliferation target planning tool to assist combatant commanders in the conduct of their contingency plan targeting responsibilities and provides a thorough description of nuclear, biological, chemical, and means of delivery proliferation program in countries of specific concern to the combatant commanders.

The budget request would complete detailed analysis on the first

group of countries identified by the combatant commanders and

begin analysis on the second group of countries. The committee recommends $92.8 million in PE 63160BR, an increase of $3.0 million to the budget request and providing a total

of $12.0 million for continued development of the CAPS program to

meet the requirements of the combatant commanders.

Defense imagery and mapping program

The budget request contained $115.2 million in PE 35102BQ for

the Defense imagery and mapping program, but included no funds

for the commercial joint mapping and visualization toolkit, or for

the geographic synthetic aperture radar (GeoSAR).

The committee is aware that applying commercial technology to

defense and intelligence applications, has potential to reduce costs

and while increasing performance. The committee is also aware

that software commonality also offers many potential savings.

The committee is aware that the airborne GeoSAR is being developed to provide a dual band interferometric radar that is able to

provide the military high resolution, three dimensional maps of the

earth, above, through, and below the vegetation canopy. The committee recommends $139.4 million in PE 35102BQ, an increase of $15 million for development of a common commercial

technology-based joint mapping toolkit interface to enhance and

customize intelligence, navigation and mission planning functions,

and an increase of $9.2 million for completion of GeoSAR development and demonstration.

Distributed common ground station/networking ISR assets

The budget request included $85.2 million in PE 35208A, $131.0 million in PE 63795N, and $11.4 million in PE 35208F for continued development of the Services’ efforts with respect to networking

Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) assets, especially the Distributed Common Ground Station (DCGS).

The committee strongly supports network-centric ISR developments that lead to the objective of network-centric warfare. The

committee believes that a fully networked ISR enterprise will allow

the more effective use of existing ISR platforms and systems, dramatically reducing the time required to prosecute time critical targets. The committee believes the technologies and techniques pursued under efforts such as the Network-Centric Collaborative Targeting (NCCT) initiative, the Naval Fires Network (NFN), the Dynamic Time Critical War Capability ‘‘5 Minute War,’’ and the ComVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00263 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.057 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
240

mand and Control, Sensor and Reconnaissance Tasking System

(CSMARTS) are some of the most critical developments for the Department’s transformation activities. Each of these initiatives use

existing platforms to produce a more capable effects-based

warfighting outcome. Therefore, the committee believes these network-centric approaches must be given highest priority.

The committee recommends that funding requested within the

foregoing program elements be focused on developing the infrastructure for network-centric ISR solutions and prototyping these

solutions. The committee directs the Service Secretaries to provide

the congressional defense and intelligence committees a report no

later that February 1, 2002 on how each plans to prioritize DCGS

developmental efforts on network-centric ISR warfare. The committee recommends an increase of $25.2 million in PE

63795N for rapidly transitioning the Naval Fires Network, or a

similar capability, from an experimental system to a float prototype

aboard the USS LINCOLN and/or the USS STENNIS. Further, the

committee recommends $33.9 million in PE 35208F, an increase of

$22.5 million, for the development and deployment of the NCCT

functionality in the Air Force’s DCGS to promote network-centric

ISR capabilities for use within the Air Operations Center.

Distributed operational testing capabilities

The committee is concerned that resurgence in acquisition spending over the next decade will place unacceptable pressure on an already downsized Test & Evaluation infrastructure. The committee

is aware of the potential of a small investment on distributed testing capabilities to significantly increase the capacity and responsiveness of Department of Defense major test facilities in meeting

new demands for operational testing for concept development and

experimentation, and to ensure interoperability, suitability, and effectiveness of deployed systems. The committee urges the Secretary

of Defense to request increased funds in Defense-wide Central Test

and Evaluation Investment Development (CTEIP) in fiscal year

2003 for distributed operational test infrastructure. This increase

in funding should support standards and protocols being developed

in the Army’s Virtual Proving Ground, the Navy’s Distributed Engineering Plant, and the Joint Synthetic Battle Space and Foundation Initiatives 2010.

Electrostatic decontamination system

The budget request contained $42.2 million in PE 63122D8Z for

advanced technology development under the interagency combating

terrorism technology support program.

The committee notes the progress being made in the development

and limited evaluation of an initial laboratory prototype electrostatic decontamination system that could provide an environmentally-safe, non-corrosive, and affordable chemical and biological

agent decontamination capability for the military services.

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE

63122D8Z to complete advanced technology development of the

electrostatic decontamination system, including testing against

chemical and live biological warfare agents, independent laboratory

confirmation of performance, and delivery of a field prototype sysVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00264 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.057 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
241

tem for testing and evaluation by Department of Defense and interagency users.

Facial recognition technology

The budget request contained $42.2 million in PE 63122D8Z for

combating terrorism technology support (CTTS).

The committee supports aggressive development of advanced

technology to control access to critical facilities, in particular biometric technology such as the principal component method of facial

recognition. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE

63122D8Z for facial recognition.

Funding transfers to support transformation DW

The committee is concerned that the largest area of growth in

Defense-wide research and development (R&D) investments, far exceeding increases proposed by the military services, has occurred in

the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and in the Defense Advanced

Research Project Agency. Several other defense-wide programs appear to have excessive management funding, non-specific programs,

or support fielded system development and other mature technologies. Other programs included un-forecast increases, apparently excessive management funding or unobligated prior year

funding. The committee believes that the highest priority for R&D

investments in fiscal year is 2002 to fund activities directly related

to transformation and future capabilities. Therefore, the committee

recommends the following decreases to Defense-wide accounts, to

be transferred to other programs within the Services that support

transformation and future system development:

62301E .................................................................................................... $70,000,000

62302E .................................................................................................... 5,000,000

62384BP .................................................................................................. 20,000,000

62702E .................................................................................................... 9,000,000

62712E .................................................................................................... 18,000,000

62715BR ................................................................................................. 35,000,000

63285E .................................................................................................... 25,000,000

63384BP .................................................................................................. 10,000,000

63716D8Z ................................................................................................ 30,000,000

63739E .................................................................................................... 8,000,000

63750D8Z ................................................................................................ 20,000,000

63755D8Z ................................................................................................ 20,000,000

63762E .................................................................................................... 4,000,000

63765E .................................................................................................... 5,000,000

63851D8Z ................................................................................................ 3,000,000

63923D8Z ................................................................................................ 3,000,000

65104D8Z ................................................................................................ 3,000,000

65116D8Z ................................................................................................ 5,000,000

65124D8Z ................................................................................................ 10,000,000

64805D8Z ................................................................................................ 10,805,000

DARPA ‘‘Exoskeleton Project’’

The committee recommends that $4.0 million of the decrease in

PE 62712E be assessed against the DARPA exoskeleton project for

enhancement of soldier physical performance. The committee finds

the project of questionable value and largely duplicative of work

done in the 1950s and the 1970s that was subsequently discarded

because of limited operational utility and adverse impact on the

human body.

242

Global infrastructure data conversion initiative & document exploitation

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD)

has a substantial requirement to standardize document exploitation material that is resident at various DOD departments and

agencies. This legacy material, which includes foreign language

and analytical reports, is currently in non-useable form, and needs

to be normalized into a formatted database. The committee believes

the Department should move forward to convert sensitive, legacy

Document Exploitation (Doc Ex) material into a standard useable

format, database, and media construct for use within the Department.

In addition, the committee encourages the Department to continue with its Global Infrastructure Data Conversion initiative,

which converts engineering data into a digital form to ensure that

critical worldwide infrastructure information can be utilized by

military analysts, mission planners, and counterintelligence specialists in support of the warfighter. The committee recommends

that the Department continue this effort, which supports Technology Protection and Counter-Intelligence communities.

High energy laser research and development

The committee recognizes the potential of directed energy in general, and high energy lasers (HEL) in particular, for future military

applications across the services. The committee is encouraged by

the progress shown by the technical community, but also understands some of the shortfalls of currently proposed concepts, and

believes it is necessary to proceed on a broad and coordinated front

to develop a wide range of technologies for weapons applications.

Accordingly, Subtitle D of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398) included a number of provisions governing the funding, organization,

management, and oversight of the high energy laser programs of

the Department of Defense. Among them, section 242 directed implementation of the High Energy Laser Master Plan establishing a

Joint Technology Office (JTO). Section 243 directed designation of

a single senior civilian official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (the ‘‘designated official’’) with broad authority and responsibility for management of high energy laser research. Section 248

required an annual report assessing management structure, funding, technical progress, and performance. Section 250 directed the

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Science and Technology, to evaluate the expansion of the HEL management structure to encompass directed energy programs based on other physics principals.

In response to section 250 of Public Law 106–398, the Deputy

Undersecretary of Defense for Science and Technology (also the

‘‘designated official’’) provided to the congressional defense committees the Report of the Directed Energy Review Panel, dated March

15, 2001, which recommended that HEL JTO not be expanded at

this time to encompass directed energy programs based on other

physics principals, citing scarce resources and a potentially detrimental diffusion of focus. The Panel also recommended revisiting

this issue on a regular basis.

243

The committee concurs, believing that it is valuable to continue

to assess the potential of other directed energy technologies for

military applications as they develop, and to reconsider inclusion of

those programs in the HEL management structure. Therefore, the

committee directs the Secretary of Defense to revise the Panel’s

recommendations on an annual basis, and include those recommendations in the annual report required under section 248 of

Public Law 106–398. In addition, the committee encourages the ‘‘designated official’’ to coordinate HEL programs with those overseeing other directed energy programs, including the High Power

Microwave Steering Group.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillator

The budget request contained no funds in PE 63738D8Z for cooperative medical research between the Department of Defense and

the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The committee notes that implantation of cardioverter

defibrillators was pioneered by clinical research in conjunction with

veterans centers, where trials using the defibrillators have reduced

cardiac death by a factor of five. The committee is aware that additional research is required on the efficacy of antiarrhythmic drugs

with implantable cardioverter defibrillators. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million and directs that it only be used for a joint research program on efficacy

of antiarrythmic drugs with implantable cardioverter defibrillators

conducted at the Washington, D.C. Veterans Center.

Joint technology applications analysis pilot program

The budget request contained $33.8 million in PE 65104D8Z for

technical studies, support, and analysis.

The committee notes that the National Defense University has

established a Center for National Security Policy to investigate the

implications of technological innovation on U.S. national security

policy and military plans. The committee also notes the findings of

a recent study conducted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies that concluded that the Department of Defense

can ‘‘no longer depend on a dedicated defense industrial base, but

will need to find ways to link advanced commercial technologies to

improved military capabilities.’’ To meet these goals the President

of the National Defense University has indicated that the military

services and defense agencies will need to rely more directly on the

commercial information technology industry to gain prompt access

to leading-edge capabilities and has proposed a pilot program between the university and the commercial information technology

industry. The purpose of the program is to find practical ways in

which the defense information technology community can gain a

mutual understanding of defense needs and industry capabilities

and identify opportunities to integrate information technology innovations into the U.S. military strategy.

The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE

65104D8Z for a pilot program in joint technology applications analysis to establish a pilot program to enhance communications between the Department of Defense and the information technology

industry.

244

Medical free electron laser

The budget request contained $14.7 million in PE 62227D8Z for

the medical free electron laser (MFEL).

The committee is aware that the MFEL program is a peer-reviewed program that has continued to make significant advances in

medical applications ranging from painless burn debreeding to

bone cutting and improved cancer detection.

The committee supports the MFEL program and recommends $19.7 million in PE 62227D8Z, an increase of $5.0 million for

MFEL.

Microelectromechanical systems (MEMS) sensors

The budget request contained $240.4 million in PE 61103D8Z for

university research initiatives.

The committee notes that the ability to accurately estimate temperature, vibration, strain and angular rotation in a bearing during

the operation of the machine in which the bearing is installed

would provide the capability for identifying inordinate wear, operating anomalies, or impending failure of a critical bearing assembly

and permit replacement of the assembly before the bearing failed

or adversely affected the performance of the machine. Such a capability in critical roller bearing assemblies in aircraft engines, tank

transmissions, and ship and submarine propulsors should result in

increased performance, extended life, and reduced life cycle maintenance and support costs for the weapon system in which the bearing assemblies would be installed. The committee believes that roller bearings with integrated sensors that incorporate

microelectromechanical systems technology have great potential for

providing such a capability. The committee recommends $243.4 million in PE 61103D8Z, an

increase of $3.0 million for the development of integrated MEMS

sensors for the determination of temperature, vibration, strain, and

angular rotation in rolling element bearings.

More efficient science and technology investment

The committee is aware that defense science & technology (S&T)

investment is critical to maintaining U.S. military superiority. The

committee notes that an efficient investment strategy, especially in

view of the diversity of the technology challenges and fiscally constrained S&T funding, should focus on those technologies that are

identified as critical to defense transformation. The committee that

S&T originated by the Department of Defense must avoid duplication of efforts ongoing in the private sector as well as unnecessary

duplication of effort between government laboratories and research

centers.

Therefore, the committee directs the secretaries of the military

departments to assess their S&T investments in service laboratories and research centers, as well as industry and academia, to

ensure that these investments fully support the ongoing transformation of the force. The committee further directs the Secretary

of Defense to assess/integrate the findings of the service secretaries

and to report to the congressional defense committees upon submission of the President’s budget, the results of the assessments and

how investments judged inappropriate have been redirected within

245

the S&T programs of the Department of Defense for the budget request for fiscal year 2003.

Special operations forces acquisition

The budget request contained $252.3 million in PE 116444BB for

SOF acquisition programs, but included no funds for several important development efforts. The committee notes that low-cost solidstate synthetic aperture radar is to be optimized to meet special operations requirements for target detection in high sea states and

high ground clutter environments. The committee is also aware of

a radar development to automatically detect and locate enemy mortar firing positions. Additionally, the committee is aware that the

Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is developing a reconnaissance tool kit to allow special operations forces (SOF) to tailor communications and other capabilities to specific mission requirements.

The committee recommends $266.0 million PE 116444BB, an increase of $7.5 million for solid-state synthetic aperture radar, an

increase of $3.0 million for lightweight counter-mortar radar, and

an increase of $3.2 million for the special reconnaissance tool kit.

Tactical missile recycling

The budget request contained $8.8 million in PE 63104D8Z for

advanced development of explosives demilitarization technology.

The committee notes the development by the Army’s Aviation

and Missile Command of technologies for recycling of tactical missiles, including: disassembly, energetics removal, warhead processing, energetics size reduction, energetics processing, slurry explosive manufacturing, hardware decontamination, and shipping

and receiving modules. The committee believes that the missile recycling capabilities (MRC) efforts should be transitioned to establish an organic MRC at an appropriate Army depot with a tactical

missile disposal and recycling mission.

The committee recommends $13.8 million in PE 63104D8Z, an

increase of $5.0 million to support the transition of the tactical missile recycling capabilities developed by the Army’s Aviation and

Missile Command to an appropriate Army depot.

Thermobaric warhead development

The budget request contained $295.1 million in PE 62715BR for

applied research in nuclear sustainment and counterproliferation

technologies, including $40.5 million for applied research in technologies including thermobaric warheads defeat hard targets. The

budget request also contained $2.9 million in PE 63609N for the

Navy’s insensitive munitions advanced development program.

The committee notes that the Russians developed thermobaric

materials and have weaponized thermobaric explosive formulations

that demonstrate impressive capabilities to generate pressure and

thermal effects much greater than conventional high explosives.

Parallel work in research and development of these materials has

been proceeding in the United States. Defense Threat Reduction

Agency (DTRA) applied research for fiscal year 2002 focuses on the

development of a thermobaric warhead payload that is optimized

246

for hard and deeply buried targets and destruction of weapons of

mass destruction.

The committee believes that thermobaric warheads offer the potential for greater performance and lower cost than conventional

high explosives while providing a more insensitive warhead and

therefore a safer option to conventional warheads. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE

62715BR in applied research for thermobaric warheads. The committee recommends coordination of the DTRA program with the

Navy’s insensitive munitions program.

U.S.-Israel boost phase intercept

The committee considers boost phase intercept programs to be of

the highest importance for the protection of the United States, our

forces overseas, and American allies and friends. In previous years,

Congress provided funds for a U.S.-Israel boost phase intercept

study, and in fiscal year 2000, the Director of the Ballistic Missile

Defense Organization (BMDO) reported positively on the technical

and operational feasibility of a joint U.S.-Israel boost phase intercept program utilizing unmanned aerial vehicles to destroy ballistic

missile launchers following a missile launch. The Director has indicated that a decision on whether to fund the U.S. share of such a

cooperative program with Israel would be made in conjunction with

preparation of the fiscal year 2003 budget.

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to negotiate an agreement with and undertake a joint-Boost Phase

Launcher Intercept program with Israel at the earliest possible

date and to consider other cooperative programs involving seabased or space-based programs. The committee believes this program and other joint cooperative programs would make an important contribution to Israel and the security of American forces deployed in the Middle East. It would also enhance regional deterrence. The lessons of such a program could be applied to other

American missile defense efforts.

The committee also urges the Secretary of Defense to examine

whether we can include American allies and Russia in future joint

missile defense programs. This cooperation could both enhance protection to our forces overseas and build international support and

understanding for our ballistic missile defense efforts.

Warfighter rapid acquisition programs

The budget request contained $23.6 million in PE 23761A for

Rapid Acquisition Program for Transformation (RAPT), $51.3 million in PE 63640M for Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration, $43.3 million in PE 63758N for Navy Warfighting Experiments and Demonstrations, $50.2 million in PE 23761F for the

Warfighter Rapid Acquisition Process (WRAP) rapid transition

fund, and $25.0 million in PE 63826D8Z for Quick Reaction

Projects.

The committee notes the significant funding commitments for

rapid acquisition programs by the military services and strongly

supports the efforts of the Secretary of Defense and the service secretaries of the military departments to accelerate the delivery of

new technologies and increased capability to the warfighter. AlVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00270 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.060 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
247

though all of the rapid acquisition programs share similar goals of

shortening acquisition time and rapid fielding of new technologies,

the committee notes variations in approaches and believes that all

of the programs should contain several common but essential elements. Candidates for rapid acquisition programs should be reviewed at the secretariat and service chief level, using competitive

selection criteria, and assessed on business-based analyses including cost savings and impact on current acquisition programs, as

well as improved capability. If selected for transition to acquisition,

the services must ensure that sufficient funding is programmed to

fully develop and acquire the selected candidates.

The committee supports the tremendous potential for cost savings and increased capability through the use of the Army RAPT

and recommends $86.4 million in PE 63001A, an increase of $2.5

million and a transfer of $23.6 million from PE 23761A. The committee urges the Secretary of the Army to review the following

projects for consideration as candidates for the Army RAPT:

Hybrid Battery-Fuel Cell

Joint Service Metrology R&D Support

Trajectory Optimized High Altitude Targeting (Top Hat)

Warfighter Advanced Technology Expandable Shelter

The committee also supports the Marine Corps Advanced Technology Demonstration and recommends $72.3 million in PE

63640M, an increase of $21.0 million. The committee urges the

Commandant to review the following projects for consideration as

candidates:

Fast Refueling System

Improved Long Range Rifle

Mobile Counter Fire System

Modular Ride-Along Air Filter Cleaning System

Quadrupole Resonance/Landmine Detection

The committee supports the initiation of the Navy Warfighting

Experiments and Demonstrations and recommends authorization of

$85.3 million in PE 63758N, an increase of $42.0 million. The committee urges the Secretary of the Navy to review the following

projects for consideration as candidates for the Navy Warfighting

Experiments and Demonstrations program:

Air Crane

Geotrak Positioning Technology

Interrogator for High-Speed Retro-Reflectometer Communication

Transportable Anti-Intrusion Pontoon Barrier System

(TABS)

Web Centric ASW Net

The committee supports the pursuit of cost savings and increased

capability through the use of the Air Force WRAP rapid transition

funding and recommends authorization of $74.2 million in PE

63XXXF, an increase of $24.0 million and a transfer of $50.2 million from PE 23761F. The committee urges the Secretary of the Air

Force to review the following projects for consideration as candidates for the Air Force WRAP:

Imaging and Target Support

TechSat 21/MicroSat

248

The committee believes that each of the service programs should

conduct reviews of candidate projects using procedures defined for

the defense-wide Challenge Program outlined in the legislative provision Sec. 244 described elsewhere in this report. The committee

directs the service secretaries to provide a report outlining their

rapid acquisition candidate review process, plan for transition of

selected candidates, level of leadership represented on the review

panel, and plan to ensure that sufficient funding is programmed to

support acquisition. The reports shall be submitted with budget request justification materials accompanying the fiscal year 2003 defense budget request.

OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Overview

The budget request contained $217.4 million for Operational Test

and Evaluation RDT&E. The committee recommends authorization

of $217.4 million.

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2002 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.

249


Insert offset folio 281 here 74948.133 A
250

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—Cooperative Department of Defense-Department of

Veterans Affairs Medical Research Program

This section would require that of the funds authorized to be appropriated by Section 201(4), $5,000,000 shall be available only for

Cooperative Department of Defense-Department of Veterans Affairs medical research program. This section would also require the

Secretary of Defense to transfer such amount to the Secretary of

Veterans Affairs for such purposes after 30 days of the date of enactment of this Act.

Section 212—Advanced Land Attack Missile Program

This provision would direct the Secretary of Defense to establish

a competitive program for the development of an advanced land attack missile (ALAM) for the DD–21 Land Attack Destroyer and

other naval combatants and would recommend authorization of

$20.0 million in PE 63795 for that purpose. The provision would

also direct the Secretary of Defense to submit to the congressional

defense committees with the fiscal year 2003 budget request a report providing the program plan, schedule and funding required for

the ALAM program.

The committee notes the letter from the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology) to the Chairman, House Armed

Services Committee, dated August 25, 1999, that endorsed the

Navy’s proposal to acquire the Land Attack Standard Missile

(LASM) as an interim capability and to develop an ALAM as soon

as possible. The letter also stated that the Navy would pursue a

multi-team industry competition for development of ALAM. The

committee also notes the Milestone 0 Acquisition Decision Memorandum, dated February 22, 2000, that designated the ALAM as a

major defense acquisition program. The committee further notes

that the Navy’s ALAM program plan and funding included in the

fiscal year 2001 budget request provided for completion of an

ALAM analysis of alternatives and entry into the program risk and

reduction phase in fiscal year 2001, competition and early prototyping by three to four contractors leading to an ALAM down-select/‘‘fly-off’’ by the end of fiscal year 2003, with delivery of the

ALAM system to the fleet in early fiscal year 2009.

251

In the statement of managers that accompanied 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 committees with the submission of the fiscal year 2002

budget request on recommended revisions to the ALAM program.

The committee is concerned that the report has not been received.

The committee further notes that 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 committee believes that in the absence of a program review

appropriate to a major defense acquisition program the Navy’s redirection of fiscal year 2001 funding for ALAM and failure to request

funding to continue the program in the fiscal year 2002 budget request contravenes the direction previously provided to the Navy

and reported to Congress by the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) to develop ALAM as soon as

possible and pursue a multi-team industry competition for that development.

Section 213—Collaborative Program for Development of Advanced

Radar Systems for Naval Applications

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to carry out

a program to develop and demonstrate advanced technologies and

concepts leading to advanced radar systems for naval and other applications. The program would be carried out under a memorandum of agreement between the Director of Defense Research

and Engineering (DDR&E), the Secretary of the Navy, and the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA),

and would include activities needed to develop and deploy advanced electronics materials needed to extend the range and sensitivity of naval radars. The joint effort would place particular emphasis on the development and maturation of high frequency and

high power wide bandgap semi-conductor materials and devices

and the identification of the weapon and sensor systems that would

use the new technology.

The committee notes that the Navy’s June 2000 report to the

congressional defense committees on the Surface Navy Radar Roadmap identified increased demands on radar performance and performance goals to meet the operational requirements expected in

2015 and cited advances in wide bandgap semi-conductor materials, such as silicon carbide and gallium nitride, that would be required to achieve increased range, advanced discrimination, and

signal processing capabilities needed for advanced theater ballistic

missile defense radars. The committee understands that the March

2001 Technology Assessment for the Surface Navy Radar Roadmap

concluded that to achieve these capabilities in fiscal year 2009 to

meet the 2015 operational capability requires a generational

change in high power amplifiers, device and array thermal management, digital radar, processing algorithms, and processor independent system software. The committee notes that advances in

wide bandgap semi-conductor materials and devices are key to that

252

technology development. The committee also understands that the

December 2000 Special Technology Review on RF Applications for

Wide Bandgap Technology by the Office of the Under Secretary of

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics recommended an

increased science and technology investment in wide bandgap materials, devices, circuits, and packaging that would total approximately $50 million per year over a five-year period beginning in fiscal year 2002.

The budget request contained $41.0 million in PE 62712E for the

DARPA applied research program in high frequency wide bandgap

semiconductor electronics and high power wide bandgap semiconductor electronics. The committee understands that the budget request contained $5.0 million in PE 61153N and $3.5 million in PE

62271N for the Navy’s applied research program in wide bandgap

semiconductor technology. The provision would authorize $41.0 million for DARPA for research and maturation of high frequency and

high power wide bandgap semiconductor electronics technology to

carry out the collaborative program established under the memorandum of agreement and $15.5 million for the Navy to carry out

its responsibilities under the memorandum of agreement for the

collaborative program, an increase of $7.0 million to the budget request.

Finally, the committee encourages the Director of the Ballistic

Missile Defense Organization to become a party to the memorandum of agreement for the collaborative program and to identify

the BMDO’s contribution to the program in the joint report to be

submitted to the congressional defense committees by January 31,

2002.

SUBTITLE C—BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

Section 231—Transfer of Responsibility for Procurement for Missile

Defense Programs from Ballistic Missile Defense Organization to

Military Departments

The section would amend section 224 of title 10, United States

Code to require that the budget submitted to Congress by the Department of Defense for research, development, test and evaluation

(RDT&E) of any Department of Defense missile defense program be

set forth under the account for Defense-wide RDT&E, and within

that account, under the sub-account for BMDO.

This section would further require the Secretary of Defense to establish, and submit to Congress, criteria for transferring missile

defense programs from BMDO to the military departments. The

criteria would be developed to ensure the viability of the program

as it passes to the military departments.

The section would also require the Secretary of Defense to notify

the congressional defense committees of the Secretary’s intent to

transfer a missile defense program to the military departments 60

days in advance of such action.

253

Section 232—Repeal of Program Element Requirements for

Ballistic Missile Defense Programs

This section would strike section 223 of title 10, United States

Code, which defines the statutory program element structure for

budget justification materials submitted to Congress by the Department of Defense for activities of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO).

Section 233—Support of Ballistic Missile Defense Activities of the

Department of Defense by the National Laboratories of the Department of Energy

This section would, at the discretion of the director of BMDO,

make available from funds authorized to be appropriated pursuant

to section 201(4) up to $25.0 million for research, development, and

demonstration activities at the national laboratories of the Department of Energy (DOE) in support of missions of BMDO. The provision would make available to the Director of BMDO, acting in consultation with the Administrator of the Nuclear National Security

Administration (NNSA), the resources of the national laboratories

of the DOE to address critical missile defense needs. The availability of the funds would be subject to provision of matching funds

by NNSA. Activities would be conducted under the terms of a

memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of Defense

and the Secretary of Energy for the use of national laboratories for

ballistic missile defense programs.

The committee believes that the national laboratories of the National Nuclear Security Administration present a largely untapped

source of experience and expertise relevant to one of the nation’s

highest priorities, ballistic missile defense. The committee further

believes that activities in support of missile defense are consistent

with the laboratories’ national security mission, will not significantly impede the laboratories in carrying out their important role

of guaranteeing the safety, reliability and performance of nuclear

weapons, and may in fact present new opportunities as the strategic stockpile draws down. The committee is disturbed by the apparent lack of interest shown by the laboratories in the last several

years, especially given their unique qualifications to address certain aspects of missile defense. The committee strongly urges the

Departments of Defense and the Department of Energy to move beyond the negotiation of memoranda, and begin to apply the resources of the national laboratories to this great challenge in a

meaningful way.

Section 234—Missile Defense Testing Initiative

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop

necessary infrastructure and to implement a rigorous test regimen

for ballistic missile defense programs. This section would require

testing in as realistic a manner as is practicable, taking into consideration the planned operational concepts for each system, and

continued testing after deployment.

The committee is aware of shortfalls in testing of ballistic missile

defense systems, including those recently expressed by the Director

of Operational Test and Evaluation and the Panel on Reducing

254

Risk in Ballistic Missile Defense Flight Test Programs. The committee is similarly concerned about both the realism of the geometry that the current test infrastructure can support, as well as the

limited range of engagement conditions (speed, altitude, crossing

angle, etc.) accommodated. The committee also believes that test

planning and infrastructure has not been adequate to support operationally realistic testing of the ground-based midcourse system,

such as engagement of a single target with multiple interceptors

(‘‘shoot-look-shoot’’) or engagement of multiple targets with multiple interceptors, nor has it fully exploited opportunities for demonstration of interoperability (‘‘family of systems’’) concepts. The

committee notes that much more can, and must, be accomplished

prior to flight testing, and strongly endorses ground testing at the

highest level of integration as possible.

While recognizing the necessity of extensive testing, the committee places a high priority on value and believes that approaches,

such as ‘‘campaign testing’’ where multiple tests are conducted in

rapid succession, can significantly reduce the average cost per test,

delivering more realistic data for less cost. Historically, missile systems have required extensive and rigorous testing to ensure performance and reliability, often suffering high failure rates initially.

Rigorous testing is especially crucial in missile defense due to the

magnitude of the technical challenges and the complexity of the

systems required to meet those challenges. The committee expects

that there will be failures in a rigorous test program, and cautions

against placing great significance on either the success or failure

of any single event.

Section 235—Missile Defense System Test Bed Facilities

This section would clarify section 2353 of title 10, United States

Code governing the use of Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) funds in fiscal year 2002 for the specific purpose

of construction of a missile defense test bed. This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to use funds made available to the

Department of Defense for RDT&E to acquire, improve, or construct missile defense system test bed facilities that also have general utility. The provision limits the total cost of such activities to

not more than $500.0 million. The section would also authorize the

use of RDT&E funds to mitigate the impact on local community

services or facilities resulting from the construction or operation of

missile defense system test bed facilities, provided that the Secretary of Defense determines that there is an immediate and substantial need as a direct result of such activities.

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Section 241—Establishment of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Joint

Operational Test Bed System

This section would require the Secretary of the Defense to establish of a Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Joint Operational Test Bed System (JOTBS) and to

transfer two Predator UAVs, tactical control system (TCS) ground

station and assorted equipment from the Navy to JFCOM within

255

90 days of enactment of this Act. This section would further provide for the transfer of two Predator UAVs from JFCOM to the Air

Force when no longer required for the JFCOM JOTBS.

The committee notes that the report accompanying the Floyd D.

Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001

(Public Law 106–398), directed the Secretary of the Navy to transfer custody of two Predator unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and

the associated TCS ground station to the Joint Forces Command

(JFCOM) for use in the joint operational test bed system (JOTBS).

The committee is seriously concerned that the Secretary has not

carried out this transfer. Therefore, the committee recommends a

provision (Sec. 241) that would require that this transfer be made

promptly, and that the Commander-in-Chief, JFCOM complete establishment of an independent JOTBS. The committee is aware

that JFCOM promulgated a JOTBS Strategic Plan May 2000 that

provides clear direction for such an independent test bed.

The committee observes that Congress established JFCOM because the services do not inherently have a joint perspective and

that joint interoperability of intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance (ISR) and other systems is essential for an enhanced future military capability. Therefore, the committee believes that in

order to be fully successful, the JOTBS must be independent of the

services.

The committee further observes that CINC JFCOM’s failure to

complete establishment of the independent JOTBS raises questions

over the ability of JFCOM to effectively carry out its mission in the

face of resistance by a service. The Predator UAV is an Air Force

platform and therefore, when and if Joint Forces Command no

longer requires the two Predator UAVs, the committee directs that

custody shall be transferred to the Air Force.

Section 242—Demonstration Project to Increase Small Business

and University Participation in Office of Naval Research Efforts

to Extend Benefits of Science and Technology Research to Fleet

This section would authorize that the Secretary of the Navy, acting through the Chief of Naval Research, to carry out a demonstration project to explore ways to increase and expand small business

and university participation in research efforts beneficial to the

fleet. This section would require that the Secretary establish a

Navy Technology Extension Center at a location to be selected and

would permit participants in the Small Business Innovation Research Program (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer

Program (STTR) that are awarded contracts by the Office of Naval

Research to access and use Navy facilities without charge for the

purpose of carrying out those contracts. This section would also

permit universities, institutions of higher learning, and Federally

Funded Research and Development Centers collaborating with

SBIR and STTR participants to use Navy facilities.

The committee notes a number of initiatives to encourage small

business and university participation in the Department of Defense

(DOD) program to extend the benefits of research in science and

technology to the military components. However, the committee is

concerned that there is no overall program to develop a comprehensive science and technology partnership between small businesses,

256

universities, and Department of Defense research facilities. The

committee believes that there is much that could be gained by all

participants in such partnerships, and that the lesson learned in

the demonstration project might be applied to other DOD research

programs to the benefit of all the military departments and defense

agencies.

Section 243—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 Department of 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 the Secretary 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 244—Program to Accelerate the Introduction of Innovative

Technology in Defense Acquisition Programs

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to establish a

program to provide increased opportunities for the introduction of

innovative technology in acquisition programs of the Department of

Defense and would provide $40.0 million in PE 63826D8Z for the

program.

The committee notes the actions taken by the Department in response to section 818 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) and initial improvements in facilitating the rapid transition into Defense

acquisition programs of technologies developed in successful Small

Business Innovative Research (SBIR) phase two projects. The committee also notes the initial actions taken by the Department in response to section 812 of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) with the objective of fostering competition wherever possible to create incentives for the development and rapid insertion into Defense acquisition programs of

technological innovations developed by commercial firms, including

small technology companies.

This section would place increased emphasis on the program for

introduction of innovative and cost-saving technology into Defense

acquisition programs by requiring the Secretary of Defense to establish a ‘‘Challenge Program’’ to provide individuals or activities

257

within or outside the Department of Defense the opportunity to

propose alternatives (‘‘challenge proposals’’) at the component, subsystem, or system level of an existing Defense acquisition program

that would result in improvements in the program. This section

would also require the Secretary to establish a panel of highly

qualified scientists and engineers to review and evaluate challenge

proposals and make recommendations to the Under Secretary of

Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) regarding the incorporation of the challenge proposal in the challenged Defense acquisition program. This section would also require that, in the

event the panel finds that the challenge proposal will result in improvements in performance, affordability, manufacturability, or

operational capability at the component, subsystem, or system level

of the challenged acquisition program, which are substantially superior to the incumbent component, subsystem, or system, the Secretary would carry out a plan to acquire and implement the challenge proposal. This section would also require the Secretary to ensure the elimination of conflicts of interest in carrying out each review and evaluation of challenge proposals that are submitted to

the panel. Finally, the provision would require the Secretary to

submit a report to Congress on the implementation of the ‘‘Defense

Challenge’’ program. The budget request contained $25.0 million in PE 63826D8Z for

the Quick Reaction Projects initiative. The committee recommends

$66.0 million in PE63826D8Z, including $40.0 million for the Defense Challenge program. The committee believes that the introduction of innovative technology into Defense systems through the

Defense Challenge program and the Quick Reaction Projects Initiative possess a tremendous potential for achievement of cost-savings

and increased operational capability for U.S. armed forces. The

committee urges the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition,

Technology, and Logistics) to review the following projects for consideration as candidates for the Quick Reaction Projects and Defense Challenge program:

Microwave Ferrite Components

Miniature Interceptor Technology

Pacific Fleet Force Protection Technology Testbed

Radio Frequency Vulnerability

‘‘Spray Cooling’’ Optimizing Electronics for Advanced Controlled Environment Systems

(258)

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

OVERVIEW

The budget request for operation and maintenance represents an increase of $17.8 billion (38.4 percent) over spending levels authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2001. Although the committee

is encouraged by this increased level of attention to the critical

readiness accounts, the committee is concerned that savings assumptions presented in the amended budget request are unattainable. As an example, of the nearly $1.0 billion in savings assumed

through the enacting of management reforms, $140.0 million is

based on a change in the operation of the maintenance and repair

depots, and $190.0 million is based on a change to section 276a of

title 40, United States Code, (46 Stat. 1494) commonly referred to

as the Davis-Bacon Act. Both of these proposals would require legislation that has been historically unsuccessful. The committee is

troubled by the decision to assume substantial savings associated

with proposed legislation, prior to Congress being afforded an opportunity to debate and enact into law the requested proposals.

The legislative changes assumed in the amended budget request

are significant policy changes that need complete and thorough debate within Congress. The committee believes that these proposed

savings initiatives are premature and, therefore, recommends an

undistributed reduction of $330.0 million in the operation and

maintenance accounts to offset these assumed savings. The committee further expects the Secretary of Defense to apply this reduction within the defense-wide operation and maintenance accounts

and not to the individual military services.

The committee understands that a significant portion of the proposed increases for operation and maintenance funding is related

to increased fuel, spare parts, energy costs, along with an attempt

at arresting the decline in military installation infrastructure. In

addition, the committee notes that even with the increases recommended in the amended budget request, the chiefs of the military services reported nearly a $10.0 billion shortfall in operation

and maintenance funding for fiscal year 2002. Despite increased

funding, there is no significant increase in planned operations by

the military services in fiscal year 2002. In fact, the Department

of the Army is decreasing its normal operation tempo for its combat

vehicles. Although the budget request provided increased funding

for the historically under-funded real property maintenance accounts, this increase merely arrests the decline that has occurred

over many years. The committee believes that the Department of

Defense must sustain this offset by devoting significant resources

over a multi-year program to facility sustainment and renovations.

The committee conducted a series of hearings in an effort to obtain a more accurate and detailed assessment of current and nearVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00282 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR194.066 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
259

term readiness and to determine to what extent the amended budget request supports readiness requirements. As in the past recent

years, the evidence received during the hearings was of an overextended force struggling to maintain acceptable readiness levels in

an environment of declining human and budgetary resources. The

committee continues to hear significant complaints about lack of

spare parts, aging equipment, decaying infrastructure, growing

equipment and facilities’ backlogs, and the difficulties of conducting

quality training and operational deployments with significant personnel shortages.

The committee continues to believe that DOD must continue to

take steps to reduce costs in non-readiness related accounts. At the

same time, DOD must provide more aggressive oversight of the

military departments’ proposals to reduce costs through contracting

out and privatization. The committee fully supports well developed

and justified programs that will reduce costs; but, at a time when

readiness shortfalls continue to grow, the committee does not believe that poorly developed and uncoordinated new programs, or

funding for administrative and support activities, such as headquarters management, should be increasing. As an example, the

committee believes the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) program to be a well-intentioned and potentially beneficial program.

However, again this year, the Department of the Navy has failed

to adequately provide the committee with the specific funding and

budgetary data necessary for the committee to provide full approval of this program. Consistent with past practice, the committee has identified spending that does not directly support military readiness and has reprioritized it into other areas.

260


Insert offset folio 292 here 74948.134
261


Insert offset folio 293 here 74948.135
262


Insert offset folio 294 here 74948.136
263


Insert offset folio 295 here 74948.137
264


Insert offset folio 296 here 74948.138
265


Insert offset folio 297 here 74948.139
266


Insert offset folio 298 here 74948.140
267


Insert offset folio 299 here 74948.141
268


Insert offset folio 300 here 74948.142
269


Insert offset folio 301 here 74948.143
270


Insert offset folio 302 here 74948.144
271


Insert offset folio 303 here 74948.145
272


Insert offset folio 304 here 74948.146
273


Insert offset folio 305 here 74948.147
274


Insert offset folio 306 here 74948.148
275


Insert offset folio 307 here 74948.149
276


Insert offset folio 308 here 74948.150
277


Insert offset folio 309 here 74948.151
278


Insert offset folio 310 here 74948.152
279


Insert offset folio 311 here 74948.153
280


Insert offset folio 312 here 74948.154
281


Insert offset folio 313 here 74948.155
282


Insert offset folio 314 here 74948.156
283


Insert offset folio 315 here 74948.157
284


Insert offset folio 316 here 74948.158
285


Insert offset folio 317 here 74948.159
286


Insert offset folio 318 here 74948.160
287


Insert offset folio 319 here 74948.161
288


Insert offset folio 320 here 74948.162
289

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

BUDGET REQUEST ADJUSTMENTS

The committee recommends the following adjustments to the fiscal year 2002 amended budget request:

[In millions of dollars]

Department of the Army Adjustments:

Automated Identification Technology (AIT/RFID) ................................. +$9.0

M-Gators ................................................................................................... +6.6

Replacement Containers, Fort Drum ...................................................... +1.0

Electronic Maintenance and Point to Point Wiring ............................... +4.0

Wage Grade Employees ........................................................................... +4.36

BA–4 Administration ............................................................................... ¥30.0

BA–4 International Military Headquarters ........................................... ¥47.0

BA–4 Servicewide Transportation .......................................................... ¥21.0

BA–4 Servicewide Communications ........................................................ ¥12.6

BA–4 Manpower Management ................................................................ ¥6.4

BA–4 Other Servicewide Support ........................................................... ¥11.8

BA–4 Base Operations Support ............................................................... ¥19.2

Reduction in Strategic Sourcing (A–76 Studies) .................................... ¥8.36

Advisory and Assistance Services ........................................................... ¥25.0

Information Technology Automated Information System ..................... ¥20.0

Army Reserve Controlled Humidity Preservation ................................. +25.0

Army Reserve Cold Weather Clothing (ECWCS) .................................. +2.0

Army National Guard Cold Weather Clothing (ECWCS) ..................... +6.0

Army National Guard Special Training ................................................. +2.0

Department of the Navy Adjustments:

BA–3 Depot Apprenticeship Program ..................................................... +2.0

Wage Grade Employees ........................................................................... +3.56

ATC Corrosion Control ............................................................................. +2.0

BA–4 Administration ............................................................................... ¥40.0

BA–4 Acquisition and Program Management ........................................ ¥43.0

BA–4 Planning, Engineering and Design ............................................... ¥6.6

Reduction in Strategic Sourcing (A–76 Studies) .................................... ¥53.56

NMCI Reduction ....................................................................................... ¥125.0

Information Technology Center ............................................................... ¥35.0

Enterprise Resource Planning ................................................................. ¥33.0

Advisory and Assistance Services ........................................................... ¥25.0

Information Technology Automated Information System ..................... ¥20.0

USMC Full Spectrum Battle Equipment ............................................... 6.8

USMC Reduction in Strategic sourcing (A–76) ...................................... ¥1.0

Department of the Air Force Adjustments:

SPARES Information System .................................................................. +7.0

Aging Propulsion Systems Life Extension .............................................. +10.0

SCOT Life Support System ..................................................................... +6.0

Wage Grade Employees ........................................................................... +4.32

BA–4 Administration ............................................................................... ¥53.0

BA–4 Servicewide Communications ........................................................ ¥40.0

BA–4 Servicewide Transportation .......................................................... ¥41.0

BA–4 Other Servicewide Activities ......................................................... ¥11.4

BA–4 Security Programs .......................................................................... ¥62.9

BA–4 Personnel Programs ....................................................................... ¥18.0

BA–4 International Support .................................................................... ¥8.0

Military Personnel Underexecution Support ......................................... ¥75.0

Reduction in Strategic Sourcing (A–76 Studies) .................................... ¥8.32

Advisory and Assistance Services ........................................................... ¥25.0

Information Technology Automated Information System ..................... ¥20.0

Air Force Reserve Military Personnel Underexecution ......................... ¥12.0

Air National Guard, Continued B–1B Operations ................................. +100.0

Office, Secretary of Defense Adjustments:

Impact Aid ................................................................................................ +30.0

Legacy Program ........................................................................................ +2.0

Wage Grade Employees ........................................................................... +1.26

OSD Program Growth .............................................................................. ¥19.4

290

Defense-wide Activities Adjustments:

Washington Headquarters Service .......................................................... ¥44.0

Defense Human Resources Activity ........................................................ ¥24.0

Defense Contract Audit Agency .............................................................. ¥7.4

Defense Contract Management Agency .................................................. ¥6.9

Defense Information Systems Agency .................................................... ¥41.0

Defense Logistics Agency ......................................................................... ¥3.5

Commercial Technology for Maint. Activities (CTMA) .......................... +20.0

Defense Security Cooperation Agency .................................................... ¥7.1

Defense Threat Reduction Agency .......................................................... ¥4.9

BA–4 Joint Chiefs of Staff ....................................................................... ¥9.5

Information Technology Automated Information System ..................... ¥20.0

Reductions in Strategic Sourcing (A–76 Studies) .................................. ¥5.26

Advisory and Assistance Services ........................................................... ¥25.0

Unrealized Savings ................................................................................... ¥330.0

Advisory and Assistance Services

The committee continues to believe that funding for Advisory and

Assistance Services is in excess of the needs of the Department of

Defense. Therefore, the committee recommends the following decreases for this function:

[In millions of dollars]

Army ................................................................................................................. $25.0

Navy .................................................................................................................. 25.0

Air Force ........................................................................................................... 25.0

Defense Agencies ............................................................................................. 25.0

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 $104.8 million to be apportioned to the military services by the

Department of Defense.

Strategic Sourcing (A–76)

The committee has expressed for several years concerns over the

process by which government positions are analyzed for possible

conversion to a contractor position pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular A–76. One concern with the process is

the cost of the studies. The Secretary of Defense recommended that

an additional 3,200 positions be studied in fiscal year 2002 over

that which the services planned to study. The Department provided

to the defense agencies and military services $16 million or $5,000

for each position to be studied. The committee does not believe it

is appropriate to increase the number of positions to be studied.

The committee, therefore, recommends those additional 3,200 positions not be studied and the funding for these studies be reduced.

In addition, in light of the Department’s belief that for each position to be studied the services and agencies require $5,000, the

committee is reducing the number of positions the Department of

Army and Department of Air Force can study to reflect the funding

the services requested to conduct A–76 studies. The number of positions that can be studied in the Department of Navy and by defense agencies is limited to the number of positions identified to be

studied in the Department’s program budget decision. The comVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00314 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.067 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
291

mittee recommends the following reductions due to reduced A–76

studies:

[In millions of dollars]

Army ................................................................................................................. $8.36

Navy .................................................................................................................. 53.56

Air Force ........................................................................................................... 8.32

Marine Corps ................................................................................................... 1.0

Defense Activities ............................................................................................ 5.26

OTHER ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Corrosion Prevention and Control

The committee understands recent Department of Defense (DOD) studies reveal that corrosion prevention costs roughly $10 billion

per year. As an example, the Army’s Tank and Automotive Command found that corrosion damage annually costs $850 per truck.

The committee is concerned that the cost of damage caused by corrosion to the department’s vehicle fleet and facilities needs to be

significantly reduced or the military services will continue to shoulder an unneeded economic burden, which will adversely affect readiness and equipment availability and reliability.

The committee continues to monitor with interest the efforts

within the military services to reduce the related costs to control

corrosion, and is particularly encouraged by the recent increased

emphasis on finding ways to cut the cost of maintaining their massive amounts of equipment, facilities and infrastructure. The committee is concerned, however, that the efforts within DOD continues to be disjointed and it appears there is no office within DOD

solely responsible to collect, review, validate, and distribute information on proven corrosion prevention methods and products. The

absence of leadership on this issue means that no single comprehensive plan exists and adequate program management and

funding specifically for the eradication of the problems associated

with corrosion is not planned in future budgeting. Moreover, decisions concerning corrosion prevention and control are left to unit

commanders, or more likely, to service maintenance personnel. The

committee believes that the military services are in need of programmatic and technical leadership if DOD is to reduce its corrosion related costs and the resultant adverse impact on readiness.

The committee is aware of many existing efforts within private

industry to perfect products and methods to be used to successfully

fight corrosion and infrastructure degradation. The committee is

particularly interested in the unique capabilities of Ambient Temperature Cure (ATC) glass coating. These coatings cost little to

produce and apply, are environmentally safe, have the potential for

enormous savings in cost avoidance in both energy savings and infrastructure degradation, and are particularly beneficial to those

units that must perform their assigned missions in a heavy salt environment on or near the sea.

The committee believes that DOD should do more to take advantage of new technologies, such as ATC, and recommends an increase of $2.0 million for the Department of the Navy to a conduct

pilot project at Naval Air Station, Jacksonville, Florida utilizing

ATC technology. In addition, the committee strongly urges the SecVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00315 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.068 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
292

retary of Defense to establish a single office within DOD to coordinate corrosion prevention and control issues with the military services and with the overall responsibility to develop and execute a department wide action plan for how to combat corrosion.

Information Systems

The committee continues to be concerned with the control and

oversight the chief information officers (CIOs) of the Department of

Defense and the military services are exercising over development

and fielding of information systems. The committee believes that

CIOs must exercise their authority and promote and endorse joint

and interoperable systems that meet validated requirements, but

also limit or halt development of systems that do not comply with

the requirements of section 811 of the Floyd D. Spence National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–

398). For example, the committee is concerned that each of the

services are developing their own version of the Global Command

Support System (GCSS). The committee is equally concerned with

the Defense Integrated Military Human Resources System, which

has received almost $200 million in funding, yet the requirements

for this system are still being developed without even an initial

fielding of a system.

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction in funding for

information systems as follows:

[In millions of dollars]

Army ................................................................................................................. $20.0

Navy .................................................................................................................. 20.0

Air Force ........................................................................................................... 20.0

Defense Agencies ............................................................................................. 20.0

Enterprise Resource Planning

The committee believes that enterprise resource planning could

be a valuable tool to the Department of the Navy. Unfortunately,

despite repeated requests by the committee, the Navy did not provide the committee with the basic information required to support

this initiative. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of

$33.0 million in the Navy account.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

Environmental Restoration Activities

For the sustainable future use of land that contains unexploded

ordnance (UXO) and discarded military equipment that has aged,

there must be proper site planning, investigation, cleanup, and finally site closeout. The committee recognizes this can be a complex

process with difficult technical challenges. Yet, the committee is

concerned with the Department of Defense’s (DOD) slow pace of

progress and level of effort toward restoring and preserving property on Guam, and other areas, where extensive military activities

occurred during the various phases of World War II. The committee

strongly encourages DOD to be more aggressive in the management and clearance of UXOs and other DOD-related weaponry at

former military sites, especially in Guam.

293

Vernon Hills NIKE Missile Site

The committee is concerned with reports of toxic contamination

at a former NIKE missile battery site located in Vernon Hills, Illinois. The committee understands that the Department of the Navy

is transferring ownership of the land to the Village of Vernon Hills

where the land will be used to provide recreation and athletic facilities, a veterans’ memorial, and a storm water retention area.

The committee recommends that the Secretary of the Navy review

the current land transfer plan and ensure that remediation is completed in accordance with all applicable federal and state laws.

MORALE, WELFARE, AND RECREATION ISSUES

Access to Slot Machines

The committee understands that the Secretary of Defense is preparing the report on the impact of slot machines on military communities overseas required by section 336 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398). The

committee intends to review the report carefully and take appropriate action based on the information provided. In the interim, the

committee is disturbed to learn of several instances in Germany

and Italy where unmonitored slot machines are easily accessible by

children. The committee found one case where slot machines were

placed in an unobserved hallway in a club located in a military

housing area and another instance where several slot machines

were located in a snack bar where military high school students ate

lunch. The committee does not need the forthcoming report to determine that slot machines should not be accessible by children.

The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to review

the locations at which slot machines are installed and ensure that

no machines are accessible by minors.

Military Exchange Private Label Manufacturers

The committee believes that the three military exchange systems

perform a vital mission in bringing an array of products and services to military members and their families serving throughout the

world. Part of that mission is providing a touch of home, and is

represented by the many brand name products sold by military exchanges. Another part of that mission is savings, which are provided to some degree by private label goods sold by the exchanges.

Private label programs are increasing, with Army and Air Force

Exchange private label goods manufactured in some 70 factories located in 18 countries and with sales approaching $50.0 million annually. The committee is concerned that the exchanges have no

knowledge of worker conditions at these widespread factories.

While the committee understands that no national standard exists

under which worker conditions at these factories may be judged,

the committee believes that the exchanges should at minimum be

able to assure its patrons that none of its products are manufactured with child or forced labor. The committee also does not wish

the exchanges to lag behind the generally accepted practices of responsible domestic retailers. The committee believes that the exchanges may rely upon the manufacturers of brand name products

294

to monitor the production of their own goods, but believes the exchanges should have visibility of the conditions under which their

private label goods are produced. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure the military exchanges implement a program that assures that private label exchange merchandise is not produced by child or forced labor.

OTHER ISSUES

Army’s Capital Investment Program for Depot Facilities

The committee is pleased with the Army’s initiative to increase

funds for the sustainment, restoration, and modernization of its facilities. The committee is also pleased with the Army’s Capital Investment Program for its depot facilities. The committee directs the

Secretary of the Army to submit a comprehensive plan for implementing the Army’s Capital Investment Program to the House

Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Committee on

Armed Services by March 1, 2002. The plan should include the following:

(1) The core logistics capabilities, competencies, and components necessary for current and future weapons systems;

(2) The current state of existing facilities and equipment;

and

(3) A capital needs plan to upgrade the depots to meet current and future core requirements, continue technology infusion in the production process, and an estimate of the total investment costs required to implement the plan.

Army Workload and Performance System

The committee has consistently endorsed the Army Workload

and Performance System (AWPS) as an initiative to correct systemic problems in the Army’s manpower requirements determination process. The committee remains concerned that AWPS system

requirements, which would allow command-level cost management

capabilities, have not been achieved. The committee also notes with

concern that the installation of the AWPS Decision Support System—which would allow Army management to evaluate the efficiency of its maintenance depots, the actual cost of depot-level repair, and develop a best-value determination model to examine the

economics of depot versus private-sector repair—is two years behind schedule. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of

the Army not to reallocate depot maintenance workload from the

public to the private sector until the Army has achieved full implementation of the Army Workload and Performance System in the

depots as detailed in the AWPS Master Plan dated June 8, 2001.

This restriction on workload allocation would remain in place until

the Secretary of the Army certifies to Congress that the Army

Workload and Performance System is fully implemented in the depots and the General Accounting Office has reviewed the certification.

295

Automated Document Conversion System Program

The committee understands that the Department of Defense

(DOD) has a continuing requirement for data capture and conversion support for its weapons systems and logistics databases, and

the Automated Document Conversion System (ADCS) effort in fiscal year 2002 will collect, digitize and electronically warehouse systems engineering data, technical manuals, and acquisition information, that will allow the warfighter to request weapon’s systems

support and logistics services on a near real-time basis. This program supports the efforts to bring the DOD into a paperless environment by the end of fiscal year 2002. Further, the digitizing of

logistics data supports a CJCS requirement to improve logistics

services necessary to deploy forces quickly.

Automatic Inventory Technology

The committee recognizes the long-standing and continuous issue

of inventory control within the Department of Defense, and that

the Department of the Army has made significant strides in controlling ammunition inventories using Automatic Inventory Technology/Radio Frequency Identification (AIT/RFID) for ammunition.

Further, the recent test and evaluation of the AIT/RFID for Maintenance conducted at Corpus Christi Army Aviation Depot, Texas,

demonstrated the real time capability of the system for locating

parts and components in a production line environment, thereby,

significantly reducing down time for major combat equipment during the recapitalization process. The results of the Corpus Christi

pilot program concluded that using Maintenance AIT/RFID equipment significantly enhanced productivity within the depot. The

committee strongly believes that the Department of the Army

should increase the utilization of AIT/RFID to provide this capability for other Army maintenance depots and recommends an increase of $9.0 million for this purpose.

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 to bring the most modern and advanced manufacturing capabilities from commercial industry to depot and related maintenance activities, is valuable as

a technology resource which will have a positive effect on the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department’s industrial activities.

The CTMA program is a by-product 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. Therefore, the committee recommends the addition of $20.0 million for

the Defense Logistics Agency to pursue strategies for re-engineering 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.

296

Distance Learning Implementation Program

The committee remains concerned that insufficient resources are

being applied to exploit the potential that distance learning technology offers to enhance training and readiness. There is wide acceptance that distance learning technologies have the potential to

deliver training to military members and support the delivery of

‘‘learner centric’’ quality training when and where the training is

needed. More importantly, distance learning improves readiness by

providing greater access to military training and education at a

lower cost. The committee is aware of the initiatives under consideration in the Army’s Total Army Distance Learning Program

(TADLP) and the National Guard Distributive Training Technology

Program (DTTP). However, the resources presently allocated for

these programs are not sufficient to meet future needs in a responsive manner. The committee anticipates that the Department of the

Army will use funds authorized for distance learning to develop a

comprehensive and executable implementation plan that will more

expeditiously exploit distance learning technologies. The committee

believes that a high priority should be given to those programs focused on enhancing training and development in the reserve components, especially in the National Guard.

Hunter Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle

The committee believes that the Hunter Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV) system has demonstrated that it is effective and

reliable in supporting Army and joint combat operations,

warfighter exercises, and unmanned aerial vehicle tactics, techniques and procedures development. The committee also noted that

user demands on the Hunter system exceed current availability

and are expected to grow. Therefore, the committee strongly urges

that the Army maintain the Hunter system in an operational status by continuing to adequately fund the system until a replacement which meets the Army TUAV objective requirements is available.

Navy-Marine Corps Intranet

This section would permanently exclude the Marine Corps from

the Navy’s initiative known as the Navy-Marine Corps Internet

(NMCI). This section would also continue the exclusion of the shipyards and naval aviation depots from the NMCI in fiscal year 2002.

The committee continues to support the Department of the

Navy’s intention to use a cohesive and coordinated computer network and supports initiatives that promote interoperability, as well

as effective and efficient communications. The Department of the

Navy has presumed and budgeted large savings with the implementation of NMCI, which the committee believes cannot be

achieved and puts this program at risk. The committee continues

to receive conflicting, vague, and unsupportable funding data on

this program. In addition, despite repeated requests, the Department of the Navy has failed to provide funding information relating

to depots. In light of these concerns the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to analyze NMCI funding documents with particular focus on the savings the Navy anticipates, and to include an

297

analysis of whether those savings have been achieved or are

achievable. The results of this review shall be provided to the Secretary of the Navy along with the analysis required by section 814

of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398).

Non-nuclear Ship Maintenance

The committee understands that the Department of the Navy

maintains a policy that large non-nuclear ship maintenance on the

west coast of the United States is assigned primarily to non-nuclear capable private shipyards in an effort to reduce the overall

cost for ship maintenance. This policy enables the Navy to focus its

nuclear ship repair requirements in its nuclear capable shipyards

with a specially trained and experienced workforce. The committee

also understands that the Department of the Navy does not apply

this policy to the assignment of ship maintenance on the east coast

of the United States. Although it may be necessary to occasionally

balance ship maintenance requirements in nuclear capable Naval

shipyards by the assignment of non-nuclear ship maintenance, the

committee questions whether the increased cost of this work is

fully justified. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the

Navy to apply the west coast non-nuclear ship maintenance policy

to the east coast, or provide the House Committee on Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Armed Services by January 31,

2002, with a report specifying why this policy cannot be implemented.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding

This section would authorize $124,024.0 million 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 $2,359.7 million for Working Capital Funds of the Department of Defense.

Section 303—Armed Forces Retirement Home

This section would authorize $71.44 million from the Armed

Forces Retirement Trust Fund for the operation of the Armed

Forces Retirement Home, including the U.S. Soldiers’ and Airmen’s

Home and the Naval Home.

Section 304—Transfer from National Defense Stockpile Transaction

Fund

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer not more than $150.0 million from the amounts received from sales

in the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund to the operation and maintenance accounts of the military services.

298

SUBTITLE B—ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS

Section 311—Inventory of Explosive Risk Sites at Former Military

Ranges

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop

and maintain an inventory of current and former military ranges

that are known or suspected to contain abandoned military munitions.

Section 312—National Security Impact Statements

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to examine

the impact a proposed action could have on national security when

the Secretary is required to conduct an environment impact statement (EIS), environmental assessment (EA), or to comment on EIS

or EA developed by another federal agency.

Section 313—Reimbursement for Certain Costs in Connection with

Hooper Sands Site, South Berwick, Maine

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to reimburse the Environmental Protection Agency approximately $1.0

million for the cleanup of a former Navy facility in South Berwick,

Maine.

Section 314—River Mitigation Studies

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to conduct

studies of the Sabine River and the Delaware River in order to

identify the level of effort and funding necessary to remove debris

left in the rivers from the shipbuilding industry.

Section 315—Elimination of Annual Report on Contractor

Reimbursement for Costs of Environmental Response Actions

This section would eliminate the requirement for an annual report on payments the Secretary of Defense made to contractors for

costs of environmental response actions.

SUBTITLE C—COMMISSARIES AND NONAPPROPRIATED FUND

INSTRUMENTALITIES

Section 321—Reserve Component Commissary Benefits

This section would authorize immediate eligibility for commissary benefits for members of the reserve components. Currently, reserve members are not eligible to shop in commissaries

until they have served a year in a reserve unit. The committee believes that in light of the reserve components’ increased participation in all manner of military operations, reserve members should

be entitled to commissary benefits upon entry into reserve service.

Section 322—Reimbursement for Noncommissary Use of

Commissary Facilities

This section would amend section 2685 of title 10, United States

Code, to require the secretary of a military department to reimVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00322 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.071 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
299

burse the commissary surcharge account for the residual value of

any commissary facility constructed in whole or in part with commissary surcharge funds when that facility is converted to military

use. Since commissary surcharge funds are generated by patron

purchases, the committee believes that capital assets purchased

with those funds properly belong to the patrons and not to the military departments.

Section 323—Civil Recovery for Nonappropriated Fund

Instrumentality Costs Related to Shoplifting

This section would authorize the military exchanges to pursue

federal debt collection remedies against shoplifters in the military

exchange stores. The exchanges currently have no effective means

to recover the cost of shoplifting and security expenses, amounting

to more than $25.0 million annually. This section would provide a

mechanism outside formal judicial proceedings that would permit

the exchanges to recover some shoplifting losses.

SUBTITLE D—WORKFORCE AND DEPOT ISSUES

Section 331—Fiscal Year 2002 Limitations on Workforce Reviews

This section would limit the number of full time equivalents that

can be studied for possible conversion from the government workforce to the contractor workforce. The committee is increasingly

concerned with the outsourcing process and believes the agencies

and services have not properly funded or properly trained personnel involved in the effort needed to conduct a proper analysis.

The committee does not support the Department’s initiative to

study an additional 3,200 full time equivalents for possible

outsourcing in fiscal year 2002. In addition, the committee does not

support the agencies and the services initiating more studies than

are properly funded.

Section 332—Applicability of Core Logistics Capability

Requirements to Nuclear Aircraft Carriers

This section would amend section 2464 of title 10, United States

Code, to clarify that the exclusion from maintaining core logistics

capabilities for nuclear aircraft carriers, as specified in section

2464, is meant solely for the process of refueling nuclear aircraft

carriers. This section is necessary to clarify that nuclear aircraft

carriers are to maintain the same core logistics capabilities as all

other ships of the United States Navy.

Section 333—Continuation of Contractor Manpower Reporting

System in Department of the Army

This section would amend section 343 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) to require the Secretary of the Army to report annually on the size of

the contractor workforce. The section would also require the Comptroller General of the U.S. to provide Congress with an evaluation

of each report submitted by the Secretary of the Army.

300

Section 334—Limitation on Expansion of Wholesale Logistics

Modernization Program

This section would prohibit the Secretary of the Army from expanding the Wholesale Logistics Modernization Program beyond

the original legacy systems included in the scope of the contract

awarded in December 1999 until the Secretary of the Army certifies to Congress that the original legacy systems have been successfully replaced. The section would also require the General Accounting Office to provide Congress with an evaluation of the certification provided by the Secretary of the Army.

Section 335—Pilot Project for Exclusion of Certain Expenditures

from Limitation on Private Sector Performance of Depot-Level

Maintenance

This section would amend section 2474 of title 10, United States

Code, to authorize a pilot project, applicable only to three Air Force

depots, that would exclude work performed in a public depot under

a public-private partnership from the restrictions on private sector

work established by that section.

Section 336—Protections for Purchasers of Articles and Services

Manufactured or Performed by Working-Capital Funded Industrial Facilities of the Department of Defense

This section would amend section 2563 of title 10, United States

Code to permit a private sector entity that has contracted with the

public sector in a working-capital funded activity of the Department of Defense, to file a claim if the public sector fails to comply

with quality, schedule, or cost performances required in the contract. This section would also apply to section 2474 of title 10,

United States Code.

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.

Section 342—Availability of Auxiliary Services of Defense Dependents’ Education System for Dependents Who Are Home School

Students

This section would require the Department of Defense (DOD) to

provide support for home-schooled students overseas who are otherwise eligible to attend DOD schools. This support would include

participation in extracurricular activities such as sports teams,

clubs, and music programs, as well as attendance in individual academic classes.

301

Section 343—Report Regarding Compensation for Teachers Employed in Teaching Positions in Overseas Schools Operated by

the Department of Defense

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to evaluate

the method by which compensation is fixed for teachers employed

by Department of Defense overseas schools. Section 903 of title 20,

United States Code, requires that these salaries be based on the

average range of salaries paid for similar positions in large urban

school systems. This section would require the Secretary to report

to Congress on the results of his evaluation and would also require

him to recommend whether this compensation should be based

upon the average range of salaries paid for similar positions by

Washington, D.C., area school systems.

SUBTITLE F—OTHER MATTERS

Section 351—Availability of Excess Defense Personal Property to

Support Department of Veterans Affairs Initiative to Assist

Homeless Veterans

This section would permit the Secretary of Defense to make excess clothing, shoes, sleeping bags, and related non-lethal excess

supplies available, without reimbursement, to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for distribution to homeless veterans and programs

assisting homeless veterans.

Section 352—Continuation of Limitations on Implementation of

Navy-Marine Corps Intranet Contract

This section would exclude the Marine Corps from the Navy’s initiative known as the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet. This section

would also continue the exclusion of the shipyards and naval aviation depots from the Navy Marine Corps Intranet in fiscal year

2002.

Section 353—Completion and Evaluation of Current Demonstration

Programs to Improve Quality of Personal Property Shipments of

Members

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to complete

all demonstration programs in the Department of Defense that

were designed to improve the movement of household goods of

members of the Armed Forces that were being conducted on or

after October 1, 2000. The section would also require the Secretary

of Defense to submit to Congress an evaluation not later than August 31, 2002.

Section 354—Expansion of Entities Eligible for Loan, Gift, and Exchange of Documents, Historical Artifacts, and Obsolete Combat

Materiel

This section would authorize the exchange of defense relics to a

greater number of local authorities.

302

SUBTITLE G—SERVICE CONTRACTING REFORM

Section 361—Short Title

This section would identify this subtitle as the ‘‘Department of

Defense Service Contracting Reform Act of 2001’’.

Section 362—Required Cost Savings Level for Change of Function

to Contractor Performance

This section would amend section 2461 of title 10, United States

Code, to require that a contractor’s cost must be at least 10 percent

less expensive than the federal government’s most efficient organization to be successful in a public/private competition under Office

of Management and Budget Circular A–76.

Section 363—Applicability of Study and Reporting Requirements to

New Commercial or Industrial Type Functions

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct

an A–76 study for each new function the Department of Defense

intends to establish in order to determine whether the function

should be performed by a government employee or a contractor employee.

Section 364—Repeal of Waiver for Small Functions

This section would repeal section 2461 of title 10, United States

Code that currently waives the applicability of Office of Management and Budget Circular A–76 or functions with 50 employees or

less.

Section 365—Requirement for Equity in Public-Private

Competitions

This section would require that for each government held position studied under Office of Management and Budget Circular A–

76, approximately the same number of contractor held positions

must also be studied for possible conversion to the public sector.

Section 366—Reporting Requirements Regarding Department of

Defense’s Service Contractor Workforce

This section would require Department of Defense (DOD) contractors and subcontractors to report to a secure DOD website, direct and indirect man-hour cost information, and would require the

Secretary of Defense and the military secretaries to submit to Congress a report on the cost information data collected. The section

would also require the Comptroller General of the United States to

review this data. This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military departments to publish for

the public the non-proprietary data from these reports.

(303)

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL

AUTHORIZATIONS

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, 2002.

Service

FY 2001 authorized and

floor

FY 2002 Change from

Request

Committee

recommendation

FY 2002 requestFY 2001 authorized

Army ...................................................................... 480,000 480,000 480,000 0 0

Navy ....................................................................... 372,642 376,000 376,000 0 3,358

USMC ..................................................................... 172,600 172,600 172,600 0 0

Air Force ................................................................ 357,000 358,800 358,800 0 1,800

DOD Total ................................................. 1,382,242 1,387,400 1,387,400 0 5,158

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

end strengths contained in the budget request.

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, 2002:

Service FY 2001 authorized

FY 2002 Change from

Request

Committee

recommenda- tion

FY 2002 re- questFY 2001 authorized

Army National Guard ........................................... 350,526 350,000 350,000 0 (526)

Army Reserve ....................................................... 205,300 205,000 205,000 0 (300)

Naval Reserve ..................................................... 88,900 87,000 87,000 0 (1,900)

Marine Corps Reserve ......................................... 39,558 39,558 39,558 0 0

Air National Guard .............................................. 108,022 108,400 108,400 0 378

Air Force Reserve ................................................ 74,358 74,700 74,700 0 342

DOD Total ............................................... 866,664 864,658 864,658 0 (2,006)

Coast Guard Reserve .......................................... 8,000 8,000 8,000 0 0

304

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,

2002:

Service FY 2001 authorized

FY 2002 Change from

Request

Committee

recommenda- tion

FY 2002 re- questFY 2001 authorized

Army National Guard ........................................... 22,974 22,974 22,974 0 0

Army Reserve ....................................................... 13,106 13,108 13,108 0 2

Naval Reserve ..................................................... 14,649 14,811 14,811 0 162

Marine Corps Reserve ......................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0

Air National Guard .............................................. 11,170 11,591 11,591 0 421

Air Force Reserve ................................................ 1,336 1,437 1,437 0 101

DOD Total ............................................... 65,496 66,182 66,182 0 686

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, 2002:

Service FY 2001 authorized (floor)

FY 2002 Change from

Request

Committee

recommendation (floor)

FY 2002 requestFY 2001 authorized

Army National Guard ............................................. 23,128 23,128 23,128 0 0

Army Reserve ......................................................... 5,921 5,999 5,999 0 78

Air National Guard ................................................ 22,247 22,422 22,422 0 175

Air Force Reserve .................................................. 9,785 9,818 9,818 0 33

DOD Total ................................................. 61,081 61,367 61,367 0 286

Section 414—Fiscal Year 2002 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, 2002:

Service FY 2001 limit

FY 2002 Change from

Request

Committee

recommendation (limit)

FY 2002 request FY 2001 limit

Army National Guard ............................................. 1,600 1,600 1,600 0 0

Army Reserve ......................................................... 1,195 1,095 1,095 0 (100)

Air National Guard ................................................ 326 350 350 0 24

Air Force Reserve .................................................. 10 0 90 90 80

DOD Total ................................................. 3,131 3,045 3,135 90 4

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 is concerned about the

growth. Noting 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 comVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00328 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.075 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
305

ponents to no more than 175 by September 30, 2007, the committee

urges both components to coordinate their efforts to reach that objective.

Section 415—Limitations on Numbers of Reserve Personnel Serving on Active Duty or Full-Time National Guard Duty in Certain

Grades for Administration of Reserve Components

This section would authorize new grade tables for all reserve

components of the military departments to limit the number of officers and senior enlisted members serving on active duty or fulltime national guard duty for administration of reserves or national

guard in the pay grades of 0–6, 0–5, 0–4, E–9, and E–8. The tables

would allow the limits for each grade to be adjusted as the total

number of such reserve members on active duty increases or decreases.

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO PERSONNEL

STRENGTHS

Section 421—Increase in Percentage by Which Active Component

End Strengths for any fiscal year may be increased

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to increase

active duty end strength of a military service up to two percent

above the authorized end strength for that service. The committee

notes that current law authorizes the Secretary to increase a service’s end strength by one percent. The committee recommends this

expanded authority to assist the Secretary in managing dynamic

strength fluctuations occurring in the military services as a result

of hard-to-predict recruiting and retention variables, as well as

variables induced by the movement of reserve component personnel

on and off active duty.

Section 422—Active Duty End Strength Exemption for National

Guard and Reserve Personnel Performing Funeral Honors Functions

This section would permit members of the reserve components on

active duty and members on full-time national guard duty to prepare for and perform funeral honors functions without counting

against the active duty end strengths of the armed forces.

Section 423—Increase in Authorized Strengths for Air Force

Officers on Active Duty in the Grade of Major

This section would authorize a seven percent increase in the

maximum number of officers serving on active duty in the grade

of major.

SUBTITLE D—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 431—Authorization of Appropriations for Military

Personnel

This section would authorize $82,279.1 million to be appropriated

for military personnel.

306

This authorization of appropriations reflects both reductions and

increases to the budget request that are itemized below.

[Dollars in millions]

Military

personnel

accounts

O&M

accounts

RECOMMENDED INCREASES

Increase TLE to $180 per day and Authorize TLE for Officer First Duty Station ................................... 43.0 ................

Authorize Annual Travel for Families of Korean/Cold War Missing ........................................................ ................ 1.0

Electronic Voting Demonstration Project ................................................................................................. ................ 2.0

Travel Expenses for Guardian of Minor Child ......................................................................................... ................ 5.0

Equalize Reservists’ Aviation Career Incentive Pay with Active Duty Aviators When on Active Duty ... 10.0 ................

Authorize and Fund Full Pet Quarantine Reimbursement ...................................................................... 1.0 ................

Funding for Uniting Through Reading (Navy) ......................................................................................... ................ 0.18

FY 2002 Effect of Navy FY 2001 Overstrength ....................................................................................... 13.0 ................

Navy PCS Bow Wave from FY 2001 ........................................................................................................ 15.0 ................

Fund Army National Guard FY 2002 Military Techs (Dual Status) ........................................................ ................ 20.0

Army Reserve Component Duty Training Pay .......................................................................................... 25.0 ................

USMC New Camouflage Utility Uniforms ................................................................................................ 20.8 ................

Total Recommended Additions ................................................................................................... 127.8 28.18

RECOMMENDED REDUCTIONS

Air Force Active Strength and Grade Underexecution ............................................................................. 145.00 ................

Air Force Reserve Strength, Grade and Drill Underexecution ................................................................. 10.98

Total Recommended Reductions ................................................................................................ 155.98 ................

(307)

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

OVERVIEW

The committee believes that the Secretary of Defense, the secretaries of the military departments, and the uniformed military

leadership must have effective, current, and flexible personnel

management programs and guidance. Accordingly, the committee

recommends a variety of initiatives to improve the personnel management systems of the military services.

The committee, which was deeply disappointed that military absentee voters were not offered consistently high quality voting information and assistance during the 2000 election, recommends a

series of voting initiatives designed to improve the ability of the

Department of Defense managers to comply with the requirements

of the Federal Voting Assistance Program and related law. These

initiatives are consistent with the findings of post-election reviews

conducted by the Comptroller General of the United States and the

Department of Defense Inspector General. Included among the initiatives is the testing of electronic voting systems that aim to solve

the time and distance challenges that have plagued military voters,

particularly those residing at overseas duty locations.

To improve operation of the system created by the Secretary of

Defense to provide funeral honors to military veterans and retirees,

the committee would include a series of initiatives designed to facilitate the Secretary’s program and provide more flexible management tools.

Finally, to ensure that members of the armed services receive the

recognition they so richly deserve for serving the nation with dedication and valor, the committee recommends a new Cold War

Medal, and a new Korea Defense Service Medal, and a waiver of

the time limits for award of decorations. The committee also recommends a review of the decorations awarded to Jewish and Hispanic veterans for possible upgrading to the Medal of Honor.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Alternative Recruiting Media

The committee is aware that the services are seeking innovative

ways to recruit a quality force in the face of increased college attendance, reduced youth population, and a competitive job market.

The committee notes that today’s youth are more receptive to information from non-traditional media and recommends the services

employ these media as recruiting tools where financially feasible.

The committee suggests the services explore the use of 3–D film,

which can support the fast-moving action style commonly employed

in recruiting presentations.

308

Army Reserve Military Technician Positions

The committee believes that the reserve full time manning program is essential to reserve component readiness and that dual

status military technicians are critically important to unit level full

time military presence in the Army Reserve. Consequently, the

committee has exercised keen oversight in recent years of the Army

Reserve’s dual status technician program in an effort to ensure

that Army Reserve units are staffed with fully qualified dual status

military technicians. The committee understands, however, that

Army Reserve personnel authorization documents prescribe that

numerous headquarters staff positions be filled by military technicians (dual status). This practice results in military technicians

(dual status) filling clerical and administrative positions in headquarters, performing exactly the same functions as federal civilian

employees. The effect of such authorizations is to undercut congressional intent by maintaining higher than necessary numbers of

military technicians (dual status) in headquarters billets that

should more properly be filled by civilian employees. Another effect

of such authorizations is to create personnel inequities. For example, the military technicians filling these headquarters positions

are required to maintain their reserve status while civilian civil

service employees filling like jobs in the same organization are not.

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to review the Army Reserve’s military technician authorizations with

the goal of reallocating military technician positions at headquarters staff level to unit level.

Defense Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Office

The committee believes that the Defense Prisoner of War/Missing

in Action Office (DPMO) performs a critical mission for the Department of Defense (DOD). The work of this office continues to ensure

substantial progress toward the fullest possible accounting for

those missing in the nation’s past conflicts, coordination and preparation of the effort to locate and recover those missing in future

conflicts, and, through its work, stands as a tangible commitment

to American families that the fate of Americans missing in the nation’s conflicts will be relentlessly pursued. In order to perform effectively its range of missions, DPMO must be adequately

resourced. Since its establishment, the DPMO accounting workload

has grown dramatically beyond the initial emphasis on the Vietnam War to now encompass World War II, the Korean War, and

the Cold War. In addition, it has assumed new missions for all aspects of future recovery operations. Even though the demands upon

DPMO have escalated, the committee is disturbed to learn that

both civilian and military personnel strengths have steadily declined. The committee notes that since DPMO was established, the

organization’s civilian billets have decreased by 45 spaces, a 40 percent reduction, and 27 of DPMO’s 46 military spaces are temporary

billets. The committee believes that increased DPMO personnel resources are required in order for the office to address effectively its

assigned missions. The committee therefore directs the Secretary of

Defense to increase resources in the fiscal year 2003 budget reVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00332 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR194.076 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
309

quest and beyond that will assure that DPMO’s requirements to

meet its entire range of missions are fully met.

Improved Use of Existing Military Centers for Scientific and

Technological Education

The committee continues to be concerned that the military services are not adequately addressing the challenge of producing sufficient numbers of officers with the requisite education in science,

engineering, and technology to meet the demands of the environment described in Joint Vision 2020. Reflecting the committee’s

concerns, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398) required the Secretary

of the Air Force to examine how the Air Force Institute of Technology could be more effectively employed to meet the needs of that

service for officers with technical education. The committee also believes that the Naval Postgraduate School should have a larger role

to play in meeting future Navy requirements for officers educated

in the technical, engineering, and scientific disciplines. To that end,

the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to review future

officer education requirements and to determine ways in which the

Naval Postgraduate School can be more effectively used to meet

those requirements.

Review of General and Flag Officer Authorizations

The committee notes that the advocates of increasing the total

number of general and flag officers, or exempting general and flag

officers from current grade limits, have presented at least six proposals for the committee’s consideration. The Secretary of Defense

did not request any of these proposals as part of his unified legislative package for the fiscal year 2002 defense authorization bill.

These six proposals are only the latest in a long line of similar

unsanctioned proposals presented piecemeal to the committee year

after year. The committee notes that section 1213 of the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104–

201) required the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive

review of active and reserve component general and flag officer authorizations and management. The committee still awaits the results of the mandated review. In the absence of such results, the

committee spends an inordinate effort each year trying to sort

through the merits of the many individual proposals. Acceptance of

one simply leads to the proliferation of more the following year. To

end this cycle, and to see to it that the Secretary of Defense fulfills

the standing requirement of the law, the committee directs the Secretary to conduct the review required by section 1213 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law

104–201) and deliver the final results of that review to Congress

no later than one year after the date of enactment of this act.

Uniting Through Reading

The committee strongly encourages programs that strengthen

military families and improve their quality of life. The Navy’s Uniting Through Reading program allows deployed parents and children to communicate during separations, boosts family morale,

310

eases children’s fears about a parent’s absence, and reduces anxiety

upon reunion. Deployed participants videotape themselves reading

aloud and the videos and books are sent back to the families to enable children to watch the video and read along with their parent.

The program also encourages videotaping the child’s reading and

reaction to enable those deployed to see the positive impact they

are having on their child’s development. The program is expanding

to naval bases across the country and the committee recommends

that an additional $180,000 be provided to this commendable program.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—GENERAL PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES

Section 501—Enhanced Flexibility for Management of Senior

General and Flag Officer Positions

This section would repeal the current limit on the total number

of four-star general officers allowed to be on active duty in order

to provide the increased flexibility in the assignment and utilization of senior general officers that is required to improve oversight

and control of joint and military service operations in space.

Section 502—Original Appointments in Regular Grades for

Academy Graduates and Certain Other New Officers

This section would require that graduates of the service academies, as well as Reserve Officer Training Corps distinguished

graduates, and distinguished graduates of other officer commissioning programs like officer candidate schools, be given an initial

appointment as an officer in the Regular Army, Navy, Marine

Corps and Air Force, as long as they meet the criteria for such appointment.

Section 503—Temporary Reduction of the Time-in-Grade Requirement for Eligibility for Promotion for Certain Active-Duty List

Officers in Grades of First Lieutenant and Lieutenant (Junior

Grade)

This section would authorize the service secretaries to reduce the

time-in-grade requirement for promotion to the pay grade of 0–3

from 24 to 18 months during the period ending September 30,

2005. The committee recognizes the need, particularly in the Army,

to balance the number of officers serving in the grade of 0–3 with

the number of positions where an officer in that grade is required.

However, the committee remains concerned that junior officers receive adequate training and experience before being promoted to

the grade of 0–3. The committee also expects the service secretaries

to address the retention problems believed to be the source of the

current grade mismatches and to resume promoting to the grade

of 0–3 with 24 months time-in-grade during fiscal year 2006.

311

Section 504—Increase in Senior Enlisted Active Duty Grade Limit

for Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force

This section would increase the limitation on the authorized

daily average number of enlisted members serving on active duty

within an armed force in the pay grade of E–8 from two percent

to two and one half percent of the total number of enlisted members of that armed force on active duty on the first day of that fiscal year.

Section 505—Authority for Limited Extension of Medical

Deferment of Mandatory Retirement or Separation

This section would authorize the secretaries of the military departments to extend for an additional 30 days the deferment of

mandatory retirement or separation for medical reasons to provide

the member additional time to prepare for retirement or separation.

Section 506—Authority for Limited Extension on Active Duty of

Members Subject to Mandatory Retirement or Separation

This section would authorize the secretaries of the military departments to extend for an additional 90 days the deferment of

mandatory retirement or separation due to the implementation of

stop loss authority to provide the military member additional time

to prepare for retirement or separation.

Section 507—Clarification of Disability Severance Pay Computation

This section would authorize disability severance pay to be computed based on the grade to which a member would be promoted

regardless of the purpose of the physical examination that identifies the disqualifying physical disability.

Section 508—Officer in Charge of United States Navy Band

This section would permit a Navy limited duty officer who holds

the rank of at least lieutenant commander to be detailed to serve

in the rank of captain while holding the position of officer in charge

of the United States Navy Band.

Section 509—One-Year Extension of Expiration Date for Certain

Force Management Authorities

This section would extend through December 31, 2002, certain

force drawdown transition authorities. These authorities would include:

(1) Active duty early retirement authority;

(2) Special separation benefit authority;

(3) Voluntary separation incentive authority;

(4) Increased flexibility in the management of selective early

retirement boards;

(5) Reduction in time-in-grade requirement for retention of

grade upon voluntary retirement;

(6) Reduction of length of commissioned service for voluntary

retirement as an officer;

312

(7) Enhanced travel and transportation allowances and storage of baggage and household effects for certain involuntary

separated members;

(8) Increased flexibility for granting educational leave relating to continuing public and community service;

(9) Enhanced health, commissary and family housing benefits;

(10) Increased flexibility in the management of enrollments

of dependents in the Defense Dependents’ Education System;

(11) Definition of the force reduction transition period for reserve forces;

(12) Force reduction period for reserve retirement authority;

(13) Reduction of length of non-regular service requirements

for reserve retirements;

(14) Reserve early retirement authority;

(15) Reduction of time-in-grade requirement for retention of

grade upon voluntary reserve retirement;

(16) Increased flexibility in the management of the affiliation

of active duty personnel with reserve units; and

(17) Increased flexibility in the management of eligibility for

reserve educational assistance.

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE COMPONENT PERSONNEL POLICY

Section 511—Placement on Active-Duty List of Certain Reserve

Officers on Active Duty for a Period of Three Years or Less

This section would clarify section 641 of title 10, United States

Code, to require members recalled to active duty for three years or

less to be placed on the active-duty list unless the service secretary

specifies in the service member’s orders that the member will be

retained on the reserve active-status list.

Section 512—Expanded Application of Reserve Special Selection

Boards

This section would authorize reserve special selection boards to

consider officers from below the promotion zone who were either

not considered for promotion because of administrative error, or

were considered but not selected for promotion because of material

error. The section would afford reserve officers the same special selection board access as provided to active duty officers.

Section 513—Exception to Baccalaureate Degree Requirement for

Appointment of Reserve Officers to Grades Above First Lieutenant

This section would exempt enlisted members commissioned

under the Army Officer Candidate School from the requirement to

possess a baccalaureate degree before being promoted to the pay

grade of captain.

Section 514—Improved Disability Benefits for Certain Reserve

Component Members

This section would remove the requirement that reservists must

be performing inactive-duty for training at a site that is outside

normal commuting distance before being eligible for disability beneVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00336 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.078 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
313

fits and programs if they incur or aggravate an injury, illness, or

disease in the line of duty when remaining overnight at training

locations before or between inactive-duty training periods.

Section 515—Time-in-Grade Requirement for Reserve Component

Officers with a Non-Service Connected Disability

This section would authorize retirement eligible reserve officers

with non-service connected physical disabilities that disqualify the

officer from continued service to be retired in the highest grade

held by the officer for six months, regardless of other time-in-grade

requirements. The section would afford officers with non-service

connected disabilities the same retired grade determination process

as officers with service connected disabilities.

Section 516—Reserve Members Considered to be Deployed for

Purposes of Personnel Tempo Management

This section would amend the definition of deployment for reservists to make it consistent with the definition of deployment applied to active duty members.

Section 517—Funeral Honors Duty Performed by Reserve and

Guard Members to be Treated as Inactive-Duty Training for Certain Purposes

This section would authorize reserve and national guard members performing funeral honor duty the same rights, benefits, and

protections that would be provided members performing inactiveduty training.

Section 518—Members of the National Guard Performing Funeral

Honors Duty While in Non-Federal Status

This section would specify that national guard members when

serving on funeral honors details shall be considered members of

the armed forces for the purpose of meeting requirements for the

minimum number of service members and service affiliation on a

funeral honors detail.

Section 519—Use of Military Leave for Funeral Honors Duty by

Reserve Members and National Guardsmen

This section would amend section 6323 of title 5, United States

Code, to authorize federal employees who are members of the reserve components to use military leave to perform funeral honors

duty.

SUBTITLE C—JOINT SPECIALTY OFFICERS AND JOINT PROFESSIONAL

MILITARY EDUCATION

Section 521—Nominations for Joint Specialty

This section would provide for the automatic nomination of any

officer who, before or after the enactment of this provision, meets

the statutory education and service requirements for nomination as

a joint specialty officer (JSO). The Secretary of Defense, with the

advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would remain

314

responsible for the actual selection of JSOs from the pool of nominated officers. The committee has heard the concerns of joint staff

personnel that there will soon not be enough qualified officers to

fill operational joint duty positions. The committee also has learned

that there are more than 3,000 officers serving on active duty who,

although they have met the joint professional military education

and joint service requirements established by the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 (GoldwaterNichols Act), (Public Law 99–433), have not been nominated by

their respective military services for selection as joint specialty officers. The committee understands that the reluctance of the military services to nominate these officers is related to concerns that

such nomination and subsequent selection of these officers by the

Secretary of Defense to be JSOs would adversely affect the ability

of the services to meet the promotion standards for JSOs that were

established by the Goldwater-Nichols Act. The committee believes

that the current policies of the military services to withhold nomination from qualified officers is unfair to those officers and places

improper emphasis on meeting a statistical standard rather than

producing sufficient numbers of JSOs.

Section 522—Joint Duty Credit

This section would set out the standards and requirements for

the Secretary of Defense to award joint duty credit to officers serving in temporary joint task force headquarters that are not engaged in combat or near combat operations. Following Desert

Storm, Congress addressed issues related to the proliferating use

of temporary joint task forces and the increasing numbers of officers serving abbreviated tours of duty in the headquarters of those

joint task forces. The fundamental question was whether service in

joint task force headquarters should be credited towards the statutory requirements for qualification as a joint specialty officer. In resolving the issue, Congress amended the Goldwater-Nichols Act to

permit service of at least 90 days duration in a joint task force

headquarters to be credited, as long as the joint task force was engaged in combat, or near combat, operations. Since Desert Storm,

the Department of Defense has employed more than 240 temporary

joint task forces that do not meet the combat, or near combat, criteria. In view of this history, as well as the certainty that many

officers would likely serve in future temporary joint task force

headquarters engaged in military operations other than war, the

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff asked the committee to consider ways in which service in temporary joint task forces engaged

in operations other than war might be credited towards joint duty

service requirements. In general, the committee does not believe

that the intensity and complexity of most military operations other

than war rise to the standard for credit established following

Desert Storm. However, under certain limited conditions, the committee recognizes that service may be credited when it is in the

headquarters of a temporary joint task engaged in peacekeeping or

peace enforcement operations where an extremely fragile state of

peace and a high potential for hostilities coexist.

315

Section 523—Retroactive Joint Service Credit for Duty in Certain

Joint Task Forces

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, after a

case-by-case review, to award joint service credit to an officer who

served in the headquarters of a temporary joint task force employed by the United States during one or more of nine specific

joint operations that began during the period August 1, 1992, and

June 11, 1999. The committee believes that the awarding of retroactive joint service credit to officers for these operations is consistent with the new authority granted to the Secretary of Defense

in section 522 to award joint duty credit for certain military operations other than war.

Section 524—Revision to Annual Report on Joint Officer

Management

This section would change some annual reporting requirements

to reflect the committee’s recommended amendments to the joint

officer management system.

Section 525—Requirement for Selection for Joint Specialty Before

Promotion to General or Flag Officer Grade

This section would require that after September 30, 2007, officers

promoted to brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half) must be

selected as a joint specialty officer (JSO) prior to their promotion.

The Goldwater-Nichols Act intended that future combat leaders

of the armed forces would be drawn from the ranks of JSOs. To

that end, the Goldwater-Nichols Act established that the proper

qualification of an officer for effective service as a JSO required

both formal education (joint professional military education) and

completion of one ‘‘full tour’’ of joint duty. However, as a precondition for promotion to brigadier general, or rear admiral (lower

half), the Goldwater-Nichols Act established a less demanding

standard, requiring the completion of one ‘‘full tour’’ of joint duty,

but no joint professional military education. Fifteen years after the

enactment of the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the committee believes

that it is appropriate to move forward to secure the goal that future leaders of the armed forces, especially those entering general

officer rank, should be drawn from the ranks of JSOs. The committee holds this view for the following reasons:

(1) Involvement in joint operations is a fact of life for general

and flag officers today, and such involvement will be increasingly so in the future. Future standards for qualifying those

general and flag officers to operate effectively in the joint environment should not differ from the rest of the officers in the

military services.

(2) In the 15 years since enactment of the Goldwater-Nichols

Act, the experience of thousands of officers who were educated

in the joint professional military education (JPME) system and

served in joint duty assignments confirms that the JPME experience is essential, and enhances performance in joint operations.

(3) Requiring future officers to be JSOs as a condition of promotion to brigadier general, or rear admiral (lower half),

316

would, in effect, add a twelve-week attendance at JPME to the

current service requirement.

Section 526—Independent Study of Joint Officer Management and

Joint Professional Military Education Reforms

This section would require that the Secretary of Defense commission an independent study of issues related to joint officer management, joint professional military education, and the roles of the

Secretary and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in managing and educating joint officers. The section would require the

study to be completed by June 30, 2002. The Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff presented the committee with a set of fundamental

reforms in the joint officer management and joint officer professional military education systems. The committee, believing that

the proposed reforms would have significant implications for joint

service, the individual military services, and every officer, wants to

move cautiously before making systemic changes. Such was the approach used by this committee when it developed the joint officer

management initiatives contained in the Goldwater-Nichols Act,

and when it subsequently instituted joint professional military education reforms.

Section 527—Professional Development Education

This section would make the Secretary of Defense the executive

agent for funding professional development education operations at

the National Defense University, beginning in fiscal year 2003. At

present, such funding is split between the Army and the Navy. By

taking this action to consolidate the funding responsibility, the

committee intends to strengthen the role of the Secretary of Defense in joint professional military education and improve the support of the National Defense University.

Section 528—Authority for National Defense University to Enroll

Certain Private Sector Civilians

This section would permit up to 10 private sector employees of

organizations relevant to national security to receive instruction at

the National Defense University. The committee believes such enrollments will strengthen the educational experience of all military

students at the National Defense University.

Section 529—Continuation of Reserve Component Professional

Military Education Test

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to continue

the concept validation test of the joint professional military education (JPME) course for reserve component officers in fiscal year

2002, and would authorize a broader pilot program in fiscal year

2003 for reserve component JPME, if the Secretary determines that

the results of the concept validation merit test it. During fiscal year

2001, the National Defense University undertook a limited concept

validation test of a JPME course for reserve component officers.

The committee believes that the results of this concept validation

317

are promising and that further testing of the concept should continue.

SUBTITLE D—MILITARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Section 531—Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center

This section would authorize the commandant of the Defense

Language Institute to award an associate of arts degree in a foreign language to graduates of the Institute’s Foreign Language

Center who meet the requirements for the degree.

Section 532—Authority for the Marine Corps University to Award

Degree of Master of Strategic Studies

This section would authorize the president of the Marine Corps

University to award the degree of master of strategic studies upon

graduates of the Marine Corps War College who meet the requirements for that degree.

Section 533—Increase in Number of Foreign Students Authorized

to be Admitted to the Service Academies

This section would increase from 40 to 60 the number of foreign

students who may attend each of the service academies at any one

time. This section would also give the Secretary of Defense greater

authority to waive some or all of the cost of that attendance.

Section 534—Increase in Maximum Age for Appointment as a

Cadet or Midshipman in Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps

Scholarship Programs

This section would increase the maximum allowable age for the

senior Reserve Officer Training Corps scholarship program from

age 27 on June 30 of the year in which the officer candidate is expected to be commissioned to age 35 on December 31 of the year

in which the officer candidate is expected to be commissioned.

Section 535—Active Duty Participation as a Cadet or Midshipman

in Senior ROTC Advanced Training

This section would authorize active duty enlisted members to

participate in the senior Reserve Officer Training Corps.

Section 536—Authority to Modify the Service Obligation of Certain

ROTC Cadets in Military Junior Colleges Receiving Financial Assistance

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to permit

military junior college cadets who sign future Guaranteed Reserve

Forces Duty (GRFD) contracts to satisfy their service obligation

through either active duty service or reserve service in a troop program unit. This section would also permit those military junior college students who signed GRFD contracts between January 1,

1991, and July 11, 2000, to satisfy their service obligation through

active duty service rather than service in the reserve component

troop units.

318

Section 537—Modification of Nurse Officer Candidate Accession

Program Restriction on Students Attending Educational Institutions with Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Programs

This section would remove the restriction on officer candidates

from receiving financial assistance while training to be nurses at

institutions where Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) programs are present when the officer candidates are ineligible to participate in the ROTC program.

Section 538—Repeal of Limitation on Number on Junior Reserve

Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) Units

This section would repeal the current statutory cap of 3,500 Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) units. The committee

notes that this repeal was contained in the budget request and is

consistent with the long-standing committee view that JROTC expansion is in the nation’s interest.

Section 539—Reserve Health Professionals Stipend Program

Expansion

This section would expand the stipend program for reserve

health professionals by authorizing medical and dental school students to receive stipends and authorizing continuing compensation

for medical and dental school graduates participating in residency

programs involving critical wartime specialties.

Section 540—Housing Allowance for the Chaplain for the Corps of

Cadets, United States Military Academy

This section would amend the authority of the Secretary of the

Army to provide a housing allowance to the Chaplain for the Corps

of Cadets at the United States Military Academy to specify that the

allowance should be consistent with the allowance provided to a

lieutenant colonel.

SUBTITLE E—DECORATIONS, AWARDS, AND COMMENDATIONS

Section 541—Authority for Award of the Medal of Honor to

Humbert R. Versace for Valor During the Vietnam War

This section would waive the statutory time limitation for the

award of the Medal of Honor to Humbert R. Versace for valor while

interned as a prisoner-of-war by the Vietnamese Communist National Liberation Front (Viet Cong) in the Republic of Vietnam.

Section 542—Review Regarding Award of Medal of Honor to

Certain Jewish American and Hispanic American War Veterans

This section would require the secretaries of the military departments to review the service records of Jewish and Hispanic veterans from World War II and later periods to determine if the

award of the Medal of Honor is appropriate. The secretaries would

be obligated to review the records of veterans who were previously

awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, the Navy Cross, and the

Air Force Cross, and names of veterans submitted to the secretaries during the one-year period beginning with the date of enactVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00342 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.081 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
319

ment of this provision. In those cases where the secretaries determine that service records support the award of Medals of Honor,

the section would also waive the statutory time limitations for

award.

Section 543—Authority to Issue Duplicate Medal of Honor

This section would authorize the service secretaries to issue one

duplicate Medal of Honor to recipients for display purposes.

Section 544—Authority to Replace Stolen Military Decorations

This section would clarify that the service secretaries are authorized to replace decorations that are considered stolen in addition to

those decorations considered lost or destroyed.

Section 545—Waiver of Time Limitations for Award of Navy

Distinguished Flying Cross 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 secretaries of the military departments.

Section 546—Korea Defense Service Medal

This section would require the secretaries of the military departments to issue a campaign medal, to be known as the Korea Defense Service Medal, to members who served in the Republic of

Korea or adjacent waters during the period beginning on July 28,

1954, and ending on a future date to be determined by the Secretary of Defense. Members who served in the Republic of Korea

and adjacent waters prior to the date of enactment of this provision

would be required to apply for award of the medal.

Section 547—Cold War Service Medal

This section would require the secretaries of the military departments to issue a Cold War service medal to persons who served

honorably on active duty in the armed forces during the period beginning on September 2, 1945 and ending on December 26, 1991.

In order to qualify as an enlisted member, a person would have

had to serve a full term of enlistment in an armed force, and reenlisted as an enlisted member or have been appointed an officer. In

order to qualify as an officer, a person would have had to complete

an initial service obligation as an officer and have served in an

armed force after completing the initial service obligation. The secretaries would be authorized to waive the service requirements in

the case of disability or hardship separation, or other deserving circumstance.

Section 548—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,

320

1975, to return the award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary

Medal and to receive the Vietnam Service Medal in its place.

SUBTITLE F—MATTERS RELATING TO VOTING

Section 551—Voting Assessments and Assistance for Members of

the Uniformed Services

This section would require the Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General to conduct annual random and unannounced assessments of the compliance with the requirements of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (Public Law 99–

410), DOD regulations regarding the Federal Voting Assistance

Program, and other requirements of law at 15 Department of Defense installations. The section would also require the secretaries

of the military departments to include an assessment of compliance

with the requirements of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act and DOD regulations regarding the Federal Voting Assistance Program on the list of issues and programs to be reviewed during all management effectiveness reviews and inspections. Additionally, the section would require voting assistance officers appointed under DOD regulations to be appointed with the expectation of serving a minimum of 30 months. Performance evaluation reports pertaining to service members who have been appointed voting assistance officers would be required to include comments on the performance of the individual as a voting assistance

officer. Finally, the section would require the Secretary of Defense,

during the four months preceding the month during which congressional elections are conducted, to poll all units and ships at sea responsible for collecting and shipping mail to determine if voting

materials are awaiting shipment and the length of time that the

materials have been held at that location.

Section 552—Electronic Voting Demonstration Project

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to carry out

a demonstration project to allow military absentee voters to vote

using an electronic voting system. This section would require the

Secretary to coordinate with state officials to facilitate the demonstration project. The committee expects the Secretary to actively

encourage state election officials to participate in the demonstration project and to take all prudent steps to expand the demonstration project to reach as many military voters as possible. The committee believes that the method for absentee voting that holds the

most promise for protecting the voting rights of military members

in the future is electronic voting using computers.

SUBTITLE G—MATTERS RELATING TO MILITARY SPOUSES AND

FAMILY MEMBERS

Section 561—Improved Financial and Other Assistance to Military

Spouses for Job Training and Education

The section would require the Secretary of Defense to examine

existing Department of Defense and other federal, state and nongovernmental programs with the objective of improving retention of

321

military personnel by increasing the employability of military

spouses and helping those spouses gain access to financial and

other assistance for training and education. The section would also

require the Secretary to assess whether the Department should

begin a program of direct financial assistance to military spouses

for education, job training and related assistance like child care

and job-related transportation. The section would also authorize

the secretaries of the military departments to make available space

in military facilities for non-Department of Defense entities to provide employment-related training for military spouses.

Section 562—Authority to Conduct Surveys of Dependents and

Survivors of Military Retirees

This section would expand the authority of the Secretary of Defense to survey families of military members to determine the adequacy of facilities and services provided by the Department of Defense. The section would authorize the Secretary to survey families

of retired members in addition to families of active duty members.

Section 563—Clarification of Treatment of Classified Information

Concerning Persons in a Missing Status

This section would amend section 1506 of title 10, United States

Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to maintain a separate

file available for review by next-of-kin that would provide notice of

the existence of classified information which may pertain to one or

more missing persons. The committee believes that as much information as possible should be provided to the next-of-kin of persons

missing from past conflicts.

Section 564—Transportation to Annual Meeting of Next-of-Kin of

Persons Unaccounted for from Conflicts after World War II

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide

transportation for the next-of-kin of persons who are unaccounted

from the Korean War, the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and the

Persian Gulf Conflict to an annual meeting concerning ongoing efforts to resolve the fate of their missing family member.

Section 565—Amendments to Charter of Defense Task Force on

Domestic Violence

This section would extend the original three-year authorization

of the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence from October 5,

2002, to April 24, 2003. The section also would authorize reimbursement to be paid to task force members who are not Department of Defense or federal civilian employees. The task force was

established by section 591 of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65).

322

SUBTITLE H—MILITARY JUSTICE AND LEGAL MATTERS

Section 571—Requirement that Courts-Martial Consist of Not Less

than 12 Members in Capital Cases

This section would amend chapter 47 of title 10, United States

Code, to increase the number of required courts-martial members

to 12 in cases in which the death penalty may be adjudged as a

sentence. The fact that a general court-martial presently may adjudge death with as few as five members contributes to the unfortunate public perception that service members have fewer constitutional protections than civilians and undermines the legitimacy of

verdicts in such cases.

The Manual for Courts-Martial requires special procedures in

capital cases, and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces has

recognized the unique status of death penalty cases and attendant

systemic burdens in its jurisprudence. Requiring 12 court-members

in capital courts-martial would ensure that service members receive the same procedural protections that exist in other death penalty cases, with one exception. Because the military has unique

operational considerations not found in civilian society, this section

would provide that the convening authority could reduce the number of court members serving in capital cases to no fewer than five

members when 12 members are not reasonably available because

of physical conditions or military exigencies. In such circumstances,

the convening authority would be required to make a written statement of the reasons 12 members could not be obtained. This statement would be appended to the record of trial.

Section 572—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 court-martial process a military judge alone

may not sentence an accused if the accused elects to be tried with

court members. Such a result, however, has disadvantages. Sentencing trials involving members may be more lengthy and more

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.

323

Section 573—Codification of Requirement for Regulations for Delivery of Military Personnel to Civil Authorities When Charged

With Certain Offenses

This section would codify existing regulations by amending section 814 of title 10, United States Code. The section would require

the Secretary of Defense to prescribe regulations to provide for the

delivery to the appropriate civil authority for trial, a member accused by civil authority of parental kidnapping or a similar offense.

Section 574—Authority To Accept Voluntary Legal Services for

Members of the Armed Forces

This section would improve the availability of legal assistance

services to members of the armed forces by amending section 1588

of title 10, United States Code, and would expressly authorize the

service secretaries to accept voluntary legal services. This section

would also protect these volunteers from legal malpractice actions

by extending to them the protections of section 1054 of title 10,

United States Code.

SUBTITLE I—OTHER MATTERS

Section 581—Shipment of Privately Owned Vehicles When Making

Permanent Change of Station Moves Within the United States

This section would authorize the service secretaries to ship a vehicle at government expense from one permanent station inside the

continental United States to another permanent station inside the

continental United States when such shipment is found to be advantageous and cost effective to the government.

Section 582—Payment of Vehicle Storage Costs in Advance

This section would authorize the secretaries of the military departments to pay vehicle storage costs in advance.

Section 583—Permanent Authority for Use of Military Recruiting

Funds for Certain Expenses at Department of Defense Recruiting

Functions

This section would make permanent the authority for the secretaries of the military departments to conduct social functions involving recruit candidates and recruits awaiting active duty entry,

and other persons known to influence the career decisions of recruitment-age youth.

Section 584—Clarification of Military Recruiter Access to

Secondary School Directory Information About Students

This section would specify that secondary schools shall provide

directory information to recruiters in the same way that such information is provided to institutions of higher education when the student has indicated a desire or intent to enroll in that institution.

324

Section 585—Repeal of Requirement for Final Comptroller General

Report Relating to Army End Strength Allocations

This section would repeal the requirement for the last report by

the Comptroller General of the United States on the Total Army

Analysis (TAA) process—the modeling process used by the Army to

determine its combat support and combat service support force

structure.

Section 586—Posthumous Army Commission in the Grade of Captain in the Chaplains Corps to Ella E. Gibson for Service as

Chaplain of the First Wisconsin Heavy Artillery Regiment During the Civil War

This section would authorize and request the President to posthumously appoint Ella E. Gibson to the grade of captain for her

service as a chaplain in the First Wisconsin Heavy Artillery Regiment during the Civil War.

Section 587—National Guard Challenge Program

This section, effective October 1, 2002, would eliminate the $62.5

million statutory limit on Department of Defense spending for the

National Guard Youth Challenge program, and revise the Department of Defense cost share for each state’s program from 60 percent to 75 percent. The section would also repeal section 2033 of

title 10, United States Code, which requires that any funding appropriated to the Challenge program above the Department’s statutory limit be provided to the Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Program.

Section 588—Payment of FEHBP Premiums for Certain Reservists

Called to Active Duty in Support of Contingency Operations

This section would authorize federal agencies to pay the employee portion of Federal Employee Health Benefit Program

(FEHBP) premiums for federal employees who are members of the

reserve component who are called to active duty for more than 30

days. This authority would provide continuity of medical care for

the families of reserve component members who are called to active

duty for extended periods and will encourage federal employees to

volunteer for extended active duty missions.

Section 589—18-month Enlistment Pilot Program

This section would authorize, during the period beginning on October 1, 2003 and ending on December 31, 2007, an 18–month enlistment pilot program to increase the participation of prior service

persons in the Selected Reserve and increase the pool of participants in the Individual Ready Reserve. The section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to enlist up to 10,000 soldiers under

this program and provide enlistment bonuses and student loan repayments to recruits. Soldiers enlisted under this program will be

eligible for assignment to overseas locations. This section would require the Secretary of the Army to report the results of the program to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House

325

Committee on Armed Services not later than December 31, 2007

and December 31, 2012.

Section 590—Per Diem Allowance for Lengthy or Numerous

Deployments

This section would amend section 574 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law

106–398) to expand the scope of the report from the Secretary of

Defense that is due not later than March 31, 2002. The Secretary

would be required to review section 991 of title 10, United States

Code, and section 436 of title 37, United States Code, and include

in the report:

(1) A discussion of the experience in tracking and recording

deployment of members, and paying members subject to

lengthy and numerous deployments a $100 per diem after exceeding 400 days deployed out of the previous 730.

(2) Specific comments regarding the effect on the readiness

of the Navy and the Marine Corps of the two provisions given

the deployment intensive mission of these services.

(3) Any recommendation for revision of the two provisions.

The committee is aware of concerns expressed by the Chief of

Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps that

the law establishing a management system and per diem payment

authority for service members subjected to lengthy and numerous

deployments will have unintended fiscal and readiness consequences for the deployment intensive sea services during fiscal

year 2002. On the other hand, the committee has heard the Under

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness testify that the

fiscal impact of the law can be managed in fiscal year 2002 and the

law should be allowed to operate until the services are able to provide data to determine how the law is working.

The committee is concerned that the law should not impose unintended consequences on the services and is committed to understanding what changes to the law may be required. However, the

committee is equally concerned that the members of the armed

services be spared excessive deployments that are known to stress

members and their families and erode the quality of life that is

critical to good retention.

This section would also amend section 436 of title 37, United

States Code, to require high-deployment per diem be paid from operations and maintenance accounts.

The committee notes that, contrary to guidance included in the

statement of managers accompanying section 574 of the Floyd D.

Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001

(Public Law 106–398), the services intend to pay high-deployment

per diem out of military personnel accounts. The committee strongly believes that deploying service members in excess of 400 days

out of any 730–day period is fundamentally an operational decision

driven by operational requirements. As such, the committee considers high-deployment per diem an operational cost that should be

paid from operations and maintenance accounts.

326

Section 591—Congressional Review Period for Change in Ground

Combat Exclusion Policy

This section would amend section 542 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103–160) to

change the congressional notification period required of the Secretary of Defense before implementing revised policies concerning

the assignment of women to ground combat units or positions. Currently, the Secretary must provide Congress with 90 calendar days

notice before making any changes to the ground combat exclusion

policy that would either close to female members of the armed

services a position or unit that was previously open to them, or

open to female members of the armed services a position or unit

that was previously closed to them. This section would change the

notification period to 60 days of continuous session of Congress.

(327)

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER

PERSONNEL BENEFITS

OVERVIEW

The committee continues to believe that compensation programs

are critical to successful recruiting and retention. Accordingly, the

committee recommends a pay raise that combines both across-theboard and targeted increases for mid-grade noncommissioned officers and officers, a new officer accession bonus, and a number of

enhancements to special and incentive pays and bonuses.

In addition, the committee recognizes that the rate of reimbursement for the cost of permanent changes of station (PCS) has

dropped to 62 cents for every dollar expended by service members

and their families. The committee is committed to improving PCS

reimbursement rates and to that end proposes a series of initiatives in this bill. These measures include:

(1) An increase in the maximum amount for temporary lodg- ing expense (TLE) from $110 to $180 per day and authorization for officers to receive TLE at their first duty stations.

(2) Advanced payment of vehicle storage costs.

(3) Shipment of privately owned vehicles inside the United

States.

(4) Family separation allowances for members serving unaccompanied overseas tours because family members have been

medically disqualified from overseas assignment. (5) A $500 partial dislocation allowance when ordered out of

government quarters.

(6) More flexible allowances for travel performed by members

between consecutive overseas services.

(7) An increase in the reimbursement rate for the cost of pet

quarantine services.

Because the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness testified that he will seek to reform further the PCS reimbursement system, the committee recommends a series of additional measures but delays their implementation date for one year,

until January 1, 2003. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense, following completion of the Department of Defense review of

the PCS reimbursement system, will make recommendations with

regard to the implementation of the following initiatives:

(1) Authority to pay dislocation allowance (DLA) at a member’s first duty station.

(2) Increased weight allowance for transportation of household goods for junior enlisted personnel.

(3) Increasing the PCS reimbursement rate for military personnel to the same rate as paid federal civilian employees.

(4) Payment of housing allowance to junior enlisted personnel while traveling between PCS stations.

328

(5) Dislocation allowance for military couples moving into

government quarters.

Finally, the committee would authorize uniformed service retirees to receive disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs without reducing retired pay. Implementation of the

provision would be contingent on the President submitting offsets

for the increased entitlement spending in a budget request and

Congress enacting legislation to provide those specific offsets.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Additional Reporting Instructions Concerning the Supplemental

Subsistence Allowance for Low-Income Members with Dependents

Section 402a of title 37, United States Code, as amended by section 604 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), directs the Secretary of

Defense to submit to Congress annual reports specifying the number of members of the armed forces who received the supplemental

subsistence allowance during the preceding year. The first report

is required on March 1, 2002 and the last report is required on

March 1, 2006. The committee is concerned that the reports include

sufficient information about the recipients to allow the merits of

the program to be evaluated.

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to include in the first annual report and all reports that follow, statistical analyses of the recipient population regarding rank, family

size, non-dependent family members, job specialties, and service.

The report shall also make distinctions among recipients based on

duty locations being in the United States or overseas (including

Alaska and Hawaii), residences being government housing,

privatized government housing, or private sector housing, and family income including or not including wage earners in addition to

the service member.

Personal and Family Financial Management Programs

The committee is concerned that the secretaries of the military

departments are not providing service members sufficient training

on the management of personal and family finances, and when personal financial problems do occur, the secretaries are not providing

adequate supervision to ensure that service members and their

families regain financial security.

Accordingly, the committee directs the secretaries of the military

departments to conduct a comprehensive examination of the personal financial management programs operated within their respective departments. The examination shall include at a minimum

an assessment of the severity and type of personal financial challenges confronting service members, the magnitude of personal

debt accumulated by service members, the adequacy of training

and assistance programs available to service members, and the

merits of other programs recommended to meet the needs of service

members.

The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense to consolidate and review the examinations conducted by the secretaries

329

of the military departments, identify the best practices from each

examination, and assess the need to improve and standardize the

programs operated by the secretaries of the military departments.

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, 2002.

The Right of Former Prisoners of War Forced to Work as Slave Laborers During World War II to Sue Japanese Corporations for

Mistreatment

The committee believes that the inhumane treatment of U.S.

prisoners of war (POWs) at the hands of Japanese corporations

that benefited from their efforts as slave laborers during World

War II is a matter that requires new attention by the United

States Government. The committee believes that these POWs are

deserving of the opportunity to seek a just settlement from the Japanese corporations in the courts. The committee believes that the

success of other claimants in gaining reparations from the Japanese nation for World War II misconduct signals a new era of reconciliation that must now include the U.S. POWs forced to work as

slave laborers. The committee believes that the United States government should reconsider its formal opposition to the court actions

filed by the U.S. POW slave laborers from World War II and apply

the resources of the Department of State and the Department of

Justice to the task of assisting these deserving former POWs to obtain proper settlements to their claims.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Section 601—Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2002

This section would increase basic pay a minimum of six percent

for all enlisted members of the uniformed services and a minimum

of five percent for all officers effective January 1, 2002. 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

in a competitive private sector economy.

This raise fulfills the President’s commitment to add $1.0 billion

to pay for the uniformed services. The combined across-the-board

and targeted raise would be the equivalent of a 6.9 percent acrossthe-board raise and would reduce the pay gap between military and

private sector pay increases over time from 10.4 percent to 7.5 percent.

Section 602–Basic Pay Rate for Certain Reserve Commissioned Officers with Prior Service as an Enlisted Member or Warrant Officer

This section would authorize reserve component officers in pay

grades 0–1, 0–2, or 0–3 who are not on active duty but have accumulated a minimum of 1,460 points credited toward reserve retireVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00353 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.086 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
330

ment while serving as a warrant officer or as a warrant officer and

enlisted member to be paid at the same rate as active duty officers

credited with at least four years of service as a warrant officer or

as a warrant officer and enlisted member.

Section 603—Subsistence Allowances

This section would make clarifying changes of an administrative

nature to the basic allowance for subsistence (BAS) program to facilitate the termination of the transitional BAS program effective

January 1, 2002.

Section 604—Eligibility for Basic Allowance for Housing While

Between Permanent Duty Stations

This section would require the secretaries of the military departments to pay members of the uniformed services in pay grades

below E–4 (with less than 4 years of service) a temporary housing

allowance while on travel or leave status between permanent duty

stations.

Section 605—Uniform Allowance for Officers

This section would clarify that an additional allowance of $200

for uniforms may be paid to an officer so long as any previous allowance received did not exceed $400.

Section 606—Family Separation Allowance for Certain Members

Electing to Serve Unaccompanied Tour of Duty

This section would require the secretaries of the military departments to pay family separation allowance to members of the uniformed services who elect to serve unaccompanied tours of duty because the movement of dependents of the member to the permanent duty station is denied for certified medical reasons.

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 special pay for

health care professionals who serve in the selected reserve in critically short wartime specialties, 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, 2002. The provision would also extend the authority for repayment of educational loans for certain

health care professionals who serve in the selected reserve until

January 1, 2003.

331

Section 612—One-Year Extension of Certain Bonus and Special

Pay Authorities for Nurse Officer Candidates, Registered Nurses,

and Nurse Anesthetists

This section would extend the authority for the nurse officer candidate accession program, the accession bonus for registered

nurses, and the incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists until

December 31, 2002.

Section 613—One-Year Extension of Other Bonus and Special Pay

Authorities

This section would extend the authority for the aviation officer

retention bonus, reenlistment bonus for active members, enlistment

bonus for active members, special pay for nuclear qualified officers

extending the period of active service, nuclear career accession

bonus, the nuclear career annual incentive bonus, and the retention bonus for members with critical skills to December 31, 2002.

Section 614—Conforming Accession Bonus for Dental Officers

Authority with Authorities for Other Special Pay and Bonuses

This section would conform the expiration date of the accession

bonus for dental officers with the expiration dates of other special

pays and bonuses. The section would extend the authority to pay

accession bonuses to dental officers until December 31, 2002.

Section 615—Additional Type of Duty Resulting in Eligibility for

Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay

This section would authorize members of the uniformed services

to be paid hazardous duty incentive pay for duties involving regular participation as a member of a team conducting visit, board,

search, and seizure aboard vessels in support of maritime interdiction operations.

Section 616—Equal Treatment of Reservists Performing InactiveDuty Training for Receipt of Aviation Career Incentive Pay

This section would entitle qualified reserve aviators to be paid

the full amount of monthly Aviation Career Incentive Pay in the

same amount as paid to active duty aviators with the same number

of years of aviation service.

Section 617—Secretarial Discretion in Prescribing Submarine Duty

Incentive Pay Rates

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to prescribe the amount of submarine duty incentive pay by grade and

years of service within a maximum of $1,000 per month. The committee believes this new flexibility will allow the Secretary to respond more quickly to recruiting and retention problems within the

submarine force.

332

Section 618—Imposition of Critical Wartime Skill Requirement for

Eligibility for Individual Ready Reserve Bonus

This section would amend the eligibility criteria for payment of

a bonus to individuals enlisting, reenlisting, or extending an enlistment in the individual ready reserve. The bonus would no longer

be paid to individuals with combat or combat support skills, but

would be paid to individuals with a skill or specialty designated by

the service secretary as critically short to meet wartime requirements.

Section 619—Installment Payment Authority for 15-Year Career

Status Bonus

This section would authorize members of the uniformed services

to elect to be paid the 15-year career status bonus in a lump sum

or one of a series of annual installment options. Section 322 of title

37, United States Code, requires the 15-year career status bonus

for military members entering service on or after August 1, 1986,

to be paid in a lump sum of $30,000. The options for annual installment payments would be $15,000 per year over two years, $10,000

per year over three years, $7,500 per year over four years, or

$6,000 per year over five years.

Section 620—Accession Bonus for New Officers

This section would authorize the service secretaries to pay an ac- cession bonus of up to $100,000 to officer candidates who enter into

written service agreements to accept commissions as officers.

SUBTITLE C—TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES

Section 631—Minimum Per Diem Rate for Travel and Transportation Allowance for Travel Performed Upon a Change of Permanent Station and Certain Other Travel

This section would require the service secretaries to pay members of the uniformed services ordered to change permanent duty

stations the per diem rate established in the federal travel regulation for civilian employees authorized per diem while changing permanent duty stations.

Section 632—Payment or Reimbursement of Temporary

Subsistence Expenses

This section would increase from $110 to $180 per day the maximum amount that may be paid to members of the uniformed services as reimbursement for temporary lodging and subsistence expenses incurred in the United States as result of a permanent

change of station. The section would also authorize payment for

temporary lodging and subsistence expenses to officers reporting to

their first permanent duty station.

Section 633—Increased Weight Allowance for Transportation of

Baggage and Household Effects for Junior Enlisted Members

This section would increase the maximum weight allowance for

shipment of household effects for enlisted military members in

333

grades E–4 and below. The new allowance for members in pay

grade E–4 with less than two years of service would be 8,000

pounds for members with dependents, and 7,000 pounds for members without dependents. The new allowance for members in pay

grades E–1 through E–3 would be 8,000 pounds for members with

dependents, and 5,000 pounds for members without dependents.

Section 634—Reimbursement of Members for Mandatory Pet

Quarantine Fees for Household Pets

This section would authorize an increase from $275 to $675 per

change of station in the amount of reimbursement for pet quarantine fees the service secretaries may pay to members of the uniformed services.

Section 635—Availability of Dislocation Allowance for Married

Member, Whose Spouse is a Member, Assigned to Military Family Housing

This section would require service secretaries to pay members of

the uniformed services who are married to other members and

have no dependents a dislocation allowance when the members are

assigned to military family housing at a new permanent duty station. The section would specify that only one member of the married couple may receive such a dislocation allowance.

Section 636—Elimination of Prohibition on Receipt of Dislocation

Allowance by Members Ordered to First Duty Station

This section would authorize the payment of dislocation allowance to members of the uniformed services ordered from their

homes to their first duty stations.

Section 637—Partial Dislocation Allowance Authorized for Housing

Moves Ordered for Government Convenience

This section would authorize the service secretaries to pay a

$500 partial dislocation allowance to members of the uniformed

services who are ordered to occupy or vacate government family

housing to permit privatization, renovation, or other reason unrelated to changes in permanent station.

Section 638—Allowances for Travel Performed in Connection with

Members Taking Authorized Leave Between Consecutive Overseas Tours

This section would authorize the service secretaries to designate

the locations to which members of the uniformed services may travel at government expense while on leave between consecutive overseas tours. Section 411b of title 37, United States Code, specifies

that the distance that a member of the uniformed services may

travel at government expense when authorized leave tours may not

exceed the distance from the overseas duty location to the member’s home of record. The committee believes the service secretaries

can best determine the travel destination that is most advantageous to the member and cost effective to the government.

334

Section 639—Funded Student Travel as Part of School-Sponsored

Exchange Programs

This section would expand the circumstances for which the service secretaries may pay service members stationed overseas a

transportation allowance for dependent students. The section would

authorize a transportation allowance for students participating in

programs of less than one year located outside the continental

United States and approved by the institution in the continental

United States normally attended. The section would allow the allowance to be paid so long as the cost of that transportation does

not exceed the cost of roundtrip transportation to the institution

normally attended.

SUBTITLE D—RETIREMENT AND SURVIVOR BENEFIT MATTERS

Section 641—Contingent Authority for Concurrent Receipt of

Military Retired Pay and Veterans’ Disability Compensation

This section would authorize retirement qualified members of the

uniformed services to receive Department of Veterans Affairs (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 effective date of the section would

be contingent upon completing both of the actions outlined below.

(1) The President must submit a legislative proposal in an

annual budget request that fully offsets the ‘‘PayGo’’ costs of

the initiative.

(2) Following the submission of the legislative initiative by

the President, Congress must enact legislation with the express purpose of offsetting the ‘‘PayGo’’ costs of the initiative.

The committee is opposed to reducing military members’ retired

pay to offset the receipt of compensation for service connected disabilities paid by the 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.

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 651—Funeral Honors Duty Allowance for Retired Members

This section would authorize the secretaries of the military departments to pay retired members an allowance for performing funeral honors duty.

(335)

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

OVERVIEW

Enactment of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), brought with

it the most significant expansion of health care benefits since implementation, in 1965, of the Civilian Health And Medical Program

of the Uniformed Services. The committee commends the Secretary

of Defense for the smooth implementation of the TRICARE Senior

Pharmacy benefit, which will bring critically important prescription

drugs to Medicare eligible military retirees and their eligible family

members. The committee is aware that in fiscal year 2002 the Department of Defense must achieve an equally smooth implementation of the new benefits provided to Medicare eligible military retirees and their eligible beneficiaries under the TRICARE For Life

program. With this in mind, the committee limited its recommended changes to TRICARE in fiscal year 2002 to only those

needed to facilitate implementation of TRICARE For Life or to significantly improve already existing programs.

The committee was gratified that the President’s defense health

budget request for fiscal year 2002 was based on more realistic cost

and budgeting assumptions. This combined with a commitment to

fully fund the Defense Health Program (DHP), including the significantly improved benefit, led to a $6 billion, one-year increase in

the DHP funding. Nevertheless, the committee remains concerned

that funds appropriated for the DHP are disproportionately allocated toward purchasing care in the private sector while the direct

care system of military treatment facilities continues to languish

from a lack of investment in maintenance and repair of facilities.

As a consequence, fewer eligible beneficiaries are able to receive

the care they need in the venue they prefer, the military hospitals

and clinics of the direct care system. The committee is concerned

that this dearth of funding for the direct care system forces patients into the private sector further driving up the cost of the defense health program and severely limiting the resources available

for treating patients in the direct care system. At the behest of the

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the committee has, for the time being, refrained from segregating DHP

funds authorized for the operations of military treatment facilities

from those funds required to purchase care in the private sector.

The committee expects to be kept informed of the Under Secretary’s efforts to allocate defense health resources in a manner

that will maximize the effectiveness of the entire DHP.

The committee is pleased with the extent to which the defense

health personnel in the office of the Secretary of Defense engaged

the private non-governmental groups representing the interests of

the beneficiaries of the military health care system during deliberaVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00359 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR194.090 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
336

tions on the implementation of the TRICARE Senior Pharmacy and

TRICARE For Life programs. The committee encourages the Secretary to continue to reach out to beneficiaries of the military

health care system and to begin to seek similar participation from

other key stakeholders including the Department of Defense’s managed care support contractors. Early participation of the managed

care support contractors could help avoid the unexpected budget

overruns experienced for the last few years.

The committee also notes the relatively minuscule efforts made

by the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs toward increasing medical resource sharing. While the committee requires some specific actions to improve sharing, the committee expects the Secretary of Defense to increase efforts with the

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to seek more opportunities to maximize the use of all health care resources in providing services to

beneficiaries of the two health care delivery systems keeping in

mind the missions of the two Departments.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Health Care Benefits for Members of the Reserve Components

The committee is aware that the TRICARE health benefits program is a valuable active component recruitment and retention tool

and might be a useful tool in the recruitment and retention of national guard and reserve members. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study of options for providing TRICARE benefits to all national guard and reserve personnel and their families. The study should evaluate, at a minimum, permitting national guard and reserve personnel to buy into

the TRICARE standard level of benefits. In addition to determining

the annual premium amount if national guard and reserve members paid the entire amount, the study should also consider the option of cost sharing the annual premium charge between the government and the military member and, alternatively, between the

employer and the military member. The committee expects the Secretary of Defense to consider the views of national guard and reserve personnel and their families, the non-governmental groups

representing the interests of members of the national guard and reserves, and the employers of national guard and reserve members.

For each cost sharing option, the study should evaluate the propensity of both military members and employers to participate in the

program. The report shall be submitted to the Senate Committee

on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services

by March 31, 2002.

Military Health Care System Information Management

The committee notes and applauds the efforts made by the Department of Defense (DOD) to establish and modernize its medicalrelated clinical, cost, budget, and management information systems. The committee also notes that medicine and the unique missions of military medicine are changing rapidly and is interested in

learning the state of the Department’s information systems, any

gaps or shortcomings in the data collected or its accuracy and timeVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR194.090 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
337

liness, and new initiatives that need to be established to correct

shortcomings identified. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to undertake a comprehensive study of DOD medical data

systems that are designed to facilitate and/or track management,

clinical treatment, system performance evaluation, costs, manpower, and enrollment. The study should examine the capability of

present and planned systems to meet stated goals and objectives,

progress on implementing systems, shortcomings in existing systems, data systems necessary to implement the new TRICARE For

Life benefit, and an assessment of the ability of the Department of

Defense to exchange clinical and management information with

other federal and state agencies and private sector health services

providers in a timely and reliable manner. The committee directs

the Secretary of Defense to undertake the study by engaging a federally funded research and development center with experience and

expertise in information systems, military health care systems, and

military affairs. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to

submit an interim report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 29,

2002, and a final report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31,

2003.

North Chicago Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center and

Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, Illinois

The committee notes the current resource sharing agreement between the North Chicago Veterans Affairs Medical Center

(NCVAMC) and the Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, Illinois (NHGL).

These two facilities are in close proximity and offer significant additional opportunities to share services, programs, and facilities.

The Department of the Navy is engaged in conducting an economic

analysis of the potential requirement for a modern facility to replace the aging NHGL. The Department of Veterans Affairs has an

underused inpatient facility at the NCVAMC. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop a plan to jointly make maximum use of the

NCVAMC. The Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall consult on further development of joint health

care delivery infrastructure, including any future option to replace

the NHGL, or to renovate the NCVAMC to better accommodate

needs of the Navy to support the Great Lakes Naval Training Station’s health care needs. If the two Secretaries determine to further

renovate the NCVAMC or propose construction of a new facility,

the committee expects these future health care facilities to be jointly operated by the Department of Veterans Affairs and the United

States Navy.

TRICARE in Illinois

The committee notes that many TRICARE beneficiaries enrolled

for their care in the area of Naval Training Center, Great Lakes,

Illinois, are having difficulty securing specialty care under

TRICARE. The committee is concerned that many beneficiaries

must resort to seeking care outside of the state of Illinois because

338

of the lack of a robust network of specialty care providers willing

to provide services under TRICARE in Illinois. 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 31, 2002, on actions taken to augment the Northern Illinois TRICARE provider network and the extent to which the

dearth of network specialty providers has been relieved.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—TRICARE PROGRAM

Section 701—Implementing Cost-Effective Payment Rates Under

the TRICARE Program

This section would implement reforms of TRICARE payment

methods to bring consistency of payment methods to all TRICARE

programs. The section would require the Secretary of Defense to

base TRICARE program payment rates on payment rates used by

the Medicare program, or similar rates based on Medicare payment

methods. The payment rates would apply to health care services for

civilian sector institutional and other non-institutional providers,

except where the Secretary of Defense determines the rates to be

impractical. The section would also prohibit balance billing of beneficiaries by institutional providers for any amount in excess of the

CHAMPUS/TRICARE payment amount, and limit balance billing

by non-institutional providers to the 15% rate allowed by Medicare.

Section 702—Waiver of Nonavailability Statement or

Preauthorization Requirement

This section would amend section 721 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398) by requiring the Secretary of Defense to notify the Senate Committee on

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services at

least sixty days prior to implementing a prior authorization requirement under section 721 and mandating a maximum period for

exception decisions made under the authority. The section would

also prescribe the geographic limits affected by any specific prior

authorization requirement.

Section 703—Improvements in Administration of the TRICARE

Program

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter

into new contracts for support of delivery of health care under

TRICARE by providing flexibility in the choice of contract vehicle.

The section would also permit the Secretary of Defense to reduce

the minimum nine-month start-up for new contracts. The committee recognizes that the health care environment in the United

States has changed significantly since the first managed care support contracts were awarded in 1994 and that, as a result, the Secretary of Defense may require more flexibility in selecting the most

effective contract type for future managed care support contracts.

339

Section 704—Sub-Acute and Long-Term Care Program Reform

This section would reform the Department of Defense Program

for care provided in skilled nursing facilities or at home. Full implementation of the new TRICARE For Life benefits makes it essential to coordinate the benefits structure provided in skilled nursing facilities and through home health programs. The committee is

also aware of the unique challenges faced by active duty families

supporting a severely disabled family member and includes a subsection which would significantly enhance active duty families’ ability to care for these family members, especially when the active

duty sponsor is deployed. The committee is also interested in the

future relationship between the TRICARE sub-acute care benefit

and benefits offered under the Long Term Care Security Act (Public Law 106–265). The section would require the Secretary of Defense to report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the

House Committee on Armed Services on the feasibility and desirability of establishing direct benefit linkages between TRICARE

and the Long Term Care Security Act.

Section 705—Reimbursement of Travel Expenses of a Parent,

Guardian or Responsible Family Member of a Minor Covered

Beneficiary

This section would amend section 1074i of title 10, United States

Code, by requiring the Secretary of Defense to reimburse the reasonable travel expenses of a parent or guardian of a minor who is

required to travel for specialty care services outside the limits specified in section 1074i of title 10, United States Code. The committee

is concerned that the original provision could be interpreted in a

way that would not authorize reimbursement for the reasonable

travel expenses of a parent or guardian of a minor eligible beneficiary.

SUBTITLE B—OTHER MATTERS

Section 711—Prohibition Against Requiring Military Retirees to

Receive Health Care Solely Through the Department of Defense

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from implementing a policy of forced choice enrollment by military retirees

who are eligible for care in the health care facilities and programs

of both the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans

Affairs. The committee was pleased with the establishment of the

President’s Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our

Nation’s Veterans (Task Force) and expects the Task Force to address the issue of mandatory enrollment during its deliberations

and in the final report. Therefore, the committee believes any mandatory enrollment policy implemented prior to the Task Force’s deliberations and report would be premature.

Section 712—Trauma and Medical Care Pilot Program

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to conduct a

pilot program under which the Brooke Army Medical Center and

the Wilford Hall Air Force Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas,

340

(the medical centers) may charge civilians who are not covered

TRICARE beneficiaries, fees representing the actual costs of trauma and other medical care provided. The section would also permit

the medical centers to use the funds collected under the program

for various activities related to trauma training and operation of

the medical centers.

Section 713—Enhancement of Medical Product Development

This section would amend section 980 of title 10, United States

Code, by authorizing the Secretary of Defense to waive the prohibition against the use of human subjects in research in order to advance research into the treatment of combat casualties. The committee is concerned that current restrictions on the use of human

subjects in medical research severely limits the ability to conduct

focused trauma treatment research. As a result, many products

with direct applicability to the treatment of battle casualties are

precluded from the kinds of tests required for approval of the Food

and Drug Administration.

Section 714—Repeal of Obsolete Report Requirement

This section would repeal a reporting requirement in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law

106–65; 1–U.S.C. 1074g note) by striking subsection 701(d). The

committee notes that the reporting requirement was superseded by

enactment of the TRICARE Senior Pharmacy program.

Section 715—Clarifications and Improvements Regarding the Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund

This section would clarify that the Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund (Fund) covers all health

care programs and activities of the Department of Defense through

which health care services are provided to Medicare-eligible military retirees and their eligible dependents, including those programs and activities purchased in the private sector and the programs and activities through which health care services are provided in the direct care system of military treatment facilities. The

section would also clarify the applicability of the Fund to the Coast

Guard, the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service, and

the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration. The section would also authorize the Secretary of

Defense to enter into agreements with the service secretaries responsible for the other uniformed services to arrange for contributions into the Fund by the other service secretaries.

(341)

TITLE VIII—ACQUISTION POLICY, ACQUISITION

MANAGEMENT AND RELATED MATTERS

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Extraordinary Contractual Actions

The committee is concerned with the Department of Defense

(DOD) use of the authority granted in section 1431 of title 50,

United States Code, to enter into contracts when it is deemed that

such contract would facilitate the national defense. Executive

Order 10789, expands upon the statutory authority by stating that

contractual provisions which provide that the United States will

hold harmless and indemnify the contractor against any claims or

losses shall apply only to claims or losses arising out of risks that

the contract defines as unusually hazardous or nuclear in nature.

In December 2000, DOD entered into an indemnification contract

with an entity providing satellite communications and agreed to indemnify the contractor against claims for damages from unusually

hazardous risk associated with certain satellites. It is the committee’s understanding that the unusually hazardous risk is the concern that some satellites would to fall out of orbit and descend into

the Earth’s atmosphere. The committee questions whether this concern meets the required standard of an unusually hazardous or nuclear risk. In addition, the committee notes that the contractor relies upon the same satellite constellation to provide military and

commercial communications. In other words, the DOD is providing

indemnification to a contractor for work that is not unique or solely

provided to DOD. The committee expects that DOD will, in the future, use the available statutory discretion with greater prudence.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—ACQUISITION POLICY AND MANAGEMENT

Section 801—Acquisition Milestones

This section would amend various sections of title 10, United

States Code, to update references to the phases of acquisition to reflect changes in Department of Defense acquisition policy.

Section 802—Acquisition Workforce Qualifications

This section would amend section 1724 of title 10, United States

Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to hire an individual

into the acquisition workforce on a three-year probationary period

if the individual has a college degree or 24 semester credit hours

in business. This probationary period would allow the individual to

complete the education requirements defined in title 10, United

342

States Code. This section would also provide an additional exception to the education requirements for those individuals in the contingency contracting force. This section would also clarify the committee’s original intent to grandfather all employment qualifications in effect prior to enactment of section 808 of the Floyd D.

Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001

(Public Law 106–398).

Section 803—Two-Year Extension of Program Applying Simplified

Procedures to Certain Commercial Items

This section would extend for two years a pilot program authorizing the Secretary of Defense to use simplified acquisition procedures for the purchase of commercial items not greater than $5.0

million.

Section 804—Contracts for Services to Be Performed Outside the

United States

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to contract

with individuals or organizations to perform services in countries

with which the United States has no Status of Forces Agreement

(SOFA). In nations with which the United States has negotiated a

SOFA, that agreement establishes the procedures by which the

Secretary of Defense employs foreign nationals in support of the

armed forces. This provision would provide the Secretary of Defense with the authority to contract for local national labor in the

absence of a SOFA.

Section 805—Codification and Modification of ‘‘Berry Amendment’’

Requirements

This section would codify the Department of Defense (DOD) domestic source requirements commonly known as the ‘‘Berry Amendment’’. The provision would also require DOD to notify Congress

and the public of a decision to waive the domestic source requirement. The waiver would not come into effect until 30 days after

congressional notification.

SUBTITLE B—ERRONEOUS PAYMENTS RECOVERY

Section 811—Short Title

This section would name the subtitle as the ‘‘Erroneous Payments Recovery Act of 2001.’’

Section 812—Identification of Errors Made by Executive Agencies

in Payments to Contractors and Recovery of Amounts Erroneously Paid

This section would require executive agencies to conduct a program to recover erroneously made payments. Each agency may determine the types of contracts for which recovery activities are

most appropriate, based on policy guidelines and procedures the

Office of Management and Budget issues.

343

Section 813–Disposition of Recovered Funds

This section would authorize funds collected under a recovery

audit to be available to reimburse executive agencies’ and auditors’

costs. This section would also authorize a portion of the returned

funds to be available to support a management improvement program.

Section 814—Sources of Recovery Services

This section would ensure that executive agencies consider various auditing services within both government and the private sector when carrying out a recovery audit program.

Section 815—Management Improvement Programs

This section would provide an executive agency the option to

carry out a management improvement program in order to address

problems that contribute to the occurrence of erroneous payments.

Section 816—Reports

This section would require the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to submit an annual report to Congress evaluating executive agencies’ recovery audits, the costs the agencies

have incurred, and the amount actually recovered.

Section 817—Relationship to Authority of Inspectors General

This section would ensure that nothing in this subtitle impairs

the authority of an inspector general.

Section 818—Privacy Protections

This section would prohibit a nongovernmental entity from disclosing the identity of an individual for any purpose other than auditing activity.

Section 819—Definition

This section would define an executive agency.

(344)

TITLE IX—DEPARMTENT OF DEFENSE

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Regional Centers and China Center

The committee notes the interest of the Department of Defense

in consolidating the legislative authorities under which it operates

five regional centers for security studies. However, the Department’s proposal would go beyond merely consolidating existing authorities and would broaden and expand the authority to operate

some of these centers by allowing DOD to absorb additional costs

that are currently not borne by the Department. The committee

does not support this action.

Moreover, the committee is concerned about the policy guidance

given to the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies on the status

of Taiwanese nationals participating in conferences with representatives from the People’s Republic of China. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary to report to the committee no later

than December 31, 2001 on the guidance issued by the Department

to the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies regarding contact

with officials from Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China and

the participation of Chinese and Taiwanese nationals in conferences, symposia, and other activities of the center. In addition,

the report should include a description of how the Department’s

guidance is being implemented by the center.

Finally, the committee notes that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) established a

Center for the Study of Chinese Military Affairs and required the

Department to submit a report to the committee by February 1,

2001 detailing the proposed budget and timetable for initial and

full operations of the center. This report has not yet been submitted. The committee is concerned that the Department has not

acted expeditiously to implement the requirements established in

Public Law 106–65. Consequently, the committee directs the Secretary to submit the required report expeditiously, along with an

explanation of the reasons for the delay and any recommendations

the Secretary has for ensuring the viability of the center.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 901—Further Reductions in Defense Acquisition and

Support Workforce

This section would reduce the number of personnel assigned to

the defense acquisition and support workforce by 13,000 in fiscal

year 2002.

345

The committee continues to believe that the Department of Defense must significantly reorganize and streamline its acquisition

structure for a number of reasons. First, the military services’ priorities of interoperability and jointness and the increasing sophistication of systems will require advances in the way weapons systems are acquired. Second, at a time of tightening budget constraints, the Department must ensure that combat needs are not

crowded out by bloated support costs, including excessive overhead

costs from the acquisition workforce.

The committee believes that personnel reductions must be a significant part of any effort to bring the acquisition support costs of

the Department in line with the resources dedicated to its combat

missions. However, the committee is also concerned with the trend

since the mid-1990s to outsource acquisition functions while reducing the number of personnel in acquisition organizations. According

to the report required by section 343 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65), the Department paid 734,000 full-time contractors in fiscal year 1999 to

perform many acquisition functions at the same time it maintained

over 300,000 civilian and military employees in acquisition assignments. The committee is disturbed by this trend and believes it

must be addressed as part of a fundamental effort to reform the defense acquisition system.

Section 902—Sense of Congress on Establishment of an Office of

Transformation in the Department of Defense

This section would express the sense of Congress on the Administration’s decision to establish an Office of Transformation within

the Department of Defense (DOD). The committee believes the

armed services must implement transformation to meet operational

challenges and exploit opportunities resulting from changes in the

threat environment and the emergence of new technologies. The

committee notes and supports steps that the services have taken

so far to promote transformation. However, the committee also

notes that the findings of a 1999 Defense Science Board report on

transformation concluded that there was no overall DOD vision for

transformation, no ‘‘road map’’, no metrics to measure progress,

and little sense of urgency. The establishment of an Office of

Transformation will begin to address these shortfalls.

To assure the effectiveness of the Office of Transformation, the

committee believes three key elements must be in place: The mission and functions of the office must be adequately defined; the Director of Transformation must have direct access to the Secretary

of Defense; and the Director should have control of sufficient funding to sponsor key transformation efforts.

The committee believes that the mission of the Director of Transformation should be to develop force transformation strategies ensuring linkage to the military strategic functions of preparing the

future military and dissuading potential military competitors. The

Director should make recommendations to the Secretary for ensuring a continuous and broadly focused transformation process. The

Director should also collaborate on service and joint acquisition and

experimentation efforts, selectively fund experimentation efforts,

346

identify promising operational concepts and technologies, and sponsor other transformation activities as appropriate.

The committee believes the Director should have control of funding adequate for sponsoring selective prototyping efforts,

wargames, and studies and analyses, as well as for appropriate

staffing of the Office of Transformation. To accomplish these tasks,

the committee believes that it is critical that this office be provided

sufficient budgetary resources to accomplish its mission.

Section 903—Revised Joint Report On Establishment of National

Collaborative Information Analysis Capability

This section would require the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence to submit a revised joint report assessing the alternatives for the establishment of a national collaborative information analysis capability. The report, which would include draft legislation required to establish the preferred architecture, would be required to be submitted coincident with the submission of the budget request for fiscal year 2003.

Section 904—Elimination of Triennial Report by Chairman of the

Joint Chiefs of Staff on Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces

This section would amend title 10 to consolidate reporting requirements related to the roles of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

of Staff and missions of the armed forces. The current law requires

that the Chairman review the assignment of the roles and missions

of the armed forces every three years, or at the request of the

President or the Secretary of Defense, and to prepare a separate

report, which is not required to be submitted to Congress. This section would eliminate the current reporting requirement, and require that the Department of Defense’s assessment of the roles and

missions of the armed services be conducted as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) process. The results of the assessment would be included in the final report of the QDR and submitted to Congress.

Section 905—Repeal of Requirement for Semiannual Reports

Through March 2003 on Activities of Joint Requirements Oversight Council

This section would repeal section 916 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398) that

requires the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to submit a

semiannual report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and

the House Committee on Armed Services on specific activities of

the Joint Requirements Oversight Council through March 1, 2003.

Section 906—Correction of References to Air Mobility Command

This section would change all references to ‘‘Military Airlift Command’’ contained in title 10 and title 37, United States Code, to

‘‘Air Mobility Command.’’

347

Section 907—Organizational Alignment Change for Director for

Expeditionary Warfare

This section would amend section 5038(a) of title 10, United

States Code, with respect to the specific office of the Deputy Chief

of Naval Operations within which the Director for Expeditionary

Warfare shall be located.

(348)

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

ARMS CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION

The budget request contained $228.5 million for arms control implementation activities, representing a slight increase from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level of $223.6 million. The committee

recommends $223.6 million, a decrease of $4.9 million from the

budget request.

The budget request contained an increase in the operations and

maintenance accounts for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s

arms control implementation program of $18.7 million over the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level. This reflects a 30 percent increase. The committee recommends a $4.9 million reduction to the

request without prejudice.

COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

Overview

The Department of Defense budget request for fiscal year 2002

for counter-drug activities sustains the Department’s level of effort

in this important area by providing aircraft and ships for detection

and monitoring, military personnel, intelligence support, communications systems, and training to domestic and foreign law enforcement agencies. The committee is aware that the Department

is currently considering significant changes to its counter-drug program as part of a broader assessment of non-traditional activities.

While the committee continues to support a robust counter-drug

role for the Department, the committee believes that such a review

is appropriate. However, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report in advance of any reorganization initiatives in this

area proposed to be implemented during fiscal year 2002.

The Department of Defense budget request for fiscal year 2002

contained $820.4 million for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, in addition to $166.8 million for operational tempo, which

is included within the operating budgets of the military services.

This represents a net decrease of $161.2 million from the fiscal

year 2001 budget in execution primarily as a result of $184.1 million provided to the Department in emergency supplemental appropriations for Colombia contained in the Emergency Supplemental

Act, 2000 (Public Law 106–246), which was largely obligated in fiscal year 2001.

The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year 2002

Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows:

349

[Dollars in thousands]

FY02 Drug Interdiction & Counter-Drug Request ........................................ $820,381

Educate America’s Youth ......................................................................... 25,262

Increase Safety of Citizens ...................................................................... 78,489

Reduce Health & Social Costs ................................................................. 77,650

Shield America’s Frontiers ...................................................................... 334,459

Break Drug Sources of Supply ................................................................ 304,521

Recommended Decreases: ........................................................................

Tethered Aerostat Radar System ............................................................ 5,900

Peru Support ............................................................................................. 4,000

Counter-Drug Tanker Operations ........................................................... 1,800

Recommended Increases: .........................................................................

Operation Caper Focus ............................................................................ 5,000

Southwest Border Fence .......................................................................... 6,700

Recommendation .............................................................................................. $820,381

Items of Special Interest

Counter-drug tanker operations

The budget request contained $2.0 million for KC–135 tanker operations in support of counter-drug E–3 Airborne Early Warning

and Control System (AWACS) missions. The committee notes that

the prior year budget request was only $200,000 for this activity.

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.8 million

for this activity.

Operation Caper Focus

The committee is aware that the fiscal year 2002 budget request

does not fully support Operation Caper Focus, an important initiative to disrupt maritime narcotics trafficking in the Eastern Pacific.

The committee continues to support this important operation and,

therefore, recommends an increase of $5.0 million for this purpose.

Peru support

The budget request contained $9.2 million for Peru for counterdrug support under section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85). The committee is aware that not more than $5.0 million will be obligated

in fiscal year 2001 for Peru support under section 1033 and, therefore, recommends a decrease of $4.0 million. The committee also

notes that the authority under section 1033 with respect to Peru

expires at the end of fiscal year 2002.

Southwest border fence

The Southwest border continues to be a heavily utilized drug

trafficking corridor into the United States. The committee continues to support fence and road-building activities in this area. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.7 million

for this purpose.

Tethered Aerostat Radar System

The budget request contained $42.9 million for the Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS). The committee supports the transfer

of the TARS program to another federal agency in fiscal year 2002

and, therefore, directs that no fiscal year 2002 funding be used for

purposes of facility enhancement or aerostat modernization. AcVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00373 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.096 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
350

cordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $5.9 million in

the TARS program.

OTHER MATTERS

Classification of Foreign Military Training Reports

The committee is aware that the reports required by section 2011

of title 10, United States Code, and section 2416 of title 22, United

States Code, concerning Department of Defense training of foreign

military personnel are classified due to the increasing amount of

detail with respect to the U.S. military units involved. The committee understands the basis for a certain level of classification but

also believes that the information contained in these reports regarding foreign military units trained is important and should,

where appropriate, be made available in an unclassified form to the

general public.

Counter-Drug Forward Operating Locations

The committee is aware that the requirement for two Caribbean

forward operating locations (FOLs) at Curacao and Aruba, Netherlands Antilles, has been impacted by the decision of the Department of Defense to no longer support Air National Guard F–16 deployments to Curacao. The Emergency Supplemental Act, 2000

(Public Law 106–246) contained $43.9 million for infrastructure improvements at Curacao including airfield pavement improvements,

installation of aircraft rinse facilities, and construction of a maintenance hanger. As a result of the departure of Air National Guard

aircraft from Curacao, the committee believes the Curacao FOL

will be sufficient to accommodate Customs Service aircraft and personnel that currently operate from Aruba. Consequently, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 2408) that would prohibit military construction expenditures to develop Aruba as a Forward Operating Location.

Information Security Scholarship Program

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has

not developed criteria to evaluate the information assurance programs at institutions of higher education not designated as Centers

of Academic Excellence in Information Assurance Education. The

Department currently requires individuals who have computer and

network security skills necessary to meet specific information security assurance requirements. Increasing the number of eligible

schools will result in additional qualified individuals. The committee urges the Department to develop the criteria necessary to

allow qualified institutions of higher education to participate in the

Information Security Scholarship Program.

Potential Reallocation of Radio Frequency Spectrum for Third

Generation Mobile Wireless Communications

Section 1062 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) amended the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Act (section 901

et. seq. of title 47 United States Code) to provide that the DOD

351

shall not surrender the use of a band of frequencies for which it

is the primary user unless an alternative band or bands of frequencies is provided as a replacement and the Secretaries of Commerce and Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

certify that the alternative band or bands provides comparable

technical characteristics to maintain essential military capability.

Section 1064 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) requires the

private sector to pay relocation costs, in advance, to incumbent

Federal entities required to relocate to accommodate commercial

uses.

The committee notes the growth of mobile wireless telecommunications and the development of third generation (3G) mobile wireless communications services. An October 2000 Presidential executive memorandum stated the need and urgency for the United

States to select radio frequency spectrum (from frequency bands

previously identified for consideration by the World

Radiocommunication Conference 2000) to satisfy the future needs

of citizens and business for mobile voice, high-speed data, and

Internet-accessible wireless capability and directed Federal agencies to carry out the selection of the spectrum. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the

Federal Communications Commission have identified the 1755–

1850 MHz and 2500–2690 MHz bands as candidates.

The committee notes that the telecommunications and Internet

industry has launched a campaign for reassignment of the frequency bands in question from primary use by the federal government to primary use (if not exclusive use) by the private sector.

The industry is particularly interested in the 1755–1850 MHz band

because of action by European countries to begin 3G operations in

this band. A potential business base of as much as $500 billion is

anticipated. Draft legislation that has been proposed that would

call for the federal government to vacate at least 60 MHz of the

1755–1850 MHz band by 2004 and the remainder of the band by

2008.

The committee also notes that the Department of Defense (DOD)

uses the 1755–1780 MHz band for critical national defense systems, including satellite control, precision guided weapons data

links, tactical radio relay, precision guided munitions and combat

training systems. The Department argues that uncoordinated sharing of the frequency band with other users is not feasible. The costs

of relocating DOD systems from the band to another suitable band

(if such a band could be identified) are estimated at $2–4 billion

and relocation could not be accomplished until 2010 and beyond for

most DOD non-space systems and until 2017 and beyond for legacy

space systems (as late as 2030 for some satellites).

The committee further notes the General Accounting Office report ‘‘Defense Spectrum Management: More Analysis Needed to

Support Spectrum Use Decision for the 1755 to 1850 MHz Band,’’

GAO–01–795, July 2001. The report makes recommendations to

the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Commerce to more

accurately assess the potential impact of reallocation of frequency

band and provide the time and guidance to complete the required

352

planning and analysis before any decision on reallocation of the

band might be made.

The committee recognizes the competing issues of national security and economic interest that affect the proposals for potential reallocation of radio frequency spectrum currently reserved for use by

the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies to 3G mobile wireless communication services. However, the committee believes that the first priority for the federal government is to ensure

the national security of the United States and its people.

The committee reemphasizes the requirement contained in Section 1062 of Public Law 106–65 that alternate radio frequency

spectrum with comparable technical characteristics to maintain essential military capability operational capabilities must be available for use by the DOD, before frequency currently reserved for

use by the DOD can be reallocated. Noting the GAO report that a

decision to reallocate the 1755–1850 MHz band is premature and

that more adequate information is required before such a decision

might be made, the committee intends to carefully review this matter and take further legislative action as necessary to ensure that

national security interests are not compromised in this critical

area.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—FINANCIAL MATTERS

Section 1001—Transfer Authority

This section would provide fiscal year 2002 transfer authority to

the Department of Defense for amounts up to $2.0 billion.

Section 1002—Incorporation of Classified Annex

This section would incorporate the classified annex into the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002.

Section 1003—Limitation on Funds for Bosnia and Kosovo

Peacekeeping Operations for Fiscal Year 2002

This section would limit the amount of funds available for peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Kosovo to the amounts contained

in the budget request, $1,315,600,000 for operations in Bosnia and

$1,528,600,000 for operations in Kosovo. This section would authorize the president to waive the limitation after submitting to the

Congress a written certification that the waiver is necessary to the

national security interests of the United States. This section would

also require a written certification that the exercise of the waiver

will not adversely affect the readiness of U.S. military forces; a report setting forth the reasons for the waiver, a discussion of the impact of the involvement of U.S. military forces in Balkans peacekeeping operations on U.S. military readiness; and a supplemental

appropriations request for the Department of Defense for fiscal

year 2002 costs associated with U.S. military forces participating

in, or supporting, Bosnia or Kosovo peacekeeping operations.

353

Section 1004—Increase in Limitations on Administrative Authority

of the Navy to Settle Admiralty Claims

This section would increase the administrative authority of the

Navy to settle admiralty claims. It would authorize the Secretary

of the Navy to settle, or compromise, and pay any and all admiralty claims against the United States amounting to not more than

$15 million. Any claim exceeding $15 million would require the

Navy to certify that claim to Congress. This section would further

authorize the Secretary of the Navy to delegate his authority to

settle claims to any person he designates when the amount paid is

not more than $1 million. This section would also increase the

amount the United States might receive from an admiralty claim

to $15 million. It would further allow the Secretary of the Navy to

delegate his authority to receive claims when that amount is not

more than $1 million.

SUBTITLE B—NAVAL VESSELS

Section 1011—Revision in Types of Excess Naval Vessels for which

Approval by Law Is Required for Disposal to Foreign Nations

This section would amend Section 7307 of title 10, United States

Code to revise and clarify the circumstances under which the Navy

must seek statutory authority in order to transfer or dispose of excess naval vessels. Current law requires Congress to enact legislation specifically authorizing a transfer to another nation of any

ship exceeding 3,000 tons in weight or less than 20 years of age.

If the ship is less than 3,000 tons in weight or over 20 years of age,

the Secretary of the Navy is required to notify the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed

Services of the proposed transfer and wait 30 in-session days before

making the transfer. This section would permit the transfer of noncombatant naval vessels, as well as leased or loaned vessels previously authorized by Congress for transfer to a foreign nation

without the requirement for a statutory enactment. The committee,

for the purposes of this section, considers a combatant naval vessel

to be a large, heavily armed ship that is designed primarily to engage enemy forces on the high seas. This would include battleships,

cruisers, destroyers, frigates, submarines, and aircraft carriers. The

committee considers non-combatants to include logistics and combat support ships such as T–AO’s (oilers), LST’s, YTB’s, and T– AGOS. This change will provide the Navy with greater flexibility

in transferring surplus and excess ships, thereby reducing the

Navy’s cost of maintenance and safe stowage.

SUBTITLE C—COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

Section 1021—Extension of Reporting Requirement Regarding Department of Defense Expenditures to Support Foreign CounterDrug Activities

This section would extend the reporting requirement contained

in section 1022 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398) that requires

the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional deVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00377 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.098 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
354

fense committees on the total amount, type and legal basis for foreign counter-drug assistance provided by the Department of Defense. This section would require the Secretary to report to Congress by April 15, 2002, on expenditures made during fiscal year

2001.

Section 1022—Authority to Transfer Tracker Aircraft Currently

Used by Armed Forces for Counter-Drug Purposes

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer

all Tracker aircraft to another federal agency in fiscal year 2002.

Should the Secretary not exercise the transfer authority provided

in this section by September 30, 2002, this section would prohibit

the Department of Defense from using the Tracker aircraft for

counter-drug purposes after that date.

Section 1023—Authority to Transfer Tethered Aerostat Radar System Currently Used by Armed Forces for Counter-Drug Purposes

This section would provide the authority for the Secretary of Defense to transfer all Tethered Aerostat Radar System (TARS) assets to another federal agency in fiscal year 2002. Should the Secretary not exercise the transfer authority provided in this section

by September 30, 2002, this section would prohibit the Department

of Defense from using the Tethered Aerostat Radar System for

counter-drug purposes after that date.

SUBTITLE D—REPORTS

Section 1031—Requirement that Department of Defense Reports to

Congress be Accompanied by Electronic Version

This section would amend chapter 23 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 believes 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 1032—Report on Department of Defense Role in Homeland

Security Matters

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a

study on the appropriate role of the Department of Defense in

homeland security matters and to submit the results of that study

to Congress at the same time the President submits the budget request for fiscal year 2003.

Section 1033—Revision of Annual Report to Congress on National

Guard and Reserve Component Equipment

This section would amend section 10541 of title 10, United States

Code, to modify the timing and contents of the Secretary of Defense’s annual report to Congress on national guard and reserve

equipment.

355

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1041—Department of Defense Gift Authorities

This section would clarify items which may be loaned or given

under section 7545 of title 10, United States Code.

Section 1042—Termination of Referendum Requirement Regarding

Continuation of Military Training on Island of Vieques, Puerto

Rico, and Imposition of Additional Conditions on Closure of LiveFire Training Range

This section would repeal the requirement, contained in sections

1503, 1504, and 1505 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), for a

referendum on the future of U.S. military training on the island of

Vieques, Puerto Rico. This section would also allow the Secretary

of the Navy to cease training exercises on Vieques provided the

Chief of Naval Operations and Commandant of the Marine Corps

certify that an alternative training facility is available. This section

would require that the new facility be available and fully capable

of supporting pre-deployment training immediately upon the cessation of operations on Vieques. In order to make the certification,

this section would also require that the new facility be able to support an equivalent or superior level of training for U.S. Navy and

Marine Corps units on the east coast. This training is defined as

the ability to support, at a single location, coordinated live-fire operations including the simultaneous use of large-scale tactical airstrikes, naval surface fire support, artillery, and amphibious landing operations, as were conducted on Vieques prior to April 19,

1999. This section would also require that if training operations

cease on Vieques, the Navy retain the facility on the eastern end

of the island in the event it must be reactivated for use as a training range in time of national emergency, and allow the Navy to

enter into an agreement with the Department of the Interior for

the management of that land.

Section 1043—Repeal of Limitation on Reductions in Peacekeeper

ICBM Missiles

This section would modify section 1302 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85), as

amended, to allow for the retirement of the Peacekeeper ICBM

force.

Section 1044—Sense of Congress on the Importance of the Kwajalein Missile Range/Ronald Reagan Defense Initiative Test Site at

Kwajalein Atoll

This section would express the sense of Congress that the missile

defense range and test site on Kwajalein Atoll is of vital importance to the security of the United States and that the Department

of Defense should work to continue its long-term relationship with

this test site.

356

Section 1045—Transfer of Vietnam Era F–4 Aircraft to Nonprofit

Museum

This section would permit the Secretary of the Air Force to convey, without consideration, one surplus F–4 aircraft to a nonprofit

museum. This section would also require that any aircraft transferred under this authority would be completely demilitarized prior

to transfer and that the conveyance would be at no cost to the

United States.

Section 1046—Bomber Force Structure

This section would prohibit the Department of Defense from retiring, dismantling, transferring, or reassigning any of the 93 B– 1B Lancer bombers in service as of June 1, 2001, until Congress

has received a series of studies and reports. These reports include,

the National Security Strategy, the Quadrennial Defense Review,

the Secretary of Defense Annual Report to the President and the

Congress, the Revised Nuclear Posture Review, a report from the

Secretary of Defense on changes to the 1992 and 1995 bomber

studies that warrant changes to the bomber fleet and plans regarding new missions for decommissioned B–1 units, a new Secretary

of Defense bomber study on the role, force structure and cost effectiveness of the manned bomber in the future national security environment, and a General Accounting Office study on the same

issues as the Secretary of Defense bomber study.

The committee believes that the Department’s request to reduce

the B–1 fleet from 93 aircraft to 60 and consolidate the remaining

B–1Bs at two operating bases was premature. This section would restore $100 million to the Air National Guard Operations and

Maintenance Account, Budget Activity 1, Aircraft Operations line

to keep the Air National Guard B–1s operational into fiscal year

2002 until the results of the various reports and studies have been

analyzed. The committee expects that any bomber force structure

modifications will be made in the context of the emerging security

environment as outlined in these various documents.

Section 1047—Technical and Clerical Amendments

This section would make a number of technical and clerical

amendments to existing law of a non-substantive basis.

(357)

TITLE XI—CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 1101—Undergraduate Training Program for Employees of

the National Imagery and Mapping Agency

This section would authorize the National Imagery and Mapping

Agency (NIMA) to establish an undergraduate training program to

recruit employees with critical skills. The committee notes that the

National Security Agency has had success with a similar program

and expects that NIMA would use this new authority to recruit

highly talented new personnel to the agency.

Section 1102—Pilot Program for Payment of Retraining Expenses

This section would authorize the Department of Defense (DOD)

to establish a pilot program to pay retraining expenses for DOD

employees scheduled for involuntary separation. Under the pilot

program, the Secretary of Defense may pay retraining incentives to

encourage private industry to hire and retrain displaced DOD employees.

Section 1103—Payment of Expenses to Obtain Professional

Credentials

This section would authorize federal agencies to pay for employee

credentials, professional licenses, and professional certification. The

committee believes this new authority will enable federal agencies

to assist involuntarily separated employees to qualify for new employment and will also provide agencies with an important new recruiting and retention incentive.

Section 1104—Retirement Portability Elections for Certain

Department of Defense and Coast Guard Employees

This section would amend sections 8347 and 8461 of title 5,

United States Code, to repeal the requirement that an employee

who transfers between appropriated fund and nonappropriated

fund employment be vested in the retirement system of the position

the employee is vacating before the employee is permitted to choose

to remain in that retirement system.

Section 1105—Removal of Requirement that Granting Civil Service

Compensatory Time be Based on Amount of Irregular or Occasional Overtime Work

This section would amend section 5543 of title 5, United States

Code, to repeal the requirement that compensatory time only be

granted to federal employees if the overtime performed is catVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00381 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR194.101 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
358

egorized as irregular or occasional. Removal of these restrictions

will provide federal managers and employees with more flexibility

in the use of compensatory time.

Section 1106—Applicability of Certain Laws to Certain Individuals

Assigned to Work in the Federal Government

This section would amend section 3374 of title 5, United States

Code, to clarify that state and local government officials detailed to

work in federal agencies are subject to the same standards of official conduct that apply to other federal employees.

Section 1107—Limitation on Premium Pay

This section would amend section 5547 of title 5, United States

Code, to change the period used for limiting the amount of overtime pay an employee may earn from a biweekly to an annual

basis, permitting more flexibility in scheduling overtime across the

federal government.

Section 1108—Use of Common Occupational and Health Standards

as a Basis for Differential Payments Made 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 1109—Authority for Designated Civilian Employees Abroad

to Act as a Notary

This section would amend section 1044a of title 10, United States

Code, to authorize certain Department of Defense civilian employees serving abroad to act as notaries. This change will provide better legal assistance services for military members, civilian employees, and their families assigned overseas.

Section 1110—‘‘Monroney Amendment’’ Restored to its Prior Form

This section would amend section 5343 of title 5, United States

Code, to require the Department of Defense to establish wage

schedules and rates for prevailing wage employees based on the

nearest wage area that is most similar to the wage area for which

wage rates are being established when there are insufficient positions in the local industry upon which to establish wage schedules

and rates.

(359)

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER

NATIONS

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 1201—Clarification of Authority to Furnish Nuclear Test

Monitoring Equipment to Foreign Governments

This section would amend section 2565 of title 10, United States

Code, to authorize the transfer of title to foreign governments of

U.S. nuclear test monitoring equipment on the territory of other

countries.

Section 1202—Acquisition of Logistical Support for Security Forces

This section would amend the Multinational Force and Observers

(MFO) Participation Resolution (Public Law 97–132) that authorizes the United States to deploy peacekeepers and observers to the

Sinai to assist Egypt and Israel fulfill the Camp David Accords.

This section would authorize the President to approve contracting

out the logistical and aviation support for the MFO mission currently performed by United States soldiers. This section would also

provide that U.S. sponsored contract support could be provided to

the MFO mission without reimbursement by the MFO organization

if the President determines that such action enhances or supports

the national security of the United States. The committee believes

that approving contract support for the MFO will enhance the operational capabilities of the MFO force. The committee intends that

the replacement of U.S. forces by contractors should not be viewed

as a lessening of U.S. support for the MFO mission.

Currently, administrative and technical support is provided by

the Army’s 1st Support Battalion pursuant to international agreements with both Israel and Egypt. The agreements stipulate the

type of unit functions to be performed by the MFO in order to comply with its treaty verification mission, particularly aviation and

logistical support. Ninety-nine U.S. soldiers flying ten UH–1H helicopters provide aviation support for the MFO. One hundred and

fifty soldiers assigned to the U.S. Logistical Support Unit provide

general logistical support. The United States Army intends to retire all UH–1H helicopters during fiscal year 2003. Procuring and

operating UH–60 Blackhawk helicopters would significantly increase the cost of conducting the MFO mission and no replacement

helicopters are currently in the Army’s future year defense plan for

the MFO. Approving contractor support for the MFO will allow

that mission to continue to operate UH–1H helicopters at reduced

cost without any impact in mission accomplishment.

360

Section 1203—Report on the Sale and Transfer of Military Hardware, Expertise, and Technology from States of the Former Soviet Union to the People’s Republic of China

This section would amend section 1202 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) to require the Secretary of Defense to submit, as part of the existing report requirement, a one-time report to the Congress no later than

March 1, 2002 on the transfer of equipment, expertise, and technology from former Soviet states to the People’s Republic of China.

The committee notes the strengthening political and military relationship between Russia and China and is concerned that growing military cooperation between these two countries may adversely affect U.S. national security interests. The committee is

also troubled by reports regarding the proliferation of military technologies from other former Soviet states.

Accordingly, the committee believes it important for the Secretary to assess the nature and scope of military cooperation between China and the states of the former Soviet Union and to assess the impact of such cooperation on the ability of China’s People’s Liberation Army to modernize and strengthen its military capabilities and to pose a threat to U.S. national security interests,

particularly in Asia.

Section 1204—Limitation on Funding for Joint Data Exchange

Center

This section would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of fiscal

year 2002 funds for activities associated with the Joint Data Exchange Center in Moscow, Russia, until 30 days after the Secretary

of Defense submits to Congress 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 is concerned by Russia’s apparent unwillingness

to move forward expeditiously 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 redouble its efforts to seek Russia’s agreement to

such exemptions.

Section 1205—Extension of Authority to Provide Assistance Under

Weapons of Mass Destruction Act for Support of United NationsSponsored 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 2002 in support

of the United Nations organization established for the purpose of

comprehensively accounting for all Iraqi weapons of mass destruction items, facilities, and capabilities. The section would also

change the requirement for quarterly reports by the Department of

Defense under section 1505 to an annual report.

361

Section 1206—Repeal of Requirement for Reporting to Congress on

Military Deployments to Haiti

This section would repeal the report required by section 1232 of

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) concerning military deployments to Haiti.

Section 1207—Report by Comptroller General on Provision of Defense Articles, Services, and Military Education and Training to

Foreign Countries and International Organizations

This section would require the Comptroller General of the United

States to study the benefits, costs, and readiness impact to U.S.

Armed Forces with regard to defense articles, services, or military

education and training provided under the authority of sections

506, 516, and 552 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (sections

2318, 2321j, 2348a of title 22, United States Code) or any similar

provision of law. The provision would require the Comptroller General to submit to Congress an interim report no later than April

15, 2002, and a final report by August 1, 2002, on the findings of

the study.

The committee is concerned with the increasing amount of foreign assistance provided by the Department of Defense under sections 506, 516, and 552 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (sections 2318, 2321j, 2348a of title 22, United States Code) and other

statutory drawdown authorities that furnish defense articles, services, and education and training to foreign countries or international organizations. The committee understands that the Department has executed 45 drawdowns from 1992 to 1999 with a

total cost to the Department of $1.0 billion. While the committee

recognizes the Department must continue to support legitimate

emergency assistance through the drawdown process, the committee is concerned with the trend of annual drawdowns compensating for a diminished foreign military financing (FMF) program.

The committee believes that a comprehensive assessment and report to Congress by the Comptroller General on the topic will provide insight as to the merit of the various drawdown activities.

Section 1208—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 on duty in Colombia at any time. This section would exclude

from the numerical limitation any U.S. military personnel who are

in Colombia for a period of not more than 30 days, unless expressly

authorized by law, for the purpose of rescuing or retrieving U.S.

military or governmental personnel. This section would also exempt from the limitation U.S. military personnel assigned to the

U.S. Embassy in Colombia as an attache ́, as part of the security

assistance office, or the Marine Corps security contingent; service

members participating in natural disaster relief efforts; and nonoperational transient military personnel.

(362)

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION

WITH STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION

OVERVIEW

The budget request contained $403.0 million for cooperative threat reduction (CTR) activities, representing a decrease of $39.7

million from the amounts appropriated for fiscal year 2001. The request included $246.9 million for destruction and dismantlement,

$65.5 million for fissile materials and nuclear weapons safety and

storage, $41.7 million for plutonium reactor shutdown activities in

Russia, $17.0 million for biological weapons proliferation prevention in the former Soviet Union, $18.7 million for defense and military contacts, and $13.2 million for other program support, including administrative and management costs.

The committee recommends the budget request.

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.

Nevertheless, in recent years the committee has raised numerous

concerns. These include: 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 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; and whether CTR activities are more appropriately funded

outside the Department of Defense.

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. The committee 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. As a result, some CTR activities

fall more appropriately outside the purview of the Department of

Defense, particularly those activities that serve a broader nonproliferation or foreign policy goal. Two years ago, in the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–

65), Congress restricted the obligation of fiscal year 2000 CTR

funds pending a report by the Secretary of Defense on whether

DOD is the appropriate executive agency to implement various

363

CTR projects and, if not, to propose a plan for migrating responsibility for those projects to other agencies. The committee has yet

to receive this report.

With this in mind, the committee believes it is time to take a

fresh look at the CTR program and how to execute it. As a DOD

program, CTR activities compete for scarce resources with the numerous other, more traditional, defense programs pursued by the

Department. In light of this competition, the committee believes

the Department must provide a rationale for the execution of CTR

programs under DOD and options for transitioning responsibility

for these programs to another federal agency or agencies, as appropriate. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (section

1308) that would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress no later than March 15, 2002, explaining the rationale for DOD’s oversight and management of the CTR program;

providing justification for each CTR project that the Department

believes should remain within the funding and management responsibility of DOD; and detailing the various transition options

and how the Department proposes to implement them, as appropriate.

If the Department of Defense is to retain funding and management responsibility for the overall CTR program or any of the

projects contained within, the committee believes the Secretary

must seek to ensure that the program is subject to the same kinds

of stringent management, accountability, and results-oriented

standards that apply to other defense programs. 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. Nevertheless, the committee

remains troubled that the Department has not complied with the

various reporting requirements mandated by law that are designed

to enhance congressional visibility and oversight of the CTR program. In particular, the committee is troubled by the Department’s

failure to submit a number of reports required by title XIII of the

Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398). The committee recalls that last

year Congress agreed to consolidate a variety of reporting requirements into a single report on the basis of DOD assurances that the

consolidated report would be submitted to Congress in a timely

manner and in accordance with the statutory mandate. The committee has not yet received this report. Accordingly, the committee

recommends a provision (sec. 1303) that would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of fiscal year 2002 CTR funds until 30 days

after the consolidated report is submitted.

The committee’s support for the CTR program has been predicated upon a belief that the assistance provided would produce the

desired national security benefits. Unfortunately, in an increasing

number of cases, the achievement of these benefits is difficult or

impossible to quantify. Moreover, as a June 2001 General Accounting Office report concluded, the CTR program now provides a significantly greater percentage of assistance in the form of services

rather than equipment. Therefore, the Department’s traditional

audit and examination procedures are insufficient to assist Congress in determining whether this assistance is being used as inVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00387 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR194.103 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
364

tended and achieving the desired objectives. In addition, a March

2001 report by the DOD Inspector General found that the lack of

adequate performance goals for the CTR program meant that program managers ‘‘could not successfully demonstrate that the CTR

Directorate was executing the CTR program efficiently and effectively or identifying opportunities to improve program effectiveness.’’ Consequently, the committee recommends a provision (sec.

1307) that would amend section 1308 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law

106–398) to provide for more complete and effective oversight of the

CTR program.

Finally, the committee understands that, with the change in Administrations and the delay in staffing key policy positions within

DOD, the Department has had little opportunity to focus on and

evaluate many of the policy assumptions underpinning the programmatic decisions reflected in the Department’s fiscal year 2002

CTR proposal. Consequently, many of the proposals contained in

the Department’s budget submission are essentially unchanged

from those of the previous Administration. 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 2003.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Arms Elimination Projects in Russia

The budget request contained $133.4 million for strategic offensive arms elimination projects in Russia, a 33 percent decrease

from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated amount of $177.8 million.

The committee recommends the budget request.

The committee remains concerned that Russia may convert SS–

18 ICBM silos to support the deployment of modern SS–27 ‘‘Topol’’ ICBMs and that SS–18 missile elimination activities may facilitate

Russia’s ability to convert these silos. Last year, the committee directed the Secretary of Defense ‘‘to focus the Department’s SS–18

elimination effort at locations where missile silos are to be eliminated, not converted, to ensure that CTR assistance is not used in

support of Russia’s strategic modernization program.’’ Although

DOD policy does not support conversion activities, the CTR program has assisted in the removal of SS–18 ICBMs from silos at locations where the silos may be converted. The committee reiterates

its view that CTR assistance should be targeted at those sites

where SS–18 missiles, silos, and related infrastructure will be

eliminated.

The committee also notes that the March 2001 report on the CTR

program by the DOD Inspector General concluded that more than

$64.5 million in program funds was used ‘‘to facilitate the removal

of weapons of mass destruction by enhancing the value of salvageable materials and developing commercial by-products for Russia

and Ukraine.’’ The report notes, ‘‘As a result of those efforts, Russia

and Ukraine could generate revenue of about $72.8 million without

agreements on how the revenue should be used.’’ The committee

believes the Department should seek to negotiate agreements reVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00388 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.103 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
365

garding the use of these revenues in order to prevent them from

being used for purposes that run contrary to the objectives of the

CTR program. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision

(section 1304) that would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report on DOD’s plans for monitoring the use of such revenues.

Arms Elimination Projects in Ukraine

The budget request contained $51.5 million for strategic offensive

arms elimination projects in Ukraine, a 77 percent increase from

the fiscal year 2001 appropriated amount of $29.1 million. The

committee recommends the budget request.

The committee notes the successful completion of the Tu–26

Blackjack bomber elimination project and the initiation of efforts to

eliminate Tu–22 Backfire bombers. The committee supports these

efforts, along with accelerated efforts to eliminate Ukraine’s remaining ICBMs, silos, and associated infrastructure.

Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention

The budget request contained $17.0 million for biological weapons proliferation prevention activities in the former Soviet Union,

a 42 percent increase from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level

of $12.0 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 risks 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. The

committee does not believe DOD should finance the activities of

former Soviet biological weapons scientists on a permanent basis,

and calls upon the Department to establish criteria for the completion of this program.

Chemical Weapons Destruction in Russia

The budget request contained $50.0 million for chemical weapons elimination activities in Russia, including $15.0 million for the

elimination of chemical weapons production facilities and $35.0

million for construction of a chemical weapons destruction facility

in Shchuch’ye, Russia. The request also contained a provision that

would repeal section 1305 of Public Law 106–65, which prohibits

any funding for activities related to the Shchuch’ye facility. This is

the second consecutive year the Department has requested a repeal

of the existing prohibition and a restart of funding for this activity.

The committee recommends the budget request.

Although the committee approves the budget request for activities related to the construction of a chemical weapons destruction

facility in Russia, the committee remains concerned about the relative priority of this project within the overall CTR program. MoreVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00389 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.104 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
366

over, the committee continues to have serious reservations about

the wisdom of proceeding with the Shchuch’ye project in light of ongoing cost, schedule, and other concerns.

The committee recognizes Russia’s declared intention to place

greater priority on its chemical weapons elimination effort, in accordance with its commitments under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and Russia’s effort to increase its financial commitment to

this effort. In addition, the committee notes that Russia is seeking

to make it possible to use the Shchuch’ye facility to eliminate nerve

agents currently stored at other stockpile sites. However, the committee notes that under section 1309 of Public Law 106–398 the

Department was required to submit a report in January 2001, regarding Russian and international funding for chemical weapons

elimination activities in Russia. This report has not yet been provided.

The committee notes that U.S. commitments to date have involved funding for the construction of the Shchuch’ye pilot destruction facility, not for its scale-up, operation, or maintenance. These

costs are to be assumed by Russia. However, the committee remains skeptical regarding Russia’s ability to absorb these costs. In

the view of the committee, the United States will likely be compelled to absorb additional costs, beyond the nearly $900 million estimated for the U.S. share of funding, to eliminate chemical weapons at Shchuch’ye if Russia is unwilling or unable to do so.

With this in mind, the committee believes that U.S. funding for

this activity should be conditioned on a variety of actions that demonstrate Russia’s commitment to the elimination of its chemical

weapons stockpile. Accordingly, the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1309) that would require the Secretary of Defense to certify to Congress that Russia: (1) has made a full and accurate disclosure of its chemical weapons stockpile; (2) has committed to invest at least $25.0 million annually in chemical weapons elimination; (3) has developed a practical plan for chemical weapons

elimination; (4) has provided legal authority for the elimination of

all nerve agents at a single site; and (5) has agreed to destroy its

chemical weapons production facilities at Volgograd and

Novocheboksarsk.

The committee acknowledges that the National Security Council

(NSC)—after conducting a review of U.S. nonproliferation assistance programs with Russia—has recommended moving ahead with

the Shchuch’ye project. The committee believes the NSC’s recommendation is based, in part, on commitments to the project

made to Russia by the prior Administration. The committee notes

that political commitments by the Executive Branch to support

projects in Russia must be premised on congressional approval and

funding. For this reason, the committee is troubled by the fact that

the Department concluded an agreement with Russia in November

2000 reiterating its commitment to the Shchuch’ye project after

Congress had prohibited funding for it in 1999 and reaffirmed this

prohibition earlier in 2000. The committee believes the Department’s action was inappropriate and contrary to the clearly expressed position of Congress.

The committee is also aware of the Department’s desire to use

unobligated fiscal year 1999 CTR funds to initiate construction of

367

the Shchuch’ye facility and understands that a DOD notification to

this effect has been prepared for transmittal to Congress. The committee does not support using prior year funds to initiate an action,

the completion of which is precluded by existing law, unless and

until the existing prohibition is lifted or modified.

Defense and Military Contacts

The budget request contained $18.7 million for defense and military contacts with the states of the former Soviet Union, a 108 percent increase over the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level of $9.0

million. The committee recommends the budget request.

Last year, the CTR program funded approximately 350 defense

and military contacts with the states of the former Soviet Union.

This year’s budget request would support 500 events. However, the

committee believes the utility of these activities is difficult to quantify and expects the Department to address this issue in the report

required by section 1308 of this title.

Elimination of Plutonium Production in Russia

The budget request contained $41.7 million for the elimination of

plutonium production in Russian nuclear reactors, a 30 percent increase from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level of $32.1 million.

The committee recommends the budget request, subject to the prohibition described below.

The committee notes that the Department has decided to abandon its support for core conversion. The Department believes the

goal of eliminating weapons-grade plutonium production is best

served by the construction of fossil fuel plants, including the refurbishment of coal-burning boilers, as a less expensive substitute for

the energy needs of the local communities in Russia. Although the

committee supports the goal of shutting down Russia’s nuclear

power plants, the committee believes this goal serves broader U.S.

nonproliferation and foreign policy objectives and should be funded

through sources external to the Department of Defense. In addition, the committee notes that the budget request would be targeted exclusively for the building and refurbishment of fossil fuel

plants and not for any activities directly related to shutting down

Russia’s plutonium producing nuclear reactors. The committee does

not believe that the construction of fossil fuel plants in Russia is

an activity appropriate for DOD to fund. This view led Congress to

pass section 1307 of Public Law 106–398, which prohibited fiscal

year 2001 CTR funds from being used for this activity. Accordingly,

the committee recommends a provision (sec. 1306) that would make

permanent the fiscal year 2001 prohibition on using CTR funds for

this purpose.

The committee is also troubled by the Department’s failure to

submit the report required by section 1307 of Public Law 106–398

that would identify the costs of building fossil fuel plants, as well

as other non-CTR funding sources that could be used for carrying

out this activity. Consequently, the committee lacks the requisite

information to determine how the Department arrived at its conclusion regarding the comparative costs of core conversion vis-a-vis

368

fossil fuel plants and the reasons why DOD believes it should be

involved in this activity.

Fissile Material Processing and Packaging

The budget request did not contain funding for this activity. The

committee understands that Russia, after initially requesting U.S.

assistance in the dismantlement and processing of fissile material

removed from nuclear warheads, refused to agree to the necessary

safeguards to ensure the material could not be re-fabricated for use

in other nuclear weapons. Consequently, this project has been terminated. The committee understands that unobligated prior year

funds for this activity have been re-obligated for other projects.

Fissile Material Storage Facility

The budget request did not contain funding for this activity. The

committee notes that Russia is no longer seeking 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 in refusing

to seek additional funds for this activity and recommends a provision (section 1306) that would 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 the facility 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 $56.0 million for nuclear weapons

storage security in Russia, a 38 percent decrease from the fiscal

year 2001 appropriated level of $89.7 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 $9.5 million for nuclear weapons

transportation security in Russia, a 32 percent decrease from the

fiscal year 2001 appropriated level of $14.0 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 $13.2 million for other program

support, including management and administrative costs, project

development, and audits and examinations, a slight increase over

369

the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level of $13.0 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 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 Public Law

106–398, which prohibits the use of CTR funds for conventional

elimination purposes—including, for example, general purpose submarines—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 $6.0 million for weapons of mass

destruction infrastructure elimination activities in Kazakhstan.

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 infrastructure at former bomber

bases. The committee recommends the budget request.

Weapons of Mass Destruction Infrastructure Elimination in

Ukraine

The budget request contained $6.0 million for weapons of mass

destruction infrastructure elimination activities in Ukraine. 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.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction

Program and Funds

This section would specify the kinds of programs to be funded

under this title and would make fiscal year 2002 Cooperative

Threat Reduction (CTR) funds available for obligation for three

years.

Section 1302—Funding Allocations

This section would allocate fiscal year 2002 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 2002 CTR funds until 30 days after reports required by secVerDate 31-AUG-2001 00:30 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00393 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.106 pfrm01 PsN: HR194
370

tion 1308 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398) are submitted.

Section 1304—Report on Use of Revenue Generated by Activities

Carried Out Under Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a

report describing plans to monitor the use of revenue generated by

CTR activities in Russia and Ukraine.

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—Prohibition on Use of Funds for Construction or

Refurbishment of Fossil Fuel Energy Plants

This section would prohibit the use of CTR funds for construction

or refurbishment of fossil fuel energy plants in Russia.

Section 1307—Reports on Activities and Assistance Under

Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs

This section would amend section 1308 of the Floyd D. Spence

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public

Law 106–398) to modify the report on activities and assistance

under CTR programs in order to provide for more complete and effective oversight of the CTR program.

Section 1308—Report on Responsibility for Carrying Out

Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a

report containing an assessment of CTR projects currently under

the auspices of DOD and describing options for transferring responsibility for CTR projects to other agencies, as appropriate.

Section 1309—Chemical Weapons Destruction

This section would modify the existing prohibition on the use of

CTR funds for construction of a chemical weapons destruction facility in Russia by requiring the Secretary of Defense to certify that

Russia has met various requirements prior to the obligation or expenditure of funds for this activity.

(371)

TITLE XIV—DEFENSE SPACE REORGANIZATION

OVERVIEW

The committee commends the efforts of the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, and has reviewed the contents of the report to Congress

as required by section 1623 of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65). The committee believes that many of the recommendations contained in the commission report are significant and should be considered for implementation. The committee believes, therefore, that the President and

the Secretary of Defense should have specific discretionary authority to impose new organizational and programmatic arrangements

with regard to space matters.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 1401—Short Title

This section would refer to this title as the ‘‘Defense Space Reorganization Act of 2001.’’

Section 1402—Authority to Establish Position of Under Secretary

of Defense for Space, Intelligence, and Information

This section would authorize the President, through December

31, 2003, to establish the position of Under Secretary of Defense for

Space, Intelligence, and Information with specific duties as prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

Section 1403—Authority to Designate Under Secretary of the Air

Force as Acquisition Executive for Space of the Department of

Defense

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to designate the Under Secretary of the Air Force as the acquisition executive for all space-related programs in the Department of Defense.

Section 1404—Major Force Program Category for Space Programs

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to create

a major force program category for space under section 221 of title

10, United States Code.

Section 1405—Comptroller General Assessment of Implementation

of Recommendations of Space Commission

This section would require the Comptroller General of the United

States to assess the actions taken by the Secretary of Defense to

implement the recommendations of the Commission to Assess

372

United States National Security Space Management and Organization and report to Congress by February 15 in both 2002 and 2003.

Section 1406—Commander of Air Force Space Command

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to require

that the officer serving as commander of Air Force Space Command

not serve simultaneously as commander of United States Space

Command or as commander of the United States element of the

North American Air Defense Command.

Section 1407—Authority to Establish Separate Career Field in the

Air Force for Space

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to establish a separate career field for officers in space doctrine, space

operations, and management of space systems for the Air Force.

(373)

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 2002. As approved by the committee,

Division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of

$10,324,712,000 for construction in support of the active forces, reserve components, defense agencies for fiscal year 2002.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW

The Department of Defense requested authorization of appropriations of $5,904,795,000 for fiscal year 2002 for military construction, including $532,200,000 for activities associated with base closure and realignment, and $4,066,517,000 for family housing construction and support. The committee recommends $6,359,343,000

for military construction, including $532,200,000 for activities associated with base closure and realignment, and $3,965,369,000 for

family housing construction and support for fiscal year 2002.

The committee remains concerned about the condition of the Nation’s military installations and facilities and their effect on military readiness. The committee is pleased, however, that the Administration’s fiscal year 2002 budget request contained a 13 percent

increase from the program enacted by Congress for fiscal year 2001

and contained a 24.5 percent increase in the amount requested by

the previous Administration for fiscal year 2001. The committee is

encouraged that the fiscal year 2002 budget request would begin to

reverse the trend of underfunding critical military infrastructure

and expects it to represent sustained investment rather than a momentary spike. The committee recommends an increase in new

budget authority for these programs of $353,400,000.

In an effort to continue to improve the quality of life for military

personnel and their families, the committee reiterates its support

for the authorities provided in subchapter IV, chapter 169 of title,

10, United States Code. The Military Housing Privatization Initiative remains a central component of the ultimate resolution of the

military housing crisis. The committee recommends permanent authority for this program.

A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in Division B

for fiscal year 2002 follows:

374


Insert offset folio 531 here 74948.163
375


Insert offset folio 532 here 74948.164
376


Insert offset folio 533 here 74948.165
377


Insert offset folio 534 here 74948.166
378


Insert offset folio 535 here 74948.167
379


Insert offset folio 536 here 74948.168
380


Insert offset folio 537 here 74948.169
381


Insert offset folio 538 here 74948.170
382


Insert offset folio 539 here 74948.171
383


Insert offset folio 540 here 74948.172
384


Insert offset folio 541 here 74948.173
385


Insert offset folio 542 here 74948.174
386


Insert offset folio 543 here 74948.175
387


Insert offset folio 544 here 74948.176
388


Insert offset folio 545 here 74948.177
389


Insert offset folio 546 here 74948.178
390


Insert offset folio 547 here 74948.179
391


Insert offset folio 548 here 74948.180
392


Insert offset folio 549 here 74948.181
393


Insert offset folio 550 here 74948.182
394


Insert offset folio 551 here 74948.183
395


Insert offset folio 552 here 74948.184
(396)

TITLE XXI—ARMY

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $1,760,541,000 for Army military construction and $1,400,533,000 for family housing for fiscal year

2002. The committee recommends authorization of $1,686,601,000

for military construction and $1,321,357,000 for family housing for

fiscal year 2002.

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 projects: $225,000 for a training center at Tobyhanna Army Depot, Pennsylvania.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects

This section contains the list of authorized Army construction

projects for fiscal year 2002. 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 2002.

Section 2103—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of

family housing for fiscal year 2002.

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 2002. 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 2001 Project

This section would amend the table in section 2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (division

397

B of Public Law 106–398) to provide for an increase in the amounts

authorized for military construction at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, at Fort Drum, New York, and at Fort Hood Texas.

(398)

TITLE XXII—NAVY

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $1,071,408,000 for Navy military

construction and $1,222,495,000 for family housing for fiscal year

2002. The committee recommends authorization of $1,159,654,000

for military construction and $1,233,351,000 for family housing for

fiscal year 2002.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Improvements to Military Family Housing

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

improvements to military family housing and facilities, the Secretary of the Navy execute the following projects: $11,840,000 for

Whole-site Revitalization (69 units) at Pacific Missile Range Facility Barking Sands, Hawaii, and $6,940,000 for Whole House Revitalization (124 units) at Westover Air Reserve Base, Massachusetts.

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 project: $420,000 for an undersea network centric laboratory at Naval Underwater Systems

Newport, Rhode Island.

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition

Projects

This section contains the list of authorized Navy construction

projects for fiscal year 2002. 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 2002.

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of

family housing for fiscal year 2002.

399

Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line

item in the Navy’s budget for fiscal year 2002. 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 Fiscal Year

2000 Project

This section would amend the table in section 2201 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 Camp H.M. Smith, Hawaii.

(400)

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $1,068,250,000 for Air Force military construction and $1,387,358,000 for family housing for fiscal

year 2002. The committee recommends authorization of

$1,171,504,000 for military construction and $1,354,530,000 for

family housing for fiscal year 2002.

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Improvements to Military Family Housing

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

improvements to military family housing and facilities, the Secretary of the Air Force execute the following project: $18,000,000

for Whole Neighborhood Revitalization (164 units) at Whiteman Air

Force Base, Missouri.

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 2002. 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

2002.

Section 2303—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of

family housing for fiscal year 2002.

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 2002. This section also

would provide an overall limit on the amount the Air Force may

spend on military construction projects.

401

Section 2305—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain

Fiscal Year 2001 Project

This section would amend the table in section 2301 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (division

B of Public Law 106–398) to provide for an increase in the amounts

authorized for military construction at McGuire Air Force Base,

New Jersey.

(402)

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $694,558,000 for defense agencies

military construction and $250,000, for family housing construction

for fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends authorization of

$838,957,000 for military construction and $250,000 for family

housing for fiscal year 2002.

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 2002. 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—Energy Conservation Projects

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry

out energy conservation projects

Section 2403—Authorization Of Appropriations, Defense Agencies

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line

item in the Defense Agencies’ budget for fiscal year 2002. This section also would provide an overall limit on the amount the Defense

Agencies may spend on military construction projects.

Section 2404—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Fiscal Year

2001 Project

This section would amend the table in section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (division

B of Public Law 106–398) to provide for an increase in the amounts

authorized for construction at Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California.

Section 2405—Modification of Authority to Carry Out 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 construction at Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island,

Washington.

403

Section 2406—Modification of Authority to Carry Out 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 projects to support chemical

weapons and munitions destruction at Aberdeen Proving Ground,

Maryland.

Section 2407—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Fiscal Year

1995 Project

This section would amend the table in section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (division

B of Public Law 103–337), as amended to provide for an increase

in the amounts authorized for military construction projects to support chemical weapons and munitions destruction at Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas.

Section 2408—Prohibition on Expenditures to Develop Forward Operating Location on Aruba for United States Southern Command

Counter-Drug Detection and Monitoring Flights

This section would prohibit funds appropriated in chapter 3 of

title III of the Emergency Supplemental Act, 2000 (Public Law

106–246) to be used by the Secretary of Defense to develop any forward operating location of the island of Aruba.

(404)

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY

ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $162,600,000 for the NATO infrastructure fund (NATO Security Investment Program) for fiscal year

2002. The committee recommends $162,600,000 for the NATO infrastructure fund for fiscal year 2002.

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 $162,600,000 as

the U.S. contribution to the NATO security investment program.

(405)

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES

FACILITIES

SUMMARY

The budget request contained $615,238,000 for fiscal year 2002

for guard and reserve facilities. The committee recommends authorization for fiscal year 2002 of $807,827,000 to be distributed as

follows:

Army National Guard ............................................................................ $304,915,000

Air National Guard ................................................................................ 197,472,000

Army Reserve ......................................................................................... 173,017,000

Naval and Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................ 53,291,000

Air Force Reserve .................................................................................. 79,132,000

Total ............................................................................................. 807,827,000

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Planning and Design, Air National Guard

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force execute the following project: $1,331,000 for a joint headquarters building at

McEntire Air National Guard Base, South Carolina.

Unspecified Minor Construction, Army National Guard

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for

unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army execute

the following project: $500,000 for security improvements at Johnstown Airport, Pennsylvania.

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 2002. The state list contained in this report is intended to be

the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location.

(406)

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, 2004 or the date of enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal

year 2005, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to

authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated

before October 1, 2004 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

1999 Projects

This section would provide for selected extension of certain fiscal

year 1998 military construction authorizations until October 1,

2001, or the date of the enactment of an Act authorizing funds for

military construction for fiscal year 2003, whichever is later.

Section 2703—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year

1998 Projects

This section would provide for selected extension of certain fiscal

year 1998 military construction authorizations until October 1,

2002, or the date of the enactment of the Act authorizing funds for

military construction for fiscal year 2003, whichever is later.

Section 2704—Effective Date

This section would provide that Titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV,

and XXVI of this bill shall take effect on October 1, 2001, or the

date of the enactment of this Act, whichever is later.

(407)

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND MILITARY

FAMILY HOUSING CHANGES

Section 2801—Increase in Certain Unspecified Minor Military

Construction Project Thresholds

This section would amend section 2805 of title 10, United States

Code, to increase the threshold for notice and wait requirements

for unspecified minor construction from $500,000 to $750,000.

Section 2802—Exclusion of Unforeseen Environmental Hazard

Remediation From Limitation on Authorized Cost Variations

This section would amend section 2853 of title 10, United States

Code, to exclude legally required remediation of certain environmental hazards from limitations on authorized cost variations.

Section 2803—Repeal of Annual Reporting Requirement on

Military Construction and Military Family Housing Activities

This section would amend section 2861 of title 10, United States

Code, to repeal the annual reporting requirement on military construction and military family housing activities.

Section 2804—Permanent Authorization for Alternative Authority

for Acquisition and Improvement of Military Housing

This section would amend section 2885 of title 10, United States

Code, to make permanent the authorities contained in subchapter

169 of title 10, United States Code.

SUBTITLE B—REAL PROPERTY AND FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION

Section 2811—Use of Military Installations for Certain

Recreational Activities

This section would amend section 2671 of title 10, United States

Code, to permit certain recreation activities on military installations. This section would provide flexibility to military installation

commanders to manage resources without adhering to State law,

when necessary, if determined to be in interest of public safety.

408

Section 2812—Base Efficiency Project at Brooks Air Force Base,

Texas

This section would amend section 136 of the Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2001 (division A of Public Law 106–246)

to authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to provide environmental indemnification to the San Antonio community and other

persons. No indemnification may be provided unless the person or

entity making the claim provides certain documentation. This section would authorize the Secretary to settle or defend a claim if it

is determined that the Department of Defense may be required to

make indemnification payments.

SUBTITLE C—DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT

Section 2821—Lease Back of Base Closure Property

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 (Part A of Title XXIX of Public Law 101–

510) to authorize the secretary concerned to transfer real property

at a closed or realigned military installation to the redevelopment

authority for the installation if the redevelopment authority agrees,

directly upon transfer, to lease one or more portions of the property

transferred to the secretary or to the head of another department

or agency of the Federal Government. Such leases shall not exceed

50 years and may not require rental payments by the United

States. This section would permit the use of the leased property by

the same or another department or agency of the Federal Government if the original department concerned ceases requiring the use

of the lease.

SUBTITLE D—LAND CONVEYANCES GENERALLY

Part I—Army Conveyances

Section 2831—Transfer of Jurisdiction, Rock Island Arsenal,

Illinois

This section would amend section 2832 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (division B of Public

Law 106–398) by authorizing the Secretary of the Army to transfer

a parcel of real property approximately .513 acres to the City. As

consideration for the transfer, the City would convey to the Secretary, a parcel of real property approximately .063 acres to construct a new access ramp for the Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois.

Section 2832—Modification of Land Conveyance, Fort Dix, New

Jersey

This section would amend section 2835 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (division B of Public

Law 105–85) to authorize the exchange between the Borough of

Wrightstown and the New Hanover Board of Education, without

the consent of the Secretary, of all or any portion of the property

409

conveyed so long as the property continues to be used for economic

or educational purposes.

Section 2833—Lease Authority, Fort Derussy, Hawaii

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to enter

into a lease with the City of Honolulu, Hawaii, for the purpose of

making available to the City a parcel of real property for the construction of a parking facility.

Section 2834—Land Exchange and Consolidation, Fort Lewis,

Washington

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey

two parcels of real property, with improvements, consisting of approximately 138 acres at Fort Lewis, Washington, to the Nisqually

Tribe. As consideration for the exchange, the Tribe shall acquire

from Thurston County, Washington, several parcels of real property consisting of approximately 416 acres and convey fee title to

the Secretary. This section would also authorize the Secretary to

convey to the Bonneville Power Administration a right-of-way to

permit the Administration to use the real property at Fort Lewis

as a route for the Grand Coulee-Olympia and Olympia-White River

electrical transmission lines. The cost of any survey shall be borne

by the recipient of the property.

Section 2835—Land Conveyance, Whittier-Anchorage Pipeline

Tank Farm, Anchorage, Alaska

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, two adjoining parcels of real property,

including improvements, of approximately 48 acres and known as

the Whittier-Anchorage Pipeline Tank Farm, to the Port of Anchorage, an entity of the Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska. The cost

of any survey shall be borne by the recipient of the real property.

Part II—Navy Conveyances

Section 2841—Transfer of Jurisdiction, Centerville Beach Naval

Station, Humboldt County, California

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to transfer, without reimbursement, to the administrative jurisdiction of

the Secretary of the Interior the real property with improvements

consisting of the closed Centerville Beach Naval Station, Humboldt

County, California, for the purpose of permitting the Secretary of

the Interior to manage the real property as open space or for other

public purposes. The cost of any survey necessary for the transfer

would be borne by the Secretary of the Interior.

Section 2842—Land Conveyance, Naval Weapons Industrial

Reserve Plant, Toledo, Ohio

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey,

without consideration, a parcel of real property, consisting of approximately 29 acres comprising the Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Toledo, Ohio, to the Toledo-Lucas County Port AuthorVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00433 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.113 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
410

ity. Until the property is conveyed, the Secretary may lease the

real property, together with any improvements, facilities, equipment, fixtures, and other personal property, to the Port Authority

in exchange for security services, and maintenance services provided by the Port Authority. The conveyance and any lease shall

be subject to certain specified conditions. The cost of any survey

shall be borne by the Port Authority.

Section 2843—Modification of Authority for Conveyance of Naval

Computer and Telecommunications Station, Cutler, Maine

This section would amend section 2853 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (division B of Public

Law 106–398) by inserting ‘‘any or’’ before ‘‘all right’’ in order to

permit the Department of the Navy to convey parcels of the real

property to recently identified federal entities.

Section 2844—Modification of Land Conveyance, Former United

States Marine Corps Air Station, Eagle Mountain, Texas

This section would amend section 5 of Public Law 85–258, to permit the Texas Military Facilities Commission to use funds acquired

through the leasing of Eagle Mountain Lake National Guard Training Site for other Texas National Guard facilities.

Section 2845—Land Transfer and Conveyance, Naval Security

Group Activity, Winter Harbor, Maine

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to transfer, without consideration, a parcel of real property, including improvements, of approximately 26 acres to the Secretary of the Interior. The transfer would occur concurrent with the reversion of administrative jurisdiction of a parcel of real property consisting of

approximately 71 acres from the Secretary of the Navy to the Secretary of the Interior as authorized by Public Law 80–260. This

section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey, without consideration, any of the parcels of real property, including improvements, of approximately 485 acres and comprising the former

facilities of the Naval Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor,

Maine to the State of Maine, any subdivision of the State of Maine,

or any tax-supported agency of the State of Maine. The Secretary

of the Navy would transfer, without consideration, certain personal

property associated with such real property. The Secretary of the

Navy would maintain any real property until the earlier of the date

of conveyance or September 30, 2003. The Secretary of the Navy

may lease such parcels to certain persons or entities. The Secretary

of the Navy may require each recipient of real property to reimburse the Secretary for certain costs. The cost of any survey shall

be borne by the recipient or the real property.

Part III—Air Force Conveyances

Section 2851—Water Rights Conveyance, Andersen Air Force Base,

Guam

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to

convey water rights related to the Air Force properties Andy South,

411

also known as the Andersen Administrative Annex, Marianas

Bonis Base Command, and Andersen Water Supply Annex, also

known as the Tumon Water Well or the Tumon Maui Well, located

on Guam. The Secretary may exercise authority under certain specified conditions. This section would authorize the Secretary to require that the United States have the primary right to all water

produced from Andy South and Anderson Water Supply Annex

until a replacement water system is in working condition satisfactory to the Secretary. The Secretary may authorize the conveyee of

the water system to sell to public or private entities such water

from Andersen Air Force Base as the Secretary determines to be

excess to the needs of the United States.

Section 2852—Reexamination of Land Conveyance, Lowry Air

Force Base, Colorado

This section would direct the Secretary of the Air Force to reevaluate the terms and conditions of the pending negotiated sale

agreement at Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado, with the Lowry Redevelopment Authority for certain real property in light of changed

circumstances regarding the property. The reexamination shall determine whether changed circumstances warrant a reduction in the

amount of consideration otherwise required under the agreement

or other modifications to the agreement.

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 2861—Transfer of Jurisdiction for Development of Armed

Forces Recreational Facility, Park City, Utah

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to

transfer, without reimbursement, the administrative jurisdiction of

a parcel of real property, including improvements, consisting of approximately 35 acres located in Park City, Utah and designated as

parcel 3 by the Bureau of Land Management to the Secretary of

the Air Force. The transfer would be completed no later than one

year after the date of the enactment of this Act. This section would

authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to use the real property

as the location for an armed forces recreational facility to be developed using non-appropriated funds. The Secretary of the Air Force

may return the transferred property to the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior upon certifying that development of the recreational facility would not be in the best interest

of the United States. In lieu of developing the recreational facility,

the Secretary of the Air Force may convey or lease the property to

certain entities under certain specific alternative development authority. The cost of any survey shall be borne by the Secretary of

the Air Force.

Section 2862—Selection of Site for United States Air Force Memorial and Related Land Transfers for the Improvement of Arlington Cemetery, Virginia

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to offer,

within 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to the

Air Force Memorial Foundation, an option to use, without reimVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00435 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.115 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
412

bursement, up to three acres of the Arlington Naval Annex as the

site within which the Foundation will construct the Air Force Memorial. Within 90 days after the date on which the Secretary of Defense makes the offer, the Foundation shall provide written notice

to the Secretary of the decision of the Foundation to accept or decline the offer. If the Foundation accepts the offer, the Foundation

shall relinquish all claims to the previously approved location of

the memorial. If the Foundation declines the offer, the Foundation

may resume its efforts to construct the memorial on the Arlington

Ridge tract from the farthest point of progress. Not later than two

years after the date on which the Foundation accepts the offer, and

has made sufficient funds available to construct the memorial, the

Secretary, in coordination with the Foundation, shall remove all

structures and prepare the Arlington Naval Annex for use to permit construction and access of the memorial. Upon removal of

structures and preparation of the property for use, the Secretary of

Defense shall permit the Foundation to commence construction.

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense exclusive authority in all matters relating to the approval of the siting, design,

and construction of the memorial. Within 30 days after the date of

enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall transfer,

without reimbursement, to the Secretary of the Army administrative jurisdiction over the Arlington Ridge tract. This section would

amend section 2902 of the Military Construction Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2000 (division B of Public Law 106–65) to prohibit

consideration of the Arlington Naval Annex property as a possible

site for a national military museum.

Section 2863—Management of the Presidio of San Francisco

This section would amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands

Management Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–333) to authorize the

Trust to make available to lease certain housing units to persons

designated by the Secretary of the Army, within the Presidio of

San Francisco, California. The monthly amount charged by the

Trust for the lease of a housing units, including utilities and municipal services, shall not exceed the monthly rate of the basic allowance for housing. This section would also increase the borrowing

authority authorized by section 104 of Public Law 104–333 from

$50,000,000 to $150,000,000.

Section 2864—Effect of Limitation on Construction of Roads or

Highways, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California

This section would amend section 2851 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (division B of Public

Law 105–261), as amended, to limit the effect of State law enacted

after January 1, 2001, that would directly or indirectly prohibit or

restrict the construction or approval of a road or highway within

the easements granted under this section at Marine Corps Base,

Camp Pendleton, California.

413

Section 2865—Establishment of World War II Memorial at

Additional Location on Guam

This section would amend section 2886 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (division B of Public

Law 106–398) by authorizing the establishment of an additional

World War II Memorial on Federal lands near Yigo, Guam.

(414)

TITLE XXIX—FORT IRWIN MILITARY LAND

WITHDRAWAL

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 2901—Short Title

This section would designate Title XXIX of this Act as the ‘‘Fort

Irwin Military Land Withdrawal Act of 2001’’.

Section 2902—Withdrawal and Reservation of Lands for National

Training Center

This section would authorize the transfer of approximately

110,000 acres in San Bernardino, California to the Secretary of the

Army for certain specific purposes.

Section 2903—Map and Legal Description

This section would require the Secretary of the Interior to publish in the Federal Register a notice containing the legal description of the lands withdrawn and reserved by this title. This section

requires the Secretary to file a map and legal description of the

lands withdrawn and reserved by this title with the Committee on

Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate and the Committee on

Resources of the House of Representatives. Copies of the map and

legal description shall be available at certain specific offices. The

Secretary of the Army would reimburse the Secretary of the Interior for the costs incurred by implementing this section.

Section 2904—Management of Withdrawn and Reserved Lands

This section would require the Secretary of the Army, during the

period of the withdrawal and reservation, to manage the lands

withdrawn and reserved for the purposes specified in section 2902.

This section would prohibit military use of the lands withdrawn

and reserved that result in ground disturbances, as determined by

the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Interior until

the Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Interior certify

to Congress that there has been full compliance with respect to certain specified laws. This section would authorize the Secretary of

the Army to post appropriate warning notices and take other steps

as necessary to close any road, trail, or other portion of the lands

withdrawn and reserved. This section would require the Secretary

of the Army to prepare and implement an integrated natural resources management plan for the lands withdrawn and reserved.

415

Section 2905—Water Rights

This section would prohibit the establishment of a reservation in

favor of the United States with respect to any water or water right

on the lands withdrawn or reserved. This section would not affect

any water rights acquired or reserved by the United States before

the date of enactment of this Act.

Section 2906—Environmental Compliance and Environmental

Response Requirements

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army and the

Secretary of the Interior to enter into such agreements concerning

the environment and public health as necessary, appropriate, and

in the public interest to carry out the purposes of this title. This

section would also provide that nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of the

Secretary of the Army and the Secretary of the Interior under the

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 or any other environmental laws applicable to

the lands withdrawn and reserved by this title.

Section 2907—West Mojave Coordinated Management Plan

This section would urge the Secretary of the Interior to complete

the West Mojave Coordinated Management Plan not later than two

years after the date of enactment of this Act. This section would

require the Secretary of the Interior to consult with the Secretary

of the Army and the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration on the development of the plan.

Section 2908—Release of Wilderness Study Areas

This section would authorize that Congress finds and directs that

lands withdrawn and reserved have been adequately studied for

wilderness designation pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and

Management Act of 1976.

Section 2909—Training Activity Separation From Utility Corridors

This section would require all military ground activity training

on the lands withdrawn and reserved remain at least 500 meters

from any utility system in Utility Corridor D.

Section 2910—Duration of Withdrawal and Reservation

This section would, unless determined otherwise, terminate the

withdrawal and reservation made by this title 25 years after the

enactment of this Act. This section would, at the time of termination of the withdrawal and reservation, require the Secretary of

the Interior to publish in the Federal Register an appropriate order

that would state the date upon which the lands shall be restored

to the public domain and open.

Section 2911—Extension of Initial Withdrawal and Reservation

This section would require the Secretary of the Army, no later

than three years before the termination date, to notify Congress

416

and the Secretary of the Interior concerning the military needs of

the Army. If the Secretary of the Army determines that there will

be a continuing military need, the Secretary would file with the

Secretary of the Interior, within one year after the notification, an

application for extension of the withdrawal and reservation. This

section would authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Army to submit to Congress a legislative proposal for

the extension of the withdrawal and reservation made by this title.

Section 2912—Termination and Relinquishment

This section authorizes that if the Secretary of the Army determines within the first 22 years of the withdrawal and reservation

that there is no continuing military need, the Secretary would submit to the Secretary of the Interior a notice of intent to relinquish

jurisdiction over the lands. If the Secretary of the Interior accepts

jurisdiction over any of the lands, the Secretary would publish in

the Federal Register an appropriate order. All function under this

section would be made on a parcel-by-parcel basis.

Section 2913—Delegation of Authority

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army and the

Secretary of the Interior to delegate such functions determined appropriate to carry out this title.

(417)

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AND AUTHORIZATION

AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

OVERVIEW

The budget request contained $13,355.2 million for the national

security activities of the Department of Energy. Of this amount,

$6,776.8 million is for the programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration and $6,578.4 million for defense environmental

management and other defense activities. The committee recommends $13,355.2 million, the requested amount. The following

table summarizes the budget request and the committee recommendations:

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Overview

The budget request contained $6,578.4 million for environmental and other defense activities. The committee recommends $6,635.3,

an increase of $56.9 million.

Items of Special Interest

Defense Environmental Management Privatization

The budget request contained $141.5 million for Defense Environmental Management Privatization. This amount included funds

for two new starts: $13.3 million for the Paducah Disposal Facility

Privatization, Paducah, Kentucky; and $2.0 million for the Portsmouth Disposal Facility, Portsmouth, Ohio. Both of these projects

are for nuclear waste disposal at gaseous diffusion plants leased

from the Department of Energy by the United States Enrichment

Corporation.

The committee notes that environmental management activities

at the nation’s three gaseous diffusion plants is carried out under

the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning

Fund, which was established in 1992 to address the cleanup liabilities at those plants attributable to historical Department of Energy operations for weapons and commercial fuel production. The

committee also notes that the Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund is not budgeted within the national defense budget function. Therefore, the committee recommends no funds for these two new starts, a decrease of $15.3

million for Defense Environmental Management Privatization,

since it believes they should be accomplished using the Uranium

Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund.

Hanford site operations, Richland, Washington

The budget request contained $500.0 million for the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Construction project within the Office of River Protection, Richland, Washington. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in order to meet compliance

deadlines. While the budget request for this project represents an

increase from fiscal year 2001, the committee is concerned that it

is insufficient to meet the contractual obligations contained in the

Tri-Party Agreement. The committee continues to support full

funding for this project in order to insure that the federal government meets its legally binding commitment to the State of Washington and urges the Department of Energy to provide adequate

funding in future years to ensure that the schedule for the River

Protection projects is maintained.

The committee also supports the proposal by the Richland Operations Office to move forward with an accelerated river protection

project as set forth in the Hanford Site Columbia River Corridor

Cleanup Report. The committee urges the Department of Energy to

focus its efforts on moving forward with a closure contract in fiscal

year 2002 with a goal of completing critical work by fiscal year

2012. The committee believes that adherence to this schedule will

allow for the overall reduction in the size of the Hanford site and

436

ultimately save the federal government hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Plutonium stabilization and packaging

The budget request contained $4.0 million for Project Engineering and Design work on the 235–F Packaging and Stabilization

project at the Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina. The

project was to design the modification of Building 235–F for the installation of stabilization furnaces and packaging equipment to stabilize and package plutonium at the Savannah River Site. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) has placed a high

priority on stabilizing, packaging, and safely storing these legacy

materials while they await final disposition.

In mid-June 2001, the Department of Energy informed the committee that the budget request for Project Engineering and Design

work on the 235–F project would not be required, because the

project was being terminated due to a projected, unaffordable cost.

Subsequently, the Department has decided to stabilize and package

the plutonium by processing it within the FB-Line at Savannah

River.

To accomplish this new project, the committee recommends the

establishment of a construction line, 02–D–420, FB Line Plutonium

Stabilization and Packaging, and recommends $20.0 million for the

project. The committee hopes this new project will move expeditiously to complete stabilization and packaging of all plutonium at

Savannah River by June 2008 in accordance with the Department’s

commitment to the DNFSB.

Post 2006 completion

The budget request contained $586.0 million for post 2006 environmental cleanup activities at the Savannah River Site, Aiken,

South Carolina, $116.7 million less than was enacted for fiscal year

2001. The committee is disturbed by this situation and the disruption it will cause to current cleanup schedules. Consequently, the

committee recommends $667.0 million, an increase of $81.0 million,

for post 2006 cleanup activities at the Savannah River Site.

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Overview

The budget request contained $6,776.8 million for the National

Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends $6,859.9 million, an increase of $83.1 million.

Items of Special Interest

Budget structure of the National Nuclear Security Administration

The committee notes that section 3253 of the Floyd D. Spence

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public

Law 106–65), as amended by section 3154 of the National Defense

Authorization Act of 2001 (Public Law 106–398), requires the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration to

submit to Congress each year, at or about the time of the Department of Energy’s budget submission to Congress, a future years nuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00460 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.118 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
437

clear security program. The future years program shall cover the

fiscal year for which the budget is submitted and at least the four

succeeding years and shall specify proposed budget authority and

describe in detail how the funds will be used to support the mission

of the NNSA. The committee observes that it has still not received

the future years nuclear security program that was to have been

submitted with the fiscal year 2002 budget request, although it understands that such a document has been prepared. The committee

expects to receive this document not later than the submission date

of the fiscal year 2003 budget request.

Computer security

The committee recommends $448.9 million, the budget request,

for Safeguards and Security. The authorization includes $30.0 million for the Integrated Cyber Security Initiative (ICSI) program,

which when combined with the base program, doubles funding for

cyber security over the fiscal year 2001 level. At the same time, the

committee notes the Administrator’s concern that the current budget does not allow the National Nuclear Security Administration to

address the long-term solutions set forth in the ICSI plan submitted to Congress in March 2001. The committee understands the

need to prioritize requirements, but given events of the past several years, is highly sensitized to computer security issues, and intends to closely monitor this topic in future budget cycles.

Critical weapons components

The committee understands that certain materials and components are absolutely critical to the functioning of nuclear weapons,

that these items have little or no application outside the nuclear

weapons complex, and that it is therefore incumbent upon the Department of Energy to take all steps necessary to ensure their future availability in sufficient quantity and quality to meet the

needs of the enduring stockpile. Of special interest are tritium,

which has not been produced since 1988, and plutonium pits, which

have not been manufactured since 1989. To a significant extent,

the success of the National Nuclear Security Administration will

hinge on its ability to solve these long-standing deficiencies.

The committee recommends $139.5 million for the tritium readiness campaign. This includes an increase of $15.0 million to support preliminary design activities and engineering development and

demonstration work for the back-up technology, accelerator production of tritium (APT). The committee urges the NNSA to complete

these APT activities as soon as possible to make resources available for other critical needs.

Using the primary technology, the tritium campaign appears on

schedule to begin irradiation of tritium-producing rods in commercial light water reactors in fiscal year 2003 and to begin production

extraction in fiscal year 2006. If the Strategic Defense Review does

not lead to new reductions in the nuclear weapons stockpile, the

committee notes that this schedule may lead to a one-year draw

down in the five-year tritium reserve. However, the committee believes replenishment of this reserve can be made up in future production.

438

Production and certification of plutonium pits remain congressional interest items. For the pit manufacturing and certification

campaign, the committee recommends the budget request of $128.5

million, including $122.5 million for W88 pit manufacturing and

certification, $4.0 million to begin the task of understanding manufacturing and certification requirements for other stockpile warheads, and $2.0 million to support pre-conceptual design activities

in support of a modern pit facility.

The committee understands that only one W88 warhead surveillance pit remains for destructive testing purposes but notes good

progress toward establishing a limited manufacturing capability at

Los Alamos National Laboratory, with production of certifiable pits

scheduled to begin in fiscal year 2003.

In contrast, W88 pit certification has slipped from fiscal year

2007 to fiscal year 2009, with no commitment to meeting the latter

date. The committee understands both the difficulty of certifying a

pit with extremely high confidence in the absence of nuclear testing, as well as the potential national security consequences of a

failure in this area. The committee is concerned that the budget request woefully under funds this important activity and urges the

NNSA to place higher priority on pit certification in future budget

submissions.

Finally, the committee notes that it still has not received the report required by the conference report accompanying the Energy

and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001

(H. Rept. 106–907), which contains current project schedules and

cost estimates for production and certification of W88 pits. The

committee understands that the report is complete and requests its

expeditious submission.

Defense Nuclear Counterintelligence budget

The budget request contained $46.4 million for the Department

of Energy’s counterintelligence activities. The committee notes that

section 3232 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) established the Office of Defense

Nuclear Counterintelligence within the National Nuclear Security

Administration (NNSA). The committee also notes that section

3251 of Public Law 106–65 required that the budget request for offices of the NNSA be set forth separately from other elements of

the Department. The committee expects that the Department will

comply with section 3251 of Public Law 106–65 in the future and

that budget requests for the NNSA’s Office of Defense Nuclear

Counterintelligence will be set forth separately from the requests

for the Department’s Office of Counterintelligence.

Directed stockpile work

Of the various activities performed by the National Nuclear Security Administration, directed stockpile work has arguably the

most immediate impact on maintaining the safety, reliability, and

performance of the enduring nuclear weapons stockpile. The committee recommends the budget request of $1,043.8 million for this

important effort.

The committee notes the continuing progress of the W87 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missile warhead life extension proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00462 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.119 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
439

gram, the first major retrofit of a nuclear warhead in a decade. The

committee further notes that preparatory activities leading up the

to the refurbishment of the B61 gravity bomb are on schedule for

a first production unit in fiscal year 2004.

The committee is somewhat concerned, however, that the budget

request does not support the scope and schedule of refurbishment

activities on the W76 submarine launched ballistic missile warhead

and the W80 cruise missile warhead that were agreed in the Nuclear Weapons Council in fiscal year 2000. The committee expects

to be apprised of the Administration’s preferred path forward as

the results of the ongoing Strategic Defense Review are finalized.

Facilities and infrastructure

The committee notes that almost half of the structures in the nuclear weapons complex are more than 50 years old and understands the magnitude of the problem to revitalize the complex as

currently sized. The committee is aware of the Department of Energy’s ongoing assessment and planning activities to address this

problem but, given the total funding requirement, is concerned that

the Department is not yet prepared to efficiently execute this infrastructure revitalization effort. The committee directs the Administrator of the Nuclear National Security Administration to provide

a semi-annual report to Congress on the status of the facilities and

infrastructure program. The report should include the current priority list of proposed facilities and infrastructure projects, including

cost and schedule requirements. For each site, the report should include: a current 10-year site plan that demonstrates the reconfiguration of its facilities and infrastructure to meet its missions and

to address its long-term operational costs and return on investment; the current budget for all facilities and infrastructure funding in this program as well as all funding for maintenance and infrastructure upgrades funded through other parts of the budget;

and the current status of each facilities and infrastructure project

compared to the original baseline cost, schedule, and scope.

The committee recommends $50.6 million to establish a new program line for infrastructure maintenance and re-capitalization. In

order to ensure the future operational readiness of the weapons

complex, the committee directs that these funds should be used to

begin to the revitalization of the Pantex and Y12 plants in the

amounts of $40.0 million and $10.6 million, respectively.

International nuclear safety

The committee is aware that the International Nuclear Safety

program is designed to improve the safety of the Chernobyl-generation, Russian-designed nuclear reactors located in the countries of

the former Soviet Union. The program is funded by the U.S. Department’s of Energy and State with contributions by European

countries located in proximity to the states of the former Soviet

Union.

The committee believes that it would be more appropriate for the

International Nuclear Safety program to be funded as a foreign assistance effort by the Department of State. Consequently, the committee recommends that the funding responsibility for the International Nuclear Safety program be assumed by the Department of

440

State in the budget for fiscal year 2003. If Department of State officials require Department of Energy technical assistance, such assistance should be provided as ‘‘work for others’’ and funded by the

Department of State.

Initiatives for proliferation prevention and the Nuclear Cities Initiative

The budget request contained $22.1 million for the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP) and $6.6 million for the Nuclear Cities Initiatives (NCI). The objective of each of these programs is to

provide gainful employment in the commercial sector for former

Russian nuclear weapons scientists, engineers, and technicians to

avert the risk of these scientists accepting employment offers by

nuclear programs of countries of proliferation concern. NCI is also

designed to assist the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy

(MINATOM) in the restructuring and closure of portions of the

Russian nuclear complex through local economic development.

In May 2001, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported on

these programs and found that the NCI program insufficiently reviewed potential projects for commercial viability and sustainability. GAO reported that too often the NCI programs were directed to community development and infrastructure improvement

instead of economic development designed to employ former nuclear scientists. Conversely, GAO reports that the IPP program has

a strengthened project review and selection process that focuses on

the commercialization of projects and job creation. GAO recommended that since IPP and NCI share a common goal and, in

many cases, are implementing similar types of projects, the National Nuclear Security Administration should consider consolidating them into one effort. The committee agrees with this recommendation and directs such consolidation in section 3133.

In addition, the committee is concerned that, according to GAO,

only 30 percent of the NCI funds have been spent for projects and

activities in Russia and that two-thirds of NCI funds were spent

at the Department’s national laboratories. Of that amount, 34 percent paid for labor at the laboratories, and 41 percent was spent

on overhead costs. The committee believes that the Administrator

of the NNSA should work to reduce the portion of funds spent on

overhead at the national laboratories for these nonproliferation activities and transfer that funding to the projects in Russia that the

programs are designed to support.

National Ignition Facility

The budget request contained $467.9 million for the Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield campaign: $222.9 million for operations and maintenance (O&M) and $245.0 million for National Ignition Facility (NIF) construction (96–D–111).

The committee recommends the budget request for NIF construction and $232.9 million for O&M, an increase of $10.0 million, to

be used to compensate for funding shortfalls in the NIF demonstration program, which supports risk reduction and technology development activities. The committee notes significant improvements in

NIF program oversight, management, and planning but is concerned about the remaining technical challenges the program faces.

441

The committee expects to be expeditiously informed of any further

schedule delays or cost overruns.

Although NIF provides exciting opportunities in basic and applied research for a broader user community, the committee believes that its primary focus must be meeting the requirements of

the Stockpile Stewardship Program to guarantee the safety, reliability, and performance of the nuclear weapons stockpile, and that

it should be managed accordingly.

National Nuclear Security Administration’s planning, programming, and budgeting system

The committee notes that several independent observers have

criticized the lack of a unified planning, programming, and budgeting process within the nuclear weapons complex. The committee

further notes that the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration has pledged to implement such a system and

to begin developing multiyear budgets and program plans. However, the committee is concerned that the Administrator has delayed his target date for implementing such a system until the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle and urges him to take steps necessary

to ensure that there are no further delays in implementing this

system.

National Nuclear Security Administration’s reorganization plan

The committee notes that section 3153 of the Floyd D. Spence

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public

Law 106–398) required the Administrator for Nuclear Security to

submit by May 1, 2001, a plan for assigning roles and responsibilities among the National Nuclear Security Administration’s headquarters and field units. The report should describe any

downsizing, consolidations, or eliminations of headquarters and

field elements needed to enhance the Administration’s efficiency.

The committee observes that independent reviewers have criticized

the defense nuclear complex’s fragmented lines of authority, confused roles and responsibilities, and reliance on a large federal

workforce to oversee its contractors.

The committee notes that on May 3, 2001, the Administrator

submitted an ‘‘initial’’ report outlining plans to realign the Administration’s headquarters units into programmatic and support components and to transfer responsibility for the field elements to a

newly-created support component. The committee is concerned that

the report did not: (1) define field element roles and responsibilities; (2) describe in detail how field elements would interact with

realigned headquarters units; or (3) describe potential consolidations or eliminations, as called for by section 3153 of Public Law

106–398. The committee is also concerned that the new organization would not be demonstrably flatter than the Administration’s

current structure and that it might create new sources of confusion

by requiring field elements to report to a support office while overseeing projects for a program office. Consequently, the committee

urges the Administrator to comply fully with section 3153 of Public

Law 106–398 and submit, as soon as possible, a detailed plan for

redefining and streamlining the Administration’s entire organization.

442

Naval Reactors Program

The committee recommends the budget request of $688.0 million

for the Naval Reactors program. The committee notes that the

Navy currently operates 102 nuclear reactors, nearly identical to

the number of U.S. commercial power generating reactors, and that

over 40 percent of major combatants rely on nuclear propulsion.

The committee continues to be impressed by the professional execution of the Naval Reactors program, as well as its remarkable safety record and overall value to the nation.

Recruitment and retention

The committee is acutely aware of the problem of recruiting and

retaining a properly skilled work force that the National Nuclear

Security Administration faces in both the contractor and the federal work forces. The complex is losing talent at a steady rate

through the retirement of senior scientists, engineers, and technicians with underground test experience, as well as through the separation of mid-career professionals leaving for other opportunities.

In addition, the Report of the US Commission on National Security/21st Century (known commonly as the Hart-Rudman Report)

recently ‘‘. . . found broad consensus that the [national] labs are

no longer competitive in attracting and keeping new scientific talent’’, citing a combination of factors that include lack of a compelling post Cold War sense of mission, the negative impact on morale

of recent highly public controversies, and superior private sector

opportunities. The committee strongly advises the Department of

Energy to make retention a top priority.

In part, the recruitment problem stems from the dwindling pool

of new university graduates trained in disciplines relevant to stockpile stewardship that also meet security clearance requirements for

positions of great trust. The committee strongly supports programs

at our nation’s universities that endeavor to reverse the decline of

U.S. leadership in a number critical science and engineering fields,

including high energy density physics, plasma physics, high field

physics, the science of extreme ultraviolet/soft x-ray light sources,

pulsed power engineering, and inertial confinement fusion research. University programs in these areas support, in a cost effective manner, the research and training of our national laboratories’

future stockpile stewards. However, the committee believes that

the Department should pursue innovative approaches to recruitment, such as offering graduate scholarships in critical science and

engineering disciplines in exchange for a commitment to a period

of national service, as suggested in the Hart-Rudman Report.

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 2002.

443

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management

This section would authorize funds for environmental restoration

and waste management activities of the Department of Energy for

fiscal year 2002.

Section 3103—Other Defense Activities

This section would authorize funds for other defense activities of

the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2002.

Section 3104—Defense Environmental Management Privatization

This section would authorize funds for defense environmental

management privatization activities of the Department of Energy

for fiscal year 2002.

Section 3105—Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal

This section would authorize funds for defense nuclear waste disposal activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2002.

SUBTITLE B—RECURRING GENERAL PROVISIONS

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—Limits on General Plant Projects

This section would limit the initiation of general plant projects

if the current estimated cost for any 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 the funds were authorized and appropriated. The proviVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00467 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.121 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
444

sion 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 construction project 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 the various activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration and environmental management activities of the Department of Energy to remain available until expended, except for program direction funds,

which would remain available until the end of fiscal year 2003.

Section 3129—Transfers of Defense Environmental Management

Funds at Field Offices of the Department of Energy

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—Transfers of Weapons Activities Funds at National

Security Laboratories and Nuclear Weapons Production Facilities

This section would provide the head of each national security laboratory and each nuclear weapons production facility with limited

authority to transfer weapons activities funds from a program

under the jurisdiction of the national security laboratory or production facility to another such program of the national security laboratory or production facility.

445

SUBTITLE C—PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND

LIMITATIONS

Section 3131—Termination Date of Office of River Protection,

Richland, Washington

This section would extend the statutory termination date of the

Office of River Protection, Richland Washington, from September

30, 2004, to the later of September 30, 2010, or upon the determination that continuation of the Office is no longer necessary to

carry out the Department’s responsibilities under the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order entered into among the

Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and

the State of Washington Department of Ecology.

Section 3132—Organizational Modifications for National Nuclear

Security Administration

This section would establish, within the National Nuclear Security Administration, a Principal Deputy Administrator who would

be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the

Senate to perform such duties as the Administrator of the National

Nuclear Security Administration may prescribe and act for the Administrator when the Administrator is disabled or the office of the

Administrator is vacant. This section would also eliminate: (1) a

statutory requirement that the heads of the national security laboratories and nuclear weapons production facilities report to the

Administration’s Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs; and

(2) a duplicative statutory prohibition on the ability of non-Administration employees of the Department to serve concurrently in the

Administration.

Section 3133—Consolidation of Nuclear Cities Initiative Program

with Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention Program

This section would require the Administrator for Nuclear Security to consolidate the Nuclear Cities Initiative program with the

Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program not later than July

1, 2002, as described elsewhere in this report.

Section 3134–Disposition of Surplus Defense Plutonium at

Savannah River Site, Aiken, South Carolina

This section would require the Secretary of Energy to consult

with the Governor of South Carolina on any decisions or plans regarding the disposition of surplus defense plutonium at the Savannah River Site and to submit a plan to Congress by February 1,

2002, for the disposal of surplus defense plutonium currently located at the site, as well as for defense plutonium that may be

shipped there in the future. The plan shall review each option considered for such disposal, identify the preferred option, and state

the cost of construction and operation of the facilities required by

the Department’s Record of Decision dated January 14, 1997. The

plan shall also specify a schedule for the expeditious construction

of such facilities and the means by which all such plutonium will

be removed from the Savannah River Site. This section would furVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:03 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00469 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.122 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
446

ther require the Secretary to modify the design of the Mixed Oxide

Fuel Fabrication facility to provide immobilization capability if the

Secretary determines that construction of the Plutonium Immobilization facility at the Savannah River site is not feasible. If the

plan is not submitted by February 1, 2002, the Secretary would be

prohibited from shipping plutonium to the Savannah River Site

from that date forward until the plan is submitted.

Section 3135–Support for Public Education in the Vicinity of Los

Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico

This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to pay $5.0

million to the Los Alamos National Laboratory Foundation and an

$8.0 million extension of the contract between the Department of

Energy and the Los Alamos Public Schools. For fiscal year 2003,

the section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to take similar

actions subject to the availability of appropriations.

The section would also require the Secretary to submit to the

congressional defense committees, no later than March 1, 2002, an

evaluation of the need for continued payments beyond fiscal year

2003.

(447)

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

SAFETY BOARD

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 3201–Authorization

This section would authorize $18.5 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2002.

(448)

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 3301–Definitions

This section would provide the definitions used in this title.

Section 3302–Authorized Uses Of Stockpile Funds

This section would authorize $65.2 million from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operation and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal year 2002. The

provision would also permit the use of additional funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45 days after a notification to Congress

Section 3303—Disposal of Excess Materials from the National

Defense Stockpile

This section would provide authorization for the Department of

Defense to dispose of materials in the National Defense Stockpile

that are no longer needed for national security purposes.

Section 3304—Expedited Implementation of Authority to Dispose of

Cobalt From National Defense Stockpile

This section would amend section 3305(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85)

to permit the sale of cobalt from the National Defense Stockpile

during fiscal year 2002.

(449)

TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations

This section would authorize $17.4 million for fiscal year 2002 for

the operation of the Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves.

(450)

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST

Merchant Marine Academy

The budget request contained $47.8 million for the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA). The committee remains concerned that health and safety hazards to the cadets and staff continue due to the appalling condition of the physical plant and infrastructure at the institution. The budget request included $13.0 million for needed capital improvements. This funding level will begin

to buy down the backlog of deferred maintenance and facilities replacement. The committee urges the Maritime Administration to

pursue aggressively funding levels that will insure that the physical plant at the Academy is brought up to safe and appropriate

commercial standards as quickly as practicable.

Ship Scrapping

The budget request contained $10.0 million for the disposal of

three obsolete vessels. Section 3502 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law

106–398) required the Administrator of the Maritime Administration to dispose of all vessels in the National Defense Fleet that are

not assigned to the Ready Reserve Force or otherwise designated

for a specific purpose by September 30, 2006. The committee understands that the Maritime Administration will need to scrap over

30 vessels per year to meet the goal of scrapping 140 vessels by the

statutorily imposed deadline. The cost to accomplish this goal will

exceed $350.0 million based on current estimates. While $10.0 million may be sufficient to develop an initial disposal program in fiscal year 2002, the committee notes that substantial additional resources must be provided in future years to meet the deadlines.

The committee strongly urges the Maritime Administration to

present funding levels in the next fiscal years for this program that

are more appropriate to the task facing the agency. The committee

notes that the Navy has had a ship disposal program since 1999

and has made a number of refinements in that program that enhance efficiency and at the same time protect health, safety, and

the environment. The committee expects the Maritime Administration to administer its ship disposal program in a way that obtains

the best value to the government while providing the same level of

protection for health, safety, and the environment as the Navy program. Finally, the committee expects that there will be no discrimination among domestic scrapping facilities and that domestic

scrapping facilities are selected based on criteria that will result

the scrapping of vessels at the least cost to the government, in a

451

timely way, and in a manner that provides the requisite level of

protection for health, safety, and the environment.

Title XI Loan Guarantee Program

The budget request contained $3.9 million to fund administrative

expenses 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 $103.9 million

for the Title XI program, an increase of $100.0 million above the

budget request.

Transfer of the Maritime Security Program to the Department of

Defense

The committee notes the proposal of the administration to transfer the funding and management of the Maritime Security Program

from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Defense. The committee has not received sufficient justification to

transfer a program that by all accounts is managed effectively and

efficiently at the Department of Transportation, nor has the committee received any information that would suggest that DOD operational requirements necessitate a transfer. In addition, the committee has not been presented with any evidence that such a transfer would result in cost savings. The committee is therefore not recommending a transfer of the Maritime Security Program to the Department of Defense’s National Defense Sealift Fund. To reflect

this decision, the committee has transferred $98.7 million from the

National Defense Sealift Fund (budget function 051) to the Maritime Administration within the Department of Transportation

(budget function 054).

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

Section 3501—Authorization of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002

This section would authorize a total of $203.0 million for fiscal

year 2002, an increase of $100 million above the budget request,

for the Maritime Administration. Of the funds authorized, $89.0

million would be for operations and training programs, $100.0 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, $3.9 million would be for administrative expenses related

to providing these loan guarantees, and $10.0 million would be for

the disposal of obsolete ships in the National Defense Reserve

Fleet.

Section 3502—Define ‘‘War Risks’’ to Vessels to Include Confiscation, Expropriation, Nationalization, and Deprivation of the Vessels

This section would clarify and expand the authority of the Maritime Administration to issue war risk insurance coverage for losses

from hostile acts including confiscation, expropriation, nationalization, and deprivation. As a result of several recent seizures, comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00475 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR194.124 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
452

mercially available insurance has become unreasonably expensive,

particularly as it relates to salvage ships. Without insurance, private salvage operators under contract to the Navy are unable to

fulfill their obligations. This change also expands the coverage to

circumstances that might arguably not fall within the context of a

traditionally defined ‘‘war risk.’’

Section 3503—Holding Obligor’s Cash as Collateral Under Title XI

of Merchant Marine Act, 1936

This section would amend Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act,

1936, as amended by establishing a new section that will allow the

Maritime Administration to hold and invest cash collateral derived

from Title XI proceeds in the U.S. Treasury. It will further relieve

obligors and the Maritime Administration from spending substantial time and money associated with negotiating depository agreements and preparing legal opinions in Title XI transactions.

(453)

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, June 29, 2001.

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

2002 for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2002, and for

other purposes.’’

This legislative proposal is part of the Department of Defense

Legislative Program for the First Session of the 107th Congress

and is necessary to carry out the President’s budget plans for fiscal

year 2002. 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, August 16, 2001.

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: The Department of Defense proposes the enclosed legislation relating to the operation and management of the

Department of Defense. These proposals are part of the legislative

program for the Department of Defense for the First Session of the

107th Congress and we urge their enactment.

Enclosed is legislation to authorize military construction and facility management for the military departments, the defense agencies, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment

454

program, and the National Guard and Reserve components. We

propose that the successful pilot program, the alternative authority

for acquisition and improvement of military housing, be made permanent. We seek your authority to authorize the Secretaries of the

military departments to convey surplus property, when appropriate, to state or local governments for conservation of natural resources. We propose a pilot program in which we can assign certain

private sector personnel to the Department for a limited period so

that we can take advantage of their skills while providing them

knowledge of our processes and methods. We also propose that limitations on contracting for fire fighting and security guard services

be eliminated so that the Department may contract for such support when appropriate for our military installations.

We seek the repeal of any limitations on the retirement or dismantlement of strategic nuclear delivery systems. This will enhance the President’s flexibility to set strategic force structure for

the defense of the United States. We propose the inclusion of government contractors in chemical weapons inspections at government-owned facilities under the Chemical Weapons Convention. We

also request authority for the Secretary of a military department

to promote fully-qualified officers to the grade of captain in the

Army, Air Force or Marine Corps or Lieutenant in the Navy without convening a selection board.

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,

DANIEL J. DELL’ORTO,

Principal Deputy General Counsel.

Enclosures.

COMMITTEE POSITION

On August 1, 2001 the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum

being present, approved H.R. 2586, as amended, by a vote of. 58–

1.

COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE,

Washington, DC, August 14, 2001.

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. 2586, the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2002.

H.R. 2586, as ordered reported by the Committee on Armed Services, contains many provisions over which the Committee on transportation and Infrastructure has jurisdiction. As in previous bills,

these include all sections that affect the pay, benefits, and perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00478 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR194.125 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
455

sonnel of the United States Coast Guard and the United States

Coast Guard Reserve.

Our committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 2586 and the

need for this legislation to move expeditiously. While we have a

valid claim to jurisdiction over a number of provisions in the bill,

including many that affect the United States Coast Guard, 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 requests to be included as conferees on the provisions over which we

have jurisdiction.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

DON YOUNG, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,

Washington, DC, August 29, 2001.

Hon. DON YOUNG,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House

of Representatives, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of August 14,

2001 regarding H.R. 2586, the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2002.

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 on Transportation 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 EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, Washington, DC, August 28, 2001.

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. 2586, the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2002,’’ specifically:

456

1. Section 341, ‘‘Assistance to Local Educational Agencies the

Benefit Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense Civilian Employees;

2. Section 342, ‘‘Availability of Auxiliary Services of Defense

Dependents Education System for Dependents who are Home

School Students’’;

3. Section 343, ‘‘Report Regarding Compensation for Teachers Employed in Teaching Positions in Overseas Schools Operated by the Department of Defense’’;

4. Section 509, ‘‘One-year Extension of Expiration Date for

Certain Force Management Authorities’’;

5. Section 584, ‘‘Clarification of Military Recruiter Access to

Secondary School Directory Information About Students.’’ 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. 2586, 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.

Again, I thank you for working with me in developing the

amendments to H.R. 2586 and look forward to working with you

on these issues in the future.

Sincerely,

JOHN BOEHNER, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, DC, August 31, 2001.

Hon. BOB STUMP,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for working with me regarding

H.R. 2586, the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2002,’’ which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services. As

you know, the Committee on the Judiciary has a jurisdictional interest in this legislation, and I appreciate your acknowledgement

of that jurisdictional interest. While the bill would be sequentially

referred to the Judiciary Committee, I understand the desire to

have this legislation considered expeditiously by the House; therefore, I do not intend to hold a hearing or markup on this legislation.

In agreeing to waive consideration by our Committee, I would expect you to agree that this procedural route should not be construed to prejudice the Committee on the Judiciary’s jurisdictional

interest and prerogatives on this or any similar legislation and will

not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional interest to my Committee in the future. The Committee

on the Judiciary takes this action with the understanding that the

Committee’s jurisdiction over the provisions within the Committee’s jurisdiction is in no way diminished or altered, and that the

457

Committee’s right to the appointment of conferees during any conference on the bill is preserved. I would also expect your support

in my request to the Speaker for the appointment of conferees from

my Committee with respect to matters within the jurisdiction of my

Committee should a conference with the Senate be convened on

this or similar legislation.

Again, thank you for your cooperation on this important matter.

I would appreciate your including our exchange of letters in your

Committee’s report to accompany H.R. 2586.

Sincerely,

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,

Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, August 31, 2001.

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of August 31,

2001 regarding H.R. 2586, the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2002.

I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary 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 the Judiciary 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 RESOURCES,

Washington, DC, August 31, 2001.

Hon. BOB STUMP,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for an opportunity to review the

text of H.R. 2586, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2002,

for provisions which are within the jurisdiction of the Committee

on Resources. Among these provisions are those dealing with benefits for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Corps, environmental review, public lands, and territories of the

United States.

Because of the continued cooperation and consideration you have

afforded me and my staff in developing these provisions, I will not

seek a sequential referral of H.R. 2586 based on their inclusion in

the bill. Of course, this waiver is not intended to prejudice any future jurisdictional claims over these provisions or similar language.

458

I also reserve the right to seek to have conferees named from the

Committee on Resources on these provisions, should such a conference become necessary.

Once again, I appreciate working with you and your staff on

these matters, and look forward to urging my colleagues to support

and pass H.R. 2586.

Sincerely,

JAMES V. HANSEN, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC, September 4, 2001.

Hon. BOB STUMP,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: On August 1, 2001, the Committee on

Armed Services ordered reported H.R. 2586, the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. 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 509, one-year extension of expiration date for certain

force management authorities.

Section 514, improved disability benefits for certain reserve

component members.

Subtitle A of title 6—Pay and Allowances.

Section 611, one-year extension of certain bonus and special

pay authorities for reserve forces.

Section 612, one-year extension of certain bonus and special

pay authorities for nurse officer candidates, registered nurses,

and nurse anesthetists.

Section 2906, environmental compliance and environmental

response requirements.

Section 3131, termination date of Office of River Protection,

Richland, Washington.

Section 3132, organizational modifications for National Nuclear Security Administration.

Section 3201, Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Authorization.

I understand that two provisions within my jurisdiction that are

in the bill as ordered reported will be deleted in the reported

version of H.R. 2586: (1) section 316, concerning the authority of

the Department of Defense to accept and store mercury and (2) section 712, listing requirements regarding a Presidential task force.

Further, I understand that section 3134, dealing with the disposition of surplus plutonium at the Savannah River Site in Aiken,

South Carolina, will be modified to make clear that it only deals

with military surplus plutonium, and therefore will not fall within

my Committee’s jurisdiction.

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,

459

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 HouseSenate 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.

2586 and as part of the Record during consideration of this bill by

the House.

Sincerely,

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Chairman.

(460)

FISCAL DATA

Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of

Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2002 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:

AUGUST 22, 2001.

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. 2586, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002.

The CBO staff contact is Kent Christensen. 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. 2586 would authorize appropriations totaling

$343 billion for fiscal year 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 would

result in additional outlays of $338 billion over the 2002–2006 period.

The bill also contains provisions that would raise the costs of discretionary defense programs over the 2003–2006 period. CBO esti- mates that those provisions would require appropriations of $9 billion over those four years.

The bill contains provisions that would reduce direct spending,

primarily through revised payment rates for some services offered

under the Tricare for Life program and certain asset sales. We estimate that the direct spending savings resulting from provisions of

H.R. 2586 would total $384 million over the 2002–2006 period and

$355 million over the 2002–2011 period. Those totals include estiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00484 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR194.128 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
461

mated net receipts from asset sales of $44 million over the next five

years and $20 million over 10 years. Because it would affect direct

spending, the bill would be subject to pay-as-you-go procedures.

The bill contains several intergovernmental mandates as defined

by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). CBO estimates,

however, that the costs of complying with those mandates would

not be significant and would not exceed the threshold as specified

in UMRA. The bill also contains provisions that affect DoD’s

Tricare long-term care program and would increase costs in state

Medicaid programs. The remaining provisions of the bill are either

excluded under Section 4 of UMRA, which excludes from the application of that act any legislative provisions that are necessary for

the national security, or contain no mandates.

Estimated Cost to the Federal Government

The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 2586 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. 2586, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2002

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Spending Under Current Law for Defense Programs:

Budget Authority 1 ................................................... 316,051 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 301,602 107,667 36,099 13,839 6,256 3,308

Proposed Changes:

Estimated Authorization Level ................................. 0 342,945 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 226,158 77,322 23,645 8,199 3,000

Spending Under H.R. 2586 for Defense Programs:

Estimated Authorization Level 1 .............................. 316,051 342,945 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 301,602 333,825 113,421 37,484 14,455 6,308

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING (EXCLUDING ASSET SALES)

Estimated Budget Authority ............................................. 0 9 ¥320 ¥4 ¥9 1

Estimated Outlays ............................................................ 0 4 ¥340 ¥12 6 2

ASSET SALES 2

Estimated Budget Authority ............................................. 0 ¥22 ¥32 ¥16 ¥5 31

Estimated Outlays ............................................................ 0 22 ¥32 ¥16 ¥5 31

1 The 2001 level is the amount appropriated for programs authorized by the bill.

2 Asset sale receipts are a credit against direct spending.

Note.—This table excludes estimated authorizations of appropriations for years after 2002. (Those additional authorizations are shown in Table 3.)

Basis of estimate

Spending Subject to Appropriation

The bill would authorize appropriations totaling $343 billion in

2002 (see Table 2). Most of those costs would fall within budget

function 050 (national defense). H.R. 2586 also would authorize appropriations of $100 million for the Presidio Trust Fund (function

300—natural resources and environment), $99 million for the Maritime Administration (function 400—transportation), $71 million for

the Armed Forces Retirement Home (function 600—income security), and $17 million for the Naval Petroleum Reserves (function

270—energy).

462

The estimate assumes that the amounts authorized for 2002 will

be appropriated near the start of fiscal year 2002. 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 2002

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 2002, these provisions would

raise estimated costs by $9 billion over the 2003–2006 period. The

following sections describe the provisions identified in Table 3 and

provide information about CBO’s cost estimates for those provisions.

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. Funding

would continue to be provided on an annual basis for these

multiyear contracts, but potential termination costs would be covered by an initial appropriation.

Section 111 would authorize DoD to extend the authorization of

multiyear procurement for the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles

by one year through 2002, if the department determines that it is

necessary to do so to prevent a break in production of the vehicles.

Currently, these vehicles are purchased under a multiyear contract

administered by the Army covering a four-year period ending in

2001. The contract allows for an option year in 2002 leading to a

new multiyear contract. CBO estimates that the savings from buying the vehicles under the extension would have little or no budgetary impact because the Army assumed that the vehicles planned

for purchase in 2002 would be bought at prices similar to prices

under the existing multiyear contract.

TABLE 2.—SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS IN H.R. 2586

Category

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Military Personnel:

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 82,224 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 76,995 4,605 164 82 0

Operation and Maintenance:

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 124,357 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 93,200 24,264 4,041 1,679 501

Procurement:

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 62,036 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 16,208 22,452 13,333 5,013 1,988

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation:

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 47,660 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 25,441 17,990 3,138 674 189

Military Construction and Family Housing:

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 10,325 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 2,624 3,987 2,303 776 334

463

TABLE 2.—SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS IN H.R. 2586—Continued

Category

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Atomic Energy Defense Activities:

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 13,514 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 9,162 3,643 709 0 0

Other Accounts:

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 2,746 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 2,173 433 77 35 8

General Transfer Authority:

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 280 ¥60 ¥120 ¥60 ¥20

Total

Authorization Level 1 ................................................................... 342,862 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 226,083 77,314 23,645 8,199 3,000

1 These amounts comprise nearly all of the proposed changes for authorizations shown in Table 1; they do not include the estimated authorization of $83 million for the Coast Guard Reserve, which is shown in Table 3.

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED PROVISIONS IN H.R.

2586

Category

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT

C–17 Aircraft ...................................................................................... 0 ¥117 ¥293 ¥272 ¥252

FORCE STRUCTURE

DoD Military Endstrengths .................................................................. 230 475 490 504 519

Coast Guard Reserve Endstrengths .................................................... 83 0 0 0 0

Grade Structure ................................................................................... 31 68 84 95 97

18–Month Enlistment Pilot ................................................................. 0 0 12 12 12

COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS (DoD)

Military Pay Raises ............................................................................. 1,026 1,420 1,490 1,558 1,624

Expiring Bonuses and Allowances ...................................................... 616 478 277 171 114

Travel and Transportation Allowances ................................................ 51 274 351 359 367

Increase Incentive Pay and Bonuses .................................................. 70 99 103 109 115

Housing Allowances ............................................................................ 0 27 36 38 39

New Officer Accession Bonus ............................................................. 18 18 18 20 20

Subsistence Allowances ...................................................................... 6 15 8 3 0

Uniform Allowances ............................................................................. 4 4 4 4 4

Education and Training ...................................................................... 1 6 8 10 13

Other Compensation Provisions .......................................................... ¥25 8 3 8 7

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM

Payment Rates .................................................................................... ¥144 ¥90 0 0 0

Long-Term Care Rules ........................................................................ ¥44 0 0 0 0

Non-Availability Statements ................................................................ 0 0 10 10 10

Other Provisions .................................................................................. 8 5 6 6 6

OTHER PROVISIONS

Limitations on Workforce Reviews ...................................................... ¥11 ¥11 ¥11 1 105

Service Contracting Reform ................................................................ 15 26 33 27 24

National Guard Challenge Program .................................................... 0 9 11 13 15

War Medals ......................................................................................... 0 4 4 5 5

Acquisition Workforce Reduction ......................................................... ¥25 ¥236 ¥246 ¥256 ¥266

Asbestos Differential Pay .................................................................... ¥110 ¥110 ¥110 ¥110 ¥110

Civilian Wage Board Schedule ............................................................ 3 10 10 11 11

Strategic Forces .................................................................................. ¥20 ¥70 ¥140 ¥200 ¥220

464

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED PROVISIONS IN H.R.

2586—Continued

Category

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

TOTAL ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS

Estimated Authorization Level ............................................................ 1,783 2,312 2,159 2,126 2,260

Note.—For every item in this table except the authorization for the Coast Guard, the 2002 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 2003 through 2006 are not

included in Table 1.

Section 122 would authorize DoD to enter into a new multiyear

procurement contract (or extend the current multiyear contract) to

buy up to 60 additional C–17 aircraft if the Secretary of Defense

certifies to the Congressional defense committees, before the enactment of this bill, that it is in the interest of the department to proceed with follow-on multiyear procurement of the C–17. Under the

current multiyear contract, the Air Force will buy 15 aircraft in

2002 and another 8 aircraft in 2003. Assuming the Secretary certifies that it is in the interest of the department to proceed with

follow-on multiyear procurement of up to 60 additional C–17s, CBO

estimates that savings from buying 60 additional C–17s under this

contract arrangement would total $934 million or an average of

about $250 million a year over the 2003–2006 period. Funding re- quirements would total just under $8.3 billion instead of the almost

$9.2 billion needed under annual contracts. This estimate assumes

that the Air Force would purchase the 60 additional aircraft starting in 2003 at a rate of 15 a year.

Force Structure.—The bill contains various sections that affect

endstrength, personnel grade structure, and periods of enlistment.

Military Endstrength. The bill would authorize active and reserve

endstrengths for 2002 and would raise the minimum endstrength

authorization in permanent law. The authorized endstrengths for

active-duty personnel and personnel in the selected reserve would

total about 1,387,000 and 865,000, respectively. Of those selected

reservists, about 66,000 would serve on active duty in support of

the reserves. The bill would specifically authorize appropriations of

$82.2 billion for the discretionary costs of military pay and allowances in 2002. The authorized endstrength represents a net increase of 3,152 servicemembers that would boost costs for salaries

and other expenses by $230 million in the first year and about

$500 million annually in subsequent years, compared to the authorized strengths for 2001.

The bill also would authorize an endstrength of 8,000 in 2002 for

the Coast Guard Reserve. This authorization would cost about $83

million and would fall under budget function 400 (transportation).

Grade Structure. Sections 415, 423, 503, and 504 would increase

the number of service-members in certain grades. Section 415

would change the grade structure of active-duty personnel in support of the reserves and section 423 would increase the number of

Air Force officers in the grade of major. Section 503 would reduce

the time-in-grade required for promotion to captain in the Army,

Air Force, and Marine Corps, and lieutenant in the Navy when

service staffing needs require. Under section 504, the number of

servicemembers in pay grade E–8 in the Navy, the Marine Corps,

465

and the Air Force would increase. These changes would not increase the overall endstrength, but would result in more promotions to these ranks. CBO estimates these provisions would cost

$31 million in 2002, rising to about $100 million by 2006.

18-Month Enlistment Pilot Program. Section 589 would create a

pilot program for 18-month enlistments. CBO estimates that implementing this section would cost $36 million over the 2004–2006 period because of the increased recruitment and training activities

needed to accommodate the higher military personnel turnover rate

and maintain endstrength levels. CBO estimates that implementing this section would increase turnover by approximately

1,000 positions in the 2004–2006 period, and that the cost to recruit and train these troops would be about $34,000 per person.

Compensation and Benefits.—H.R. 2586 contains several provisions that would affect military compensation and benefits.

Military Pay Raises. Section 601 would raise basic pay by 5 percent across-the-board and authorize additional targeted pay raises,

ranging from 1 percent to 10 percent, for individuals with specific

ranks and years of service at a total cost of about $3.1 billion in

2002. 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 $1 billion in 2002 and

total $7.1 billion over the 2002–2006 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 2001, or three months into fiscal year

2002. The bill would extend these authorities through December

2002. 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 2002 and $174 million in 2003; enlistment bonuses for active-duty personnel would cost $91 million in 2002 and $140 million in 2003;

Various bonuses for the Selected and Ready Reserve would

cost $64 million in 2002 and $73 million in 2003;

Special payments for aviators and nuclear-qualified personnel would cost $52 million in 2002 and $55 million in 2003;

Retention bonuses for officers and enlisted members with

critical skills would cost $23 million in 2002 and cost $13 million in 2003;

Authorities to make special payments to nurse officer candidates, registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists would cost

$7 million in 2002 and $2 million in 2003;

Accession bonuses for dental officers would have no cost in

2002 and cost $1 million in 2003. (This provision authorizes a

three-month extension of the current authority which expires

on September 30, 2002); and

Extension of transition authorities for active and reserve

members, including temporary early retirement authority, special separation benefit, voluntary separation incentive, and certain other contingent benefits would cost $52 million in 2002,

and $20 million in 2003.

466

Most of these changes would result in additional, smaller costs

in subsequent years because payments are made in installments.

Travel and Transportation Allowances. Sections 631 through 637

would affect travel and transportation allowances by expanding eligibility or increasing benefits. CBO estimates that the cost of these

changes would be as follows:

Setting minimum per diem rates equal to the standard rates established for federal civilian travel would have no cost in 2002, but

would cost $142 million in 2003 and $731 million over the 2003–

2006 period;

Increasing the maximum daily payment rate from $110 to $180

for temporary subsistence allowances and expanding eligibility to

officers would cost $45 million in 2002 and $287 million over the

2002–2006 period;

Increasing the maximum weight allowances for junior enlisted

members would have no cost in 2002, but would cost $20 million

in 2003 and $98 million over the 2003–2006 period;

Raising the pet quarantine fee reimbursement from $275 to $675

would cost $1 million in 2002 and $5 million over the 2002–2006

period;

Authorizing dislocation allowances (DLA) for married

servicemembers without dependents where the spouse is a member

of the military, would have no cost in 2002, but would cost $3 million in 2003. Expanding eligibility to receive DLA to members moving to their first duty station would have no cost in 2002, but

would cost $39 million in 2003. Authorizing a $500 allowance to

compensate members who must move for government convenience

(e.g., because of privatization or renovation) would cost $5 million

in 2002. CBO estimates that combined these three provisions

would cost $280 million over the 2002–2006 period.

In total, these provisions affecting travel and transportation allowances would cost $51 million in 2002 and $1.4 billion over the

2002–2006 period. Those provisions with no cost in 2002 reflect an

effective date of January 1, 2003.

Increases in Incentive Pay and Bonuses. Sections 539, 616, and

617 would expand eligibility for bonuses and increase pay for personnel with special skills. Section 539 would expand the population

eligible to receive stipends under the Health Professional Stipend

Program to include medical and dental school students. Assuming

the number of participants would increase gradually, at about 5

percent a year, CBO estimates section 539 would cost less than

$500,000 in 2002 and $7 million over the 2002–2006 period.

Under section 616, certain reservists on inactive-duty training

would be entitled to a full month of aviation career incentive pay

for performing flying duty. Under current law, reservists receive

aviation career incentive pay based on a daily rate for only the

days they perform flying duty. Section 617 would raise the maximum pay rates for servicemembers performing submarine duty.

CBO estimates these pay increases, effective January 1, 2002,

would cost $70 million in 2002 and $489 million over the 2002–

2006 period. Together, these increases in incentive pay and bonuses would cost $70 million in 2002 and $496 million over the

2002–2006 period.

467

Housing Allowances. Section 604 would expand eligibility to receive the basic allowance for housing (BAH) to junior enlisted

members in grades E–3 and below who are on leave or traveling

between permanent duty stations. Currently, only members in

grades E–4 and above are eligible to receive BAH under these conditions. Using DoD’s estimate of enlisted accessions, and adjusting

for losses during training, CBO expects that about 175,000 enlisted

members in grades E–3 and below would be eligible to receive BAH

while traveling between permanent duty stations. Assuming members would, on average, be between duty stations for ten days, and

applying the BAH rates for members with and without dependents,

CBO estimates the average cost per member with and without dependents would be about $210 and $180, respectively. Based on an

effective date of January 1, 2003, CBO estimates expanding eligibility to these servicemembers would have no cost in 2002, but

would cost $27 million in 2003 and $140 million over the 2003– 2006 period.

New Officer Accession Bonus. Section 620 would authorize a new

accession bonus for officers. The amount of the bonus, limited to

$100,000, could be paid in a lump sum or installments. Based on

information from DoD, CBO expects that the Air Force and the

Navy would use this authority starting in 2002, and that the provision would cost $18 million in 2002 and $94 million over the 2002– 2006 period.

Subsistence Allowances. Section 603 would extend the current

authority to provide an additional subsistence payment when rations-in-kind are not available. DoD plans to prescribe this incremental subsistence allowance until payments may be fully offset by

the annual increases in basic allowance for subsistence (BAS). CBO

estimates that under DoD’s plan, additional subsistence payments

would end in 2005. This section also would delay the termination

of BAS transition authority by three months, making termination

effective on January 1, 2002, and saving an estimated $15 million

in 2002. CBO estimates the combined effects of implementing these

provisions would cost $6 million in 2002 and $32 million over the

2002–2006 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary

amounts.

Uniform Allowances. Section 605 would loosen restrictions on eligibility of officers to receive an additional $200 clothing allowance

by doubling the cap on the dollar amount a member may receive

in an initial clothing allowance over the prior two years. Under

current law, officers are ineligible to receive the additional allowance if they have received more than $200 in an initial clothing allowance during the past two years. Raising the cap would increase

the number of officers eligible for the additional $200 allowance.

CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost $4 million in 2002 and $20 million over the 2002–2006 period, subject to

appropriation of the necessary amounts. Because this provision

would have an effective date of October 1, 2000, section 605 would

authorize retroactive payments of this additional $200 allowance

and would thus increase direct spending. Those costs are discussed

later in this estimate under the heading of ‘‘Direct Spending.’’

Education and Training. Section 529 would direct the National

Defense University (NDU) to continue its concept validation test of

468

joint professional military education for the reserves and to conduct

a pilot program in 2003. The scope of the pilot program is undefined, but based on information from NDU, CBO estimates the program will eventually involve about 500 students at a cost of

$10,500 per student per year. CBO expects that most of the costs

in 2003 would be associated with program startup. CBO estimates

minimal cost in 2002 because the validation program would still be

ongoing. Overall, CBO estimates that this section would cost $23

million over the 2002–2006 period.

Section 538 would remove the cap on the number of Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (JROTC) units. The services plan to

have 3,185 units in 2002, less than the current cap of 3,500 units.

Based on recent growth rates, CBO expects the number of units

would exceed 3,500 in 2005. CBO estimates implementing section

538 would increase JROTC costs by $2 million in 2005, rising to

$5 million in 2006.

Under section 535, servicemembers on regular active-duty status

could participate in the Senior Reserve Officers Training Corps

(ROTC). Under current law, participation in Senior ROTC is limited to members of the reserves. Based on information from the

military services, CBO expects that the Air Force and the Army

would implement this new authority. Because the Air Force indicates that it would provide the same benefits to active-duty Senior

ROTC participants as are paid to those in the Airman Education

and Commissioning Program, CBO estimates no cost impact for the

Air Force. The Army indicates, however, that it would not pay tuition or provide stipends or scholarships for about 200 active-duty

Senior ROTC participants. Because the Army would save the expense of Officer Candidate School or ROTC scholarships and stipends for members who would receive officer training under this

section, CBO estimates savings of $1 million in 2002 and $9 million

over the 2002–2006 period. CBO expects that these members would

use Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits to fund their education.

Therefore, this provision would increase direct spending. Those

costs are discussed later in this estimate under the heading of ‘‘Direct Spending.’’

Section 533 would increase the number of international students

authorized to be admitted to the service academies and would

eliminate the restrictions on full tuition waivers. CBO estimates

that this section would cost $17 million over the 2002–2006 period.

Removing the restrictions on tuition waivers would allow about 70

additional international students to receive full tuition assistance

each year. This figure includes students admitted because of the

higher number of international slots made available under this section, as well as slots that are currently receiving only partial tuition assistance. The current cost of tuition for an international student is about $62,000 a year, and the annual cost of implementing

this section would be about $4 million.

Other Compensation Provisions. Section 619 would allow

servicemembers electing to receive the 15-year career status bonus

to have this bonus paid in installments. Currently this $30,000

bonus is offered as a lump-sum payment. CBO assumes that about

10 percent of those electing to receive the bonus would, on average,

choose to receive two payments of $15,000 spread over two years.

469

Because these decisions would shift some payments from one year

into the next, CBO estimates section 619 would save $30 million

in 2002 and about $25 million over the 2002–2006 period. The

somewhat lower total savings over the five-year period reflects

small costs in some years that result from the estimated yearly

change in the number of servicemembers with 15 years of service.

Section 507 would allow an active-duty servicemember who is

being separated from the armed services because of a physical disability to have his separation pay based on the rank to which he

would have been promoted had he not been separated. Based on

current pay tables and information from DoD, about 17 percent of

such members would have been approved for promotion and, under

section 507, would be entitled to a 17 percent pay increase in separation pay. CBO estimates implementing section 507 would increase separation pay by about 3 percent or $5 million a year.

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 and the spending under Tricare for

beneficiaries under age 65 is subject to appropriation. Spending

under Tricare for beneficiaries age 65 and over, often called Tricare

for Life (TFL), is subject to appropriation in 2002, but beginning

in 2003 this spending will be paid out of a trust fund and will not

be subject to appropriation.

Payment Rates. Under current law, DoD has the regulatory authority to set maximum allowable rates for medical services to limit

how much the Tricare program pays to health care providers. Although DoD has set maximum rates for many services, it has not

yet set rates for hospital outpatient diagnostic services, including

clinical lab work and radiation services, and long-term care services such as skilled nursing and home health care services. As a

result, Tricare currently pays 75 percent of billed charges for these

services. DoD has started the regulatory process to establish maximum rates for the services listed here and estimates it will take

upwards of two years to implement the changes by regulation.

Section 701 would require DoD to implement these rates by January 1, 2002. Under this provision, DoD would be able to lower its

costs for both hospital outpatient and long-term care services over

the 2002–2003 period before the regulations would have been implemented. These savings would affect spending subject to appropriation as well as direct spending for retirees of the other uniformed services in 2002 and 2003 and the TFL trust fund that

starts operation in 2003. CBO estimates that the total savings in

spending subject to appropriation for hospital outpatient and longterm care services would be about $230 million over the 2002–2003

period, assuming appropriations are reduced by the estimated

amounts. Section 701 would affect two different programs: Tricare

(under 65) and Tricare for Life. Those two effects are discussed

below.

By lowering payment rates for hospital outpatient diagnostic

services, DoD would be able to reduce spending on its beneficiaries

under age 65. (This portion of the provision would not affect beneficiaries age 65 and over because Medicare is first payer for these

services and TFL would only be responsible for the Medicare deductible and copayments.) Using data from DoD, CBO estimates

470

that making payment rates for hospital outpatient diagnostic services equivalent to Medicare rates would lower Tricare spending for

these services by about 30 percent. CBO estimates that lowering

the payment rates for hospital outpatient services would save

about $150 million over the 2002–2003 period, assuming appropriations are reduced by the estimated amounts.

Under section 701, DoD also would lower the rates paid for

skilled nursing and home health care. This change would primarily

affect the TFL program since beneficiaries under age 65 do not use

much long-term care (DoD spent only $10 million on long-term care

for those under 65 in 2000). Savings arise because Tricare’s skilled

nursing benefit has no time limit while Medicare’s benefit expires

after 100 days. The change in payment rates would have no impact

on Tricare for the first 100 days because Tricare would only be liable for the deductibles and copayments charged under Medicare.

However, this provision would lower the amount that Tricare

would pay for those beneficiaries who need more than 100 days of

skilled nursing care. Additionally, Tricare would reduce its costs for

providing skilled nursing and home health care to those beneficiaries who use these services without a prior hospital stay and

are thus not Medicare-eligible.

CBO estimates the savings to Tricare would initially be low because the Tricare for Life program does not actually begin operation until the start of fiscal year 2002 and CBO expects that it

will take about a year before all beneficiaries take full advantage

of the program. CBO estimates that lowering payment rates for

skilled nursing and home health care would save DoD about $80

million in 2002, assuming appropriations are reduced by the estimated amounts. (There also would be direct spending savings of

about $7 million over the 2002–2003 period for the other uniformed services, and about $215 million in 2003 for DoD when the trust

fund begins operation. CBO’s estimates of those savings is discussed below under the heading of ‘‘Direct Spending.’’)

Long-Term Care Rules. Tricare does not currently require a hospital stay prior to using long-term care services such as skilled

nursing and home health care. Requiring prior hospitalizations

would reduce the number of beneficiaries who use long-term care.

DoD has started the regulatory process to require such prior hospitalizations and expects to complete the process by the start of fiscal year 2004.

Section 704 would require DoD to structure the Tricare long-term

care program to resemble Medicare, which requires prior hospitalization before being eligible for skilled nursing and home

health care. Under section 704, DoD would be required to implement this provision on October 1, 2001. Requiring prior hospitalization under Tricare’s long-term care program would reduce the benefit for those beneficiaries that would otherwise have used longterm care and would save DoD the cost of providing this care over

the 2002–2003 period before the DoD’s the new long-term care

rules would have gone into effect under DoD’s plan. CBO estimates

that some of those beneficiaries would likely be able to get a prior

hospitalization before seeking care. In those instances, Medicare

would become the first payer while a few beneficiaries would end

up using Medicaid. Thus the savings to DoD would be partially offVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00494 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.132 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
471

set by increased costs to both Medicare and Medicaid (discussed

below).

Using data from DoD and the Agency for Healthcare Research

and Quality, CBO estimates that about 3,500 beneficiaries, who

would have used skilled nursing without a hospital stay, would be

affected by these new rules along with about 24,000 beneficiaries

who would have used home health care. CBO estimates that some

of those beneficiaries would pay for the long-term care through

Medicare or Medicaid, while others would pay the costs themselves,

use other insurance, or do without the long-term care. For those

beneficiaries who would be covered by Medicare, DoD would not

save the full cost because Tricare would be liable for all deductibles

and copayments. Taking this information into account, CBO estimates that, under section 704, Tricare spending would be reduced

by about $40 million in 2002, assuming appropriations are reduced

by the estimated amounts. (There would also be direct spending

savings of about $120 million for both the trust fund and the other

uniformed services in 2003 and Medicare and Medicaid costs in

both 2002 and 2003.)

Non-Availability Statements. Under current law, users of military health care have the option of enrolling in Tricare Prime, an

HMO-like plan that centers its provision of services around military treatment facilities. Users who do not enroll in Tricare Prime

have the option of using Tricare Extra, a preferred provider network, or Tricare Standard, a traditional fee-for-service insurance

plan. Beneficiaries who live within 40 miles of a military hospital

must get a statement from the hospital that it cannot provide the

requested care before the beneficiary may use Tricare Standard or

Extra. Absent that statement, Tricare does not have to pay for the

care received at a nonmilitary facility.

Section 702 would prohibit the requirement of such statements

beginning sometime in fiscal year 2004 (two years after the enactment of this bill), unless the Secretary of Defense certifies that

they are still needed for each medical procedure. Based on information from DoD, CBO expects that the Secretary of Defense would

certify that these statements are necessary in most cases, although

not in all cases. For those cases where a statement would no longer

be necessary, CBO estimates that this provision would cost about

$10 million in 2004 and $30 million over the 2004–2006 period, assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts.

Other Defense Health Care Provisions. H.R. 2586 also contains

two proposals that would cost relatively little over the 2002–2006

period. CBO estimates that implementing these two additional

health care provisions would cost $8 million in 2002 and $31 million over the 2002–2006 period.

Section 705 would allow DoD to reimburse the parent or guardian of minors for travel costs associated with the minor receiving

care at a military treatment facility more than 100 miles away

from the minor’s home. CBO estimates that this proposal would

cost about $5 million a year.

Section 588 would allow government agencies to pay the employee’s share of the insurance premium paid under the Federal Employee Health Benefits program, if the employee is involuntarily

called to active duty for a contingency operation. It also would

472

allow the agencies to reimburse past premium payments for employees called up after December 8, 1995. CBO estimates that this

provision would cost about $3 million in 2002 (primarily for reimbursements), less than $500,000 in 2003, and $1 million a year beginning in 2004.

Limitations on Workforce Reviews.—Section 331 would limit the

ability of DoD to conduct outsourcing studies to only 3,053 civilian

positions in fiscal year 2002. CBO estimates that this section would

cost about $70 million over the 2002–2006 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.

DoD currently plans to conduct outsourcing studies on approximately 13,000 civilian positions in 2002. Under section 331, DoD

would review 10,000 fewer positions than planned. Based on information from the General Accounting Office (GAO) and DoD, CBO

estimates that each outsourcing study takes three years to accomplish and costs approximately $3,500 per position studied. CBO estimates that reducing the number of positions reviewed in 2002

would result in a savings of approximately $34 million over the

2002–2004 period. CBO also estimates that an additional $51 million would be saved in 2005 because the department would not

have to pay the involuntary separation costs associated with the

workforce reductions resulting from the reviews. CBO estimates

that separation costs would average $5,200 for each position studied. While actual separation costs range between $20,000 to

$25,000 for each position, the average cost per position studied considers the fact that only half of the civilian positions reviewed

would result in job eliminations, and that many of the civilians

whose jobs were eliminated would be transferred to other positions

within the department.

The costs associated with section 331 would result from DoD

having to reduce future savings estimates for the years 2005 and

beyond. Based on information from DoD and GAO, CBO estimates

that recurring savings would be approximately $10,500 for each position studied. CBO estimates that, under it’s current plan, DoD

would begin to realize savings from outsourcing studies begun in

2002 in the second half of 2005 and that the annual savings under

DoD’s current plan would be approximately $140 million in 2006

and every year thereafter. Under the proposed limits in this provision, CBO estimates that DoD would realize savings of only $33

million in 2006 and thereafter. The reduction in savings for the

2005–2006 period would be approximately $155 million.

Service Contracting Reform.—Subtitle G of title III would extend

workforce review studies to new requirements and work previously

outsourced to the private sector. CBO estimates that implementing

these sections would cost approximately $125 million over the

2002–2006 period.

Section 383 would require workforce studies on all new requirements not previously performed by DoD or contractor personnel

that result in contracts greater than $1 million. Based on information from DoD, CBO estimates that this provision would affect approximately 10,000 contractor positions each year and that the cost

to review each position would be approximately $3,500. Because

the requirements of this provision would be phased in over a fouryear period so that only 30 percent of the requirement would need

473

to be met by 2005, CBO estimates that implementing this provision

would cost $20 million over the 2002–2006 period.

Section 385 would require DoD to subject an equivalent number

of contractor positions to workforce reviews for each civilian position review planned. Based on information from DoD and GAO,

CBO estimates that DoD would study approximately 34,000 contractor positions at a cost of $105 million over the 2002–2006 period.

CBO estimates no significant savings as a result of these reviews. Although some evidence suggests that subjecting contractors

to competition could reduce costs in some instances, most estimated

savings from workforce reviews are due to reductions of government personnel and overhead. It is also uncertain as to what extent government organizations could organize themselves to formally compete for work currently performed by the private sector.

National Guard Challenge Program.—Section 587 would eliminate the spending cap on the National Guard Challenge Program

beginning in fiscal year 2003, and would also increase the federal

contributions to state programs from 60 percent to 75 percent. CBO

estimates that implementing this section would cost $48 million

over the 2003–2006 period. CBO estimates that increasing the federal contributions to 75 percent would increase the annual cost for

each space by about $1,000. Applying this cost to the 6,600 spaces

in the program and allowing program costs to increase with inflation would result in an average annual cost for the program of

about $10 million over the 2003–2006 period.

War Medals.—Sections 546 and 547 would establish two new

service medals. Section 546 would create a Korea Defense service

medal for those servicemembers who served in the Republic of

Korea or the adjacent waters at any time during the period beginning July 28, 1954, and ending at a time to be determined by the

Secretary of Defense. CBO expects that on average about 200,000

medals would be awarded each year. Section 547 would authorize

a Cold War service medal for members who served on active duty

between September 2, 1945, and December 26, 1991. CBO estimates that about 500,000 eligible members, or their survivors,

would apply each year. CBO estimates that these provisions would

have no cost in 2002, but would cost $18 million over the 2003–

2006 period. CBO estimates no cost in 2002 to account for the

delay in designing and minting these medals, and processing applications.

Reductions in Defense Acquisition Workforce.—Section 901

would limit the size of the defense acquisition workforce by requiring a reduction of at least 13,000 military and civilian personnel

during fiscal year 2002. Because the total number of military personnel is determined by endstrength requirements, CBO assumes

that the provision would lead to their transfer to other activities

rather than separation from the services. Separations of civilian

personnel, who comprise about 80 percent of the acquisition workforce, would account for the remaining reductions. Because these

civilian reductions would exceed those expected under current law,

CBO estimates savings of $25 million in 2002, $236 million in

2003, and $1 billion over the 2002–2006 period. Savings would be

474

relatively small during the first year because the cost of separation

payments would offset most of the initial savings in salaries.

Asbestos Differential Pay.—Under section 1108, federal wagegrade 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

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limits. 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 1108 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 2002 and $550 million over the

2002–2006 period, assuming appropriations are reduced by the estimated amounts.

DoD Civilian Wage-Grade Schedule.—Section 1110 would establish the same guidelines for determining the pay schedule for DoD

wage-grade employees as those in place, under current law, for

non-DoD wage-grade employees when there are an insufficient

number of comparable positions in the local private industry to

generate the wage schedule. Under current law, DoD may only consider local private-industry rates when constructing the wage

schedules for various wage areas across the country. This section

would instruct DoD to consider private-industry rates in both the

local area and a similar wage area, with more comparable privatesector positions. Based on information from the Office of Personnel

Management, CBO estimates that section 1110 would increase the

wages of DoD wage-grade employees in certain wage areas and

would cost $3 million in 2002 and $45 million over the 2002–2006

period, assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts. The

lower cost in the first year reflects CBO’s assumption that the adjustments to the wage schedules would occur at the same time of

year that the wage schedule would normally be adjusted.

Strategic Forces.—Section 1044 would repeal subparagraph (D)

of section 1302(a)(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85), as amended by section

1501(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2000 (Public Law 106–65), to allow DoD to initiate actions to retire

or dismantle the Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missile

force. CBO estimates that the provision would save about $600 million over the 2002–2006 period. Those savings would come from

eliminating the cost to operate the missiles starting immediately in

2002, eventually saving about $200 million a year. These savings

would be partially offset by the costs of removing the missiles and

warheads from the silos and the costs of monitoring the silos. CBO

475

assumes that the retirement process would take about three years

and that the missiles would be completely retired by the end of

2004. CBO estimates missile retirement costs would total about

$100 million over the 2002–2004 period.

Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI).—Section 2804

would permanently extend special authorities to finance the construction and renovation of military family housing. Those authorities, which expire on December 31, 2004, 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 derives from the Family Housing Improvement Fund and consists of appropriations 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 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.

Based on how the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has

treated recent use of the authority, CBO does not estimate any

budgetary impact from extending the authorities. (This bill authorizes the appropriation of $2 million to the fund for fiscal year 2002,

and that amount is included in the budget estimates.) However,

CBO believes 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 transactions that have

relatively little cost in terms of recorded obligations and outlays. In

contrast, CBO considers those initiatives as having the characteristics of lease-purchases, which call for recording higher levels of upfront obligations and outlays. The Administration’s approach will

allow DoD to obligate significantly more federal resources than the

$1 billion limitation for such projects.

Management of the Presidio of San Francisco.—Section 2863

would increase from $50 million to $150 million the amount that

the Presidio Trust may borrow, subject to appropriation, from the

U.S. Treasury. Based on recent spending patterns of the Trust

(which is a wholly owned government corporation that manages the

Presidio in California), CBO estimates that this money would be

borrowed and spent slowly over the next five years.

Direct Spending

The bill contains provisions that would reduce direct spending,

primarily through revision to payments rates for certain defense

health care program services and certain asset sales from the National Defense Stockpile. The bill also contains a few provisions

with small direct spending costs. On balance, CBO estimates that

enacting H.R. 2586 would result in net savings in direct spending

totaling $384 million over the 2002–2006 period.

476

TABLE 4.—ESTIMATED DIRECT SPENDING FROM HEALTH CARE AND OTHER PROVISIONS IN H.R.

2586

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING (EXCLUDING ASSET SALES)

Section 535—Active-Duty Participation in Senior ROTC:

Estimated Budget Authority ................................................................. 1 1 1 1 1

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................ 1 1 1 1 1

Section 605—Retroactive Uniform Allowances:

Estimated Budget Authority ................................................................. 3 0 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................ 3 0 0 0 0

Medical Care Trust Fund:

Section 701—Payment Rates:

Estimated Budget Authority ........................................................ ¥2 ¥220 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ....................................................................... ¥2 ¥220 0 0 0

Section 704—Long-Term Care Rules:

Estimated Budget Authority ........................................................ 21 ¥47 0 0 0

Estimated Outlays ....................................................................... 21 ¥47 0 0 0

Section 811—Recovery Audits:

Estimated Budget Authority ................................................................. ¥11 ¥55 ¥6 ¥10 0

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................ ¥16 ¥75 ¥14 5 1

Section 2845—Land Conveyance of Navy Property in Maine:

Estimated Budget Authority ................................................................. 0 1 1 0 0

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................ 0 1 1 0 0

Subtotal:.

Estimated Budget Authority ................................................................. 9 ¥320 ¥4 ¥9 1

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................ 4 ¥340 ¥12 6 2

ASSET SALES 1

National Defense Stockpile—New Sales:

Estimated Budget Authority ................................................................. ¥2 ¥2 ¥2 ¥2 ¥2

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................ ¥2 ¥2 ¥2 ¥2 ¥2

National Defense Stockpile—Accelerated Cobalt Sales:

Estimate Budget Authority ................................................................... ¥20 ¥30 ¥14 ¥3 33

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................ ¥20 ¥30 ¥14 ¥3 33

Subtotal:.

Estimated Budget Authority ................................................................. ¥22 ¥32 ¥16 ¥5 31

Estimated Outlays ................................................................................ ¥22 ¥32 ¥16 ¥5 31

TOTAL CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Estimated Budget Authority .......................................................................... ¥13 ¥352 ¥20 ¥14 32

Estimated Outlays ......................................................................................... ¥18 ¥372 ¥28 1 33

1 Asset sale receipts are a credit against direct spending.

Active-Duty Participation in Senior ROTC.—Section 535 would

allow servicemembers to participate in the Senior Reserve Officers

Training Corps (ROTC) while on regular active-duty status. Under

current law, participation in Senior ROTC is limited to members

of the reserves. Based on information from the military services,

the Army would allow about 200 active-duty enlisted members a

year to enroll in college under this program. While the Army would

not pay for their education, these members would continue to receive pay and benefits during their college career. CBO expects

that these members would use Montgomery GI Bill benefits to fund

their education. Under current law, CBO assumes that half of

these members would not use their MGIB benefits. Therefore, CBO

estimates that section 535 would increase MGIB outlays by $1 million a year, starting in 2002.

Retroactive Uniform Allowances.—Section 605 would authorize

retroactive payments of an additional $200 clothing allowance for

certain officers who were ineligible during fiscal year 2001 because

477

they had received more than $200 in an initial uniform allowance

over the prior two-year period. CBO estimates that these retroactive payments would cost $3 million in 2002.

Medical Care Trust Fund.—Sections 701 and 704 would change

the way DoD administers long-term care and the way it pays for

that care under the Tricare for Life program. DoD has the regulatory authority to make the changes that are directed in these sections but thinks it will take upwards of two years to implement the

changes by regulation. Section 701 would require that the changes

be implemented by January 1, 2002, and section 704 would take effect on October 1, 2001. Accordingly, DoD would save money over

the roughly two-year period before the regulations would have been

implemented. The Tricare for Life program will begin on October

1, 2001, but the trust fund will not begin operation until one year

later, so only the savings to DoD in fiscal year 2003 would be considered direct spending savings. There also would be some minor

savings in 2002 for retirees of the other uniformed services.

Payment Rates. Under current regulations, the Tricare for Life

program will pay all deductibles and copayments associated with

Medicare’s skilled nursing benefit and will pay for skilled nursing

care in excess of the Medicare benefit (100 days). Additionally,

Tricare will pay for skilled nursing and home health care even if

the beneficiary does not have a prior hospital admission. (Tricare

will pay 75 percent of billed charges, with no maximum charge,

until the beneficiary has paid $3,000 in out-of-pocket costs and

then will pay 100 percent of billed charges after that point.) Section

701 would require DoD to set maximum allowable charges for

skilled nursing and home health care, which would lower its cost

of providing long-term care. CBO estimates that implementing new

charges based on Medicare rates would lower what DoD pays for

skilled nursing and home health care by about 30 percent. Under

section 701, CBO estimates that direct spending from the trust

fund for DoD retirees would decline by about $215 million in 2003.

(The discretionary savings for 2002 are discussed earlier in the

‘‘Spending Subject to Appropriation’’ section under the heading of

‘‘Defense Health Program.’’)

The Tricare for Life program also covers retired members of the

Coast Guard and retired uniformed members of the Public Health

Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Health care spending for these retirees is considered direct spending. Under section 701, CBO estimates that the other uniformed

services would save about $2 million in 2002 and $5 million in

2003.

Long-Term Care Rules. Under current law, Medicare will not pay

for skilled nursing and home health care unless the beneficiary has

been hospitalized before receiving that care. Tricare, on the other

hand, will pay for long-term care without a prior hospitalization.

For those cases, Tricare becomes the primary insurance because

Medicare will not pay. Section 704 would require DoD to structure

its long-term care benefit to resemble Medicare’s, which requires

prior hospitalization. Implementing this provision would lower

DoD’s costs because fewer beneficiaries would be eligible for skilled

nursing and home health care. CBO estimates that under section

704, direct spending from the trust fund would decline by about

478

$120 million in 2003. CBO also estimates that, under section 704,

the other uniformed services would save less than $500,000 in 2002

and about $1 million in 2003. (There would also be discretionary

savings of about $40 million, as discussed earlier.)

The Tricare for Life program would be able to lower costs by

shifting many of those costs to their beneficiaries and other government programs, primarily Medicare. CBO estimates that about 50

percent of individuals who would have used long-term care without

a prior hospital stay would be able to qualify under the Medicare

rules (about 1,600 for skilled nursing and about 12,000 for home

health care). CBO further estimates that the average cost of skilled

nursing is about $250 a day, and for home health care about $2,300

for 60 days of care, which is the Medicare benefit. Accordingly,

CBO estimates that under section 704 direct spending for Medicare

benefits would increase by $20 million in 2002 and $70 million in

2003. In addition, a few beneficiaries would eventually become eligible for Medicaid, which also provides long-term care benefits.

CBO estimates that Medicaid costs under section 704 would be $1

million in 2002 and $3 million in 2003.

Recovery Audits.—Subtitle B of title VIII would require federal

agencies to conduct specialized audits of those accounts that purchase at least $500 million of goods and services from the private

sector. The goal of these audits would be to find and recover sums

erroneously paid to private vendors. The legislation also would

allow agencies to retain and spend some of the funds recovered

under certain conditions. Recovered funds that still would be available for obligation could be spent on the original purposes of those

funds, and 25 percent of all other funds could be spent on management improvement projects.

CBO estimates that implementing this program would reduce net

direct spending by about $100 million over the 2002–2006 period,

by increasing the federal government’s recovery of erroneous payments made in prior years. For this estimate, we assume that most

agencies would audit at least three years of such payments. Implementing the bill could yield additional savings from payments

made after 2001, but such savings would depend on future appropriations. In addition, CBO estimates that the Office of Management and Budget would spend less than $500,000 a year to oversee

and report on the bill’s implementation, subject to be availability

of appropriated funds. The savings from this legislation fall within

multiple budget functions.

CBO expects that the requirement to audit payments would

apply to about $60 billion in annual payments. This total excludes

those accounts that we expect to be audited under current law and

those that OMB would probably exempt from the bill’s requirements, including accounts that fund research, testing, and procurement of military weapons, finance federal law enforcement activities, and involve medical records. On average, CBO assumes the

federal government would recover about 0.1 percent of the $60 billion audited, or $60 million a year. That rate takes into account the

difficulty in collecting overpayments that are more than one year

old and the likelihood that federal agencies will settle for less than

full payment on some of these debts.

479

CBO estimates that agencies would spend about 45 percent of recovered funds, which is our estimate of the maximum that could

be spent under this provision. First, we assume that agencies

would spend all of the recovered funds that still would be available

for obligation (i.e., funds that were provided under multiyear obligation authority). In addition, we assume that agencies would

spend the allowed 25 percent of all other recovered funds (i.e.,

those recoveries for which the original obligation authority has expired). Based on the obligation authority provided in appropriations

for fiscal year 2001, and accounting for certain exclusions that

would be allowed under the bill, CBO estimates that agencies could

spend at most about 45 percent of recovered funds.

Land Conveyance and Other Property Transactions.—Titles

XXVIII and XXIX would authorize a variety of property transactions involving both large and small parcels of land.

The bill would result in direct spending by authorizing a conveyance that would reduce offsetting receipts collected by the federal

government. Under section 2845, the Navy would be authorized to

convey 485 acres of property to the state of Maine or other governmental jurisdictions. Under current law, however, the Navy will declare that property excess to its needs and transfer it to the General Services Administration (GSA) for disposal. Under normal procedures, GSA sells property not needed by other federal agencies

or by non-federal entities in need of property for public-use purposes such as parks or educational facilities. Information from GSA

indicates that portions of the land will likely be sold under current

law after the entire parcel is screened for other uses in 2002. As

a result, CBO estimates that the conveyance in the bill would result in forgone receipts totaling about $1 million in 2003 and $1

million in 2004.

Section 2861 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer administrative jurisdiction over 35 acres of federal lands in

Park City, Utah, to the Secretary of the Air Force, for purposes of

building a recreational facility. Title XXIX also would direct the

Secretary of the Interior to transfer administrative jurisdiction over

approximately 110,000 acres of federal lands in San Bernardino

County, California, to the Secretary of the Army. Based on information from the Department of the Interior (DOI), CBO estimates

that those transfers would not significantly affect the federal budget. According to DOI, the lands currently generate no significant

receipts, and the agency does not expect the lands to generate significant receipts over the next 10 years.

CBO estimates that other provisions 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 likely to

be given away.

Concurrent Receipt.—Upon passage of qualifying, offsetting legislation, section 641 would allow total or partial concurrent payment

of retirement annuities together with veterans’ disability compensation to retirees from the military, the Coast Guard, the Public

Health Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who have service-connected disabilities. The provision also

480

would discontinue special compensation for certain severely disabled uniformed services retirees.

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. Because of this prohibition on concurrent receipt, such veterans forgo a portion of their retirement annuity equal to the nontaxable veterans’ benefit.

Section 641 would become effective only upon passage of legislation that would fully offset its costs in each of the first 10 fiscal

years after passage of the offsetting legislation. If qualifying, offsetting legislation were enacted in 2001, CBO estimates that implementing this section in 2002 would increase direct spending for retirement payments and veterans’ disability compensation by about

$3 billion in 2002, $17 billion over the 2002–2006 period, and $41

billion over the 2002–2011 period. Because those effects are contingent upon subsequent legislation, they are not included in Table 4.

In addition, the military retirement system is financed in part by

an annual payment from appropriated funds to the military retirement trust fund, based on an estimate of the system’s accruing liabilities. If section 641 were implemented, the yearly contribution

to the military retirement trust fund (an outlay in budget function

050) would increase to reflect the added liability from the expected

increase in annuities to future retirees. CBO estimates that implementing this provision would increase such payments by about $1

billion in 2002, and $6 billion over the 2002–2006 period, assuming

appropriation of the necessary amounts.

Other Provisions.—The following provisions would have an insignificant budgetary impact on direct spending:

Section 514 would allow officers, whose mandatory retirement

has been deferred for medical reasons, to further postpone their retirement for up to 30 days.

Section 512 would allow the Service Secretaries to hold special

selection boards to consider reserve officers from below the promotion zone who, through error, were either not considered for promotion or were passed over on or after October 1, 1996. Under current law, special selection boards may only consider members who

were in or above the promotion zone. Because members would be

entitled to back pay if they receive retroactive promotions, enacting

this provision would increase direct spending. CBO expects the

number of retroactive promotions to be small and we estimate that

outlays would increase by less than $500,000 a year.

Section 514 would allow disability retirement for reservists

whose disability was incurred or aggravated while remaining overnight before inactive-duty training, or between successive periods

of such training. Currently, reservists are only covered during overnight stays for such periods if they are outside reasonable commuting distance of their residences.

Section 515 would reduce the time-in-grade requirement for certain reserve officers who are retired because of a non-service-connected disability. In order to retire at a given grade, they would

have to have served six months in that grade, rather than the

three years required under current law.

481

Section 528 would allow the National Defense University (NDU)

to collect and spend tuition receipts for up to 10 civilian students

from the private sector at any one time. Currently, NDU accepts

about 3 civilian students a year, on average, and their tuition is

paid to the Treasury. CBO estimates this section would result in

a negligible loss of receipts to the Treasury.

Section 542 would require the military to review the records of

certain Jewish American and Hispanic American war veterans to

determine if any of these veterans should be awarded the Medal

of Honor. A $600 a month pension is available to living Medal of

Honor recipients. Based on similar reviews in the past, CBO estimates that a small number of awards would be presented (many

posthumously), resulting in an increase in direct spending of less

than $500,000 a year.

Section 574 would allow DoD to accept voluntary legal services

as a way to provide legal help to DoD beneficiaries. Although the

service is voluntary, in the event of a legal malpractice suit the

government would be liable for any claims against the legal volunteer. Payment of those claims is considered direct spending, but

CBO estimates that this provision would cost less than $500,000

each year.

Section 713 would establish a pilot program to allow certain hospitals to provide trauma and other medical care to individuals who

are not currently eligible for care at military treatment facilities.

The hospital would bill the individuals based on private rates and

would have the authority to spend the receipts collected without

the requirement for annual appropriations. Based on information

provided by DoD, CBO estimates that the department would collect

and spend less than $500,000 a year.

Section 1104 would provide greater pension portability for certain civilian employees who have been employed by a Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality (NAFI) and then become federal workers or vice versa. The provision would make it easier for

workers who move between a NAFI employer and the civil service

to transfer any accrued service credits from one retirement system

to another. Based on information from DoD indicating relatively

few workers would be affected by this provision, CBO estimates

that section 1104 would change direct spending by less than

$500,000 a year.

Asset sales

The bill would authorize DoD to sell certain materials contained

in the National Defense Stockpile that are obsolete or excess to

stockpile requirements. CBO estimates that DoD would be able to

sell the materials authorized for disposal and achieve receipts totaling about $2 million in 2002, $10 million over the 2002–2006 period, and $20 million over the 2002–2011 period.

The bill also would accelerate by one year the disposal of cobalt

that was previously authorized for sale in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85). The 1998

bill authorized the sale of all remaining cobalt starting in 2003.

The sales of cobalt authorized for disposal under earlier bills are

projected to be completed this year. This bill would allow all remaining cobalt to be sold starting in 2002, thus avoiding a one-year

482

gap in sales. CBO estimates that DoD would be able to expedite

that disposal without impacting current market prices, resulting in

more receipts from asset sales over the next five years but no net

budgetary impact over the 2002–2011 period.

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 5. For the purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures, only the effects in the current year, the budget year, and

the succeeding four years are counted.

TABLE 5.—ESTIMATED IMPACT OF H.R. 2586 ON DIRECT SPENDING AND RECEIPTS

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Changes in outlays ...... 0 –18 –372 –28 1 33 33 –1 –1 –1 –1

Changes in receipts ..... Not applicable

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: Section 4 of UMRA

excludes from the application of that act any legislative provisions

that are necessary for the national security. Many of the provisions

in this bill would fall under that exclusion.

Other sections of HR 2586 contain several intergovernmental

mandates, including two preemptions of state law. None of the

mandates would impose significant costs; therefore, the threshold

established by UMRA ($56 million for intergovernmental mandates

in 2001, adjusted annually for inflation) would not be exceeded.

The bill also would provide for several land conveyances between

the federal government and state, local, and tribal governments

and includes provisions that would protect those governments from

unnecessary cleanup costs should an environmental hazard be discovered on that land.

A provision in title 5 (Military Personnel Policy) would require

public secondary schools to provide military recruiters with access

to students and to student information in the same manner that

such access and information is provided to employers and institutions of higher education. The requirement to provide access and

information to the military would be a mandate as defined by

UMRA. Because this information is already provided to other parties, the costs of complying with this mandate would be minimal.

The two preemptions in this bill deal with land management.

Section 2811 (Use of Military Installations for Certain Recreational

Activities) would amend current law to allow the Secretary of Defense to waive compliance with state or territorial fish and game

laws at a military installation or facility if the Secretary determines that those laws could result in undesirable consequences for

public safety or adverse effects on morale. Under current law, the

Secretary must require each military installation or facility under

the jurisdiction of any military department to adhere to the appropriate fish and game laws. Such a preemption of state law would

be a mandate. However, the costs of complying with this mandate

would be minimal, since the states would not be required to take

any specific action or spend any money to comply.

483

Section 2864 (Effect of Limitation on Construction of Roads or

Highways, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California) would

preempt any California state law passed after January 1, 2001,

that directly or indirectly prohibits or restricts the construction or

approval of a road or highway within an easement granted by the

Secretary of the Navy on the Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base.

The costs of complying with this mandate also would be minimal

since the state would not be required to take any specific action or

spend any money to comply.

Finally, the changes to DoD’s Tricare long-term care program

would result in additional Medicaid costs to states of about $1 million in 2002 and over $2 million in 2003. Because states have sufficient flexibility in the Medicaid program to alter their programmatic and financial responsibilities, these additional costs

would not result from intergovernmental mandates as defined in

UMRA.

Previous CBO estimate: On May 22, 2001, CBO prepared a cost

estimate for S. 170 and H.R. 303, identical bills titled the Retired

Pay Restoration Act of 2001. S. 170 and H.R. 303 would provide

identical benefits to those specified in Section 641 of H.R. 2586. If

section 641 is implemented by October 1, 2001, the costs would be

identical to those estimate for S. 170 and H.R. 303. As noted above,

however, the provisions of section 641 cannot be implemented until

additional legislation is enacted (to offset the section’s costs). S. 170

and H.R. 303 do not contain such a contingency requirement.

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Military Construction and

Other Defense: Kent Christensen; Military and Civilian Personnel:

Dawn Regan; Civilian Retirement: Geoffrey Gerhardt; Stockpile

Sales and Strategic Forces: Raymond Hall. Military Retirement:

Sarah Jennings; Health Programs: Sam Papenfuss; Multiyear Procurement: Jo Ann Vines; Maritime Administration: Deborah Reis;

Naval Petroleum Reserves: Lisa Cash Driskill; Operations and

Maintenance: Matthew A. 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

484

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. 2586.

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 military pay raise since fiscal year

1982 that would provide every service member, after pay table

adjustments contained in this legislation, with a pay raise between 5 and 10 percent effective on January 1, 2002;

(2) reduce out-of-pocket housing costs for military personnel

to less than 12 percent;

(3) reduce the financial burden of permanent-change-of-station moves on families by providing increased reimbursement

of temporary lodging and subsistence expenses;

(4) eliminate unfair provisions in current law that cause

military retirees eligible for veteran’s disability compensation to have their military retired pay reduced; and (5) satisfy $95

million of the unfunded personnel requirements identified by

the service chiefs.

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 $7.5 billion above the fiscal year 2001 level; and (2) improve readiness

through recruitment and retention by boosting military special

pays, enhancing incentives for individuals to join Reserve Officer Training Corps programs, and extending numerous enlistment and reenlistment bonuses.

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

$442.1 million;

(2) satisfy more than $250 million of the unfunded procurement requirements identified by the service chiefs;

(3) increase funding for military research and development

accounts by $228.5 above the budget request, for a total inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00508 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.139 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
485

crease of $6.7 billion above the fiscal year 2001 level; and (4)

support the approach of the President’s ballistic missile defense program and to increase funding for ballistic missile defense programs by $2.9 billion above the fiscal year 2001 level.

With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving military

housing and facilities, the objective of this legislation is to:

(1) increase funding for military construction and military family housing programs by $1.8 billion more than the fiscal

year 2001 level; and (2) make permanent the authority provided by current law to privatize military housing.

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. 2586. The record

of these votes is attached to this report.

The committee ordered H.R. 2586 reported to the House with a

favorable recommendation by a vote of 58–1, a quorum being

present.

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

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 italic,

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1995

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT

* * * * * * *

Subtitle B—Army Programs

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 116. BUNKER DEFEAT MUNITION ACQUISITION PROGRAM.

øThe Secretary of the Army, in acquiring munitions under the

bunker defeat munition weapons acquisition program—

ø(1) may acquire only those munitions that are designated as

‘‘type classified, limited procurement for contingency operations’’; and

ø(2) may not acquire more than 8,500 such munitions.¿

* * * * * * *

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

* * * * * * *

Subtitle B—Professional Military

Education

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 912. BOARD OF ADVISORS FOR MARINE CORPS UNIVERSITY.

øThe Secretary of the Navy shall establish a board of advisors for

the Marine Corps University. The Secretary shall ensure that the

board is established so as to meet all requirements of the appropriate regional accrediting association.¿

* * * * * * *

494

TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

Subtitle A—General Military Law

PART I—ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY

POWERS

Chap. Sec.

1. Definitions ....................................................................... 101

* * * * * * *

PART II—PERSONNEL

* * * * * * *

56. Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree

Health Care Fund .......................................................1111ø.¿

* * * * * * *

PART IV—SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT

* * * * * * *

135. Space Programs ............................................................... 2271

* * * * * * *

PART I—ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY

POWERS

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 2—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

* * * * * * *

§ 115. Personnel strengths: requirement for annual authorization

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Upon determination by the Secretary of Defense that such action is in the national interest, the Secretary may— (1) increase the end strength authorized pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A) for a fiscal year for any of the armed forces by

a number equal to not more than ø1¿ 2 percent of that end

strength;

* * * * * * *

(d) In counting active-duty personnel for the purpose of the endstrengths authorized pursuant to subsection (a)(1), persons in the

following categories shall be excluded:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(10) Members of reserve components on active duty to prepare

for and to perform funeral honors functions for funerals of veterans in accordance with section 1491 of this title.

495

(11) Members on full-time National Guard duty to prepare for

and perform funeral honors functions for funerals of veterans

in accordance with section 1491 of this title.

* * * * * * *

§ 118. Quadrennial defense review

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) CJCS REVIEW.—(1) Upon the completion of each review under

subsection (a), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shall prepare and submit to the Secretary of Defense the Chairman’s assessment of the review, including the Chairman’s assessment of risk.

(2) As part of his assessment under paragraph (1), the Chairman

shall provide his assessment of the assignment of functions (or roles

and missions) to the armed forces and such recommendations for

changes thereto as the Chairman considers necessary to achieve

maximum efficiency of the armed forces. In preparing such assessment, the Chairman shall consider (among other matters) the following:

(A) Unnecessary duplication of effort among the armed forces.

(B) Changes in technology that can be applied effectively to

warfare.

(3) The Chairman’s assessment shall be submitted to the Secretary in time for the inclusion of the assessment in the report. The

Secretary shall include the Chairman’s assessment, together with

the Secretary’s comments, in the report in its entirety.

* * * * * * *

§ 119. Special access programs: congressional oversight

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(g) In this section, the term ‘‘defense committees’’ means—

(1) * * *

(2) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on

Appropriations, and the øNational Security Subcommittee¿

Subcommittee on Defense of the Committee on Appropriations,

of the House of Representatives.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 3—GENERAL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS

* * * * * * *

§ 123. Authority to suspend officer personnel laws during

war or national emergency

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) Upon the termination of a suspension made under the authority of subsection (a) of a provision of law otherwise requiring the

separation or retirement of officers on active duty because of age,

length of service or length of service in grade, or failure of selection

496

for promotion, the Secretary concerned shall extend by up to 90 days

the otherwise required separation or retirement date of any officer

covered by the suspended provision whose separation or retirement

date, but for the suspension, would have been before the date of the

termination of the suspension or within 90 days of the date of such

termination.

* * * * * * *

§ 130c. Nondisclosure of information: certain sensitive information of foreign governments and international

organizations

(a) * * *

(b) INFORMATION ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION.—For the purposes of

this section, information is sensitive information of a foreign government only if the national security official concerned makes each

of the following determinations with respect to the information:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) That any of the following conditions are met:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) The information is an item of information, or is in

a category of information, that the national security official

concerned has specified in regulations prescribed under

subsection ø(f )¿ (g) as being information the release of

which would have an adverse effect on the ability of the

United States Government to obtain the same or similar

information in the future.

* * * * * * *

(d) LIMITATIONS.—(1) If a request for disclosure covers any sensitive information of a foreign government (as described in subsection (b)) that came into the possession or under the control of

the United States Government before øthe date of the enactment

of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001¿ October 30, 2000, and more than 25 years before

the request is received by an agency, the information may be withheld only as set forth in paragraph (3).

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 4—OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Sec.

131. Office of the Secretary of Defense.

* * * * * * *

ø137. Director of Defense Research and Engineering.¿

137. Under Secretary of Defense for Space, Intelligence, and Information.

* * * * * * *

139a. Director of Defense Research and Engineering.

* * * * * * *

§ 131. Office of the Secretary of Defense

(a) * * *

497

(b) The Office of the Secretary of Defense is composed of the following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) The Under Secretary of Defense for Space, Intelligence,

and Information.

ø(6)¿ (7) The Director of Defense Research and Engineering.

ø(7)¿ (8) The Assistant Secretaries of Defense.

ø(8)¿ (9) The Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.

ø(9)¿ (10) The General Counsel of the Department of Defense.

ø(10)¿ (11) The Inspector General of the Department of Defense.

ø(11)¿ (12) Such other offices and officials as may be established by law or the Secretary of Defense may establish or designate in the Office.

* * * * * * *

§ 133a. Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition

and Technology

(a) * * *

(b) The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and

Technology øshall assist the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ shall assist the Under Secretary of Defense

for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics in the performance of the

Under Secretary’s duties relating to acquisition and technology.

* * * * * * *

§ 137. Under Secretary of Defense for Space, Intelligence, and

Information

(a) There is an Under Secretary of Defense for Space, Intelligence,

and Information, appointed from civilian life by the President, by

and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(b) Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary

of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense for Space, Intelligence,

and Information shall perform such duties and exercise such powers

relating to the space, intelligence, and information programs and

activities of the Department of Defense as the Secretary of Defense

may prescribe.

(c) The Secretary of Defense shall designate the Under Secretary

of Defense for Space, Intelligence, and Information as the Chief Information Officer of the Department of Defense under section

3506(a)(2)(B) of title 44.

(d) The Under Secretary of Defense for Space, Intelligence, and

Information takes precedence in the Department of Defense after the

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.

* * * * * * *

§ 138. Assistant Secretaries of Defense

(a) There are ønine¿ eleven Assistant Secretaries of Defense, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice

and consent of the Senate.

498

(b)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3) Not more than three of the Assistant Secretaries may be assigned duties under the authority of the Under Secretary of Defense

for Space, Intelligence, and Information and shall report to that

Under Secretary.

* * * * * * *

§ 139. Director of Operational Test and Evaluation

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) The Director may communicate views on matters within the

responsibility of the Director directly to the Secretary of Defense

and the Deputy Secretary of Defense without obtaining the approval or concurrence of any other official within the Department

of Defense. The Director shall consult closely with, but the Director

and the Director’s staff are independent of, the øUnder Secretary

of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics and all other officers and entities of the Department of Defense responsible for acquisition.

* * * * * * *

(f) The Director shall prepare an annual report summarizing the

operational test and evaluation activities (including live fire testing

activities) of the Department of Defense during the preceding fiscal

year. Each such report shall be submitted concurrently to the Secretary of Defense, the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition

and Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the Congress not later than 10 days

after the transmission of the budget for the next fiscal year under

section 1105 of title 31. If the Director submits the report to Congress in a classified form, the Director shall concurrently submit an

unclassified version of the report to Congress. The report shall include such comments and recommendations as the Director considers appropriate, including comments and recommendations on

resources and facilities available for operational test and evaluation and levels of funding made available for operational test and

evaluation activities. The Secretary may comment on any report of

the Director to Congress under this subsection.

* * * * * * *

§ ø137.¿ 139a. Director of Defense Research and Engineering

(a) There is a Director of Defense Research and Engineering, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice

and consent of the Senate.

(b) Except as otherwise prescribed by the Secretary of Defense,

the Director of Defense Research and Engineering shall perform

such duties relating to research and engineering as the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics may

prescribe.

* * * * * * *

499

CHAPTER 5—JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

* * * * * * *

§ 153. Chairman: functions

(a) * * *

ø(b) REPORT ON ASSIGNMENT OF ROLES AND MISSIONS.—(1) Not

less than once every three years, or upon the request of the President or the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman shall submit to the

Secretary of Defense a report containing such recommendations for

changes in the assignment of functions (or roles and missions) to

the armed forces as the Chairman considers necessary to achieve

maximum effectiveness of the armed forces. In preparing each such

report, the Chairman shall consider (among other matters) the following:

ø(A) Changes in the nature of the threats faced by the

United States.

ø(B) Unnecessary duplication of effort among the armed

forces.

ø(C) Changes in technology that can be applied effectively to

warfare.

ø(2) The Chairman shall include in each such report recommendations for such changes in policies, directives, regulations,

and legislation as may be necessary to achieve the changes in the

assignment of functions recommended by the Chairman.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 7—BOARDS, COUNCILS, AND COMMITTEES

* * * * * * *

§ 171. Armed Forces Policy Council

(a) There is in the Department of Defense an Armed Forces Policy Council consisting of—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and

Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics;

* * * * * * *

§ 176. Armed Forces Institute of Pathology

(a)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3) The Board of Governors shall consist of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, who shall serve as chairman

of the Board of Governors, the Assistant Secretary of Health and

Human Services for Health, the Surgeons General of the Army,

Navy, and Air Force, the øChief Medical Director¿ Under Secretary

for Health of the Department of Veterans Affairs, and a former DiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00523 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
500

rector of the Institute, as designated by the Secretary of Defense,

or the designee of any of the foregoing.

* * * * * * *

§ 179. Nuclear Weapons Council

(a) There is a Joint Nuclear Weapons Council (hereinafter in this

section referred to as the ‘‘Council’’) composed of three members as

follows:

(1) The øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and

Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

* * * * * * *

§ 184. Department of Defense regional centers for security

studies

(a) ADVANCE NOTIFICATION TO CONGRESS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT

OF NEW REGIONAL CENTERS.—After øthe date of the enactment of

this section,¿ October 30, 2000, a regional center for security studies may not be established in the Department of Defense until— (1) the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress a notification of the intent of the Secretary to establish the center, including a description of the mission and functions of the proposed center and a justification for the proposed center; and

(2) a period of 90 days has elapsed after the date on which

that notification is submitted.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 9—DEFENSE BUDGET MATTERS

Sec.

221. Future-years defense program: submission to Congress; consistency in

budgeting.

* * * * * * *

ø223. Ballistic missile defense programs: program elements.

ø224. Ballistic missile defense programs: display of amounts for procurement.¿

224. Ballistic missile defense programs: display of amounts for research, development, test, and evaluation.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 223. Ballistic missile defense programs: program elements

ø(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

shall be set forth in accordance with the following program

elements:

ø(1) The Patriot system.

ø(2) The Navy Area system.

ø(3) The Theater High-Altitude Area Defense system.

ø(4) The Navy Theater Wide system.

ø(5) The Medium Extended Air Defense System.

ø(6) Joint Theater Missile Defense.

ø(7) National Missile Defense.

501

ø(8) Support Technologies.

ø(9) Family of Systems Engineering and Integration.

ø(10) Ballistic Missile Defense Technical Operations.

ø(11) Threat and Countermeasures.

ø(12) International Cooperative Programs.

ø(b) TREATMENT OF MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION PROGRAMS.—

Amounts requested for Theater Missile Defense and National Missile Defense major defense acquisition programs shall be specified

in individual, dedicated program elements, and amounts appropriated for those programs shall be available only for Ballistic Missile Defense activities.

ø(c) MANAGEMENT AND SUPPORT.—The amount requested for

each program element specified in subsection (a) shall include requests for the amounts necessary for the management and support

of the programs, projects, and activities contained in that program

element.¿

ø§ 224. Ballistic missile defense programs: display of

amounts for procurement¿

§ 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 øprocurement¿ 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 øprocurement¿ research, development, test, and evaluation and, within that account, under the subaccount (or other

budget activity level) for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

ø(b) COVERED PROGRAMS.—Subsection (a) applies to the

following missile defense programs of the Department of Defense:

ø(1) The National Missile Defense Program.

ø(2) Any system that is part of the core theater missile defense program.

ø(3) Any other ballistic missile defense program that enters

production after the date of the enactment of this section and

for which research, development, test, and evaluation was carried out by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

ø(c) CORE THEATER BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM.—For

purposes of this section, the core theater missile defense program

consists of the systems specified in section 234 of the Ballistic Missile Defense Act of 1995 (10 U.S.C. 2431 note).¿

(b) COVERED PROGRAMS.—Subsection (a) applies to any ballistic

missile defense program for which research, development, test, and

evaluation is carried out by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 22—NATIONAL IMAGERY AND MAPPING

AGENCY

* * * * * * *

502

SUBCHAPTER III—PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

Sec.

461. Management rights.

462. Undergraduate training program.

* * * * * * *

§ 462. Undergraduate training program

(a) AUTHORITY TO CARRY OUT PROGRAM.—The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency to establish an undergraduate training program under

which civilian employees of the National Imagery and Mapping

Agency may be assigned as students at accredited professional, technical, and other institutions of higher learning for training at the

undergraduate level in skills critical to effective performance of the

mission of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency. Such training may lead to the award of a baccalaureate degree.

(b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the program authorized by subsection (a) is to facilitate the recruitment of individuals, particularly

minority high school students, with a demonstrated capability to develop skills critical to the mission of the National Imagery and

Mapping Agency, including skills in mathematics, computer science,

engineering, and foreign languages.

(c) REQUIREMENTS.—(1) To be eligible for assignment under subsection (a), an employee of the National Imagery and Mapping

Agency must agree in writing— (A) to continue in the service of the National Imagery and

Mapping Agency for the period of the assignment and to complete the educational course of training for which the employee

is assigned;

(B) to continue in the service of the National Imagery and

Mapping Agency following completion of the assignment for a

period of one-and-a-half years for each year of the assignment

or part thereof;

(C) to reimburse the United States for the total cost of education (excluding the employee’s pay and allowances) provided

under this section to the employee if, before the employee’s completing the educational course of training for which the employee is assigned, the assignment or the employee’s employment

with the National Imagery and Mapping Agency is terminated

either by the National Imagery and Mapping Agency due to

misconduct by the employee or by the employee voluntarily; and

(D) to reimburse the United States if, after completing the

educational course of training for which the employee is assigned, the employee’s employment with the National Imagery

and Mapping Agency is terminated either by the National Imagery and Mapping Agency due to misconduct by the employee

or by the employee voluntarily, before the employee’s completion

of the service obligation period described in subparagraph (B),

in an amount that bears the same ratio to the total cost of the

education (excluding the employee’s pay and allowances) provided to the employee as the unserved portion of the service obligation period described in subparagraph (B) bears to the total

period of the service obligation described in subparagraph (B).

503

(2) Subject to paragraph (3), the obligation to reimburse the

United States under an agreement described in paragraph (1), including interest due on such obligation, is for all purposes a debt

owing the United States.

(3)(A) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11, United States

Code, shall not release a person from an obligation to reimburse the

United States required under an agreement described in paragraph

(1) if the final decree of the discharge in bankruptcy is issued within

five years after the last day of the combined period of service obligation described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1).

(B) The Secretary of Defense may release a person, in whole or in

part, from the obligation to reimburse the United States under an

agreement described in paragraph (1) when, in his discretion, the

Secretary determines that equity or the interests of the United States

so require.

(C) The Secretary of Defense shall permit an employee assigned

under this section who, before commencing a second academic year

of such assignment, voluntarily terminates the assignment or the

employee’s employment with the National Imagery and Mapping

Agency, to satisfy his obligation under an agreement described in

paragraph (1) by reimbursing the United States according to a

schedule of monthly payments which results in completion of reimbursement by a date five years after the date of termination of the

assignment or employment or earlier at the option of the employee.

(d) DISCLOSURE REQUIRED.—(1) When an employee is assigned

under this section to an institution, the Secretary shall disclose to

the institution to which the employee is assigned that the National

Imagery and Mapping Agency employs the employee and that the

National Imagery and Mapping Agency funds the employee’s education.

(2) Efforts by the Secretary to recruit individuals at educational

institutions for participation in the undergraduate training program established by this section shall be made openly and according to the common practices of universities and employers recruiting

at such institutions.

(e) APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS REQUIRED.—The Secretary may pay,

directly or by reimbursement to employees, expenses incident to assignments under subsection (a), in any fiscal year only to the extent

that appropriated funds are available for such purpose.

(f) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN LAWS.—Chapter 41 of title 5 and

subsections (a) and (b) of section 3324 of title 31 shall not apply

with respect to this section.

(g) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Defense may prescribe such

regulations as may be necessary to implement this section.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 23—MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES AND REPORTS

Sec.

480. Department of Defense reports: submission in electronic form.

* * * * * * *

504

§ 480. Department of Defense reports: submission in electronic form

(a) REQUIREMENT.—Whenever the Secretary of Defense or any

other official of the Department of Defense is required by law to submit a report to Congress (or any committee of either House of Congress), the Secretary or other official shall provide to Congress (or

each such committee) a copy of the report in an electronic medium.

(b) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a) does not apply to a report submitted in classified form.

(c) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘report’’ includes any

certification, notification, or other communication in writing.

* * * * * * *

PART II—PERSONNEL

Chap. Sec.

31. Enlistments ..................................................................... 501

* * * * * * *

56. Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree

Health Care Fund .......................................................1111ø.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 31—ENLISTMENTS

* * * * * * *

The text of existing law for section 503(c) is shown to reflect the amendments made to that section by Public Law 106–398, effective July 1, 2002.

§ 503. Enlistments: recruiting campaigns; compilation of directory information

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) ACCESS TO SECONDARY SCHOOLS.—(1) Each local educational

agency shall (except as provided under paragraph (5)) provide to

the Department of Defense, upon a request made for military recruiting øpurposes, the same access to secondary school students,

and to directory information concerning such students, as is provided generally to post-secondary educational institutions or to prospective employers of those students.¿ purposes— (A) the same access to secondary school students as is provided generally to post-secondary educational institutions or to

prospective employers of those students; and

(B) the same access to directory information concerning those

students as is provided to a post-secondary educational institution upon an indication by a secondary school student that the

student seeks to enroll or intends to enroll at that institution.

* * * * * * *

(6) In this subsection:

(A) The term ‘‘local educational agency’’ means—

505

(i) a local educational agency, within the meaning of that

term in section 14101ø(18)¿ of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 8801ø(18)¿); and

* * * * * * *

§ 517. Authorized daily average: members in pay grades

E–8 and E–9

(a) The authorized daily average number of enlisted members on

active duty (other than for training) in an armed force in pay

grades E–8 and E–9 in a fiscal year may not be more than ø2 percent (or, in the case of the Army, 2.5 percent)¿ 2.5 percent and 1

percent, respectively, of the number of enlisted members of that

armed force who are on active duty (other than for training) on the

first day of that fiscal year. In computing the limitations prescribed

in the preceding sentence, there shall be excluded enlisted members of an armed force on active duty (other than for training) in

connection with organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing,

or training the reserve component of an armed force.

* * * * * * *

§ 520c. Recruiting functions: use of funds

(a) PROVISION OF MEALS AND REFRESHMENTS.—Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, funds appropriated to

the Department of Defense for recruitment of military personnel

may be expended for small meals and refreshments during recruiting functions for the following persons:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) Members of the armed forces and Federal employees

when attending ørecruiting events¿ recruiting functions in accordance with a requirement to do so.

(5) Other persons whose presence at ørecruiting efforts¿ recruiting functions will contribute to recruiting efforts.

* * * * * * *

ø(c) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority in subsection

(a) may not be exercised after September 30, 2001.¿

CHAPTER 32—OFFICER STRENGTH AND DISTRIBUTION

IN GRADE

Sec.

521. Authority to prescribe total strengths of officers on active duty and officer

strengths in various categories.

* * * * * * *

ø528. Limitation on number of officers on active duty in grades of general and

admiral.¿

* * * * * * *

506

§ 523. Authorized strengths: commissioned officers on active

duty in grades of major, lieutenant colonel, and

colonel and Navy grades of lieutenant commander,

commander, and captain

(a)(1) Except as provided in subsection (c), of the total number

of commissioned officers serving on active duty in the Army, Air

Force, or Marine Corps at the end of any fiscal year (excluding officers in categories specified in subsection (b)), the number of officers

who may be serving on active duty in each of the grades of major,

lieutenant colonel, and colonel may not, as of the end of such fiscal

year, exceed a number determined in accordance with the following

table:

Total number of commissioned officers (excluding officers in categories specified in subsection (b)) on active duty:

Number of officers who may be serving on active duty

in the grade of:

Major Lieutenant

Colonel Colonel

Army:

20,000 .......................................................... 6,848 5,253 1,613

*******

Air Force:

35,000 .......................................................... ø9,216¿ 9,861 7,090 2,125

40,000 .......................................................... ø10,025¿

10,727

7,478 2,306

45,000 .......................................................... ø10,835¿

11,593

7,866 2,487

50,000 .......................................................... ø11,645¿

12,460

8,253 2,668

55,000 .......................................................... ø12,454¿

13,326

8,641 2,849

60,000 .......................................................... ø13,264¿

14,192

9,029 3,030

65,000 .......................................................... ø14,073¿

15,058

9,417 3,211

70,000 .......................................................... ø14,883¿

15,925

9,805 3,392

75,000 .......................................................... ø15,693¿

16,792

10,193 3,573

80,000 .......................................................... ø16,502¿

17,657

10,582 3,754

85,000 .......................................................... ø17,312¿

18,524

10,971 3,935

90,000 .......................................................... ø18,121¿

19,389

11,360 4,115

95,000 .......................................................... ø18,931¿

20,256

11,749 4,296

100,000 ........................................................ ø19,741¿

21,123

12,138 4,477

105,000 ........................................................ ø20,550¿

21,989

12,527 4,658

110,000 ........................................................ ø21,360¿

22,855

12,915 4,838

115,000 ........................................................ ø22,169¿

23,721

13,304 5,019

120,000 ........................................................ ø22,979¿

24,588

13,692 5,200

507

Total number of commissioned officers (excluding officers in categories specified in subsection (b)) on active duty:

Number of officers who may be serving on active duty

in the grade of:

Major Lieutenant

Colonel Colonel

125,000 ........................................................ ø23,789¿

25,454

14,081 5,381

*******

* * * * * * *

ø§ 528. Limitation on number of officers on active duty in

grades of general and admiral

ø(a) LIMITATION.—The total number of officers on active duty in

the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps in the grade of general and

in the Navy in the grade of admiral may not exceed 32.

ø(b) EXCEPTIONS.—(1) The limitation in subsection (a) does not

apply in the case of an officer serving in the grade of general or

admiral in a position that is specifically exempted by law from

being counted for purposes of limitations by law on the total number of officers that may be on active duty in the grades of general

and admiral or the number of officers that may be on active duty

in that officer’s armed force in the grade of general or admiral.

ø(2) An officer continuing to hold the grade of general or admiral

under section 601(b)(4) of this title after relief from the position of

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Staff of the Army,

Chief of Naval Operations, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, or Commandant of the Marine Corps shall not be counted for purposes of

this section.¿

CHAPTER 33—ORIGINAL APPOINTMENTS OF REGULAR

OFFICERS IN GRADES ABOVE WARRANT OFFICER

GRADES

Sec.

531. Original appointments of commissioned officers.

* * * * * * *

542. Distinguished Graduates of officer commissioning programs other than service

academies and ROTC.

* * * * * * *

§ 532. Qualifications for original appointment as a commissioned officer

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(e) After September 30, 1996, no person may receive an original

appointment as a commissioned officer in the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps until that

person has completed one year of service on active duty as a commissioned officer (other than a warrant officer) of a reserve component.¿

* * * * * * *

508

§ 542. Distinguished Graduates of officer commissioning programs other than service academies and ROTC

A person who is selected for an original appointment as a commissioned officer in the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps as

a result of satisfactory completion of an officer commissioning program other than the course of instruction at one of the service academies named in section 541 of this title or the Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program and who, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the military department concerned, is

designated or selected as a Distinguished Graduate of that program

(or the equivalent) shall be appointed as a regular officer.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 36—PROMOTION, SEPARATION, AND INVOLUNTARY RETIREMENT OF OFFICERS ON THE ACTIVEDUTY LIST

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—PROMOTIONS

* * * * * * *

§ 619. Eligibility for consideration for promotion: time-ingrade and other requirements

ø(a)(1)¿ (a) TIME-IN-GRADE REQUIREMENTS.—(1) An officer who is

on the active-duty list of the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps and

holds a permanent appointment in the grade of second lieutenant

or first lieutenant or is on the active-duty list of the Navy and

holds a permanent appointment in the grade of ensign or lieutenant (junior grade) may not be promoted to the next higher permanent grade until he has completed the following period of service

in the grade in which he holds a permanent appointment:

(A) * * *

(B) Two years, in the case of an officer holding a permanent

appointment in the grade of first lieutenant or lieutenant (junior grade), or such shorter period as may be in effect under

paragraph (6).

* * * * * * *

(4) The Secretary of the military department concerned may

waive paragraph (2) to the extent necessary to assure that officers

described in øclause (A)¿ subparagraph (A) of such paragraph have

at least two opportunities for consideration for promotion to the

next higher grade as officers below the promotion zone.

* * * * * * *

(6)(A) When the needs of the service require, the Secretary of the

military department concerned may reduce to eighteen months the

period of service in grade applicable for purposes of paragraph

(1)(B) in the case of officers who are serving in a position that is

authorized for officers in the grade of captain or, in the case of the

Navy, lieutenant.

(B) If the Secretary of the military department concerned uses the

authority provided in subparagraph (A), the number of captains or,

509

in the case of the Navy, lieutenants on the active-duty list may not

exceed the number of positions for which officers in that grade are

authorized by more than one percent.

(C) The authority under subparagraph (A) and the limitation

under subparagraph (B) expire on September 30, 2005.

ø(b)(1)¿ (b) CONTINUED ELIGIBILITY FOR CONSIDERATION FOR

PROMOTION OF OFFICERS WHO HAVE PREVIOUSLY FAILED OF SELEC- TION.—(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), an officer who has

failed of selection for promotion to the next higher grade remains

eligible for consideration for promotion to that grade as long as he

continues on active duty in other than a retired status and is not

promoted.

* * * * * * *

ø(c)(1)¿ (c) OFFICERS TO BE CONSIDERED BY PROMOTION

BOARDS.—(1) Each time a selection board is convened under section

611(a) of this title for consideration of officers in a competitive category for promotion to the next higher grade, each officer in the

promotion zone (except as provided under paragraph (2)), and each

officer above the promotion zone, for the grade and competitive category under consideration shall be considered for promotion.

* * * * * * *

(d) CERTAIN OFFICERS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED.—A selection

board convened under section 611(a) of this title may not consider

for promotion to the next higher grade any of the following officers:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

§ 619a. Eligibility for consideration for promotion: joint

duty assignment required before promotion to general or flag grade; exceptions

(a) GENERAL RULE.—An officer on the active-duty list of the

Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps may not be appointed to

the grade of brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half) øunless

the officer has completed a full tour of duty in a joint duty assignment (as described in section 664(f) of this title).¿ unless— (1) the officer has completed a full tour of duty in a joint duty

assignment (as described in section 664(f) of this title); and

(2) for appointments after September 30, 2007, the officer has

been selected for the joint specialty in accordance with section

661 of this title.

(b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary of Defense ømay waive subsection (a) in the following circumstances:¿

may waive paragraph (1) or paragraph (2) of subsection (a), or both

paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a), in the following circumstances (except that paragraph (2) of subsection (a) may not be

waived by reason of paragraph (4)):

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER IV—CONTINUATION ON ACTIVE DUTY AND

SELECTIVE EARLY RETIREMENT

* * * * * * *

510

§ 638a. Modification to rules for continuation on active

duty; enhanced authority for selective early retirement and early discharges

(a) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a

military department, during the period beginning on October 1,

1990, and ending on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002, to take any of the

actions set forth in subsection (b) with respect to officers of an

armed force under the jurisdiction of that Secretary.

* * * * * * *

§ 640. Deferment of retirement or separation for medical

reasons

øThe Secretary of the military department concerned may defer

the retirement or separation under this title of any officer if the

evaluation of the physical condition of the officer and determination

of the officer’s entitlement to retirement or separation for physical

disability require hospitalization or medical observation that cannot be completed before the date on which the officer would otherwise be required to retire or be separated under this title.¿

(a) If the Secretary of the military department concerned determines that the evaluation of the physical condition of an 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 member’s

well being before the date on which the officer would otherwise be

required to retire or be separated under this title, the Secretary may

defer the retirement or separation of the officer under this title.

(b) A deferral of retirement or separation under subsection (a)

may not extend for more than 30 days after completion of the evaluation requiring hospitalization or medical observation.

SUBCHAPTER V—ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO

PROMOTION, SEPARATION, AND RETIREMENT

* * * * * * *

§ 641. Applicability of chapter

Officers in the following categories are not subject to this chapter

(other than section 640 and, in the case of warrant officers, section

628):

(1) Reserve officers—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(D) on the reserve active-status list who are on active

duty under section 12301(d) of this title, other than as provided in subparagraph (C), under a call or order to active

duty specifying a period of three years or less;¿

(D) on active duty under section 12301(d) of this title,

other than as provided under subparagraph (C), if the call

or order to active duty, under regulations prescribed by the

511

Secretary concerned, specifies a period of three years or less

and continued placement on the reserve active-status list;

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 38—JOINT OFFICER MANAGEMENT

* * * * * * *

§ 661. Management policies for joint specialty officers

(a) * * *

(b) NUMBERS AND SELECTION.—(1) * * *

(2) Officers shall be selected for the joint specialty by the Secretary of Defense with the advice of the Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs of Staff. øThe Secretaries of the military departments shall

nominate officers for selection for the joint specialty. Nominations

shall be made from among officers—¿ Each officer on the activeduty list on the date of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 who has not before that date

been nominated for the joint specialty by the Secretary of a military

department, and each officer who is placed on the active-duty list

after such date, who meets the requirements of subsection (c) shall

automatically be considered to have been nominated for the joint

specialty. From among those officers considered to be nominated for

the joint specialty, the Secretary may select for the joint specialty

only officers—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

§ 663. Education

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) DURATION OF PRINCIPAL COURSE OF INSTRUCTION AT øARMED

FORCES STAFF COLLEGE¿ JOINT FORCES STAFF COLLEGE.—(1) The

duration of the principal course of instruction offered at the

øArmed Forces Staff College¿ Joint Forces Staff College may not be

less than three months.

* * * * * * *

§ 664. Length of joint duty assignments

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i) JOINT DUTY CREDIT FOR CERTAIN JOINT TASK FORCE ASSIGNMENTS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe by regulation criteria

for determining whether an officer may be granted credit under

paragraph (1) with respect to service in a qualifying temporary

joint task force assignment. The criteria shall apply uniformly

among the armed forces and shall include the following requirements:

512

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(E) øThe¿ Except as provided in subparagraph (F), the joint

task force must conduct combat or combat-related operations in

a unified action under joint or multinational command and

control.

(F) Service in a temporary joint task force assignment not involved in combat or combat-related operations may not be credited for the purposes of joint duty, unless, and only if—

(i) the service of the officer and the nature of the joint

task force not only meet all criteria of this section, except

subparagraph (E), but also any additional criteria the Secretary may establish;

(ii) the Secretary has specifically approved the operation

conducted by the joint task force as one that qualifies for

joint service credit, and notifies Congress upon each approval, providing the criteria that led to that approval; and

(iii) the operation is conducted by the joint task force in

an environment where an extremely fragile state of peace

and high potential for hostilities coexist.

* * * * * * *

§ 667. Annual report to Congress

The Secretary of Defense shall include in the annual report of

the Secretary to Congress under section 113(c) of this title, for the

period covered by the report, the following information (which shall

be shown for the Department of Defense as a whole and separately

for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps):

(1)(A) The number of officers selected for the joint specialty

and their education and experience.

(B) The number of officers who meet the criteria for selection

for the joint specialty but were not selected, together with the

reasons why.

ø(2) The military occupational specialties within each of the

armed forces that have been designated as critical occupational

specialties under section 661(c)(2) of this title, separately identifying those specialties for which there is a severe shortage of

trained officers, together with an explanation of how those specialties meet the criteria for that designation in section

661(c)(2)(B) of this title.¿

(2) The number of officers with the joint specialty, shown by

grade and branch or specialty and by education.

(3) The number of officers on the active-duty list with a military occupational specialty designated under section 661(c)(2)

of this title as a critical occupational specialty who—

(A) have been ønominated¿ selected for the joint specialty;

(B) have been ønominated¿ selected for the joint specialty and are serving in a joint duty assignment;

* * * * * * *

(D) have completed an appropriate program at a joint

professional military education school; and

513

ø(E) have been selected for the joint specialty; and¿

ø(F)¿ (E) have served, or are serving in, a second joint

duty assignment after being selected for the joint specialty,

with the number of such officers who have served, or are

serving, in a critical joint duty assignment shown separately for general and flag officers, and for all other officers.

(4) For each fiscal year— (A) the number of officers ønominated¿ selected for the

joint specialty and, of those, the number who have a military occupational specialty designated as a critical occupational specialty; and

* * * * * * *

(14)(A) An analysis of the extent to which the Secretary of

each military department is providing officers to fill that department’s share (as determined by law or by the Secretary of

Defense) of Joint Staff and other joint duty assignments, including the reason for any significant failure by a military department to fill its share of such positions and a discussion of

the actions being taken to correct the shortfall.

(B) An assessment of the extent to which the Secretary of each

military department is assigning personnel to joint duty assignments in accordance with this chapter and the policies, procedures, and practices established by the Secretary of Defense

under section 661(a) of this title.

* * * * * * *

(16) The number of officers granted credit for service in joint

duty assignments under øsection 664(i)¿ subparagraphs (E)

and (F) of section 664(i)(4) of this title and—

(A) * * *

(B) the identity of each operation for which an officer

has been granted credit pursuant to øsection 664(i)¿ subparagraphs (E) and (F) of section 664(i)(4) of this title and

a brief description of the mission of the operation.

(17) With regard to each time the principal course of instruction at the øArmed Forces Staff College¿ Joint Forces Staff

College is offered—

(A) * * *

(B) the number of those officers as a percentage of all officers who attended that course of instruction at the

øArmed Forces Staff College¿ Joint Forces Staff College;

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 39—ACTIVE DUTY

* * * * * * *

§ 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:

514

(1) * * *

(2) For the Navy, ø372,000¿ 376,000.

* * * * * * *

(4) For the Air Force, ø357,000¿ 358,800.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 47—UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—APPREHENSION AND RESTRAINT

* * * * * * *

§ 814. Art. 14. Delivery of offenders to civil authorities

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Secretaries of

the military departments prescribe regulations under subsection (a)

and that those regulations are uniform throughout the armed forces

under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense. Those regulations

shall—

(1) specifically provide for the delivery to the appropriate civil

authority for trial, in any appropriate case, of a member accused by civil authority of parental kidnapping or a similar offense, including criminal contempt arising from any such offense or from child custody matters; and

(2) specifically address the special needs for the exercise of the

authority contained in this section (article) in a case in which

a member of the armed forces assigned overseas is accused of

an offense by civil authority.

SUBCHAPTER IV—COURT-MARTIAL JURISDICTION

* * * * * * *

§ 816. Art. 16. Courts-martial classified

The three kinds of courts-martial in each of the armed forces

are—

(1) general courts-martial, consisting of—

(A) a military judge and not less than five members or,

in a case in which the accused may be sentenced to a penalty of death, the number of members determined under

section 825a of this title (article 25a); or

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER V—COMPOSITION OF COURTS-MARTIAL

Sec. Art.

822. 22. Who may convene general courts-martial.

* * * * * * *

825a. 25a. Number of members in capital cases.

* * * * * * *

515

§ 825a. Art. 25a. Number of members in capital cases

In a case in which the accused may be sentenced to a penalty of

death, the number of members shall be not less than 12, unless 12

members are not reasonably available because of physical conditions

or military exigencies, in which case the convening authority shall

specify a lesser number of members not less than five, and the court

may be assembled and the trial held with not less than the number

of members so specified. In such a case, the convening authority

shall make a detailed written statement, to be appended to the

record, stating why a greater number of members were not reasonably available.

* * * * * * *

§ 829. Art. 29. Absent and additional members

(a) * * *

(b)(1) Whenever a general court-martial, other than a general

court-martial composed of a military judge only, is reduced below

øfive members¿ the applicable minimum number of members, the

trial may not proceed unless the convening authority details new

members sufficient in number to provide not less than øfive members¿ the applicable minimum number of members. The trial may

proceed with the new members present after the recorded evidence

previously introduced before the members of the court has been

read to the court in the presence of the military judge, the accused,

and counsel for both sides.

(2) In this section, the term ‘‘applicable minimum number of

members’’ means five members or, in a case in which the death penalty may be adjudged, the number of members determined under

section 825a of this title (article 25a).

* * * * * * *

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.

* * * * * * *

§ 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 courtmartial 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.

516

(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.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER IX—POST-TRIAL PROCEDURE AND REVIEW

OF COURTS-MARTIAL

* * * * * * *

§ 874. Art. 74. Remission and suspension

(a) The Secretary concerned and, when designated by him, any

Under Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Judge Advocate General, or

commanding officer may remit or suspend any part or amount of

the unexecuted part of any sentence, including all uncollected forfeitures other than a sentence approved by the President. However,

in the case of a sentence of confinement for life without eligibility

for parole that is adjudged for an offense committed after October

29, 2000, after the sentence is ordered executed, the authority of

the Secretary concerned under the preceding sentence (1) may not

be delegated, and (2) may be exercised only after the service of a

period of confinement of not less than 20 years.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 49—MISCELLANEOUS PROHIBITIONS AND

PENALTIES

* * * * * * *

§ 980. Limitation on use of humans as experimental subjects

(a) Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense may not be

used for research involving a human being as an experimental subject unless—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b) The Secretary of Defense may waive the prohibition in this section with respect to a specific research project to advance the development of a medical product necessary to the armed forces if the research project is carried out in accordance with all other applicable

laws.

* * * * * * *

§ 986. Security clearances: limitations

(a) PROHIBITION.—After øthe date of the enactment of this section,¿ October 30, 2000, the Department of Defense may not grant

or renew a security clearance for a person to whom this section applies who is described in subsection (c).

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 50—MISCELLANEOUS COMMAND

RESPONSIBILITIES

* * * * * * *

517

§ 991. Management of deployments of members

(a) * * *

(b) DEPLOYMENT DEFINED.—(1) For the purposes of this section,

a member of the armed forces shall be considered to be deployed

or in a deployment on any day on which, pursuant to orders, the

member is performing active service in a training exercise or operation at a location or under circumstances that make it impossible

or infeasible for the member to spend off-duty time in the housing

in which the member resides when on garrison duty at the member’s permanent duty station or homeport, as the case may be. For

the purpose of applying the preceding sentence to a member of a reserve component performing active service, the housing in which the

member resides when on garrison duty at the member’s permanent

duty station or homeport, as the case may be, shall be considered

to be either the housing the member normally occupies when on garrison duty or the member’s permanent civilian residence.

ø(2) In the case of a member of a reserve component performing

active service, the member shall be considered deployed or in a deployment for the purposes of paragraph (1) on any day on which,

pursuant to orders that do not establish a permanent change of

station, the member is performing the active service at a location

that—

ø(A) is not the member’s permanent training site; and

ø(B) is—ø(i) at least 100 miles from the member’s permanent residence; or

ø(ii) a lesser distance from the member’s permanent residence that, under the circumstances applicable to the

member’s travel, is a distance that requires at least three

hours of travel to traverse.¿

ø(3)¿ (2) For the purposes of this section, a member is not deployed or in a deployment when the member is— (A) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(4)¿ (3) The Secretary of Defense may prescribe a definition of

deployment for the purposes of this section other than the definition specified øin paragraphs (1) and (2)¿ in paragraph (1). Any

such definition may not take effect until 90 days after the date on

which the Secretary notifies the Committee on Armed Services of

the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of

Representatives of the revised standard definition of deployment.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 53—MISCELLANEOUS RIGHTS AND BENEFITS

* * * * * * *

§ 1044a. Authority to act as notary

(a) * * *

(b) Persons with the powers described in subsection (a) are the

following:

(1) * * *

518

(2) All civilian attorneys serving as ølegal assistance officers¿ legal assistance attorneys.

* * * * * * *

(4) All other members of the armed forces, including reserve

members when not in a duty status, and, when outside the

United States, all civilian employees of the Department of Defense, who are designated by regulations of the armed forces or

the Department of Defense or by statute to have those powers.

* * * * * * *

§ 1056. Relocation assistance programs

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) MILITARY RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS.—(1) * * *

(2) The Secretary shall ensure thatø, not later than September

30, 1991,¿ information available through each military relocation

assistance program shall be managed through a computerized information system that can interact with all other military relocation assistance programs of the military departments, including

programs located outside the continental United States.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 54—COMMISSARY AND EXCHANGE BENEFITS

Sec.

1061. Survivors of certain Reserve and Guard members.

* * * * * * *

ø1063. Use of commissary stores: members of Ready Reserve with at least 50 creditable points.¿

1063. Use of commissary stores: members of Ready Reserve.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 1063. Use of commissary stores: members of Ready Reserve with at least 50 creditable points

ø(a) ELIGIBILITY OF MEMBERS OF READY RESERVE.—A member of

the Ready Reserve who satisfactorily completes 50 or more points

creditable under section 12732(a)(2) of this title in a calendar year

shall be eligible to use commissary stores of the Department of Defense. The Secretary concerned shall authorize the member to have

24 days of eligibility for any calendar year that the member qualifies for eligibility under this subsection.¿

§ 1063. Use of commissary stores: members of Ready Reserve

(a) ELIGIBILITY.—Subject to subsection (c), the Secretary concerned shall authorize members of the Ready Reserve described in

subsection (b) to have 24 days of eligibility to use commissary stores

of the Department of Defense for any calendar year.

(b) COVERED MEMBERS.—Subsection (a) applies with respect to

the following members of the Ready Reserve:

(1) A member of the Selected Reserve who is satisfactorily

participating in required training as prescribed in section

10147(a)(1) of this title or section 502(a) of title 32 in that calendar year.

519

(2) A member of the Ready Reserve (other than a member described in paragraph (1)) who satisfactorily completes 50 or

more points credible under section 12732(a)(2) of this title in

that calendar year.

(c) REDUCED NUMBER OF COMMISSARY VISITS FOR NEW MEMBERS.—The number of commissary visits authorized for a member

of the Selected Reserve described in subsection (b)(1) who enters the

Selected Reserve after the beginning of the calendar year shall be

equal to twice the number of full months remaining in the calendar

year.

ø(b)¿ (d) EFFECT OF COMPENSATION OR TYPE OF DUTY.—Subsection (a) shall apply without regard to whether, during the calendar year, the member receives compensation for the duty or

training performed by the member or performs active duty for

training.

ø(c)¿ (e) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary concerned shall prescribe

regulations, subject to the approval of the Secretary of Defense, to

carry out this section.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 55—MEDICAL AND DENTAL CARE

Sec.

1071. Purpose of this chapter.

* * * * * * *

1074j. Sub-acute care program.

1074k. Long-term care insurance.

* * * * * * *

§ 1072. Definitions

In this chapter:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(7) The term ‘‘TRICARE program’’ means the managed

health care program that is established by the Department of

Defense under the authority of this chapter, principally section

1097 of this title, and includes øthe competitive selection of

contractors to financially underwrite¿ the delivery of health

care services under the Civilian Health and Medical Program

of the Uniformed Services.

(8) The term ‘‘custodial care’’ means treatment or services, regardless of who recommends such treatment or services or

where such treatment or services are provided, that—

(A) can be rendered safely and reasonably by a person

who is not medically skilled; or

(B) is or are designed mainly to help the patient with the

activities of daily living.

(9) The term ‘‘domiciliary care’’ means care provided to a patient in an institution or homelike environment because—

(A) providing support for the activities of daily living in

the home is not available or is unsuitable; or

520

(B) members of the patient’s family are unwilling to provide the care.

* * * * * * *

§ 1074a. Medical and dental care: members on duty other

than active duty for a period of more than 30 days

(a) Under joint regulations prescribed by the administering Secretaries, the following persons are entitled to the benefits described

in subsection (b):

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) Each member of the armed forces who incurs or aggravates an injury, illness, or disease in the line of duty while remaining overnight immediately before the commencement of

inactive-duty training, or while remaining overnight, between

successive periods of inactive-duty training, at or in the vicinity of the site of the inactive-duty trainingø, if the site is outside reasonable commuting distance from the member’s residence¿.

* * * * * * *

§ 1074g. Pharmacy benefits program

(a) PHARMACY BENEFITS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(8) In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary shall ensure

that an eligible covered beneficiary may continue to receive coverage for any maintenance pharmaceutical that is not on the uniform formulary and that was prescribed for the beneficiary before

øthe date of the enactment of this section¿ October 5, 1999, and

stabilized the medical condition of the beneficiary.

* * * * * * *

§ 1074i. Reimbursement for certain travel expenses

In any case in which a covered beneficiary is referred by a primary care physician to a specialty care provider who provides services more than 100 miles from the location in which the primary

care provider provides services to the covered beneficiary, the Secretary shall provide reimbursement for reasonable travel expenses

for the covered beneficiary. In any case in which reimbursement of

travel expenses of a covered beneficiary who is a minor and dependent is required under this section, the Secretary also shall provide

reimbursement for reasonable travel expenses of the parent or

guardian of, or the family member responsible for, such covered

beneficiary.

§ 1074j. Sub-acute care program

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of Defense shall establish an

effective, efficient, and integrated sub-acute care benefits program

under this chapter (hereinafter referred to in this section as the

‘‘program’’). Except as otherwise provided in this section, the types

of health care authorized under the program shall be the same as

521

those provided under section 1079 of this title. The Secretary, after

consultation with the other administering Secretaries, shall promulgate regulations to carry out this section.

(b) BENEFITS.—(1) The program shall include a uniform skilled

nursing facility benefit that shall be provided in the manner and

under the conditions described in section 1861(h) and (i) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(h) and (i)), except that the limitation on the number of days of coverage under section 1812(a) and

(b) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395d(a) and (b)) shall not be applicable

under the program. Skilled nursing facility care for each spell of illness shall continue to be provided for as long as medically necessary

and appropriate.

(2) In this subsection:

(A) The term ‘‘skilled nursing facility’’ has the meaning given

such term in section 1819(a) of the Social Security Act (42

U.S.C. 1395i–3(a)).

(B) The term ‘‘spell of illness’’ has the meaning given such

term in section 1861(a) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(a)).

(3) The program shall include a comprehensive, intermittent home

health care benefit that shall be provided in the manner and under

the conditions described in section 1861(m) of the Social Security

Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(m)).

§ 1074k. Long-term care insurance

Provisions regarding long-term care insurance for members and

certain former members of the uniformed services and their families

are set forth in chapter 90 of title 5.

* * * * * * *

§ 1076. Medical and dental care for dependents: general rule

(a)(1)***

(2) A dependent referred to in paragraph (1) is a dependent of

a member of a uniformed service described in one of the following

subparagraphs:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) A member who died from an injury, illness, or disease incurred or aggravated in the line of duty while the member remained overnight immediately before the commencement of inactive-duty training, or while the member remained overnight

between successive periods of inactive-duty training, at or in

the vicinity of the site of the inactive-duty trainingø, if the site

was outside reasonable commuting distance from the member’s

residence¿.

* * * * * * *

§ 1079. Contracts for medical care for spouses and children:

plans

(a) To assure that medical care is available for dependents, as described in subparagraphs (A), (D), and (I) of section 1072(2) of this

title, of members of the uniformed services who are on active duty

for a period of more than 30 days, the Secretary of Defense, after

522

consulting with the other administering Secretaries, shall contract,

under the authority of this section, for medical care for those persons under such insurance, medical service, or health plans as he

considers appropriate. The types of health care authorized under

this section shall be the same as those provided under section 1076

of this title, except as follows:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(17)(A) The Secretary of Defense may establish a program

for the individual case management of a person covered by this

section or section 1086 of this title who has extraordinary medical or psychological disorders and, under such a program, may

waive benefit limitations contained in paragraphs (5) and (13)

of this subsection or section 1077(b)(1) of this title and authorize the payment for comprehensive home health care services,

supplies, and equipment if the Secretary determines that such

a waiver is cost-effective and appropriate.

ø(B) The total amount expended under subparagraph (A) for a fiscal year may not exceed $100,000,000.¿

* * * * * * *

ø(d) Under joint regulations to be prescribed by the administering Secretaries, in the case of a dependent, as described in

subparagraph (A), (D), or (I) of section 1072(2) of this title, of a

member of the uniformed services on active duty for a period of

more than 30 days, who is moderately or severely mentally retarded or who has a serious physical handicap, the plans covered

by subsection (a) shall, with respect to the retardation or handicap

of such dependent, include the following:

ø(1) Diagnosis.

ø(2) Inpatient, outpatient, and home treatment.

ø(3) Training, rehabilitation, and special education.

ø(4) Institutional care in private nonprofit, public and State

institutions and facilities and, when appropriate, transportation to and from such institutions and facilities.

ø(e) Members shall be required to share in the cost of any benefits provided their dependents under subsection (d) as follows:

ø(1) Except as provided in clause (3), members in the lowest

enlisted pay grade shall be required to pay the first $25 incurred each month and members in the highest commissioned

pay grade shall similarly be required to pay $250 per month.

The amounts to be similarly paid by members in all other pay

grades shall be determined under joint regulations to be prescribed by the administering Secretaries.

ø(2) Except as provided in clause (4), the Government’s share

of the cost of any benefits provided in a particular case under

subsection (d) shall not exceed $1,000 per month.

ø(3) Members shall also be required to pay each month that

amount, if any, remaining after the Government’s maximum

share has been reached.

ø(4) A member who has more than one dependent incurring

expenses in a given month under a plan covered by subsection

(d) shall not be required to pay an amount greater than he

would be required to pay if he had but one such dependent.

523

ø(f) To qualify for the benefits provided by subsection (d), members shall be required to use public facilities to the extent they are

available and adequate as determined under joint regulations of

the administering Secretaries.¿

(d)(1) The Secretary of Defense shall establish a program to provide extended benefits for eligible dependents, which may include

the provision of comprehensive health care services, including case

management services, to assist in the reduction of the disabling effects of a qualifying condition of an eligible dependent. Registration

shall be required to receive the extended benefits.

(2) The Secretary of Defense, after consultation with the other administering Secretaries, shall promulgate regulations to carry out

this subsection.

(3) In this subsection:

(A) The term ‘‘eligible dependent’’ means a dependent of a

member of the uniformed services on active duty for a period of

more than 30 days, as described in subparagraph (A), (D), or

(I) of section 1072(2) of this title, who has a qualifying condition.

(B) The term ‘‘qualifying condition’’ means the condition of a

dependent who is moderately or severely mentally retarded, has

a serious physical disability, or has an extraordinary physical

or psychological condition.

(e) Extended benefits for eligible dependents under subsection (d)

may include comprehensive health care services with respect to the

qualifying condition of such a dependent, and include, to the extent

such benefits are not provided under provisions of this chapter other

than under this section, the following:

(1) Diagnosis.

(2) Inpatient, outpatient, and comprehensive home health

care supplies and services.

(3) Training, rehabilitation, and special education.

(4) Institutional care in private nonprofit, public, and State

institutions and facilities and, if appropriate, transportation to

and from such institutions and facilities.

(5) Custodial care, notwithstanding the prohibition in section

1077(b)(1) of this title.

(6) Respite care for the primary caregiver of the eligible dependent.

(7) Such other services and supplies as determined appropriate by the Secretary, notwithstanding the limitations in subsection (a)(13).

(f) Members shall be required to share in the cost of any benefits

provided to their dependents under subsection (d) as follows:

(1) Members in the lowest enlisted pay grade shall be required to pay the first $25 incurred each month, and members

in the highest commissioned pay grade shall be required to pay

the first $250 incurred each month. The amounts to be paid by

members in all other pay grades shall be determined under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense in consultation with the administering Secretaries.

(2) A member who has more than one dependent incurring expenses in a given month under a plan covered by subsection (d)

524

shall not be required to pay an amount greater than would be

required if the member had only one such dependent.

* * * * * * *

(h)(1)***

(2) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the other administering Secretaries, shall prescribe regulations to provide for

such exceptions to the payment limitations under paragraph (1) as

the Secretary determines to be necessary to assure that covered

beneficiaries retain adequate access to health care services. Such

exceptions may include the payment of amounts higher than the

amount allowed under paragraph (1) when enrollees in managed

care programs obtain covered services from nonparticipating providers. To provide a suitable transition from the payment methodologies in effect before øthe date of the enactment of this paragraph¿ February 10, 1996, to the methodology required by paragraph (1), the amount allowable for any service may not be reduced

by more than 15 percent below the amount allowed for the same

service during the immediately preceding 12-month period (or other

period as established by the Secretary of Defense).

* * * * * * *

§ 1095c. TRICARE program: facilitation of processing of

claims

(a) * * *

(b) REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE START-UP TIME FOR CERTAIN CONTRACTORS.—(1) øThe¿ Except as provided in paragraph (3), the Secretary of Defense shall not require that a contractor described in

paragraph (2) begin to provide managed care support pursuant to

a contract to provide such support under the TRICARE program

until at least nine months after the date of the award of the øcontract. In such case the contractor may begin to provide managed

care support pursuant to the contract as soon as practicable after

the award of the¿ contract, but in no case later than one year after

the date of such award.

* * * * * * *

(3) The Secretary may reduce the nine-month start-up period required under paragraph (1) if— (A) the Secretary— (i) determines that a shorter period is sufficient to ensure

effective implementation of all contract requirements; and

(ii) submits notification to the Committees on Armed

Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate of

the Secretary’s intent to reduce the nine-month start-up period; and

(B) 60 days have elapsed since the date of such notification.

* * * * * * *

§ 1097a. TRICARE Prime: automatic enrollments; payment

options

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

525

(e) NO COPAYMENT FOR IMMEDIATE FAMILY.—No copayment shall

be charged a member for care provided under TRICARE Prime to

a dependent of a member of the uniformed services described in

subparagraph (A), (D), or (I) of section ø1072¿ 1072(2) of this title.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 56—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MEDICAREELIGIBLE RETIREE HEALTH CARE FUND

Sec.

ø1111. Establishment and purpose of Fund; definitions.¿

1111. Establishment and purpose of Fund; definitions; authority to enter into agreements.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 1111. Establishment and purpose of Fund; definitions¿

§ 1111. Establishment and purpose of Fund; definitions; authority to enter into agreements

(a) There is established on the books of the Treasury a fund to

be known as the Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree

Health Care Fund (øhereafter¿ hereinafter in this chapter referred

to as the ‘‘Fund’’), which shall be administered by the Secretary of

the Treasury. The Fund shall be used for the accumulation of funds

in order to finance on an actuarially sound basis liabilities of the

Department of Defense under designated Department of Defense

retiree health care programs for medicare-eligible beneficiaries.

ø(b) In this chapter:

ø(1) The term ‘‘Department of Defense retiree health care

programs for medicare-eligible beneficiaries’’ means the provisions of this title or any other provision of law creating entitlement to health care for a medicare-eligible member or former

member of the uniformed services entitled to retired or retainer pay, or a medicare-eligible dependent of a member or

former member of the uniformed services entitled to retired or

retainer pay.

ø(2) The term ‘‘medicare-eligible’’ means entitled to benefits

under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

1395c et seq.).

ø(3) The term ‘‘dependent’’ means a dependent (as such term

is defined in section 1072 of this title) described in section

1076(b)(1) of this title.¿

(b) In this chapter:

(1) The term ‘‘Department of Defense retiree health care programs’’ means the provisions of this title or any other provision

of law creating an entitlement to or eligibility for health care

under a Department of Defense or uniformed services program

for a member or former member of a participating uniformed

service who is entitled to retired or retainer pay, and an eligible

dependent under such program.

(2) The term ‘‘designated Department of Defense health care

program’’ means a program described in paragraph (1) of this

subsection that is designated under section 1113(c).

(3) The term ‘‘eligible dependent’’ means a dependent (as such

term is defined in section 1072(2)) described in section

526

1076(a)(2) (other than a dependent of a member on active duty),

1076(b), 1086(c)(2), or 1086(c)(3)).

(4) The term ‘‘medicare-eligible’’, with respect to any person,

means entitled to benefits under part A of title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395c et seq.).

(5) The term ‘‘participating uniformed service’’ means the

Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, and any other uniformed service that is covered by an agreement entered into

under subsection (c).

(c) The Secretary of Defense may enter into an agreement with

any other administering Secretary for participation in the Fund by

a uniformed service under the jurisdiction of that Secretary. Any

such agreement shall require that Secretary to make contributions

to the Fund on behalf of the members of the uniformed service

under the jurisdiction of that Secretary comparable to the contributions to the Fund made by the Secretary of Defense under section

1116.

§ 1112. Assets of Fund

There shall be deposited into the Fund the following, which shall

constitute the assets of the Fund:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) Amounts paid into the Fund pursuant to section 1111(c).

§ 1113. Payments from the Fund

ø(a) There shall be paid from the Fund amounts payable for Department of Defense retiree health care programs for medicare-eligible beneficiaries.¿

(a) There shall be paid from the Fund amounts payable for the

costs of designated Department of Defense retiree health care programs for the benefit of members or former members of a participating uniformed service who are entitled to retired or retainer pay

and are medicare-eligible, and eligible dependents described in section 1111(b)(3) who are medicare-eligible.

* * * * * * *

(c) For purposes of payments from the Fund under subsection (a),

the Secretary of Defense shall designate the program authorized by

section 1086 of this title.

§ 1114. Board of Actuaries

(a)(1) There is established in the Department of Defense a Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Board

of Actuaries (øhereafter¿ hereinafter in this chapter referred to as

the ‘‘Board’’). The Board shall consist of three members who shall

be appointed by the Secretary of Defense from among qualified professional actuaries who are members of the Society of Actuaries.

* * * * * * *

§ 1115. Determination of contributions to the Fund

(a) The Board shall determine the amount that is the present

value (as of October 1, 2002) of future benefits payable from the

527

Fund that are attributable to service in the participating uniformed

services performed before October 1, 2002. That amount is the

original unfunded liability of the Fund. The Board shall determine

the period of time over which the original unfunded liability should

be liquidated and shall determine an amortization schedule for the

liquidation of such liability over that period. Contributions to the

Fund for the liquidation of the original unfunded liability in accordance with such schedule shall be made as provided in section

1116(b) of this title.

(b)(1) The Secretary of Defense shall determine each year, in sufficient time for inclusion in budget requests for the following fiscal

year, the total amount of Department of Defense contributions to

be made to the Fund during that fiscal year under section 1116(a)

of this title. That amount shall be the sum of the following:

(A) The product of—

(i) * * *

(ii) the expected average force strength during that fiscal

year for members of the uniformed services under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense on active duty (other

than active duty for training) and full-time National Guard

duty (other than full-time National Guard duty for training only).

(B) The product of—

(i) * * *

(ii) the expected average force strength during that fiscal

year for members of the Ready Reserve of the uniformed

services under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense

(other than members on full-time National Guard duty

other than for training) who are not otherwise described in

subparagraph (A)(ii).

* * * * * * *

§ 1116. Payments into the Fund

(a) The Secretary of Defense shall pay into the Fund at the end

of each month as the Department of Defense contribution to the

Fund for that month the amount that is the sum of the following:

(1) The product of—

(A) * * *

(B) the total end strength for that month for members

of the uniformed services under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense on active duty (other than active duty for

training) and full-time National Guard duty (other than

full-time National Guard duty for training only).

(2) The product of—

(A) * * *

(B) the total end strength for that month for members

of the Ready Reserve of the uniformed services under the

jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense other than members

on full-time National Guard duty (other than for training)

who are not otherwise described in paragraph (1)(B).

Amounts paid into the Fund under this subsection shall be

paid from funds available for the Defense Health Program.

(b)(1)***

528

(2) At the beginning of each fiscal year the Secretary of Defense

shall determine the sum of the following:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(D) The amount (including any negative amount) for that

year under the most recent amortization schedule determined

by the Secretary of Defense under section ø111(c)(4)¿

1115(c)(4) of this title for the amortization of any cumulative

actuarial gain or loss to the Fund resulting from actuarial experience.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 57—DECORATIONS AND AWARDS

Sec.

1121. Legion of Merit: award.

* * * * * * *

1134. Cold War service medal.

* * * * * * *

§ 1134. Cold War service medal

(a) MEDAL AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary concerned shall, upon

application, issue the Cold War service medal to a person eligible

to receive that medal. The Cold War service medal shall be of an

appropriate design approved by the Secretary of Defense, with ribbons, lapel pins, and other appurtenances.

(b) ELIGIBILITY.—(1) A person is eligible to receive the Cold War

service medal if the person— (A) served on active duty during the Cold War;

(B) has not been released from active duty with a characterization of service less favorable than honorable and has not received a discharge less favorable than an honorable discharge;

and

(C) except as provided under paragraph (3), meets the service

requirements of paragraph (2).

(2) The service requirements of this paragraph are—

(A) in the case of a person who served on active duty during

the Cold War as an enlisted member, that the person have completed that person’s initial term of enlistment and after the end

of that initial term of enlistment have reenlisted for an additional term of enlistment or have been appointed as an officer;

and

(B) in the case of a person who served on active duty during

the Cold War as an officer, that the person have completed that

person’s initial service obligation as an officer and have served

in the armed forces after completing that initial service obligation.

(3) The Secretary concerned, under regulations prescribed under

this section, may waive the service requirements of paragraph (2)—

(A) in the case of any person discharged or released from active duty for a disability incurred or aggravated in line of duty;

(B) in the case of any person discharged for hardship under

section 1173 of this title; and

529

(C) under any other circumstance for which the Secretary determines that such a waiver is warranted.

(c) ONE AWARD AUTHORIZED.—Not more than one Cold War service medal may be issued to any person.

(d) ISSUANCE TO REPRESENTATIVE OF DECEASED.—If a person

who is eligible for the Cold War service medal dies before being

issued that medal, the medal may, upon application, be issued to

the person’s representative, as designated by the Secretary concerned.

(e) REPLACEMENT.—Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary

concerned, a Cold War service medal that is lost, destroyed, or rendered unfit for use without fault or neglect on the part of the person

to whom it was issued may be replaced without charge.

(f) UNIFORM REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that regulations prescribed by the Secretaries of the military

departments under this section are uniform so far as is practicable.

(g) COLD WAR DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘Cold War’’ means the period beginning on September 2, 1945, and ending at

the end of December 26, 1991.

CHAPTER 58—BENEFITS AND SERVICES FOR MEMBERS

BEING SEPARATED OR RECENTLY SEPARATED

* * * * * * *

§ 1144. Employment assistance, job training assistance, and

other transitional services: Department of Labor

(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) The Secretaries referred to in paragraph (1) shall enter into

a detailed agreement to carry out this section. øThe agreement

shall be entered into no later than 60 days after the date of the

enactment of this section.¿

* * * * * * *

ø(e) FUNDING.—(1) There is authorized to be appropriated to the

Department of Labor to carry out this section $11,000,000 for fiscal

year 1993 and $8,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1994 and 1995.

ø(2) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Department of

Veterans Affairs to carry out this section $6,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995.¿

§ 1145. Health benefits

(a) TRANSITIONAL HEALTH CARE.—(1) For the applicable time period described in paragraph (2), a member of the armed forces who

is involuntarily separated from active duty during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002

(and the dependents of the member), shall be entitled to receive—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) HEALTH CARE FOR CERTAIN SEPARATED MEMBERS NOT OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE.—(1) Consistent with the authority of the Secretary concerned to designate certain classes of persons as eligible

to receive health care at a military medical facility, the Secretary

530

concerned should consider authorizing, on an individual basis in

cases of hardship, the provision of that care for a member who is

separated from the armed forces during the period beginning on

October 1, 1990, and ending on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002, and is

ineligible for transitional health care under subsection (a) or does

not obtain a conversion health policy (or a dependent of the member).

* * * * * * *

(e) COAST GUARD.—The provisions of this section shall apply to

members of the Coast Guard (and their dependents) involuntarily

separated from active duty during the period beginning on October

1, 1994, and ending on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002. The Secretary

of Transportation shall implement this section for the Coast Guard.

§ 1146. Commissary and exchange benefits

The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations to allow a

member of the armed forces who is involuntarily separated from

active duty during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and

ending on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002, to continue to use commissary and exchange stores during the two-year period beginning

on the date of the involuntary separation of the member in the

same manner as a member on active duty. The Secretary of Transportation shall implement this provision for Coast Guard members

involuntarily separated during the period beginning on October 1,

1994, and ending on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002.

§ 1147. Use of military family housing

(a) TRANSITION FOR INVOLUNTARILY SEPARATED MEMBERS.—(1)

The Secretary of a military department may, pursuant to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, permit individuals

who are involuntarily separated during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002, to continue for not more than 180 days after the date of such separation

to reside (along with other members of the individual’s household)

in military family housing provided or leased by the Department

of Defense to such individual as a member of the armed forces.

(2) The Secretary of Transportation may prescribe regulations to

permit members of the Coast Guard who are involuntarily separated during the period beginning on October 1, 1994, and ending

on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002, to continue for not more than 180

days after the date of such separation to reside (along with others

of the member’s household) in military family housing provided or

leased by the Coast Guard to the individual as a member of the

armed forces.

* * * * * * *

§ 1150. Affiliation with Guard and Reserve units: waiver of

certain limitations

(a) PREFERENCE FOR CERTAIN PERSONS.—A person who is separated from the armed forces during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002, and who applies to become a member of a National Guard or Reserve unit

within one year after the date of such separation shall be given

531

preference over other equally qualified applicants for existing or

projected vacancies within the unit to which the member applies.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 59—SEPARATION

* * * * * * *

§ 1174a. Special separation benefits programs

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(h) TERMINATION OF PROGRAM.—(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary concerned may not conduct a program pursuant to this section after December 31, ø2001¿ 2002.

* * * * * * *

§ 1175. Voluntary separation incentive

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3) After December 31, ø2001¿ 2002, the Secretary may not approve a request.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 61—RETIREMENT OR SEPARATION FOR

PHYSICAL DISABILITY

* * * * * * *

§ 1204. Members on active duty for 30 days or less or on inactive-duty training: retirement

Upon a determination by the Secretary concerned that a member

of the armed forces not covered by section 1201, 1202, or 1203 of

this title is unfit to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank,

or rating because of physical disability, the Secretary may retire

the member with retired pay computed under section 1401 of this

title, if the Secretary also determines that—

(1) * * *

(2) the disability—

(A) * * *

(B) is a result of an injury, illness, or disease incurred

or aggravated in line of duty after September 23, 1996—

(i) * * *

* * * * * * *

(iii) while remaining overnight, immediately before

the commencement of inactive-duty training, or while

remaining overnight between successive periods of inactive-duty training, at or in the vicinity of the site of

the inactive-duty trainingø, if the site of the inactiveVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00555 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
532

duty training is outside reasonable commuting distance of the member’s residence¿; or

* * * * * * *

§ 1206. Members on active duty for 30 days or less or on inactive-duty training: separation

Upon a determination by the Secretary concerned that a member

of the armed forces not covered by section 1201, 1202, or 1203 of

this title is unfit to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank,

or rating because of physical disability, the member may be separated from his armed force, with severance pay computed under

section 1212 of this title, if the Secretary also determines that—

(1) * * *

(2) the disability is a result of an injury, illness, or disease

incurred or aggravated in line of duty—

(A) * * *

(B) while the member—

(i) * * *

* * * * * * *

(iii) remained overnight at or in the vicinity of that

place immediately before so servingø, if the place is

outside reasonable commuting distance from the member’s residence¿;

* * * * * * *

(5) the disability is less than 30 percent under the standard

schedule of rating disabilities in use by the Department of Veterans Affairs at the time of the determination, and, in the case

of a disability incurred before øthe date of the enactment of the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000,¿ October 5, 1999, was the proximate result of performing active

duty or inactive-duty training or of traveling directly to or from

the place at which such duty is performed.

* * * * * * *

§ 1212. Disability severance pay

(a) Upon separation from his armed force under section 1203 or

1206 of this title, a member is entitled to disability severance pay

computed by multiplying (1) his years of service, but not more than

12, computed under section 1208 of this title, by (2) the highest of

the following amounts:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) Twice the amount of monthly basic pay to which he

would be entitled if serving (i) on active duty on the date when

his name was placed on the temporary disability retired list or,

if his name was not carried on that list, on the date when he

is separated, and (ii) in the permanent regular or reserve grade

to which he would have been promoted had it not been for the

physical disability for which he is separated and which was

found to exist as a result of a physical examination øfor promotion¿.

533

(D) Twice the amount of monthly basic pay to which he

would be entitled if serving (i) on active duty on the date when

his name was placed on the temporary disability retired list or,

if his name was not carried on that list, on the date when he

is separated, and (ii) in the temporary grade or rank to which

he would have been promoted had it not been for the physical

disability for which he is separated and which was found to

exist as a result of a physical examination øfor promotion¿, if

his eligibility for promotion was required to be based on cumulative years of service or years in grade.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 69—RETIRED GRADE

* * * * * * *

§ 1370. Commissioned officers: general rule; exceptions

(a) RULE FOR RETIREMENT IN HIGHEST GRADE HELD SATISFACTORILY.—(1) * * *

(2)(A) In order to be eligible for voluntary retirement under any

provision of this title in a grade above major or lieutenant commander, a commissioned officer of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or

Marine Corps must have served on active duty in that grade for

not less than three years, except that the Secretary of Defense may

authorize the Secretary of a military department to reduce such period to a period not less than two years in the case of retirements

effective during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002.

* * * * * * *

(d) RESERVE OFFICERS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3)(A)***

ø(B) A person covered by subparagraph (A) who has completed

at least six months of satisfactory service in grade and is transferred from an active status or discharged as a reserve commissioned officer solely due to the requirements of a nondiscretionary

provision of law requiring that transfer or discharge due to the person’s age or years of service may be credited with satisfactory service in the grade in which serving at the time of such transfer or

discharge, notwithstanding failure of the person to complete three

years of service in that grade.¿

(B) A person covered by subparagraph (A) who has completed at

least six months of satisfactory service in grade may be credited

with satisfactory service in the grade in which serving at the time

of transfer or discharge, notwithstanding failure of the person to

complete three years of service in that grade, if that person—

(i) is transferred from an active status or discharged as a reserve commissioned officer solely due to the requirements of a

nondiscretionary provision of law requiring that transfer or discharge due to the person’s age or years of service; or

(ii) is retired under chapter 1223 of this title because the person no longer meets the qualification for membership in the

534

Ready Reserve solely because of a physical disability, as determined, at a minimum, by a medical evaluation board.

* * * * * * *

(5) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of a

military department to reduce the 3-year period required by paragraph (3)(A) to a period not less than 2 years in the case of retirements effective during the period beginning on October 17, 1998,

and ending on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002. The number of reserve

commissioned officers of an armed force in the same grade for

whom a reduction is made during any fiscal year in the period of

service-in-grade otherwise required under this paragraph may not

exceed the number equal to 2 percent of the strength authorized

for that fiscal year for reserve commissioned officers of that armed

force in an active status in that grade.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 71—COMPUTATION OF RETIRED PAY

Sec.

1401. Computation of retired pay.

* * * * * * *

1414. Members eligible for retired pay who have service-connected disabilities: payment of retired pay and veterans’ disability compensation; contingent

authority.

* * * * * * *

§ 1405. Years of service

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) EXCLUSION OF TIME REQUIRED TO BE MADE UP OR EXCLUDED.—(1) Time required to be made up by an enlisted member

of the Army or Air Force under section 972(a) of this title, or required to be made up by an enlisted member of the Navy, Marine

Corps, or Coast Guard under that section with respect to a period

of time after øthe date of the enactment of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995,¿ October 5, 1994, may not

be counted in determining years of service under subsection (a).

* * * * * * *

§ 1407. Retired pay base for members who first became members after September 7, 1980: high-36 month average

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) EXCEPTION FOR ENLISTED MEMBERS REDUCED IN GRADE AND

OFFICERS WHO DO NOT SERVE SATISFACTORILY IN HIGHEST GRADE

HELD.—

(1) * * *

(2) AFFECTED MEMBERS.—A member or former member referred to in paragraph (1) is a member or former member who

by reason of conduct occurring after øthe date of the enactment

of this subsection—¿ October 30, 2000—

535

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

§ 1408. Payment of retired or retainer pay in compliance

with court orders

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) PAYMENTS BY SECRETARY CONCERNED TO (OR FOR BENEFIT OF)

SPOUSE OR FORMER SPOUSE.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) In the case of a court order for which effective service is made

on the Secretary concerned on or after øthe date of the enactment

of this paragraph¿ August 22, 1996, and which provides for payments from the disposable retired pay of a member to satisfy the

amount of child support set forth in the order, the authority provided in paragraph (1) to make payments from the disposable retired pay of a member to satisfy the amount of child support set

forth in a court order shall apply to payment of any amount of

child support arrearages set forth in that order as well as to

amounts of child support that currently become due.

* * * * * * *

§ 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.

* * * * * * *

§ 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

536

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) For purposes of 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.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 75—DECEASED PERSONNEL

* * * * * * *

537

SUBCHAPTER II—DEATH BENEFITS

* * * * * * *

§ 1481. Recovery, care, and disposition of remains: decedents covered

(a) The Secretary concerned may provide for the recovery, care,

and disposition of the remains of the following persons:

(1) * * *

(2) A member of a reserve component of an armed force who

dies while—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(D) remaining overnight immediately before the commencement of inactive-duty training, or remaining overnight, between successive periods of inactive-duty training,

at or in the vicinity of the site of the inactive-duty

trainingø, if the site is outside reasonable commuting distance from the member’s residence¿;

* * * * * * *

§ 1491. Funeral honors functions at funerals for veterans

(a) * * *

(b) COMPOSITION OF FUNERAL HONORS DETAILS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) A member of the Army National Guard of the United States

or the Air National Guard of the United States who serves as a

member of a funeral honors detail while in a duty status authorized

under State law shall be considered to be a member of the armed

forces for the purposes of the first sentence of paragraph (2).

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 76—MISSING PERSONS

* * * * * * *

§ 1506. Personnel files

(a) * * *

(b) CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.—(1) * * *

(2)(A) If classified information withheld under this subsection refers to one or more unnamed missing persons, the Secretary shall

ensure that notice of that withheld information, and notice of the

date of the most recent review of the classification of that withheld

information, is made reasonably accessible to the primary next of

kin, members of the immediate family, and the previously designated personø.¿ of all missing persons from the conflict or period

of war to which the classified information pertains.

(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), information shall be considered to be made reasonably available if placed in a separate and

distinct file that is available for review by persons specified in subparagraph (A) upon the request of any such person either to review

538

the separate file or to review the personnel file of the missing person

concerned.

* * * * * * *

§ 1511. Return alive of person declared missing or dead

(a) * * *

(b) EFFECT ON GRATUITIES PAID AS A RESULT OF STATUS.—Subsection (a) shall not be interpreted to invalidate or otherwise affect

the receipt by any person of a death gratuity or other payment

from the United States on behalf of a person referred to in subsection (a) before øthe date of the enactment of this chapter.¿ February 10, 1996.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 80—MISCELLANEOUS INVESTIGATION

REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER DUTIES

Sec.

1561. Complaints of sexual harassment: investigation by commanding officers.

* * * * * * *

1566. Voting assistance: compliance assessments and assistance.

* * * * * * *

§ 1566. Voting assistance: compliance assessments and assistance

(a) INSPECTOR GENERAL ASSESSMENTS.—(1) The Department of

Defense Inspector General shall each calendar year conduct a random and unannounced assessment at a minimum of 15 Department

of Defense installations of the compliance at those installations

with—

(A) the requirements of the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens

Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff et seq.);

(B) Department of Defense regulations regarding that Act and

the Federal Voting Assistance Program carried out under that

Act; and

(C) other requirements of law regarding voting by members of

the armed forces.

(2) Each assessment under paragraph (1) shall include a review

of such compliance—

(A) within units to which are assigned, in the aggregate, not

less than 20 percent of the personnel assigned to duty at that

installation;

(B) within a representative survey of members of the armed

forces assigned to that installation and their dependents; and

(C) within unit voting assistance officers to measure program

effectiveness.

(b) REGULAR MILITARY DEPARTMENT ASSESSMENTS.—The Secretary of each military department shall include in the set of issues

and programs to be reviewed during any management effectiveness

review or inspection an assessment of compliance with the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff

et seq.) and with Department of Defense regulations regarding the

Federal Voting Assistance Program.

539

(c) VOTING ASSISTANCE OFFICERS.—Voting assistance officers appointed or assigned under Department of Defense regulations regarding the Federal Voting Assistance Program shall be appointed

or assigned with the expectation of serving in that capacity for a

minimum of 30 months. A member of the armed forces assigned to

such a position may not be assigned other duties that would not be

considered part of the member’s primary military duties, except

when a unit commander determines that insufficient personnel are

available to fulfill all additional duty requirements. Performance

evaluation reports pertaining to a member who has been assigned

to serve as a voting assistance officer shall comment on the performance of the member as a voting assistance officer.

(d) DELIVERY OF MAIL FROM OVERSEAS PRECEDING FEDERAL

ELECTIONS.—(1) During the four months preceding a general Federal election month, the Secretary of Defense shall periodically conduct surveys of all overseas locations and vessels at sea with military units responsible for collecting mail for return shipment to the

United States and all port facilities in the United States and overseas where military-related mail is collected for shipment to overseas locations or to the United States. The purpose of each survey

shall be to determine if voting materials are awaiting shipment at

any such location and, if so, the length of time that such materials

have been held at that location. During the fourth and third months

before a general Federal election month, such surveys shall be conducted biweekly. During the second and first months before a general Federal election month, such surveys shall be conducted weekly.

(2) The Secretary shall ensure that voting materials are transmitted expeditiously by military postal authorities at all times.

(3) In this section, the term ‘‘general Federal election month’’ means November in an even-numbered year.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 81—CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

* * * * * * *

§ 1581. Foreign National Employees Separation Pay Account

(a) * * *

(b) DEPOSITS INTO ACCOUNT.—ø(1) The Secretary of the Treasury

shall deposit into the account all amounts that were obligated by

the Secretary of Defense before December 5, 1991, and that remain

unexpended for separation pay for foreign nationals referred to in

subsection (e).

ø(2) The Secretary of Defense shall deposit¿ The Secretary of Defense shall deposit into the account from applicable appropriations

all amounts obligated øon or after December 5, 1991,¿ for separation pay for foreign nationals referred to in subsection (e).

* * * * * * *

§ 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:

540

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) Voluntary legal assistance services under section 1044 of

this title.

* * * * * * *

(d) STATUS OF PERSONS PROVIDING SERVICES.—(1) Subject to

paragraph (3), while providing voluntary services accepted under

subsection (a) or receiving training under subsection (c), a person,

other than a person referred to in paragraph (2), shall be considered to be an employee of the Federal Government only for purposes of the following provisions of law:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(E) Section 1054 of this title (relating to defense of certain

suits arising out of legal malpractice), in the case of persons

providing voluntary legal assistance services under subsection

(a)(5).

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 83—CIVILIAN DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE

EMPLOYEES

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER I—DEFENSE-WIDE INTELLIGENCE

PERSONNEL POLICY

* * * * * * *

§ 1611. Postemployment assistance: certain terminated intelligence employees

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) DURATION OF ASSISTANCE.—Assistance may not be provided

under this section in the case of any individual after the end of the

five-year period beginning on the date of the termination of the employment of the individual øwith¿ in a defense intelligence position.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 87—DEFENSE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL AUTHORITIES AND

RESPONSIBILITIES

Sec.

1701. Management policies.

ø1702. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology: authorities and

responsibilities.¿

1702. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics: authorities and responsibilities.

* * * * * * *

541

ø§ 1702. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and

Technology: authorities and responsibilities¿

§ 1702. Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics: authorities and responsibilities

Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary

of Defense, the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and

Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall carry out all powers, functions, and duties of the Secretary of Defense with respect to the acquisition

workforce in the Department of Defense. The Under Secretary shall

ensure that the policies of the Secretary of Defense established in

accordance with this chapter are implemented throughout the Department of Defense. The Under Secretary shall prescribe policies

and requirements for the educational programs of the defense acquisition university structure established under section 1746 of this

title.

§ 1703. Director of Acquisition Education, Training, and Career Development

The øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and

Logistics shall appoint a Director of Acquisition Education, Training, and Career Development within the office of the Under Secretary to assist the Under Secretary in the performance of his duties under this chapter.

* * * * * * *

§ 1707. Personnel in the Office of the Secretary of Defense

and in the Defense Agencies

(a) POLICIES.—The Secretary of Defense, acting through the

øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, shall establish and implement, in such manner as the Secretary considers appropriate, policies and procedures for the effective management, including accession, education, training, and career development, of persons serving in acquisition positions in the

Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Defense Agencies. Such

policies and procedures shall include (1) the establishment of one

or more Acquisition Corps with respect to such persons, and (2) the

establishment of an acquisition career program board (and any appropriate subordinate board structure) with respect to such persons. The Secretary shall ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable, such policies and procedures are as uniform as practicable

with the policies established under this chapter for the military departments.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—DEFENSE ACQUISITION POSITIONS

* * * * * * *

542

§ 1722. Career development

(a) CAREER PATHS.—The Secretary of Defense, acting through the

øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, shall ensure that appropriate career paths for civilian and

military personnel who wish to pursue careers in acquisition are

identified in terms of the education, training, experience, and assignments necessary for career progression of civilians and members of the armed forces to the most senior acquisition positions.

The Secretary shall make available published information on such

career paths.

(b) LIMITATION ON PREFERENCE FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL.—(1)

***

(2)(A)***

(B) Not later than December 15 of each year, the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall submit

to the Secretary a report that lists each acquisition position that

is restricted to members of the armed forces under such policy and

the recommendation of the Under Secretary as to whether such position should remain so restricted.

* * * * * * *

ø(e) MANAGEMENT OF WORKFORCE.—The Secretary of Defense

shall ensure that the acquisition workforce is managed such that,

for each fiscal year from October 1, 1991, through September 30,

1996, there is a substantial increase in the proportion of civilians

(as compared to armed forces personnel) serving in critical acquisition positions in general, in program manager positions, and in division head positions over the proportion of civilians (as compared

to armed forces personnel) in such positions on October 1, 1990.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 1724. Contracting positions: qualification requirements

ø(a) CONTRACTING OFFICERS.—The Secretary of Defense shall require that in order to qualify to serve in an acquisition position as

a contracting officer with authority to award or administer contracts for amounts above the simplified acquisition threshold referred to in section 2304(g) of this title, a person must—¿

(a) CONTRACTING OFFICERS.—The Secretary of Defense shall require that, in order to qualify to serve in an acquisition position as

a contracting officer with authority to award or administer contracts for amounts above the simplified acquisition threshold referred to in section 2304(g) of this title, an employee of the Department of Defense or member of the armed forces (other than the

Coast Guard) must, except as provided in subsections (c) and (d)—

(1) have completed all ømandatory¿ contracting courses required for a contracting officer øat the grade level, or in the position within the grade of the General Schedule (in the case of

an employee), that the person is serving in;¿ (A) in the case of

an employee, serving in the position within the grade of the

General Schedule in which the employee is serving, and (B) in

543

the case of a member of the armed forces, in the member’s

grade;

* * * * * * *

(3)(A) have received a baccalaureate degree from an accredited educational institution authorized to grant baccalaureate

degrees, and (B) have completed at least 24 semester credit

hours (or the equivalent) of study from an accredited institution of higher education in any of the following disciplines: accounting, business, finance, law, contracts, purchasing, economics, industrial management, marketing, quantitative methods, and organization and management; and

* * * * * * *

ø(b) GS–1102 SERIES POSITIONS AND SIMILAR MILITARY POSI- TIONS.—The Secretary of Defense shall require that a person meet

the requirements set forth in paragraph (3) of subsection (a), but

not the other requirements set forth in that subsection, in order to

qualify to serve in a position in the Department of Defense in— ø(1) the GS–1102 occupational series; or

ø(2) a similar occupational specialty if the position is to be

filled by a member of the armed forces.

ø(c) EXCEPTION.—The requirements imposed under subsection (a)

or (b) shall not apply to a person for the purpose of qualifying to

serve in a position in which the person is serving on September 30,

2000.

ø(d) WAIVER.—The acquisition career program board of a military

department may waive any or all of the requirements of subsections (a) and (b) with respect to an employee or member of that

military department if the board certifies that the employee or

member possesses significant potential for advancement to levels of

greater responsibility and authority, based on demonstrated job

performance and qualifying experience. With respect to each waiver

granted under this subsection, the board shall set forth in a written document the rationale for its decision to waive such requirements. The document shall be submitted to and retained by the Director of Acquisition Education, Training, and Career Development.¿

(b) GS–1102 SERIES POSITIONS AND SIMILAR MILITARY POSITIONS.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall require that in order to

qualify to serve in a position in the Department of Defense that is

in the GS–1102 occupational series an employee or potential employee of the Department of Defense meet the requirements set forth

in paragraph (3) of subsection (a). The Secretary may not require

that in order to serve in such a position an employee or potential

employee meet any of the requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) of

that subsection.

(2) The Secretary of Defense shall require that in order for a

member of the armed forces to be selected for an occupational specialty within the armed forces that (as determined by the Secretary)

is similar to the GS–1102 occupational series a member of the

armed forces meet the requirements set forth in paragraph (3) of

subsection (a). The Secretary may not require that in order to be selected for such an occupational specialty a member meet any of the

requirements of paragraphs (1) and (2) of that subsection.

544

(c) EXCEPTIONS.—The qualification requirements imposed by the

Secretary of Defense pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) shall not

apply to an employee of the Department of Defense or member of the

armed forces who— (1) served as a contracting officer with authority to award or

administer contracts in excess of the simplified acquisition

threshold on or before September 30, 2000;

(2) served, on or before September 30, 2000, in a position either as an employee in the GS–1102 series or as a member of

the armed forces in similar occupational specialty;

(3) is in the contingency contracting force; or

(4) is described in subsection (e)(1)(B).

(d) WAIVER.—The acquisition career program board concerned

may waive any or all of the requirements of subsections (a) and (b)

with respect to an employee of the Department of Defense or member

of the armed forces if the board certifies that the individual possesses significant potential for advancement to levels of greater responsibility and authority, based on demonstrated job performance

and qualifying experience. With respect to each waiver granted

under this subsection, the board shall set forth in a written document the rationale for its decision to waive such requirements. Such

document shall be submitted to and retained by the Director of Acquisition Education, Training, and Career Development.

(e) DEVELOPMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES.—(1) The Secretary of Defense may— (A) establish or continue one or more programs for the purpose of recruiting, selecting, appointing, educating, qualifying,

and developing the careers of individuals to meet the requirements in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of subsection (a)(3);

(B) appoint individuals to developmental positions in those

programs; and

(C) separate from the civil service after a three-year probationary period any individual appointed under this subsection

who, as determined by the Secretary, fails to complete satisfactorily any program described in subparagraph (A).

(2) To qualify for any developmental program described in paragraph (1)(A), an individual shall have—

(A) been awarded a baccalaureate degree from an accredited

institution of higher education authorized to grant baccalaureate degrees; or

(B) completed at least 24 semester credit hours or the equivalent of study from an accredited institution of higher education

in any of the disciplines of accounting, business, finance, law,

contracts, purchasing, economics, industrial management, marketing, quantitative methods, or organization and management.

(f) CONTINGENCY CONTRACTING FORCE.—The Secretary shall establish qualification requirements for the contingency contracting

force consisting of members of the armed forces whose mission is to

deploy in support of contingency operations and other operations of

the Department of Defense, including— (1) completion of at least 24 semester credit hours or the

equivalent of study from an accredited institution of higher education or similar educational institution in any of the disciplines of accounting, business, finance, law, contracts, purVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00568 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
545

chasing, economics, industrial management, marketing, quantitative methods, or organization and management; or

(2) passage of an examination that demonstrates skills,

knowledge, or abilities comparable to that of an individual who

has completed at least 24 semester credit hours or the equivalent of study in any of the disciplines described in paragraph

(1).

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER III—ACQUISITION CORPS

Sec.

1731. Acquisition Corps: in general.

* * * * * * *

ø1736. Applicability.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 1732. Selection criteria and procedures

(a) SELECTION CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES.—Selection for membership in an Acquisition Corps shall be made in accordance with

criteria and procedures established by the Secretary of Defense.

øSuch criteria and procedures shall be in effect on and after October 1, 1993.¿

* * * * * * *

(c) EXCEPTIONS.—(1) * * *

(2) The requirements of subsections (b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(B) shall

not apply to any employee who is serving in an acquisition position

on October 1, 1991, and who does not have 10 years of experience

as described in paragraph (1) if the employee passes an examination considered by the Secretary of Defense to demonstrate skills,

knowledge, or abilities comparable to that of an individual who has

completed at least 24 semester credit hours (or the equivalent) of

study from an accredited institution of higher education from

among the following disciplines: accounting, business, finance, law,

contracts, purchasing, economics, industrial management, marketing, quantitative methods, and organization and management.

The Secretary of Defense shall submit examinations to be given to

civilian employees under this paragraph to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management for approval. If the Director does not

disapprove an examination within 30 days after the date on which

the Director receives the examination, the examination is deemed

to be approved by the Director.

* * * * * * *

§ 1734. Career development

(a) * * *

(b) ASSIGNMENT PERIOD FOR PROGRAM MANAGERS.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe in regulations—

(A) * * *

(B) a requirement that, øon and after October 1, 1991,¿ to

the maximum extent practicable, a program manager who is

the replacement for a reassigned program manager arrive at

546

the assignment location before the reassigned program manager leaves.

Except as provided in subsection (d), the Secretary concerned may

not reassign a program manager or deputy program manager from

such an assignment until after such major milestone has occurred.

* * * * * * *

(e) ROTATION POLICY.—(1) * * *

(2) The Secretary of Defense shall establish a procedure under

which the assignment of each person assigned to a critical acquisition position shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, by the acquisition career program board of the department concerned, for

the purpose of determining whether the Government and such person would be better served by a reassignment to a different position. Such a review shall be carried out with respect to each such

person not later than five years after that person is assigned to a

critical position. øReviews under this subsection shall be carried

out after October 1, 1995, but may be carried out before that date.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 1735. Education, training, and experience requirements

for critical acquisition positions

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) PROGRAM EXECUTIVE OFFICERS.—Before being assigned to a

position as a program executive officer, a person—

(1) must have completed the program management course at

the Defense Systems Management College or a management

program at an accredited educational institution in the private

sector determined to be comparable by the Secretary of Defense, acting through the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics;

* * * * * * *

ø§ 1736. Applicability

ø(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsections (b) and (c),

the qualification requirements prescribed pursuant to section 1735

shall apply to all critical acquisition positions not later than October 1, 1992.

ø(b) PROGRAM MANAGERS.—The qualification requirements prescribed pursuant to section 1735 shall apply with respect to program manager positions not later than October 1, 1991.

ø(c) EXCEPTIONS.—The qualification requirements prescribed pursuant to sections 1733(a) and 1735(a) shall not apply—

ø(1) to an employee who is serving in a critical acquisition

position on October 1, 1992, for purposes of qualifying to continue to serve in such position; or

ø(2) to a person who is serving in a program manager position on October 1, 1991, for purposes of qualifying to continue

to serve in such position.¿

547

§ 1737. Definitions and general provisions

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) WAIVER.—(1) The Secretary of each military department (acting through the service acquisition executive for that department)

or the Secretary of Defense (acting through the øUnder Secretary

of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) for Defense Agencies and other components of the Department of Defense may

waive, on a case-by-case basis, the requirements established under

this subchapter with respect to the assignment of an individual to

a particular critical acquisition position. Such a waiver may be

granted only if unusual circumstances justify the waiver or if the

Secretary concerned (or official to whom the waiver authority is

delegated) determines that the individual’s qualifications obviate

the need for meeting the education, training, and experience requirements established under this subchapter.

(2) The authority to grant such waivers may be delegated— (A) * * *

(B) in the case of the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, only to the Director of Acquisition Education, Training, and Career Development.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER IV—EDUCATION AND TRAINING

* * * * * * *

§ 1741. Policies and programs: establishment and implementation

(a) * * *

(b) FUNDING LEVELS.—The øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics each year shall recommend to the

Secretary of Defense the funding levels to be requested in the defense budget to implement the education and training programs

under this subchapter. The Secretary of Defense shall set forth separately the funding levels requested for such programs in the Department of Defense budget justification documents submitted in

support of the President’s budget submitted to Congress under section 1105 of title 31.

* * * * * * *

§ 1746. Defense acquisition university structure

(a) DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY STRUCTURE.—The Secretary of Defense, acting through the øUnder Secretary of Defense

for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, shall establish and maintain a

defense acquisition university structure to provide for— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

548

SUBCHAPTER V—GENERAL MANAGEMENT PROVISIONS

Sec.

1761. Management information system.

* * * * * * *

ø1762. Report to Secretary of Defense.¿

* * * * * * *

ø1764. Authority to establish different minimum experience requirements.¿

§ 1761. Management information system

(a) * * *

(b) MINIMUM INFORMATION.—The management information system shall, at a minimum, provide for—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) collection of the information necessary for the øUnder

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics

and the Secretary of Defense to comply with the requirements

of section 1762 for the years in which that section is in effect.

ø§ 1762. Report to Secretary of Defense

ø(a) REPORT OF UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION

AND TECHNOLOGY.—Each year the Under Secretary of Defense for

Acquisition and Technology shall transmit to the Secretary of Defense a report on the status of the defense acquisition workforce.

Each annual report shall include, for each military department and

Defense Agency and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, information on each category of information referred to in subsection (c).

ø(b) INCLUSION OF INFORMATION IN ANNUAL REPORT.—The Secretary of Defense shall include in the annual report of the Secretary to Congress under section 113(c) of this title the information

in the report transmitted to the Secretary under subsection (a).

ø(c) INFORMATION.—The following information shall be included

in the report transmitted to the Secretary under subsection (a) for

the period covered by the report (which shall be shown for the Department of Defense as a whole and, with respect to paragraphs (1)

through (12), separately for the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine

Corps, Defense Agencies, and Office of the Secretary of Defense):

ø(1) The number of acquisition positions specified under the

policy established under section 1722(b)(2) of this title as being

available, as of December 1 of the period covered by the report,

only to members of the armed forces, set forth separately

under each criterion established in the policy, together with a

discussion of the types of positions that are so specified.

ø(2) The total number of persons serving in the Acquisition

Corps as of December 1 of the period covered by the report, set

forth separately for members of the armed forces and civilian

employees, by grade level and by functional specialty.

ø(3) The total number of critical acquisition positions held as

of December 1 of the period covered by the report, set forth

separately for members of the armed forces and civilian employees, by grade level and by other appropriate categories (including by program manager, deputy program manager, and

549

division head positions). For each such category, the report

shall specify the number of civilians holding such positions

compared to the total number of positions filled.

ø(4)(A) The promotion rate for officers in an acquisition corps

considered for promotion from within the promotion zone, compared with the promotion rate for other officers considered for

promotion from within the promotion zone in the same pay

grade, shown for all officers of the same armed force and for

all line (or the equivalent) officers of the same armed force.

ø(B) The promotion rate for officers in an acquisition corps

considered for promotion from below the promotion zone, compared in the same manner as specified in subparagraph (A).

ø(C) If the promotion rates fail to meet the objective of section 1731(b) of this title, the Secretary of Defense shall notify

Congress of such failures and of what actions the Secretary has

taken or plans to take in reaction to such failures.

ø(5) The number of employees who met the requirement of

section 1724(a)(3) or section 1724(b) of this title by passing an

exam as described in section 1724(a)(3)(C), set forth separately

for contracting officers and persons in the GS–1102 occupational series.

ø(6) The number of employees to whom the requirements of

subsections (b)(2)(A) and (b)(2)(B) of section 1732 of this title

did not apply because of the exceptions provided in paragraphs

(1) and (2) of section 1732(c) of this title, set forth separately

by type of exception.

ø(7) The number of employees certified by an acquisition career program board under section 1732(b)(2)(A)(ii) of this title.

ø(8) The number of program managers and deputy program

managers who were reassigned after completion of a major

milestone occurring closest in time to the date on which the

person has served in the position for four years (as required

under section 1734(b) of this title), and the proportion of those

reassignments to the total number of reassignments of program managers and deputy program managers, set forth separately for program managers and deputy program managers.

The Secretary also shall include the average length of assignment served by program managers and deputy program managers so reassigned.

ø(9) The number of persons, excluding those reported under

paragraph (8), in critical acquisition positions who were reassigned after a period of three years or longer (as required

under section 1734(a) of this title), and the proportion of those

reassignments to the total number of reassignments of persons,

excluding those reported under paragraph (8), in critical acquisition positions.

ø(10) The number of times a waiver authority was exercised

under section 1724(d), 1732(d), 1734(d), or 1736(c) of this title

or any other provision of this chapter (or other provision of

law) which permits the waiver of any requirement relating to

the acquisition workforce, and in the case of each such authority, the reasons for exercising the authority. The Secretary may

present the information provided under this paragraph by category or grouping of types of waivers and reasons.

550

ø(11) The number of persons reviewed for reassignment pursuant to section 1734(e)(2) of this title and the number of persons reassigned as a result of such reviews, together with a

discussion of the criteria used to determine reassignments.

ø(12) The number of persons participating in each of the programs described in sections 1742 through 1745 of this title, as

of December 1 of the period covered by the report.

ø(13) The number of persons paid a bonus under section 317

of title 37 and the number of years of service agreed to, for

each such bonus, by category.

ø(14) Such other information and comparative data as the

Secretary of Defense considers appropriate to demonstrate the

performance of the Department of Defense and the performance of each military department in carrying out this chapter.

ø(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The requirements of this section shall

apply to the years 1991 through 1998.¿

§ 1763. Reassignment of authority

The Secretary of Defense may assign the responsibilities under

this chapter of the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and

Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to any other civilian official in the Office of

the Secretary of Defense who is appointed by the President by and

with the advice and consent of the Senate. If the Secretary takes

action under the preceding sentence, he may authorize the Secretaries of the military departments to assign the responsibilities of

a senior acquisition executive under this chapter to any other civilian official in the military department who is appointed by the

President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

ø§ 1764. Authority to establish different minimum experience requirements

ø(a) AUTHORITY.—During the six-year period beginning on October 1, 1992, and ending on September 30, 1998, the Secretary of

Defense may prescribe a different minimum number of years of experience to be required for eligibility for appointment to an acquisition position referred to in subsection (b) than is required for such

position under or pursuant to any provision of this chapter. Any requirement prescribed under this section for a position referred to

in any paragraph of subsection (b) shall be applied uniformly to all

positions referred to in such paragraph.

ø(b) APPLICABILITY.—This section applies to the following acquisition positions in the Department of Defense:

ø(1) Contracting officer.

ø(2) Program executive officer.

ø(3) Senior contracting official.

ø(c) OPM APPROVAL.—The Secretary of Defense shall submit any

requirement with respect to civilian employees that is prescribed

under this section to the Director of the Office of Personnel Management for approval if the Director does not disapprove the requirement within 30 days after the date on which the Director receives the requirement, the requirement is deemed to be approved

by the Director.

551

ø(d) REPORT.—The Secretary of Defense shall notify Congress of

each requirement prescribed under subsection (a) together with his

reasons for prescribing such requirement.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 88—MILITARY FAMILY PROGRAMS AND

MILITARY CHILD CARE

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER I—MILITARY FAMILY PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

§ 1782. Surveys of military families

ø(a) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of Defense may conduct surveys

of members of the armed forces on active duty or in an active status, members of the families of such members, and retired members of the armed forces to determine the effectiveness of Federal

programs relating to military families and the need for new programs.¿

(a) AUTHORITY.—The Secretary of Defense, in order to determine

the effectiveness of Federal programs relating to military families

and the need for new programs, may conduct surveys of—

(1) members of the armed forces who are on active duty, in

an active status, or retired;

(2) family members of such members; and

(3) survivors of retired members.

* * * * * * *

(c) FEDERAL RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS.—With respect to

such surveys, øfamily members of members of the armed forces and

reserve and retired members of the armed forces¿ persons covered

by subsection (a) shall be considered to be employees of the United

States for purposes of section 3502(3)(A)(i) of title 44.

* * * * * * *

§ 1784. Employment opportunities for military spouses

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) SPACE-AVAILABLE USE OF FACILITIES FOR SPOUSE TRAINING

PURPOSES.—Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department may make available

to a non-Department of Defense entity space in non-excess facilities

controlled by that Secretary for the purpose of the non-Department

of Defense entity providing employment-related training for military

spouses.

(e) EMPLOYMENT BY OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES.—The Secretary

of Defense shall work with the Director of the Office of Personnel

Management and the heads of other Federal departments and agencies to expand and facilitate the use of existing Federal programs

and resources in support of military spouse employment.

(f) PRIVATE-SECTOR EMPLOYMENT.—The Secretary of Defense—

552

(1) shall seek to develop partnerships with firms in the private sector to enhance employment opportunities for spouses of

members of the armed forces and to provide for improved job

portability for such spouses, especially in the case of the spouse

of a member of the armed forces accompanying the member to

a new geographical area because of a change of permanent duty

station of the member; and

(2) shall work with the United States Chamber of Commerce

and other appropriate private-sector entities to facilitate the formation of such partnerships.

(g) EMPLOYMENT WITH DOD CONTRACTORS.—The Secretary of

Defense shall examine and seek ways for incorporating hiring preferences for qualified spouses of members of the armed forces into

contracts between the Department of Defense and private-sector entities.

* * * * * * *

PART III—TRAINING AND EDUCATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 102—JUNIOR RESERVE OFFICERS’ TRAINING

CORPS

Sec.

2031. Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps.

* * * * * * *

ø2033. Contingent funding increase.¿

§ 2031. Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps

(a)(1) The Secretary of each military department shall establish

and maintain a Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, organized

into units, at public and private secondary educational institutions

which apply for a unit and meet the standards and criteria prescribed pursuant to this section. øThe total number of units which

may be established and maintained by all of the military departments under authority of this section, including those units already

established on October 13, 1964, may not exceed 3,500.¿ The President shall promulgate regulations prescribing the standards and

criteria to be followed by the military departments in selecting the

institutions at which units are to be established and maintained

and shall provide for the fair and equitable distribution of such

units throughout the Nation, except that more than one such unit

may be established and maintained at any military institute.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 2033. Contingent funding increase

øIf for any fiscal year the amount appropriated directly to the

Secretary of Defense for the National Guard Challenge Program

under section 509 of title 32 is in excess of $62,500,000, the Secretary of Defense shall (notwithstanding any other provision of

law) make the amount in excess of $62,500,000 available for the

Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program under section

553

2031 of this title, and such excess amount may not be used for any

other purpose.¿

CHAPTER 103—SENIOR RESERVE OFFICERS’ TRAINING

CORPS

* * * * * * *

§ 2104. Advanced training; eligibility for

(a) * * *

(b) To be eligible for continuation, or initial enrollment, in the

program for advanced training, a person must— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) enlist in øa reserve component of¿ an armed force under

the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the military department

concerned for the period prescribed by the Secretary;

* * * * * * *

§ 2106. Advanced training; commission on completion

(a) Upon satisfactorily completing the academic and military requirements of the program of advanced training, a member of the

program who was selected for advanced training under section

2104 of this title may be appointed as a regular or reserve officer

in the appropriate armed force in the grade of second lieutenant or

ensign, even though he is under 21 years of age. However, a member of the program selected for an appointment under this section

who, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the military

department concerned, is designated or selected as a Distinguished

Graduate (or the equivalent) shall be appointed as a regular officer.

* * * * * * *

§ 2107. Financial assistance program for specially selected

members

(a) The Secretary of the military department concerned may appoint as a cadet or midshipman, as appropriate, in the reserve of

an armed force under his jurisdiction any eligible member of the

program who will be under ø27 years of age on June 30¿ 35 years

of age on December 31 of the calendar year in which he is eligible

under this section for appointment as an ensign in the Navy or as

a second lieutenant in the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps, as

the case may beø, except that the age of any such member who has

served on active duty in the armed forces may exceed such age limitation on such date by a period equal to the period such member

served on active duty, but only if such member will be under 30

years of age on such date¿.

* * * * * * *

§ 2107a. Financial assistance program for specially selected

members: Army Reserve and Army National Guard

(a)(1) The Secretary of the Army may appoint as a cadet in the

Army Reserve or Army National Guard of the United States any

eligible member of the program who is enrolled in the Advanced

554

Course of the Army Reserve Officers’ Training Corps at a military

college, military junior college, or civilian institution and who will

be under ø27 years of age on June 30¿ 35 years of age on December

31 of the calendar year in which he is eligible under this section

for appointment as a second lieutenant in the Army Reserve or

Army National Guardø, except that the age of any such member

who has served on active duty in the armed forces may exceed such

age limitation on such date by a period equal to the period such

member served on active duty, but only if such member will be

under 30 years of age on such date¿.

* * * * * * *

(b)(1) To be eligible for appointment as a cadet under this section, a member of the program must—

ø(1)¿ (A) be a citizen of the United States;

ø(2)¿ (B) be specially selected for the financial assistance

program under this section under procedures prescribed by the

Secretary of the Army;

ø(3)¿ (C) enlist in a reserve component of the Army for the

period prescribed by the Secretary of the Army;

ø(4)¿ (D) contract, with the consent of his parent or guardian

if he is a minor, with the Secretary of the Army to serve for

the period required by the program;

ø(5)¿ (E) agree in writing that he will accept an appointment, if offered, as a commissioned officer in the Army Reserve

or the Army National Guard of the United States; and

ø(6)¿ (F) agree in writing that he will serve in a troop program unit of the Army Reserve or Army National Guard for

not less than eight years.

(2) Performance of duty under an agreement under this subsection shall be under such terms and conditions as the Secretary

of the Army may prescribe and may include periods of active duty,

active duty for training, and other service in an active or inactive

status in the reserve component in which appointed.

(3) In the case of a cadet under this section at a military junior

college, the Secretary may, at any time and with the consent of the

cadet concerned, modify an agreement described in paragraph (1)(F)

submitted by the cadet to reduce or eliminate the troop program

unit service obligation specified in the agreement and to establish,

in lieu of that obligation, an active duty service obligation. Such a

modification may be made only if the Secretary determines that it

is in the best interests of the United States to do so.

* * * * * * *

(h) The Secretary of the Army shall appoint not more than 208

cadets each year under this section, to include not less than 10 cadets at each military junior college at which there are not less than

10 members of the program eligible under subsection (b) for such

an appointment. At any ømilitary college¿ military junior college at

which in any year there are fewer than 10 such members, the Secretary shall appoint each such member as a cadet under this section.

* * * * * * *

555

CHAPTER 104—UNIFORMED SERVICES UNIVERSITY OF

THE HEALTH SCIENCES

* * * * * * *

§ 2112. Establishment

(a) There is hereby authorized to be established within 25 miles

of the District of Columbia a Uniformed Services University of the

Health Sciences (hereinafter in this chapter referred to as the ‘‘University’’), at a site or sites to be selected by the Secretary of Defense, with authority to grant appropriate advanced degrees. It

shall be so organized as to graduate not less than 100 medical students annuallyø, with the first class graduating not later than September 21, 1982¿.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 105—ARMED FORCES HEALTH PROFESSIONS

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—NURSE OFFICER CANDIDATE ACCESSION

PROGRAM

* * * * * * *

§ 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, ø2001¿ 2002, 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.

(2) In addition to the accession bonus payable under paragraph

(1), a person selected under such paragraph shall be entitled to a

monthly stipend of not more than $500 for each month the individual is enrolled as a full-time student in an accredited baccalaureate degree program in nursing at a civilian educational institution øthat does not have a Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Program established under section 2102 of this title¿. The continuation

bonus may be paid for not more than 24 months.

(b) ELIGIBLE STUDENTS.—A person eligible to enter into an agreement under subsection (a) is a person who—

(1) is enrolled as a full-time student in an accredited baccalaureate degree program in nursing at a civilian educational

institution that does not have a Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Program established under section 2102 of this title or that

has a Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Program for which the

student is ineligible;

* * * * * * *

556

CHAPTER 108—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SCHOOLS

Sec.

2161. Joint Military Intelligence College: academic degrees.

* * * * * * *

2167. National Defense University: admission of private sector civilians to professional military education program.

2168. Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center: degree of Associate of

Arts in foreign language.

* * * * * * *

§ 2162. Preparation of budget requests for operation of professional military education schools

(a) * * *

(b) PREPARATION OF BUDGET REQUESTS.—(1) * * *

(2) As executive agent for funding professional development education at the National Defense University, including the Joint

Forces Staff College, the Secretary of Defense, with the advice of the

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, shall prepare the annual

budget for professional development education operations at the National Defense University and set forth that request as a separate

budget request in the materials submitted to Congress in support of

the budget request for the Department of Defense. Nothing in the

preceding sentence affects policies in effect on the date of the enactment of this paragraph with respect to budgeting for the funding of

logistical and base operations support for components of the National Defense University through the military departments.

ø(2)¿ (3) The Secretary of a military department preparing a

budget request for a professional military education school shall

carefully consider the views of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff, particularly with respect to the amount of the request for the

operation of the schools of the National Defense University and the

joint professional military education curricula of the other professional military education schools.

* * * * * * *

§ 2165. National Defense University: component institutions

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT EDUCATION OPERATIONS.—Funding for the professional development

education operations of the National Defense University shall be

provided from funds made available to the Secretary of Defense

from the annual appropriation ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide’’.

§ 2166. Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) BOARD OF VISITORS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

557

(9) The Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. ø2¿),

other than section 14 (relating to termination after two years),

shall apply to the Board.

* * * * * * *

§ 2167. National Defense University: admission of private sector civilians to professional military education program

(a) AUTHORITY FOR ADMISSION.—The Secretary of Defense may

permit eligible private sector employees who work in organizations

relevant to national security to receive instruction at the National

Defense University in accordance with this section. No more than 10

full-time equivalent private sector employees may be enrolled at any

one time. Upon successful completion of the course of instruction in

which enrolled, any such private sector employee may be awarded

an appropriate diploma or degree under section 2165 of this title.

(b) ELIGIBLE PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYEES.—For purposes of this

section, an eligible private sector employee is an individual employed by a private firm that is engaged in providing to the Department of Defense or other Government departments or agencies significant and substantial defense-related systems, products, or services or whose work product is relevant to national security policy or

strategy. A private sector employee admitted for instruction at the

National Defense University remains eligible for such instruction

only so long as that person remains employed by the same firm.

(c) ANNUAL CERTIFICATION BY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.—Private

sector employees may receive instruction at the National Defense

University during any academic year only if, before the start of that

academic year, the Secretary of Defense determines, and certifies to

the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee

on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, that providing

instruction to private sector employees under this section during

that year will further national security interests of the United

States.

(d) PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that—

(1) the curriculum for the professional military education program in which private sector employees may be enrolled under

this section is not readily available through other schools and

concentrates on national security relevant issues; and

(2) the course offerings at the National Defense University

continue to be determined solely by the needs of the Department

of Defense.

(e) TUITION.—The President of the National Defense University

shall charge students enrolled under this section a rate—

(1) that is at least the rate charged for employees of the

United States outside the Department of Defense, less infrastructure costs, and

(2) that considers the value to the school and course of the

private sector student.

(f) STANDARDS OF CONDUCT.—While receiving instruction at the

National Defense University, students enrolled under this section, to

the extent practicable, are subject to the same regulations governing

558

academic performance, attendance, norms of behavior, and enrollment as apply to Government civilian employees receiving instruction at the university.

(g) USE OF FUNDS.—Amounts received by the National Defense

University for instruction of students enrolled under this section

shall be retained by the university to defray the costs of such instruction. The source, and the disposition, of such funds shall be

specifically identified in records of the university.

§ 2168. Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center:

degree of Associate of Arts in foreign language

(a) Subject to subsection (b), the Commandant of the Defense Language Institute may confer an Associate of Arts degree in a foreign

language upon any graduate of the Foreign Language Center of the

Institute who fulfills the requirements for that degree.

(b) A degree may be conferred upon a student under this section

only if the Provost of the Center certifies to the Commandant that

the student has satisfied all the requirements prescribed for the degree.

(c) The authority provided by subsection (a) shall be exercised

under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

* * * * * * *

PART IV—SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND

PROCUREMENT

Chap. Sec.

131. Planning and Coordination ............................................ 2201

* * * * * * *

135. Space Programs ............................................................... 2271

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 131—PLANNING AND COORDINATION

* * * * * * *

§ 2218. National Defense Sealift Fund

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) DEPOSITS.—There shall be deposited in the Fund the

following:

(1) All funds appropriated to the Department of Defense øfor

fiscal years after fiscal year 1993¿ for—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 135—SPACE PROGRAMS

Sec.

2271. Executive agent.

559

§ 2271. Executive agent

(a) SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE.—The Secretary of the Air

Force may be designated as the executive agent of the Department

of Defense—

(1) for the planning of the acquisition programs, projects, and

activities of the Department that relate to space; and

(2) for the execution of those programs, projects, and activities.

(b) ACQUISITION EXECUTIVE.—The Secretary may designate the

Under Secretary of the Air Force as the acquisition executive of the

Air Force for the programs, projects, and activities referred to in

subsection (a).

CHAPTER 137—PROCUREMENT GENERALLY

* * * * * * *

§ 2302c. Implementation of electronic commerce capability

(a) IMPLEMENTATION OF ELECTRONIC COMMERCE CAPABILITY.—(1)

***

(2) The Secretary of Defense shall act through the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to implement

the capability within the Department of Defense.

* * * * * * *

§ 2304. Contracts: competition requirements

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the head of an agency

may not award a contract using procedures other than competitive

procedures unless—

(A) * * *

(B) the justification is approved— (i) * * *

* * * * * * *

(iii) in the case of a contract for an amount exceeding $50,000,000, by the senior procurement executive of the

agency designated pursuant to section 16(3) of the Office

of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 414(3)) (without further delegation) or in the case of the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under

Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, acting in his capacity as the senior procurement executive for the Department of Defense, the Under Secretary’s

delegate designated pursuant to paragraph (6)(B); and

* * * * * * *

(6)(A)***

(B) The authority of the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,

Technology, and Logistics under paragraph (1)(B)(iii) may be delegated only to—

560

(i) * * *

* * * * * * *

§ 2311. Assignment and delegation of procurement functions

and responsibilities

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) APPROVAL OF TERMINATIONS AND REDUCTIONS OF JOINT AC- QUISITION PROGRAMS.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe

regulations that prohibit each military department participating in

a joint acquisition program approved by the øUnder Secretary of

Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics from terminating or

substantially reducing its participation in such program without

the approval of the Under Secretary.

(2) The regulations shall include the following provisions:

(A) * * *

(B) A provision that authorizes the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to require a

military department whose participation in a joint acquisition

program has been approved for termination or substantial reduction to continue to provide some or all of the funding necessary for the acquisition program to be continued in an efficient manner.

* * * * * * *

§ 2323. Contract goal for small disadvantaged businesses and

certain institutions of higher education

(a) GOAL.—(1) Except as provided in subsection (d), a goal of 5

percent of the amount described in subsection (b) shall be the objective of the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in each fiscal year for

the total combined amount obligated for contracts and subcontracts

entered into with— (A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) minority institutions (as defined in section ø1046(3)¿

365(3) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (ø20 U.S.C. 1135d–

5(3)¿ 20 U.S.C. 1067k))ø, which, for the purposes of this section, shall include Hispanic-serving institutions (as defined in

section 316(b)(1) of such Act (20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)(1)))¿.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 138—COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH NATO

ALLIES AND OTHER COUNTRIES

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—OTHER COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS

* * * * * * *

561

§ 2350a. Cooperative research and development projects: allied countries

(a) * * *

(b) REQUIREMENT THAT PROJECTS IMPROVE CONVENTIONAL DEFENSE CAPABILITIES.—(1) * * *

(2) The authority of the Secretary to make a determination under

paragraph (1) may only be delegated to the Deputy Secretary of

Defense or the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and

Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

* * * * * * *

(e) COOPERATIVE OPPORTUNITIES DOCUMENT.—(1)(A) In order to

ensure that opportunities to conduct cooperative research and development projects are considered at an early point during the formal development review process of the Department of Defense in

connection with any planned project of the Department, the

øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall prepare an arms cooperation opportunities document with

respect to that project for review by the Defense Acquisition Board

at formal meetings of the Board.

* * * * * * *

(2) An arms cooperation opportunities document referred to in

paragraph (1) shall include the following:

(A) * * *

(B) If a project similar to the one under consideration by the

Department of Defense is in development or production by one

or more major allies of the United States or NATO organizations, an assessment by the øUnder Secretary of Defense for

Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics as to whether that project

could satisfy, or could be modified in scope so as to satisfy, the

military requirements of the project of the United States under

consideration by the Department of Defense.

* * * * * * *

(f) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—(1) Not later than March 1 of each

year, the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and

Logistics shall submit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committees on Armed Services and Appropriations of

the Senate a report on cooperative research and development

projects under this section. Each such report shall include—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 139—RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

* * * * * * *

562

§ 2366. Major systems and munitions programs: survivability

and lethality testing required before full-scale production

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) WAIVER AUTHORITY.—(1) The Secretary of Defense may waive

the application of the survivability and lethality tests of this section to a covered system, munitions program, missile program, or

covered product improvement program if the Secretary, before the

system or program enters øengineering and manufacturing development¿ system development and demonstration, certifies to Congress that live-fire testing of such system or program would be unreasonably expensive and impractical.

(2) In the case of a covered system (or covered product improvement program for a covered system), the Secretary may waive the

application of the survivability and lethality tests of this section to

such system or program and instead allow testing of the system or

program in combat by firing munitions likely to be encountered in

combat at components, subsystems, and subassemblies, together

with performing design analyses, modeling and simulation, and

analysis of combat data. Such alternative testing may not be carried out in the case of any covered system (or covered product improvement program for a covered system) unless the Secretary certifies to Congress, before the system or program enters øengineering and manufacturing development¿ system development and demonstration, that the survivability and lethality testing of such system or program otherwise required by this section would be unreasonably expensive and impracticable.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 140—PROCUREMENT OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

* * * * * * *

§ 2375. Relationship of commercial item provisions to other

provisions of law

(a) * * *

(b) LIST OF LAWS INAPPLICABLE TO CONTRACTS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS.—No contract for the procurement of

a commercial item entered into by the head of an agency shall be

subject to any law properly listed in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (pursuant to section 34 of the Office of Federal Procurement

Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 430)).

* * * * * * *

§ 2376. Definitions

In this chapter:

(1) The terms ‘‘commercial item’’, ‘‘nondevelopmental item’’, ‘‘component’’, and ‘‘commercial component’’ have the meanings

provided in section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 403).

* * * * * * *

563

CHAPTER 141—MISCELLANEOUS PROCUREMENT

PROVISIONS

Sec.

2381. Contracts: regulations for bids.

2382. Contracts for services to be performed outside the United States.

* * * * * * *

§ 2382. Contracts for services to be performed outside the

United States

The Secretary of Defense may enter into contracts to employ individuals or organizations to perform services in countries other than

the United States without regard to laws regarding the negotiation,

making, and performance of contracts and performance of work in

the United States. Individuals employed by contract to perform such

services shall not by virtue of such employment be considered to be

employees of the United States Government for purposes of any law

administered by the Office of Personnel Management, but the Secretary may determine the applicability to such individuals of any

other law administered by the Secretary concerning the employment

of such individuals in countries other than the United States.

* * * * * * *

§ 2399. Operational test and evaluation of defense acquisition programs

(a) * * *

(b) OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) The Director shall submit each report under paragraph (2) to

the Secretary of Defense, the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the congressional defense committees. Each such report shall be submitted to those committees

in precisely the same form and with precisely the same content as

the report originally was submitted to the Secretary and Under

Secretary and shall be accompanied by such comments as the Secretary may wish to make on the report.

* * * * * * *

§ 2400. Low-rate initial production of new systems

(a) DETERMINATION OF QUANTITIES TO BE PROCURED FOR LOWRATE INITIAL PRODUCTION.—(1) In the course of the development of

a major system, the determination of what quantity of articles of

that system should be procured for low-rate initial production (including the quantity to be procured for preproduction verification

articles) shall be made—

(A) when the milestone øII¿ B decision with respect to that

system is made; and

* * * * * * *

(2) In this section, the term ‘‘milestone øII¿ B decision’’ means

the decision to approve the øengineering and manufacturing development¿ system development and demonstration of a major system

564

by the official of the Department of Defense designated to have the

authority to make that decision.

* * * * * * *

(4) The quantity of articles of a major system that may be procured for low-rate initial production may not be less than one operationally configured production unit unless another quantity is established at the milestone øII¿ B decision.

(5) The Secretary of Defense shall include a statement of the

quantity determined under paragraph (1) in the first SAR submitted with respect to the program concerned after that quantity

is determined. If the quantity exceeds 10 percent of the total number of articles to be produced, as determined at the milestone øII¿

B decision with respect to that system, the Secretary shall include

in the statement the reasons for such quantity. For purposes of this

paragraph, the term ‘‘SAR’’ means a Selected Acquisition Report

submitted under section 2432 of this title.

* * * * * * *

§ 2410f. Debarment of persons convicted of fraudulent use of

‘‘Made in America’’ labels

(a) If the Secretary of Defense determines that a person has been

convicted of intentionally affixing a label bearing a ‘‘Made in America’’ inscription, or another inscription with the same meaning, to

any product sold in or shipped to the United States that is not

made in America, the Secretary shall determine, not later than 90

days after determining that the person has been so convicted,

whether the person should be debarred from contracting with the

Department of Defense.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 144—MAJOR DEFENSE ACQUISITION

PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

§ 2432. Selected Acquisition Reports

(a) * * *

(b)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3)(A) The Secretary of Defense may waive the requirement for

submission of Selected Acquisition Reports for a program for a fiscal year if— (i) the program has not entered øengineering and manufacturing development¿ system development and demonstration;

* * * * * * *

(c)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3) In addition to the material required by paragraphs (1) and

(2), each Selected Acquisition Report for the first quarter of a fiscal

year shall include the following:

565

(A) A full life-cycle cost analysis for each major defense acquisition program included in the report that is in the øengineering and manufacturing development¿ system development

and demonstration stage or has completed that stage. The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that this subparagraph is implemented in a uniform manner, to the extent practicable,

throughout the Department of Defense.

* * * * * * *

(h)(1) Total program reporting under this section shall apply to

a major defense acquisition program when funds have been appropriated for such and the Secretary of Defense has decided to proceed to øengineering and manufacturing development¿ system development and demonstration of such program. Reporting may be

limited to the development program as provided in paragraph (2)

before a decision is made by the Secretary of Defense to proceed

to øengineering and manufacturing development¿ system development and demonstration if the Secretary notifies the Committee on

Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives of the intention to submit a

limited report under this subsection not less than 15 days before

a report is due under this section.

* * * * * * *

§ 2434. Independent cost estimates; operational manpower

requirements

(a) REQUIREMENT FOR APPROVAL.—The Secretary of Defense may

not approve the øengineering and manufacturing development¿

system development and demonstration, or the production and deployment, of a major defense acquisition program unless an independent estimate of the full life-cycle cost of the program and a

manpower estimate for the program have been considered by the

Secretary.

* * * * * * *

§ 2435. Baseline description

(a) * * *

(b) FUNDING LIMIT.—No amount appropriated or otherwise made

available to the Department of Defense for carrying out a major defense acquisition program may be obligated after the program enters øengineering and manufacturing development¿ system development and demonstration without an approved baseline description

unless such obligation is specifically approved by the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

(c) SCHEDULE.—A baseline description for a major defense acquisition program shall be prepared under this section—

(1) before the program enters ødemonstration and validation¿ system development and demonstration;

(2) before the program enters øengineering and manufacturing development¿ production and deployment; and

(3) before the program enters øproduction and deployment¿

full rate production.

566

(d) REGULATIONS.—The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations governing the following:

(1) * * *

(2) The submission to the Secretary of the military department concerned and the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics by the program manager

for a program for which there is an approved baseline description under this section of reports of deviations from the baseline of the cost, schedule, performance, supportability, or any

other factor of the program.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 146—CONTRACTING FOR PERFORMANCE OF

CIVILIAN COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL TYPE FUNCTIONS

Sec.

2460. Definition of depot-level maintenance and repair.

ø2461. Commercial or industrial type functions: required studies and reports

before conversion to contractor performance.¿

2461. Commercial or industrial type functions: required studies and reports before

conversion to, or initiation of, contractor or civilian employee performance.

* * * * * * *

2461b. Use of private sector to perform commercial or industrial type function: contractor reporting requirements.

* * * * * * *

ø2468. Military installations: authority of base commanders over contracting for

commercial activities.¿

* * * * * * *

ø§ 2461. Commercial or industrial type functions: required

studies and reports before conversion to contractor performance¿

§ 2461. Commercial or industrial type functions: required

studies and reports before conversion to, or initiation of, contractor or civilian employee performance

(a) REPORTING AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS AS PRECONDITION

TO øCHANGE IN PERFORMANCE.—¿ CHANGE IN OR INITIATION OF

PERFORMANCE.—(1) A commercial or industrial type function of the

Department of Defense that, as of October 1, 1980, was being performed by Department of Defense civilian employees may not be

changed to performance by the private sector until the Secretary of

Defense fully complies with the reporting and analysis requirements specified in subsections (b) and (c).

(2) In the case of a commercial or industrial type function of the

Department of Defense not previously performed by Department of

Defense civilian employees or a contractor, the performance of the

function by the private sector may not be initiated until— (A) the Secretary of Defense conducts a cost comparison examination that employs the most efficient organization process described in Office of Management and Budget Circular A–76,

567

and its supplemental handbook or any successor administrative

regulation or policy; and

(B) a determination is made that performance of the function

by the private sector would be less costly over the term of the

contract than performance by Department of Defense civilian

employees during that same period.

(3) This subsection does not apply to the following contracts:

(A) A contract between the Department of Defense and the

private sector for work with a contract value of less than

$1,000,000 so long as the work was not divided, modified, or

in any way changed for the purpose of avoiding the requirements of this section.

(B) A contract for special studies and analyses, construction

services, architectural services, engineering services, medical

services, scientific and technical services related to (but not in

support of) research and development, and depot-level maintenance and repair services.

(4) The Secretary of Defense may waive the applicability of this

section if—

(A) the written waiver is prepared by the Secretary of Defense,

or the relevant Assistant Secretary or agency head; and

(B) the written waiver is accompanied by a detailed determination that—

(i) there is no reasonable expectation that civilian employees would win a public-private competition for the function; and

(ii) the issuance of a waiver would not serve to reduce

significantly the level of or quality of competition in the future award or performance of work.

(5) The Secretary of Defense shall publish a copy of the waiver in

the Federal Register.

(b) NOTIFICATION AND ELEMENTS OF ANALYSIS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5)(A) A commercial or industrial type function of the Department

of Defense may not be changed to performance by the private sector

unless, as a result of the cost comparison examination required

under paragraph (3)(A), that employed the most efficient organization process described in Office of Management and Budget Circular

A–76 or any successor administrative regulation or policy, at least

a 10-percent cost savings would be achieved by performance of the

function by the private sector over the term of the contract.

(B) The cost savings requirement specified in subparagraph (A)

does not apply to any contracts for special studies and analyses,

construction services, architectural services, engineering services,

medical services, scientific and technical services related to (but not

in support of) research and development, and depot-level maintenance and repair services.

(C) The Secretary of Defense may waive the cost savings requirement if—

(i) the written waiver is prepared by the Secretary of Defense,

or the relevant Assistant Secretary or agency head; and

(ii) the written waiver is accompanied by a detailed determination that national security interests are so compelling as to

568

preclude compliance with the requirement for a cost comparison

examination.

(D) The Secretary of Defense shall publish a copy of the waiver

in the Federal Register.

* * * * * * *

ø(d) WAIVER FOR SMALL FUNCTIONS.—Subsections (a) through (c)

and subsection (g) shall not apply to a commercial or industrial

type function of the Department of Defense that is being performed

by 50 or fewer Department of Defense civilian employees.¿

(d) EQUITY IN PUBLIC-PRIVATE COMPETITION.—(1) For any fiscal

year in which commercial or industrial type functions of the Department of Defense performed by Department of Defense civilian employees are studied for possible change to private sector performance, the Secretary of Defense shall subject approximately the same

number of positions held by non-Federal employees under contracts

with the Department of Defense to the same cost comparison examination described in subsection (b)(3), subject to the completion of

the terms of those contracts.

(2) To the extent possible, the Secretary of Defense should, in complying with this subsection, select those contract positions held by

non-Federal employees under contracts with the Department of Defense that are associated with commercial or industrial type functions that are, or have been, performed at least in part by Department of Defense civilian employees at any time on or after October

1, 1980.

(3) Notwithstanding any limitation on the number of Department

of Defense civilian employees established by law, regulation, or policy, the Department of Defense may continue to employ, or may hire,

such civilian employees as are necessary to perform functions acquired through the public-private competitions required by this subsection or any other provision of this section.

* * * * * * *

§ 2461a. Development of system for monitoring cost savings

resulting from workforce reductions

(a) WORKFORCE REVIEW DEFINED.—In this section, the term

‘‘workforce review’’, with respect to a function of the Department of

Defense performed by Department of Defense civilian employees,

means a review conducted under Office of Management and Budget

Circular A–76 (or any successor administrative regulation or policy), the Strategic Sourcing Program Plan of Action (or any successor Department of Defense guidance or directive), or any other

authority to determine whether the function—

(1) * * *

(2) should be reorganized or otherwise reengineered to improve the øeffeciency¿ efficiency or effectiveness of the performance of the function, with a resulting decrease in the number

of Department of Defense civilian employees performing the

function.

(b) SYSTEM FOR MONITORING PERFORMANCE.—(1) The Secretary

of Defense shall establish a system for monitoring the performance,

including the cost of performance, of each function of the DepartVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00592 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
569

ment of Defense that, after øthe date of the enactment of this section,¿ October 30, 2000, is the subject of a workforce review.

* * * * * * *

§ 2461b. Use of private sector to perform commercial or industrial type function: contractor reporting requirements

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) CONTRACTOR.—The term ‘‘contractor’’ includes a subcontractor.

(2) SECRETARY CONCERNED.—The term ‘‘Secretary concerned’’ includes the Secretary of Defense with respect to matters concerning the Defense Agencies.

(b) GENERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary concerned shall require each defense contractor to report to secure

websites established and maintained by the Defense Agencies and

military departments the same contractor direct and indirect

manhour and cost information collected by the Department of the

Army pursuant to part 668 of title 32, Code of Federal Regulations,

as in effect on December 26, 2000, in terms of functions performed,

appropriations funding the contract, and identification of the subordinate organizational elements within the Defense Agency or military department directly overseeing the contractor performance. The

indirect information reported may comprise annualized rates for an

entire company, which are not apportioned by specific contracts.

(c) ASSIGNMENT OF REPORTING RESPONSIBILITY.—The Defense

Agency or military department containing the major organizational

element receiving or reviewing the work performed by a defense contractor shall be responsible for collecting the data required by this

section, even where all or part of the contracted work is funded by

appropriations not controlled by the Secretary concerned. If the Defense Agency or military department containing the major organizational element receiving or reviewing the work performed by the contractor is different from the Defense Agency or military department

containing the contracting activity, the Secretary concerned shall ensure that the contractor reports the required information to the Defense Agency or military department containing the major organizational element receiving or reviewing the work performed by the contractor.

(d) TIMING OF CONTRACTOR REPORTING TO ASSURE DATA QUAL- ITY.—The Secretary concerned shall require contractors to report the

information described in subsection (c) to the secure web-site contemporaneous with submission of a request for payment (for example, voucher, invoice, or request for progress payment) or not later

than quarterly.

(e) CONTRACT REQUIREMENT EFFECTIVE DATE.—The Secretary

concerned shall include the reporting requirement described in this

section in each contract solicitation issued, contract awarded, and

bilateral modification of an existing contract executed, by the Secretary concerned after October 1, 2001.

(f) CONTRACTOR SELF-EXEMPTION.—The Secretary concerned

shall exempt a contractor from the data collection requirement imposed by this section if the contractor certifies in writing that the

570

contractor does not have an internal system for aggregating billable

hours in the direct or indirect pools, or an internal payroll accounting system, and does not otherwise have to ever provide this information to the Government. A contractor may not claim an exemption on the sole basis that the contractor is a foreign contractor, that

services are provided pursuant to a firm fixed price or time and materials contract or similar instrument, that the payroll system of the

contractor is performed by another person, or that the contractor

has too many subcontractors. The validity of this certification is the

only requirement in this section subject to audit and verification by

the Secretary concerned.

(g) REPORT TO CONGRESS AND COMPTROLLER GENERAL AC- TIONS.—The Secretary concerned shall submit the information collected under subsection (c) to Congress not later than October 1 of

each year for the prior fiscal year. Not later than April 1 of each

year, the Comptroller General will review the information submitted

for the prior fiscal year to assess compliance with this section and

the effectiveness of Department of Defense initiatives to integrate

this information into its budgeting process.

(h) PUBLICATION OF REPORTS.—After completion of the Comptroller General review under subsection (h), the Secretary concerned

shall take steps to make the nonproprietary compilations of the data

public on web sites, using the publication standard expressed by the

Department of the Army in part 668 of title 32, Code of Federal Regulations.

* * * * * * *

§ 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 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,

ønuclear aircraft carriers¿ nuclear refueling of 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.

* * * * * * *

§ 2467. Cost comparisons: inclusion of retirement costs; consultation with employees; waiver of comparison

(a) REQUIREMENT TO INCLUDE RETIREMENT COSTS.—(1) * * *

(2) The retirement system costs of the Department of Defense

shall include (to the extent applicable) the following:

(A) The cost of the Federal Employees’ Retirement System,

valued by using the normal-cost percentage (as defined by section 8401(23) of title 5ø, United States Code¿).

571

(B) The cost of the Civil Service Retirement System under

subchapter III of chapter 83 of øsuch¿ title 5.

(C) The cost of the thrift savings plan under subchapter III

of chapter 84 of øsuch¿ title 5.

* * * * * * *

(b) REQUIREMENT TO CONSULT DOD EMPLOYEES.—(1) * * *

(2)(A) In the case of employees represented by a labor organization accorded exclusive recognition under section 7111 of title 5,

øUnited States Code,¿ consultation with representatives of that

labor organization shall satisfy the consultation requirement in

paragraph (1).

* * * * * * *

ø§ 2468. Military installations: authority of base commanders over contracting for commercial activities

ø(a) AUTHORITY OF BASE COMMANDER.—The Secretary of Defense

shall direct that the commander of each military installation shall

have the authority and the responsibility to enter into contracts in

accordance with this section for the performance of a commercial

activity on the military installation.

ø(b) YEARLY DUTIES OF BASE COMMANDER.—To enter into a contract under subsection (a) for a fiscal year, the commander of a

military installation shall—

ø(1) prepare an inventory for that fiscal year of commercial

activities carried out by Government personnel on the military

installation;

ø(2) decide which commercial activities shall be reviewed

under the procedures and requirements of Office of Management and Budget Circular A–76 (or any successor administrative regulation or policy); and

ø(3) conduct a solicitation for contracts for the performance

of those commercial activities selected for conversion to contractor performance under the Circular A–76 process.

ø(c) LIMITATIONS.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe

regulations under which the commander of each military installation may exercise the authority and responsibility provided under

subsection (a).

ø(2) The authority and responsibility provided under subsection

(a) are subject to the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary.

ø(d) ASSISTANCE TO DISPLACED EMPLOYEES.—If the commander

of a military installation enters into a contract under subsection

(a), the commander shall, to the maximum extent practicable, assist in finding suitable employment for any employee of the Department of Defense who is displaced because of that contract.

ø(e) MILITARY INSTALLATION DEFINED.—In this section, the term

‘‘military installation’’ means a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, or other activity under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a

military department which is located within the United States, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or Guam.

572

ø(f) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—The authority provided to

commanders of military installations by subsection (a) shall terminate on September 30, 1995.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 2474. Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence: designation; public-private partnerships

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) AVAILABILITY OF EXCESS EQUIPMENT TO PRIVATE-SECTOR

PARTNERS.—Equipment or facilities of a Center of Industrial and

Technical Excellence may be made available for use by a privatesector entity under this section only if—

(1) * * *

(2) the private-sector entity agrees—

(A) * * *

(B) to hold harmless and indemnify the United States

from—

(i) any claim for damages or injury to any person or

property arising out of the use of the equipment or facilities, except øin a case of willful conduct or gross

negligence¿ under the circumstances described in section 2563(c)(3) of this title; and

* * * * * * *

(g) PILOT PROJECT FOR THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM LIMITATION ON PRIVATE SECTOR PERFORMANCE OF

DEPOT-LEVEL MAINTENANCE.—

(1) AMOUNTS EXCLUDED.—Amounts expended out of funds described in paragraph (2) for the performance of a depot-level

maintenance and repair workload by non-Federal Government

personnel at a Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence

named in paragraph (4) shall not be counted for the purposes

of section 2466(a) of this title if the personnel are provided by

private industry pursuant to a public-private partnership undertaken by the Center under subsection (b).

(2) FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2002 THROUGH 2006.—The funds

referred to in paragraph (1) are funds available to the Air Force

for depot-level maintenance and repair workloads for fiscal year

2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, or 2006, and shall not exceed 10 percent of the total funds available in any single year.

(3) REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.—All funds covered by paragraph (1) shall be included as a separate item in the reports required under paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of section 2466(e) of

this title.

(4) COVERED CENTERS.—(A) The Centers of Industrial and

Technical Excellence referred to in paragraph (1) are the following:

(i) Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center, Oklahoma.

(ii) Ogden Air Logistics Center, Utah.

(iii) Warner-Robins Air Logistics Center, Georgia.

(B) The Secretary of the Air Force shall designate as a Center

of Industrial and Technical Excellence under this section any of

573

the air logistics centers named in subparagraph (A) that have

not previously been so designated and shall specify the core

competencies for which the designation is made.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 148—NATIONAL DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY AND

INDUSTRIAL BASE, DEFENSE REINVESTMENT, AND

DEFENSE CONVERSION

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—POLICIES AND PLANNING

* * * * * * *

§ 2503. National defense program for analysis of the

technology and industrial base

(a) * * *

(b) SUPERVISION OF PROGRAM.—The Secretary of Defense shall

carry out the program through the øUnder Secretary of Defense for

Acquisition¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. In carrying out the program, the Under Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of

Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER IV—MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY

* * * * * * *

§ 2521. Manufacturing Technology Program

(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Secretary of Defense shall establish a

Manufacturing Technology Program to further the national security objectives of section 2501(a) of this title through the development and application of advanced manufacturing technologies and

processes that will reduce the acquisition and supportability costs

of defense weapon systems and reduce manufacturing and repair

cycle times across the life cycles of such systems. The Secretary

shall use the joint planning process of the directors of the Department of Defense laboratories in establishing the program. The

øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology¿

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall administer the program.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER V—MISCELLANEOUS TECHNOLOGY BASE

POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Sec.

2531. Defense memoranda of understanding and related agreements.

* * * * * * *

2533a. Requirement to buy certain articles from American sources; exceptions.

* * * * * * *

574

§ 2533a. Requirement to buy certain articles from American

sources; exceptions

(a) REQUIREMENT.—Except as provided in subsections (c) through

(g), funds appropriated or otherwise available to the Department of

Defense may not be used for the procurement of an item described

in subsection (b) if the item is not grown, reprocessed, reused, or

produced in the United States.

(b) COVERED ITEMS.—An item referred to in subsection (a) is any

of the following:

(1) An article or item of— (A) food;

(B) clothing;

(C) tents, tarpaulins, parachutes, or covers;

(D) cotton and other natural fiber products, woven silk or

woven silk blends, spun silk yarn for cartridge cloth, synthetic fabric or coated synthetic fabric (including all textile

fibers and yarns that are for use in such fabrics), canvas

products, or wool (whether in the form of fiber or yarn or

contained in fabrics, materials, or manufactured articles);

or

(E) any item of individual equipment manufactured from

or containing such fibers, yarns, fabrics, or materials.

(2) Specialty metals, including stainless steel flatware.

(3) Hand or measuring tools.

(c) EXCEPTION.—The Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the

military department concerned may waive the requirement in subsection (a) if— (1) such Secretary determines that satisfactory quality and

sufficient quantity of any such article or item described in subsection (b)(1) or specialty metals (including stainless steel flatware) grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United

States cannot be procured as and when needed at United States

market prices;

(2) such Secretary has provided notice to the public regarding

the waiver;

(3) such Secretary has notified the Committees on Appropriations, Armed Services, and Small Business of the House of Representatives and the Senate regarding the waiver and provided

a justification to such committees for the waiver; and

(4) 30 days have elapsed since the date of the notification of

such committees.

(d) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN PROCUREMENTS OUTSIDE THE

UNITED STATES.—Subsection (a) does not apply to the following:

(1) Procurements outside the United States in support of combat operations.

(2) Procurements by vessels in foreign waters.

(3) Emergency procurements or procurements of perishable

foods by an establishment located outside the United States for

the personnel attached to such establishment.

(e) EXCEPTION FOR SPECIALTY METALS AND CHEMICAL WARFARE

PROTECTIVE CLOTHING.—Subsection (a) does not preclude the procurement of specialty metals or chemical warfare protective clothing

produced outside the United States if—

(1) such procurement is necessary—

575

(A) to comply with agreements with foreign governments

requiring the United States to purchase supplies from foreign sources for the purposes of offsetting sales made by the

United States Government or United States firms under

approved programs serving defense requirements; or

(B) in furtherance of agreements with foreign governments in which both such governments agree to remove barriers to purchases of supplies produced in the other country

or services performed by sources of the other country; and

(2) any such agreement with a foreign government complies,

where applicable, with the requirements of section 36 of the

Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776) and with section

2457 of this title.

(f) EXCEPTION FOR CERTAIN FOODS.—Subsection (a) does not preclude the procurement of foods manufactured or processed in the

United States.

(g) EXCEPTION FOR SMALL PURCHASES.—Subsection (a) does not

apply to purchases for amounts not greater than the simplified acquisition threshold referred to in section 2304(g) of this title.

(h) APPLICABILITY TO CONTRACTS AND SUBCONTRACTS FOR PRO- CUREMENT OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS.—This section is applicable to

contracts and subcontracts for the procurement of commercial items

notwithstanding section 34 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 430).

(i) GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE.—In this section, the term ‘‘United

States’’ includes the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of

the United States.

(j) EXCEPTION FOR COMMISSARIES, EXCHANGES, AND OTHER NON- APPROPRIATED FUND INSTRUMENTALITIES.—Subsection (a) does not

apply to items purchased for resale purposes in commissaries, military exchanges, or nonappropriated fund instrumentalities operated

by the military departments or the Department of Defense.

§ 2534. Miscellaneous limitations on the procurement of

goods other than United States goods

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i) IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN WAIVER AUTHORITY.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) The waiver authority described in paragraph (2) may not be

delegated below the øUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition

and Technology¿ Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics.

* * * * * * *

§ 2535. Defense Industrial Reserve

(a) DECLARATION OF PURPOSE AND POLICY.—It is the øintent of

Congress¿ intent of Congress— (1) to provide a comprehensive and continuous program for

the future safety and for the defense of the United States by

providing adequate measures whereby an essential nucleus of

Government-owned industrial plants and an industrial reserve

576

of machine tools and other industrial manufacturing equipment may be assured for immediate use to supply the needs

of the øArmed Forces¿ armed forces in time of national emergency or in anticipation thereof;

(2) that such Government-owned plants and such reserve

shall not exceed in number or kind the minimum requirements

for immediate use in time of national emergency, and that any

such items which shall become excess to such requirements

shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible;

(3) that to the maximum extent practicable, reliance will be

placed upon private industry for support of defense production;

and

(4) that machine tools and other industrial manufacturing

equipment may be held in plant equipment packages or in a

general reserve to maintain a high state of readiness for production of critical items of defense materiel, to provide production capacity not available in private industry for defense materiel, or to assist private industry in time of national disaster.

(b) POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.—(1) To

execute the policy set forth øin this section, the Secretary is authorized and directed to—¿ in subsection (a), the Secretary of Defense shall— (A) determine which industrial plants and installations (including machine tools and other industrial manufacturing

equipment) should become a part of the ødefense industrial reserve¿ Defense Industrial Reserve;

* * * * * * *

(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

ø(1) The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means Secretary of Defense.¿

ø(2)¿ (1) The term ‘‘Defense Industrial Reserve’’ ømeans¿

means—

(A) a general reserve of industrial manufacturing equipment, including machine tools, selected by the Secretary of

Defense for retention for national defense or for other

emergency use;

(B) those industrial plants and installations held by and

under the control of the Department of Defense in active

or inactive status, including Government-owned/Government-operated plants and installations and Governmentowned/contractor-operated plants and installations which

are retained for use in their entirety, or in part, for production of military weapons systems, munitions, components, or supplies; and

(C) those industrial plants and installations under the

control of the Secretary which are not required for the immediate need of any department or agency of the Government and which should be sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of.

ø(3)¿ (2) The term ‘‘plant equipment package’’ means a complement of active and idle machine tools and other industrial

manufacturing equipment held by and under the control of the

Department of Defense and approved by the Secretary for retention to produce particular defense materiel or defense supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00600 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
577

porting items at a specific level of output in the event of emergency.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER VII—CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

PROTECTION LOAN GUARANTEES

* * * * * * *

§ 2541c. Transferability, additional limitations, and definition

The following provisions of øsubtitle¿ subchapter VI of this chapter apply to guarantees issued under this øsubtitle¿ subchapter:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 152—ISSUE OF SUPPLIES, SERVICES, AND

FACILITIES

Sec.

2551. Equipment and barracks: national veterans’ organizations.

* * * * * * *

ø2557. Excess nonlethal supplies: humanitarian relief.¿

2557. Excess nonlethal supplies: availability for homeless veteran initiatives and

humanitarian relief.

* * * * * * *

2564. Provision of support for certain sporting events.

ø2555.¿ 2565. Nuclear test monitoring equipment: furnishing to foreign governments.

* * * * * * *

§ 2554. Equipment and other services: Boy Scout Jamborees

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) The Secretary of Defense is hereby authorized under such

regulations as he may prescribe, to provide, without expense to the

United States Government, transportation from the United States

or military commands overseas, and return, on vessels of the Military Sealift Command or aircraft of the øMilitary Airlift Command¿ Air Mobility Command for (1) those Boy Scouts, Scouters,

and officials certified by the Boy Scouts of America, as representing

the Boy Scouts of America at any national or world Boy Scout Jamboree, and (2) the equipment and property of such Boy Scouts,

Scouters, and officials and the property loaned to the Boy Scouts

of America, by the Secretary of Defense pursuant to this section to

the extent that such transportation will not interfere with the requirements of military operations.

* * * * * * *

§ 2555. Transportation services: international Girl Scout

events

(a) The Secretary of Defense is authorized, under such regulations as he may prescribe, to provide, without expense to the

United States Government, transportation from the United States

578

or military commands overseas, and return, on vessels of the Military Sealift Command or aircraft of the øMilitary Airlift Command¿ Air Mobility Command for (1) those Girl Scouts and officials

certified by the Girl Scouts of the United States of America as representing the Girl Scouts of the United States of America at any

International World Friendship Event or Troops on Foreign Soil

meeting which is endorsed and approved by the National Board of

Directors of the Girl Scouts of the United States of America and

is conducted outside of the United States, (2) United States citizen

delegates coming from outside of the United States to triennial

meetings of the National Council of the Girl Scouts of the United

States of America, and (3) the equipment and property of such Girl

Scouts and officials, to the extent that such transportation will not

interfere with the requirements of military operations.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 2557. Excess nonlethal supplies: humanitarian relief¿

§ 2557. Excess nonlethal supplies: availability for homeless

veteran initiatives and humanitarian relief

(a)(1) The Secretary of Defense may make available for humanitarian relief purposes any nonlethal excess supplies of the Department of Defense.

(2) The Secretary of Defense may make excess clothing, shoes,

sleeping bags, and related nonlethal excess supplies available to the

Secretary of Veterans Affairs for distribution to homeless veterans

and programs assisting homeless veterans. The transfer of nonlethal

excess supplies to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under this paragraph shall be without reimbursement.

* * * * * * *

§ 2563. Articles and services of industrial facilities: sale to

persons outside the Department of Defense

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) CONDITIONS FOR SALES.—(1) A sale of articles or services may

be made under this section only if— (A) * * *

(B) the purchaser agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the

United States, except øin any case of willful misconduct or

gross negligence¿ as provided in paragraph (3), from any claim

for damages or injury to any person or property arising out of

the articles or services;

* * * * * * *

(3) Paragraph (1)(B) does not apply in any case of willful misconduct or gross negligence or in the case of a claim by a purchaser

of articles or services under this section that damages or injury

arose from the failure of the Government to comply with quality,

schedule, or cost performance requirements in the contract to provide the articles or services.

* * * * * * *

579

ø§ 2555.¿ § 2565. Nuclear test monitoring equipment: furnishing to foreign governments

(a) AUTHORITY TO øCONVEY OR¿ TRANSFER TITLE TO OR OTHERWISE PROVIDE NUCLEAR TEST MONITORING EQUIPMENT.—Subject to

subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may—

(1) øconvey¿ transfer title or otherwise provide to a foreign

government (A) equipment for the monitoring of nuclear test

explosions, and (B) associated equipment; øand¿

(2) as part of any such conveyance or provision of equipment,

install such equipment on foreign territory or in international

watersø.¿; and

(3) inspect, test, maintain, repair, or replace any such equipment.

(b) AGREEMENT REQUIRED.—Nuclear test explosion monitoring

equipment may be øconveyed or otherwise provided¿ provided to a

foreign government under subsection (a) only pursuant to the terms

of an agreement between the United States and the foreign government receiving the equipment in which the recipient foreign government agrees—

(1) to provide the United States with timely access to the

data produced, collected, or generated by the equipment; and

(2) to permit the Secretary of Defense to take such measures

as the Secretary considers necessary to inspect, test, maintain,

repair, or replace that equipment, including access for purposes

of such measuresø; and¿.

ø(3) to return such equipment to the United States (or allow

the United States to recover such equipment) if either party

determines that the agreement no longer serves its interests.¿

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 153—EXCHANGE OF MATERIAL AND DISPOSAL

OF OBSOLETE, SURPLUS, OR UNCLAIMED PROPERTY

Sec.

2571. Interchange of property and services.

* * * * * * *

2582. Military equipment identified on United States munitions list: annual report

of public sales.

ø2582.¿ 2583. Military working dogs: transfer and adoption at end of useful working life.

* * * * * * *

§ 2572. Documents, historical artifacts, and condemned or

obsolete combat materiel: loan, gift, or exchange

(a) The Secretary concerned may lend or give items described in

subsection (c) that are not needed by the military department concerned (or by the Coast Guard, in the case of the Secretary of

Transportation), to any of the following:

(1) A municipal corporation, county, or other political subdivision of a State. (2) A øsoldiers’ monument¿ servicemen’s monument association.

* * * * * * *

580

(4) An incorporated museum or memorial that is operated

and maintained for educational purposes only and the charter

of which denies it the right to operate for profit.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 2582.¿ § 2583. Military working dogs: transfer and adoption at end of useful working life

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 157—TRANSPORTATION

Sec.

2631. Supplies: preference to United States vessels.

* * * * * * *

2647. Transportation to annual meeting of next-of-kin of persons unaccounted for

from conflicts after World War II.

* * * * * * *

§ 2634. Motor vehicles: transportation or storage for members on change of permanent station or extended

deployment

(a) * * *

(b)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(4) Storage costs payable under this subsection may be paid in

advance.

* * * * * * *

(h) In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘change of permanent station’’ means the transfer or assignment of a member of the armed forces from a permanent station inside the continental United States to a permanent station outside the continental United States or from

a permanent station outside the continental United States to

another permanent station. It also includes an authorized

change in home port of a vessel, or a transfer or assignment

between two permanent stations in the continental United

States when the member cannot, because of injury or the conditions of the order, drive the motor vehicle between the permanent duty stations or when the Secretary concerned determines that the transport of a vehicle upon such a transfer is advantageous and cost-effective to the United States.

* * * * * * *

§ 2647. Transportation to annual meeting of next-of-kin of

persons unaccounted for from conflicts after World

War II

The Secretary of Defense may provide transportation for the nextof-kin of persons who are unaccounted for from the Korean conflict,

the Cold War, Vietnam War era, or the Persian Gulf War to and

from an annual meeting in the United States. Such transportation

581

shall be provided under such regulations as the Secretary of Defense

may prescribe.

CHAPTER 159—REAL PROPERTY; RELATED PERSONAL

PROPERTY; AND LEASE OF NONEXCESS PROPERTY

Sec.

2661. Miscellaneous administrative provisions relating to real property.

* * * * * * *

ø2693. Conveyance of certain property.¿

2693. Conveyance of certain property: Department of Justice correctional options

program.

* * * * * * *

§ 2671. Military reservations and facilities: hunting, fishing,

and trapping

(a) * * *

(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to all or certain

specified hunting, fishing, or trapping at a military installation or

facility if the Secretary of Defense determines that the application

of the State or Territory fish and game laws to such hunting, fishing, or trapping without modification could result in undesirable

consequences for public safety or adverse effects on morale, welfare,

or recreation activities at the installation or facility. The Secretary

may not waive or modify the requirements under subsection (a)(2)

regarding a license for such hunting, fishing, or trapping or any fee

imposed by a State or Territory to obtain such a license.

* * * * * * *

ø(b)¿ (e) The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations to

carry out this section.

* * * * * * *

§ 2685. Adjustment of or surcharge on selling prices in commissary stores to provide funds for construction

and improvement of commissary store facilities

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) REIMBURSEMENT FOR NONCOMMISSARY USE OF COMMISSARY

FACILITIES.—(1) If the Secretary concerned uses for noncommissary

purposes a commissary facility whose construction was financed (in

whole or in part) using the proceeds of adjustments or surcharges

authorized by subsection (a) or revenues referred to in subsection (e),

the Secretary concerned shall reimburse the commissary surcharge

account for the depreciated value of the investment made with such

proceeds and revenues.

(2) In paragraph (1), the term ‘‘construction’’ has the meaning

given such term in subsection (d)(2).

* * * * * * *

582

§ 2692. Storage, treatment, and disposal of nondefense toxic

and hazardous materials

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d)(1)***

(2) In the case of storage under this section authorized because

of an imminent danger, the storage provided shall be temporary

and shall cease once the imminent danger no longer exists. In the

case of the storage of mercury under subsection (b)(12), the storage

provided shall cease as soon as practicable after the Administrator

of the Environmental Protection Agency certifies to the Secretary of

Defense that a disposal method for mercury satisfying the criteria

specified in such subsection has been developed. In all other cases

of storage or disposal authorized under this section, the storage or

disposal authorized shall be terminated as determined by the Secretary.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 2693. Conveyance of certain property¿

§ 2693. Conveyance of certain property: Department of Justice

correctional options program

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), before any real property

or facility of the United States that is under the jurisdiction of any

department, agency, or instrumentality of the Department of Defense is determined to be excess to the needs of such department,

agency, or instrumentality, the Secretary of Defense shall— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) if the Attorney General certifies to the Secretary of Defense that a determination has been made by the Director of

the Bureau of Justice Assistance within the Department of

Justice to utilize the real property or facility under the correctional options program carried out under section 515 of title I

of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42

U.S.C. 3762a), convey the real property or facility, without reimbursement, øto the public agencies referred to in section

515(a)(1) or 515(a)(3) of title I of such Act¿ to a public agency

referred to in paragraph (1) or (3) of subsection (a) of such section for such utilization.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 160—ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

Sec.

2701. Environmental restoration program.

* * * * * * *

2710. Former military ranges: inventory of explosive risk sites; use of inventory;

public safety issues.

2711. Environmental impact statements and environmental assessments: evaluation

of national security impacts of proposed action and alternatives.

* * * * * * *

583

§ 2706. Annual reports to Congress

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(c) REPORT ON CONTRACTOR REIMBURSEMENT COSTS.—(1) The

Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress each year, not

later than 45 days after the date on which the President submits

to the Congress the budget for a fiscal year, a report on payments

made by the Secretary to defense contractors for the costs of environmental response actions.

ø(2) Each such report shall include, for the fiscal year preceding

the year in which the report is submitted, the following:

ø(A) An estimate of the payments made by the Secretary to

any defense contractor (other than a response action contractor) for the costs of environmental response actions at facilities owned or operated by the defense contractor or at which

the defense contractor is liable in whole or in part for the environmental response action.

ø(B) A statement of the amount and current status of any

pending requests by any defense contractor (other than a response action contractor) for payment of the costs of environmental response actions at facilities owned or operated by the

defense contractor or at which the defense contractor is liable

in whole or in part for the environmental response action.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 2710. Former military ranges: inventory of explosive risk

sites; use of inventory; public safety issues

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘former military range’’ means a military range

presently located in the United States that— (A) is or was owned by, leased to, or otherwise possessed

or used by the Federal Government;

(B) is designated as a closed, transferred, or transferring

military range (rather than as an active or inactive range);

or

(C) is or was used as a site for the disposal of military

munitions or for the use of military munitions in training

or research, development, testing, and evaluation.

(2) The term ‘‘abandoned military munitions’’ means

unexploded ordnance and other abandoned military munitions,

including components thereof and chemical weapons materiel,

that pose a threat to human health or safety.

(3) The term ‘‘State’’ includes the District of Columbia, the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories and possessions.

(4) The term ‘‘United States’’, in a geographic sense, includes

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the territories and possessions.

(b) INVENTORY REQUIRED.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall develop and maintain an inventory of former military ranges that are

known or suspected to contain abandoned military munitions.

(2) The information for each former military range in the inventory shall include, at a minimum, the following:

584

(A) A unique identifier for the range and its current designation as either a closed, transferred, or transferring range.

(B) An appropriate record showing the location, boundaries,

and extent of the range, including identification of the State

and political subdivisions of the State in which the range is located and any Tribal lands encompassed by the range.

(C) Known persons and entities, other than a military department, with any current ownership interest or control of lands

encompassed by the range.

(D) Any restrictions or other land use controls currently in

place that might affect the potential for public and environmental exposure to abandoned military munitions.

(c) SITE PRIORITIZATION.—(1) With respect to each former military

range included on the inventory, the Secretary of Defense shall assign the range a relative priority for response activities based on the

overall conditions at the range. The level of response priority assigned the range shall be included with the information required by

subsection (b)(2) to be maintained for the range.

(2) In assigning the response priority for a former military range,

the Secretary of Defense shall primarily consider factors relating to

safety and environmental hazard potential, such as the following:

(A) Whether there are known, versus suspected, abandoned

military munitions on all or any portion of the range and the

types of munitions present or suspected to be present.

(B) Whether public access to the range is controlled, and the

effectiveness of these controls.

(C) The potential for direct human contact with abandoned

military munitions at the range and evidence of people entering

the range.

(D) Whether a response action has been or is being undertaken at the range under the Formerly Used Defense Sites program or other programs.

(E) The planned or mandated dates for transfer of the range

from military control.

(F) The extent of any documented incidents involving abandoned military munitions at or from the range. In this subparagraph, the term ‘‘incidents’’ means any or all of the following:

explosions, discoveries, injuries, reports, and investigations.

(G) The potential for drinking water contamination or the release of weapon components into the air.

(H) The potential for destruction of sensitive ecosystems and

damage to natural resources.

(d) UPDATES AND AVAILABILITY.—(1) The Secretary of Defense

shall annually update the inventory and site prioritization list to reflect new information that becomes available. The inventory shall be

available in published and electronic form.

(2) The Secretary of Defense shall work with adjacent communities to provide information concerning conditions at the former

military range and response activities, and shall respond to inquiries. At a minimum, the Secretary shall notify immediately affected

individuals, appropriate State, local, tribal, and Federal officials,

and, when appropriate, civil defense or emergency management

agencies.

585

§ 2711. Environmental impact statements and environmental

assessments: evaluation of national security impacts of proposed action and alternatives

(a) AGENCY ACTION.—Whenever an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment is required under section 102 of

the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332) to

be prepared in connection with a proposed Department of Defense

action, the Secretary of Defense shall include as a part of the environmental impact statement or environmental assessment a detailed

evaluation of the impact of the proposed action, and each alternative to the proposed action considered in the statement or assessment, on national security, including the readiness, training, testing, and operations of the armed forces.

(b) AGENCY INPUT.—The Secretary of Defense shall also include

the evaluation required by subsection (a) in any input provided by

the Department of Defense as a cooperating agency to a lead agency

preparing an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 169—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AND

MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER I—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

* * * * * * *

§ 2805. Unspecified minor construction

(a) * * *

(b)(1) An unspecified minor military construction project costing

more than ø$500,000¿ $750,000 may not be carried out under this

section unless approved in advance by the Secretary concerned.

This paragraph shall apply even though the project is to be carried

out using funds made available to enhance the deployment and mobility of military forces and supplies.

* * * * * * *

(c)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), the Secretary

concerned may spend from appropriations available for operation

and maintenance amounts necessary to carry out an unspecified

minor military construction project costing not more than—

(A) ø$1,000,000¿ $1,500,000, in the case of an unspecified

minor military construction project intended solely to correct a

deficiency that is life-threatening, health-threatening, or safety-threatening; or

(B) ø$500,000¿ $750,000, in the case of any other unspecified

minor military construction project.

* * * * * * *

586

§ 2814. Special authority for development of Ford Island,

Hawaii

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(j) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LAWS.— Except as otherwise provided in this section, transactions under

this section shall not be subject to the following:

(1) * * *

(2) Section 501 of the øStewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act¿ McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42

U.S.C. 11411).

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING

* * * * * * *

§ 2832. Homeowners assistance program

ø(a)¿ The Secretary of Defense may exercise the authority provided in section 1013 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan

Development Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 3374).

ø(b)(1) Subject to paragraph (2) and notwithstanding subsection

(i) of section 1013 of the Act referred to in subsection (a)—

ø(A) the Secretary of Defense may transfer not more than

$31,000,000 from the Department of Defense Base Closure Account, established by section 207 of the Defense Authorization

Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (Public

Law 100–526; 102 Stat. 2627), to the fund established pursuant to subsection (d) of such section 1013 for use as part of

such fund; and

ø(B) any funds so transferred shall be available for obligation and expenditure for the same purposes that funds appropriated to such fund are available, except that such funds may

not be obligated after September 30, 1991.

ø(2) Amounts may be transferred under paragraph (1) only after

the date on which the appropriate committees of Congress receive

from the Secretary written notice of, and justification for, the

transfer.¿

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER III—ADMINISTRATION OF MILITARY

CONSTRUCTION AND MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING

Sec.

2851. Supervision of military construction projects.

* * * * * * *

ø2861. Annual report to Congress.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 2853. Authorized cost variations

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

587

ø(d) The limitation on cost increases in subsection (a) does not

apply to the settlement of a contractor claim under a contract.¿

(d) The limitation on cost increases in subsection (a) does not

apply—

(1) to the settlement of a contractor claim under a contract;

or

(2) to the costs associated with the required remediation of an

environmental hazard in connection with a military construction project or military family housing project, such as asbestos

removal, radon abatement, lead-based paint removal or abatement, or any other legally required environmental hazard remediation, if the required remediation could not have reasonably

been anticipated at the time the project was approved originally

by Congress.

* * * * * * *

§ 2854a. Conveyance of damaged or deteriorated military

family housing; use of proceeds

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROPERTY DISPOSAL LAWS.—The

following provisions of law do not apply to the conveyance of a family housing facility under this section:

(1) * * *

(2) Title V of the øStewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance

Act¿ McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.

11411 et seq.).

* * * * * * *

ø§ 2861. Annual report to Congress

ø(a) The Secretary of Defense shall submit a report to the appropriate committees of Congress each year with respect to military

construction activities and military family housing activities. Each

such report shall be submitted at the same time that the annual

request for military construction authorization is submitted for

that year. Except where otherwise provided in this section, information required by this section to be provided in the report shall

be provided for the two most recent fiscal years and for the fiscal

year for which the budget request is made.

ø(b) Each report under subsection (a) shall include the following:

ø(1) A statement of the construction status and a fiscal summary of the military construction projects undertaken under,

and the amounts authorized and appropriated for, contingency

construction under section 2804 of this title.

ø(2) Information to enable the committees to evaluate the relationships between budget requests for appropriations for unspecified minor construction projects under section 2805 of this

title and obligations of appropriated funds for projects under

such section. Such information shall include comparisons of

budget requests and obligations using military construction appropriations and using operations and maintenance appropriaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00611 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
588

tions, maintenance and repair backlog, and obligations for

maintenance and repair.

ø(3) Information to enable the committees to monitor trends

in construction started using funds contributed by the United

States under section 2806 of this title to the North Atlantic

Treaty Organization Security Investment program and the status of recoupments under that program.

ø(4) Information to enable the committees to evaluate trends

in contracting for architect and engineering services and construction design, and trends in accomplishing design of construction projects by Government employees, under the authority of section 2807 of this title.

ø(5) Information to enable the committees to evaluate trends

in supervision, inspection, and overhead costs for the dollar

amount of military construction accomplished during a fiscal

year by a military construction department or agency under

the authority of section 2851 of this title.

ø(6) A summary of military construction projects (other than

a military construction project for an amount less than the

amount specified by section 2805(a)(1) of this title as the maximum amount for a minor military construction project) placed

under contract during the preceding fiscal year with respect to

which a cost variation or scope reduction report was supplied

to the appropriate committees of Congress under section 2853

of this title. There shall also be included an analysis to indicate whether the cost variation was the result of a lack of competition, quality of plans and specifications, or quality of budget estimates, or of other factors.

ø(7) Information to enable the committees to evaluate the

use of the authority provided under section 2858 of this title

to expedite a military construction project when such expediting is required to protect the national interest.

ø(8) Information in sufficient detail to enable the committees

to monitor trends in design, construction, performance goals,

and progress.

ø(9) With respect to each contract awarded during the preceding fiscal year on other than a competitive basis to the lowest responsible bidder, the name of the contractor, the original

amount of the contract, and the reason for the award of the

contract on other than a competitive basis.¿

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER IV—ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITY FOR

ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF MILITARY HOUSING

Sec.

2871. Definitions.

* * * * * * *

ø2885. Expiration of authority.¿

* * * * * * *

589

§ 2878. Conveyance or lease of existing property and

facilities

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) INAPPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

LAWS.—The conveyance or lease of property or facilities under this

section shall not be subject to the following provisions of law:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) Section 501 of the øStewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act¿ McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42

U.S.C. 11411).

* * * * * * *

ø§ 2885. Expiration of authority

øThe authority to enter into a contract under this subchapter

shall expire on December 31, 2004.¿

* * * * * * *

Subtitle B—Army

PART I—ORGANIZATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 303—DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

* * * * * * *

§ 3014. Office of the Secretary of the Army

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3) The total number of general officers assigned or detailed to

permanent duty in the Office of the Secretary of the Army and on

the Army Staff may not exceed øthe number equal to 85 percent

of the number of general officers assigned or detailed to such duty

on the date of the enactment of this subsection.¿ 67.

* * * * * * *

PART II—PERSONNEL

* * * * * * *

590

CHAPTER 333—ENLISTMENTS

Sec.

3251. Definition.

* * * * * * *

3264. 18–month enlistment pilot program.

* * * * * * *

§ 3264. 18–month enlistment pilot program

(a) During the pilot program period, the Secretary of the Army

shall carry out a pilot program with the objective of increasing participation of prior service persons in the Selected Reserve and providing assistance in building the pool of participants in the Individual Ready Reserve.

(b) Under the program, the Secretary may, notwithstanding section 505(c) of this title, accept persons for original enlistment in the

Army for a term of enlistment consisting of 18 months service on active duty, to be followed by three years of service in the Selected Reserve and then service in the Individual Ready Reserve to complete

the military service obligation.

(c) No more than 10,000 persons may be accepted for enlistment

in the Army through the program under this section.

(d) A person enlisting in the Army through the program under

this section is eligible for an enlistment bonus under section 309 of

title 37, notwithstanding the enlistment time period specified in subsection (a) of that section.

(e) For purposes of the program under this section, the pilot program period is the period beginning on October 1, 2003, and ending

on December 31, 2007.

(f) Not later than December 31, 2007, and December 31, 2012, the

Secretary of the Army shall submit to the Committee on Armed

Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the

House of Representatives a report on the program under this section. In each such report, the Secretary shall set forth the views of

the Secretary on the success of the program in meeting the objectives

stated in subsection (a) and whether the program should be continued and, if so, whether it should be modified or expanded.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 357—DECORATIONS AND AWARDS

Sec.

3741. Medal of honor: award.

* * * * * * *

3754. Medal of honor: duplicate medal.

3755. Korea Defense Service Medal.

* * * * * * *

§ 3747. Medal of honor; distinguished-service cross; distinguished-service medal; silver star: replacement

Any medal of honor, distinguished-service cross, distinguishedservice medal, or silver star, or any bar, ribbon, rosette, or other

device issued for wear with or in place of any of them, that is ølost

or destroyed¿ stolen, lost, or destroyed, or becomes unfit for use,

591

without fault or neglect of the person to whom it was awarded,

shall be replaced without charge.

* * * * * * *

§ 3754. Medal of honor: duplicate medal

A person awarded a medal of honor shall, upon written application of that person, be issued, without charge, one duplicate medal

of honor with ribbons and appurtenances. Such duplicate medal of

honor shall be marked, in such manner as the Secretary of the

Army may determine, as a duplicate or for display purposes only.

§ 3755. Korea Defense Service Medal

(a) The Secretary of the Army shall issue a campaign medal, to

be known as the Korea Defense Service Medal, to each person who

while a member of the Army served in the Republic of Korea or the

waters adjacent thereto during the KDSM eligibility period and met

the service requirements for the award of that medal prescribed

under subsection (c).

(b) In this section, the term ‘‘KDSM eligibility period’’ means the

period beginning on July 28, 1954, and ending on such date after

the date of the enactment of this section as may be determined by

the Secretary of Defense to be appropriate for terminating eligibility

for the Korea Defense Service Medal.

(c) The Secretary of the Army shall prescribe service requirements

for eligibility for the Korea Defense Service Medal. Those requirements shall not be more stringent than the service requirements for

award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for instances in

which the award of that medal is authorized.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 367—RETIREMENT FOR LENGTH OF SERVICE

* * * * * * *

§ 3911. Twenty years or more: regular or reserve commissioned officers

(a) * * *

(b) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of the

Army, during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending

on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002, to reduce the requirement under

subsection (a) for at least 10 years of active service as a commissioned officer to a period (determined by the Secretary of the Army)

of not less than eight years.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 373—CIVILIAN EMPLOYEES

* * * * * * *

§ 4021. Army War College and United States Army Command

and General Staff College: civilian faculty members

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

592

(c) APPLICATION TO CERTAIN FACULTY MEMBERS.—(1) Except as

provided in paragraph (2), this section shall apply with respect to

persons who are selected by the Secretary for employment as professors, instructors, and lecturers at the Army War College or the

United States Army Command and General Staff College after the

end of the 90-day period beginning on øthe date of the enactment

of this section.¿ November 29, 1989.

* * * * * * *

PART III—TRAINING

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 403—UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY

* * * * * * *

§ 4337. Chaplain

There shall be a chaplain at the Academy, who must be a clergyman, appointed by the President for a term of four years. øThe

chaplain is entitled to the same allowances for public quarters as

are allowed to a captain, and to fuel and light for quarters in

kind.¿ Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the chaplain is

entitled to the same basic allowance for housing allowed to a lieutenant colonel, and to fuel and light for quarters in kind. The chaplain may be reappointed.

* * * * * * *

§ 4344. Selection of persons from foreign countries

(a)(1) The Secretary of the Army may permit not more than ø40¿

60 persons at any one time from foreign countries to receive instruction at the Academy. Such persons shall be in addition to the

authorized strength of the Corps of the Cadets of the Academy

under section 4342 of this title.

* * * * * * *

(b)(1)***

(2) Each foreign country from which a cadet is permitted to receive instruction at the Academy under this section shall reimburse

the United States for the cost of providing such instruction, including the cost of pay, allowances, and emoluments provided under

paragraph (1) unless a written waiver of some or all reimbursement is granted by the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of the

Army shall prescribe the rates for reimbursement under this paragraph, except that the reimbursement rates may not be less than

the cost to the United States of providing such instruction, including pay, allowances, and emoluments, to a cadet appointed from

the United States.

ø(3) The amount of reimbursement waived under paragraph (2)

may not exceed 50 percent of the per-person reimbursement

amount otherwise required to be paid by a foreign country under

such paragraph, except in the case of not more than 20 persons reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00616 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
593

ceiving instruction at the Academy under this section at any one

time.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 4353. Cadets: degree and commission on graduation

(a) * * *

ø(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a cadet who

completes the prescribed course of instruction may, upon graduation, be appointed a second lieutenant in the Regular Army under

section 531 of this title.¿

(b) A cadet who completes the prescribed course of instruction, is

qualified for an original appointment in a regular component under

section 532 of this title, and meets such other criteria for appointment as a commissioned officer in the Army as may be prescribed

by the Secretary of the Army shall, upon graduation, be appointed

a second lieutenant in the Regular Army under section 531 of this

title, unless appointed under that section in a regular component of

one of the other armed forces in accordance with section 541 of this

title.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle C—Navy and Marine Corps

PART I—ORGANIZATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 503—DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

* * * * * * *

§ 5014. Office of the Secretary of the Navy

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3) The total number of general and flag officers assigned or detailed to permanent duty in the Office of the Secretary of the Navy,

the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, and the Headquarters,

Marine Corps, may not exceed øthe number equal to 85 percent of

the number of general and flag officers assigned or detailed to such

duty on the date of the enactment of this subsection.¿ 74.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 505—OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL

OPERATIONS

* * * * * * *

§ 5038. Director for Expeditionary Warfare

(a) One of the Directors within the øOffice of the Deputy Chief

of Naval Operations for Resources, Warfare Requirements, and Assessments¿ office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations with reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00617 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
594

sponsibility for warfare requirements and programs shall be the Director for Expeditionary Warfare who shall be detailed from officers

on the active-duty list of the Marine Corps.

* * * * * * *

PART II—PERSONNEL

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 565—BANDS

Sec.

ø6221. United States Navy Band.¿

6221. United States Navy Band; officer in charge.

* * * * * * *

ø§ 6221. United States Navy Band

øThere is a Navy band known as the United States Navy Band.¿

§ 6221. United States Navy Band; officer in charge

(a) There is a Navy band known as the United States Navy Band.

(b) An officer of the Navy designated for limited duty under section 5589 or 5596 of this title who is serving in a grade not below

lieutenant commander may be detailed by the Secretary of the Navy

as Officer in Charge of the United States Navy Band. While so serving, an officer so detailed shall hold the grade of captain if recommended by the Secretary of the Navy for appointment to that

grade and appointed to that grade by the President, by and with the

advice and consent of the Senate. Such an appointment may be

made notwithstanding section 5596(d) of this title.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 567—DECORATIONS AND AWARDS

Sec.

6241. Medal of honor.

* * * * * * *

6256. Medal of honor: duplicate medal.

6257. Korea Defense Service Medal.

* * * * * * *

§ 6253. Replacement

The Secretary of the Navy may replace without charge any

medal of honor, Navy cross, distinguished-service medal, silver star

medal, or Navy and Marine Corps Medal, or any associated bar,

emblem, or insignia awarded under this chapter that is ølost or destroyed¿ stolen, lost, or destroyed or becomes unfit for use without

fault or neglect on the part of the person to whom it was awarded.

* * * * * * *

§ 6256. Medal of honor: duplicate medal

A person awarded a medal of honor shall, upon written application of that person, be issued, without charge, one duplicate medal

of honor with ribbons and appurtenances. Such duplicate medal of

595

honor shall be marked, in such manner as the Secretary of the Navy

may determine, as a duplicate or for display purposes only.

§ 6257. Korea Defense Service Medal

(a) The Secretary of the Navy shall issue a campaign medal, to

be known as the Korea Defense Service Medal, to each person who

while a member of the Navy or Marine Corps served in the Republic

of Korea or the waters adjacent thereto during the KDSM eligibility

period and met the service requirements for the award of that medal

prescribed under subsection (c).

(b) In this section, the term ‘‘KDSM eligibility period’’ means the

period beginning on July 28, 1954, and ending on such date after

the date of the enactment of this section as may be determined by

the Secretary of Defense to be appropriate for terminating eligibility

for the Korea Defense Service Medal.

(c) The Secretary of the Navy shall prescribe service requirements

for eligibility for the Korea Defense Service Medal. Those requirements shall not be more stringent than the service requirements for

award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for instances in

which the award of that medal is authorized.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 571—VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT

* * * * * * *

§ 6323. Officers: 20 years

(a)(1)***

(2) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of the

Navy, during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending

on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002, to reduce the requirement under

paragraph (1) for at least 10 years of active service as a commissioned officer to a period (determined by the Secretary) of not less

than eight years.

* * * * * * *

§ 6328. Computation of years of service: voluntary retirement

(a) ENLISTED MEMBERS.—Time required to be made up under

section 972(a) of this title after øthe date of the enactment of this

section¿ February 10, 1996, may not be counted in computing years

of service under this chapter.

* * * * * * *

PART III—EDUCATION AND TRAINING

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 603—UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY

* * * * * * *

596

§ 6957. Selection of persons from foreign countries

(a)(1) The Secretary of the Navy may permit not more than ø40¿

60 persons at any one time from foreign countries to receive instruction at the Academy. Such persons shall be in addition to the

authorized strength of the midshipmen under section 6954 of this

title.

* * * * * * *

(b)(1)***

(2) Each foreign country from which a midshipman is permitted

to receive instruction at the Academy under this section shall reimburse the United States for the cost of providing such instruction,

including the cost of pay, allowances, and emoluments provided

under paragraph (1) unless a written waiver of some or all reimbursement is granted by the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary

of the Navy shall prescribe the rates for reimbursement under this

paragraph, except that the reimbursement rates may not be less

than the cost to the United States of providing such instruction, including pay, allowances, and emoluments, to a midshipman appointed from the United States.

ø(3) The amount of reimbursement waived under paragraph (2)

may not exceed 50 percent of the per-person reimbursement

amount otherwise required to be paid by a foreign country under

such paragraph, except in the case of not more than 20 persons receiving instruction at the Naval Academy under this section at any

one time.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 6967. Degree on graduation

(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy,

the Superintendent of the Naval Academy may confer the degree

of bachelor of science upon graduates of the Academy.

(b) A midshipman who completes the prescribed course of instruction, is qualified for an original appointment in a regular component under section 532 of this title, and meets such other criteria

for appointment as a commissioned officer in the naval service as

may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy shall, upon graduation, be appointed an ensign in the Regular Navy or a second lieutenant in the Regular Marine Corps under section 531 of this title,

unless appointed under that section in a regular component of one

of the other armed forces in accordance with section 541 of this title.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 609—PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION

SCHOOLS

Sec.

7101. Naval War College: master of arts in national security and strategic studies.

ø7102. Marine Corps University: master of military studies.¿

7102. Marine Corps University: masters degrees; board of advisors.

* * * * * * *

597

ø§ 7102. Marine Corps University: master of military studies¿

§ 7102. Marine Corps University: masters degrees; board of

advisors

(a) AUTHORITY.—Upon the recommendation of the Director and

faculty of the Command and Staff College of the Marine Corps University, the President of the Marine Corps University may confer

the degree of master of military studies øupon graduates of the college who fulfill the requirements for the degree.¿ upon graduates

of the Command and Staff College who fulfill the requirements for

that degree.

(b) MARINE CORPS WAR COLLEGE.—Upon the recommendation of

the Director and faculty of the Marine Corps War College of the Marine Corps University, the President of the Marine Corps University

may confer the degree of master of strategic studies upon graduates

of the Marine Corps War College who fulfill the requirements for

that degree.

ø(b)¿ (c) REGULATIONS.—The authority provided by øsubsection

(a)¿ subsections (a) and (b) shall be exercised under regulations

prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy.

(d) BOARD OF ADVISORS.—The Secretary of the Navy shall establish a board of advisors for the Marine Corps University. The Secretary shall ensure that the board is established so as to meet all

requirements of the appropriate regional accrediting association.

* * * * * * *

PART IV—GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 633—NAVAL VESSELS

* * * * * * *

§ 7307. Disposals to foreign nations

(a) øLARGER OR NEWER¿ CERTAIN COMBATANT VESSELS.—øA

naval vessel¿ Except as provided in subsection (b), a combatant

naval vessel that is in excess of 3,000 tons or that is less than 20

years of age may not be disposed of to another nation (whether by

sale, lease, grant, loan, barter, transfer, or otherwise) unless the

disposition of that vessel is øapproved by law enacted after August

5, 1974¿ specifically approved by law. A lease or loan of such a vessel under such a law may be made only in accordance with the provisions of chapter 6 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796

et seq.) or chapter 2 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961

(22 U.S.C. 2311 et seq.).

(b) TREATMENT OF VESSELS HELD BY FOREIGN NATIONS BY LOAN

OR LEASE.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to the disposal to another

nation of a vessel described in that subsection that, at the time of

the disposal, is held by the nation to which the disposal is to be

made pursuant to a loan or lease arrangement made under section

61 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2796) or any other

provision of law.

598

ø(b)¿ (c) OTHER VESSELS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) INAPPLICABILITY OF VESSEL DISPOSALS TO AGGREGATE AN- NUAL VALUE LIMITATIONS.—The value of a vessel transferred to another country under an applicable provision of law as described in

subsection (c) shall not be counted for the purposes of any aggregate

limit on the value of articles transferred to other countries under

that provision of law during any year (or other applicable period of

time).

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 641—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

* * * * * * *

§ 7430. Disposition of products

(a) * * *

(b)(1)***

(2) The Secretary may not sell any part of the United States

share of petroleum produced from Naval Petroleum Reserves Numbered 2 and 3 øat a price less than the higher of— ø(A) the current sales price¿ at a price less than the current

sales price, as estimated by the Secretary, of comparable petroleum in the same areaø; or¿. ø(B) the price of petroleum being purchased for the Strategic

Petroleum Reserve, minus the cost of transporting petroleum

from the naval petroleum reserve concerned to the nearest

storage area of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, with adjustments for the difference in the quality of the petroleum being

purchased for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and petroleum

being produced from the naval petroleum reserve concerned.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 7439. Certain oil shale reserves: transfer of jurisdiction

and petroleum exploration, development, and production

(a) TRANSFER REQUIRED.—(1) * * *

(2) Not later than øone year after the date of the enactment of

this section,¿ November 18, 1998, the Secretary of Energy shall

transfer to the Secretary of the Interior administrative jurisdiction

over those public domain lands included within the developed tract

of Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 3, which consists of approximately

6,000 acres and 24 natural gas wells, together with pipelines and

associated facilities.

* * * * * * *

(b) AUTHORITY TO LEASE.—(1) Beginning on øthe date of the enactment of this section,¿ November 18, 1997, or as soon thereafter

as practicable, the Secretary of the Interior shall enter into leases

with one or more private entities for the purpose of exploration for,

and development and production of, petroleum (other than in the

form of oil shale) located on or in public domain lands in Oil Shale

Reserves Numbered 1 and 3 (including the developed tract of Oil

Shale Reserve Numbered 3). Any such lease shall be made in acVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00622 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
599

cordance with the requirements of the Mineral Leasing Act (30

U.S.C. 181 et seq.) regarding the lease of oil and gas lands and

shall be subject to valid existing rights.

(2) Notwithstanding the delayed transfer of the developed tract

of Oil Shale Reserve Numbered 3 under subsection (a)(2), the Secretary of the Interior shall enter into a lease under paragraph (1)

with respect to the developed tract before øthe end of the one-year

period beginning on the date of the enactment of this section.¿ November 18, 1998.

* * * * * * *

(f) TREATMENT OF RECEIPTS.—(1) * * *

(2) The period referred to in this subsection is the period beginning on øthe date of the enactment of this section¿ November 18,

1997, and ending on the date on which the Secretary of Energy and

the Secretary of the Interior jointly certify to Congress that the

sum of the moneys deposited in the Treasury under paragraph (1)

is equal to the total of the following:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 647—DISPOSAL OF OBSOLETE OR SURPLUS

MATERIAL

* * * * * * *

§ 7545. Obsolete material and articles of historical interest:

loan or gift

(a) øSubject to regulations under section 205 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 486), the

Secretary of the Navy, under regulations prescribed by him,¿ AU- THORITY TO MAKE LOANS AND GIFTS.—The Secretary of the Navy

may lend or give, without expense to the United States, øcaptured,

condemned, or obsolete ordnance material, books, manuscripts,

works of art, drawings, plans, and models, other condemned or obsolete material, trophies, and flags, and other material of historic

interest not needed by the Department of the Navy, to—¿ items described in subsection (b) that are not needed by the Department of

the Navy to any of the following:

(1) øa¿ A State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession of

the United States, or political subdivision or municipal corporation thereofø;¿. (2) øthe¿ The District of Columbiaø;¿. (3) øa¿ A libraryø;¿.

(4) øa¿ A historical societyø;¿.

(5) øan¿ An educational institution whose graduates or students fought in øWorld War I or World War II;¿ a foreign war.

(6) øa soldiers’ monument¿ A servicemen’s monument

associationø;¿. (7) øa¿ A State museumø;¿. (8) øa¿ A museum or memorial operated and maintained for

educational purposes only, whose charter denies it the right to

operate for profitø;¿.

(9) øa¿ A post of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United

Statesø;¿.

600

(10) øa¿ A post of the American Legionø;¿. (11) øany¿ Any other recognized war veterans’ associationø;

or¿.

(12) øa¿ A post of the Sons of Veterans Reserve.

(b) ITEMS ELIGIBLE FOR DISPOSAL.—This section applies to the

following types of property held by the Department of the Navy:

(1) Captured, condemned, or obsolete ordnance material.

(2) Captured, condemned, or obsolete combat or shipboard

material.

(c) REGULATIONS.—A loan or gift made under this section shall

be subject to regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy and

to regulations under section 205 of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 486).

ø(b)¿ (d) MAINTENANCE OF THE RECORDS OF THE GOVERNMENT.— Records of the Government as defined in section 3301 of title 44

may not be disposed of under this section.

ø(c)¿ (e) ALTERNATIVE AUTHORITIES TO MAKE GIFTS OR LOANS.— If any disposition is authorized by this section and section 2572 of

this title, the Secretary may make the gift or loan under either section.

(f) AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER A PORTION OF A VESSEL.—The Secretary may lend, give, or otherwise transfer any portion of the hull

or superstructure of a vessel stricken from the Naval Vessel Register

and designated for scrapping to a qualified organization specified

in subsection (a). The terms and conditions of an agreement for the

transfer of a portion of a vessel under this section shall include a

requirement that the transferee will maintain the material conveyed

in a condition that will not diminish the historical value of the material or bring discredit upon the Navy.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 653—CLAIMS

* * * * * * *

§ 7622. Admiralty claims against the United States

(a) The Secretary of the Navy may settle, or compromise, and

pay in an amount not more than ø$1,000,000¿ $15,000,000 an admiralty claim against the United States for—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(b) If a claim under this section is settled or compromised for

more than ø$1,000,000¿ $15,000,000, the Secretary shall certify it

to Congress.

(c) In any case where the amount to be paid is not more than

ø$100,000¿ $1,000,000, the Secretary may delegate his authority

under this section to any person designated by him.

* * * * * * *

§ 7623. Admiralty claims by the United States

(a) The Secretary of the Navy may settle, or compromise, and receive payment of a claim by the United States for damage to property under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Navy or propVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00624 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
601

erty for which the Department has assumed an obligation to respond for damage, if— (1) * * *

(2) the net amount to be received by the United States is not

more than ø$1,000,000¿ $15,000,000.

* * * * * * *

(c) In any case where the amount to be received by the United

States is not more than ø$100,000¿ $1,000,000, the Secretary may

delegate his authority under this section to any person designated

by him.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Air Force

PART I—ORGANIZATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 803—DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

* * * * * * *

§ 8014. Office of the Secretary of the Air Force

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3) The total number of general officers assigned or detailed to

permanent duty in the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force and

on the Air Staff may not exceed øthe number equal to 85 percent

of the number of general officers assigned or detailed to such duty

on the date of the enactment of this subsection.¿ 60.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 807—THE AIR FORCE

Sec.

8061. Regulations.

* * * * * * *

8063. Contracts for space launches: responsibility of Air Force for all Department

of Defense elements.

* * * * * * *

§ 8063. Contracts for space launches: responsibility of Air

Force for all Department of Defense elements

The Secretary of the Air Force shall ensure that contracts for

space launch vehicles and space launch services for all elements of

the Department of Defense are prepared, negotiated, executed, and

managed in a manner that maximizes launch effectiveness, minimizes cost of launch services, provides clear visibility to all elements

602

into contract costs and functions, and, where practicable, takes advantage of commercial space launch capabilities.

* * * * * * *

§ 8074. Commands: territorial organization

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(c) The Military Air Transport Service is redesignated as the

Military Airlift Command.¿

* * * * * * *

PART II—PERSONNEL

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 845—RANK AND COMMAND

Sec.

8572. Rank: commissioned officers serving under temporary appointments.

* * * * * * *

8584. Commander of Air Force Space Command.

* * * * * * *

§ 8584. Commander of Air Force Space Command

The Secretary of Defense may require that the officer serving as

commander of the Air Force Space Command not serve simultaneously as commander of the United States Space Command (or

any successor combatant command with responsibility for space) or

as commander of the United States element of the North American

Air Defense Command.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 857—DECORATIONS AND AWARDS

Sec.

8741. Medal of honor: award.

* * * * * * *

8754. Medal of honor: duplicate medal.

8755. Korea Defense Service Medal.

* * * * * * *

§ 8747. Medal of honor; Air Force cross; distinguished-service cross; distinguished-service medal; silver star:

replacement

Any medal of honor, Air Force cross, distinguished-service cross,

distinguished-service medal, or silver star, or any bar, ribbon, rosette, or other device issued for wear with or in place of any of

them, that is ølost or destroyed¿ stolen, lost, or destroyed, or becomes unfit for use, without fault or neglect of the person to whom

it was awarded, shall be replaced without charge.

* * * * * * *

603

§ 8754. Medal of honor: duplicate medal

A person awarded a medal of honor shall, upon written application of that person, be issued, without charge, one duplicate medal

of honor with ribbons and appurtenances. Such duplicate medal of

honor shall be marked, in such manner as the Secretary of the Air

Force may determine, as a duplicate or for display purposes only.

§ 8755. Korea Defense Service Medal

(a) The Secretary of the Air Force shall issue a campaign medal,

to be known as the Korea Defense Service Medal, to each person who

while a member of the Air Force served in the Republic of Korea or

the waters adjacent thereto during the KDSM eligibility period and

met the service requirements for the award of that medal prescribed

under subsection (c).

(b) In this section, the term ‘‘KDSM eligibility period’’ means the

period beginning on July 28, 1954, and ending on such date after

the date of the enactment of this section as may be determined by

the Secretary of Defense to be appropriate for terminating eligibility

for the Korea Defense Service Medal.

(c) The Secretary of the Air Force shall prescribe service requirements for eligibility for the Korea Defense Service Medal. Those requirements shall not be more stringent than the service requirements for award of the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for instances in which the award of that medal is authorized.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 867—RETIREMENT FOR LENGTH OF SERVICE

* * * * * * *

§ 8911. Twenty years or more: regular or reserve commissioned officers

(a) * * *

(b) The Secretary of Defense may authorize the Secretary of the

Air Force, during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and

ending on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002, to reduce the requirement

under subsection (a) for at least 10 years of active service as a commissioned officer to a period (determined by the Secretary of the

Air Force) of not less than eight years.

* * * * * * *

PART III—TRAINING

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 903—UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY

* * * * * * *

§ 9344. Selection of persons from foreign countries

(a)(1) The Secretary of the Air Force may permit not more than

ø40¿ 60 persons at any one time from foreign countries to receive

instruction at the Academy. Such persons shall be in addition to

604

the authorized strength of the Air Force Cadets of the Academy

under section 9342 of this title.

* * * * * * *

(b)(1)***

(2) Each foreign country from which a cadet is permitted to receive instruction at the Academy under this section shall reimburse

the United States for the cost of providing such instruction, including the cost of pay, allowances, and emoluments provided under

paragraph (1) unless a written waiver of some or all reimbursement is granted by the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of the

Air Force shall prescribe the rates for reimbursement under this

paragraph, except that the reimbursement rates may not be less

than the cost to the United States of providing such instruction, including pay, allowances, and emoluments, to a cadet appointed

from the United States.

ø(3) The amount of reimbursement waived under paragraph (2)

may not exceed 50 percent of the per-person reimbursement

amount otherwise required to be paid by a foreign country under

such paragraph, except in the case of not more than 20 persons receiving instruction at the Air Force Academy under this section at

any one time.¿

* * * * * * *

§ 9353. Cadets: degree and commission on graduation

(a) * * *

ø(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a cadet who

completes the prescribed course of instruction may, upon graduation, be appointed a second lieutenant in the Regular Air Force

under section 531 of this title.¿

(b) A cadet who completes the prescribed course of instruction, is

qualified for an original appointment in a regular component under

section 532 of this title, and meets such other criteria for appointment as a commissioned officer in the Air Force as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force shall, upon graduation, be

appointed a second lieutenant in the Regular Air Force under section 531 of this title, unless appointed under that section in a regular component of one of the other armed forces in accordance with

section 541 of this title.

* * * * * * *

PART IV—SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND

PROCUREMENT

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 949—REAL PROPERTY

* * * * * * *

605

§ 9783. Johnston Atoll: reimbursement for support provided

to civil air carriers

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) The term ‘‘civil air carrier’’ means an air carrier (as defined in section ø40101(a)(2)¿ 40102(a)(2) of title 49) that is

issued a certificate of public convenience and necessity under

section 41102 of such title.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E—Reserve Components

PART I—ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1013—BUDGET INFORMATION AND ANNUAL

REPORTS TO CONGRESS

* * * * * * *

§ 10541. National Guard and reserve component equipment:

annual report to Congress

ø(a) The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Congress each

year, not later than February 15, a written report concerning the

equipment of the National Guard and the reserve components of

the armed forces for each of the three succeeding fiscal years.

ø(b) Each report under this section shall include the following:

ø(1) Recommendations as to the type and quantity of each

major item of equipment which should be in the inventory of

the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of each reserve component of the armed forces.

ø(2) A statement of the quantity and average age of each

type of major item of equipment which is expected to be physically available in the inventory of the Selected Reserve of the

Ready Reserve of each reserve component as of the beginning

of each fiscal year covered by the report.

ø(3) A statement of the quantity and cost of each type of

major item of equipment which is expected to be procured for

the Selective Reserve of the Ready Reserve of each reserve

component from commercial sources or to be transferred to

each such Selected Reserve from the active-duty components of

the armed forces.

ø(4) A statement of the quantity of each type of major item

of equipment which is expected to be retired, decommissioned,

transferred, or otherwise removed from the physical inventory

of the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of each reserve

component and the plans for replacement of that equipment.

ø(5) A listing of each major item of equipment required by

the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of each reserve component indicating—

606

ø(A) the full war-time requirement of that component for

that item, shown in accordance with deployment schedules

and requirements over successive 30-day periods following

mobilization;

ø(B) the number of each such item in the inventory of

the component;

ø(C) a separate listing of each such item in the inventory

that is a deployable item and is not the most desired item;

ø(D) the number of each such item projected to be in the

inventory at the end of the third succeeding fiscal year;

and

ø(E) the number of nondeployable items in the inventory

as a substitute for a required major item of equipment.

ø(6) A narrative explanation of the plan of the Secretary concerned to provide equipment needed to fill the war-time requirement for each major item of equipment to all units of the

Selected Reserve, including an explanation of the plan to equip

units of the Selected Reserve that are short of major items of

equipment at the outset of war.

ø(7) For each item of major equipment reported under paragraph (3) in a report for one of the three previous years under

this section as an item expected to be procured for the Selected

Reserve or to be transferred to the Selected Reserve, the quantity of such equipment actually procured for or transferred to

the Selected Reserve.

ø(8) A statement of the current status of the compatibility of

equipment between the Army reserve components and active

forces of the Army, the effect of that level of incompatibility on

combat effectiveness, and a plan to achieve full equipment

compatibility.

ø(c) Each report under this section shall be expressed in the

same format and with the same level of detail as the information

presented in the annual Five Year Defense Program Procurement

Annex prepared by the Department of Defense.¿

(a) REQUIREMENT.—The Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress each year, not later than March 1, a written report concerning

the equipment of the National Guard and the reserve components of

the armed forces. Each such report shall cover the current fiscal

year and the three succeeding years.

(b) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED IN REPORT.—Each report under

this section shall include the following (shown in the aggregate and

separately for each reserve component):

(1) A list of major items of equipment required and on-hand

in the inventories of the reserve components.

(2) A list of major items of equipment that are expected to be

procured from commercial sources or transferred from the active component to the reserve components.

(3) A statement of major items of equipment in the inventories

of the reserve components that are substitutes for a required

major item of equipment.

(4) A narrative explanation of the plan of the Secretary concerned to equip each reserve component, including an explanation of the plan to equip units of the reserve components that

607

are short major items of equipment at the outset of war or a

contingency operation.

(5) A narrative discussing the current status of the compatibility and interoperability of equipment between the reserve

components and the active forces and the effect of that level of

compatibility or interoperability on combat effectiveness, together with a plan to achieve full equipment compatibility and

interoperability.

(6) A narrative discussing modernization shortfalls and

maintenance backlogs within the reserve components and the effect of those shortfalls on combat effectiveness.

(7) A narrative discussing the overall age and condition of

equipment currently in the inventory of the reserve components.

(c) MAJOR ITEMS OF EQUIPMENT.—In this section, the term ‘‘major

items of equipment’’ includes ships, aircraft, combat vehicles, and

key combat support equipment.

(d) FORMAT AND LEVEL OF DETAIL.—Each report under this section shall be expressed in the same format and with the same level

of detail as the information presented in the Future-Years Defense

Program Procurement Annex prepared by the Department of Defense.

* * * * * * *

PART II—PERSONNEL GENERALLY

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1201—AUTHORIZED STRENGTHS AND

DISTRIBUTION IN GRADE

* * * * * * *

§ 12011. Authorized strengths: reserve officers on active duty

or on full-time National Guard duty for administration of the reserves or the National Guard

ø(a) The number of reserve officers of the Army, Air Force, and

Marine Corps who may be on active duty or full-time National

Guard duty in each of the grades of major, lieutenant colonel, and

colonel, and of the Navy who may be on active duty in each of the

grades of lieutenant commander, commander, and captain, as of

the end of any fiscal year for duty described in subclauses (B) and

(C) of section 523(b)(1) of this title or full-time National Guard duty

(other than for training) under section 502(f) of title 32 may not exceed the number for that grade and armed force in the following

table:

øGrade Army Navy Air

Force

Marine

Corps

Major or Lieutenant Commander ..................... 3,316 1,071 948 140

Lieutenant Colonel or Commander .................. 1,759 520 852 90

Colonel or Navy Captain ................................... 529 188 317 30

608

ø(b) Whenever the number of officers serving in any grade is less

than the number authorized for that grade under this section, the

difference between the two numbers may be applied to increase the

number authorized under this section for any lower grade.

ø(c) Whenever under section 527 of this title the President may

suspend the operation of any provision of section 523, 525, or 526

of this title, the Secretary of Defense may suspend the operation

of any provision of this section. Any such suspension shall, if not

sooner ended, end in the manner specified in section 527 for a suspension under that section.

ø(d) Upon increasing under subsection (c)(2) of section 115 of this

title the end strength that is authorized under subsection (a)(1)(B)

of that section for a fiscal year for active-duty personnel and fulltime National Guard duty personnel of an armed force who are to

be paid from funds appropriated for reserve personnel, the Secretary of Defense may increase for that fiscal year the limitation

that is set forth in subsection (a) of this section for the number of

officers of that armed force serving in any grade if the Secretary

determines that such action is in the national interest. The percent

of the increase may not exceed the percent by which the Secretary

increases that end strength.¿

(a) LIMITATIONS.—(1) Of the total number of members of a reserve

component who are serving on full-time reserve component duty at

the end of any fiscal year, the number of those members who may

be serving in each of the grades of major, lieutenant colonel, and

colonel may not, as of the end of that fiscal year, exceed the number

determined in accordance with the following table:

Total number of members

of a reserve component

serving on full-time reserve component duty:

Number of officers of that reserve component who may be serving

in the grade of:

Major Lieutenant Colonel Colonel

Army Reserve:

10,000 ........................... 1,390 740 230

11,000 ........................... 1,529 803 242

12,000 ........................... 1,668 864 252

13,000 ........................... 1,804 924 262

14,000 ........................... 1,940 984 272

15,000 ........................... 2,075 1,044 282

16,000 ........................... 2,210 1,104 291

17,000 ........................... 2,345 1,164 300

18,000 ........................... 2,479 1,223 309

19,000 ........................... 2,613 1,282 318

20,000 ........................... 2,747 1,341 327

21,000 ........................... 2,877 1,400 336

Army National Guard:

20,000 ........................... 1,500 850 325

22,000 ........................... 1,650 930 350

24,000 ........................... 1,790 1,010 370

26,000 ........................... 1,930 1,085 385

28,000 ........................... 2,070 1,160 400

30,000 ........................... 2,200 1,235 405

32,000 ........................... 2,330 1,305 408

609

Total number of members

of a reserve component

serving on full-time reserve component duty:

Number of officers of that reserve component who may be serving

in the grade of:

Major Lieutenant Colonel Colonel

34,000 ........................... 2,450 1,375 411

36,000 ........................... 2,570 1,445 411

38,000 ........................... 2,670 1,515 411

40,000 ........................... 2,770 1,580 411

42,000 ........................... 2,837 1,644 411

Marine Corps Reserve:

1,100 ............................. 106 56 20

1,200 ............................. 110 60 21

1,300 ............................. 114 63 22

1,400 ............................. 118 66 23

1,500 ............................. 121 69 24

1,600 ............................. 124 72 25

1,700 ............................. 127 75 26

1,800 ............................. 130 78 27

1,900 ............................. 133 81 28

2,000 ............................. 136 84 29

2,100 ............................. 139 87 30

2,200 ............................. 141 90 31

2,300 ............................. 143 92 32

2,400 ............................. 145 94 33

2,500 ............................. 147 96 34

2,600 ............................. 149 98 35

Air Force Reserve:

500 ................................ 83 85 50

1,000 ............................. 155 165 95

1,500 ............................. 220 240 135

2,000 ............................. 285 310 170

2,500 ............................. 350 369 203

3,000 ............................. 413 420 220

3,500 ............................. 473 464 230

4,000 ............................. 530 500 240

4,500 ............................. 585 529 247

5,000 ............................. 638 550 254

5,500 ............................. 688 565 261

6,000 ............................. 735 575 268

7,000 ............................. 770 595 280

8,000 ............................. 805 615 290

10,000 ........................... 835 635 300

Air National Guard:

5,000 ............................. 333 335 251

6,000 ............................. 403 394 260

7,000 ............................. 472 453 269

8,000 ............................. 539 512 278

9,000 ............................. 606 571 287

10,000 ........................... 673 630 296

11,000 ........................... 740 688 305

12,000 ........................... 807 742 314

13,000 ........................... 873 795 323

610

Total number of members

of a reserve component

serving on full-time reserve component duty:

Number of officers of that reserve component who may be serving

in the grade of:

Major Lieutenant Colonel Colonel

14,000 ........................... 939 848 332

15,000 ........................... 1,005 898 341

16,000 ........................... 1,067 948 350

17,000 ........................... 1,126 998 359

18,000 ........................... 1,185 1,048 368

19,000 ........................... 1,235 1,098 377

20,000 ........................... 1,283 1,148 380.

(2) Of the total number of members of the Naval Reserve who are

serving on full-time reserve component duty at the end of any fiscal

year, the number of those members who may be serving in each of

the grades of lieutenant commander, commander, and captain may

not, as of the end of that fiscal year, exceed the number determined

in accordance with the following table:

Total number of members

of Naval Reserve serving

on full-time reserve component duty

Number of officers who may be serving in the grade of:

Lieutenant commander Commander Captain

10,000 ........................... 807 447 141

11,000 ........................... 867 467 153

12,000 ........................... 924 485 163

13,000 ........................... 980 503 173

14,000 ........................... 1,035 521 183

15,000 ........................... 1,088 538 193

16,000 ........................... 1,142 555 203

17,000 ........................... 1,195 565 213

18,000 ........................... 1,246 575 223

19,000 ........................... 1,291 585 233

20,000 ........................... 1,334 595 242

21,000 ........................... 1,364 603 250

22,000 ........................... 1,384 610 258

23,000 ........................... 1,400 615 265

24,000 ........................... 1,410 620 270.

(b) DETERMINATIONS BY INTERPOLATION.—If the total number of

members of a reserve component serving on full-time reserve component duty is between any two consecutive numbers in the first column of the appropriate table in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection

(a), the corresponding authorized strengths for each of the grades

shown in that table for that component are determined by mathematical interpolation between the respective numbers of the two

strengths. If the total number of members of a reserve component

serving on full-time reserve component duty is more or less than the

highest or lowest number, respectively, set forth in the first column

of the appropriate table in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a), the

Secretary concerned shall fix the corresponding strengths for the

grades shown in that table at the same proportion as is reflected in

the nearest limit shown in the table.

611

(c) REALLOCATIONS TO LOWER GRADES.—Whenever the number of

officers serving in any grade for duty described in subsection (a) is

less than the number authorized for that grade under this section,

the difference between the two numbers may be applied to increase

the number authorized under this section for any lower grade.

(d) SECRETARIAL WAIVER.—(1) Upon determining that it is in the

national interest to do so, the Secretary of Defense may increase for

a particular fiscal year the number of reserve officers that may be

on full-time reserve component duty for a reserve component in a

grade referred to in a table in subsection (a) by a number that does

not exceed the number equal to 5 percent of the maximum number

specified for the grade in that table.

(2) Whenever the Secretary exercises the authority provided in

paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on

Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services

of the House of Representatives notice in writing of the adjustment

made.

(e) FULL-TIME RESERVE COMPONENT DUTY DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘full-time reserve component duty’’ means the following duty:

(1) Active duty described in sections 10211, 10302, 10303,

10304, 10305, 12310, or 12402 of this title.

(2) Full-time National Guard duty (other than for training)

under section 502(f) of title 32.

(3) Active duty described in section 708 of title 32.

§ 12012. Authorized strengths: senior enlisted members on

active duty or on full-time National Guard duty for

administration of the reserves or the National

Guard

ø(a) The number of enlisted members in pay grades E–8 and E–

9 who may be on active duty (other than for training) or on fulltime National Guard duty under the authority of section 502(f) of

title 32 (other than for training) as of the end of any fiscal year

in connection with organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve components or the National Guard may

not exceed the number for that grade and armed force in the following table:

øGrade Army Navy Air

Force

Marine

Corps

E–9 ...................................................................... 764 202 502 20

E–8 ...................................................................... 2,821 429 1,117 94

ø(b) Whenever the number of members serving in pay grade E–

9 for duty described in subsection (a) is less than the number authorized for that grade under subsection (a), the difference between

the two numbers may be applied to increase the number authorized

under such subsection for pay grade E–8.

ø(c) Whenever under section 527 of this title the President may

suspend the operation of any provision of section 523, 525, or 526

of this title, the Secretary of Defense may suspend the operation

of any provision of this section. Any such suspension shall, if not

612

sooner ended, end in the manner specified in section 527 for a suspension under that section.

ø(d) Upon increasing under subsection (c)(2) of section 115 of this

title the end strength that is authorized under subsection (a)(1)(B)

of that section for a fiscal year for active-duty personnel and fulltime National Guard duty personnel of an armed force who are to

be paid from funds appropriated for reserve personnel, the Secretary of Defense may increase for that fiscal year the limitation

that is set forth in subsection (a) of this section for the number of

enlisted members of that armed force serving in any grade if the

Secretary determines that such action is in the national interest.

The percent of the increase may not exceed the percent by which

the Secretary increases that end strength.¿

(a) LIMITATIONS.—Of the total number of members of a reserve

component who are serving on full-time reserve component duty at

the end of any fiscal year, the number of those members in each of

pay grades of E–8 and E–9 who may be serving on active duty

under section 10211 or 12310, or on full-time National Guard duty

under the authority of section 502(f) of title 32 (other than for training) in connection with organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or training the reserve components or the National Guard

may not, as of the end of that fiscal year, exceed the number determined in accordance with the following table:

Total number of members of a reserve component

serving on full-time reserve component duty:

Number of members of that reserve component who may be serving in the grade of:

E–8 E–9

Army Reserve:

10,000 ............................................................ 1,052 154

11,000 ............................................................ 1,126 168

12,000 ............................................................ 1,195 180

13,000 ............................................................ 1,261 191

14,000 ............................................................ 1,327 202

15,000 ............................................................ 1,391 213

16,000 ............................................................ 1,455 224

17,000 ............................................................ 1,519 235

18,000 ............................................................ 1,583 246

19,000 ............................................................ 1,647 257

20,000 ............................................................ 1,711 268

21,000 ............................................................ 1,775 278

Army National Guard:

20,000 ............................................................ 1,650 550

22,000 ............................................................ 1,775 615

24,000 ............................................................ 1,900 645

26,000 ............................................................ 1,945 675

28,000 ............................................................ 1,945 705

30,000 ............................................................ 1,945 725

32,000 ............................................................ 1,945 730

34,000 ............................................................ 1,945 735

36,000 ............................................................ 1,945 738

38,000 ............................................................ 1,945 741

40,000 ............................................................ 1,945 743

613

Total number of members of a reserve component

serving on full-time reserve component duty:

Number of members of that reserve component who may be serving in the grade of:

E–8 E–9

42,000 ............................................................ 1,945 743

Naval Reserve:

10,000 ............................................................ 340 143

11,000 ............................................................ 364 156

12,000 ............................................................ 386 169

13,000 ............................................................ 407 182

14,000 ............................................................ 423 195

15,000 ............................................................ 435 208

16,000 ............................................................ 447 221

17,000 ............................................................ 459 234

18,000 ............................................................ 471 247

19,000 ............................................................ 483 260

20,000 ............................................................ 495 273

21,000 ............................................................ 507 286

22,000 ............................................................ 519 299

23,000 ............................................................ 531 312

24,000 ............................................................ 540 325

Marine Corps Reserve:

1,100 .............................................................. 50 11

1,200 .............................................................. 55 12

1,300 .............................................................. 60 13

1,400 .............................................................. 65 14

1,500 .............................................................. 70 15

1,600 .............................................................. 75 16

1,700 .............................................................. 80 17

1,800 .............................................................. 85 18

1,900 .............................................................. 89 19

2,000 .............................................................. 93 20

2,100 .............................................................. 96 21

2,200 .............................................................. 99 22

2,300 .............................................................. 101 23

2,400 .............................................................. 103 24

2,500 .............................................................. 105 25

2,600 .............................................................. 107 26

Air Force Reserve:

500 ................................................................. 75 40

1,000 .............................................................. 145 75

1,500 .............................................................. 208 105

2,000 .............................................................. 270 130

2,500 .............................................................. 325 150

3,000 .............................................................. 375 170

3,500 .............................................................. 420 190

4,000 .............................................................. 460 210

4,500 .............................................................. 495 230

5,000 .............................................................. 530 250

5,500 .............................................................. 565 270

6,000 .............................................................. 600 290

7,000 .............................................................. 670 330

614

Total number of members of a reserve component

serving on full-time reserve component duty:

Number of members of that reserve component who may be serving in the grade of:

E–8 E–9

8,000 .............................................................. 740 370

10,000 ............................................................ 800 400

Air National Guard

5,000 .............................................................. 1,020 405

6,000 .............................................................. 1,070 435

7,000 .............................................................. 1,120 465

8,000 .............................................................. 1,170 490

9,000 .............................................................. 1,220 510

10,000 ............................................................ 1,270 530

11,000 ............................................................ 1,320 550

12,000 ............................................................ 1,370 570

13,000 ............................................................ 1,420 589

14,000 ............................................................ 1,470 608

15,000 ............................................................ 1,520 626

16,000 ............................................................ 1,570 644

17,000 ............................................................ 1,620 661

18,000 ............................................................ 1,670 678

19,000 ............................................................ 1,720 695

20,000 ............................................................ 1,770 712.

(b) DETERMINATIONS BY INTERPOLATION.—If the total number of

members of a reserve component serving on full-time reserve component duty is between any two consecutive numbers in the first column of the table in subsection (a), the corresponding authorized

strengths for each of the grades shown in that table for that component are determined by mathematical interpolation between the respective numbers of the two strengths. If the total number of members of a reserve component serving on full-time reserve component

duty is more or less than the highest or lowest number, respectively,

set forth in the first column of the table in subsection (a), the Secretary concerned shall fix the corresponding strengths for the grades

shown in the table at the same proportion as is reflected in the nearest limit shown in the table.

(c) REALLOCATIONS TO LOWER GRADE.—Whenever the number of

officers serving in pay grade E–9 for duty described in subsection

(a) is less than the number authorized for that grade under this section, the difference between the two numbers may be applied to increase the number authorized under this section for pay grade E–

8.

(d) SECRETARIAL WAIVER.—(1) Upon determining that it is in the

national interest to do so, the Secretary of Defense may increase for

a particular fiscal year the number of reserve enlisted members that

may be on active duty or full-time National Guard duty as described in subsection (a) for a reserve component in a pay grade referred to in a table in subsection (a) by a number that does not exceed the number equal to 5 percent of the maximum number specified for that grade and reserve component in the table.

(2) Whenever the Secretary exercises the authority provided in

paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on

615

Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services

of the House of Representatives notice in writing of the adjustment

made.

(e) FULL-TIME RESERVE COMPONENT DUTY DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘full-time reserve component duty’’ has the meaning

given the term in section 12011(e) of this title.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1205—APPOINTMENT OF RESERVE OFFICERS

* * * * * * *

§ 12205. Commissioned officers: appointment; educational requirement

(a) * * *

(b) EXCEPTIONS.—Subsection (a) does not apply to the following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) The appointment to a grade in the Army Reserve of a person whose original appointment as an officer in the Army Reserve was through the Officer Candidate School program and

who immediately before that original appointment was an enlisted member on active duty.

ø(4)¿ (5) The appointment to or recognition in a higher grade

of any person who was appointed to, or federally recognized in,

the grade of captain or, in the case of the Navy, lieutenant before October 1, 1995.

ø(5)¿ (6) Recognition in the grade of captain or major in the

Alaska Army National Guard of a person who resides permanently at a location in Alaska that is more than 50 miles from

each of the cities of Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau, Alaska, by paved road and who is serving in a Scout unit or a

Scout supporting unit.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1209—ACTIVE DUTY

* * * * * * *

§ 12305. Authority of President to suspend certain laws relating to promotion, retirement, and separation

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Upon the termination of a suspension made under the authority of subsection (a) of a provision of law otherwise requiring the

separation or retirement of officers on active duty because of age,

length of service or length of service in grade, or failure of selection

for promotion, the Secretary concerned shall extend by up to 90 days

the otherwise required separation or retirement date of any officer

covered by the suspended provision whose separation or retirement

date, but for the suspension, would have been before the date of the

616

termination of the suspension or within 90 days of the date of such

termination.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1213—SPECIAL APPOINTMENTS,

ASSIGNMENTS, DETAILS, AND DUTIES

* * * * * * *

§ 12503. Ready Reserve: funeral honors duty

(a) ORDER TO DUTY.—A member of the Ready Reserve may be ordered to funeral honors duty, with the consent of the member, in

preparation for or to perform funeral honors functions at the funeral of a veteran as defined in section 1491 of this title. Performance of funeral honors duty by a Reserve not on active duty shall

be treated as inactive-duty training (including with respect to travel

to and from such duty) for purposes of any provision of law other

than sections 206 and 435 of title 37.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1214—READY RESERVE MOBILIZATION

INCOME INSURANCE

* * * * * * *

§ 12533. Termination of program

(a) * * *

(b) TERMINATION OF NEW ENROLLMENTS.—The Secretary may not

enroll a member of the Ready Reserve for coverage under the insurance program after øthe date of the enactment of this section.¿

November 18, 1997.

(c) TERMINATION OF COVERAGE.—(1) The enrollment under the

insurance program of insured members other than insured members described in paragraph (2) is terminated as of øthe date of the

enactment of this section.¿ November 18, 1997. The enrollment of

an insured member described in paragraph (2) is terminated as of

the date of the termination of the period of covered service of that

member described in that paragraph.

(2) An insured member described in this paragraph is an insured

member who on øthe date of the enactment of this section¿ November 18, 1997, is serving on covered service for a period of service,

or has been issued an order directing the performance of covered

service, that satisfies or would satisfy the entitlement-to-benefits

provisions of this chapter.

(d) TERMINATION OF PAYMENT OF BENEFITS.—The Secretary may

not make any benefit payment under the insurance program after

øthe date of the enactment of this section¿ November 18, 1997,

other than to an insured member who on that date (1) is serving

on an order to covered service, (2) has been issued an order directing performance of covered service, or (3) has served on covered

service before that date for which benefits under the program have

not been paid to the member.

* * * * * * *

617

CHAPTER 1223—RETIRED PAY FOR NON-REGULAR

SERVICE

* * * * * * *

§ 12731. Age and service requirements

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) In the case of a person who completes the service requirements of subsection (a)(2) during the period beginning on October

5, 1994, and ending on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002, the provisions

of subsection (a)(3) shall be applied by substituting ‘‘the last six

years’’ for ‘‘the last eight years’’.

§ 12731a. Temporary special retirement qualification authority

(a) * * *

(b) PERIOD OF AUTHORITY.—The period referred to in subsection

(a)(1) is the period beginning on October 23, 1992, and ending

on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002.

* * * * * * *

§ 12733. Computation of retired pay: computation of years of

service

For the purpose of computing the retired pay of a person under

this chapter, the person’s years of service and any fraction of such

a year are computed by dividing 360 into the sum of the following:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) One day for each point credited to the person under

clause (B), (C), or (D) of section 12732(a)(2) of this title, but not

more than—

(A) * * *

(B) 75 days in the year of service that includes September 23, 1996, and in any subsequent year of service before the year of service that includes øthe date of the enactment of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001;¿ October 30, 2000; and

(C) 90 days in the year of service that includes øthe date

of the enactment of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001¿ October 30, 2000,

and in any subsequent year of service.

* * * * * * *

§ 12741. Retirement from active reserve service performed

after regular retirement

(a) ELECTION OF RESERVE RETIRED PAY.—A person who, after becoming entitled to retired or retainer pay under chapter 65, 367,

571, or 867 of this title, serves in an active status in a reserve component is entitled to retired pay under this chapter if—

(1) * * *

618

(2) the person elects under this section to øreceived¿ receive

retired pay under this chapter; and

* * * * * * *

PART III—PROMOTION AND RETENTION OF

OFFICERS ON THE RESERVE ACTIVE-STATUS

LIST

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1407—FAILURE OF SELECTION FOR

PROMOTION AND INVOLUNTARY SEPARATION

* * * * * * *

§ 14502. Special selection boards: correction of errors

(a) OFFICERS NOT CONSIDERED BECAUSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE

ERROR.—(1) In the case of an officer or former officer who the Secretary of the military department concerned determines was not

considered for selection for promotion øfrom in or above the promotion zone¿ by a mandatory promotion board convened under section 14101(a) of this title because of administrative error, the Secretary concerned shall convene a special selection board under this

subsection to determine whether such officer or former officer

should be recommended for promotion. Any such board shall be

convened under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense

and shall be appointed and composed in accordance with section

14102 of this title and shall include the representation of competitive categories required by that section. The members of a board

convened under this subsection shall be required to take an oath

in the same manner as prescribed in section 14103 of this title.

* * * * * * *

(3) If a special selection board convened under paragraph (1) does

not recommend for promotion an officer or former officer in a grade

below the grade of colonel or, in the case of an officer or former officer of the Navy, captain, whose name was referred to it for consideration for selection for promotion from in or above the promotion

zone, the officer or former officer shall be considered to have failed

of selection for promotion.

(b) OFFICERS CONSIDERED BUT NOT SELECTED; MATERIAL

ERROR.—(1) In the case of an officer or former officer who was eligible for promotion and was considered for selection for promotion

øfrom in or above the promotion zone under this chapter by a selection board¿ by a promotion board convened under section 14101(a)

of this title but was not selected, the Secretary of the military department concerned may, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, convene a special selection board under this subsection to determine whether the officer or former officer should be

recommended for promotion, if the Secretary determines that—

(A) the action of the selection board that considered the officer or former officer was contrary to law or involved material

error of fact or material administrative error; or

619

(B) the selection board did not have before it for its consideration material information.

* * * * * * *

PART IV—TRAINING FOR RESERVE COMPONENTS AND EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE

PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1606—EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR

MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED RESERVE

* * * * * * *

§ 16133. Time limitation for use of entitlement

(a) * * *

(b)(1) In the case of a person—

(A) * * *

(B) who, on or after the date on which such person became

entitled to educational assistance under this chapter ceases to

be a member of the Selected Reserve during the period beginning on October 1, 1991, and ending on December 31, ø2001¿

2002, by reason of the inactivation of the person’s unit of assignment or by reason of involuntarily ceasing to be designated

as a member of the Selected Reserve pursuant to section

10143(a) of this title,

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1608—HEALTH PROFESSIONS STIPEND

PROGRAM

* * * * * * *

§ 16201. Financial assistance: health-care professionals in reserve components

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROGRAM.—For the purpose of obtaining

adequate numbers of commissioned officers in the reserve components who are qualified in health professions øspecialties critically

needed in wartime¿, the Secretary of each military department

may establish and maintain a program to provide financial assistance under this chapter to persons engaged in øtraining in such

specialties¿ training that leads to a degree in medicine or dentistry

or training in a health professions specialty that is critically needed

in wartime. Under such a program, the Secretary concerned may

agree to pay a financial stipend to persons engaged in øtraining in

certain health care specialties¿ health care education and training

in return for a commitment to subsequent service in the Ready Reserve.

(b) MEDICAL AND DENTAL SCHOOL STUDENTS.—(1) Under the stipend program under this chapter, the Secretary of the military department concerned may enter into an agreement with a person

who—

620

(A) is eligible to be appointed as an officer in a reserve component;

(B) is enrolled or has been accepted for enrollment in an institution in a course of study that results in a degree in medicine

or dentistry;

(C) signs an agreement that, unless sooner separated, the person will—

(i) complete the educational phase of the program;

(ii) accept a reappointment or redesignation within the

person’s reserve component, if tendered, based upon the person’s health profession, following satisfactory completion of

the educational and intern programs; and

(iii) participate in a residency program; and

(D) if required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary of

Defense, agrees to apply for, if eligible, and accept, if offered,

residency training in a health profession skill which has been

designated by the Secretary of Defense as a critically needed

wartime skill.

(2) Under the agreement— (A) the Secretary of the military department concerned shall

agree to pay the participant a stipend, in the amount determined under subsection (f), for the period or the remainder of

the period the student is satisfactorily progressing toward a degree in medicine or dentistry while enrolled in an accredited

medical or dental school;

(B) the participant shall not be eligible to receive such stipend

before appointment, designation, or assignment as an officer for

service in the Ready Reserve;

(C) the participant shall be subject to such active duty requirements as may be specified in the agreement and to active

duty in time of war or national emergency as provided by law

for members of the Ready Reserve; and

(D) the participant shall agree to serve, upon successful completion of the program, one year in the Selected Reserve for each

six months, or part thereof, for which the stipend is provided.

In the case of a participant who enters into a subsequent agreement under subsection (c) and successfully completes residency

training in a specialty designated by the Secretary of Defense

as a specialty critically needed by the military department in

wartime, the requirement to serve in the Selected Reserve may

be reduced to one year for each year, or part thereof, for which

the stipend was provided while enrolled in medical or dental

school.

ø(b)¿ (c) PHYSICIANS AND DENTISTS IN CRITICAL WARTIME SPE- CIALTIES.—(1) Under the stipend program under this chapter, the

Secretary of the military department concerned may enter into an

agreement with a person who— (A) * * *

(B) is eligible for appointment, designation, or assignment as

a medical officer or dental officer in the Reserve of the armed

force concerned or has been appointed as a medical or dental

officer in the Reserve of the armed force concerned; and

* * * * * * *

(2) Under the agreement—

621

(A) the Secretary shall agree to pay the participant a stipend, in an amount determined under subsection ø(e)¿ (f), for

the period or the remainder of the period of the residency program in which the participant enrolls or is enrolled;

* * * * * * *

(D) the participant shall agree to serve, upon successful completion of the program, øtwo years in the Ready Reserve for

each year,¿ one year in the Ready Reserve for each six months,

or part thereof, for which the stipend is provided, to be served

in the Selected Reserve or in the Individual Ready Reserve as

specified in the agreement.

ø(c)¿ (d) REGISTERED NURSES IN CRITICAL SPECIALTIES.—(1)

***

(2) Under the agreement—

(A) the Secretary shall agree to pay the participant a stipend, in an amount determined under subsection ø(e)¿ (f), for

the period or the remainder of the period of the nursing program in which the participant enrolls or is enrolled;

* * * * * * *

(D) the participant shall agree to serve, upon successful completion of the program, øtwo years in the Ready Reserve for

each year,¿ one year in the Ready Reserve for each six months,

or part thereof, for which the stipend is provided, to be served

in the Selected Reserve or in the Individual Ready Reserve as

specified in the agreement.

ø(d)¿ (e) BACCALAUREATE STUDENTS IN NURSING OR OTHER

HEALTH PROFESSIONS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(e)¿ (f) AMOUNT OF STIPEND.—The amount of a stipend under

an agreement under subsection (b) or (c) shall be—

(1) the stipend rate in effect for participants in the Armed

Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program under section

2121(d) of this title, if the participant has agreed to serve in

the Selected Reserve; or

(2) one-half of that rate, if the participant has agreed to

serve in the Individual Ready Reserve.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1609—EDUCATION LOAN REPAYMENT

PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

§ 16302. Education loan repayment program: health professions officers serving in Selected Reserve with

wartime critical medical skill shortages

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

622

(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, ø2002¿ 2003.

* * * * * * *

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1996

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E—Chemical Demilitarization

Program

* * * * * * *

SEC. 152. DESTRUCTION OF EXISTING STOCKPILE OF LETHAL CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS.

(a) * * *

(b) INITIATION OF DEMILITARIZATION OPERATIONS.—The Secretary

of Defense may not initiate destruction of the chemical munitions

stockpile stored at a site until the following support measures are

in place for that site:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) Emergency preparedness and response capabilities have

been established at the site and in the surrounding communities to respond to emergencies involving risks to public health

or safety that are identified by the Secretary of Defense as being

risks resulting from the storage or destruction of lethal chemical agents and munitions at the site.

(5) The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics recommends initiation of destruction at

the site after considering the recommendation by the board established by subsection (g).

* * * * * * *

(g) OVERSIGHT BOARDS.—(1) The Under Secretary of Defense for

Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics shall convene, for each site

at which the chemical munitions stockpile is stored, an independent

oversight board composed of—

(A) the Secretary of the Army;

(B) the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency;

(C) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;

623

(D) the President of the National Academy of Sciences;

(E) the Governor of the State in which the site is located; and

(F) one individual designated by the Under Secretary from a

list of three local representatives of the area in which the site

is located, prepared jointly by the Member of the House of Representatives who represents the Congressional District in which

the site is located and the Senators representing the State in

which the site is located.

(2) Not later than six months after each such board is convened,

the board shall make a recommendation to the Under Secretary

whether the destruction of the chemical munitions stockpile should

be initiated at the site.

(3) The Under Secretary may not recommend initiation of destruction of the chemical munitions stockpile at a site after considering

a negative recommendation of the board until 90 days after the

Under Secretary provides notice to Congress of the intent to recommend initiation of destruction.

* * * * * * *

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL

POLICY

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E—Miscellaneous Reviews,

Studies, and Reports

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 552. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW OF PROPOSED ARMY

END STRENGTH ALLOCATIONS.

ø(a) IN GENERAL.—During fiscal years 1996 through 2001, the

Comptroller General of the United States shall analyze the plans

of the Secretary of the Army for the allocation of assigned active

component end strengths for the Army through the requirements

process known as Total Army Analysis 2003 and through any subsequent similar requirements process of the Army that is conducted

before 2002. The Comptroller General’s analysis shall consider

whether the proposed active component end strengths and planned

allocation of forces for that period will be sufficient to implement

the national military strategy. In monitoring those plans, the

Comptroller General shall determine the extent to which the Army

will be able during that period—

ø(1) to man fully the combat force based on the projected active component Army end strength for each of fiscal years 1996

through 2001;

ø(2) to meet the support requirements for the force and

strategy specified in the report of the Bottom-Up Review, including requirements for operations other than war; and

ø(3) to streamline further Army infrastructure in order to

eliminate duplication and inefficiencies and replace active duty

624

personnel in overhead positions, whenever practicable, with civilian or reserve personnel.

ø(b) ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS, ETC.—The Secretary of the Army

shall ensure that the Comptroller General is provided access, on a

timely basis and in accordance with the needs of the Comptroller

General, to all analyses, models, memoranda, reports, and other

documents prepared or used in connection with the requirements

process of the Army known as Total Army Analysis 2003 and any

subsequent similar requirements process of the Army that is conducted before 2002.

ø(c) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than March 1 of each year

through 2002, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress a

report on the findings and conclusions of the Comptroller General

under this section.¿

* * * * * * *

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 ø2003¿ 2008.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 3701 OF TITLE 31, UNITED STATES CODE

§ 3701. Definitions and application

(a) * * *

(b)(1) In subchapter II of this chapter and subsection (a)(8) of

this section, the term ‘‘claim’’ or ‘‘debt’’ means any amount of funds

or property that has been determined by an appropriate official of

the Federal Government to be owed to the United States by a person, organization, or entity other than another Federal agency. A

claim includes, without limitation—

(A) * * *

(B) expenditures of nonappropriated funds, including actual

and administrative costs related to shoplifting, theft detection,

and theft prevention,

* * * * * * *

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 2000

* * * * * * *

625

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE III—OPERATION AND

MAINTENANCE

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E—Performance of Functions by

Private-Sector Sources

* * * * * * *

SEC. 343. REPORT ON USE OF EMPLOYEES OF NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

ø(a) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than March 1, 2001, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report describing the

use during the previous fiscal year of non-Federal entities to provide services to the Department of Defense.¿

(a) REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY.—

(1) Not later than March 1 of each fiscal year, the Secretary of the

Army shall submit to Congress a report describing the use during

the previous fiscal year of non-Federal entities to provide services to

the Department of the Army.

(2) The data collection required to prepare the report is deemed

to be in compliance with the requirements of chapter 35 of title 44,

United States Code, commonly known as the Paperwork Reduction

Act.

(3) The report required by this section is needed to comply with

sections 115a and 129a of title 10, United States Code, and is not

a procurement action.

(b) CONTENT OF REPORT.—To the extent practicable using information available from existing data collection and reporting systems available to the øDepartment of Defense¿ Department of the

Army and the non-Federal entities referred to in subsection (a), the

report shall— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) LIMITATION ON REQUIREMENT FOR NON-FEDERAL ENTITIES TO

PROVIDE INFORMATION.—For the purposes of meeting the requirements set forth in subsection (b), the Secretary may not require the

provision of information beyond the information that is currently

provided to the Department by the non-Federal entities referred to

in subsection (a), except for the number of direct and indirect work

year equivalents associated with øDepartment of Defense¿ Department of the Army contracts, identified by contract number, to the

extent this information is available to the contractor from existing

data collection systems.

626

(d) GAO EVALUATION.—Not later than 60 days after the Secretary

submits to Congress the report required under subsection (a) for a

fiscal year, the Comptroller General shall submit to Congress an

evaluation of the report.

* * * * * * *

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL

POLICY

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Service Academies

SEC. 531. STRENGTH LIMITATIONS AT THE SERVICE ACADEMIES.

(a) * * *

(b) REENACTMENT OF LIMITATION; AUTHORIZED VARIANCE.—(1)

***

(2) Section 6954 of such title is amended—

(A) in subsection (a), by striking the matter preceding paragraph (1) and inserting the following:

(i) * * *

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E—Education and Training

* * * * * * *

SEC. 549. RECODIFICATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF STATUTES DENYING FEDERAL GRANTS AND CONTRACTS BY CERTAIN

DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES TO INSTITUTIONS OF

HIGHER EDUCATION THAT PROHIBIT SENIOR ROTC

UNITS OR MILITARY RECRUITING ON CAMPUS.

(a) RECODIFICATION AND CONSOLIDATION FOR LIMITATIONS ON

FEDERAL GRANTS AND CONTRACTS.—(1) * * *

(2) The item relating to section 983 in the table of sections at the

beginning of øsuch chapter¿ chapter 49 of title 10, United States

Code, is amended to read as follows:

* * * * * * *

Subtitle I—Matters Relating to Missing

Persons

* * * * * * *

SEC. 576. RECOVERY AND IDENTIFICATION OF REMAINS OF CERTAIN

WORLD WAR II SERVICEMEN LOST IN PACIFIC THEATER

OF OPERATIONS.

(a) RECOVERY OF REMAINS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) Not later than September 30, 2000, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report setting forth the efforts made to accomVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00650 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
627

plish the objectives specified in paragraph (1). The Secretary shall

include in the report a statement of the backlog of cases at the

Central Identification Laboratory, Hawaii, shown by conflict, and

the status of the joint manning plan required by section 566(c) of

the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261; 112 Stat. 2029).

* * * * * * *

Subtitle J—Other Matters

SEC. 577. AUTHORITY FOR SPECIAL COURTS-MARTIAL TO IMPOSE

SENTENCES TO CONFINEMENT AND FORFEITURES OF

PAY OF UP TO ONE YEAR.

(a) MAXIMUM PUNISHMENTS THAT MAY BE ADJUDGED BY A SPECIAL COURT-MARTIAL.—Section 819 of title 10, United States Code

(article 19 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended—

(1) * * *

(2) in the third sentence, by inserting after ‘‘A øbad conduct¿

bad-conduct discharge’’ the following: ‘‘, confinement for more

than six months, or forfeiture of pay for more than six

months’’.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 591. DEFENSE TASK FORCE ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(h) ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT.—(1) Each member of the task force

who is a member of the Armed Forces or civilian officer or employee

of the United States shall serve without compensation (other than

the compensation to which entitled as a member of the Armed

Forces or an officer or employee of the United States, as the case

may be)ø, but shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem

in lieu of subsistence, at rates authorized for employees of agencies

under subchapter I of chapter 57 of title 5, United States Code,

while away from the member’s home or regular places of business

in the performance of services for the task force¿. Other members

of the task force shall be appointed in accordance with, and subject

to, section 3161 of title 5, United States Code.

* * * * * * *

(j) TERMINATION.—The task force shall terminate øthree years

after the date of the enactment of this Act¿ on April 24, 2003.

* * * * * * *

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

628

Subtitle A—Health Care Services

SEC. 701. PHARMACY BENEFITS PROGRAM.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(d) STUDY FOR DESIGN OF PHARMACY BENEFIT FOR CERTAIN

COVERED BENEFICIARIES.—(1) Not later than April 15, 2001, the

Secretary of Defense shall prepare and submit to Congress—

ø(A) a study on a design for a comprehensive pharmacy benefit for covered beneficiaries under chapter 55 of title 10,

United States Code, who are entitled to benefits under part A,

and enrolled under part B, of title XVIII of the Social Security

Act; and

ø(B) an estimate of the costs of implementing and operating

such design.

ø(2) The design described in paragraph (1)(A) shall incorporate

the elements of the pharmacy benefits program required to be established under section 1074g of title 10, United States Code (as

added by subsection (a)).¿

* * * * * * *

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle B—Other Matters

SEC. 811. MENTOR-PROTEGE PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) REPORTS AND REVIEWS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3)(A)***

(B) The study shall include the following:

(i) * * *

* * * * * * *

(v) A review of the relationship between the results of the

øMentor-Protegee¿ Mentor-Protege Program and the objectives

established in section 2323 of title 10, United States Code.

* * * * * * *

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

629

Subtitle F—Memorial Objects and

Commemorations

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1052. PROGRAM TO COMMEMORATE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE

KOREAN WAR.

(a) * * *

(b) CHANGE OF NAME.—(1) Subsection (c) of such section, as

amended by section 1067 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261; 112

Stat. 2134), is amended by striking ‘‘ ø‘The Department¿ the ‘Department of Defense Korean War Commemoration’ ’’ and inserting

‘‘ ‘The United States of America Korean War Commemoration’ ’’.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1053. COMMEMORATION OF THE VICTORY OF FREEDOM IN THE

COLD WAR.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) Tens of thousands of United States soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines paid the ultimate price during the Cold War

in order to preserve the freedoms and liberties enjoyed in

democratic countries.

* * * * * * *

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO

OTHER NATIONS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle A—Matters Relating to the

People’s Republic of China

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1202. ANNUAL REPORT ON MILITARY POWER OF THE PEOPLE’S

REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) REPORT ON SALES AND TRANSFERS FROM STATES OF THE

FORMER SOVIET UNION TO CHINA.—(1) The report to be submitted

under this section not later than March 1, 2002, shall include in a

separate section a report describing the sales and transfer of military hardware, expertise, and technology from states of the former

Soviet Union to the People’s Republic of China. The report shall set

forth the history of such sales and transfers since 1990, forecast possible future sales and transfers, and address the implications of

those sales and transfers for the security of the United States and

its friends and allies in Asia.

630

(2) The report shall include analysis and forecasts of the following

matters related to military cooperation between states of the former

Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China:

(A) The policy of each of those states with respect to arms

sales to, and military cooperation with, the People’s Republic of

China.

(B) Any laws or regulations of those states that could prohibit

or limit such sales or cooperation.

(C) The extent in each of those states of government knowledge, cooperation, or condoning of sales or transfers of military

hardware, expertise, or technology to the People’s Republic of

China.

(D) An itemization of sales or transfers of military hardware,

expertise, or technology from any of those states to the People’s

Republic of China that have taken place since 1990, with a particular focus on command, control, communications, and intelligence systems.

(E) A description of any sale or transfer of military hardware,

expertise, or technology from any of those states to the People’s

Republic of China that is currently under negotiation or contemplation through the end of 2005.

(F) Identification of Chinese defense industries in which technicians from states of the former Soviet Union are working and

of defense industries of those states in which Chinese technicians are working and a description in each case of the extent

and the nature of the work performed by such technicians.

(G) The extent of assistance by any of those states to key research and development programs of China, including programs for development of weapons of mass destruction and delivery vehicles for such weapons, programs for development of

advanced conventional weapons, and programs for development

of unconventional weapons.

(H) The extent of assistance by any of those states to information warfare or electronic warfare programs of China.

(I) The extent of assistance by any of those states to manned

and unmanned space operations of China.

(J) The extent to which arms sales by any of those states to

the People’s Republic of China are a source of funds for military

research and development or procurement programs in the selling state.

(3) The report under paragraph (1) shall include, with respect to

each area of analysis and forecasts specified in paragraph (2)—

(A) an assessment of the military effects of such sales or

transfers to entities in the People’s Republic of China;

(B) an assessment of the ability of the People’s Liberation

Army to assimilate such sales or transfers, mass produce new

equipment, or develop doctrine for use; and

(C) the potential threat of developments related to such effects

on the security interests of the United States and its friends and

allies in Asia.

* * * * * * *

631

Subtitle D—Other Matters

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1232. LIMITATION ON DEPLOYMENT OF ARMED FORCES IN HAITI

DURING FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND CONGRESSIONAL NOTICE

OF DEPLOYMENTS TO HAITI.

(a) * * *

ø(b) REPORT.—Whenever there is a deployment of United States

Armed Forces to Haiti after May 31, 2000, the President shall, not

later than 96 hours after such deployment begins, transmit to Congress a written report regarding the deployment. In any such report, the President shall specify (1) the purpose of the deployment,

and (2) the date on which the deployment is expected to end.¿

* * * * * * *

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) full and accurate disclosure by Russia of the size of its existing chemical weapons stockpile;

(2) a demonstrated annual commitment by Russia to allocate at least $25,000,000 to chemical weapons elimination;

(3) development by Russia of a practical plan for destroying

its stockpile of nerve agents;

(4) enactment of a law by Russia that provides for the elimination of all nerve agents at a single site; and

(5) an agreement by Russia to destroy its chemical weapons

production facilities at Volgograd and Novocheboksark.

* * * * * * *

TITLE XIV—PROLIFERATION AND

EXPORT CONTROLS

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1402. ANNUAL REPORT ON TRANSFERS OF MILITARILY SENSITIVE TECHNOLOGY TO COUNTRIES AND ENTITIES OF

CONCERN.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

632

(f) DEFINITION.—As used in this section, the term ‘‘countries and

entities of concern’’ means— (1) * * *

(2) any country that— (A) has detonated a nuclear explosive device (as defined

in section 830(4) of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention

Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. ø3201 note¿ 6305(4))); and

* * * * * * *

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXIX—COMMISSION ON

NATIONAL MILITARY MUSEUM

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2902. DUTIES OF COMMISSION.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCATION ON NAVY ANNEX PROPERTY.— In the case of a recommendation under subsection (c)(1) to authorize construction of a national military museum on the Navy Annex

property authorized for reservation for such purpose by section

ø2871(b)¿ 2881(b), the design of the national military museum on

such property shall be subject to the following requirements:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

SECTION 1407 OF THE DEFENSE DEPENDENTS’

EDUCATION ACT OF 1978

SCHOOL SYSTEM FOR DEPENDENTS IN OVERSEAS AREAS

SEC. 1407. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) CONTINUATION OF ENROLLMENT FOR CERTAIN DEPENDENTS OF

MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES INVOLUNTARILY SEPARATED.—(1)

A member of the Armed Forces serving on active duty on September 30, 1990, who is involuntarily separated during the period

beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on December 31, ø2001¿

2002, and who has a dependent described in paragraph (2) who is

enrolled in a school of the defense dependents’ education system (or

a school for which tuition is provided under subsection (b)) on the

date of that separation shall be eligible to enroll or continue the

enrollment of that dependent at that school (or another school serving the same community) for the final year of secondary education

633

of that dependent in the same manner as if the member were still

on active duty.

* * * * * * *

(d) AUXILIARY SERVICES AVAILABLE TO HOME SCHOOL STU- DENTS.—(1) A dependent who is educated in a home school setting,

but who is eligible to enroll in a school of the defense dependents’ education system, shall be permitted to use or receive auxiliary services of that school without being required to either enroll in that

school or register for a minimum number of courses offered by that

school. The dependent may be required to satisfy other eligibility requirements applicable to students actually enrolled in that school

who use or receive the same auxiliary services.

(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ‘‘auxiliary services’’ includes registration in individual courses, use of academic resources,

access to the library of the school, after hours use of school facilities,

and participation in music, sports, and other extracurricular and

interscholastic activities.

ø(d)¿ (e)(1)(A) Chapter 7 of title 37, United States Code, relating

to allowances authorized for members of the uniformed services, is

amended by adding after section 428 the following new section:

(i) * * *

* * * * * * *

FLOYD D. SPENCE NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL

POLICY

* * * * * * *

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Personnel

Policy

* * * * * * *

SEC. 525. EXTENSION OF INVOLUNTARY CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT

DATE FOR CERTAIN RESERVE TECHNICIANS.

(a) * * *

(b) TRANSITION PROVISION.—(1) An individual who before the

date of the enactment of this Act was involuntarily separated or retired from employment as an Army Reserve or Air Force Reserve

technician under section 10218 of title 10, United States Code, and

who would not have been so separated if the provisions of øsubVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00657 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
634

section (c)¿ subsections (a) and (b) of that section, as amended by

subsection (a), had been in effect at the time of such separation

may, with the approval of the Secretary concerned, be reinstated

to the technician status held by that individual immediately before

that separation. The effective date of any such reinstatement is the

date the employee resumes technician status.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle G—Other Matters

* * * * * * *

SEC. 574. MANAGEMENT AND PER DIEM REQUIREMENTS FOR MEMBERS SUBJECT TO LENGTHY OR NUMEROUS DEPLOYMENTS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT OF DEPLOYMENTS OF INDIVIDUAL

MEMBERS.—Not later than March 31, 2002, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the

Senate and the House of Representatives a report on the administration of section 991 of title 10, United States Code, during fiscal

year 2001. The report shall include—

ø(1) a discussion of the experience in tracking and recording

the deployments of members of the Armed Forces; and

ø(2) any recommendations for revision of such section that

the Secretary considers appropriate.¿

(1) a discussion of the experience in tracking and recording

the deployments of members of the Armed Forces and the payment of the per diem allowance for lengthy or numerous deployments in accordance with section 436 of title 37, United States

Code;

(2) specific comments regarding the effect of section 991 of

title 10, United States Code, and section 436 of title 37, United

States Code, on the readiness of the Navy and Marine Corps

given the deployment intensive mission of these services; and

(3) any recommendations for revision of section 991 of title

10, United States Code, or section 436 of title 37, United States

Code, that the Secretary considers appropriate.

* * * * * * *

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER

PERSONNEL BENEFITS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances

* * * * * * *

635

SEC. 603. REVISED METHOD FOR CALCULATION OF BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR SUBSISTENCE.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) EARLY TERMINATION OF BAS TRANSITIONAL AUTHORITY.—Effective øOctober 1, 2001¿ January 1, 2002, subsections (c) through

(f ) of section 602 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85; 37 U.S.C. 402 note) are repealed.

* * * * * * *

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle C—TRICARE Program

SEC. 721. IMPROVEMENT OF ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE UNDER THE

TRICARE PROGRAM.

(a) WAIVER OF NONAVAILABILITY STATEMENT OR

PREAUTHORIZATION.—In the case of a covered beneficiary under

chapter 55 of title 10, United States Code, who is enrolled in

TRICARE Standard, the Secretary of Defense may not require with

regard to authorized health care services (other than mental health

services) under any ønew¿ contract for the provision of health care

services under such chapter that the beneficiary— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(c) EXCEPTIONS.—Subsection (a) shall not apply if— ø(1) the Secretary demonstrates significant costs would be

avoided by performing specific procedures at the affected military medical treatment facilities;

ø(2) the Secretary determines that a specific procedure must

be provided at the affected military medical treatment facility

to ensure the proficiency levels of the practitioners at the facility; or

ø(3) the lack of nonavailability statement data would significantly interfere with TRICARE contract administration.¿

(c) EXCEPTIONS.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the Secretary may

provide that subsection (a) shall not apply for a period of up to one

year if—

(A) the Secretary—

(i) demonstrates significant costs would be avoided by

performing specific procedures at the affected military medical treatment facility or facilities;

(ii) determines that a specific procedure must be provided

at the affected military medical treatment facility or facilities to ensure the proficiency levels of the practitioners at

the facility or facilities; or

(iii) determines that the lack of nonavailability statement

data would significantly interfere with TRICARE contract

administration;

636

(B) the Secretary provides notification of the Secretary’s intent

to make an exception under this subsection to covered beneficiaries who receive care at the military medical treatment facility or facilities that will be affected by the decision to make

an exception under this subsection;

(C) the Secretary provides notification to the Committees on

Armed Services of the House of Representatives and the Senate

of the Secretary’s intent to make an exception under this subsection, the reason for making an exception, and the date that

a nonavailability statement will be required; and

(D) 60 days have elapsed since the date of the notification described in subparagraph (C).

(2)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Secretary may

make an exception under this subsection with respect to— (i) one or more services performed at a military medical treatment facility or facilities; or

(ii) one or more services performed in a TRICARE region.

(B) With respect to maternity care, the Secretary may make an exception under this subsection with respect to a military medical

treatment facility.

(3) In the case of health care provided in conjunction with a graduate medical education program, the period of nonapplicability described in paragraph (1) shall be, instead of one year, the period for

which a residency review committee has approved the program.

(d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall take effect on øOctober

1, 2001¿ two years after the date of the enactment of the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002.

* * * * * * *

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle B—Information Technology

SEC. 811. ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) MILESTONE APPROVAL FOR MAJOR AUTOMATED INFORMATION

SYSTEMS.—The revised directive required by subsection (b) shall

prohibit øMilestone I¿ Milestone B approval, øMilestone II¿ Milestone C approval, or øMilestone III¿ full rate production approval

(or the equivalent) of a major automated information system within

the Department of Defense until the Chief Information Officer has

determined that—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

637

SEC. 814. NAVY-MARINE CORPS INTRANET.

(a) * * *

(b) PHASED IMPLEMENTATION.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) No increment of the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet that is implemented during fiscal year ø2001¿ 2002 may include any activities of the øMarine Corps, the naval shipyards, or¿ naval shipyards

or the naval aviation depots. Funds available for fiscal year ø2001¿

2002 for activities of the øMarine Corps, the naval shipyards, or¿

naval shipyards or the naval aviation depots may not be expended

for any contract for the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet.

(c) øPROHIBITION ON INCREASE OF RATES CHARGED.—¿ PROHIBI- TIONS.—(1) The Secretary of the Navy shall ensure that rates

charged by a working capital funded industrial facility of the Department of the Navy for goods or services provided by such facility

are not increased during fiscal year ø2001¿ 2002 for the purpose

of funding the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet contract.

(2) The Navy Intranet contract may not include any activities of

the Marine Corps.

* * * * * * *

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

* * * * * * *

Subtitle B—Department of Defense

Organizations

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 916. SEMIANNUAL REPORT ON JOINT REQUIREMENTS OVERSIGHT COUNCIL REFORM INITIATIVE.

ø(a) SEMIANNUAL REPORT.—The Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of

Staff shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a series of five semiannual reports, as prescribed by

subsection (b), on the activities of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. The principal focus of each such report shall be on

the progress made on the initiative of the Chairman to reform and

refocus the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.

ø(b) SUBMISSION OF REPORTS.—Reports under this section shall

be submitted not later than March 1, 2001, September 1, 2001,

March 1, 2002, September 1, 2002, and March 1, 2003. Each report

shall cover the half of a fiscal year that ends five months before

the date on which the report is due.

ø(c) CONTENT.—In the case of any report under this section after

the first such report, if any matter to be included is unchanged

from the preceding report, that matter may be included by reference to the preceding report. Each such report shall include, to

the extent practicable, the following:

638

ø(1) A listing of each of the capability areas designated by

the Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff as being within the

principal domain of the Joint Requirements Oversight Council

and a justification for each such designation.

ø(2) A listing of the joint requirements developed, considered,

or approved within each of the capability areas listed pursuant

to paragraph (1).

ø(3) A listing and explanation of the decisions made by the

Joint Requirements Oversight Council and, to the extent appropriate, a listing of each of the recommendations to the

Council made by the commander of the United States Joint

Forces Command.

ø(4) An assessment of—

ø(A) the progress made in shifting the Joint Requirements Oversight Council to having a more strategic focus

on future war fighting requirements;

ø(B) the progress made on integration of requirements;

and

ø(C) the progress made on development of overarching

common architectures for defense information systems to

ensure that common defense information systems are fully

interoperable.

ø(5) A description of any actions that have been taken to improve the Joint Requirements Oversight Council.¿

* * * * * * *

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle C—Counter-Drug Activities

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1022. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EXPENDITURES TO

SUPPORT FOREIGN COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES.

Not later than January 1, 2001, and April 15, 2002, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report detailing the expenditure of funds by the Secretary

during øfiscal year 2000¿ the preceding fiscal year in direct or indirect support of the counter-drug activities of foreign governments.

The report shall include the following for each foreign government:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

TITLE XI—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

* * * * * * *

639

Subtitle F—Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay and Early Retirement Authority

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1152. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EMPLOYEE VOLUNTARY EARLY

RETIREMENT AUTHORITY.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—(1) * * *

(2) Section 8464(a)(1)(A)(i) of such title is amended by striking

out ‘‘or (b)(1)(B)’’ and inserting ‘‘, (b)(1)(B), or (d)’’.

* * * * * * *

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF THE

FORMER SOVIET UNION

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 1304. LIMITATIONS ON USE OF FUNDS FOR FISSILE MATERIAL

STORAGE FACILITY.

ø(a) LIMITATIONS.—No fiscal year 2001 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds may be used— ø(1) for construction of a second wing for the storage facility

for Russian fissile material referred to in section 1302(a)(5); or

ø(2) for design or planning with respect to such facility until

15 days after the date that the Secretary of Defense submits

to Congress notification that Russia and the United States

have signed a written transparency agreement that provides

for verification that material stored at the facility is of weapons origin.

ø(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF FUNDING CAP FOR FIRST WING OF STORAGE FACILITY.—Out of funds authorized to be appropriated for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs for fiscal year 2001 or any

other fiscal year, not more than $412,600,000 may be used for planning, design, or construction of the first wing for the storage facility for Russian fissile material referred to in section 1302(a)(5).¿

SEC. 1304. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR FISSILE MATERIAL

STORAGE FACILITY.

Out of funds authorized to be appropriated for Cooperative Threat

Reduction programs for fiscal year 2001 or any other fiscal year, not

more than $412,600,000 may be used for planning, design, or construction of the first wing for the storage facility for Russian fissile

material referred to in section 1302(a)(5).

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 1307. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF

FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY PLANTS; REPORT.

ø(a) IN GENERAL.—No fiscal year 2001 Cooperative Threat Reduction funds may be used for the construction of a fossil fuel energy plant intended to provide power to local communities that alVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00663 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
640

ready receive power from nuclear energy plants that produce plutonium.¿

SEC. 1307. PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION

OR REFURBISHMENT OF FOSSIL FUEL ENERGY PLANTS;

REPORT.

(a) PROHIBITION.—No funds appropriated for Cooperative Threat

Reduction programs for any fiscal year may be used for the construction or refurbishment of a fossil fuel energy plant intended to

provide power to local communities that receive power from nuclear

energy plants that produce plutonium.

* * * * * * *

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) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) A description of the øaudits, examinations, and other efforts, such as on-site inspections, conducted¿ means (including

program management, audits, examinations, and other means)

used by the United States during the fiscal year ending in the

year preceding the year of the report to ensure that assistance

provided under Cooperative Threat Reduction programs is fully

accounted for øand that such assistance is being used for its

intended purpose¿, that such assistance is being used for its intended purpose, and that such assistance is being used efficiently and effectively, including—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) a determination whether the assistance described in

subparagraphs (A) and (B) has been used for its intended

purpose and an assessment of whether the assistance being

provided is being used effectively and efficiently; and

(D) a description of the øaudits, examinations, and

other¿ efforts planned to be carried out during the fiscal

year beginning in the year of the report to ensure that Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance provided during

such fiscal year is fully accounted for and is used for its

intended purpose.

* * * * * * *

TITLE XV—NAVY ACTIVITIES ON THE

ISLAND OF VIEQUES, PUERTO RICO

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 1503. DETERMINATION REGARDING CONTINUATION OF NAVY

TRAINING.

ø(a) REFERENDUM.—

641

ø(1) REQUIREMENT.—Except as provided in paragraph (2),

the President shall provide for a referendum to be conducted

on the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico, to determine by a majority of the votes cast in the referendum by the Vieques electorate whether the people of Vieques approve or disapprove of

the continuation of the conduct of live-fire training, and any

other types of training, by the Armed Forces at the Navy’s

training sites on the island under the conditions described in

subsection (d).

ø(2) EXCEPTION.—If the Chief of Naval Operations and the

Commandant of the Marine Corps jointly submit to the congressional defense committees, after the date of the enactment

of this Act and before the date set forth in subsection (c), their

certification that the Vieques Naval Training Range is no

longer needed for training by the Navy and the Marine Corps,

then the requirement for a referendum under paragraph (1)

shall cease to be effective on the date on which the certification

is submitted.

ø(b) PROHIBITION OF OTHER PROPOSITIONS.—In the referendum

under this section, no proposition or option may be presented as an

alternative to the propositions of approval and of disapproval of the

continuation of the conduct of training as described in subsection

(a)(1).

ø(c) TIME FOR REFERENDUM.—The referendum required under

this section shall be held on May 1, 2001, or within 270 days before

such date or 270 days after such date. The Secretary of the Navy

shall publicize the date set for the referendum 90 days before that

date.

ø(d) REQUIRED TRAINING CONDITIONS.—For the purposes of the

referendum under this section, the conditions for the continuation

of the conduct of training are those that are proposed by the Secretary of the Navy and publicized on the island of Vieques in connection with, and for a reasonable period in advance of, the referendum. The conditions shall include the following:

ø(1) LIVE-FIRE TRAINING.—A condition that the training may

include live-fire training.

ø(2) MAXIMUM ANNUAL DAYS OF USE.—A condition that the

training may be conducted on not more than 90 days each

year.

ø(e) PROCLAMATION OF OUTCOME.—Promptly after the referendum is completed under this section, the President shall determine, and issue a proclamation declaring, the outcome of the referendum. The President’s determination shall be final, and the outcome of the referendum (as so determined) shall be binding.

ø(f ) VIEQUES ELECTORATE DEFINED.—

ø(1) REGISTERED VOTERS.—In this section, the term ‘‘Vieques

electorate’’, with respect to a referendum under this section,

means the residents of the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico, who,

on both dates specified in paragraph (2), are registered to vote

in a general election held for casting ballots for the election of

the Resident Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Puerto

Rico.

ø(2) REGISTRATION DATES.—The dates referred to in paragraph (1) are as follows:

642

ø(A) November 7, 2000.

ø(B) The date that is 180 days before the date of the referendum under this section.

øSEC. 1504. ACTIONS IF TRAINING IS APPROVED.

ø(a) CONDITION FOR EFFECTIVENESS.—This section shall take effect on the date on which the President issues a proclamation

under subsection (e) of section 1503 declaring that the continuation

of the conduct of training (including live-fire training) by the

Armed Forces at the Navy’s training sites on the island of Vieques,

Puerto Rico, under the conditions described in subsection (d) of

such section, has been approved in the referendum conducted

under such section.

ø(b) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE.—There is authorized to be appropriated to the

President $50,000,000 to provide economic assistance for the people

and communities of the island of Vieques. This authorization of appropriations is in addition to the amount authorized to appropriated to provide economic assistance under section 1501.

ø(c) TRAINING RANGE TO REMAIN OPEN.—The Vieques Naval

Training Range shall remain available for the use of the Armed

Forces, including for live-fire training.

øSEC. 1505. REQUIREMENTS IF TRAINING IS NOT APPROVED OR MANDATE FOR REFERENDUM IS VITIATED.

ø(a) CONDITIONS FOR EFFECTIVENESS.—This section shall take effect on the date on which either of the following occurs:

ø(1) The President issues a proclamation under subsection

(e) of section 1503 declaring that the continuation of the conduct of training (including live-fire training) by the Armed

Forces at the Navy’s training sites on the island of Vieques,

Puerto Rico, under the conditions described in subsection (d) of

such section, has not been approved in the referendum conducted under such section.

ø(2) The requirement for a referendum under section 1503

ceases to be effective pursuant to subsection (a)(2) of such section.

ø(b) ACTIONS REQUIRED OF SECRETARY OF DEFENSE.—

ø(1) TERMINATION OF OPERATION.—Not later than May 1,

2003, the Secretary of Defense shall—

ø(A) terminate all Navy and Marine Corps training operations on the island of Vieques; and

ø(B) terminate all Navy and Marine Corps operations at

Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico, that are related exclusively to the use of the training range on the island of Vieques by the Navy and the Marine Corps.

ø(2) RELOCATION OF UNITS.—The Secretary of Defense may

relocate the units of the Armed Forces (other than those of the

reserve components) and activities of the Department of Defense (including nonappropriated fund activities) at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, to Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Puerto

Rico, to ensure maximum utilization of capacity.

ø(3) CLOSURE OF INSTALLATIONS AND FACILITIES.—The Secretary of Defense shall close the Department of Defense installations and facilities on the island of Vieques, other than propVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00666 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
643

erties exempt from conveyance and transfer under section

1506.

ø(c) ACTIONS REQUIRED OF SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.—The Secretary of the Navy shall transfer, without reimbursement, to the

administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior— ø(1) the Live Impact Area on the island of Vieques;

ø(2) all Department of Defense real properties on the eastern

side of the island that are identified as conservation zones; and

ø(3) all other Department of Defense real properties on the

eastern side of the island.

ø(d) ACTIONS REQUIRED OF SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.— ø(1) RETENTION AND ADMINISTRATION.—The Secretary of the

Interior shall retain, and may not dispose of any of, the properties transferred under paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection

(c) and shall administer such properties as wildlife refuges

under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act

of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.) pending the enactment of a

law that addresses the disposition of such properties.

ø(2) RESPONSIBILITY FOR LIVE IMPACT AREA.—Upon a termination of Navy and Marine Corps training operations on the island of Vieques under subsection (b)(1), the Secretary of the Interior shall assume responsibility for the administration of the

Live Impact Area, administer that area as a wilderness area

under the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), and deny

public access to the area.

ø(3) LIVE IMPACT AREA DEFINED.—In this section, the term

‘‘Live Impact Area’’ means the parcel of real property, consisting of approximately 900 acres (more or less), on the island

of Vieques that is designated by the Secretary of the Navy for

targeting by live ordnance in the training of forces of the Navy

and Marine Corps.

ø(e) GAO REVIEW.—

ø(1) REQUIREMENT FOR REVIEW.—The Comptroller General

shall review the requirement for the continued use of Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, by active Army forces and shall submit

to the congressional defense committees a report containing— ø(A) the findings resulting from the review; and

ø(B) recommendations regarding the closure of Fort Buchanan and the consolidation of units of the Armed Forces

to Naval Station Roosevelt Roads, Puerto Rico.

ø(2) TIME FOR SUBMITTAL OF REPORT.—The Comptroller General shall submit the report under paragraph (1) not later than

one year after the date on which the referendum under section

1503 is conducted or one year after the date on which a certification is submitted to the congressional defense committees

under subsection (a)(2) of such section, as the case may be.¿

SEC. 1503. CONDITIONS ON CLOSURE OF VIEQUES NAVAL TRAINING

RANGE.

(a) REQUIRED CERTIFICATION.—The Secretary of the Navy may

close the Vieques Naval Training Range on the island of Vieques,

Puerto Rico, and discontinue live-fire training at that range only

if—

(1) the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of

the Marine Corps jointly certify that there is an alternative

644

training facility that provides an equivalent or superior level of

training for units of the Navy and the Marine Corps stationed

or deployed in the eastern United States; and

(2) the new facility is available and fully capable of supporting such training immediately upon cessation of live-fire

training on Vieques.

(b) EQUIVALENT OR SUPERIOR LEVEL OF TRAINING DEFINED.—In

this section, the term ‘‘equal or superior level of training’’ refers to

an ability by the Armed Forces to conduct at a single location coordinated live-fire training, including simultaneous large-scale tactical air strikes, naval surface fire support and artillery, and amphibious landing operations, as was conducted at Vieques Naval

Training Range before April 19, 1999.

SEC. 1504. NAVY RETENTION OF CLOSED VIEQUES NAVAL TRAINING

RANGE.

(a) RETENTION.—If the conditions specified in section 1503(a) are

satisfied and the Secretary of the Navy terminates all Navy and

Marine Corps training operations on the island of Vieques, the Secretary of the Navy shall retain administrative jurisdiction over the

Live Impact Area and all other Department of Defense real properties on the eastern side of the island for possible reactivation for

training use, including live-fire training, in the event a national

emergency.

(b) ADMINISTRATION.—The Secretary of the Navy may enter into

a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the Interior to provide

for management of the property described in subsection (a), pending

reactivation for training use, by appropriate agencies of the Department of the Interior as follows:

(1) Management of the Live Impact Area as a wilderness area

under the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), including a

prohibition on public access to the area.

(2) Management of the remaining property as wildlife refuges

under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act

of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.).

(c) LIVE IMPACT AREA DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘Live

Impact Area’’ means the parcel of real property, consisting of approximately 900 acres (more or less), on the island of Vieques that

is designated by the Secretary of the Navy for targeting by live ordnance in the training of forces of the Navy and Marine Corps.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1507. MORATORIUM ON IMPROVEMENTS AT FORT BUCHANAN.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) TERMINATION.—This section shall cease to be effective upon

øthe issuance of a proclamation described in section 1504(a) or¿ the

enactment of a law, after the date of the enactment of this Act,

that authorizes any acquisition, construction, conversion, rehabilitation, extension, or improvement of any facility at Fort Buchanan,

Puerto Rico.

* * * * * * *

645

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1993

* * * * * * *

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL

SECURITY PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E—Defense Nuclear Workers

SEC. 3161. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

WORK FORCE RESTRUCTURING PLAN.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) OBJECTIVES.—In preparing the plan required under subsection (a), the Secretary shall be guided by the following objectives:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) The Department of Energy should provide local impact

assistance to communities that are affected by the restructuring plan and coordinate the provision of such assistance

with—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) programs carried out by the Department of Commerce pursuant to øtitle IX of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3241 et seq.)¿

title II of the Public Works and Economic Development Act

of 1965 (42 U.S.C. 3141 et seq.).

* * * * * * *

DIVISION D—DEFENSE CONVERSION,

REINVESTMENT, AND TRANSITION ASSISTANCE

* * * * * * *

TITLE XLIV—PERSONNEL ADJUSTMENT,

EDUCATION, AND TRAINING PROGRAMS

Subtitle A—Active Forces Transition Enhancements

* * * * * * *

646

SEC. 4403. TEMPORARY EARLY RETIREMENT AUTHORITY.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i) ACTIVE FORCE DRAWDOWN PERIOD.—For purposes of this section, the active force drawdown period is the period beginning on

the date of the enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle B—Guard and Reserve Transition Initiatives

SEC. 4411. FORCE REDUCTION TRANSITION PERIOD DEFINED.

In this subtitle, the term ‘‘force reduction transition period’’

means the period beginning on October 1, 1991, and ending on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 4416. FORCE REDUCTION PERIOD RETIREMENTS.

(a) * * *

(b) TEMPORARY SPECIAL AUTHORITY.—During the force reduction

transition period, the Secretary concerned may grant a member of

the Selected Reserve under the age of 60 years the annual payments provided for under this section if—

(1) as of October 1, 1991, that member has completed at

least 20 years of service computed under section 1332 of title

10, United States Code, or after that date and before the end

of the øforce reduction period¿ force reduction transition period, such member completes 20 years of service computed

under that section or section 12732;

* * * * * * *

Subtitle F—Job Training and Employment and Educational

Opportunities

SEC. 4461. IMPROVED COORDINATION OF JOB TRAINING AND PLACEMENT PROGRAMS FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED

FORCES.

The Secretary of Defense shall consult with the Secretary of

Labor, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and the Economic Adjustment Committee to improve the coordination of, and eliminate duplication between, the following job

training and placement programs available to members of the

Armed Forces who are discharged or released from active duty:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) The Wagner-Peyser Act (29 U.S.C. 49 et seq.).

* * * * * * *

SEC. 4463. PROGRAM OF EDUCATIONAL LEAVE RELATING TO CONTINUING PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY SERVICE.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

647

(f) EXPIRATION.—The authority to grant a leave of absence under

subsection (a) shall expire on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 37, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 3—BASIC PAY

* * * * * * *

§ 203. Rates

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d)(1) The basic pay of a commissioned officer who is in pay grade

O–1, O–2, or O–3 and øwho is credited with a total of over four

years’ active service as warrant officer or as a warrant officer and

enlisted member¿ is described in paragraph (2) shall be computed

in the same manner as the basic pay of a commissioned officer in

the same pay grade who has been credited with over four years’ active service as an enlisted member.

(2) Paragraph (1) applies with respect to a commissioned officer

in pay grade O–1, O–2, or O–3 who—

(A) is credited with a total of over four years’ active service

as warrant officer or as a warrant officer and enlisted member;

or

(B) earned a total of more than 1,460 points credited under

section 12732(a)(2) of title 10 while serving as a warrant officer

or enlisted member.

* * * * * * *

§ 204. Entitlement

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(g)(1) A member of a reserve component of a uniformed service

is entitled, to the pay and allowances provided by law or regulation

for a member of a regular component of a uniformed service of corresponding grade and length of service whenever such member is

physically disabled as the result of an injury, illness, or disease incurred or aggravated— (A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(D) in line of duty while remaining overnight immediately

before the commencement of inactive-duty training, or while

remaining overnight, between successive periods of inactiveduty training, at or in the vicinity of the site of the inactiveduty trainingø, if the site is outside reasonable commuting distance from the member’s residence¿; or

* * * * * * *

648

(h)(1) A member of a reserve component of a uniformed service

who is physically able to perform his military duties, is entitled,

upon request, to a portion of the monthly pay and allowances provided by law or regulation for a member of a regular component

of a uniformed service of corresponding grade and length of service

for each month for which the member demonstrates a loss of

earned income from nonmilitary employment or self-employment as

a result of an injury, illness, or disease incurred or aggravated— (A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(D) in line of duty while remaining overnight immediately

before the commencement of inactive-duty training, or while

remaining overnight, between successive periods of inactiveduty training, at or in the vicinity of the site of the inactiveduty trainingø, if the site is outside reasonable commuting distance from the member’s residence¿; or

* * * * * * *

§ 206. Reserves; members of National Guard: inactive-duty

training

(a) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, and

to the extent provided for by appropriations, a member of the National Guard or a member of a reserve component of a uniformed

service who is not entitled to basic pay under section 204 of this

title, is entitled to compensation, at the rate of 1⁄30 of the basic pay

authorized for a member of a uniformed service of a corresponding

grade entitled to basic pay—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) for a regular period of instruction that the member is

scheduled to perform but is unable to perform because of physical disability resulting from an injury, illness, or disease incurred or aggravated—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) in line of duty while while remaining overnight immediately before the commencement of inactive-duty training, or remaining overnight, between successive periods of

inactive-duty training, at or in the vicinity of the site of

the inactive-duty trainingø, if the site is outside reasonable

commuting distance from the member’s residence¿.

* * * * * * *

§ 209. Members of precommissioning programs

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) PAY WHILE ATTENDING TRAINING OR PRACTICE CRUISE.—Each

cadet or midshipman in the Senior Reserve Officers’ Training

Corps, while he is attending training or practice cruises under

chapter 103 of title 10 if the training or cruise is of at least four

weeks duration and must be completed before the cadet or midVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00672 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
649

shipman is commissioned, and each applicant for membership in

the Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, while he is attending

field training or practice cruises to satisfy the requirements of section 2104(b)(6)(B) of title 10 for admission to advanced training, is

entitled, while so attending, to pay at the rate prescribed for cadets

and midshipmen at the United States Military, Naval, and Air

Force Academies under section 203(c) of this title unless the cadet

or midshipman is serving on active duty.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 5—SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS

Sec.

301. Incentive pay: hazardous duty.

* * * * * * *

324. Special pay: accession bonus for new officers.

§ 301. Incentive pay: hazardous duty

(a) Subject to regulations prescribed by the President, a member

of a uniformed service who is entitled to basic pay is also entitled

to incentive pay, in the amount set forth in subsection (b) or (c),

for the performance of hazardous duty required by orders. In this

section, the term, ‘‘hazardous duty’’ means duty—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(10) involving (A) the servicing of aircraft or missiles with

highly toxic fuels or propellants, (B) the testing of aircraft or

missile systems (or components of such systems) during which

highly toxic fuels or propellants are used, or (C) the handling

of chemical munitions (or components of such munitions); øor¿

(11) involving regular participation as a member of a team

conducting visit, board, search, and seizure operations aboard

vessels in support of maritime interdiction operations; or

ø(11)¿ (12) involving frequent and regular participation in

aerial flight by a member who is serving as an air weapons

controller crew member (as defined by the Secretary concerned)

aboard an airborne warning and control system aircraft (as

designated by such Secretary) and who is not entitled to incentive pay under section 301a of this title.

* * * * * * *

(c)(1) For the performance of hazardous duty described in clauses

(2) through ø(10)¿ (11) of subsection (a), a member is entitled to

$150 a month. However, a member performing hazardous duty described in clause (3) of that subsection who also performs as an essential part of such duty parachute jumping in military free fall operations involving parachute deployment by the jumper without the

use of a static line is entitled to $225 a month.

(2)(A) For the performance of hazardous duty described in clause

ø(11)¿ (12) of subsection (a), a member is entitled to monthly incentive pay based upon his years of service as an air weapons controller as follows:

* * * * * * *

650

§ 301a. Incentive pay: aviation career

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(d) Under regulations prescribed by the President and to the extent provided for by appropriations, when a member of a reserve

component of a uniformed service, or of the National Guard, who

is entitled to compensation under section 206 of this title, performs,

under orders, duty described in subsection (a) for members entitled

to basic pay, he is entitled to an increase in compensation equal to

1⁄30 of the monthly incentive pay authorized by subsection (b) for

the performance of that duty by a member with corresponding

years of aviation service who is entitled to basic pay. Such member

is entitled to the increase for as long as he is qualified for it, for

each regular period of instruction, or period of appropriate duty, at

which he is engaged for at least two hours, including that performed on a Sunday or holiday, or for the performance of such

other equivalent training, instruction, duty or appropriate duties,

as the Secretary may prescribe under section 206(a) of this title.

This subsection does not apply to a member who is entitled to basic

pay under section 204 of this title.¿

(d) MEMBERS PERFORMING INACTIVE-DUTY TRAINING.—Under

regulations prescribed by the President and to the extent provided

for by appropriations, in the case of a member of a reserve component of a uniformed service, or of the National Guard, who is entitled to compensation under section 206 of this title, and who performs, under orders, duty described in subsection (a), the member

is also entitled to monthly incentive pay under subsection (b) for the

performance of that duty in the same manner as a member with corresponding years of aviation service who is entitled to basic pay.

Such member is entitled to the incentive pay for as long as the member remains qualified for it, as provided in subsection (a). This subsection does not apply to a member who is entitled to basic pay

under section 204 of this title.

* * * * * * *

§ 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, ø2001¿ 2002, 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.

* * * * * * *

§ 301c. Incentive pay: submarine duty

(a)(1) Subject to regulations prescribed by the President, a member of the naval service who is entitled to basic pay, and (A) holds

(or is in training leading to) a submarine duty designator, (B) is in

and remains in the submarine service on a career basis, and (C)

meets the requirements of paragraph (3), is entitled to continuous

651

monthly submarine duty incentive pay in the amount øset forth in¿

prescribed pursuant to subsection (b).

(2) Subject to regulations prescribed by the President, a member

of the naval service who is entitled to basic pay but is not entitled

to continuous monthly submarine duty incentive pay under paragraph (1) is entitled to submarine duty incentive pay in the amount

øset forth in¿ prescribed pursuant to subsection (b) for any period

during which such member performs frequent and regular operational submarine duty (as defined in paragraph (5)) required by

orders.

* * * * * * *

(4) If upon completion of either 12 or 18 years of submarine service it is determined that a member has failed to perform the minimum prescribed operational submarine duty requirements during

the prescribed periods of time, his entitlement to continuous

monthly submarine duty incentive pay ceases. If entitlement to

continuous monthly submarine duty incentive pay ceases upon

completion of 12 years of submarine service, entitlement to that

pay may again commence upon completion of 18 years of submarine service if the minimum operational submarine duty requirements have been met, and such pay shall continue for the period of time prescribed in accordance with this section. However, if

entitlement to continuous monthly submarine duty incentive pay

ceases in the case of any member at the completion of either 12 or

18 years of submarine service or 26 years of service (as computed

under section 205 of this title, but excluding, in the case of an officer, periods as an enlisted member before initial appointment as an

officer), such member shall be entitled to that pay in the amount

øset forth in¿ prescribed pursuant to subsection (b) for the performance of subsequent operational submarine duty, or for the performance of service as a member of a submarine operational command

staff, if such member’s duties require serving on a submarine during underway operations.

* * * * * * *

ø(b) A member who meets the requirements prescribed in subsection (a) is entitled to monthly submarine duty incentive pay as

follows:

øENLISTED MEMBERS

Pay grade

Years of service computed under section 205

2 or

less

Over

2

Over

3

Over

4

Over

6

Over

8

Over

10

E–9 ...................................... $225 $225 $225 $270 $295 $310 $315

E–8 ...................................... 225 225 225 250 270 295 310

E–7 ...................................... 225 225 225 250 255 265 275

E–6 ...................................... 155 170 175 215 230 245 255

E–5 ...................................... 140 155 155 175 190 195 195

E–4 ...................................... 80 95 100 170 175 175 175

E–3 ...................................... 80 90 100 170 175 175 90

E–2 ...................................... 75 90 90 90 90 90 90

E–1 ...................................... 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

652

øENLISTED MEMBERS—Continued

Pay grade

Years of service computed under section 205

2 or

less

Over

2

Over

3

Over

4

Over

6

Over

8

Over

10

Over Over Over Over Over Over Over

12 14 16 18 20 22 26

E–9 ...................................... $330 $345 $355 $355 $355 $355 $355

E–8 ...................................... 315 330 330 345 345 345 345

E–7 ...................................... 295 310 310 310 310 310 310

E–6 ...................................... 265 265 265 265 265 265 265

E–5 ...................................... 195 195 195 195 195 195 195

E–4 ...................................... 175 175 175 175 175 175 175

E–3 ...................................... 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

E–2 ...................................... 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

E–1 ...................................... 75 75 75 75 75 75 75

COMMISSIONED OFFICERS

Pay grade

Years of service computed under section 205

2 or

less

Over

2

Over

3

Over

4

Over

5

Over

6

Over

10

O–10 .................................... $355 $355 $355 $355 $355 $355 $355

O–9 ..................................... 355 355 355 355 355 355 355

O–8 ..................................... 355 355 355 355 355 355 355

O–7 ..................................... 355 355 355 355 355 355 355

O–6 ..................................... 595 595 595 595 595 595 595

O–5 ..................................... 595 595 595 595 595 595 595

O–4 ..................................... 365 365 365 405 595 595 595

O–3 ..................................... 355 355 355 390 595 595 595

O–2 ..................................... 235 235 235 235 235 235 355

O–1 ..................................... 175 175 175 175 175 175 355

Over Over Over Over Over Over Over

12 14 16 18 20 22 26

O–10 .................................... $355 $355 $355 $355 $355 $355 $355

O–9 ..................................... 355 355 355 355 355 355 355

O–8 ..................................... 355 355 355 355 355 355 355

O–7 ..................................... 355 355 540 355 535 410 355

O–6 ..................................... 595 595 595 595 595 595 595

O–5 ..................................... 595 595 595 595 595 595 595

O–4 ..................................... 595 595 595 595 595 595 595

O–3 ..................................... 595 595 595 595 595 595 595

O–2 ..................................... 355 355 355 355 355 355 355

O–1 ..................................... 355 355 355 355 355 355 355

WARRANT OFFICERS

Pay grade

Years of service computed under section 205

2 or

less

Over

2

Over

3

Over

4

Over

6

Over

8

Over

10

W–5 ..................................... $235 $310 $310 $355 $355 $355 $355

W–4 ..................................... 235 310 310 355 355 355 355

W–3 ..................................... 235 310 310 355 355 355 355

W–2 ..................................... 235 310 310 355 355 355 355

W–1 ..................................... 235 310 310 355 355 355 355

653

WARRANT OFFICERS—Continued

Pay grade

Years of service computed under section 205

2 or

less

Over

2

Over

3

Over

4

Over

6

Over

8

Over

10

Over Over Over Over Over Over Over

12 14 16 18 20 22 26

W–5 ..................................... $355 $355 $355 $355 $355 $355 $355

W–4 ..................................... 355 355 355 355 355 355 355

W–3 ..................................... 355 355 355 355 355 355 355

W–2 ..................................... 355 355 355 355 355 355 355

W–1 ..................................... 355 355 355 355 355 355 355¿

(b) MONTHLY RATES.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), a member

who meets the requirements prescribed in subsection (a) is entitled

to monthly submarine duty incentive pay in an amount prescribed

by the Secretary of the Navy.

(2) The monthly amount of submarine duty incentive pay may not

exceed $1,000.

* * * * * * *

(d) Under regulations prescribed by the President and to the extent provided for by appropriations, when a member of the Naval

Reserve who is entitled to compensation under section 206 of this

title, performs, under orders, duty on a submarine during underway operations, he is eligible for an increase in such compensation

equal to one-thirtieth of the monthly incentive pay øauthorized by¿

prescribed pursuant to subsection (b) for the performance of that

duty by a member of a corresponding grade and years of service

who is entitled to basic pay. Such a member is eligible for the increase for each day served, for as long as he is qualified for it, during each regular period of appropriate duty.

* * * * * * *

§ 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, ø2001¿ 2002, 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.

* * * * * * *

§ 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, ø2001¿ 2002, 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

654

concerned, be paid incentive special pay in an amount not to exceed

$15,000 for any 12-month period.

* * * * * * *

§ 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, ø2001¿

2002.

§ 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 øthe date of the enactment of this section, and ending

on September 30, 2002¿ September 23, 1996, and ending on December 31, 2002, 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.

* * * * * * *

§ 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, ø2001¿ 2002.

* * * * * * *

§ 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,

ø2001¿ 2002, reenlists or voluntarily extends his enlistment in a

reserve component.

* * * * * * *

§ 308c. Special pay: bonus for enlistment in the Selected Reserve

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

655

(e) No bonus may be paid under this section to any enlisted

member who, after December 31, ø2001¿ 2002, enlists in the Selected Reserve of the Ready Reserve of an armed force.

* * * * * * *

§ 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, ø2001¿ 2002.

§ 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,

ø2001¿ 2002.

* * * * * * *

§ 308h. Special pay: bonus for reenlistment, enlistment, or

voluntary extension of enlistment in elements of

the Ready Reserve other than the Selected Reserve

(a)(1) An eligible person who is or has been a member of an

armed force øand who¿, who is qualified in a skill or speciality designated by the Secretary concerned as critically short to meet wartime requirements, and who reenlists, enlists, or voluntarily extends an enlistment in øa combat or combat support skill of¿ an

element (other than the Selected Reserve) of the Ready Reserve of

an armed force for a period of three years, or for a period of six

years, beyond any other period the person is obligated to serve may

be paid a bonus as provided in subsection (b).

* * * * * * *

(g) 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, ø2001¿ 2002.

§ 308i. Special pay: prior service enlistment bonus

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(f) TERMINATION OF AUTHORITY.—No bonus may be paid under

this section to any person for an enlistment after December 31,

ø2001¿ 2002.

§ 309. Special pay: enlistment bonus

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

656

(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, ø2001¿ 2002.

* * * * * * *

§ 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, ø2001¿ 2002, execute the required written agreement to remain in active service.

* * * * * * *

§ 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, ø2001¿ 2002, have

been accepted for training for duty in connection with the supervision, operation, and maintenance of naval nuclear propulsion

plants.

§ 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, ø2001¿ 2002.

* * * * * * *

§ 318. Special pay: special warfare officers extending period

of active duty

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(h) REPAYMENT.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered less

than five years after the termination of an agreement entered into

under subsection ø(a)¿ (b) does not discharge the officer signing the

agreement from a debt arising under such agreement or under

paragraph (1).

* * * * * * *

§ 322. Special pay: 15-year career status bonus for members

entering service on or after August 1, 1986

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) AMOUNT OF BONUS; PAYMENT.—(1) A bonus under this section

shall be øpaid in a single lump sum of¿ equal to $30,000.

657

(2) A member electing to receive the bonus under this section shall

elect one of the following payment options:

(A) A single lump sum of $30,000.

(B) Two installments of $15,000 each.

(C) Three installments of $10,000 each.

(D) Four installments of $7,500 each.

(E) Five installments of $6,000 each.

(3) If a member elects installment payments under paragraph (2),

the second installment (and subsequent installments, as applicable)

shall be paid on the earlier of the following dates:

(A) The annual anniversary date of the payment of the first

installment.

(B) January 15 of each succeeding calendar year.

ø(2) The bonus¿ (4) The lump sum payment of the bonus, and the

first installment payment in the case of members who elect to receive

the bonus in installments, shall be paid to an eligible career bonus

member not later than the first month that begins on or after the

date that is 60 days after the date on which the Secretary concerned receives from the member the election required under subsection (a)(1) and the written agreement required under subsection

(a)(2), if applicable.

* * * * * * *

§ 323. Special pay: retention incentives for members qualified in a critical military skill

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(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, ø2001¿ 2002, and no agreement under this section

may be entered into after that date.

§ 324. Special pay: accession bonus for new officers

(a) ACCESSION BONUS AUTHORIZED.—Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, a person who executes a written

agreement to accept a commission as an officer of the armed forces

and serve on active duty for the period specified in the agreement

may, upon acceptance of the agreement by the Secretary concerned,

be paid an accession bonus in an amount determined by the Secretary concerned.

(b) LIMITATION ON AMOUNT OF BONUS.—The amount of an acces- sion bonus under subsection (a) may not exceed $100,000.

(c) PAYMENT METHOD.—Upon acceptance of a written agreement

under subsection (a) by the Secretary concerned, the total amount

of the accession bonus payable under the agreement becomes fixed.

The agreement shall specify whether the accession bonus will be

paid by the Secretary in a lump sum or installments.

(d) RELATION TO OTHER ACCESSION BONUS AUTHORITY.—An individual may not receive a accession bonus under this section and section 302d, 302h, 302j, or 312b of this title for the same period of

service.

658

(e) REPAYMENT.—(1) If an individual who has entered into an

agreement under subsection (a) and has received all or part of the

accession bonus under the agreement fails to accept a commission

as an officer or to commence or complete the total period of active

duty service specified in the agreement, the Secretary concerned may

require the individual to repay the United States, on a pro rata

basis and to the extent that the Secretary determines conditions and

circumstances warrant, any or all of the amount paid to the individual under the agreement.

(2) An obligation to repay the United States imposed under paragraph (1) is for all purposes a debt owed to the United States.

(3) A discharge in bankruptcy under title 11 that is entered less

than five years after the termination of a written agreement entered

into under subsection (a) does not discharge the individual signing

the agreement from a debt arising under such agreement or under

paragraph (1).

CHAPTER 7—ALLOWANCES

* * * * * * *

§ 402. Basic allowance for subsistence

(a) * * *

(b) RATES OF ALLOWANCE BASED ON FOOD COSTS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4) For purposes of implementing paragraph (2), the monthly rate

of basic allowance for subsistence that was in effect for an enlisted

member for calendar year 2001 shall be deemed to be $233.

* * * * * * *

ø(d) SPECIAL RULE FOR MEMBERS AUTHORIZED TO MESS SEPARATELY.—(1) In areas prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, and

the Secretary of Transportation with respect to the Coast Guard

when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, an enlisted member described in paragraph (2) is entitled to not more than the pro

rata allowance in effect under paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b)

for each meal the member buys from a source other than a messing

facility of the United States.

ø(2) An enlisted member referred to in paragraph (1) is a member who is granted permission to mess separately and whose duties

require the member to buy at least one meal from a source other

than a messing facility of the United States.¿

(d) SPECIAL RULE FOR ENLISTED MEMBERS WHO MESS SEPARATELY.—The Secretary of Defense may prescribe a basic allowance

for subsistence for enlisted members at a rate higher than the rate

provided for in subsection (b) when messing facilities of the United

States are not available for the members.

* * * * * * *

§ 402a. Supplemental subsistence allowance for low-income

members with dependents

(a) * * *

(b) MEMBERS ENTITLED TO ALLOWANCE.—(1) Subject to subsection (d), a member of the armed forces with dependents is entiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00682 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
659

tled to receive the supplemental subsistence allowance if the Secretary concerned determines that the member’s income, together

with the income of the rest of the member’s household (if any), is

within the highest income standard of eligibility, as then in effect

under section 5(c) of the Food Stamp Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 2014(c))

and without regard to paragraph (1) of such section, for participation in the food stamp program.

* * * * * * *

§ 403. Basic allowance for housing

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(i) TEMPORARY HOUSING ALLOWANCE WHILE IN TRAVEL OR LEAVE

STATUS.—A member of a uniformed service øwho is in a pay grade

E–4 (4 or more years of service) or above¿ is entitled to a temporary basic allowance for housing (at a rate determined by the

Secretary of Defense) while the member is in a travel or leave status between permanent duty stations, including time granted as

delay en route or proceed time, when the member is not assigned

to quarters of the United States.

* * * * * * *

§ 404. Travel and transportation allowances: general

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c)(1) Under uniform regulations prescribed by the Secretaries

concerned and as provided in paragraph (2), a member who—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) is involuntarily separated from active duty during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on December 31,

ø2001¿ 2002,

* * * * * * *

(d)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(5) The per diem rates established under paragraph (2)(A) for

travel performed in connection with a change of permanent station

or for travel described in paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) shall

be equal to the standard per diem rates established in the Federal

travel regulation for travel within the continental United States of

civilian employees and their dependents, unless the Secretaries concerned determines that a higher rate for members is more appropriate.

* * * * * * *

(f)(1)***

(2)(A)***

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to a member— (i) * * *

* * * * * * *

660

(v) who is involuntarily separated from active duty during

the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002.

* * * * * * *

§ 404a. Travel and transportation allowances: temporary

lodging expenses

(a) PAYMENT OR REIMBURSEMENT OF SUBSISTENCE EXPENSES.—

(1) * * *

(2) Paragraph (1) applies to the following:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) In the case of øan enlisted member¿ a member who is reporting to the member’s first permanent duty station, the

change from the member’s home of record or initial technical

school to that first permanent duty station.

* * * * * * *

(e) MAXIMUM DAILY PAYMENT.—A member may not be paid or reimbursed more that ø$110¿ $180 a day under this section.

* * * * * * *

§ 406. Travel and transportation allowances: dependents;

baggage and household effects

(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a member of a uniformed service who is ordered to make a change of permanent station is entitled to transportation in kind, reimbursement therefor,

or a monetary allowance in place of the cost of transportation, plus

a per diem, for the member’s dependents at rates prescribed by the

Secretaries concerned, but not more than the rate authorized under

section 404(d) of this title. The Secretary concerned may also reimburse the member for mandatory pet quarantine fees for household

pets, but not to exceed ø$275¿ $675 per change of station, when

the member incurs the fees incident to such change of station.

(2)(A)***

(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to a member—

(i) * * *

* * * * * * *

(v) who is involuntarily separated from active duty during

the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002.

* * * * * * *

(b)(1)(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, the

weight allowance in pounds to which a member is entitled under

subparagraph (A) is determined in accordance with the following

table:

661

Pay Grade

Without

Dependents

With Dependents

O–10 to O–6 ................................................................................ 18,000 18,000

O–5 ............................................................................................... 16,000 17,500

O–4 ............................................................................................... 14,000 17,000

O–3 ............................................................................................... 13,000 14,500

O–2 ............................................................................................... 12,500 13,500

O–1 ............................................................................................... 10,000 12,000

W–5 .............................................................................................. 16,000 17,500

W–4 .............................................................................................. 14,000 17,000

W–3 .............................................................................................. 13,000 14,500

W–2 .............................................................................................. 12,500 13,500

W–1 .............................................................................................. 10,000 12,000

E–9 ............................................................................................... 12,000 14,500

E–8 ............................................................................................... 11,000 13,500

E–7 ............................................................................................... 10,500 12,500

E–6 ............................................................................................... 8,000 11,000

E–5 ............................................................................................... 7,000 9,000

øE–4 1 ........................................................................................... 7,000 8,000

øE–4 2 ........................................................................................... 3,500 7,000

øE–3 ............................................................................................. 2,000 5,000

øE–2 ............................................................................................. 1,500 5,000

øE–1 ............................................................................................. 1,500 5,000

ø1Member with more than two years of service computed under section 205 of this title.

ø2Member with less than two years of service computed under section 205 of this title.¿

. ..

E–4 ............................................................................................... 7,000 8,000

E–3 ............................................................................................... 5,000 8,000

E–2 ............................................................................................... 5,000 8,000

E–1 ............................................................................................... 5,000 8,000

* * * * * * *

(g)(1) Under uniform regulations prescribed by the Secretaries

concerned, a member who—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) is involuntarily separated from active duty during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending on December 31,

ø2001¿ 2002,

* * * * * * *

§ 407. Travel and transportation allowances: dislocation allowance

(a) ELIGIBILITY FOR PRIMARY DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE.—(1)

***

(2) A member of the uniformed services referred to in paragraph

(1) is any of the following:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(F) A member married to another member, both of whom are

without other dependents, who actually moves to a new permanent duty station where the member is assigned to family housing provided by the United States, except that only one dislocaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00685 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
662

tion allowance may be paid to the married couple with respect

to the move.

* * * * * * *

(e) øFIRST OR LAST DUTY¿ EFFECT OF ORDER FROM LAST DUTY

STATION.—A member is not entitled to payment of a dislocation allowance under this section when the member is ordered øfrom the

member’s home to the member’s first duty station or¿ from the

member’s last duty station to the member’s home.

(f) PARTIAL DISLOCATION ALLOWANCE.—(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary concerned, a member ordered to occupy or

vacate family housing provided by the United States to permit the

privatization or renovation of housing or for any other reason (other

than pursuant to a permanent change of station) may be paid a partial dislocation allowance of $500.

(2) Effective on the same date that the monthly rates of basic pay

for all members are increased under section 1009 of this title or another provision of law, the Secretary of Defense shall adjust the rate

of the partial dislocation allowance authorized by this subsection by

the percentage equal to the average percentage increase in the rates

of basic pay.

(3) Subsections (c) and (d) do not apply to the partial dislocation

allowance authorized by this subsection.

ø(f)¿ (g) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—For purposes of this section,

a member whose dependents may not make an authorized move in

connection with a change of permanent station is considered a

member without dependents.

ø(g)¿ (h) ADVANCE PAYMENT.—A dislocation allowance payable

under this section may be paid in advance.

* * * * * * *

§ 411b. Travel and transportation allowances: travel performed in connection with leave between consecutive overseas tours

(a)(1) 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 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 may be paid travel and transportation allowances in connection

with authorized leave from his last duty station to a place approved by the Secretary concernedø, or his designee, or to a place

no farther distant than his home of record¿ 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.

* * * * * * *

§ 416. Uniform allowance: officers; additional allowances

(a) * * *

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a tour of active duty if—

663

(1) the officer, during that tour or within a period of two

years before entering on that tour, received, under any law, an

initial uniform reimbursement or allowance of more than

ø$200¿ $400; or

* * * * * * *

§ 427. Family separation allowance

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) EFFECT OF ELECTION TO SERVE UNACCOMPANIED TOUR OF

DUTY.—øA member¿ (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) or (3),

a member who elects to serve a tour of duty unaccompanied by his

dependents at a permanent station to which the movement of his

dependents is authorized at the expense of the United States under

section 406 of this title is not entitled to an allowance under subsection (a)(1)(A).

(2) A member who elects to serve an unaccompanied tour of duty

because the movement of a dependent of the member to the permanent station is denied for certified medical reasons is entitled to an

allowance under subsection (a)(1)(A).

(3) The Secretary concerned may waive the preceding sentence in

situations in which it would be inequitable to deny the allowance

to the member because of unusual family or operational circumstances.

* * * * * * *

§ 430. Travel and transportation: dependent children of

members stationed overseas

(a) Under regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, a member of a uniformed service who—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) has a dependent child who is under 23 years of age attending a school in the continental United States for the purpose of obtaining a formal education or is attending a school

outside the continental United States, if the dependent is attending the school outside the continental United States for less

than one year under a program approved by the school in the

continental United States at which the dependent is enrolled,

* * * * * * *

(b)(1) A member described in subsection (a) may be paid a transportation allowance for each unmarried dependent child, who is

under 23 years of age and is attending a school øin the continental

United States for the purpose of obtaining a formal education¿ described in subsection (a)(3), of one annual trip between the school

being attended and the member’s duty station outside the continental United States and return. The allowance authorized by this

section may be transportation in kind or reimbursement therefor,

as prescribed by the Secretaries concerned. However, the transportation authorized by this section may not be paid a member for a

child attending a school in the continental United States for the

664

purpose of obtaining a secondary education if the child is eligible

to attend a secondary school for dependents that is located at or

in the vicinity of the duty station of the member and is operated

under the Defense Dependents’ Education Act of 1978 (20 U.S.C.

921 et seq.).

* * * * * * *

(3) The transportation allowance under paragraph (1) for a dependent child who is attending a school outside the continental

United States for less than one year under a program approved by

the school in the continental United States at which the dependent

is enrolled shall not exceed the allowance the member would be paid

for a trip between the school in the continental United States and

the member’s duty station outside the continental United States and

return.

(c) Whenever possible, the øMilitary Airlift Command¿ Air Mobility Command or Military Sealift Command shall be used, on a

space-required basis, for the travel authorized by this section.

* * * * * * *

§ 432. Travel and transportation: members escorting certain

dependents

(a) * * *

(b) Whenever possible, the øMilitary Airlift Command¿ Air Mobility Command or Military Sealift Command shall be used, on a

space-required basis, for the travel authorized by this section.

* * * * * * *

§ 435. Funeral honors duty: allowance

(a) ALLOWANCE AUTHORIZED.—(1) The Secretary concerned may

authorize payment of an allowance to a member of the Ready Reserve for any day on which the member performs at least two

hours of funeral honors duty pursuant to section 12503 of title 10

or section 115 of title 32.

(2) The Secretary concerned may also authorize payment of an allowance under this section to a retired member of the armed forces

who performs at least two hours of duty preparing for or performing

honors at the funeral of a veteran.

* * * * * * *

(c) CONCURRENT PAYMENT.—Notwithstanding any other provision

of law, the allowance paid to a retired member of the armed forces

under this section shall be in addition to any other compensation

to which the retired member may be entitled under this title or titles

10 or 38.

§ 436. Per diem allowance for lengthy or numerous deployments

(a) PER DIEM REQUIRED.—The Secretary of the military department concerned shall pay a high-deployment per diem allowance to

a member of the armed forces under the Secretary’s jurisdiction for

each day on which the member (1) is deployed, and (2) has, as of

that day, been deployed 401 or more days out of the preceding 730

days. The Secretary shall pay the allowance from appropriations

665

available for operation and maintenance for the armed force in

which the member serves.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 503 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1991

SEC. 503. TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES RELATING

TO MEMBERS INVOLUNTARILY SEPARATED

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) STORAGE OF HOUSEHOLD EFFECTS.—(1) The Secretary of a

military department shall exercise the authority provided by section 406 of title 37, United States Code, to provide nontemporary

storage of baggage and household effects for a period not longer

than one year in the case of individuals who are involuntarily separated during the period beginning on October 1, 1990, and ending

on December 31, ø2001¿ 2002.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 32, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 1—ORGANIZATION

* * * * * * *

§ 115. Funeral honors duty performed as a Federal function

(a) ORDER TO DUTY.—A member of the Army National Guard of

the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States

may be ordered to funeral honors duty, with the consent of the

member, to prepare for or perform funeral honors functions at the

funeral of a veteran under section 1491 of title 10. However, a

member of the Army National Guard of the United States or the

Air National Guard of the United States may not be ordered to perform funeral honors functions under this section without the consent of the Governor or other appropriate authority of the State

concerned. Performance of funeral honors duty by such a member

not on active duty or full-time National Guard duty shall be treated

as inactive-duty training (including with respect to travel to and

from such duty) for purposes of any provision of law other than sections 206 and 435 of title 37.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 5—TRAINING

* * * * * * *

§ 509. National Guard Challenge Program of opportunities

for civilian youth

(a) * * *

666

(b) CONDUCT OF THE PROGRAM.—(1) The Secretary of Defense

shall provide for the conduct of the National Guard Challenge Program in such States as the Secretary considers to be appropriate.

(2) The Secretary shall carry out the National Guard Challenge

Program using— (A) funds appropriated directly to the Secretary of Defense

for the program, except that the amount of funds appropriated

directly to the Secretary and expended for the program øin a

fiscal year¿ in fiscal year 2001 or 2002 may not exceed $62,500,000; and

* * * * * * *

(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—

ø(1) for fiscal year 1998, 75 percent of the costs of operating

the State program during that year;

ø(2) for fiscal year 1999, 70 percent of the costs of operating

the State program during that year;

ø(3) for fiscal year 2000, 65 percent of the costs of operating

the State program during that year; and

ø(4) for fiscal year 2001 and each subsequent fiscal year, 60

percent of the costs of operating the State program during that

year.¿

(1) for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, 60 percent of the costs of

operating the State program during that fiscal year; and

(2) for fiscal year 2003 and each subsequent fiscal year, 75

percent of the costs of operating the State program during that

fiscal year.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 33—EXAMINATION, SELECTION, AND

PLACEMENT

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER VI—ASSIGNMENTS TO AND FROM STATES

* * * * * * *

§ 3374. Assignments of employees from State or local governments

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) During the period of assignment, a State or local government

employee on detail to a Federal agency—

(1) is not entitled to pay from the agency, except to the extent that the pay received from the State or local government

is less than the appropriate rate of pay which the duties would

667

warrant under the applicable pay provisions of this title or

other applicable authority;

(2) is deemed an employee of the agency for the purpose of

chapter 73 of this title, the Ethics in Government Act of 1978,

section 1043 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, section 27

of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, sections 203,

205, 207, 208, 209, 602, 603, 606, 607, 643, 654, 1905, and

1913 of title 18, sections 1343, 1344, and 1349(b) of title 31,

and the Federal Tort Claims Act and any other Federal tort liability statute; and

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 53—PAY RATES AND SYSTEMS

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—EXECUTIVE SCHEDULE PAY RATES

* * * * * * *

§ 5315. Positions at level IV

Level IV of the Executive Schedule applies to the following positions, for which the annual rate of basic pay shall be the rate determined with respect to such level under chapter 11 of title 2, as

adjusted by section 5318 of this title:

Deputy Administrator of General Services.

* * * * * * *

Principal Deputy Administrator, National Nuclear Security

Administration.

Additional Deputy Administrators of the National Nuclear

Security Administration (3), but if the Deputy Administrator

for Naval Reactors is an officer of the Navy on active duty, (2).

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER IV—PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS

* * * * * * *

§ 5343. Prevailing rate determinations; wage schedules;

night differentials

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(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 ocVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00691 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
668

cupational 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);

* * * * * * *

(d)(1)***

ø(2) When the lead agency determines that there is a number of

comparable positions in private industry insufficient to establish

the wage schedules and rates, such agency shall—

ø(A) establish the wage schedules and rates to be applicable

to prevailing rate employees other than prevailing rate employees of the Department of Defense on the basis of—

ø(i) local private industry rates; and

ø(ii) rates paid for comparable positions in private industry in the nearest wage area that such agency determines

is most similar in the nature of its population, employment, manpower, and industry to the local wage area for

which the wage survey is being made; and

ø(B) establish the wage schedules and rates to be applicable

to prevailing rate employees of the Department of Defense only

on the basis of local private industry rates.¿

(2) When a lead agency determines that there is a number of comparable positions in private industry insufficient to establish the

wage schedules and rates, such agency shall establish those schedules and rates on the basis of—

(A) local private industry rates; and

(B) rates paid for comparable positions in private industry in

the nearest wage area that such agency determines is most

similar in the nature of its population, employment, manpower,

and industry to the local wage area for which the wage survey

is being made.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 55—PAY ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER V—PREMIUM PAY

* * * * * * *

§ 5543. Compensatory time off

(a) The head of an agency may— (1) on request of an employee, grant the employee compensatory time off from his scheduled tour of duty instead of payment under section 5542 or section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 for an equal amount of time spent in øirregular or occasional¿ overtime work; and

(2) provide that an employee whose rate of basic pay is in

excess of the maximum rate of basic pay for GS–10 (including

any applicable locality-based comparability payment under section 5304 or similar provision of law and any applicable special

rate of pay under section 5305 or similar provision of law) shall

be granted compensatory time off from his scheduled tour of

duty equal to the amount of time spent in øirregular or occaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00692 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
669

sional¿ overtime work instead of being paid for that work

under section 5542 of this title.

(b) The head of an agency may, on request of an employee, grant

the employee compensatory time off from the employee’s scheduled

tour of duty instead of payment under section 5544 or section 7 of

the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 for an equal amount of time

spent in øirregular or occasional¿ overtime work. An agency head

may not require an employee to be compensated for overtime work

with an equivalent amount of compensatory time-off from the employee’s tour of duty.

* * * * * * *

§ 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) * * *

* * * * * * *

§ 5547. Limitation on premium pay

ø(a) An employee may be paid premium pay under sections 5542,

5545 (a), (b), and (c), 5545a, and 5546 (a) and (b) of this title only

to the extent that the payment does not cause his aggregate rate

of pay for any pay period to exceed the maximum rate for GS–15

(including any applicable locality-based comparability payment

under section 5304 or similar provision of law and any applicable

special rate of pay under section 5305 or similar provision of law).

The first sentence of this subsection shall not apply to any employee of the Federal Aviation Administration or the Department

of Defense who is paid premium pay under section 5546a of this

title.

ø(b)(1) Subject to regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, the first sentence of subsection (a) shall not

apply to an employee who is paid premium pay by reason of work

in connection with an emergency which involves a direct threat to

life or property, including a forest wildfire emergency.

ø(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), no employee referred to in

such paragraph may be paid premium pay under the provisions of

law cited in the first sentence of subsection (a) if, or to the extent

670

that, the aggregate of such employee’s basic pay and premium pay

under those provisions would, in any calendar year, exceed the

maximum rate payable for GS–15 in effect at the end of such calendar year.¿

(a) An employee may be paid premium pay under sections 5542,

5545 (a), (b), and (c), 5545a, and 5546 (a) and (b) of this title only

to the extent that the aggregate of such employee’s basic pay and

premium pay under those provisions would, in any calendar year,

exceed the maximum rate payable for GS–15 in effect at the end of

such calendar year.

(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to any employee of the Federal

Aviation Administration or the Department of Defense who is paid

premium pay under section 5546a of this title.

(c)(1) øSubsections (a) and (b)¿ Subsection (a) shall not apply to

a law enforcement officer.

(2) A law enforcement officer may be paid premium pay under

the provisions of law cited in the first sentence of subsection (a)

only to the extent that the payment does not cause the officer’s aggregate rate of pay for any øpay period¿ calendar year to exceed

the lesser of— (A) * * *

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 57—TRAVEL, TRANSPORTATION, AND

SUBSISTENCE

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER IV—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

5751. Travel expenses of witnesses.

* * * * * * *

5757. Payment of expenses to obtain professional credentials.

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER IV—MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

§ 5757. Payment of expenses to obtain professional credentials

(a) An agency may use appropriated funds or funds otherwise

available to the agency to pay for— (1) expenses for employees to obtain professional credentials,

including expenses for professional accreditation, State-imposed

and professional licenses, and professional certification; and

(2) examinations to obtain such credentials.

(b) The authority under subsection (a) may not be exercised on behalf of any employee occupying or seeking to qualify for appointment to any position that is excepted from the competitive service because of the confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character of the position.

* * * * * * *

671

CHAPTER 63—LEAVE

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—OTHER PAID LEAVE

* * * * * * *

§ 6323. Military leave; Reserves and National Guardsmen

(a)(1) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, an employee as

defined by section 2105 of this title or an individual employed by

the government of the District of Columbia, permanent or temporary indefinite, is entitled to leave without loss in pay, time, or

performance or efficiency rating for active duty, inactive-duty training (as defined in section 101 of title 37), funeral honors duty (as

described in section 12503 of title 10 and section 115 of title 32),

or engaging in field or coast defense training under sections 502–

505 of title 32 as a Reserve of the armed forces or member of the

National Guard. Leave under this subsection accrues for an employee or individual at the rate of 15 days per fiscal year and, to

the extent that it is not used in a fiscal year, accumulates for use

in the succeeding fiscal year until it totals 15 days at the beginning

of a fiscal year.

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 83—RETIREMENT

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER III—CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT

* * * * * * *

§ 8336. Immediate retirement

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) An employee who—

(1) * * *

(2) except in the case of an employee who is separated from

the service under a program carried out under subsection ø(o)¿

(p), while serving in a geographic area designated by the Office

of Personnel Management, is separated from the service voluntarily during a period in which the Office determines that—

* * * * * * *

ø(o)¿ (p)(1) The Secretary of Defense may, during fiscal years

2002 and 2003, carry out a program under which an employee of

the Department of Defense may be separated from the service entitled to an immediate annuity under this subchapter if the

employee—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

672

§ 8347. Administration; regulations

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(q)(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel

Management, an employee who—

(A) * * *

(B) øhas 5 or more years of civilian service creditable under¿

is employed subject to this subchapter; and

(2) Under regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, an employee of a nonappropriated fund instrumentality of

the Department of Defense or the Coast Guard, described in section

2105(c), who—

(A) * * *

(B) is a øvested¿ participant in a retirement system established for employees described in section 2105(c)ø, as the term

‘‘vested participant’’ is defined by such system¿;

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 84—FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ RETIREMENT

SYSTEM

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER VI—GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE

PROVISIONS

§ 8461. Authority of the Office of Personnel Management

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(n)(1) Under regulations prescribed by the Office, an employee

who—

(A) * * *

(B) øhas 5 more years of civilian service creditable under¿ is

employed subject to this chapter; and

* * * * * * *

(2) Under regulations prescribed by the Office, an employee of a

nonappropriated fund instrumentality of the Department of Defense or the Coast Guard described in section 2105(c), who—

(A) * * *

(B) is a øvested¿ participant in a retirement system established for employees described in section 2105(c)ø, as the term

‘‘vested participant’’ is defined by such system¿;

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 89—HEALTH INSURANCE

* * * * * * *

§ 8906. Contributions

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

673

(e)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3)(A) An employing agency may pay both the employee and Government contributions, and any additional administrative expenses

otherwise chargeable to the employee, with respect to health care

coverage for an employee described in subparagraph (B) and the

family of such employee.

(B) An employee referred to in subparagraph (A) is an employee

who—

(i) is enrolled in a health benefits plan under this chapter;

(ii) is a member of a reserve component of the armed forces;

(iii) is called or ordered to active duty in support of a contingency operation (as defined in section 101(a)(13) of title 10);

(iv) is placed on leave without pay or separated from service

to perform active duty; and

(v) serves on active duty for a period of more than 30 consecutive days.

(C) Notwithstanding the one-year limitation on coverage described

in paragraph (1)(A), payment may be made under this paragraph

for a period not to exceed 18 months.

ø(f) The Government contributions for health benefits for an employee shall be paid—¿

(f) The Government contribution, and any additional payments

under subsection (e)(3)(A), for health benefits for an employee shall

be paid—

(1) in the case of employees generally, from the appropriation

or fund which is used to pay the employee;

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 90—LONG-TERM CARE INSURANCE

* * * * * * *

§ 9001. Definitions

For purposes of this chapter:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) MEMBER OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES.—The term ‘‘member of the uniformed services’’ means a member of the uniformed services, other than a retired member of the uniformed

services, who is—

(A) on active duty or full-time National Guard duty for

a period of more than 30 days; øand¿ or

(B) a member of the Selected Reserve.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 14, UNITED STATES CODE

* * * * * * *

674

CHAPTER 13—PAY, ALLOWANCES, AWARDS, AND OTHER

RIGHTS AND BENEFITS

Sec.

461. Remission of indebtedness of enlisted members upon discharge.

* * * * * * *

504. Medal of honor: duplicate medal.

* * * * * * *

§ 501. Replacement of medals

In those cases where a medal, or a bar, emblem, or insignia in

lieu thereof, awarded pursuant to this chapter has been stolen, lost,

destroyed, or rendered unfit for use without fault or neglect on the

part of the person to whom it was awarded, such medal, or bar,

emblem, or insignia in lieu thereof, shall be replaced without

charge, or, in the discretion of the Secretary, upon condition that

the Government is reimbursed for the cost thereof.

* * * * * * *

§ 504. Medal of honor: duplicate medal

A person awarded a medal of honor shall, upon written application of that person, be issued, without charge, one duplicate medal

of honor with ribbons and appurtenances. Such duplicate medal of

honor shall be marked, in such manner as the Secretary may determine, as a duplicate or for display purposes only.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 704 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE

§ 704. Military medals or decorations

(a) * * *

(b) CONGRESSIONAL MEDAL OF HONOR.—

(1) * * *

(2) DEFINITIONS.—(A) * * *

ø(B) As used in this subsection, ‘‘Congressional Medal of

Honor’’ means a medal awarded under section 3741, 6241, or

8741 of title 10.¿

(B) As used in this subsection, ‘‘Congressional Medal of

Honor’’ means—

(i) a medal of honor awarded under section 3741, 6241,

or 8741 of title 10 or section 491 of title 14;

(ii) a duplicate medal of honor issued under section 3754,

6256, or 8754 of title 10 or section 504 of title 14; or

(iii) a replacement of a medal of honor provided under

section 3747, 6253, or 8747 of title 10 or section 501 of title

14.

675

SECTION 721 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEAR 1989

øSEC. 721. REGULATIONS FOR DELIVERY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL

TO CIVIL AUTHORITIES WHEN CHARGED WITH CERTAIN

OFFENSES

ø(a) Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this

Act, the Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the Secretaries of

the military departments have issued uniform regulations pursuant

to section 814 of title 10, United States Code, to provide for the delivery of members of the Armed Forces to civilian authority when

such members have been accused of offenses against civil authority. Such regulations shall specifically provide for the delivery of

such members to civilian authority, in appropriate cases, when

such members are accused of parental kidnapping and other similar offenses, including criminal contempt arising from such offenses

and from child custody matters, and shall specifically address the

special needs for the exercise of the authority contained in section

814 of title 10, United States Code, when members of the Armed

Forces assigned overseas are accused of offenses by civilian authorities.

ø(b) Not later than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, the

Secretary of Defense shall transmit to the Committees on Armed

Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a copy of all

regulations promulgated under section 814 of title 10, United

States Code, as a result of this section and any recommendations

that the Secretary may have concerning the need for additional legislation related to the amenability of members of the Armed Forces

to civil authority.¿

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1994

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL

POLICY

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Women in the Service

* * * * * * *

SEC. 542. NOTICE TO CONGRESS OF PROPOSED CHANGES IN COMBAT

ASSIGNMENTS TO WHICH FEMALE MEMBERS MAY BE ASSIGNED.

(a) * * *

676

(b) SPECIAL RULE FOR GROUND COMBAT EXCLUSION POLICY.—(1)

If the Secretary of Defense proposes to make any change described

in paragraph (2) to the ground combat exclusion policy, the Secretary shall, ønot less than 90 days¿ before any such change is implemented, submit to Congress a report providing notice of the proposed change. Such a change may then be implemented only after

the end of a period of 60 days of continuous session of Congress (excluding any day on which either House of Congress is not in session) following the date on which the report is received.

* * * * * * *

(5) For purposes of this subsection, the continuity of a session of

Congress is broken only by an adjournment of the Congress sine die.

* * * * * * *

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E—Other Matters

* * * * * * *

SEC. 845. AUTHORITY OF THE DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH

PROJECTS AGENCY TO CARRY OUT CERTAIN PROTOTYPE

PROJECTS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) APPROPRIATE USE OF AUTHORITY.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that no official of an agency enters into a transaction (other than a contract, grant, or cooperative agreement) for

a prototype project under the authority of this section unless—

(A) * * *

(B) no nontraditional defense contractor is participating to a

significant extent in the prototype project, but at least one of

the following circumstances exists:

(i) * * *

(ii) The senior procurement executive for the agency (as

designated for the purposes of section 16(3) of the Office of

Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 414(3))) determines in writing that exceptional circumstances justify the

use of a transaction that provides for innovative business

arrangements or structures that would not be feasible or

appropriate under a contract.

* * * * * * *

677

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXIX—DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE

AND REALIGNMENT

Subtitle A—Base Closure Community

Assistance

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2915. TRANSITION COORDINATORS FOR ASSISTANCE TO COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY THE CLOSURE OF INSTALLATIONS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) RESPONSIBILITIES.—A transition coordinator designated with

respect to an installation shall—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(10) assist the Secretary of Defense in identifying real property or personal property at the installation that may be utilized to meet the needs of the homeless by consulting with the

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the local

lead agency of the homeless, if any, referred to in section

210(b) of the øStewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act¿

McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11320(b))

for the State in which the installation is located.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 8102 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

SEC. 8102. (a) * * *

(b) CERTIFICATIONS AS TO COMPLIANCE WITH CLINGER-COHEN

ACT.—(1) During the current fiscal year, a major automated information system may not receive øMilestone I¿ Milestone B approval,

øMilestone II¿ Milestone C approval, or øMilestone III¿ full rate

production approval, or their equivalent, within the Department of

Defense until the Chief Information Officer certifies, with respect

to that milestone, that the system is being developed in accordance

with the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.). The

Chief Information Officer may require additional certifications, as

appropriate, with respect to any such system.

* * * * * * *

678

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, ø2002¿

2004. Contracts may be awarded pursuant to solicitations that

have been issued before such authority expires, notwithstanding

the expiration of such authority.

SECTION 9005 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1993

øSEC. 9005. During the current fiscal year and hereafter, no part

of any appropriation or any other funds available to the Department of Defense, except for purchases for amounts not greater than

the simplified acquisition threshold covered by section 2304(g) of

title 10, United States Code, shall be available for the procurement

of any article or item of food, clothing, tents, tarpaulins, covers, cotton and other natural fiber products, woven silk or woven silk

blends, spun silk yarn for cartridge cloth, synthetic fabric or coated

synthetic fabric, canvas products, or wool (whether in the form of

fiber or yarn or contained in fabrics, materials, or manufactured articles), or any item of individual equipment manufactured from or

containing such fibers, yarns, fabrics, or materials, or specialty

metals including stainless steel flatware, or hand or measuring

tools, not grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United

States or its possessions, except to the extent that the Secretary of

the Department concerned shall determine that satisfactory quality

and sufficient quantity of any articles or items of food, individual

equipment, tents, tarpaulins, covers, or clothing or any form of cotton or other natural fiber products, woven silk and woven silk

blends, spun silk yarn for cartridge cloth, synthetic fabric or coated

synthetic fabric, canvas products, wool, or specialty metals including stainless steel flatware, grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced in the United States or its possessions cannot be procured

as and when needed at United States market prices and except

procurements outside the United States in support of combat operations, procurements by vessels in foreign waters, and emergency

procurements or procurements of perishable foods by establishments located outside the United States for the personnel attached

thereto: Provided, That nothing herein shall preclude the procurement of specialty metals or chemical warfare protective clothing

produced outside the United States or its possessions when such

procurement is necessary to comply with agreements with foreign

governments requiring the United States to purchase supplies from

foreign sources for the purposes of offsetting sales made by the

679

United States Government or United States firms under approved

programs serving defense requirements or where such procurement

is necessary in furtherance of agreements with foreign governments in which both governments agree to remove barriers to purchases of supplies produced in the other country or services performed by sources of the other country, so long as such agreements

with foreign governments comply, where applicable, with the requirements of section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act and with

section 2457 of title 10, United States Code: Provided further, That

nothing herein shall preclude the procurement of foods manufactured or processed in the United States or its possessions.¿

SECTION 8109 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1997

øSEC. 8109. In applying section 9005 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1993, Public Law 102–396 (10 U.S.C.

2241 note), during the current fiscal year and thereafter—

ø(1) the term ‘‘synthetic fabric and coated synthetic fabric’’

shall be deemed to include all textile fibers and yarns that are

for use in such fabrics; and

ø(2) such section shall be treated, notwithstanding section 34

of Public Law 93–400 (41 U.S.C. 430), as being applicable to

contracts and subcontracts for the procurement of commercial

items that are articles or items, specialty metals, or tools covered by that section 9005.¿

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL

YEAR 1998

* * * * * * *

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle G—Other Matters

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1083. PROGRAM TO COMMEMORATE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE

KOREAN WAR.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) øNAMES¿ NAME AND SYMBOLS.—The Secretary of Defense

shall have the sole and exclusive right to use the name ‘‘The

United States of America Korean War Commemoration’’, and such

680

seal, emblems, and badges incorporating such name as the Secretary may lawfully adopt. Nothing in this section may be construed to supersede rights that are established or vested before the

date of the enactment of this Act.

* * * * * * *

TITLE XIII—ARMS CONTROL AND

RELATED MATTERS

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1302. LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OR DISMANTLEMENT OF

STRATEGIC NUCLEAR DELIVERY SYSTEMS.

(a) FUNDING LIMITATION.—(1) Except as provided in paragraph

(2), funds available to the Department of Defense may not be obligated or expended for retiring or dismantling, or for preparing to

retire or dismantle, any of the following strategic nuclear delivery

systems below the specified levels:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(D) 50 Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missiles.¿

* * * * * * *

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE

STOCKPILE

* * * * * * *

SEC. 3305. DISPOSAL OF COBALT IN NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE.

(a) DISPOSAL REQUIRED.—Subject to subsections (b) and (c), the

President shall dispose of cobalt contained in the National Defense

Stockpile so as to result in receipts to the United States in

amounts equal to— (1) $20,000,000 during øfiscal year 2003¿ the two-fiscal year

period ending September 30, 2003;

* * * * * * *

DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACT OF

1990

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2905. IMPLEMENTATION

(a) * * *

681

(b) MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4)(A)***

* * * * * * *

(E)(i)***

* * * * * * *

(v) Notwithstanding clause (iii) or chapter 137 of title 10, United

States Code, if a lease under clause (i) involves a substantial portion of the installation, the department or agency concerned may obtain facility services for the leased property and common area maintenance from the redevelopment authority or the redevelopment

authority’s assignee as a provision of the lease. The facility services

and common area maintenance shall be provided at a rate no higher than the rate charged to non-Federal tenants of the transferred

property. Facility services and common area maintenance covered

by the lease shall not include— (I) municipal services that a State or local government is required by law to provide to all landowners in its jurisdiction

without direct charge; or

(II) firefighting or security-guard functions.

* * * * * * *

(6)(A) Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this section shall limit or otherwise affect the application of the provisions

of the øStewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act¿ McKinneyVento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11301 et seq.) to military

installations closed under this part. For procedures relating to the

use to assist the homeless of buildings and property at installations

closed under this part after the date of the enactment of this sentence, see paragraph (7).

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2910. DEFINITIONS

As used in this part:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(11) The term ‘‘representative of the homeless’’ has the

meaning given such term in section 501(i)(4) of the øStewart

B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act¿ McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411(i)(4)).

* * * * * * *

SECTION 204 OF THE DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

AMENDMENTS AND BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT ACT

SEC. 204. IMPLEMENTATION

(a) * * *

(b) MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

682

(4)(A)***

* * * * * * *

(E)(i) The Secretary may transfer real property at an installation

approved for closure or realignment under this title (including property at an installation approved for realignment which will be retained by the Department of Defense or another Federal agency after

realignment) to the redevelopment authority for the installation if

the redevelopment authority agrees to lease, directly upon transfer,

one or more portions of the property transferred under this subparagraph to the Secretary or to the head of another department or

agency of the Federal Government. Subparagraph (B) shall apply to

a transfer under this subparagraph.

(ii) A lease under clause (i) shall be for a term of not to exceed

50 years, but may provide for options for renewal or extension of the

term by the department or agency concerned.

(iii) A lease under clause (i) may not require rental payments by

the United States.

(iv) A lease under clause (i) shall include a provision specifying

that if the department or agency concerned ceases requiring the use

of the leased property before the expiration of the term of the lease,

the remainder of the lease term may be satisfied by the same or another department or agency of the Federal Government using the

property for a use similar to the use under the lease. Exercise of the

authority provided by this clause shall be made in consultation with

the redevelopment authority concerned.

(v) Notwithstanding clause (iii) or chapter 137 of title 10, United

States Code, if a lease under clause (i) involves a substantial portion of the installation, the department or agency concerned may obtain facility services for the leased property and common area maintenance from the redevelopment authority or the redevelopment

authority’s assignee as a provision of the lease. The facility services

and common area maintenance shall be provided at a rate no higher than the rate charged to non-Federal tenants of the transferred

property. Facility services and common area maintenance covered

by the lease shall not include— (I) municipal services that a State or local government is required by law to provide to all landowners in its jurisdiction

without direct charge; or

(II) firefighting or security-guard functions.

ø(E)¿ (F) The transfer of personal property under subparagraph

(A) shall not be subject to the provisions of sections 202 and 203

of the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949

(40 U.S.C. 483, 484) if the Secretary determines that the transfer

of such property is necessary for the effective implementation of a

redevelopment plan with respect to the installation at which such

property is located.

ø(F)¿ (G) The provisions of section 120(h) of the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

(42 U.S.C. 9620(h)) shall apply to any transfer of real property

under this paragraph.

ø(G)¿ (H)(i) In the case of an agreement for the transfer of property of a military installation under this paragraph that was entered into before April 21, 1999, the Secretary may modify the

agreement, and in so doing compromise, waive, adjust, release, or

683

reduce any right, title, claim, lien, or demand of the United States,

if— (I) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(H)¿ (I) In the case of an agreement for the transfer of property

of a military installation under this paragraph that was entered

into during the period beginning on April 21, 1999, and ending on

the date of enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 2000, at the request of the redevelopment authority

concerned, the Secretary shall modify the agreement to conform to

all the requirements of subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D). Such a

modification may include the compromise, waiver, adjustment, release, or reduction of any right, title, claim, lien, or demand of the

United States under the agreement.

ø(I)¿ (J) The Secretary may require any additional terms and

conditions in connection with a transfer under this paragraph as

such Secretary considers appropriate to protect the interests of the

United States.

* * * * * * *

(6)(A) Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this section shall limit or otherwise affect the application of the provisions

of the øStewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act¿ McKinneyVento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11301 et seq.) to military

installations closed under this title.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 2 OF THE BASE CLOSURE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AND HOMELESS ASSISTANCE ACT OF

1994

SEC. 2. DISPOSAL OF BUILDINGS AND PROPERTY AT MILITARY INSTALLATIONS APPROVED FOR CLOSURE.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) APPLICABILITY TO INSTALLATIONS APPROVED FOR CLOSURE BE- FORE ENACTMENT OF ACT.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4)(A) The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and the

Secretary of Health and Human Services shall not, during the 60-

day period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act,

carry out with respect to any military installation approved for closure under the 1988 base closure Act or the 1990 base closure Act

before such date any action required of such Secretaries under the

1988 base closure Act or the 1990 base closure Act, as the case may

be, or under section 501 of the øStewart B. McKinney Homeless

Assistance Act¿ McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42

U.S.C. 11411).

* * * * * * *

684

SECTION 1053 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1997

SEC. 1053. DISPOSAL OF TRACT OF REAL PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA.

(a) DISPOSAL AUTHORIZED.—Notwithstanding title II the Federal

Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 481

et seq.), title VIII of such Act (40 U.S.C. 531 et seq.), section 501

of the øStewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act¿ McKinneyVento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11411), or any other provision of law relating to the management and disposal of real property by the United States, the Armed Forces Retirement Home

Board may convey, by sale or otherwise, all right, title, and interest

of the United States in a parcel of real property, including improvements thereon, consisting of approximately 49 acres located in

Washington, District of Columbia, east of North Capitol Street, and

recorded as District Parcel 121/19.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 1123 OF THE NATIONAL DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1990 AND 1991

SEC. 1123. PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION IN JOINT MATTERS

(a) * * *

(b) STATEMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL POLICY.—As part of the efforts of the Secretary of Defense to improve professional military

education, Congress urges, as a matter of policy, and fully expects

the Secretary to establish the following:

(1) * * *

(2) A two-phase approach to strengthening the focus on joint

matters, as follows:

(A) * * *

(B) Phase II instruction consisting of a follow-on, solely

joint curriculum taught at the øArmed Forces Staff College¿ Joint Forces Staff College to officers who are expected to be selected for the joint specialty. The curriculum

should emphasize multiple ‘‘hands on’’ exercises and must

adequately prepare students to perform effectively from

the outset in what will probably be their first exposure to

a totally new environment, an assignment to a joint, multiservice organization. Phase II instruction should be structured so that students progress from a basic knowledge of

joint matters learned in Phase I to the level of expertise

necessary for successful performance in the joint arena.

(3) A sequenced approach to joint education in which the

norm would require an officer to complete Phase I instruction

before proceeding to Phase II instruction. An exception to the

normal sequence should be granted by the Chairman of the

Joint Chiefs of Staff only on a case-by-case basis for compelling

cause. Officers selected to receive such an exception should be

required to demonstrate a basic knowledge of joint matters and

other aspects of the Phase I curriculum that qualifies them to

meet the minimum requirements established for entry into

Phase II instruction without first completing Phase I instrucVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00708 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
685

tion. The number of officers selected to attend an offering of

the principal course of instruction at the øArmed Forces Staff

College¿ Joint Forces Staff College who have not completed

Phase I instruction should comprise only a small portion of the

total number of officers selected.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 1412 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATION ACT, 1986

SEC. 1412. DESTRUCTION OF EXISTING STOCKPILE OF LETHAL CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(g) PERIODIC REPORTS.—(1) * * *

(2) Each annual report shall include the following:

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) An accounting of all funds expended (during such fiscal

year) for activities carried out under this section, with a separate accounting for amounts expended for—

(i) * * *

* * * * * * *

(vii) grants to State and local governments to assist

those governments in carrying out functions relating to

emergency preparedness and response in accordance with

subsection ø(c)(3)¿ (c)(4).

* * * * * * *

SECTION 3695 OF TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE

§ 3695. Limitation on period of assistance under two or

more programs

(a) The aggregate period for which any person may receive assistance under two or more of the provisions of law listed below may

not exceed 48 months (or the part-time equivalent thereof):

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(5) Chapters 107, 1606, and ø1610¿ 1611 of title 10.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 13 OF THE PEACE CORPS ACT

EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS

SEC. 13. (a) * * *

(b) Service of an individual as a member of the Council authorized to be established by section 12 of this Act or as an expert or

consultant under subsection (a) of this section shall not be considVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00709 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
686

ered as employment or holding of office or position bringing such

individual within the provisions of sections 3323(b) and 8344 of

title 5, United States Code, section 824 of the Foreign Service Act

of 1980 or any other law limiting the reemployment of retired officers or employees or governing the simultaneous receipt of compensation and retired pay or annuitiesø, subject to section 5532 of

title 5, United States Code¿.

SECTION 127 OF THE TRADE DEFICIT REVIEW

COMMISSION ACT

TRADE DEFICIT REVIEW COMMISSION

SEC. 127. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(g) COMMISSION PERSONNEL MATTERS.—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(6) APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN PAY øAUTHORITIES.— ø(A) IN GENERAL.—An individual¿ AUTHORITIES.—An individual who is a member of the Commission and is an annuitant or otherwise covered by section 8344 or 8468 of

title 5, United States Code, by reason of membership on

the Commission is not subject to the provisions of section

8344 or 8468 (whichever is applicable) with respect to such

membership.

ø(B) UNIFORMED SERVICE.—An individual who is a member of the Commission and is a member or former member

of a uniformed service is not subject to the provisions of

subsections (b) and (c) of section 5532, United States Code,

with respect to membership on the Commission.¿

* * * * * * *

SECTION 28 OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954

SEC. 28. APPOINTMENT OF ARMY, NAVY, OR AIR FORCE OFFICERS.—Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law, the officer

of the Army, Navy, or Air Force serving as Assistant General Manager for Military Application shall serve without prejudice to his

commissioned status as such officer. Any such officer serving as Assistant General Manager for Military Application shall receive in

addition to his pay and allowances, including special and incentive

pays, for which pay and allowances the Commission shall reimburse his service, an amount equal to the difference between such

pay and allowances, including special and incentive pays, and the

compensation established for this position. Notwithstanding the

provisions of any other law, any active or retired officer of the

Army, Navy, or Air Force may serve as Chairman of the Military

Liaison Committee without prejudice to his active or retired status

as such officer. Any such active officer serving as Chairman of the

Military Liaison Committee shall receive, in addition to his pay

and allowances, including special and incentive pays, an amount

687

equal to the difference between such pay and allowances, including

special and incentive pays, and the compensation fixed for such

Chairman. Any such retired officer serving as Chairman of the

Military Liaison Committee shall receive the compensation fixed

for such Chairman and his retired payø, subject to section 201 of

the Dual Compensation Act¿.

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION ACT

* * * * * * *

Subtitle A—Establishment and Organization

Sec. 3211. Establishment and mission.

* * * * * * *

Sec. 3213A. Principal Deputy Administrator.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle A—Establishment and Organization

* * * * * * *

SEC. 3212. ADMINISTRATOR FOR NUCLEAR SECURITY.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(e)¿ (f) REORGANIZATION AUTHORITY.—Except as provided by

subsections (b) and (c) of section 3291:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

SEC. 3213A. PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR.

(a) IN GENERAL.—(1) There is in the Administration a Principal

Deputy Administrator, who is appointed by the President, by and

with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(2) The Principal Deputy Administrator shall be appointed from

among persons who— (A) have extensive background in national security, organizational management, and appropriate technical fields; and

(B) are well qualified to manage the nuclear weapons, nonproliferation, and materials disposition programs of the Administration in a manner that advances and protects the national

security of the United States.

(b) DUTIES.—Subject to the authority, direction, and control of the

Administrator, the Principal Deputy Administrator shall perform

such duties and exercise such powers as the Administrator may prescribe, including the coordination of activities among the elements

of the Administration. The Principal Deputy Administrator shall

act for, and exercise the powers of, the Administrator when the Administrator is disabled or the position of Administrator is vacant.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 3214. DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR FOR DEFENSE PROGRAMS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

688

ø(c) RELATIONSHIP TO LABORATORIES AND FACILITIES.—The head

of each national security laboratory and nuclear weapons production facility shall, consistent with applicable contractual obligations, report to the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs.¿

* * * * * * *

øSEC. 3245. PROHIBITION ON PAY OF PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN CONCURRENT SERVICE OR DUTIES INSIDE AND OUTSIDE ADMINISTRATION.

ø(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by statute, no funds

authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for the

Department of Energy may be obligated or utilized to pay the basic

pay of an officer or employee of the Department of Energy who— ø(1) serves concurrently in a position in the Administration

and a position outside the Administration; or

ø(2) performs concurrently the duties of a position in the Administration and the duties of a position outside the Administration.

ø(b) The provision of this section shall take effect 60 days after

the date of enactment of this section.¿

SECTION 5 OF THE MULTINATIONAL FORCE AND

OBSERVERS PARTICIPATION RESOLUTION

NONREIMBURSED COSTS

SEC. 5. (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d)(1) The United States may use contractors to provide logistical

support to the Multinational Force and Observers under this section

in lieu of providing such support through a logistical support unit

comprised of members of the United States Armed Forces.

(2) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) and section 7(b), support by a contractor under this subsection may be provided without

reimbursement, whenever the President determines that such action

enhances or supports the national security interests of the United

States.

SECTION 1505 OF THE WEAPONS OF MASS

DESTRUCTION CONTROL ACT OF 1992

SEC. 1505. INTERNATIONAL NONPROLIFERATION INITIATIVE.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) QUARTERLY REPORT.—(1) Not later than 30 days after the end

of each øquarter of a¿ fiscal year during which the authority of the

Secretary of Defense to provide assistance under this section is in

effect, the Secretary of Defense shall transmit to the committees of

Congress named in paragraph (2) a report of the activities to reduce the proliferation threat carried out under this section. Each

report shall set forth ø(for the preceding quarter and cumulatively)¿ for the preceding fiscal year—

689

(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 ø2001¿ 2002.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2001

* * * * * * *

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

AUTHORIZATIONS

* * * * * * *

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 ............................ Redstone Arsenal ................... $39,000,000

Alaska ................................ Fort Richardson ..................... $3,000,000

Arizona .............................. Fort Huachuca ....................... $4,600,000

Arkansas ........................... Pine Bluff Arsenal ................. $2,750,000

California .......................... Fort Irwin ............................... $31,000,000

Presidio, Monterey ................. $2,600,000

Georgia .............................. Fort Benning .......................... $15,800,000

Fort Gordon ............................ $2,600,000

Hawaii ............................... Pohakoula Training Facility $32,000,000

Schofield Barracks ................. $43,800,000

Kansas ............................... Fort Riley ............................... $22,000,000

Kentucky ........................... Fort Knox ............................... $550,000

Maryland ........................... Fort Meade ............................. $19,000,000

Missouri ............................. Fort Leonard Wood ................ ø$65,400,000¿

$69,400,000

New Jersey ........................ Picatinny Arsenal .................. $5,600,000

New York .......................... Fort Drum .............................. ø$18,000,000¿

$21,000,000

North Carolina .................. Fort Bragg .............................. $222,200,000

Sunny Point Army Terminal $2,300,000

Ohio ................................... Columbus ............................... $1,832,000

Pennsylvania ..................... Carlisle Barracks ................... $10,500,000

New Cumberland Army

Depot.

$3,700,000

Texas ................................. Fort Bliss ................................ $26,000,000

690

Army: Inside the United States—Continued

State Installation or location Amount

Fort Hood ............................... ø$36,492,000¿

$39,492,000

Red River Army Depot .......... $800,000

Virginia .............................. Fort Evans .............................. $4,450,000

Total: ................................... ø$615,974,000¿

$623,074,000

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2104. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, ARMY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 2000, for

military construction, land acquisition, and military family housing

functions of the Department of the Army in the total amount of

ø$1,925,344,000¿ $1,935,744,000, as follows:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(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 variations authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out under section

2101 of this Act may not exceed—

(1) * * *

(2) ø$22,600,000¿ $27,000,000 (the balance of the amount

authorized under section 2101(a) for the construction of a Basic

Training Complex at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri);

(3) ø$10,000,000¿ $13,000,000 (the balance of the amount

authorized under section 2101(a) for construction of a Multipurpose Digital Training Range at Fort Hood, Texas);

* * * * * * *

(6) ø$6,000,000¿ $9,000,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under section 2101(a) for the construction of a battle

simulation center at Fort Drum, New York); and

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE

SEC. 2301. AUTHORIZED AIR FORCE CONSTRUCTION AND LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

(a) INSIDE THE UNITED STATES.—Using amounts appropriated

pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section

2304(a)(1), the Secretary of the Air Force 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:

Air Force: Inside the United States

State Installation or location Amount

Alabama .......................... Maxwell Air Force Base .......... $3,825,000

691

Air Force: Inside the United States—Continued

State Installation or location Amount

Alaska ............................. Cape Romanzof ......................... $3,900,000

*******

New Jersey ..................... McGuire Air Force Base .......... ø$29,772,000¿

$32,972,000

*******

Wyoming ......................... F.E. Warren Air Force Base .... $25,720,000

Total: ..................................... ø$745,755,000¿

$748,955,000

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2304. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, AIR FORCE.

(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

2301 of this Act may not exceed—

(1) * * *

(2) ø$9,400,000¿ $12,600,000 (the balance of the amount authorized under section 2301(a) for the construction of an air

freight terminal and base supply complex at McGuire Air Force

Base, New Jersey).

* * * * * * *

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

Agency Installation or location Amount

Chemical Demilitarization ............................... Aberdeen Proving Ground ....... $3,100,000

*******

TRICARE Management

Activity ........................ Edwards Air Force Base, California ..................................... $17,900,000

Marine Corps Base, Camp

Pendleton, California ........... ø$14,150,000¿

$15,300,000

Eglin Air Force Base, Florida $37,600,000

Fort Drum, New York .............. $1,400,000

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida .......................................... $2,700,000

692

Defense Agencies: Inside the United States—Continued

Agency Installation or location Amount

Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida .......................................... $7,700,000

William Beaumont Medical

Center, Texas ........................ $4,200,000

Total: ..................................... ø$256,906,000¿

$258,056,000

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances

* * * * * * *

Part II—Navy Conveyances

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2853. LAND CONVEYANCE, NAVAL COMPUTER AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS STATION, CUTLER, MAINE.

(a) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary of the Navy may

convey, without consideration, to the State of Maine, any political

subdivision of the State of Maine, or any tax-supported agency in

the State of Maine, any or all right, title, and interest of the United

States in and to a parcel of real property, including any improvements thereon, consisting of approximately 263 acres located in

Washington County, Maine, and known as the Naval Computer

and Telecommunications Station, Cutler, Maine.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle E—Other Matters

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2886. ESTABLISHMENT OF WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL ON GUAM.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT REQUIRED.—The Secretary of Defense shall

establish on Federal lands near the Fena Caves, and on Federal

lands near Yigo, in Guam a suitable memorial intended to honor

those Guamanian civilians who were killed during the occupation

of Guam during World War II and to commemorate the liberation

of Guam by the United States Armed Forces in 1944.

(b) MAINTENANCE OF øMEMORIAL¿ MEMORIALS.—The Secretary

of Defense shall be responsible for the maintenance of the ømemorial¿ memorials established pursuant to subsection (a).

(c) CONSULTATION.—In designing and building the ømemorial¿

memorials and selecting the specific location for the ømemorial¿

memorials, the Secretary of Defense shall consult with the American Battle Monuments Commission established under chapter 21

of title 36, United States Code.

* * * * * * *

693

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2000

* * * * * * *

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

Navy Detachment, Camp Navajo

$17,020,000

$7,560,000

*******

Hawaii ......................... Camp H.M. Smith ........................ ø$86,050,000¿

$89,050,000

*******

Washington ................. Naval Ordnance Center Pacific

Division Detachment, Port

Hadlock ..................................... $3,440,000

Naval Undersea Warfare Center,

Keyport ...................................... $6,700,000

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard,

Bremerton ................................. $15,610,000

Strategic Weapons Facility Pacific, Bremerton ........................ $6,300,000

Total .......................................... ø$817,230,000¿

$820,230,000

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2204. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS, NAVY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years beginning after September 30, 1999, for

military construction, land acquisition, and military family housing

functions of the Department of the Navy in the total amount of

ø$2,108,087,000¿ $2,111,087,000 as follows:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(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) * * *

* * * * * * *

694

(3) ø$70,180,000¿ $73,180,000 (the balance of the amount

authorized under section 2201(a) for the construction of the

Commander-in-Chief Headquarters, Pacific Command, Camp

H.M. Smith, Hawaii).

* * * * * * *

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

2405(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 ................. Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky.

ø$206,800,000¿

$254,030,000

*******

TRICARE Management Agency ........... Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland.

$3,000,000

Cheatham Annex, Virginia ......... $1,650,000

Davis-Monthan Air Force Base,

Arizona ...................................... $10,000,000

Fort Lewis, Washington .............. $5,500,000

Fort Riley, Kansas ....................... $6,000,000

Fort Sam Houston, Texas ............ $5,800,000

Fort Wainwright, Alaska ............. $133,000,000

Los Angeles Air Force Base,

California .................................. $13,600,000

Marine Corps Air Station, Cherry Point, North Carolina .......... $3,500,000

Moody Air Force Base, Georgia .. $1,250,000

Naval Air Station, Jacksonville,

Florida ....................................... $3,780,000

Naval Air Station, Norfolk, Virginia.$4,050,000

Naval Air Station, Patuxent

River, Maryland ....................... $4,150,000

Naval Air Station, Pensacola,

Florida ....................................... $4,300,000

Naval Air Station, Whidbey Island, Washington ..................... ø$4,700,000¿

$6,600,000

Patrick Air Force Base, Florida .. $1,750,000

Travis Air Force Base, California $7,500,000

Wright-Patterson Air Force

Base, Ohio ................................. $3,900,000

695

Defense Agencies: Inside the United States—Continued

Agency Installation or location Amount

Total .......................................... ø$587,420,000¿

$636,550,000

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2405. 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 variations authorized by law, the total cost of all projects carried out under section

2401 of this Act may not exceed— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) ø$184,000,000¿ $231,230,000 (the balance of the amount

authorized under section 2401(a) for the construction of a

chemical demilitarization facility at Blue Grass Army Depot,

Kentucky).

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances

Part I—Army Conveyances

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2832. LAND EXCHANGE, ROCK ISLAND ARSENAL, ILLINOIS.

(a) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—(1) The Secretary of the Army

may convey to the City of Moline, Illinois (in this section referred

to as the ‘‘City’’), all right, title, and interest of the United States

in and to a parcel of real property, including improvements thereon, consisting of approximately .3 acres at the Rock Island Arsenal

for the purpose of permitting the City to construct a new entrance

and exit ramp for the bridge that crosses the southeast end of the

island containing the Arsenal.

(2) The Secretary may convey to the City all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to an additional parcel of real property, including improvements thereon, at the Rock Island Arsenal

consisting of approximately .513 acres.

(b) CONSIDERATION.—(1) As consideration for the conveyance

under subsection (a)(1), the City shall convey to the Secretary all

right, title, and interest of the City in and to a parcel of real property consisting of approximately .2 acres and located in the vicinity

of the parcel to be conveyed under subsection (a)(1).

(2) As consideration for the conveyance under subsection (a)(2),

the City shall convey to the Secretary all right, title, and interest of

696

the City in and to a parcel of real property consisting of approximately .063 acres and construct on the parcel, at the City’s expense,

a new access ramp to the Rock Island Arsenal.

* * * * * * *

Subtitle F—Expansion of Arlington

National Cemetery

SEC. 2881. TRANSFER FROM NAVY ANNEX, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA.

(a) * * *

(b) USE OF LAND.—ø(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the¿ The Secretary of the Army shall incorporate the Navy Annex property

transferred under subsection (a) into Arlington National Cemetery.

ø(2) The Secretary of Defense may reserve not to exceed 10 acres

of the Navy Annex property (of which not more than six acres may

be north of the existing Columbia Pike) as a site for— ø(A) a National Military Museum, if such site is recommended for such purpose by the Commission on the National Military Museum established under section 2901; and

ø(B) such other memorials that the Secretary of Defense considers compatible with Arlington National Cemetery.¿

* * * * * * *

ø(d) ESTABLISHMENT OF MASTER PLAN.—(1) The Secretary of Defense shall establish a master plan for the use of the Navy Annex

property transferred under subsection (a).

ø(2) The master plan shall take into account (A) the report submitted by the Secretary of the Army on the expansion of Arlington

National Cemetery required at page 787 of the Joint Explanatory

Statement of the Committee of Conference to accompany the bill

H.R. 3616 of the One Hundred Fifth Congress (House Report 105– 436 of the 105th Congress), and (B) the recommendation (if any)

of the Commission on the National Military Museum to use a portion of the Navy Annex property as the site for the National Military Museum.

ø(3) The master plan shall be established in consultation with

the National Capital Planning Commission and only after coordination with appropriate officials of the Commonwealth of Virginia

and of the County of Arlington, Virginia, with respect to matters

pertaining to real property under the jurisdiction of those officials

located in or adjacent to the Navy Annex property, including assessments of the effects on transportation, infrastructure, and utilities in that county by reason of the proposed uses of the Navy

Annex property under subsection (b).

ø(4) Not later than 180 days after the date on which the Commission on the National Military Museum submits to Congress its

report under section 2903, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to

Congress the master plan established under this subsection.

ø(e) IMPLEMENTATION OF MASTER PLAN.—The Secretary of Defense may implement the provisions of the master plan at any time

after the Secretary submits the master plan to Congress.

ø(f) LEGAL DESCRIPTION.—In conjunction with the development of

the master plan required by subsection (d), the Secretary of DeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00720 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR194.140 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
697

fense shall determine the exact acreage and legal description of the

portion of the Navy Annex property reserved under subsection

(b)(2) and of the portion transferred under subsection (a) for incorporation into Arlington National Cemetery.¿

ø(g)¿ (d) REPORTS.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(h)¿ (e) DEADLINE.—The Secretary of Defense shall complete the

transfer of administrative jurisdiction required by subsection (a)

not later than the earlier of—

(1) January 1, 2010; or

(2) the date when the Navy Annex property is no longer required (as determined by the Secretary) for use as temporary

office space due to the renovation of the Pentagon.

* * * * * * *

TITLE XXIX—COMMISSION ON

NATIONAL MILITARY MUSEUM

* * * * * * *

SEC. 2902. DUTIES OF COMMISSION.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(d) REQUIREMENTS FOR LOCATION ON NAVY ANNEX PROPERTY.—

In the case of a recommendation under subsection (c)(1) to authorize construction of a national military museum on the Navy Annex

property authorized for reservation for such purpose by section

2871(b), the design of the national military museum on such property shall be subject to the following requirements:

ø(1) The design shall be prepared in consultation with the

Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery.

ø(2) The design may not provide for access by vehicles to the

national military museum through Arlington National Cemetery.¿

(d) PROHIBITION ON CONSIDERATION OF ARLINGTON NAVAL

ANNEX.—The Commission may not consider any portion of the Navy

Annex property described in section 2881 as a possible site for a national military museum.

* * * * * * *

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR

FISCAL YEAR 1999

* * * * * * *

698

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 ............................... ø$186,350,000¿

$223,950,000

Newport Army Depot, Indiana $191,550,000

*******

Special Operations Command ............................ Eglin Auxiliary Field 3, Florida .......................................... $7,310,000

Eglin Auxiliary Field 9, Florida .......................................... $2,400,000

Fort Campbell, Kentucky ........ $15,000,000

MacDill Air Force Base, Florida .......................................... $8,400,000

Naval Amphibious Base, Coronado, California .................... $3,600,000

Stennis Space Center, Mississippi ................................... $5,500,000

Total ................................... ø$690,016,000¿

$727,616,000

* * * * * * *

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) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) ø$158,000,000¿ $195,600,000 (the balance of the amount

authorized under section 2401(a) for the construction of the

Ammunition Demilitarization Facility at Aberdeen Proving

Ground, Maryland).

* * * * * * *

699

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances

* * * * * * *

PART II—NAVY CONVEYANCES

SEC. 2851. CONVEYANCE OF EASEMENT, MARINE CORPS BASE, CAMP

PENDLETON, CALIFORNIA.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(g) LIMITATION ON CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS OR HIGHWAYS.—If a

State law enacted after January 1, 2001, directly or indirectly prohibits or restricts the construction or approval of a road or highway

within the easement granted under this section, the State law shall

not be effective with respect to such construction or approval.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 2401 OF THE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995

SEC. 2401. AUTHORIZED DEFENSE AGENCIES CONSTRUCTION AND

LAND ACQUISITION PROJECTS.

Using amounts appropriated pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 2405(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 Agents and

Munitions Destruction .......................... Anniston Army Depot, Alabama ..... $5,000,000

Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas .......... ø$154,400,000¿

$177,400,000

Tooele Army Depot, Utah ................ $4,000,000

Umatilla Army Depot, Oregon ........ $193,377,000

*******

SECTION 2835 OF THE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998

SEC. 2835. LAND CONVEYANCES, FORT DIX, NEW JERSEY.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

700

(c) REVERSION.—(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) or (2), the Borough and

Board may exchange between each other, without the consent of the

Secretary, all or any portion of the property conveyed under subsection (a) so long as the property continues to be used by the grantees for economic development or educational purposes.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 136 OF THE MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

SEC. 136. (a)***

* * * * * * *

(m) INDEMNIFICATION OF TRANSFEREES.—(1) With respect to the

disposal of real property under subsection (e) at the Base as part of

the Project, the Secretary shall hold harmless, defend, and indemnify in full the Community and other persons and entities described

in paragraph (2) from and against any suit, claim, demand or action, liability, judgment, cost or other fee arising out of any claim

for personal injury or property damage (including death, illness, or

loss of or damage to property or economic loss) that results from,

or is in any manner predicated upon, the release or threatened release of any hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant, or petroleum or petroleum derivative as a result of Department of Defense activities at the Base.

(2) The persons and entities referred to in paragraph (1) are the

following:

(A) The Community (including any officer, agent, or employee

of the Community) that acquires ownership or control of any

real property at the Base as described in paragraph (1).

(B) The State of Texas or any political subdivision of the

State (including any officer, agent, or employee of the State or

political subdivision) that acquires such ownership or control.

(C) Any other person or entity that acquires such ownership

or control.

(D) Any successor, assignee, transferee, lender, or lessee of a

person or entity described in subparagraphs (A) through (C).

(3) To the extent the persons and entities described in paragraph

(2) contributed to any such release or threatened release, paragraph

(1) shall not apply.

(4) No indemnification may be afforded under this subsection unless the person or entity making a claim for indemnification—

(A) notifies the Department of Defense in writing within two

years after such claim accrues or begins action within six

months after the date of mailing, by certified or registered mail,

of notice of final denial of the claim by the Department of Defense;

(B) furnishes to the Department of Defense copies of pertinent

papers the entity receives;

(C) furnishes evidence or proof of any claim, loss, or damage

covered by this subsection; and

701

(D) provides, upon request by the Department of Defense, access to the records and personnel of the entity for purposes of

defending or settling the claim or action.

(5) In any case in which the Secretary determines that the Department of Defense may be required to make indemnification payments

to a person under this subsection for any suit, claim, demand or action, liability, judgment, cost or other fee arising out of any claim

for personal injury or property damage referred to in paragraph (1),

the Secretary may settle or defend, on behalf of that person, the

claim for personal injury or property damage. If the person to whom

the Department of Defense may be required to make indemnification

payments does not allow the Secretary to settle or defend the claim,

the person may not be afforded indemnification with respect to that

claim under this subsection.

(6) For purposes of paragraph (4)(A), the date on which a claim

accrues is the date on which the plaintiff knew (or reasonably

should have known) that the personal injury or property damage referred to in paragraph (1) was caused or contributed to by the release or threatened release of a hazardous substance, pollutant or

contaminant, or petroleum or petroleum derivative as a result of Department of Defense activities at the Base.

(7) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as affecting or

modifying in any way section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42

U.S.C. 9620(h)).

(8) In this subsection, the terms ‘‘facility’’, ‘‘hazardous substance’’, ‘‘release’’, and ‘‘pollutant or contaminant’’ have the meanings given

such terms in section 101 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, respectively (42

U.S.C. 9601).

ø(m)¿ (n) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(9) The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary of the Air

Force or the Secretary’s designeeø, who shall be a civilian official of the Department appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate¿. (10) The term ‘‘State’’ means the State of Texas.

ø(n) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section becomes effective immediately upon enactment of this Act.¿

* * * * * * *

SECTION 5 OF THE ACT OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1957

(PUBLIC LAW 85–258)

AN ACT To direct the Secretary of the Navy or his designee to convey a two thousand four hundred seventy–seven and forty–three one–hundredths acre tract of

land, avigation, and sewer easements in Tarrant and Wise Counties, Texas, situated about twenty miles northwest of the city of Fort Worth, Texas, to the State

of Texas.

SEC. 5. Nothing in this Act shall prevent the State of Texas from

disposing of or salvaging buildings and improvements now located

702

on the land to be conveyed, or leasing, licensing or granting easements into and on the lands and improvements, except that the exercise of such rights shall not impair the use of the lands and improvements for the purpose set forth in section 4 of this Act, including preservation of the aviation potential of the property and that

any revenues derived from such disposal, salvaging, leasing, licensing, or granting of easements shall be expended solely by the State

of Texas for the protection, maintenance, and operation of the facility as a training center or for the protection, maintenance, and operation of other Texas National Guard facilities.

* * * * * * *

OMNIBUS PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS MANAGEMENT

ACT OF 1996

* * * * * * *

DIVISION I

TITLE I—THE PRESIDIO OF SAN

FRANCISCO

* * * * * * *

SEC. 104. DUTIES AND AUTHORITIES OF THE TRUST.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) FINANCIAL AUTHORITIES.—(1) To augment or encourage the

use of non-Federal funds to finance capital improvements on

Presidio properties transferred to its jurisdiction, the Trust, in addition to its other authorities, shall have the following authorities

subject to the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661 et

seq.):

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) The aggregate amount of obligations issued under øparagraph (3) of¿ paragraph (2) of this subsection which are outstanding at any one time may not exceed ø$50,000,000¿

$150,000,000.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 107. AUTHORITY TO LEASE CERTAIN HOUSING UNITS WITHIN

THE PRESIDIO.

(a) AVAILABILITY OF HOUSING UNITS FOR ARMY LEASE.—The

Trust shall make available for lease, to those persons designated by

the Secretary of the Army, housing units specified in subsection (b).

(b) HOUSING UNITS.—The housing units referred to in this section

are identified as follows:

(1) Liggett 715 A&B, 716 A&B, 717 A&B, 718 A&B, 719

A&B, and 720 A&B.

(2) West Washington 1401 A&B, 1403 A&B, and 1405 B.

(3) Infantry Terrace 340, 341, 342, and 343.

703

(4) Wright Loop 1332.

(c) REPLACEMENT OF DAMAGED OR DESTROYED HOUSING UNITS.— In the event of significant damage to or destruction of a housing

unit specified in subsection (b), the Trust shall provide a substitute

housing unit of equal size and accommodation.

(d) LEASE AMOUNT.—The monthly amount charged by the Trust

for the lease of a housing unit, including utilities and municipal

services, under this section shall not exceed the monthly rate of the

basic allowance for housing that the occupant of the housing unit

is entitled to receive under section 403 of title 37, United States

Code. The Department of the Army shall have no other fiscal obligations with regard to the housing units specified in subsection (b) or

housing units replaced pursuant to subsection (c).

(e) RELATIONS TO TRUST FUNDING LIMITATIONS.—The Trust shall

comply with this section without regard to the requirement of section 105(b) that the Trust achieve financial self-sufficiency.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 3139 OF THE STROM THURMOND NATIONAL

DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999

SEC. 3139. HANFORD WASTE TANK CLEANUP PROGRAM REFORMS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(f ) TERMINATION.—(1) The Office shall terminate 5 years after

the commencement of operations under this section unless the Secretary determines that termination on that date would disrupt effective management of the Hanford Tank Farm operations.

ø(2) The Secretary shall notify, in writing, the committees referred to in subsection (d) of a determination under paragraph (1).¿

(f) TERMINATION.—(1) The Office shall terminate on the later to

occur of the following dates:

(A) September 30, 2010.

(B) The date on which the Assistant Secretary of Energy for

Environmental Management determines, in consultation with

the head of the Office, that continuation of the Office is no

longer necessary to carry out the responsibilities of the Department of Energy under the Tri-Party Agreement.

(2) The Assistant Secretary shall notify, in writing, the committees referred to in subsection (d) of a determination under paragraph (1).

(3) In this subsection, the term ‘‘Tri-Party Agreement’’ means the

Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order entered

into among the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection

Agency, and the State of Washington Department of Ecology.

* * * * * * *

MERCHANT MARINE ACT, 1936

* * * * * * *

704

TITLE XI—FEDERAL SHIP MORTGAGE INSURANCE

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1109. DEPOSIT FUND.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF DEPOSIT FUND.—There is established in

the Treasury a deposit fund for purposes of this section. The Secretary may, in accordance with an agreement under subsection (b),

deposit into and hold in the deposit fund cash belonging to an obligor to serve as collateral for a guarantee under this title made with

respect to the obligor.

(b) AGREEMENT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary and an obligor shall enter

into a reserve fund or other collateral account agreement to govern the deposit, withdrawal, retention, use, and reinvestment of

cash of the obligor held in the deposit fund established by subsection (a).

(2) TERMS.—The agreement shall contain such terms and

conditions as are required under this section and such additional terms as are considered by the Secretary to be necessary

to protect fully the interests of the United States.

(3) SECURITY INTEREST OF UNITED STATES.—The agreement

shall include terms that grant to the United States a security

interest in all amounts deposited into the deposit fund.

(c) INVESTMENT.—The Secretary may invest and reinvest any part

of the amounts in the deposit fund established by subsection (a) in

obligations of the United States with such maturities as ensure that

amounts in the deposit fund will be available as required for purposes of agreements under subsection (b). Cash balances of the deposit fund in excess of current requirements shall be maintained in

a form of uninvested funds and the Secretary of the Treasury shall

pay interest on these funds.

(d) WITHDRAWALS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The cash deposited into the deposit fund established by subsection (a) may not be withdrawn without the

consent of the Secretary.

(2) USE OF INCOME.—Subject to paragraph (3), the Secretary

may pay any income earned on cash of an obligor deposited into

the deposit fund in accordance with the terms of the agreement

with the obligor under subsection (b).

(3) RETENTION AGAINST DEFAULT.—The Secretary may retain

and offset any or all of the cash of an obligor in the deposit

fund, and any income realized thereon, as part of the Secretary’s recovery against the obligor in case of a default by the

obligor on an obligation.

TITLE XII—WAR RISK INSURANCE

SEC. 1201. As used in this title—

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(c) The term ‘‘war risks’’ includes to such extent as the Secretary may determine all or any part of those losses which are excluded from marine insurance coverage under a ‘‘free of capture

and seizure’’ clause, or analogous clauses.¿

705

(c) The term ‘‘war risks’’ includes to such extent as the Secretary

may determine— (1) all or any part of any loss that is excluded from marine

insurance coverage under a ‘‘free of capture or seizure’’ clause,

or under analogous clauses; and

(2) other losses from hostile acts, including confiscation, expropriation, nationalization, or deprivation.

* * * * * * *

(706)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

We all have our own views on specific issues relating to ballistic

missile defense: the nature and urgency of the threat; the technological promise of ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems in development; the appropriate level of funding for these BMD systems;

what changes, if any, to make to the ABM Treaty and what to do

if such revisions are not agreed to mutually by the U.S. and Russia; and other issues as well.

However, we all question the wisdom of increasing ballistic missile defense funding nearly 60 percent when so many other defense

requirements also need to be addressed. The Service Chiefs have

identified $32.5 billion in unfunded requirements for 2002 alone.

The shipbuilding rate is about half of what it needs to be to sustain

our current naval force. The National Guard and Reserve procurement accounts are well funded below the level needed to equip

them properly. Army readiness is still below its objectives. Military

housing across the country needs to be upgraded and military pay

needs to be raised higher. The list goes on.

The Spratt Amendment was offered on behalf of all Democrats

to shift $985 million—one-third of the proposed $3 billion increase

and 12% of the total request—from selected ballistic missile defense accounts and into items that meet shortfalls for the National

Guard and Army Reserve, the Navy and Marine Corps, the Air

Force, and Department of Energy nonproliferation programs. The

amendment did not affect systems that counter theater ballistic

missile threats or the ground-based national missile defense system, and it provided funding to improve flight testing as the Administration requested. The amendment thus provided for a $2.0

billion (37.5 percent) increase for BMD programs (compared to the

Administration’s request).

The amendment did not fund the Administration’s request to

build and station five ‘‘emergency’’ interceptors at Ft. Greely or its

proposal to upgrade the Cobra Dane radar. These requests are not

related to flight testing, but rather for what appears to be pre-deployment operational non-flight testing. Given the early stages of

development of the ground-based system and the controversial nature of deploying a system, we consider the request to fund these

items premature. The amendment also cut $120 million in addition to the $40 million the majority cut from space-based BMD programs, and reduced

funding to transform the Navy Theater Wide system into a national missile defense system. The ability to sustain these efforts

beyond 2002 is seriously in doubt, and we believe the items we

identified to receive the funding cut for BMD are all higher priority

defense needs.

We are disappointed the Spratt amendment was not adopted, but

we hope to continue to work together with the majority in a biparVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00730 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR194.141 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
707

tisan fashion during the remainder of the legislative process to

properly balance the need to defend against ballistic missiles with

the other pressing funding requirements faced by our men and

women in uniform.

IKE SKELTON.

JOHN SPRATT.

LANE EVANS.

SILVESTRE REYES.

THOMAS H. ALLEN.

JOHN B. LARSON.

LORETTA SANCHEZ.

JAMES R. LANGEVIN.

RICK LARSEN.

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER.

ROBERT E. ANDREWS.

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY.

ADAM SMITH.

JIM TURNER.

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH.

SUSAN A. DAVIS.

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ.

JAMES H. MALONEY.

MARTY MEEHAN.

VIC SNYDER.

ROBERT A. BRADY.

MIKE THOMPSON.

NEIL ABERCROMBIE.

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ.

BARON P. HILL.

(708)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. LANE EVANS

While I voted for the Committee’s mark of the FY02 Department

of Defense Authorization Act, I was severely disappointed that the

Subcommittee on Military Research and Development decided to

add $5 million to the EMD phase of the 155mm Lightweight Howitzer program. Considering the extensive mismanagement and

technical difficulties this program has experienced, it is mystifying

why this Committee decided to add funding to this program.

Earlier this year, the bipartisan, Iowa/Illinois Quad Cities Congressional delegation called for the termination of the program. We

called for this after becoming overwhelmingly convinced that this

program will not result in the type of quality weapon that our soldiers will need. The evidence is overwhelming. Two consecutive

GAO reports have shown that the program is over-budget, behind

schedule and beset by serious technical problems.

For example, GAO found that all key program milestones have

slipped except one. The production milestone decision has slipped

from March 2002 to September 2002. Initial Fielding by the USMC

has slipped 8 months to July 2004 (28 months after the originally

envisioned date). The cost of the program has also continued to

grow. Due to technical problems and changes in the contractor

overseeing the program, the estimated cost of the developmental

contract has grown $20.2 million (over 50 percent) since GAO’s first

report. The developmental contract has almost doubled since the

start of the program (from an initial $33.5 million target price to

a current estimate of $65.8 million.) I am especially troubled by

this because the American taxpayer will pick up the bill for any

more cost increases in developing the howitzer. This is due to the

program office restructuring the contract. Under this agreement,

BAE will only contribute $5 million towards development of two

pre-production guns. The Committee’s action will only reward mismanagement.

However, the biggest challenge of the program continues to

revolve around technical issues that have not been resolved and

may not be fixable. Proposed fixes to the three original problems

found by GAO—insufficient spade size, instability of the saddle and

faulty titanium welds—remain to be conclusively proven effective

in live fire testing. Welds have become so problematic that BAE is

now considering casting titanium parts instead of welding them together, a major change in the production process and one that may

lead to even more problems.

Unfortunately, the second GAO review found new problems on

top of these already serious technical challenges. Specifically, the

spades cracked, could not be properly removed from the ground,

and didn’t always work properly in all soil types. In addition, the

optical sight continued to break during test firings. Problems this

extensive should not be found in the EMD stage of a major proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00732 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR194.142 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
709

gram. It is clearly a system that is far from any production milestone decision.

The best thing we can do for our soldiers and Marines is to take

the money the committee has added to the program and devote it

to evaluating alternatives so that we may eventually have an answer for the pressing indirect fire-support needs of both the Army

and the Marine Corps. I plan on offering an amendment during

floor consideration of the FY02 DOD Authorization Act to do just

that.

LANE EVANS.

(710)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. TOM ALLEN

STRATEGIC ARMS FLEXIBILITY

I am pleased that the Committee adopted my amendment to endorse the Administration’s request for repeal of the prohibition on

the retirement of the 50 Peacekeeper (MX) missiles that are required to be dismantled under the START II Treaty. President

Bush has called for further reductions in the U.S. strategic arsenal

and for taking nuclear weapons off high alert status. Since this is

one aspect of strategic policy where there is general bipartisan

agreement, we should give the Administration the flexibility to implement these goals.

Even with the positive step the Committee took, I believe it is

the right policy to repeal the entire provision prohibiting retirement of strategic nuclear delivery systems (section 1302 of the

FY1998 National Defense Authorization Act). I am concerned that

the President will be prevented from implementing his plan to take

strategic weapons off high alert status with the rest of section 1302

in place. As we approach conference, I hope the Committee will discuss with Administration officials the budgetary and policy consequences of section 1302, given the President’s policy statements

and engagement with the Russians on a potential grand strategic

agreement.

DD–21 DESTROYER

I am pleased that the Committee provided $619 million for the

DD–21 land attack destroyer, and expressed its support for moving

forward with the program. While I was disappointed that the Committee cut the FY2002 budget request by $25 million, I note this

action was taken by the Committee without prejudice for the program itself. The DD–21 was the top ship platform mentioned in the

Chief of Naval Operation’s testimony before this Committee. I

strongly concur with his statement that ‘‘the program is central to

our transformational effort, including the introduction of the Integrated Power System, the Advanced Gun System, multi-function

radar, and reduced manning concepts. Additionally, the DD–21 is

another step toward the creation of a more integrated Navy/Marine

Corps team. DD–21 will provide significantly enhanced fire support

for Marines ashore.’’ I believe the committee recognizes the importance of these technologies and the platform itself for future mission and fleet requirements. While the cut was explained because

of the delay in the contact award decision, I understand that the

program office would be able to execute these funds to make up for

lost schedule time, in order to keep the program on track for

planned initial production.

711

NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE

I have previously expressed my views on the various aspects of

national missile defense, and associate myself with the additional

views submitted by Mr. Spratt. I take this opportunity to comment

on the process by which the Committee arrived at its endorsement

of the Administration proposal. Ballistic missile defense, as a concept, was a priority for this Administration from the beginning. But

we did not get the actual defense budget request until just one

month before committee mark-up. We weren’t informed of the Ft.

Greely deployment plan until three weeks before mark-up. We did

not get the detailed Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO)

budget documents until a couple of weeks before mark-up. Traditionally, the Committee has four months to review the budget request before it drafts the defense authorization bill. With a spending increase of this magnitude, containing several new start programs unfamiliar to the Committee, I believe we did not have sufficient time to review the BMDO request and consider the policy and

budget ramifications.

The Committee held only one hearing on the BMDO budget request. Personally, I found that Administration witnesses gave general or evasive answers to specific questions. I felt that the hearing

record provided insufficient details and substance for the Committee to make a sound judgment on the massive BMDO expansion, and for the public to understand what is being proposed. Administration officials repeatedly cited actual and hypothetical

threats to U.S. troops and allies from short- and medium-range

missiles to justify the scrapping of the ABM Treaty, which does not

constrain the development of any missile defenses for the cited

threats. It’s like watching a doctor prescribe chemotherapy to treat

heart disease.

In a departure from traditional practice, this Committee did not

receive any out-year estimates for defense spending in the Future

Years Defense Plan. Likewise, we were not provided with any longrange cost estimates for the BMDO missile defense systems. We

have no idea if the programs in the BMDO request are affordable

in the medium or long term. The BMDO increase is too big, and

too controversial, to merit a rubber stamp.

Lastly, I question whether it is appropriate for the Committee to

ratify the radical new BMDO plan, in terms of budget, structure

and policy, when every other major Pentagon decision is being deferred until after the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) process.

Every time a Committee Member asked an Defense Department

witness about the status of a major program, the answer was always: wait until the QDR. The lone exception was BMDO. The bill

approved by the Committee makes no significant changes to any

major weapons system, except BMD programs. I believe it is premature to approve the 57 percent increase for BMDO, given the

impact this new initiative will have on other Defense Department

funding priorities, on our national security strategy, and on our

international security relationships.

712

As we move forward with the budget process, I hope that the majority and minority can work together to get resolution on the

many questions that have yet to be answered.

TOM ALLEN.

(713)

DISSENTING VIEWS

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the

National Defense Authorization Act of 2002. I have serious reservations with aspects of this bill, in both the funding levels and the

policy focus. I respectively issue this dissent to include these concerns for the record.

BUDGET INCREASE AND COMPARISON

The passage of H.R. 2586, the National Defense Authorization

Act of 2002, by the House Armed Service Committee represents a

near $33 billion dollar increase from fiscal year 2001, and provides

a total of $343.3 billion in budget authority to the Department of

Defense for fiscal year 2002. For the sake of comparison, the House

of Representatives has passed an appropriation totaling $7.7 billion

for the Department of State for fiscal year 2002, and the appropriation for Foreign Operations was passed by the House at $15.2 billion. The sum of these two appropriations—$22.9 billion—representing the amount allocated to diplomacy, international aid and

peace by the United States, rises only to seventy percent of the defense allocation increase and 6.7 percent of the entire defense

budget.

Such a budget level would be appropriate if our nation were at

war or if it still faced the captive threat of the Cold War. However,

since neither circumstance exists, budget levels for diplomacy and

war should be balanced at a more compatible level. Moreover, with

the financial mismanagement that continues to exist within the

Department of Defense, increases should not be made to many programs until a system of financial responsibility is instituted to prevent future overspending, fiscal waste and the lack of accountability.

MISSILE DEFENSE

The single largest portion of the budget increase is dedicated to

the development and proliferation of missile defense systems.

The Committee’s missile defense program is a carbon copy of the

Bush administration proposal. It would dramatically increase the

missile defense budget by $3 billion (57 percent) to $8.3 billion.

This accelerated missile defense program is virtually certain to

lead China to increase the number of nuclear weapons pointed at

U.S. cities and may discourage Russia from making deep cuts in

its arsenal. This program has also had seriously questionable success in operational tests to date, and functional operation of any

missile defense is still in doubt.

Expensive, high-tech weapons are no substitute for effective diplomacy, arms control, disarmament, and international cooperation. Cooperative international arms control and disarmament

714

agreements will be far more effective in advancing peace and security in the years ahead and will cost far less than a missile shield.

NUCLEAR REDUCTIONS

Although both Russia and the U.S. have ratified START II, its

implementation has become entangled in contradictory conditions

by the Russian Duma and the U.S. Senate over the Anti-Ballistic

Missile (ABM) Treaty. I have been encouraged by President Bush’s

proposal to unilaterally reduce the U.S. strategic arsenal, beginning with the 50 Peacekeeper (MX) missiles, which contain 500 nuclear warheads.

Unfortunately, current law (Section 1302 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85)) prohibits the President from reducing the nuclear arsenal, other than

through START II ratification. Current law also places unnecessary restrictions on the ability of the President to de-alert, or take

off high-alert status, our nuclear weapons. Currently the U.S. and

Russia have over 4,000 nuclear weapons aimed at each other—

poised to be launched within minutes.

The Committee unfortunately rejected the amendment by Rep.

Tom Allen to remove the restrictions in Section 1302. It did allow

a second, narrower amendment to remove the restrictions on the

MX missile retirements. However, the Committee denied the President the ability to negotiate deeper reductions with Russia by defeating the first Allen amendment.

The President, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, and the Joint

Chiefs of Staff have all called for reductions in our strategic arsenal. Yet the majority party on our Committee continues to cling to

these weapons as Cold War relics.

I was also disappointed that the Committee rejected the amendment by Rep. Ellen Tauscher that would have de-alerted the nuclear weapons in our arsenal that are already slated for retirement.

The first President Bush de-alerted thousands of nuclear weapons

in 1991 as the Warsaw pact disintegrated. The current President

Bush has also supported the concept of taking nuclear weapons off

hair-trigger alert. Unfortunately the Committee again missed an

opportunity to demonstrate leadership in reducing the nuclear danger.

MEDICAL ACCESS AND GENDER

I regret that the Committee did not support changing current

law to permit service women and female dependents who serve or

reside overseas to access military hospitals and other facilities for

the purpose of privately funded abortions. Similar women who

serve or reside within the United States have constitutionally protected right to access to legal and safe facilities that provide abortions. Left with no other option than to either seek an abortion in

a potentially unsafe, foreign medical facility or to forgo an abortion

altogether, this legal provision is tantamount to gender discrimination and should be changed. Not only does this threaten the health

of such women, such a policy is seemingly unconstitutional, and

further, it threatens retention and recruitment of soldiers. It is my

hope that this restriction will be corrected upon consideration in

715

Committee of the Whole, and I urge the designated conferees from

the House to support any such changes.

VIEQUES, PUERTO RICO

I find it unfortunate that the Committee has sought to reduce

the likelihood of the Navy’s departure from the island of Vieques,

Puerto Rico and that the Reyes amendment was defeated. The people of Vieques were provided last year with the opportunity to

choose their own fate with regards to the Navy range, and through

a non-binding referendum on June 29, 2001, overwhelmingly issued

their desire for the Navy to depart from their island. The continued

bombing erodes the safety, environment and economy of this island

and its people, and should cease. It is my hope that the Administration is permitted to proceed with the Navy’s planned withdrawal

from Vieques in 2003, and that the unlikely discovery of another

‘‘suitable’’ alternate site not be held as prerequisite for this departure.

DOMESTIC USE OF INTELLIGENCE

There have been recent revelations about the use of military intelligence for domestic issues, specifically with respect to the surveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and Operation Lantern

Spike. Evidence of such past activities give rise today to grave constitutional issues and concern about civil liberties. The 1975 Report

written by the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities revealed practices ‘‘abhorrent in a free society.’’ The Church Committee, named after its

Chairman, Frank Church of Idaho, exposed that in the name of

state security a program of manipulation, infiltration, surveillance,

harassment, disruption, and murder was carried out with the consent of those at the highest levels of the United States government

and against domestic and international law.

Proposals supporting the creation of a National Homeland Security Agency raise a specter of the return of the most egregious aspects of the domestic program that deprived too many Americans

of their constitutional rights and in some cases their lives. The

military has an appropriate role in protecting the United States

from foreign threats, and should remain dedicated to preparing for

those threats. Domestic uses of the military have long been prohibited for good reason, and the same should continue to apply to all

military functions, especially any and all military intelligence and

surveillance.

INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE AND PROGRAMS

The escalating war on drugs that the United States is fighting

has me increasingly concerned. Though I appreciate a reduction of

$4 million from the contributions to Peru for counter-drug support,

the events surrounding the death of American missionary Veronica

Bowers and her 7-month old daughter highlight the role our nation

and military play in foreign affairs. Though it was private CIA contractors who were involved in this specific incident, our military resources are being used to train and support foreign nations in their

efforts to curb drug production and distribution. As with the transVerDate 11-MAY-2000 02:46 Sep 06, 2001 Jkt 074948 PO 00000 Frm 00739 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR194.145 pfrm07 PsN: HR194
716

gressions that resulted from training foreign militaries at the

School of the Americas, human rights abuses can result from the

training, arming and empowerment of developing nations’ armed

forces. Further, we should be cautious that such activity does not

draw our nation into difficult regional conflicts, and in light of the

apparent failure of the war on drugs, the entire concept of militarybased drug interdiction and it’s efficacy should be reconsidered.

QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES

Despite my reservations with this legislation, it includes positive

aspects that I applaud.

I would like to commend the Committee, and particularly Personnel Subcommittee Chairman McHugh for the increase in military pay and salaries. This is an appropriate step that not only provides our service men and women with sufficient compensation, but

also achieves two other important goals: furthering the profession

of the military and the responsibility inherent in the changing roles

of the armed forces; and increasing the retention of service men

and women. Similarly, increases in moving allowances, housing expenditures, provisions permitting concurrent receipt of retired pay

and veteran’s disability benefits, and efforts to protect voting rights

of personnel are praiseworthy.

Many of the nations that we perceive as a threat will respond to

the expansion and proliferation of missile defense, the expanding

role of military in drug interdiction, and prevention of reductions

in nuclear missiles. It is uncertain how these nations will respond,

but I am confident that diplomacy and engagement will have much

more positive effects on our national security than will our expanding defense budget. Similarly, the Department of Defense should be

urged to respond to the trust that is instilled in it by reforming its

financial management, reducing the obstruction that has plagued

its history, and by eschewing involvement in domestic issues. I

urge the Committee to prudently consider its role in developing not

only national policy, but also international relations, and to realize

that as the global leader we have a role not only in preparing for

war, but also in promoting peace.

CYNTHIA MCKINNEY.

Æ