" ! SENATE 107TH CONGRESS

1st Session

REPORT

107–62

Calendar No. 155

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

REPORT

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 1416]

ON

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL

STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES,

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

TOGETHER WITH

MINORITY VIEWS

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

UNITED STATES SENATE

SEPTEMBER 12, 2001.—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

75–056

" ! SENATE 107TH CONGRESS

1st Session

REPORT

2001

107–62

Calendar No. 155

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION

ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

REPORT

[TO ACCOMPANY S. 1416]

ON

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 FOR MILITARY ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL

STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES,

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

TOGETHER WITH

MINORITY VIEWS

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

UNITED STATES SENATE

SEPTEMBER 12, 2001.—Ordered to be printed

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

(107th Congress, 1st Session)

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut

MAX CLELAND, Georgia

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

JACK REED, Rhode Island

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BILL NELSON, Florida

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska

JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico

JOHN WARNER, Virginia

STROM THURMOND, South Carolina

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona

BOB SMITH, New Hampshire

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma

RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado

TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama

SUSAN COLLINS, Maine

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

DAVID S. LYLES, Staff Director

LES BROWNLEE, Republican Staff Director

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Purpose of the Bill ................................................................................................... 1

Committee overview and recommendations .......................................................... 2

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ..................................................................... 3

Committee review and recommendations ....................................................... 4

Improving the compensation and quality of life of U.S. forces and their

families .......................................................................................................... 4

Increasing military pay ............................................................................. 5

Increasing the basic allowance for housing ............................................. 5

Expanding education benefits for military families ............................... 5

Improving military facilities and family housing ................................... 5

Improving defense health care ................................................................. 6

Sustaining the readiness of U.S. forces .......................................................... 6

Improving the readiness of aviation forces ............................................. 6

Training improvements ............................................................................. 6

Improving the readiness of naval forces .................................................. 6

Improving the readiness of the bomber force .......................................... 7

Reductions in strategic nuclear forces ..................................................... 7

Improving the readiness of space launch facilities ................................. 8

Improving the readiness of the Guard and Reserve ............................... 8

Transforming U.S. forces ................................................................................. 8

Modernization ............................................................................................ 8

Developing revolutionary military capabilities ....................................... 9

Sustaining Army transformation ............................................................. 9

Transforming naval forces ........................................................................ 10

Unmanned vehicle initiatives ................................................................... 10

Improving the capability of U.S. forces to meet nontraditional threats ...... 11

Combating terrorism initiative ................................................................ 11

Combating proliferation of weapons of mass destruction ...................... 13

Other initiatives to meet nontraditional threats .................................... 13

Ballistic missile defense ............................................................................ 13

Improving the efficiency of DOD programs and operations .......................... 15

Base realignment and closure .................................................................. 16

Service contracts ........................................................................................ 16

Acquisition reform ..................................................................................... 17

Making better use of modernization funding .......................................... 17

Financial management systems ............................................................... 17

Explanation of funding summary ........................................................................... 18

Division A—Department of Defense Authorizations ............................................ 27

Title I—Procurement ............................................................................................... 27

Explanation of tables ....................................................................................... 27

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 27

Chemical agents and munitions destruction, Defense (sec. 106) .......... 27

Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 28

Army Aircraft ............................................................................................ 48

UH–60 Black Hawk ........................................................................... 48

TH–67 training helicopter ................................................................. 48

AH–64 Apache modifications ............................................................ 48

CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications (multiyear program) ........... 48

CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications (multiyear program) (advanced procurement) ...................................................................... 49

Longbow .............................................................................................. 49

Avionics support equipment .............................................................. 49

Army Missiles ............................................................................................ 49

STINGER system summary .............................................................. 49

Page

IV

Title I—Procurement—Continued

Subtitle B—Army Programs—Continued

Army Missiles—Continued

Line of sight anti-tank system summary ......................................... 50

Multiple launch rocket system .......................................................... 50

Army tactical missile system—system summary ............................ 50

AVENGER modifications ................................................................... 50

Tube-launched, optically tracked, wire command-link guided, improved target acquisition system modifications ........................... 51

Multiple launch rocket system modifications .................................. 51

Army Ammunition ..................................................................................... 51

Remote area denial artillery munition ............................................. 51

Artillery ammunition ......................................................................... 51

Anti-personnel obstacle breaching system ....................................... 52

Other Army Procurement ......................................................................... 52

Heavy expanded mobile tactical truck extended service program . 52

Super high frequency terminals ........................................................ 52

Secure enroute communications package ......................................... 52

Army data distribution system (data radio) .................................... 53

Area common user system modifications program .......................... 53

Tactical unmanned aerial vehicle procurement ............................... 53

Long range advanced scout surveillance system ............................. 54

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 54

Virginia class submarine program (sec. 121) .......................................... 76

Multiyear procurement authority for F/A–18E/F aircraft engines (sec.

122) ......................................................................................................... 76

V–22 Osprey aircraft (sec. 123) ................................................................ 76

Other Navy Programs ...................................................................................... 80

Navy Aircraft ............................................................................................. 80

Integrated defensive electronic countermeasures ............................ 80

Navy joint primary aircraft training system ................................... 80

EA–6B aircraft ALQ–99 band 9/10 transmitters ............................. 81

EA–6B aircraft structural modifications .......................................... 81

AV–8B precision targeting pod ......................................................... 82

P–3 aircraft modifications ................................................................. 82

Navy Weapons ........................................................................................... 83

Hellfire missiles .................................................................................. 83

Weapons industrial facilities ............................................................. 83

Close-in weapons system modifications ............................................ 83

Gun mount modifications .................................................................. 84

Navy Shipbuilding and Conversion ......................................................... 84

Trident submarine conversion .......................................................... 84

Other Navy Procurement ................................................................................. 85

AN/WSN–7B inertial navigation system .......................................... 85

Ship integrated condition assessment system ................................. 86

Ship engineering control and surveillance system .......................... 86

High resolution side-scan sonar for detecting sea mines ................ 86

Tactical communications onboard trainer ........................................ 87

AN/BPS–15H integration into tactical integrated digital system .. 87

AN/SPS–73(V) surface search radar ................................................. 87

Sonobuoys ........................................................................................... 87

SPQ–9B radar .................................................................................... 88

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system ........................................... 88

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 88

Multiyear procurement authority for C–17 aircraft (sec 131) ............... 102

Other Air Force Programs ............................................................................... 102

Air Force Aircraft ...................................................................................... 102

C–130J ................................................................................................ 102

Predator unmanned aerial vehicle .................................................... 103

B–52 .................................................................................................... 103

F–15 aircraft modifications ............................................................... 103

F–16 aircraft modifications ............................................................... 104

C–17 simulator ................................................................................... 104

Joint surveillance target attack radar system ................................. 105

Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program ..................................... 105

Air Force Missiles ...................................................................................... 105

Minuteman III modifications ............................................................ 105

Peacekeeper Ballistic Missile ............................................................ 106

Page

V

Title I—Procurement—Continued

Other Air Force Programs—Continued

Air Force Missiles—Continued

Wideband gapfiller satellites ............................................................. 106

Other Air Force Procurement ................................................................... 106

Base information infrastructure ....................................................... 106

Spacelift range systems ..................................................................... 106

Night vision goggles ........................................................................... 107

Spacetrack .......................................................................................... 107

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 107

Extension of pilot program on sales of manufactured articles and

services of certain Army industrial facilities (sec. 141) ...................... 113

Defense-Wide Programs ............................................................................ 113

CV–22 procurement ........................................................................... 113

Multiband intra/inter team radio procurement ............................... 113

Advanced lightweight grenade launcher .......................................... 113

Special operations peculiar M4A1 carbine modification procurement ................................................................................................. 114

Chemical-biological individual protective equipment ...................... 114

Chemical-biological protective shelters ............................................ 114

Defense Production Act ............................................................................. 115

Laser additive manufacturing initiative .......................................... 115

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 115

Acquisition programs at the National Imagery and Mapping Agency .. 115

Acquisition programs at the National Security Agency ......................... 116

Air Force C–130 roadmap ......................................................................... 119

Arleigh Burke-class destroyer procurement ............................................ 119

Ejection seats for training aircraft ........................................................... 120

Family of medium tactical vehicles A1 Production and Competitive

Rebuy ...................................................................................................... 120

Mobility requirements for fiscal year 2005 ............................................. 121

Multi-cellular geocomposite containment units ...................................... 121

USS Cole damage control lessons learned .............................................. 122

Explanation of tables ....................................................................................... 123

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 123

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions and Limitations ............. 125

F–22 aircraft program (sec. 211) .............................................................. 125

C–5 aircraft reliability enhancement and reengining (sec. 212) ........... 125

Review of alternatives to the V–22 Osprey aircraft (sec. 213) .............. 126

Joint biological defense program (sec. 214) ............................................. 126

Subtitle C—Missile Defense ............................................................................ 126

Ballistic missile defenses .......................................................................... 126

The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty ............................................................. 127

Ballistic missile defense funding .............................................................. 129

Presidential certification and expedited congressional approval process for certain uses of ballistic missile defense funds (sec. 221) ........ 131

Program elements and procurement budget displays for ballistic missile defense (sec. 222) ............................................................................ 132

Ballistic missile defense research and development program baseline

document (sec. 223) ............................................................................... 133

Annual program plan for ballistic missile defense research and development program (sec. 224) .................................................................... 133

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 134

Technology transition initiative (sec. 231) .............................................. 134

Communication of safety concerns between operational testing and

evaluation officials and program managers (sec. 232) ........................ 135

Additional Matters of Interest ......................................................................... 135

Army ........................................................................................................... 135

Composite materials basic research ................................................. 146

Advanced materials research for future combat systems ............... 146

Compact kinetic energy missile ........................................................ 146

Commercially-based tactical truck .................................................... 146

Tungsten alloy penetrator ................................................................. 147

Coolers for portable military applications ........................................ 147

Ground vehicle batteries .................................................................... 147

Wireless technology testbed .............................................................. 148

Geosciences and atmospheric research ............................................. 148

Arthropod-borne infectious disease control ...................................... 148

Page

VI

Title I—Procurement—Continued

Additional Matters of Interest—Continued

Army—Continued

Personal navigation for the objective force warrior ........................ 148

Unmanned aerial vehicle wideband radio frequency network ....... 148

Combat vehicle technology development and support .................... 149

Mobile parts hospital ......................................................................... 149

Army technology for environmental enhancements ........................ 149

Plasma energy pyrolysis system ....................................................... 149

Comanche ............................................................................................ 149

Javelin ................................................................................................. 150

Movement tracking system ............................................................... 150

Night vision systems engineering development ............................... 150

BAT brilliant anti-armor submunition ............................................. 150

Programwide activities ...................................................................... 150

Combat vehicle improvement programs ........................................... 151

Aircraft modifications/product improvement program .................... 151

Aircraft engine component improvement program .......................... 151

Rapid acquisition program for transformation ................................ 152

Information operations training ........................................................ 152

Tactical unmanned aerial vehicle development ............................... 153

Navy ........................................................................................................... 153

Navy research and development budget justification material ...... 167

Marine mammal research ................................................................. 169

Ocean observing program .................................................................. 169

Integrated biological and chemical defense technology platform ... 169

Data fusion ......................................................................................... 169

Advanced personal communicator .................................................... 169

Bioenvironmental hazards research ................................................. 170

Nanotechnology research ................................................................... 170

Training immersion facility ............................................................... 170

Electronics research for naval applications ..................................... 170

Ship service fuel cell technology trainer .......................................... 171

Advanced composite modular ship hulls .......................................... 171

DDG–51 class rudder improvement ................................................. 171

Laser welding and cutting for ship manufacturing ......................... 172

Technology demonstration for future ship systems ......................... 172

Ocean modeling research for mine and expeditionary warfare ...... 172

Deployable joint command and control ............................................ 172

Electromechanical actuators ............................................................. 173

Submarine composite sail .................................................................. 173

Neutralization of facility threats ...................................................... 173

Urban operations environment research .......................................... 174

Ship-based missile fire support for ashore forces ............................ 174

Budget technical adjustment ............................................................. 175

Aircrew systems development ........................................................... 175

Power node control centers ................................................................ 175

Shipboard personnel tracking and location system ......................... 175

Aegis operational readiness test system .......................................... 176

Joint air-to-surface standoff missile ................................................. 176

Standard missile advanced optical correlator .................................. 176

Submarine antenna technology improvement ................................. 176

Submarine tactical information management ................................. 177

Navy common command and decision system ................................. 177

Submarine combat systems modernization ...................................... 177

Infrared search and track .................................................................. 177

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system ........................................... 178

Navy single integrated human resources strategy .......................... 178

Budget technical adjustment ............................................................. 179

Supply chain best practices ............................................................... 179

Nanotechnology for consequence management ................................ 179

Strategic submarine and weapons system support ......................... 179

Joint helmet mounted cueing system ............................................... 179

MK–48 advanced capability torpedo development .......................... 180

Marine Corps communications systems ........................................... 180

Vertical takeoff and landing tactical unmanned aerial vehicle

development .................................................................................... 181

Modeling and simulation ................................................................... 181

Page

VII

Title I—Procurement—Continued

Additional Matters of Interest—Continued

Air Force .................................................................................................... 181

Aerospace materials manufacturing and research .......................... 192

Information protection and authentication ...................................... 192

Aluminum aerostructures .................................................................. 192

Fly-by-light actuators ......................................................................... 192

B–2 Spirit ............................................................................................ 193

Precision location and identification program ................................. 193

Panoramic night vision goggles ......................................................... 194

Joint Strike Fighter ........................................................................... 194

Evolved expendable launch vehicle .................................................. 196

squadrons ............................................................................................ 196

research ............................................................................................... 197

Spacelift range system ....................................................................... 197

Dragon U–2 ........................................................................................ 197

Global Hawk high-altitude endurance unmanned aerial vehicle ... 197

Spacetrack .......................................................................................... 198

NUDET detection system .................................................................. 198

KC–135 research and development .................................................. 199

Defense-Wide ............................................................................................. 200

Ballistic missile defense funding adjustments ................................. 213

Boost defense segment ....................................................................... 213

Space-based kinetic kill .............................................................. 213

Sea-based boost ........................................................................... 213

Space-based laser ........................................................................ 213

Airborne laser .............................................................................. 213

Midcourse defense segment ............................................................... 214

Navy theater-wide ....................................................................... 214

Ground-based midcourse system ............................................... 216

2004 testbed testing .................................................................... 216

Sensors segment ................................................................................. 216

Space-based infra-red system, low component ......................... 216

Terminal segment .............................................................................. 217

Theater high altitude area defense ........................................... 217

Arrow ........................................................................................... 218

Terminal defense segment program operations ....................... 218

Ballistic missile defense system ........................................................ 219

Ballistic missile defense advanced technology ................................. 219

Thermionic technology ................................................................ 219

Magdalena Ridge Observatory ................................................... 220

Short-range missile defense ....................................................... 220

Tactical high energy laser .......................................................... 220

Software defined radio ................................................................ 220

Patriot air and missile defense .................................................. 220

Aerostat design and manufacturing .......................................... 221

Advanced research center .......................................................... 221

Space and missile defense battle lab ......................................... 221

Airborne infrared surveillance system ...................................... 221

Liquid fueled target program ..................................................... 222

Bottom anti-reflective coatings for circuit boards .................... 222

Ultra-flat planarization technology ........................................... 222

Atmospheric interceptor technology .......................................... 222

National nanotechnology initiative ................................................... 222

Nanotechnology research and development ..................................... 224

Three-dimensional microelectronics ................................................. 224

Radiation hardened electronics ......................................................... 224

Combating nontraditional and asymmetric threats ........................ 225

Combating Terrorism Technology Support Working Group ........... 225

Chemical and Biological Defense Program ...................................... 225

Naval unmanned combat air vehicle ................................................ 227

Complex systems design .................................................................... 227

Competitiveness sustainment initiative ........................................... 227

Unmanned ground combat vehicle ................................................... 228

Environmental security technology certification program .............. 228

Budget technical adjustments ........................................................... 229

Regional pilot program for infrastructure protection ...................... 229

Broadcast-request imagery technology experiment ......................... 229

Page

VIII

Title I—Procurement—Continued

Additional Matters of Interest—Continued

Defense-Wide—Continued

Intelligent spatial technologies for smart maps .............................. 230

Budget technical adjustments ........................................................... 230

CV–22 research and development .................................................... 230

Digital imagery systems .................................................................... 231

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 231

Air Force science & technology planning and investments ................... 231

Defense/Industry fuel cell partnership .................................................... 232

Navy shipbuilding requirements and transformation ............................ 232

Networking and information technology research and development .... 234

Reusable Launch Vehicles ........................................................................ 234

Review of mine countermeasures plans and programs .......................... 235

Track conversion system for lightweight wheeled vehicles ................... 236

Title III—Operation and Maintenance .................................................................. 237

Explanation of tables ....................................................................................... 237

Summary of National Defense Authorization for FY 2000 ........................... 237

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 276

Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 303) ............................................. 276

Assistance to local educational agencies that benefit dependents of

members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian

employees (sec. 304) ............................................................................... 276

Amount for impact aid for children with severe disabilities (sec.

305) ......................................................................................................... 276

Subtitle B—Environmental Provisions ........................................................... 276

Establishment in environmental restoration accounts of sub-accounts

for unexploded ordnance and other related constituents (sec. 311) .. 276

Assessment of environmental remediation of unexploded ordnance

and related constituents (sec. 312) ....................................................... 276

Department of Defense energy efficiency program (sec. 313) ................ 277

Extension of pilot program for the sale of air pollution emission

reduction incentives (sec. 314) .............................................................. 277

Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for certain response costs in connection with Hooper Sands Site, South Berwick,

Maine (sec. 315) ..................................................................................... 278

Conformity of surety authority under environmental restoration program with surety authority under Superfund (sec. 316) .................... 278

Procurement of alternative fueled and hybrid electric light duty

trucks (sec. 317) ..................................................................................... 278

Subtitle C—Commissaries and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentalities . 279

Rebate agreements with producers of foods provided under the special supplemental food program (sec. 321) ........................................... 279

Reimbursement for use of commissary facilities by military departments for purposes other than commissary sales (sec. 322) .............. 279

Public releases of commercially valuable information of commissary

stores (sec. 323) ...................................................................................... 279

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 280

Codification of authority for Department of Defense support for

counterdrug activities of other agencies (sec. 331) ............................. 280

Exclusion of certain expenditures from limitation on private sector

performance of depot-level maintenance (sec. 332) ............................. 280

Repair, restoration, and preservation of Lafayette Escadrille Memorial, Marnes la-Coquette, France (sec. 333) ......................................... 280

Implementation of the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet contract (sec.

334) ......................................................................................................... 281

Additional Matters of Interest ......................................................................... 281

Battlefield mobility enhancement program ............................................. 281

Civilian underexecution ............................................................................ 282

Corrosion prevention ................................................................................. 282

Foreign currency fluctuation .................................................................... 283

Personal gear for servicemembers ........................................................... 283

Army ........................................................................................................... 283

Objective force task force ................................................................... 283

Interim brigade combat team training ............................................. 283

Army installation security ................................................................. 284

Navy ........................................................................................................... 284

Surface ship depot maintenance ....................................................... 284

Page

IX

Title III—Operation and Maintenance—Continued

Additional Matters of Interest—Continued

Navy—Continued

Mk–45 gun overhauls ........................................................................ 284

Shipyard apprentice program ........................................................... 284

Navy explosive detectors ................................................................... 284

Surf Eagle for the Naval Oceanographic Office ............................... 285

Marine Corps ............................................................................................. 285

USMC initial issue ............................................................................. 285

USMC depot maintenance ................................................................. 285

Air Force .................................................................................................... 286

Spacelift range facilities .................................................................... 286

Civil Air Patrol ................................................................................... 286

Defense-Wide ............................................................................................. 286

Special operations combating terrorism training ............................ 286

Commercial imagery to support military requirements ................. 287

Information security scholarship program ....................................... 287

Defense information services agency ................................................ 288

Washington Headquarters Services .................................................. 288

Guard and Reserve Components .............................................................. 288

B–1B Lancer bomber ......................................................................... 288

Miscellaneous Additional Items of Interest ............................................. 289

Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities ................................ 289

Kaho’olawe Island trust fund ............................................................ 289

Cultural and historic activities ......................................................... 289

Fuel savings ........................................................................................ 289

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 290

Common access cards ................................................................................ 290

Defense Environmental Security Corporate Information Management

Program .................................................................................................. 290

Environmental compliance funding ......................................................... 291

Factors affecting military training practices .......................................... 291

Movement of household goods .................................................................. 292

Rocky Mountain Arsenal .......................................................................... 292

Ship disposal project ................................................................................. 292

Shipyard maintenance .............................................................................. 293

St. Louis Army Ammunition Plant .......................................................... 294

Use of advanced battery systems for energy storage ............................. 294

Winter Harbor, Maine ............................................................................... 294

Title IV—Military Personnel Authorizations ........................................................ 295

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 295

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401) ................................................ 295

Authorized daily average active duty strength for Navy enlisted

members in pay grade E–8 (sec. 402) .................................................. 295

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 295

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411) ........................................ 295

End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves

(sec. 412) ................................................................................................. 296

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec. 413) ............ 296

Fiscal Year 2002 limitation on non-dual status technicians (sec. 414) . 297

Limitations on numbers of reserve personnel serving on active duty

or full-time national guard duty in certain grades for administration of reserve components (sec. 415) ................................................... 297

Strength and grade limitation accounting for reserve component

members on active duty in support of a contingency operation

(sec. 416) ................................................................................................. 297

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 298

Authorization of appropriations for military personnel (sec. 421) ........ 298

Title V—Military Personnel Policy ......................................................................... 298

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy .............................................................. 298

General officer positions (sec. 501) .......................................................... 298

Reduction of time-in-grade requirement for eligibility for promotion

of first lieutenants and lieutenants (junior grade) (sec. 502) ............. 298

Promotion of officers to the grade of captain in the Army, Air Force,

or Marine Corps or to the grade of lieutenant in the Navy without

selection board action (sec. 503) ........................................................... 298

Authority to adjust date of rank (sec. 504) ............................................. 298

Extension of deferments of retirement or separation for medical reasons (sec. 505) ........................................................................................ 299

Page

X

Title V—Military Personnel Policy—Continued

Subtitle A—Officer Personnel Policy—Continued

Exemption from administrative limitations of retired members ordered to active duty as defense and service attache ́s (sec. 506) ........ 299

Certifications of satisfactory performance for retirements of officers

in grades above major general and rear admiral (sec. 507) ............... 299

Effective date of mandatory separation or retirement of regular officer delayed by a suspension of certain law under emergency authority of the President (sec. 508) ........................................................ 299

Detail and grade of officer in charge of the United States Navy

Band (sec. 509) ....................................................................................... 300

Subtitle B—Reserve Component Personnel Policy ........................................ 300

Reauthorization and expansion of temporary waiver of the requirement for a baccalaureate degree for promotion of certain reserve

officers of the Army (sec. 511) .............................................................. 300

Status list of reserve officers on active duty for a period of three

years or less (sec. 512) ........................................................................... 300

Equal treatment of reserves and full-time active duty members for

purposes of managing deployments of personnel (sec. 513) ............... 300

Modification of physical examination requirements for members of

the Individual Ready Reserve (sec. 514) .............................................. 300

Members of reserve components afflicted while remaining overnight

at duty station within commuting distance of home (sec. 515) ......... 301

Retirement of reserve personnel without request (sec. 516) .................. 301

Space-required travel by reserves on military aircraft (sec. 517) ......... 301

Subtitle C—Education and Training .............................................................. 301

Improved benefits under the Army College First program (sec. 531) ... 301

Repeal of limitation on number of Junior Officers’ Training Corps ...... 302

Acceptance of fellowships, scholarships, or grants for legal education

of officers participating in the Funded Legal Education Program

(sec. 533) ................................................................................................. 302

Grant of degree by Defense Language Institute Foreign Language

Center (sec. 534) .................................................................................... 302

Authority for the Marine Corps University to award the degree of

master of strategic studies (sec. 535) ................................................... 302

Foreign persons attending the service academies (sec. 536) ................. 302

Expansion of financial assistance program for health-care professionals in reserve components to include students in programs

of education leading to initial degree in medicine or dentistry (sec.

537) ......................................................................................................... 303

Pilot program for Department of Veterans Affairs support for graduate medical education and training of medical personnel of the

armed forces (sec. 538) .......................................................................... 303

Transfer of entitlement to educational assistance under Montgomery

GI Bill by members of the armed forces with critical military

skills (sec. 539) ....................................................................................... 303

Subtitle D—Decorations, Awards and Commendations ................................ 304

Authority for award of the Medal of Honor to Humbert R. Versace

for valor during the Vietnam War (sec. 551) ....................................... 304

Review regarding award of medal of honor to certain Jewish American war veterans (sec. 552) .................................................................. 304

Issuance of duplicate and replacement medals of honor (sec. 553) ....... 304

Waiver of time limitations for award of certain decorations to certain

persons (sec. 554) ................................................................................... 305

Sense of the Senate on issuance of Korea Defense Service Medal

(sec. 555) ................................................................................................. 305

Subtitle E—Funeral Honors Duty ................................................................... 305

Active duty end strength exclusion for reserves on active duty or

full-time National Guard duty for funeral honors duty (sec. 561) ..... 305

Participation of retirees in funeral honors details (sec. 562) ................. 305

Benefits and protections for members in a funeral honors duty status

(sec. 563) ................................................................................................. 305

Military leave for civilian employees serving as military members

of funeral honors detail (sec. 564) ........................................................ 305

Subtitle F—Uniformed Services Overseas Voting ......................................... 306

Sense of the Senate regarding the importance of voting by members

of the uniformed services (sec. 571) ..................................................... 306

Uniform nondiscriminatory voting standards for administration of

elections under State and local election systems (sec. 572) ............... 306

Page

XI

Title V—Military Personnel Policy—Continued

Subtitle F—Uniformed Services Overseas Voting—Continued

Guarantee of residence for military personnel (sec. 573) ....................... 306

Extension of registration and balloting rights for absent uniformed

services voters to State and local elections (sec. 574) ......................... 306

Use of single application as a simultaneous absentee voter registration application and absentee ballot application (sec. 575) ................ 306

Use of single application for absentee ballots for all Federal elections

(sec. 576) ................................................................................................. 307

Electronic voting demonstration program (sec. 577) .............................. 307

Federal voting assistance program (sec. 578) ......................................... 307

Subtitle G—Other Matters .............................................................................. 307

Persons authorized to be included in surveys of military families

regarding federal programs (sec. 581) .................................................. 307

Correction and extension of certain Army recruiting pilot program

authorities (sec. 582) ............................................................................. 308

Offense of drunken operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel under

the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 583) .................................. 308

Authority of civilian employees to act as notaries (sec. 584) ................. 308

Review of actions of selection boards (sec. 585) ...................................... 308

Acceptance of voluntary legal assistance for the civil affairs of members and former members of the uniformed services and their

dependents (sec. 586) ............................................................................. 309

Extension of Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence (sec. 587) ....... 309

Transportation to annual meeting of next-of-kin of persons unaccounted for from conflicts after World War II (sec. 588) .................... 309

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 309

National Guard members of funeral honors detail ................................. 309

Notification to service members regarding adverse information ........... 310

Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits ....................................... 311

Subtitle A—Pay and Allowances ..................................................................... 311

Increase in basic pay for fiscal year 2002 (sec. 601) ............................... 311

Basic pay rate for certain reserve commissioned officers with prior

service as an enlisted member or warrant officer (sec. 602) .............. 311

Reserve component compensation for distributed learning activities

performed as inactive-duty training (sec. 603) .................................... 311

Clarifications for transition to reformed basic allowance for subsistence (sec. 604) ........................................................................................ 311

Increase in Basic Allowance for Housing in the United States (sec.

605) ......................................................................................................... 311

Clarification of eligibility for supplemental subsistence allowance

(sec. 606) ................................................................................................. 312

Correction of limitation on additional uniform allowance for officers

(sec. 607) ................................................................................................. 312

Payment for unused leave in excess of 60 days accrued by members

of reserve components on active duty for one year or less (sec.

608) ......................................................................................................... 312

Subtitle B—Bonuses and Special Incentive Pays .......................................... 312

Extension of certain bonuses and special pay authorities for reserve

forces (sec. 611) ...................................................................................... 312

Extension of certain bonuses and special pay authorities for nurse

officer candidates, registered nurses, and nurse anesthetists (sec.

612) ......................................................................................................... 313

Extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear officers

(sec. 613) ................................................................................................. 313

Extension of authorities relating to payment of other bonuses and

special pays (sec. 614) ........................................................................... 313

Hazardous duty pay for members of maritime visit, board, search,

and seizure teams (sec. 615) ................................................................. 313

Submarine duty incentive pay rates (sec. 616) ....................................... 313

Career sea pay (sec. 617) .......................................................................... 313

Modification of eligibility requirements for Individual Ready Reserve

bonus for re-enlistment, enlistment, or extension of enlistment (sec.

618) ......................................................................................................... 314

Accession bonus for officers in critical skills (sec. 619) .......................... 314

Modification of the nurse officer candidate accession program restriction on students attending civilian educational institutions with

Senior Reserve Officers Training programs (sec. 620) ........................ 314

Page

XII

Title VI—Compensation and Other Personnel Benefits—Continued

Subtitle C—Travel and Transportation Allowances ...................................... 314

Eligibility for temporary housing allowance while in travel or leave

status between permanent duty stations (sec. 631) ............................ 314

Eligibility for payment of subsistence expenses associated with occupancy of temporary lodging incident to reporting to first permanent

duty station (sec. 632) ........................................................................... 314

Eligibility for dislocation allowance (sec. 633) ........................................ 315

Allowance for dislocation for the convenience of the government at

home station (sec. 634) .......................................................................... 315

Travel and transportation allowances for family members to attend

the burial of a deceased member of the uniformed services (sec.

635) ......................................................................................................... 315

Family separation allowance for members electing unaccompanied

tour by reason of health limitations of dependents (sec. 636) ........... 315

Funded student travel for foreign study under an education program

approved by a United States school (sec. 637) .................................... 315

Transportation or storage of privately owned vehicles on change of

permanent station (sec. 638) ................................................................. 316

Subtitle D—Matters Relating to Retirement and Survivor Benefits ........... 316

Payment of retired pay and compensation to disabled military retirees (sec. 651) .......................................................................................... 316

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 316

Education savings plan for reenlistments and extensions of service

in critical specialties (sec. 661) ............................................................. 316

Commissary benefits for new members of the Ready Reserve (sec.

662) ......................................................................................................... 317

Authorization of transitional compensation and commissary and exchange benefits for dependents of commissioned officers of the Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who are separated for dependent abuse (sec. 663) ........ 317

Title VII—Health Care ............................................................................................ 319

Subtitle A—TRICARE Benefits Modernization ............................................. 319

Requirement for integration of benefits (sec. 701) ................................. 319

Domiciliary and custodial care (sec. 702) ................................................ 319

Long-term care (sec. 703) .......................................................................... 319

Extended benefits for disabled beneficiaries (sec. 704) .......................... 319

Conforming repeals (sec. 705) .................................................................. 319

Effective date (sec. 706) ............................................................................ 319

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 320

Repeal of requirement for periodic screenings and examinations and

related care for members of Army reserve units scheduled for early

deployment (sec. 711) ............................................................................ 320

Clarification of eligibility for reimbursement of travel expenses of

adult accompanying patient in travel for specialty care (sec. 712) ... 320

TRICARE program limitations on payment rates for institutional

health care providers and on balance billing by institutional and

non-institutional health care providers (sec. 713) ............................... 320

Two-year extension of health care management demonstration program (sec. 714) ....................................................................................... 320

Study of health care coverage of members of the Selected Reserve

(sec. 715) ................................................................................................. 320

Study of adequacy and quality of health care provided to women

under the Defense Health Program (sec. 716) .................................... 321

Pilot program for Department of Veterans Affairs support for Department of Defense in the performance of separation physical examinations (sec. 717) ................................................................................... 321

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 321

Defense Health Program simplification of claims processing procedures and communications ................................................................... 321

Electronic medical records ........................................................................ 321

Funding the Defense Health Program ..................................................... 322

HIV/AIDS Oral Fluids Testing Pilot Program ........................................ 322

Immunization against Hepatitis B .......................................................... 323

Trauma and medical care ......................................................................... 323

Use of clinical decision support information tools .................................. 323

Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management and Related Matters . 325

Subtitle A—Procurement Management and Administration ........................ 325

Page

XIII

Title VIII—Acquisition Policy, Acquisition Management and Related Matters—Continued

Subtitle A—Procurement Management and Administration—Continued

Management of procurements of services (sec. 801) ............................... 325

Savings goals for procurements of services (sec. 802) ............................ 325

Competition requirement for purchases pursuant to multiple award

contracts (sec. 803) ................................................................................ 327

Risk reduction at initiation of major defense acquisition program

(sec. 804) ................................................................................................. 328

Follow-on production contracts for products developed pursuant to

prototype projects (sec. 805) .................................................................. 329

Subtitle B—Defense Acquisition and Support Workforce ............................. 329

Report on implementation of recommendations of the Acquisition

2005 Task Force (sec. 811) .................................................................... 329

Moratorium on reduction of defense acquisition and support workforce (sec. 812) ........................................................................................ 330

Revision of acquisition workforce qualifications (sec. 813) .................... 330

Applicability of competition requirements to purchases from a required source (sec. 821) ......................................................................... 330

Consolidation of contract requirements (sec. 822) .................................. 331

Codification and continuation of Mentor-Protege Program as permanent program (sec. 823) ......................................................................... 332

Subtitle D—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities Procedures,

and Related Mattters .................................................................................... 333

Amendments to conform with administrative changes in acquisition

phase and milestone terminology and to make related adjustments

in certain requirements applicable at milestone transition points

(sec. 831) ................................................................................................. 333

Inapplicability of limitation to small purchases of miniature or instrument ball or roller bearings under certain circumstances (sec.

832) ......................................................................................................... 333

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 334

Continuity of service in critical acquisition positions ............................ 334

Direct payment of subcontractors ............................................................ 334

Internal controls on the use of credit cards ............................................ 335

Title IX—Department of Defense Organization and Management ..................... 337

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness

(sec. 901) ................................................................................................. 337

Responsibility of Under Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition

of space launch vehicles and space launch services (sec. 902) ........... 337

Sense of Congress regarding the selection of officers for assignment

as the Commander in Chief, United States Transportation Command (sec. 903) ...................................................................................... 337

Organizational realignment for Navy Director for Expeditionary Warfare (sec. 904) ......................................................................................... 338

Revised requirements for content of annual report on joint

warfighting experimentation (sec. 905) ................................................ 338

Suspension of reorganization engineering and technical authority policy within the Naval Sea Systems Command (sec. 906) ..................... 338

Conforming amendments relating to change of name of Air Mobility

Command (sec. 907) ............................................................................... 340

Title X—General Provisions .................................................................................... 341

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 341

Transfer authority (sec. 1001) .................................................................. 341

Reduction in certain authorizations of appropriations for management efficiencies (sec. 1002) .................................................................. 341

Authorization of supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2001

(sec. 1003) ............................................................................................... 341

United States contribution to NATO common-funded budgets in fiscal

year 2002 (sec. 1004) ............................................................................. 341

Clarification of applicability of interest penalties for late payment

of interim payments due under contracts for services (sec. 1005) ..... 342

Reliability of Department of Defense financial statements (sec. 1006) 342

Senior Financial Management Oversight Council and financial feeder

systems compliance process (sec. 1007) ............................................... 343

Combating terrorism readiness initiatives fund for combatant commands (sec. 1008) ................................................................................... 343

Subtitle B—Strategic Forces ........................................................................... 343

Page

XIV

Title X—General Provisions—Continued

Subtitle B—Strategic Forces—Continued

Repeal of limitation on retirement or dismantlement of strategic

nuclear delivery systems (sec. 1011) .................................................... 343

Bomber force structure (sec. 1012) .......................................................... 344

Additional element for revised Nuclear Posture Review (sec. 1013) ..... 345

Subtitle C—Reporting Requirements .............................................................. 345

Information and recommendations on congressional reporting requirements applicable to the Department of Defense (sec. 1021) ...... 345

Report on combating terrorism (sec. 1022) ............................................. 346

Revised requirement for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to

advise Secretary of Defense on the assignment of roles and missions to the armed forces (sec. 1023) .................................................... 346

Revision of deadline for annual report on commercial and industrial

activities (sec. 1024) ............................................................................... 346

Production and acquisition of vaccines for defense against biological

warfare agents (sec. 1025) ..................................................................... 347

Extension of times for Commission on the Future of the United

States Aerospace Industry to report and to terminate (sec. 1026) .... 348

Subtitle D—Armed Forces Retirement Home ................................................ 348

Amendment of Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991 (sec.

1041) ....................................................................................................... 348

Definitions (sec. 1042) ............................................................................... 348

Revision of authority establishing the Armed Forces Retirement

Home (sec. 1043) .................................................................................... 348

Chief Operating Officer (sec. 1044) .......................................................... 349

Residents of Retirement Home (sec. 1045) .............................................. 349

Local boards of trustees (sec. 1046) ......................................................... 349

Directors, Deputy Directors, and staff of facilities (sec. 1047) .............. 349

Disposition of effects of deceased persons and unclaimed property

(sec. 1048) ............................................................................................... 349

Transitional provisions (sec. 1049) .......................................................... 350

Conforming and clerical amendments and repeals of obsolete provisions (sec. 1050) ..................................................................................... 350

Amendments of other laws (sec. 1051) .................................................... 350

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 350

Requirement to conduct certain previously authorized educational

programs for children and youth (sec. 1061) ....................................... 350

Authority to ensure demilitarization of significant military equipment

formerly owned by the Department of Defense (sec. 1062) ................ 350

Conveyances of equipment and related materials loaned to state and

local governments as assistance for emergency response to a use

or threatened use of a weapon of mass destruction (sec. 1063) ......... 351

Authority to pay gratuity to members of the Armed Forces and

civilian employees of the United States for slave labor performed

for Japan during World War II (sec. 1064) .......................................... 352

Retention of travel promotional items (sec. 1065) .................................. 352

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 352

Comptroller General report on policies and plans regarding the preparedness of military installations for incidents involving weapons

of mass destruction ................................................................................ 352

Department of Defense management reform initiatives ........................ 353

GAO report on advanced SEAL delivery system program ..................... 353

GAO Reports on National Reconnaissance Office and National Imagery and Mapping Agency Commissions ........................................... 354

Military child care programs .................................................................... 354

Military spouse employment .................................................................... 355

Professional development and training of financial management personnel ...................................................................................................... 355

Reach Out and Read Program .................................................................. 355

Secondary Education Transition Study ................................................... 355

Title XI—Department of Defense Civilian Personnel Policy ................................ 357

Subtitle A—Intelligence Personnel ................................................................. 357

Authority to increase maximum number of positions in the Defense

Intelligence Senior Executive Service (sec. 1101) ............................... 357

Continued applicability of certain civil service protections for employees integrated into the National Imagery and Mapping Agency

from the Defense Mapping Agency (sec. 1102) .................................... 357

Page

XV

Title XI—Department of Defense Civilian Personnel Policy—Continued

Subtitle B—Matters Relating to Retirement ................................................. 357

Federal employment retirement credit for non-appropriated fund instrumentality service (sec. 1111) .......................................................... 357

Improved portability of retirement coverage for employees moving

between civil service employment and employment by non-appropriated fund instrumentalities (sec. 1112) ........................................... 357

Repeal of fiscal year 2003 limitation on exercise of voluntary separation incentive pay authority and voluntary early retirement authority (sec. 1113) ......................................................................................... 358

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 358

Housing allowance for the chaplain for the corps of cadets at the

United States Military Academy (sec. 1121) ....................................... 358

Study of adequacy of compensation provided for teachers in the Department of Defense overseas dependents’ schools (sec. 1122) .......... 358

Pilot program for payment of retraining expenses incurred by employers of persons involuntarily separated from employment by

the Department of Defense (sec. 1123) ................................................ 358

Title XII—Matters Relating to Other Nations ...................................................... 359

Subtitle A—Cooperative Threat Reduction with States of the Former

Soviet Union .................................................................................................. 359

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs and funds

(sec. 1201) ............................................................................................... 359

Funding allocations (sec. 1202) ................................................................ 359

Chemical weapons destruction (sec. 1203) .............................................. 359

Management of Cooperative Threat Reduction program and funds

(sec. 1204) ............................................................................................... 360

Additional matter in annual report on activities and assistance under

the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs. (Sec. 1205) .................. 360

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 361

Support of United Nations-sponsored efforts to inspect and monitor

Iraqi weapons activities (sec. 1211) ...................................................... 361

Cooperative research and development projects with NATO and other

countries (sec. 1212) .............................................................................. 361

International cooperative agreements on use of ranges and other

facilities for testing of defense equipment (sec. 1213) ........................ 361

Clarification of authority to furnish nuclear test monitoring equipment to foreign governments (sec. 1214) ............................................. 361

Participation of government contractors in chemical weapons inspections at United States Government facilities under the Chemical

Weapons Convention (sec. 1215) .......................................................... 361

Authority to transfer naval vessels to certain foreign countries (sec.

1216) ....................................................................................................... 362

Title XIII—Contingent Authorization of Appropriations ..................................... 363

Authorization of appropriations contingent on increased allocation

of new budget authority (sec. 1301) ..................................................... 363

Reductions (sec. 1302) ............................................................................... 364

Reference to Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year

2002 (sec. 1303) ...................................................................................... 364

Division B—Military Construction Authorizations ............................................... 364

Explanation of funding table ........................................................................... 364

Summary of FY 2002 Military Construction Authorizations (in Thousands of Dollars) .................................................................................... 366

Fiscal Year 2002 Authorization of Appropriations for Military Construction .................................................................................................. 367

Title XXI—Army ...................................................................................................... 365

Summary ........................................................................................................... 365

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects (sec.

2101) ....................................................................................................... 365

Family housing (sec. 2102) ....................................................................... 365

Improvement to military family housing units (sec. 2103) .................... 365

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104) ................................. 365

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2001 projects

(sec. 2105) ............................................................................................... 365

Title XXII—Navy ..................................................................................................... 385

Summary ........................................................................................................... 385

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects (sec.

2201) ....................................................................................................... 385

Page

XVI

Title XXII—Navy—Continued

Summary—Continued

Family housing (sec. 2202) ....................................................................... 385

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203) .................. 385

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204) ................................. 385

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2001 project

(sec. 2205) ............................................................................................... 385

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2000 project

(sec. 2206) ............................................................................................... 386

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 386

Planning and design, Navy ....................................................................... 386

Unspecified minor construction, Navy ..................................................... 386

Title XXIII—Air Force ............................................................................................. 387

Summary ........................................................................................................... 387

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition projects (sec.

2301) ....................................................................................................... 387

Family housing (sec. 2302) ....................................................................... 387

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303) .................. 387

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec.2304) ............................ 387

Modification of authority to carry out fiscal year 2001 project (sec.

2305) ....................................................................................................... 387

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 388

Planning and design, Air Force ................................................................ 388

Title XXIV—Defense Agencies ................................................................................ 389

Summary ........................................................................................................... 389

Authorized Defense Agency construction and land acquisition projects

(sec. 2401) ............................................................................................... 389

Energy conservation projects (sec. 2402) ................................................. 389

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec. 2403) ............. 389

Cancellation of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2001 projects

(sec. 2404) ............................................................................................... 390

Cancellation of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2001 project

(sec. 2405) ............................................................................................... 390

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 2000 projects

(sec. 2406) ............................................................................................... 390

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 1999 projects

(sec. 2407) ............................................................................................... 391

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year 1995 project

(sec. 2408) ............................................................................................... 391

Title XXV—North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program ...................................................................................................................... 393

Summary ........................................................................................................... 393

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition projects (sec.

2501) ....................................................................................................... 393

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502) ............................... 393

Title XXVI—Guard and Reserve Forces Facilities ................................................ 395

Summary ........................................................................................................... 395

Authorized Guard and Reserve construction and land acquisition

projects (sec. 2601) ................................................................................. 395

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 395

Report on requirement for Regional Training Institute ......................... 395

Title XXVII—Expiration and Extension of Authorizations .................................. 397

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be specified

by law (sec. 2701) ................................................................................... 397

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1999 projects (sec.

2702) ....................................................................................................... 397

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1998 projects (sec.

2703) ....................................................................................................... 397

Effective date (sec. 2704) .......................................................................... 397

Title XXVIII—General Provisions .......................................................................... 397

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing

Changes ......................................................................................................... 397

Increase in thresholds for certain unspecified minor military construction projects (sec. 2801) ................................................................. 397

Unforseen environmental hazard remediation as basis for authorized

cost variations for military construction and family housing construction projects (sec. 2802) ................................................................. 398

Repeal of requirement for annual reports to Congress on military

construction and military family housing activities (sec. 2803) ........ 398

Page

XVII

Title XXVIII—General Provisions—Continued

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing

Changes—Continued

Authority available for lease of property and facilities under alternative authority for acquisition and improvement of military housing (sec. 2804) ........................................................................................ 398

Funds for housing allowances of members assigned to military family

housing under alternative authority for acquisition and improvement of military housing (sec. 2805) .................................................... 398

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 399

Availability of proceeds from sales of Department of Defense property

when the installation where the property sold is closed (sec. 2811) . 399

Pilot efficient facilities initiative (sec. 2812) ........................................... 399

Demonstration program on reduction in long-term facility maintenance costs (sec. 2813) ........................................................................... 399

Subtitle C—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 400

Land conveyance, Engineer Proving Ground, Fort Belvoir, Virginia

(sec. 2821) ............................................................................................... 400

Modification of authority for conveyance of Naval Computer and

Telecommunications Station, Cutler, Maine (sec. 2822) .................... 400

Land transfer and conveyance, Naval Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor, Maine (sec. 2823) ............................................................... 400

Conveyance of segment of Loring Petroleum Pipeline, Maine and

related easements (sec. 2824) ............................................................... 401

Land conveyance, petroleum terminal serving former Loring Air

Force Base and Bangor Air National Guard Base, Maine (sec.

2825) ....................................................................................................... 401

Land conveyance, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant, Toledo,

Ohio (sec. 2826) ...................................................................................... 401

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 402

Development of United States Army Heritage and Education Center

at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania (sec. 2841) ................................... 402

Limitation on availability of funds for renovation of the Pentagon

Reservation (sec. 2842) .......................................................................... 402

Naming of Patricia C. Lamar Army National Guard Readiness Center, Oxford, Mississippi (sec. 2843) ...................................................... 402

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 403

Competition in military housing privatization ....................................... 403

Military unaccompanied housing privatization ...................................... 403

Land acquisition moratorium ................................................................... 403

Review of need for military land withdrawals in Nevada ..................... 404

Title XXIX—Defense Base Closure and Realignment .......................................... 405

Subtitle A—Modifications of 1990 Base Closure Law ................................... 405

Modifications of 1990 base closure law (secs. 2901–2904) ..................... 405

Subtitle B—Modification of 1988 Base Closure Law ..................................... 407

Modification of 1988 base closure law (sec. 2911) .................................. 407

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 407

Economic development conveyances ........................................................ 407

Division C—Department of Energy National Security Authorizations and

Other Authorization ............................................................................................. 409

Title XXXI—Department of Energy National Security Programs ....................... 409

Atomic Energy Defense Activities ............................................................ 409

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 410

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101) .......................... 433

Weapons activities ............................................................................. 433

Directed stockpile work .............................................................. 433

Campaigns ................................................................................... 433

Readiness in technical base and facilities ................................. 435

Defense nuclear nonproliferation ............................................... 436

Nonproliferation and verification research and development . 436

International nuclear safety and cooperation ........................... 437

Highly enriched uranium transparency implementation ........ 437

Arms control and nonproliferation ............................................ 437

Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention ..................................... 440

Nuclear Cities Initiative ............................................................. 441

Spent Fuel Activities in Kazakhstan ......................................... 442

International Materials Protection Control and Accounting ... 442

Russian surplus fissile materials disposition ........................... 443

Page

XVIII

Title XXXI—Department of Energy National Security Programs—Continued

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations—Continued

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)—Continued

Weapons activities—Continued

U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition .................................. 444

Secure Transportation Asset ............................................................. 444

Safeguards and security .................................................................... 444

Facilities and infrastructure ............................................................. 444

Office of Administrator and program direction ............................... 444

Defense Environmental restoration and waste management (sec.

3102) ....................................................................................................... 445

Closure projects .................................................................................. 445

Site and project completion ............................................................... 445

Post-2006 Completion ........................................................................ 445

Science and technology ...................................................................... 446

Other Defense Activities (sec. 3103) ........................................................ 446

Security and Emergency Operations ................................................ 446

Worker and community transition ................................................... 446

Defense Environmental management privatization (sec. 3104) ............ 446

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal (sec. 3105) ........................................... 447

Subtitle B—Recurring General Provisions ..................................................... 447

Reprogramming (sec. 3121) ...................................................................... 447

Limits on minor construction projects (sec. 3122) .................................. 447

Limits on construction projects (sec. 3123) ............................................. 447

Fund transfer authority (sec. 3124) ......................................................... 448

Authority for conceptual and construction design (sec. 3125) ............... 448

Authority for emergency planning, design, and construction activities

(sec. 3126) ............................................................................................... 448

Funds available for all national security programs of the Department

of Energy (sec. 3127) ............................................................................. 448

Availability of funds (sec. 3128) ............................................................... 448

Transfers of defense environmental management funds (sec. 3129) .... 449

Transfer of weapons activities funds (sec. 3130) .................................... 449

Subtitle C—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 449

Limitation on availability of funds for weapons activities for facilities

and infrastructure (sec. 3131) ............................................................... 449

Limitation on availability of funds for other defense activities for

national security programs administrative support (sec. 3132) ........ 450

Nuclear Cities Initiative (sec. 3133) ........................................................ 451

Construction of Department of Energy operations office complex. (sec.

3134) ....................................................................................................... 451

Subtitle D—Matters Relating to Management of National Nuclear Security Administration ....................................................................................... 452

Establishment of position of deputy administrator for nuclear security (sec. 3141) ........................................................................................ 452

Responsibility for national security laboratories and weapons production facilities of Deputy Administrator of National Security Administration for Defense Programs (sec. 3142) .......................................... 452

Clarification of status within the Department of Energy of Administration and contractor personnel of the National Nuclear Security

Administration (sec. 3143) .................................................................... 452

Modification of authority of Administrator for Nuclear Security to

establish scientific, engineering and technical positions (sec. 3144) . 453

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 453

Improvements to Energy employees occupational illness compensation program (sec. 3151) ........................................................................ 453

Department of Energy counterintelligence polygraph program (sec.

3152) ....................................................................................................... 455

One-year extension of authority of Department of Energy to pay

voluntary separation incentive payments (sec. 3153) ......................... 455

Additional objective for Department of Energy defense nuclear facilities work force restructuring plan (sec. 3154) ..................................... 456

Modification of date of report of panel to assess the reliability, safety,

and security of the United States nuclear stockpile (sec. 3155) ........ 456

Reports on achievement of milestones for National Ignition Facility

(sec. 3156) ............................................................................................... 456

Support for public education in the vicinity of Los Alamos National

Laboratory, New Mexico (sec. 3157) ..................................................... 456

Page

XIX

Title XXXI—Department of Energy National Security Programs—Continued

Subtitle E—Other Matters—Continued

Improvements to Corral Hollow Road, Livermore, California (sec.

3158) ....................................................................................................... 457

Subtitle F—Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge ........................................ 457

Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 (sec. 3171–3181) ..... 457

Other Items of Interest .................................................................................... 459

Fissile material disposition ....................................................................... 459

Office of Engineering and Construction Management ........................... 461

Alternative dispute resolution .................................................................. 461

Title XXXII—Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board ........................................ 463

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (sec. 3201) .............................. 463

TITLE XXXIII—National Defense Stockpile ......................................................... 465

National defense stockpile (secs. 3301–3304) ......................................... 465

TITLE XXXIV—Naval Petroleum Reserves .......................................................... 467

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 3401) ............................................ 467

Legislative Requirements ........................................................................................ 467

Departmental Recommendations .................................................................... 467

Committee Action ............................................................................................. 467

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ................................................... 467

Regulatory Impact ............................................................................................ 468

Changes in Existing Law ................................................................................. 468

Minority Views of Senators John W. Warner, Storm Thurmond, Bob Smith,

James M. Inhofe, Rick Santorum, Pat Roberts, Wayne Allard, Tim Hutchinson, Jeff Sessions, Susan M. Collins, and Jim Bunning ................................ 469

Minority Views of Senator Bob Smith ................................................................... 475

Minority Views of Senator Wayne Allard .............................................................. 477

Minority Views of Senator Jim Bunning ............................................................... 479

Calendar No. 155

107TH CONGRESS REPORT

1st Session " ! SENATE 107–62

AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 FOR MILITARY

ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, FOR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AND FOR DEFENSE ACTIVITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY, TO PRESCRIBE PERSONNEL STRENGTHS FOR SUCH FISCAL

YEAR FOR THE ARMED FORCES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

SEPTEMBER 12, 2001.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. LEVIN, from the Committee on Armed Services,

submitted the following

REPORT

together with

MINORITY VIEWS

[To accompany S. 1416]

The Committee on Armed Services reports favorably an original

bill to authorize appropriations during the fiscal year 2002 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe personnel strengths for such fiscal year for the armed forces,

and for other purposes, and recommends that the bill do pass.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

This bill would:

(1) authorize appropriations for (a) procurement, (b) research, development, test and evaluation, (c) operation and

maintenance and the revolving and management funds of the

Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002;

(2) authorize the personnel end strengths for each military

active duty component of the armed forces for fiscal year 2002;

(3) authorize the personnel end strengths for the Selected

Reserve of each of the reserve components of the armed forces

for fiscal year 2002;

(4) impose certain reporting requirements;

2

(5) impose certain limitations with regard to specific procurement and research, development, test and evaluation actions

and manpower strengths; provide certain additional legislative

authority, and make certain changes to existing law;

(6) authorize appropriations for military construction programs of the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2002; and

(7) authorize appropriations for national security programs

of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2002.

Committee overview and recommendations

The U.S. military is the most capable fighting force in the world.

From Europe to the Persian Gulf to the Korean peninsula, the

presence of U.S. military forces and their contributions to regional

peace and security reassure our allies and deter our adversaries.

U.S. forces have excelled in every mission assigned to them, including the 1999 NATO air campaign over Kosovo and ongoing enforcement of the no-fly zones over Iraq; humanitarian operations from

Central America to Africa; and peacekeeping operations from the

Balkans to East Timor. The U.S. Armed Forces remain the standard against which all militaries are measured; they are without

peer today and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Notwithstanding the international stability and security that

U.S. military forces provide, there are significant national security

challenges that could threaten our national interests. These include: • Development and proliferation of nuclear, biological, and

chemical weapons, and the means to deliver them, especially

the potential for proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

(WMD) or weapons-usable material from Russia; • Cross-border aggression in regions that are important to

U.S. national security, particularly the Persian Gulf region and

East Asia; • Internal conflicts, such as civil wars or regimes that oppress their own people, that can threaten U.S. national interests and the interests of our allies by creating regional instability or drawing in other countries; • Transnational threats such as international terrorism, illegal drug trafficking and organized crime; • Asymmetric, unconventional threats and tactics such as

cyberwarfare and terrorism involving nuclear, biological, and

chemical weapons; and • Humanitarian crises caused by the failure of a nation’s

civil structure or natural disasters such as floods or famine.

In the face of these threats, the United States must maintain

ready and versatile military forces capable of conducting the full

spectrum of military operations—from deterring and defeating

large-scale, cross-border aggression, to participating in smallerscale contingencies, to dealing with terrorism and drug trafficking.

Moreover, U.S. forces must be capable of conducting these operations either unilaterally or as part of a coalition.

U.S. military forces are meeting this challenge today because of

important and lasting improvements in the capability of all of the

military services made in prior years. Guided by the Chairman of

the Joint Chief’s Joint Vision 2010 and Joint Vision 2020, each of

the military services is harnessing revolutionary advances in inforVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
3

mation and communications technology in an intensive and farreaching effort to transform their capabilities. Today, each of the

military services is more lethal, more maneuverable, more

versatile, and has greater situational awareness on the battlefield

than at any time in history.

At the same time, each of the military services continues to face

challenges that, if not addressed, threaten to undermine their ability to carry out their current missions and to meet future threats.

The readiness of front-line forces—such as those on the Korean peninsula and in the Persian Gulf region—remains high, but the

readiness of some of our non-deployed forces and our support establishment is not where it should be. Although every service except

the Air Force is meeting its recruiting and retention goals—helped

by the joint efforts of Congress and the Defense Department in recent years to improve compensation and quality of life—attracting

and retaining high-quality personnel continues to be difficult. Finally, funding for the modernization of our forces continues to lag

behind funding for quality of life and near-term readiness and operations.

Today’s armed forces are capable and ready to help keep the

peace, deter traditional and nontraditional threats to our security

and our vital interests around the world, and win any major conflict decisively. Working together, Congress and the Executive

branch must build on the considerable strengths of our military

forces and their record of success by preserving a high quality of

life for U.S. forces and their families, sustaining readiness, and

transforming the armed forces to meet the threats and challenges

of tomorrow.

Fiscal year 2002 budget request

The Bush Administration’s fiscal year 2002 budget request for national security activities of $343.5 billion represents an increase

of $32.9 billion, or 10 percent, over the fiscal year 2001 level. The

committee’s review of the request was complicated by the fact that

the new administration did not submit its fiscal year 2002 defense

budget request to the Congress until June 27, and that request did

not include any details beyond fiscal year 2002.

When the committee approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, the administration had not completed

a National Security Strategy, a National Military Strategy, or a

Future Years Defense Program. The Defense Department was concluding work on the Quadrennial Defense Review, but this review

is not due to be completed until the end of September. As a result,

the committee’s review and evaluation of the fiscal year 2002 budget request was conducted without the ability to consider the administration’s national security strategy or its priorities for the future

of our armed forces.

The uncertainty over the future direction of the administration’s

defense program has been further complicated by the overall budget situation. The Budget Resolution adopted by the Congress in

May of this year included $325.1 billion in budget authority for the

national defense function in fiscal year 2002, the amount requested

by the Bush Administration in its initial budget blueprint in February. Subsequent to the adoption of the Budget Resolution, the

administration requested an additional $18.4 billion for national

4

defense for fiscal year 2002. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld

testified before the committee that an additional $18.3 billion will

be required in fiscal year 2003 to sustain the proposed fiscal year

2002 budget level.

Under the terms of the Budget Resolution, the Chairman of the

Senate Budget Committee can increase the level of funding in the

Budget Resolution for national defense for fiscal year 2002 to accommodate the $18.4 billion increase proposed by the administration, as long as the increase does not reduce the on-budget surplus

below the level of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund surplus. However, as the August 2001 revised economic estimate from

the Congressional Budget Office indicated, increasing national defense spending in fiscal years 2002 or 2003 above the level included

in the Budget Resolution cannot be sustained within the current

estimate of the budget surplus without spending money from the

Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund surplus and probably the

Social Security Trust Fund surplus.

Our national security programs depend on defense budgets that

are sustainable. The committee believes that in order to avoid dangerous instability in the defense budget in the future, the administration must provide a clear fiscal plan for meeting and sustaining

our national security needs.

Committee review and recommendations

Following the submission of the President’s amended fiscal year

2002 budget request on June 27, the committee conducted a total

of 14 hearings on the request. During the course of these hearings,

the committee identified five priorities to guide its actions in developing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002: • Continuing the improvements in the compensation and

quality of life of the men and women of the armed forces and

their families; • Sustaining the readiness of the military services to carry

out their assigned missions;

• Encouraging the transformation of the military services to

lighter, more lethal and more capable forces;

• Improving the capability of the armed forces to meet nontraditional threats, including terrorism and unconventional

means of delivering weapons of mass destruction; and

• Improving the efficiency of DOD programs and operations.

The committee’s actions in each of these areas is summarized

below and discussed in greater detail throughout this report.

Improving the compensation and quality of life of U.S.

forces and their families

Ensuring U.S. military personnel and their families receive the

compensation and quality of life they deserve remains the committee’s highest priority. Congressional efforts in recent years have

made significant improvements to military pay and quality of life.

This year, the committee adds more than $700 million to the budget request to improve compensation and quality of life, including

additional funds to reduce service members’ out-of-pocket housing

costs, to increase higher education opportunities, and to provide

personal gear to improve the safety and comfort of U.S. forces in

the field.

5

Increasing military pay

The committee bill would authorize the administration’s proposal

to increase military pay in fiscal year 2002. Effective January 1,

2002, every service member would receive a pay raise of at least

five percent, and personnel in certain pay grades would receive targeted pay raises ranging between six and 10 percent, the largest

increase in military pay since 1982. This is the third consecutive

year that the committee has authorized a significant pay raise for

military personnel above the rate of inflation.

Increasing the basic allowance for housing

In January 2000, then-Secretary of Defense William Cohen proposed an initiative to close the gap between the Basic Allowance

for Housing (BAH) for service members and their families living

off-base and the actual cost of off-base housing. Congress approved

that initiative in the fiscal year 2001 budget with a plan to eliminate this gap entirely by 2005. The committee believes that more

can be done to alleviate the housing expenses borne by military

personnel and families living off-base. Therefore, the committee

recommends an increase of $232.0 million to accelerate the Department’s current plan, eliminating all out-of-pocket housing costs for

service members and their families by 2003, two years earlier than

planned by the Defense Department.

Expanding education benefits for military families

The committee bill would authorize $50.0 million for new initiatives to retain personnel with critical skills by expanding educational opportunities for them and their families. Many personnel

leave military service for more lucrative private sector opportunities in order to better provide for the education of family members.

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision to allow personnel with critical skills to transfer up to 18 months of unused

education benefits under the Montgomery G.I. Bill to family members in return for a commitment to serve for four more years, and

recommends an authorization of $30.0 million for this new program

in fiscal year 2002. In addition, the committee recommends an authorization of $20.0 million for an education savings plan in which

service members would be provided U.S. savings bonds with attendant tax advantages if used for educational purposes in return

for a commitment to serve at least six additional years of activeduty service in a critical specialty.

Improving military facilities and family housing

The committee continues to support efforts to improve the facilities in which our military personnel work and the housing in which

they and their families live. The committee commends the Department of Defense for the increased emphasis on investment in military construction and family housing in the fiscal year 2002 budget

request. The $10.0 billion requested represents a 10 percent increase over the fiscal year 2001 level.

The committee bill would authorize $451.2 million above the

budget request to make further improvements in military facilities,

including projects to enhance mission performance of military

units; build additional housing for families and unaccompanied personnel; purchase key tracts of land around military installations to

6

reduce future encroachment problems between military activities

and surrounding civilian areas; and fund legally binding cleanup

requirements at facilities closed by previous rounds of base closure.

Improving defense health care

The committee supports the budget request of $17.9 billion for

the Defense Health Program, which represents a significant increase for the program to meet rising costs of medical care and increased benefits for military retirees.

Sustaining the readiness of U.S. forces

Throughout the last decade, the committee provided significant

resources to maintain the readiness of U.S. forces. The committee

welcomed the $10.4 billion increase in the fiscal year 2002 budget

request for the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) accounts of the

active and reserve component forces that support readiness. However, the committee believes that more can be done to address continuing readiness challenges posed by such problems as aging

equipment and shortfalls in modifications of existing systems and

therefore adds more than $1 billion to the budget request for new

readiness initiatives.

Improving the readiness of aviation forces

The committee recommends increased funding to improve the readiness of our aviation forces, including nearly $240.0 million to

address shortfalls in Army aviation. This additional funding includes $102.5 million to procure 10 UH–60 Black Hawk helicopters,

the Army’s primary utility helicopter and the Army National

Guard’s highest unfunded priority, and $58.8 million for upgrades

to the Apache, the Army’s heavy attack helicopter and the highest

recapitalization priority on the Army’s list of unfunded requirements.

The committee also recommends $121.4 million to upgrade engines and reduce maintenance costs in the F–16, the Air Force’s

primary, multi-role fighter, and in the F–15, the Air Force’s current

air supremacy fighter; $54.0 million to buy newer, digital jamming

equipment and for wing modifications to improve the Navy’s EA–

6B electronic warfare fleet; and $21.1 million for maintenance

trainers to give C–17 aircraft support crews the training they need

without leaving their home stations.

Training improvements

Committee initiatives to improve readiness include increases in

funding to improve the training of new pilots. The committee recommends an additional $44.6 million for the Navy to continue modernizing the T–6A Joint Primary Aircraft Training System (JPATS)

fleet, the training aircraft used by the Air Force and Navy, and

$34.1 million to procure 21 additional TH–67 training helicopters

for the Army.

Improving the readiness of naval forces

In addition to fully approving the budget request for a number

of major modernization programs described elsewhere, the committee recommends several initiatives to improve the readiness of

U.S. naval forces, including an increase of $98.8 million for mainteVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
7

nance of surface ships and Navy and Marine Corps equipment. The

committee also authorizes increases of $40.9 million above the

budget request for ship navigation, monitoring and training upgrades to increase capabilities and reduce operations and

sustainment costs, and $20.0 million for the sonobuoys that Navy

personnel need to remain proficient in anti-submarine warfare.

Improving the readiness of the bomber force

Under current plans for Air Force bombers, the Defense Department will rely on the existing fleet of B–2s, B–52s and B–1Bs for

another 40 years. Therefore, the Air Force and the Defense Department must sustain a program of aggressive upgrades, modernization, and maintenance for the existing bomber fleet. Although the

budget request contains funds for upgrades to each type of bomber,

the requested funds for the B–2 are not enough to continue upgrade programs begun in previous years; the funds for the B–52 do

not maintain previous upgrade schedules; and the funds for the B– 1B upgrades are available only as a result of the decision to retire

33 of the 126 B–1Bs. The committee recommends an additional

$125.0 million in upgrades for the B–2 and B–52 bombers and supports the funds included in the budget request for B–1B upgrades.

The committee is especially troubled by the decision of the Air

Force to retire 33 B–1B bombers and to consolidate the remaining

B–1Bs in the active Air Force, thereby removing all bombers from

the National Guard. This decision was made without a full analysis

of the costs and benefits of the consolidation and before the completion of broader defense strategy reviews. The committee recommends a provision that would restrict the use of any funds available to the Department of Defense in fiscal year 2002 from being

used to retire any B–1Bs or to remove any B–1Bs from the National Guard until such time as certain reports and studies are

completed. In addition, the committee provided $164.0 million to

maintain the B–1Bs in the Air National Guard.

Reductions in strategic nuclear forces

The committee bill includes funding and a provision that will

allow for significant reductions in strategic nuclear forces. First,

the committee authorizes an increase of $12.2 million to allow the

Air Force to buy the equipment necessary to retire the Peacekeeper

intercontinental ballistic missile. Second—and key to the ability of

the Air Force to retire the Peacekeeper and the ability of the

United States to move forward with additional reductions in strategic nuclear delivery systems and warheads—the committee supports the administration’s request to repeal section 1302 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, which has

prevented any meaningful reductions in strategic nuclear forces by

limiting the retirement of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles.

Section 1302 of the Act required the Defense Department to

maintain U.S. nuclear forces at levels agreed to under the Strategic

Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) until START II entered into

force. With the delay in START II entry into force, this required

the United States to maintain a nuclear force structure significantly greater than was necessary under any post-Cold War requirement. Repeal of section 1302 will allow the resumption of nuclear force structure reductions, moving the United States toward

8

lower levels contemplated under START III and below and being

considered by the administration.

Improving the readiness of space launch facilities

Maintaining the ability to operate range and space launch facilities safely and efficiently is essential as the United States becomes

increasingly reliant on space and space systems for command, control, and communications. Improving the East and West Coast

range and space launch facilities, which operate largely with thirtyyear-old technology, was the Air Force’s highest unfunded priority

in fiscal year 2002. To improve the capabilities of these ranges and

facilities, the committee recommends an increase of $53.9 million

to improve operational safety and for improved automated scheduling that will allow faster launch turnaround times.

Improving the readiness of the Guard and Reserve

The committee bill includes recommendations to strengthen the

National Guard and Reserve Components so they can continue to

make critical contributions to our armed forces during times of

peace and conflict. Ensuring adequate numbers of full-time guardsmen and reservists is one of the top readiness issues of the reserves. To achieve the minimally acceptable levels of manning, the

Army has developed an incremental plan to increase full-time manning over 11 years. The budget request did not increase Army

Guard and Reserve full-time manning for fiscal year 2002, the first

year of the Army plan. Therefore, the committee bill would authorize $54.7 million to increase full-time manning in the Army reserve

components. In addition, the committee recommends increases of $8.4 million

to upgrade F–15s with data links and other equipment, allowing

the Air National Guard to deploy and operate more effectively with

active component squadrons.

Transforming U.S. forces

The committee supports the Defense Department’s efforts, guided

by the Chairman of the Joint Chief’s Joint Vision 2020, to transform the U.S. Armed Forces into the lighter, more lethal and more

flexible force required to meet the missions of the 21st Century.

The committee believes that harnessing new doctrine and technologies—especially unmanned vehicles and network centric forces

that exploit information superiority—must remain a top priority for

the armed forces and therefore adds more than $800 million to the

budget request for new transformation initiatives.

Modernization

The fiscal year 2002 budget request proposed to decrease spending on upgrades to existing weapons systems and procurement of

new systems by $500.0 million below the fiscal year 2001 enacted

level. Significant funding increases for modernization and transformation were deferred pending completion of the Secretary of Defense’s defense review and the Quadrennial Defense Review and

will instead be reflected in the budget request for fiscal year 2003.

However, the committee notes that the uncertain budget situation raises doubt that funds required for a significant and sustained transformation of U.S. forces will be available in the future

9

without major reductions to current defense programs. The committee urges the administration to address this situation with a

clear and sustainable modernization program.

The committee bill would authorize the requested amount for a

number of major modernization programs, including development

and procurement of new tactical fighter aircraft—$3.2 billion for

the F/A–18E/F Super Hornet and $3.9 billion for the F–22 Raptor— and $3.5 billion for the purchase of 15 C–17 strategic airlift aircraft. To sustain Navy modernization, the committee authorizes

$3.0 billion for three DDG–51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers, $2.3

billion for one SSN–774 Virginia class attack submarine, and $370.8 million for one T–AKE auxiliary cargo and ammunition

ship. To sustain Army modernization, the committee authorizes

$662.6 million for production of the interim armored vehicle, $590.2

million for upgrades to the M–1 Abrams tank, and $467.4 million

to procure medium tactical vehicles to replace the Army’s aging

fleet of medium trucks.

Developing revolutionary military capabilities

The ability of the U.S. military to transform itself with revolutionary capabilities demands robust investments today in a wide

range of technologies. The fiscal year 2002 budget request for defense science and technology programs was short of the administration’s stated three percent goal for defense science and technology

investments.

To address this shortfall, the committee recommends increases of

more than $200 million for defense science and technology. In addition to science and technology designed to support other committee

priorities described elsewhere—such as readiness and ensuring

U.S. forces can meet nontraditional threats—the additional funding

authorized by the committee would focus new resources on advanced materials and manufacturing technologies ($40.7 million),

on programs aimed at developing next-generation network centric

warfare capabilities ($27.5 million), and on research into

nanotechnologies that will enable advances in critical defense electronics, sensors, and communications systems ($12.0 million).

The committee also recommends a provision to facilitate the

rapid transition of new technologies from science and technology

programs into acquisition programs and the field. Building on similar successful initiatives within the Defense Department, the provision would direct the Secretary of Defense to designate a senior defense official to act as an advocate for technology transition; to establish a fund to carry out jointly-funded technology transition

projects with the military services; and to develop outreach programs and new corporate agreements to facilitate the rapid transition of cutting-edge technologies into defense acquisition programs.

Sustaining Army transformation

The committee continues to support the effort initiated by Army

Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki in 1999 to transform the Army

into a lighter and more lethal, survivable and tactically mobile

force capable of meeting the full spectrum of defense challenges.

Despite increasing funding for this transformation in recent years,

the committee remains concerned about the Army’s ability to fund

modernization of the existing legacy force to maintain current operVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
10

ational readiness, field an interim force capability, and conduct the

robust research and development effort needed to create a lighter,

more mobile Objective Force by fiscal year 2010. Excluding funding

for programs transferred to the Army from the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, the fiscal year 2002 budget request would actually decrease Army procurement in real terms by $630.0 million

from the fiscal year 2001 level. The committee recommendations

would add more than $185 million to the Army’s transformation

programs.

To support the Army’s interim force, the committee bill would

authorize $3.7 million above the budget request to fund training

shortfalls for the new Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs). The

committee believes that the development and fielding of the Objective Force must remain the top priority of the Army’s transformation. Toward that end, the committee bill would authorize

$43.1 million to support transformation to the Objective Force,

fully funding all the Objective Force priorities on the Army’s list

of unfunded requirements in fiscal year 2002.

The committee also supports the Army’s transformation efforts

by recommending increased funding above the administration’s request to integrate revolutionary technologies into future ground

and air vehicles and infantry systems, including an increase of

$62.5 million in science and technology programs to improve the

lethality, efficiency and affordability of Army systems, and an increase of $28.3 million to develop an improved communications

suite for the Comanche helicopter. The committee bill authorized

$20.0 million to accelerate the application of quieter and more fuel

efficient hybrid electric drive technologies for future ground combat

vehicles.

Transforming naval forces

The administration’s budget request proposed decommissioning

and scrapping two of the four Trident strategic missile submarines

that might otherwise be modified to carry Tomahawk cruise missiles. Given the increasing reliance of U.S. forces on Tomahawk

missiles in military operations, the committee believes that the

Navy should retain the option of converting all four submarines,

and recommends an increase of $307.0 million to preserve this option. To assist Navy efforts to modernize the submarine fleet with

new capabilities, the committee recommends an increase of $27.0

million to accelerate development and fielding of a common combat

control system for all attack and ballistic missile submarines.

The committee approves the budget request of $643.5 million for

the DD–21 land attack destroyer, which has the potential to provide new capabilities in support of land forces ashore and prevent

potential opponents from using anti-access strategies to thwart

U.S. objectives. The DD–21 land attack destroyer also holds the potential to reduce crew size by roughly 75 percent, greatly reducing

the number of personnel exposed to hostile action and the demand

for recruiting and retaining personnel.

Unmanned vehicle initiatives

The committee continues to support the development and fielding

of unmanned combat systems—aerial vehicles and ground vehicles—designed to increase warfighting capabilities and reduce the

11

risk to military personnel. Last year, the committee directed the

DOD to aggressively develop and field unmanned combat systems

in the air and on the ground so that within 10 years, one-third of

U.S. operational deep strike aircraft would be unmanned, and within 15 years, one-third of our ground combat vehicles would be unmanned. The committee authorized an additional $200.0 million for

this purpose in fiscal year 2001.

This year, the committee builds on that initiative by recom- mending an increase of more than $80 million to fund various highpriority efforts identified by the military services to develop and

field unmanned vehicles. This additional funding includes $16.0

million to improve the Air Force’s Global Hawk UAV with signals intelligence capabilities; $11.0 million to accelerate the development of unmanned ground combat vehicles; and $9.0 million to accelerate work on the Navy variant of the uninhabited combat air

vehicle (UCAV–N). The committee also recommends increased

funding to accelerate the fielding of enhanced UAV capabilities, including increases of $16.2 million to upgrade sensors on Army

Shadow UAVs; $7.0 million to accelerate the use of UAVs for chemical and biological agent sensing; and $6.0 million for increased

procurement of Air Force Predator UAVs.

Improving the capability of U.S. forces to meet nontraditional threats

U.S. military forces must be prepared to deal effectively with

nontraditional threats, including terrorism, unconventional means

of delivering weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the proliferation

of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, the flow of illegal narcotics into the United States and cyber-attacks on critical military

infrastructure. Toward that end, the committee recommends increases of more than $600 million for new initiatives to improve

the capabilities of U.S. forces against these threats.

Combating terrorism initiative

The committee welcomed the administration’s budget request of

$5.6 billion—an increase of $1.0 billion over fiscal year 2001—to

continue improving the ability of U.S. forces to deter and defend

against the growing terrorist threat. Nevertheless, more can be

done in several critical areas, including antiterrorism/force protection, counterterrorism training, and research and development to

protect U.S. forces against WMD attacks and to help them support

domestic efforts to manage the deadly consequences of terrorist attacks using these weapons on U.S. soil.

The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities has

spent a great deal of time analyzing the military’s ability to meet

these challenges. Despite consistent increases in funding in recent

years to defend U.S. forces from potential WMD attacks, General

Thomas Schwartz, Commander in Chief, U.S. Forces Korea, testified before the committee that ‘‘We believe force protection funding

shortfalls will be significant for the fiscal year 2002, and we need

your help to ensure our American personnel are properly protected.’’

To address some of these shortfalls, the committee’s Combating

Terrorism Initiative includes an increase of $217.2 million to improve the ability of U.S. forces to deter and defend against terVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
12

rorism. Approximately half of the funding increases in the committee’s initiative—$109.2 million—would support research and development aimed at detecting, defending against, and responding to

the use of weapons of mass destruction. $43.2 million is included

for research into the detection of biological and chemical weapons,

and $52.0 million is included for research into the detection, identification and measurement of WMD agents.

The other half of the additional funding in the committee’s Combating Terrorism Initiative—$108.0 million—would increase the

ability of U.S. forces to deter, and U.S. installations to defend

against, terrorist attack. The budget request left the Army with a

shortfall for installation security—the Army’s second highest unfunded priority in fiscal year 2002. The committee bill would authorize an increase of $77.7 million for minimum antiterrorism requirements at Army installations in Europe and Asia. The committee bill would also add $13.0 million for Navy procurement of

handheld explosive detectors to protect deployed vessels and research into cutting-edge standoff detection and defeat of conventional explosives, an urgent requirement identified in the aftermath of the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole.

In addition, the committee’s initiative adds $10.0 million to the

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff’s Combating Terrorism Readiness Initiative Fund to help fund high-priority needs identified by

the combatant commanders to defend against rapidly emerging

vulnerabilities and terrorist threats. Because the budget request

also left U.S. Special Operations Command with a $14.3 million

shortfall for counterterrorism training, the committee’s initiative

includes the funds to ensure special operations forces have the

highest proficiency in critical capabilities to thwart terrorist

threats.

By improving the ability of U.S. forces to deter and defend

against terrorist attacks involving biological and chemical weapons,

the committee’s Combating Terrorism Initiative also would enhance the military’s ability to assist federal, state and local authorities in mitigating the consequences of a terrorist attack on

U.S. soil involving these weapons of mass destruction. In testimony

before the Emerging Threats Subcommittee, DOD officials highlighted the need for stronger DOD management and oversight of

the Weapons of Mass Destruction—Civil Support Teams, teams of

National Guard personnel who are specially trained and equipped

to deploy and assess suspected biological, chemical, nuclear or radiological events in support of local authorities. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a detailed report

to the Congress outlining the Department’s policy and plans for assisting civilian authorities in consequence management, including

the role of these National Guard teams.

Finally, while the Department has made some progress in improving and coordinating its policies, programs and budget for combating terrorism, the committee believes that the Department can

more clearly delineate its mission and responsibilities in this arena

and better leverage defense resources to combat terrorism. The

committee urges the Department to develop a coherent strategy

and to prioritize its policies, plans and procedures for deterring, defending against, and managing the consequences of terrorism at

home and abroad.

13

Combating proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

Earlier this year, in A Report Card on the Department of Energy’s Nonproliferation Programs with Russia, a bipartisan task force

chaired by former Senator Howard Baker and former White House

Counsel Lloyd Cutler concluded that ‘‘The most urgent unmet national security threat to the United States today is the danger that

weapons of mass destruction or weapons-usable material in Russia

could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states and

used against American troops abroad or citizens at home.’’ The committee believes that the Cooperative Threat Reduction

(CTR) program—which has helped to successfully destroy or dismantle more than 5,000 nuclear warheads and more than 1,000

nuclear missiles in the former Soviet Union—is critical to continuing to reduce the threats posed by offensive nuclear weapons,

their delivery systems, and related materials. In addition to authorizing the budget request of $403.0 million

for the CTR program, the committee recommends an increase of

$56.8 million over the budget request for Department of Energy

programs to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and related-expertise. Of this amount, $15.0 million would

support the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program to help

prevent Russian and other scientists from the former Soviet Union

from exporting their knowledge of weapons of mass destruction to

countries of concern. Another $14.5 million would support the Nuclear Cities Initiative to help find new, non-weapons jobs for displaced Russian nuclear complex workers and to assist the Russian

Federation in reducing the size of its nuclear weapons complex.

Other initiatives to meet nontraditional threats

The committee recommends a number of initiatives to improve

the ability of U.S. forces to meet nontraditional threats through improvements in weapons systems, sensors and defensive systems.

The committee bill includes increases of $96.0 million to improve

the ability of P–3 surveillance aircraft to contribute to future missions in shallow coastal waters; $44.0 million for night-time air

warfare to improve the ability of Navy and Marine Corps AV–8B

harrier aircraft to employ precision-guided munitions and to finish

development of panoramic night vision goggles for the Air Force;

and $42.0 million to accelerate electronic warfare programs and to

improve the defenses of combat aircraft.

To help the Navy and Marine Corps defend against the unconventional threat of small boats such as that used in the attack on

the USS Cole, the committee recommends $20.0 million for the procurement of Hellfire missiles and $15.0 million for Close-in Weapons System upgrades. Finally, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for an infrared search and track system to

help the Navy identify incoming cruise missiles and $18.0 million

for modifications to NULKA decoys.

Ballistic missile defense

Ballistic missile defense was one of the most critical issues faced

by the committee this year, and the committee’s views and recommendations in this area are described in greater detail elsewhere in this report. The committee recommends authorization of

14

$7.0 billion for ballistic missile defense programs for fiscal year

2002, an increase of 37 percent compared to the fiscal year 2001

level.

Ballistic missile threats come in two distinct categories: theater

ballistic missiles that threaten U.S. forces abroad and allies, and

intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) that directly threaten

U.S. territory. Theater ballistic missiles have long threatened forward deployed U.S. forces; countries such as North Korea, Iraq,

Iran, China, Syria and Libya possess such missiles, most of which

are capable of carrying chemical or biological weapons.

Given the real and growing threat of theater ballistic missiles to

U.S. forces abroad and allies, the committee supports development

and deployment of improved theater missile defense systems as

soon as possible after rigorous testing has proven these systems to

be operationally effective. Toward that end, the committee approved an increase of $625.7 million, or 30 percent, over the fiscal

year 2001 funding level for theater missile defense systems such as

Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC–3) and Theater High Altitude

Area Defense (THAAD) and added $76.0 million for upgrades to the

joint U.S.-Israeli Arrow program.

The number of potential adversaries with operational ICBMs is

far smaller than those with theater ballistic missiles. Although

Russia has roughly 1,000 ICBMs, the Cold War is over and the

United States and Russia have agreed not to target their missiles

at each other. China has a small arsenal of about 20 ICBMs which

do not have warheads and fuel installed on a daily basis. This force

is expected to be modernized and expanded in the coming years.

North Korea is developing an ICBM capable of reaching the United

States, although it has voluntarily suspended its long-range missile

flight test program for the time being. Other potential adversaries,

such as Iran, may also develop ICBMs in the future, particularly

with assistance from other nations.

Given the potential, longer-term ICBM threat to the United

States from such countries, the committee continues to support an

aggressive research, development and testing program for defenses

against ICBMs—i.e., national missile defense (NMD) ‘‘ to give the

United States the option to deploy such a system, provided four criteria are met: (1) the threat should warrant deployment; (2) the

system should be demonstrated through realistic testing to be operationally effective; (3) the cost should be weighed against other critical defense needs; and (4) the deployment should make the United

States more secure, taking into account the actions of other nations.

The administration has said it intends to develop a national missile defense system aimed at limited missile threats from nations

such as North Korea. To support national missile defense, the committee approved an increase of $1.1 billion, or 20 percent, over the

fiscal year 2001 funding level for national missile defense, including funding for a new midcourse test bed.

However, the committee is concerned about (1) the lack of clarity

regarding potential conflicts between the Department’s missile defense testing schedule and the ABM Treaty; (2) the administration’s proposal for the greatest funding increase in response to one

of the least likely threats to the United States—a long-range balVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
15

listic missile attack; and (3) the lack of specific plans for expenditure of missile defense funding.

Moreover, the administration appears determined to withdraw

from the ABM Treaty if a testing activity conflicts with it. The

committee made repeated efforts to obtain information from the

Defense Department as to whether any NMD testing activities

funded in the bill conflict with the ABM Treaty, and was assured

that such a determination would be forthcoming and that Congress

would have that information before having to decide whether to authorize expenditures for such activities. That information has not

been forwarded to the committee.

Therefore, the committee recommends that expenditures for any

missile defense activities in fiscal year 2002 that would conflict

with the ABM Treaty, as determined by the President, should be

conditioned upon Congress specifically voting to approve such expenditures, under expedited procedures. This provision does not

limit the President’s power to withdraw from the ABM Treaty. The

Supreme Court has determined that the question of whether the

President can withdraw from a treaty without Senate approval is

a political, non-judiciable issue. However, Congress has the exclusive power to authorize and appropriate funds. If Congress approves funds for activities that would conflict with a treaty, and if

such activities ultimately leave the United States less secure, Congress would bear joint responsibility for the consequences.

The administration requested $8.3 billion for ballistic missile defense programs, a $3.0 billion, or 57 percent, increase in missile defense funding over the fiscal year 2001 level. This increase far exceeds the 10 percent increase for the Department of Defense as a

whole, even though the Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that ballistic

missiles are the least likely means of delivering a weapon of mass

destruction to the United States. While reducing funding in other

critical defense areas, such as modernization, the administration

proposes the greatest funding increase in response to the least likely threat. Therefore, while approving a substantial funding increase of 37 percent for ballistic missile defense compared to the

fiscal year 2001 level, the committee has identified a significant

portion of the proposed missile defense funding increase ($1.3 billion) that is poorly justified and would better be used to meet more

pressing defense needs.

Improving the efficiency of DOD programs and operations

Despite many years of management reform efforts, the Department of Defense continues to waste billions of dollars annually operating excess and unneeded infrastructure, using antiquated financial management systems, adhering to inefficient approaches in

the acquisition of weapons systems, and giving insufficient attention to the management of contracts for services. The Secretary of

Defense testified that the Department should be able to achieve

five percent savings across the board through management improvements. The committee agrees that the Department should be

able to save billions of dollars through improved efficiency of defense operations and programs, and recommends a number of provisions to assist the Department in this effort.

16

Base realignment and closure

The committee recommends an important and long-needed step

to improve the efficiency of defense operations and the effectiveness

of military forces by authorizing an additional round of base realignment and closure (BRAC) in fiscal year 2003. Our top civilian

and uniformed military leaders have requested this authority from

the Congress for the last five years, and the committee believes

that the arguments for allowing the closure of additional facilities

are clear and compelling: the Department has excess facilities, closing bases saves money, and the military services have higher priority uses that could be funded with those savings.

The savings from past BRAC actions are significant. The General

Accounting Office reported in July 2001 that, ‘‘audits of BRAC financial records have shown that BRAC has enabled DOD to save

billions of dollars.’’ According to the Department of Defense, previous base closure rounds are already saving $6.0 billion a year.

The committee also believes that the reshaping of our base structure is essential to the full implementation of the Quadrennial Defense Review and the successful transformation of U.S. forces.

Service contracts

The committee believes that the Defense Department can more

effectively manage the $50.0 billion it spends annually on the procurement of services such as administrative and management support. Despite repeated criticism from the General Accounting Office

(GAO), the DOD Inspector General (DOD IG), and this committee,

the Department has failed to compete requirements for the delivery

of services, has barely begun to implement requirements for performance-based services contracting, and does not even appear to

have considered instituting best commercial practices such as centralizing key functions, improving personnel skills and capabilities,

conducting spending analyses, rationalizing supplier bases, and expanding the use of cross-functional, commodity-based teams. The

GAO and the DOD IG have found that managers in the Defense

Department failed to compete services work on up to three-quarters

of the cases they examined. Moreover, the Department has failed

to provide its acquisition professionals with the training and guidance needed to manage the Department’s service contracts in a

cost-effective manner.

The committee recommends several provisions to improve the

management of service contracts that, if fully implemented, should

save the Department billions of dollars annually. To promote the

use of best commercial practices, the committee recommends requiring the Department to establish a management structure for

services contracts, establish a data collection system to provide key

information for management decisions, and institute a system of

program reviews for larger contracts that is comparable to the system already in place for major weapons systems. Other committee

recommendations would achieve savings by establishing annual

savings goals for services contracts and strengthening competition

requirements for the award of task orders for services under multiple award contracts.

17

Acquisition reform

The committee recommends a number of initiatives to improve

the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department’s acquisition system. To help shorten the acquisition cycle for weapons systems, the

committee recommends requiring the Department to reduce program risk prior to initiating a major defense acquisition program.

To ensure the Department has sufficient staff to manage requirements in a cost-effective manner, the committee recommends a

moratorium on further cuts in the acquisition workforce. Finally,

the committee would authorize the Department to utilize competitive, cost saving methods to purchase products available from Federal Prison Industries (FPI).

Making better use of modernization funding

The committee recommends adjustments to two major acquisition

programs that will not require the level of funding requested in the

budget request. The committee remains concerned about the ability

of the Marine Corps and the Air Force to meet the requirements

established for the V–22 tilt-rotor Osprey aircraft, and agrees with

the Panel to Review the V–22 Program that production should be

kept to a minimum sustaining rate in order to minimize the number of aircraft requiring retrofit at a later date. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $592.3 million to the V–22 program, transferring these funds to other high priority defense programs.

The committee also concluded that the budget request for the

Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program included excess funds for engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) but no funding to

sustain the two competing contractor teams until a source selection

decision is made and implemented. That decision, originally scheduled for October 2001, is supposed to decide which of the two competing contractor teams will continue on with the EMD phase of

the program. However, based on likely delays in the Defense Department’s strategy review and in completing the range of tasks required in the Quadrennial Defense Review, it appears that the

EMD program will not be launched on time. Therefore, the committee recommends a net reduction of $247.2 million to the JSF

program, transferring these funds to other high priority defense

programs.

Financial management systems

The committee recommends several provisions to address the Defense Department’s seriously deficient financial management systems and its continuing inability to produce reliable financial information or auditable financial statements. The committee bill would

authorize the Department to redirect resources from its efforts to

prepare and audit financial statements to improving financial management systems, policies, and procedures. The committee also recommends the establishment of a management process through

which the Department should be able to address problems with the

reliability of its financial systems and data.

During his nomination hearing, the Secretary of Defense assured

the committee that improving the Department’s financial management systems ‘‘will certainly be among the top priorities’’ of his tenure. The committee is convinced that even with the dedicated supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
18

port of the Secretary of Defense, strong management attention will

be required to produce the reliable and timely information needed

to make sound resource decisions. The committee’s recommendations are designed to hasten the achievement of that goal.

Explanation of funding summary

The administration’s amended budget request for the national

defense function of the federal budget for fiscal year 2002 as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was $343.3 billion, of which $260.1 billion was for programs that require specific

funding authorization.

The following table summarizes both the direct authorizations

and equivalent budget authority levels for fiscal year 2002 defense

programs. The columns relating to the authorization request do not

include funding for the following items: pay and benefits for military personnel, military construction authorizations provided in

prior years; and other small portions of the defense budget that are

not within the jurisdiction of this committee or that do not require

an annual authorization.

Funding for all programs in the national defense function is reflected in the columns related to the budget authority request and

the total budget authority implication of the authorizations in this

bill. The committee recommends funding for national defense programs totaling $343.3 billion in budget authority, which is consistent with the level requested by the administration in the fiscal

year 2002 budget request.

The funding level recommended by the committee exceeds the

budget authority level for the national defense function included in

the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2002 by

$18.4 billion, the additional amount requested by the President in

his amended budget request for fiscal year 2002 on June 27, 2001.

Section 217 of the Budget Resolution allows the Chairman of the

Senate Budget Committee to increase the funding level for the national defense budget function if the President submits a budget

amendment requesting additional resources for national defense

and the Armed Services or Appropriations Committee reports a bill

providing additional resources for defense above those contained in

the Budget Resolution. However, the Budget Resolution prohibits

an increase in defense spending that would reduce the on-budget

surplus below the level of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust

Fund surplus.

Since the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee had not

made a determination pursuant to section 217 at the time the committee ordered this bill reported, the committee has included a series of provisions in title XIII of the bill, which are described in

more detail elsewhere in this report, that would reduce the total

amount authorized to be appropriated in this act if the full amount

of the increase requested by the President is not approved.

The funding summary table that follows shows the full amount

of the authorizations in this bill and does not reflect the impact of

the potential reductions provided for in title XIII.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

(27)

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT

Explanation of tables

The following tables provide the program-level detailed guidance

for the funding authorized in Title I of the Act. The tables also display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year

2002 budget request for procurement programs and indicate those

programs for which the committee either increased or decreased

the requested amounts. As in the past, the administration may not

exceed the authorized amounts (as set forth in the table or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in the Department of Defense’s budget justification documents) without a reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures.

Unless noted in the report, funding changes to the budget request

are made without prejudice.

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Chemical agents and munitions destruction, Defense (sec.

106)

The budget request for the Army included $1.2 billion for the

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction (CAMD) program:

$200.4 million for research and development; $789.0 million for operations and maintenance; and $164.2 million for procurement. The

request also included $187.5 million for military construction described elsewhere in this report. These funds were requested in an

Army account, contrary to the requirements of current law.

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

level of funding requested, although in the account required by law:

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense. This level of

funding would permit the chemical demilitarization program to

proceed with all its component parts toward the deadline for the

safe and effective destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile under the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Section 1521(f) of title 50, United States Code, requires that

funds for this program shall not be included in the budget accounts

for any military department. The committee is disappointed that

funds for this program have been included in the Army budget accounts, despite the statutory requirement to the contrary. The committee expects the Department of Defense to comply with this requirement and fund the Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction program accordingly. The committee recommends a provision

that would provide funding for chemical demilitarization in a Department of Defense budget account.

28

In May 2001, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,

Technology and Logistics designated the chemical demilitarization

program as an Acquisition Category–1D program, which means it

must be reviewed by the Defense Acquisition Board and approved

by the Under Secretary. The committee strongly supports the

chemical demilitarization program and commends the Department

for increasing the level of oversight by the Office of the Secretary

of Defense, which should help streamline program decision making

and management.

The Department is conducting a defense-wide review of the

chemical demilitarization program, including all its components:

chemical stockpile disposal; the non-stockpile materiel program, alternative technologies and approaches; the assembled chemical

weapons assessment; and the chemical stockpile emergency preparedness program. The review is expected to conclude in the fall

of 2001, with recommendations for how to proceed with demilitarizing the remaining stockpile sites. The committee directs the

Department to provide the results of this review to the congressional defense committees when it is completed.

SUBTITLE B—ARMY PROGRAMS

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

Army Aircraft

UH–60 Black Hawk

The budget request included $174.5 million for 12 UH–60L Black

Hawk helicopters and eight medical evacuation mission equipment

package modifications. The most recent Army aviation modernization plan identifies an outstanding requirement for an additional

240 Black Hawks. The committee recommends an increase of

$102.5 million for 10 additional UH–60L helicopters to be fielded in accordance with Army priorities, a total authorization of $277.0

million.

TH–67 training helicopter

The budget request included no funding for TH–67 helicopters for

aviation training. The Army aviation modernization plan establishes a requirement of 175 TH–67 aircraft until fiscal year 2014,

when the requirement rises to 195, and then levels out at 210 the

following year when the last of the OH–58 helicopters in the training base is retired. The committee notes that the Army is only 21

TH–67 helicopters short of the 175 requirement. These remaining

21 aircraft are essential for the Army’s transition to Flight School

XXI and to the planned divestiture of a large number of the UH– 1 and OH–58 A/C aircraft currently in use at the Army Aviation

Center Flight School. The committee recommends an authorization

of $34.1 million for the 21 TH–67 helicopters needed to fulfill the

Army’s requirement for training helicopters through fiscal year

2014.

AH–64 Apache modifications

The budget request included $38.5 million for AH–64 Apache

modifications. Retrofit of the AH–64A Apaches is the second highest priority in the recapitalization category of the Army’s list of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. This will be accomplished

through recapitalization by spares. The committee recommends an

increase of $11.8 million to address that shortfall, a total authorization of $50.3 million.

CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications (multiyear program)

The budget request included $277.5 million for CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications, including $121.0 million for the CH–47F Improved Cargo Helicopter (ICH) upgrade program. This program extends CH–47F airframe service life, introduces an open electronic

architecture, and reduces operations and support costs. The fiscal

year 2001 budget request forecasted the inclusion of funding to upgrade 11 CH–47D aircraft to the CH–47F version in the fiscal year

2002 budget request. However, the fiscal year 2002 budget request

included no funding for aircraft conversion because of a program

restructuring necessitated, in part, by an increase in production

facilitization costs.

The committee is concerned with the Army’s deferral of the CH–

47F upgrade program, which will force the Army to continue to

sustain and rely upon an aging CH–47D helicopter. The committee

notes that the revised program plans to induct eight aircraft for

conversion to CH–47F in fiscal year 2003. The committee expects

49

the Army to fully execute the $121.0 million in the revised fiscal

year 2002 ICH program, including $32.0 million for production engineering of a new, ‘‘lean’’ forward cabin, $51.0 million for initial

production facilitization, and the remainder for training materials,

avionics upgrades, program management and other associated program costs. The committee believes that it is essential to begin the

upgrade program no later than fiscal year 2003.

CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications (multiyear program)

(advanced procurement)

The budget request included $17.7 million for CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications advanced procurement. The CH–47 cargo helicopter modifications advanced procurement funds the delivery of

long lead time avionics and airframe components for the Improved

Cargo Helicopter (ICH) upgrade program. Because of program

delays, the Army failed to execute the $26.0 million authorized for

advanced procurement of long lead items authorized in the Floyd

D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.

The committee notes that the $17.7 million in the fiscal year

2002 budget request would fund the procurement of long lead items

for eight CH–47D helicopters to be inducted into the CH–47F ICH

upgrade program in fiscal year 2003. The committee expects the

Army to fully execute that funding and begin the upgrade program

no later than fiscal year 2003.

Longbow

The budget request included $918.1 million for Apache Longbow

upgrades. Increasing the number of critically short components in

the pool of retrofit parts for Apache Longbow helicopters is the

highest priority in the recapitalization category of the Army’s list

of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. The Army intends

to apply these parts to AH–64A aircraft on the Longbow re-manufacture line, or as a post-fielding retrofit to those previously remanufactured AH–64D Apache Longbow. The committee recommends an increase of $47.0 million for this purpose, a total authorization of $965.1 million.

Avionics support equipment

The budget request included $7.5 million for Aviators’ Night Vision Imaging System (ANVIS), AN/AVS–6 goggles. The increased

capability provided by the improved version of the AN/AVS–6 goggle yields enhanced mission performance and safety of flight over

what is now possible using currently fielded systems. The committee supports fielding the improved version as quickly as possible, and recommends an increase of $2.5 million for that purpose,

a total authorization of $10.0 million.

Army Missiles

STINGER system summary

The budget request included $45.9 million for Stinger missiles,

an increase of nearly $23.0 million over last year’s estimate for the

fiscal year 2002 budget. The committee does not believe that such

a large increase is warranted, and that a portion of this funding

50

can therefore be shifted from this legacy system to higher priority

requirements on the Army’s list of unfunded requirements for fiscal

year 2002. The committee recommends maintaining Stinger production at that earlier estimate, a decrease of $22.5 million, a total

authorization of $23.4 million.

Line of sight anti-tank system summary

The budget request included $11.4 million for the Line of Sight

Anti-Tank (LOSAT) system, which provides highly lethal, accurate

missile fire against heavy armor and field fortifications at ranges

exceeding tank main gun range. The request included funding for

long lead items for the 2004 production of missiles, which can be

deferred for a year. The committee recommends a decrease of $2.0

million, a total authorization of $9.4 million.

Multiple launch rocket system

The budget request included $148.3 million for Multiple Launch

Rocket Systems (MLRS). The committee recognizes the importance

of upgrading MLRS launchers to enable them to fire the advanced

Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) munitions. The upgrade

also reduces ready-to-fire and reload times, reduces operational

costs and increases launcher and crew survivability. The Army is

short of the number of upgraded M270A1 launchers needed to meet

its objective for the active Army and National Guard battalions of

the heavy counter-attack corps. The committee notes that the Army

has included two battalions of upgraded MLRS launchers on its list

of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends an increase of $36.0 million for one additional M270A1

MLRS battalion to be fielded according to Army priorities.

The committee also notes a 58 percent increase in the budget request from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level for engineering

services. The committee believes that such an increase has been inadequately justified and is not warranted. The committee recommends a decrease of $10.3 million in engineering services, a

total authorization of $174.0 million.

Army tactical missile system—system summary

The budget request included $34.3 million for the Army tactical

missile system (ATACMS). The June 2001 developmental test of

the ATACMS BAT brilliant anti-armor submuntion was unsuccessful, requiring another developmental test prior to the initial operational test and evaluation. The committee recommends a decrease

of $9.0 million in ATACMS Block 1A procurement to fund the additional testing of the ATACMS BAT, a total authorization of $25.3

million.

AVENGER modifications

The budget request included $18.0 million for Avenger modifications, a 166 percent increase from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated

level. The committee does not believe that such an increase is warranted and can be sustained in future years of the defense program. Therefore, a portion of this funding can be shifted from this

legacy system to higher priority programs on the Army’s list of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. The committee recVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
51

ommends a decrease of $6.1 million, for a total authorization of

$11.9 million.

Tube-launched, optically tracked, wire command-link guided, improved target acquisition system modifications

The budget request included $96.2 million for Tube-launched,

Optically tracked, Wire command-link guided, Improved Target Acquisition System modifications, a 50 percent increase from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level. The committee does not believe

that such an increase is warranted and can be sustained in future

years of the defense program. Therefore, a portion of the funding

can be shifted from this legacy system to higher priority programs

on the Army’s list of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002.

The committee recommends a decrease of $35.4 million, a total authorization of $60.8 million.

Multiple launch rocket system modifications

The budget request included $23.6 million for Multiple Launch

Rocket System modifications, a 44 percent increase from the fiscal

year 2001 appropriated level. The committee does not believe that

such an increase is warranted and can be sustained in future years

of the defense program. Therefore, a portion of the funding can be

shifted from this legacy system to higher priority requirements on

the Army’s list of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. The

committee recommends a decrease of $3.0 million, a total authorization of $20.6 million.

Army Ammunition

Remote area denial artillery munition

The committee understands that the Army is awaiting a decision

by the Secretary of Defense on whether to continue with the Remote Area Denial Artillery Munition (RADAM) program. The

RADAM delivers both anti-personnel and anti-tank mines, and is

designed to allow for remote laying of minefields. The budget request included $48.2 million to procure 104 RADAM rounds, and

the Army notes that an additional $27.4 million in fiscal year 2001

funds is currently being withheld pending the Secretary’s decision.

The committee believes that the combination of fiscal year 2001

funds, along with a reduced amount of fiscal year 2002 funds, will

be sufficient to maintain a robust production capability should the

Secretary decide favorably on the RADAM program. Therefore, the

committee recommends a decrease of $20.8 million, to maintain

funding at the fiscal year 2001 level.

Artillery ammunition

The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million ($10.0

million for the Army and $10.0 million for the Marine Corps) to

procure additional 155mm M795 High Explosive rounds. These

funds will mitigate training and war reserve shortfalls and achieve

economies of scale, resulting in more cost-effective procurement.

52

Anti-personnel obstacle breaching system

The budget request included $9.4 million for the Anti-Personnel

Obstacle Breaching System (APOBS), a two-man system used to

breach a cleared path through minefields and wire obstacles. The

committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million to purchase additional APOBS, allowing earlier fielding and training for a larger

number of Army light units.

Other Army Procurement

Heavy expanded mobile tactical truck extended service program

The budget request included $31.3 million for the Heavy Expanded Mobile Tactical Truck (HEMTT) extended service program.

Funding is included to complete the HEMTT requirement for fielding to the third Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT). However,

other major equipment requirements for the third IBCT, such as

the interim armored vehicles (IAV), will not be funded until fiscal

year 2003, and will not be produced until calendar years 2004 and

2005. The committee believes the funding for the third IBCT

HEMTTs can be deferred until fiscal year 2003, and the fielding

schedule aligned with that of the IAVs. The committee recommends

a decrease of $5.0 million, a total authorization of $26.3 million.

Super high frequency terminals

The budget request included $17.0 million to purchase super

high frequency (SHF) terminals.

The Army had been acquiring systems under a program called

the tri-band SHF tactical satellite terminal (STAR–T). The Army

terminated this contract in June 2001 because of poor contractor

performance. Since then, the Army has indicated that they would

like to buy some commercially available satellite terminal, even if

that system does not meet requirements. The committee would

support the Army’s use of a spiral development approach for meeting requirements. However, the Army appears to be laying out a

plan to spend the available funds on interim systems that may not

provide the spiral migration path they seek.

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $17.0 million and directs the Army to propose a plan for meeting these requirements in the fiscal year 2003 budget request based on a more

fully formed assessment of the available alternatives and the best

capability migration path.

Secure enroute communications package

The budget request included $2.5 million in Army communications and electronics, modification of in-service equipment. These

funds would begin purchases of a so-called secure enroute communications package—improved (SECOMP-I). SECOMP-I is a lightweight, compact communication system that is designed to roll on

and roll off aircraft, and use radio systems existing on the aircraft.

The system can also be used early during a deployment to support

early arriving forces and their operations. Block I of the SECOMPI system provides for voice and limited data communications.

53

The Army plans to field a Block II version of the system that

would also provide a robust enroute mission planning and rehearsal system capability, including a flying local area network between command and subordinate troop carrying aircraft. The committee believes that accelerated fielding of the Block II capability

would be important for supporting future, short-notice deployments

that could face the Army. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $13.1 million to pay for non-recurring engineering on the Block II system,

flying local area network antenna modifications for aircraft and accelerated fielding of Block I systems.

The committee is aware that U.S. Special Operations Command

(SOCOM) has already developed similar command and control systems that include enroute planning and rehearsal capabilities. Additionally, SOCOM and the Air Force have also completed extensive research and engineering efforts to configure C–17 and C–130

aircraft to accept these roll on/roll off packages and have modified

several aircraft to accept them. The Air Force and SOCOM are considering a plan to modify the entire C–17 fleet. The committee

urges the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence), the Assistant Secretary of the Army

(Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) and the Assistant Secretary

of the Air Force (Acquisition) to review the SOCOM/Air Force program to avoid possible duplication of effort and to ensure maximum

interoperability of command and control systems.

Army data distribution system (data radio)

The budget request included $46.3 million for the Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS) and the EPLRS Net Manager System. EPLRS is the critical mobile data radio required to

establish the Army’s wireless Tactical Internet. More than $100.0

million in funding for additional EPLRS to digitize the force is a

priority on the Army’s list of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for

additional EPLRS, a total authorization of $56.3 million.

Area common user system modifications program

The budget request included $113.1 million for modifications to

the Area Common User System (ACUS) to upgrade echelons above

corps communications networks. This program supports the

downsizing of ACUS legacy systems through the procurement and

fielding of the Single Shelter Switch (SSS) and High Mobility Digital Group Multiplexer assemblage (HMDA) systems. Unfortunately, the budget request funded no SSSs or HMDAs, leaving the

Army well short of its requirements for these systems. Therefore,

the committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million for the procurement of additional SSS and HMDA systems, a total authorization of $153.1 million.

Tactical unmanned aerial vehicle procurement

The budget request included $84.3 million in Other Procurement,

Army to buy tactical unmanned aerial vehicle (TUAV) systems.

The Army has been buying TUAV systems in a low rate initial

production (LRIP), pending completion of operational testing this

54

year. The Army intends to upgrade some of the TUAV systems and

payloads for the full rate production version of the system to a socalled ‘‘Block II configuration,’’ based on development and testing

results since the Army began buying these LRIP systems.

The committee believes that it would be much more efficient for

the Army to operate, support and train for using a single TUAV

system configuration. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $16.2 million to upgrade LRIP TUAV systems, including

their sensor payloads, data links, and avionics suites, to the Block

II configuration.

Long range advanced scout surveillance system

The budget request included $44.5 million for the Long Range

Advanced Scout Surveillance System (LRAS3). Procuring the Commander’s Remote Display for LRAS3, which allows scout observers

and vehicle commanders to view the same sight picture, is a high

priority in the Objective Force category of the Army’s list of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends an increase of $1.6 million for the Commander’s Remote

Display, a total authorization of $46.1 million.

SUBTITLE C—NAVY PROGRAMS

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

Virginia class submarine program (sec. 121)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify section 123(b)(1) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. The provision would authorize the

Secretary of the Navy to enter into contracts for the procurement

of material in economic order quantities, when cost savings are

achievable, for up to seven Virginia-class submarines. This authority would apply to boats to be procured during the period from fiscal years 2003 through 2007.

Multiyear procurement authority for F/A–18E/F aircraft engines (sec. 122)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide authority for the Secretary of the Navy to enter into a multiyear contract for the procurement of F/A–18E/F engines. The budget request included $3.2 billion to continue buying F/A– 18E/F aircraft under a multiyear procurement program.

The Navy has not requested authority to enter into any

multiyear contracts to buy the engines for these aircraft. Nevertheless, the Navy has informed the committee that the Department

would be able to save money by expanding the multiyear contacting

approach to cover the engines. The Navy estimates that it could

save roughly $40 million over the next five years by acquiring the

engine under a multiyear contract. Since it is clear that the Navy

will be buying the F/A–18E/F aircraft in any case, the committee

believes that the Congress should provide the Secretary of the

Navy authority to obtain these savings. The committee believes

that, if the Navy chooses to proceed on this matter, the Navy and

the contractor should work to achieve even greater savings than

the current estimates.

V–22 Osprey aircraft (sec. 123)

The budget request included a proposal to restructure the V–22

tilt-rotor aircraft program to implement recommendations from the

Panel to Review the V–22 Program. To implement this restructured

program, the budget request included: (1) $546.7 million in PE 64363N for continued development

of the V–22, including: (a) $318.3 million to continue logistics, flight testing, and

flight testing support, address correction of deficiencies,

and provide funding for cost overruns in the Marine Corps

(MV–22) and the Special Operations Command (CV–22)

variants;

(b) $103.2 million to: continue CV–22 development efforts; provide engine support and repair of spare parts for

CV–22 flight testing; complete CV–22 software development efforts; continue radar development testing for the

CV–22; and conduct CV–22 initial operational testing and

evaluation (IOT&E);

(c) $25.2 million for Navy field and other support activities; and

(d) $100.0 million to continue the development of two

CV–22 aircraft for IOT&E.

(2) $1.3 billion in Aircraft Procurement, Navy, including:

77

(a) $1.0 billion for buying aircraft;

(b) $48.4 million for advance procurement;

(c) $35.0 million for aircraft modifications; and

(d) $232.9 million for spare parts. (3) $136.5 million in Aircraft Procurement, Air Force, for the

Special Operations Command (SOCOM), including: (a) $95.1 million for buying aircraft;

(b) $15.0 million for advance procurement; and

(c) $26.4 million for spare parts.

The budget request also included funds in the Special Operations

Command budget for CV–22-related activities. These funds are addressed elsewhere in this report.

The committee remains very concerned about how the Marine

Corps and the Air Force are going to meet the requirements established for the V–22 program. Recognizing these requirements, the

Congress had been providing strong support to the V–22 program.

However, two aircraft were lost during calendar year 2000, costing the lives of 23 Marines, and raising significant issues about the

efficacy of the program.

There were other concerns about the program even before the

second accident. The latter accident occurred after the Navy operational testers had completed the required operational test and

evaluation. The program office was seeking a decision to proceed to

full-rate production in early December 2000, but the Director of

Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) had raised concerns

about the aircraft’s demonstrated operational suitability. These

concerns caused the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition) to delay a final decision on full-rate

production, during which time the second aircraft and crew were

lost.

As a result of these accidents, the Secretary of Defense commissioned a review by a panel of experts of all aspects of the V–22 program. That group, called the Panel to Review the V–22 Program,

conducted a review over several months. Earlier this year, the committee heard testimony from the Panel on its report. The Panel recommended that the Department, ‘‘Proceed with the V–22 Program,

but temporarily reduce production to a minimum sustaining level

to provide funds for a Development Maturity Phase, and keep to

a minimum the number of aircraft requiring retrofit.’’ The Panel’s

report made a number of other, more detailed recommendations.

While the Panel was conducting its review, allegations of falsification of maintenance data were lodged against members of the

Marine Corps. The Secretary of Defense, in part at the suggestion

of the committee leadership, charged the Department of Defense

Inspector General (DOD IG) with investigating these allegations.

The DOD IG has provided his report to the Commandant, who has

referred some individuals for disciplinary procedures under the

Uniform Code of Military Justice. The committee will follow the

disposition of these cases.

The Department, in the request for supplemental appropriations

for fiscal year 2001, proposed a major shift of funds from production to research and development activities to respond to the Panel’s recommendations. The V–22 program office has developed several versions of a plan to implement the Panel’s recommendations

78

and to proceed with the program. However, the Under Secretary of

Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) (USD (AT&L)) has

not made a decision about how or whether to proceed with the V– 22 program.

The committee has received interim reports from the program office, pending a decision by the Under Secretary. The committee understands that these are necessarily preliminary, but there are a

number of conclusions that may be drawn now:

(1) The contractor team has informed the government that

the costs for producing V–22 aircraft in fiscal year 2001 have

increased.

(2) The program office has concluded they may only be able

to afford to buy 10 aircraft with the funds that were thought

to be sufficient to buy 11 aircraft in fiscal year 2001. Affording

even this quantity, however, means that the program office

would have to shift some portion of the fiscal year 2001 spare

parts funds from their intended purpose to buy the tenth aircraft.

(3) The program office suggests that, if Congress were to

withhold funding for two CV–22 aircraft for beginning IOT&E,

there are a number of other possible uses of some of those

funds within the program, including: (a) $46.0 million to invest in various cost reduction initiatives that would yield a return ratio of 14:1, and would

be applicable to both the MV–22 and the CV–22 production effort;

(b) $25.0 million to continue funding of spares unique to

the CV–22 EMD aircraft, and support an avionics lab effort; and

(c) $10.0 million to fund cost reduction initiatives for

CV–22-unique components of the suite of integrated radio

frequency countermeasures (SIRFC).

The committee recognizes the importance of fielding replacements for the helicopter fleets that the Marine Corps (CH–46) and

SOCOM (MH–53) are now operating. The committee recommends

a provision and additional funding elsewhere in this report to ensure that a full range of alternatives would have been reviewed

and the Department would be ready to move forward in case the

USD (AT&L) were to decide against proceeding with the V–22 program.

Nevertheless, the committee believes that the V–22 program

should not move forward more rapidly than can be justified by actual progress in solving the problems identified by the Panel, and

resolving uncertainties about operational effectiveness and operational suitability identified by the DOT&E.

The committee recommends a provision that would require that

the V–22 program remain at the minimum sustaining production

rate until the Secretary of Defense determines that successful operational testing has demonstrated that: (1) solutions to the problems

in the reliability of hydraulics system components and flight control software are adequate to achieve low risk for aircrews and passengers in operational conditions; (2) the V–22 aircraft can achieve

sufficient reliability and maintainability levels such that the operational availability of the aircraft will achieve the level required for

79

fleet aircraft; (3) the V–22 aircraft will be operationally effective in

operations when employed with other V–22 aircraft, and when V– 22 aircraft are employed in operations with other types of aircraft;

and (4) V–22 aircraft can be operated effectively in spite of the

downwash effects inherent in this aircraft.

Documentation submitted by the Navy supporting the fiscal year

2001 budget request estimated that four aircraft would be the minimum sustaining rate (MSR) for production. This year, the Navy

has raised the estimated MSR level to 12 aircraft.

The committee agrees with the Panel that production should be

kept to a minimum sustaining rate in order to minimize the number of aircraft requiring retrofit. The committee believes that reducing production in fiscal year 2002 to the previous MSR level of

four aircraft would be too severe an action. However, the committee

does not understand why the new MSR has been raised to a level

of 12, when the contractor team delivered nine aircraft during calendar year 2000.

The committee also agrees with the Panel that more robust funding of spares and support equipment is warranted if the program

moves forward. However, providing spare parts funding in fiscal

year 2002 at the same level as that supporting procurement of 11

aircraft in fiscal year 2001 should be adequate to support nine aircraft in fiscal year 2002.

Finally, the committee agrees with the sentiment expressed in

the statement of managers to accompany the conference report on

the Fiscal Year 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act (H. Rept.

107–138) regarding the CV–22 portion of the program. The managers concluded that, ‘‘The conferees remain supportive of the goals

of the Special Operations Command concerning the CV–22, but believe that all issues with the program restructure need to be resolved before acquisition of CV–22 test articles is warranted.’’ Therefore, the committee recommends a series of adjustments to

the funding in the budget request:

(1) for the research and development effort, the committee

recommends approving all activities, except acquisition of two

CV–22 aircraft for IOT&E (a reduction of $100.0 million);

(2) for the procurement for the Marine Corps, the committee

recommends:

(a) approving production of nine aircraft in fiscal year

2002 (a reduction of $226.7 million);

(b) approving the same funding level for spares as that

level funded for 11 aircraft in the fiscal year 2001 budget,

as adjusted by the Fiscal Year 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act (a reduction of $99.0 million); and

(c) approving the budget request for advance procurement and aircraft modifications.

(3) for procurement for the Air Force, the committee recommends no funding (a reduction of $136.5 million).

The committee is troubled by the potential actions being recommended by the program for executing the fiscal year 2001 program. Shifting funds from the spare parts account to buy a tenth

aircraft would appear to violate one of the primary recommendations of the Panel. It certainly would forego the opportunity of investing fiscal year 2001 resources immediately in seeking the cost

80

reductions that should be at the top of the program’s list of priorities. Therefore, the committee recommends that the Department

use the fiscal year 2001 V–22 funds that might have gone to build

a tenth aircraft instead to pursue the cost reduction initiatives and

CV–22 spares and avionics lab efforts.

OTHER NAVY PROGRAMS

Navy Aircraft

Integrated defensive electronic countermeasures

The budget request included $3.1 billion for the procurement of

48 F/A–18E/F aircraft, of which $52.1 million would be to buy integrated defensive electronic countermeasures (IDECM) radio frequency countermeasures (RFCM) systems, also known as the AN/

ALQ–214. The Navy plan supported by the budget involves outfitting new F/A–18E/F aircraft with only two IDECM RFCM sets of

equipment for every three new aircraft. Such a situation will cause

Navy wings to ‘‘cross-deck’’ equipment to ensure that deployed carrier air wings have full complements of equipment. This situation

could cause at least two problems: (1) non-deployed squadrons will

not have enough equipment with which to train; and (2) these

squadrons will be cannibalizing aircraft to move the IDECM RFCM

equipment among those aircraft.

The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for the

procurement of additional IDECM RFCM equipment for F/A–18E/

F aircraft.

Navy joint primary aircraft training system

The budget request included no funding for continued Navy procurement of the joint primary aircraft training system (JPATS) to

support Navy training requirements. The Navy has been a partner

in this joint program with the Air Force, although the Air Force

began buying the aircraft five years before the Navy. Air Force

long-term plans depended on the Navy’s continued participation in

the program. For the past two years, the Navy has procured these

aircraft, 36 of which will be forming the initial cadre of primary

trainers for the Navy.

The Navy had planned to buy 24 JPATS aircraft in fiscal year

2002. The Navy has now decided that its existing trainer, the T–

34C, has sufficient service life remaining to allow the Navy to delay

any additional JPATS procurement until later in the Future Years

Defense Program (FYDP).

The committee is concerned that the Navy is willing to take such

a course of action in a joint program, where its actions obviously

force the Air Force to absorb greater costs than the Air Force had

planned upon. Additionally, the committee believes that the improved aircrew survivability offered by the ejection seat-equipped

JPATS aircraft is an important factor warranting continued purchases of the trainer by the Navy.

The committee recommends an increase of $44.6 million to buy

10 JPATS aircraft for the Navy. Continued purchases by the Navy

would mean fielding a more efficient and safer primary aircraft

training system. It would also, along with the planned Air Force

81

buy, permit the contractor to maintain a level production effort and

keep Air Force unit costs at a more reasonable level.

The committee also recognizes that the Navy’s elimination of

funding in fiscal year 2002 has caused the Air Force to face higher

costs for the airplanes it intends to buy. The Air Force has indicated that the loss of the 24 aircraft from the Navy buy would

imply a cost increase in fiscal year 2002 of $5.8 million for the Air

Force program. Therefore, the committee also recommends a transfer of $3.4 million from the Aircraft Procurement, Navy account to the Aircraft

Procurement, Air Force account to compensate the Air Force for the

increased overhead that the Air Force will face as a result of the

Navy’s late decision to interrupt purchases in fiscal year 2002. The $3.4 million reduction is a general reduction to the account, but

shall not be assessed against either the JPATS program or any

other addition made in the authorization or appropriations legislation.

EA–6B aircraft ALQ–99 band 9/10 transmitters

The budget request included $137.6 million for modifications of

the EA–6B aircraft, but requested no funds to buy additional ALQ– 99 band 9/10 transmitters.

The Navy would use additional ALQ–99 band 9/10 transmitters

to replace older band 9 transmitters. The ALQ–99 Band 9/10 transmitter uses digital electronics. The older band 9 transmitters employ analog technology that is much less reliable. The newer band

9/10 transmitters would also extend the frequency coverage available compared to the band 9 transmitters. The Navy needs the expanded frequency ranges and capabilities of the ALQ–99 band 9/

10 transmitters to counter the electronic protection techniques used

in a wide variety of threat systems. The Navy informs the committee that an additional $38.0 million

would allow them to finish buying all of the ALQ–99 band 9/10

transmitters they need before the contractor closes the production

line.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $38.0 million to buy EA–6B aircraft ALQ–99 Band 9/10 transmitters.

EA–6B aircraft structural modifications

The budget request included $137.6 million for modifications of

the EA–6B aircraft, including $49.2 million for structural modifications and improvements.

The Navy has determined, through recent fatigue life inspection

of EA–6B aircraft, that they need to buy and install additional

wing center section replacements. Until these modifications are

completed, 51 of the fleet of 124 aircraft will be subject to restricted

flight operations.

The Navy has developed another airframe change, called ‘‘AFC–

805,’’ that would reduce the fleet maintenance burden by eliminating the need for more frequent inspection of certain areas of the

wing center sections.

Finally, the Navy has identified a need to: (1) conduct expanded

metallurgical fatigue analysis; and (2) conduct a study of the outer

wing panel area of the aircraft, build a prototype replacement secVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
82

tion and test it. These activities should help the Navy prevent a

recurrence of flight restrictions on the aircraft such as are being

experienced in the wing center section situation.

The committee recommends an additional $16.0 million to build

and install two additional wing center sections, accelerate installation of AFC–805 kits, conduct fatigue analysis and complete the

outer wing sections activities.

AV–8B precision targeting pod

The budget request included $49.5 million for modifications to

the AV–8B aircraft, but included no funding for precision targeting

pods, called Litening II pods. The Marine Corps began acquisition

of these pods to provide the AV–8B with the ability to use precision-guided weapons. Although no funds were included in the

amended budget request, the Marine Corps has identified buying

additional Litening II pods as a high priority item to complete the

outfitting of all Marine Corps AV–8B squadrons with this capability.

The committee recommends an increase of $36.0 million for the

procurement of Litening II targeting pods, a total authorization in

AV–8B aircraft modifications of $85.5 million.

P–3 aircraft modifications

The budget request included $113.2 million for modifications to

the P–3 aircraft. Within that total, the budget request included

$34.5 million for the procurement and the installation of update III

block upgrade kits, $72.4 million for the procurement of four antisurface warfare improvement program (AIP) kits, and no funding

to modify P–3 aircraft to make them compliant with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) requirements for unrestricted access to international airspace. The Navy calls this last

modification the communications, navigation and surveillance/air

traffic management (CNS/ATM) modification.

The P–3 update III block upgrade, also know as the block modification upgrade program (BMUP), includes modern processing systems for the mission computer and acoustics sensors to achieve a

common P–3C configuration with improved performance. Completing this modification will also help the Navy achieve savings by

reducing the number of older system configurations that demand

higher operating and support costs. Having made the BMUP upgrade is also a necessary condition for modifying the aircraft in the

AIP program, discussed below. The committee recommends an increase of $27.0 million for the procurement of additional BMUP kit

components.

The AIP modification has greatly expanded the capabilities of the

P–3 aircraft, giving it particular capability to operate against surface targets in coastal regions. These upgrades include better ability to provide standoff surveillance and targeting. The AIP program

makes these aircraft very attractive to fleet and battle group commanders to supplement the capabilities offered by other high demand, low density (HD/LD) forces. The committee recommends an

increase of $60.0 million for the procurement of four additional AIP

kits for the P–3 aircraft.

83

CNS/ATM modifications are required to provide capability to operate within international airspace. Having upgraded global positioning system (GPS) navigation systems is one requirement. Another requirement is achieving instrument landing system frequency modulation (ILS FM) immunity. The mandate for ILS FM

immunity became effective in Europe on January 1, 2001. P–3 aircraft are frequently required to operate in international airspace

and could find those operations encumbered by a lack of compliance

with ICAO standards. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million to procure and install additional CNS/ATM

upgrades.

In total, the committee recommends an increase of $96.0 million

for P–3 modifications, a total authorization of $209.2 million.

Navy Weapons

Hellfire missiles

The budget request included no funding for the procurement of

AGM–114K Hellfire missiles. The Department of the Navy uses

Hellfire missiles as a primary attack weapon for both the Marine

Corps AH–1W attack helicopter and the Navy SH–60 helicopter.

The committee understands that the fiscal year 2001 Hellfire inventory is only 56.3 percent of the inventory objective. Although no

funds were included in the budget request, the Marine Corps has

identified buying additional Hellfire missiles as a high priority item

to mitigate against further erosion in the inventory level from

training expenditures and from retirements due to shelf life expirations.

The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for the

procurement of AGM–114K Hellfire missiles.

Weapons industrial facilities

The budget request included $17.2 million for various activities

at government-owned, contractor-operated weapons industrial facilities. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million to

accelerate the facilities restoration program at the Allegany Ballistics Laboratory in accordance with a request from the Department

of the Navy.

Close-in weapons system modifications

The budget request included $40.5 million for modifications to

the Close-in Weapons System (CIWS) for surface ship self-defense.

The basic CIWS is an effective weapon for defense against antiship cruise missiles. An upgrade, called the ‘‘Block 1B’’ modification, enhances these capabilities, improves the reliability of the system, and expands the target set to include other threats, such as

that posed by small boats.

Because of the importance of providing these capabilities to the

fleet, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for

procurement and installation of Block 1B modifications in CIWS

mounts.

84

Gun mount modifications

The budget request included $5.7 million in gun mount modifica- tions, including $2.4 million for the procurement and installation

of modifications to surface ship five inch, 54 caliber gun mounts.

The five inch gun provides the only gun fire support from the sea

for the Marine Corps and comprises a part of the layered, ship selfdefense system.

The five inch gun mount modification program provides gun safety updates, shock hardens the gun and mount for future munitions,

modifies five inch, 54 caliber guns to 62 caliber, and develops a rotatable pool of gun mounts for the cruiser conversion and ship overhaul programs.

Additional funding would help prevent a break in production for

procurement of modification kits for the cruiser conversion program

and allow continuation of other ordnance alterations. Therefore,

the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for the five

inch gun mount modifications program.

Navy Shipbuilding and Conversion

Trident submarine conversion

The budget request included a proposal to begin conversion work

on two of four Trident submarines that would otherwise be retired

under the Department of Defense’s plan to reduce the Trident ballistic missile submarine force from the current level of 18 boats to

a new level of 14 boats. To implement this plan, the budget request

included $30.0 million in PE 63559N for design effort on the conversion and $86.4 million in Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy for

advance procurement items for converting two boats.

Under the administration’s plan, the other two Trident submarines would be inactivated and scrapped. The budget request

also included $17.0 million in Operation and Maintenance, Navy to

begin inactivations of two of four Trident submarines.

This program would convert Trident nuclear ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) to a nuclear guided missile submarine (SSGN).

The SSGN conversion would add the capability to carry up to 154

Tomahawk cruise missiles per submarine, and would provide additional capability to carry special operations force (SOF) personnel

and their unique equipment.

The committee has been concerned about attack submarine

(SSN) forces levels for some time. The study of SSN force structure

requirements conducted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) evaluated requirements of the combatant commanders in chief (CINCs).

That study concluded that a submarine force structure below 55

SSNs in 2015 would be insufficient to meet war fighting requirements and that 68 SSNs would be necessary by 2015 to meet all

the CINCs’ and national intelligence community’s highest operational and collection requirements. The study focused on intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) requirements of the

CINCs and also concluded that 18 Virginia-class submarines would

be required in the 2015 time frame to counter the future threat.

The Navy has indicated that a Trident SSGN could perform some

missions allocated to attack submarines, including perhaps some

ISR missions. However, the Navy does not believe that a Trident

85

SSGN could perform all of the missions assigned to attack submarines. Nevertheless, the committee believes that having the four

Trident SSGNs available would provide the Navy more flexibility

in scheduling operations of the rest of the SSN fleet.

The more obvious contribution that a Trident SSGN could make

would be in providing significant numbers of Tomahawk missiles

on station. That would permit them to support theater commanders’ requirements for on-call Tomahawk strike capability

under the so-called ‘‘Global Naval Force Presence Policy,’’ or

GNFPP. Today, the Navy meets this GNFPP requirement primarily by sending to the theater attack submarines, cruisers and

destroyers that can carry Tomahawk missiles. These ships and submarines are normally deployed with an aircraft carrier as a carrier

battle group (CVBG). The GNFPP allocates the available CVBGs,

amphibious ready groups, and Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles in response to war fighting CINC requirements. A notional

CVBG of two cruisers, two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, at least

one Tomahawk-capable Spruance-class destroyer, and two attack

submarines have the capability, in theory, to carry and launch

about 500 missiles. Most frequently, however, the destroyers and

cruisers would carry a larger percentage of anti-air missiles than

Tomahawk cruise missiles. In contrast, one SSGN would be capable

of carrying 154 tomahawk missiles. The committee believes that

supporting the SSGN conversion program for all four boats may

permit the Navy to meet CINC war fighting requirements that are

presently not met, while providing additional flexibility for deployment of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines.

The budget request, however, would lead to eliminating two of

these four boats from the SSGN conversion program. The Navy has

testified that the low levels of nuclear fuel remaining in two of the

four Trident SSBNs require that the decision be made in fiscal year

2002 either to: (1) induct them into a refueling program; or (2) inactivate and scrap them.

The committee does not believe that the Navy should miss this

opportunity to convert half of the SSBNs that will be available for

the SSGN conversion program. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $324.0 million, including: $34.0 million in

PE 63559N to accelerate SSGN design activities; $178.0 million in

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy for additional advance procurement to support SSGN conversion for the first two boats; and

$112.0 million in Other Procurement, Navy to buy a nuclear reactor core for the first of the two extra SSGN conversions. The committee also recommends a reduction in Operation and Maintenance, Navy of $17.0 million to reflect the fact that the Navy would

not inactivate the four Trident boats as planned.

Other Navy Procurement

AN/WSN–7B inertial navigation system

The budget request included $45.9 million for other navigation

equipment, including $4.7 million for procurement of the AN/WSN–

7 ring laser gyro navigators for surface ships and submarines to replace three aging navigation systems and to provide equipment

commonality between surface combatants, submarines and aircraft

86

carriers. The AN/WSN–7B ring laser gyrocompass replaces the

aging AN/WSN–2 stabilized gyrocompass.

The AN/WSN–7 and AN/WSN–7B provide continuous updates of

a ship’s position, velocity, and attitude (roll, pitch, and heading),

which is critical for network centric warfare, including ship self-defense and mine warfare. Use of these systems reduces the annual

operating costs of the navigation system by approximately 90 percent and results in improved systems performance. The Navy can

use accelerated procurement and installation of the AN/WSN–7B

systems to enhance the combat capability of ships and submarines

while reaping substantial savings in maintenance costs. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million

for procurement and installation of AN/WSN–7B ring laser gyro gyrocompass systems.

Ship integrated condition assessment system

The budget request included no funds for procurement of integrated condition assessment systems (ICAS) for surface ships. An

ICAS system remotely monitors the operating parameters of machinery throughout a ship, analyzes the collected data and alerts

operators to potential performance problems. ICAS has the potential to: (1) reduce the hours required to measure, analyze and report machinery operations; (2) reduce total operating costs; and (3)

improve operational availability. ICAS has been installed in a number of surface ships and is performing well. The committee recommends an increase of $5.3 million for procurement and installation of ICAS in surface ships.

Ship engineering control and surveillance system

The budget request did not include funds for procurement of a

ship engineering control and surveillance system (ECSS). The

ECSS is a ship-wide system that provides engineering machinery

and damage control information to the battle organization through

the command, control, and communications system. Using ECSS

should result in reducing the workload on ships’ crews during high

stress operations. This use should also allow the crews to focus attention on other, more critical operations of the ships.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.6 million

for procurement and installation of ECSS in ships.

High resolution side-scan sonar for detecting sea mines

The budget request included no funds for procurement of a high

resolution sonar for detecting sea mines. On numerous occasions,

the committee has received testimony that detection, classification

and destruction of sea mines is a critical warfare area. Commercial

sonars are available that could immediately enhance the Navy’s

ability to detect and classify mines. The Navy has used these sonars in the past to search the ocean floor and is familiar with their

operation and support.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for procurement, installation and support of a side-scanning sonar in a

forward deployed mine countermeasures ship to conduct peacetime

surveys and to meet the critical mine warfare requirement to detect and classify mines.

87

Tactical communications onboard trainer

The budget request included no funds for a tactical communications onboard trainer for the battle force tactical training (BFTT)

system. The BFTT system provides battle groups and amphibious

ready groups the capability to train as a group using onboard

stimulators and simulators embedded in the ships’ equipment.

However, the BFTT does not include the capability to conduct tactical communications data link (Link–4, Link–11, and Link–16)

training. Tactical communications are key to implementing network centric warfare and to enhancing the self- defense capabilities

of ships. Using them effectively during conflicts requires that the

Navy be able to train more realistically in peacetime. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million

for the procurement and installation of tactical communications capabilities into the BFTT system.

AN/BPS–15H integration into tactical integrated digital system

The budget request did not include funds for integrating information from the AN/BPS–15H navigation radar into the tactical integrated digital system (TIDS) for submarines.

The AN/BPS–15H radar is a commercial off-the-shelf radar used

by submarines to provide navigation, safety and target information.

The AN/BPS–15H radar reduces the total operating cost of submarine navigation radars while improving performance. AN/BPS– 15H navigation and radar information is key to enhancing the

operational capability and navigation safety.

The TIDS distributes information collected by sensors to key operating and control positions throughout the submarine. Unfortunately, there are a number of submarines that do not have the capability to pass information seamlessly from the AN/BPS–15H to

the TIDS.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million

to integrate BPS–15H radars with TIDS.

AN/SPS–73(V) surface search radar

The budget request included $1.1 million to procure and install

AN/SPS–73(V) surface search radar systems to replace a number of

aging radars on surface ships with a single radar.

The AN/SPS–73(V) is a commercial, off-the-shelf radar that provides surface ships with a reliable, lower maintenance, and lower

life-cycle cost surface search radar system. The Navy needs to continue buying these radars at a higher rate to ensure that the fleet

will achieve the full potential savings in support costs and will reduce demands on maintenance personnel. The committee recommends an increase of $14.0 million for the

procurement and installation of AN/SPS–73(V) surface search

radar systems.

Sonobuoys

The budget request included $57.9 million for procurement of

various sonobuoys. These funds would be sufficient to buy roughly

74,000 sonobuoys, well short of replacing the sonobuoys that are

needed to support annual peacetime training requirements. Faced

88

with such a situation, the Navy would be faced with two poor alternatives: (1) curtailing training, with an attendant adverse effect on

personnel readiness; or (2) continuing training and accepting a reduction in war reserve assets, making the force less ready to operate at required higher rates in a conflict. The committee finds either alternative unacceptable. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million for sonobuoys, a total authorization of $77.9 million.

SPQ–9B radar

The budget request included $17.9 million in gun fire control equipment, including $12.8 million for procurement of SPQ–9B radars. The SPQ–9B provides surface ships a gunfire control radar

that also enhances ship self-defense capabilities. Developing and

fielding a solid state transmitter has the potential to reduce life

cycle costs and improve performance of this radar. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million

to design, build, test and integrate a solid state transmitter into

the SPQ–9B radar.

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system

The budget request included $27.5 million for anti-ship missile decoy systems, including $14.7 million for procuring 49 new

NULKA decoys. The budget request did not include any funds for

ordnance alterations for NULKA decoys already bought.

The Navy needs to buy additional NULKA decoys to ensure fleet

installations remain on a reasonable schedule, keep production

rates above the minimum sustaining level, and achieve more reasonable unit production costs.

The Navy has also developed an electromagnetic compatibility

modification to the existing NULKA payload that would permit the

NULKA to operate without interference in the presence of newer,

more advanced friendly radar systems. The committee recommends an increase of $14.0 million for the

NULKA procurement program, including $12.0 million to purchase

additional decoys, and $2.0 million to modify existing NULKA payloads with the electromagnetic compatibility modification.

SUBTITLE D—AIR FORCE PROGRAMS

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

Multiyear procurement authority for C–17 aircraft (sec 131)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide authority for the Secretary of the Air Force to enter into a multiyear

contract, in accordance with the provisions of title 10, United

States Code, for the procurement of up to 60 C–17 aircraft.

The Air Force has informed the committee that the service is

evaluating a potential initiative known as the commercial application of military airlift aircraft (CAMAA). The committee believes

that this could be an innovative solution to a portion of our strategic airlift requirements. However, there are several issues involved about which the Committee would require more specific information before adopting a position on this initiative. Such issues

include: (1) whether the DOD wants to buy, and can afford to buy,

sufficient aircraft for the Air Force inventory to make a commercial

purchase financially attractive to commercial operators; (2) what

combination of U.S. government inducements might be required to

make such an initiative financially attractive to commercial operators; (3) whether DOD cargo that currently travels by organic airlift would have to be diverted to provide cargo that would subsidize

commercial carriers’ C–17 operations; (4) whether the aircraft can

be certified by the Federal Aviation Administration without munitions list restrictions; (5) what level of risk will be borne by the

U.S. government, the commercial carriers and by the C–17 contractor; (6) what is the business case for the commercial carriers;

and (7) what is the business case for the U.S. government.

The committee expects that the Secretary of Defense would provide for a thorough review of the issues and answers to these questions before making a formal request to implement any CAMAA

proposal.

The committee is aware that there may be other limitations on

implementing any multiyear program, such as the requirements

imposed by section 8145 of Department of Defense Appropriations

Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (HR 106–371). The provision recommended by the committee would not relieve the Air Force of the

responsibility of complying with such limitations.

OTHER AIR FORCE PROGRAMS

Air Force Aircraft

C–130J

The budget request included $221.8 million for the procurement

of two C–130J–30 combat delivery aircraft, and included $13.6 million for the procurement of a fuselage training device.

The Air Force has indicated that, if additional funds were to be

made available in fiscal year 2002, they would purchase an additional C–130J for establishing an organic training activity. The

committee believes that it would be beneficial to accelerate the establishment of the unit to train C–130J aircrew and maintenance

personnel. The committee recommends an increase of $81.0 million

for the procurement of one C–130J, including $9.0 million for

spares and support equipment.

The Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) for the C–130J also

indicates the need for additional maintenance training devices. The

103

committee supports the acceleration of procurement of maintenance

training devices to accelerate the initiation of organic maintenance

training for the Air Force, consistent with the purchase of an additional aircraft in fiscal year 2002.

Therefore, the committee also recommends an increase of $18.0

million for the procurement of C–130J maintenance training devices.

Predator unmanned aerial vehicle

The budget request included $19.6 million to procure six Predator unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

As with any air vehicle, the Air Force expects to lose some number of these UAVs each year to mishaps. Current production is

slated to replace any UAVs lost to such attrition. Air Force officials

have informed the committee that they expect attrition losses to exceed the current production rate, and that roughly two more aircraft per year would be needed to stay even.

The Predator UAV systems have been in high demand from the

combatant commanders. These officers and their staffs have repeatedly stressed to the committee the high priority of having enough

of these UAVs available. Any shortages due to buying too few air

vehicles to replace attrition losses would impinge the Air Force’s

ability to support these commanders.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million

to buy two additional Predator air vehicles to provide greater assurance that the Air Force has enough vehicles to absorb peacetime

attrition without cutting deployed forces.

B–52

The budget request included $3.5 million in procurement for the

B–52 bomber. The committee recommends an additional $51.0 million for the Electronic Countermeasure Improvement (ECMI) program, for a total authorization of $54.5 million in B–52 modifications. The ECMI will upgrade the current ALQ–172 electronic

countermeasure system, improving situational awareness and adding the ability to do rapid in-flight reprogramming to counter

threat changes. The additional funds will allow the Air Force to

complete the buy of the ECMI kits necessary to upgrade the B–52

fleet.

F–15 aircraft modifications

The budget request included $212.2 million for modifications to

the F–15 aircraft, including $24.4 million for the F100–PW–220E

engine upgrade program. This program modifies F100–PW–100/-

200 engines to the F100–PW–220E configuration. This modification

will make these engines equivalent to the new production F100–

PW–220E engine.

This upgrade would significantly improve the reliability and

maintainability of the engine, and has already reduced the unscheduled engine removal rate by 35 percent. The committee believes that these upgrades are important to reduce the demands on

aircrew maintenance personnel.

104

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million for additional F–15 F100–PW–220E engine upgrades, a total authorization of $237.2 million for F–15 aircraft modifications.

The Air Force currently operates the F–15s in almost two dozen

configurations of F–15A/B/C/D/E aircraft. These multiple configurations complicate managing and supporting the force. The Air Force

has been and will be spending several hundred million dollars per

year on making upgrades to the existing F–15 fleet. The committee

believes that the Air Force should consider consolidating some or

all of these efforts within a potential block upgrade program. Such

an effort should focus, in priority order, on reducing threats to the

aircrews, improving readiness, reducing demands for operating and

support expenditures and providing upgraded combat capability.

The committee directs the Air Force to provide an analysis of such

an approach with the submission of the fiscal year 2003 budget request.

F–16 aircraft modifications

The budget request included $232.0 million for modifications to

the F–16 aircraft, but included no funding for continuing a program to replace engines of block 42 F–16 aircraft with the F100– PW–229 engine. This re-engining program will enable Air National

Guard units flying the block 42 F–16 aircraft to have comparable

speed, thrust, and maneuverability with other F–16 aircraft, allowing full integration into the Expeditionary Air Force structure.

Such a modification would also increase the reliability and maintainability of these aircraft. The committee recommends an increase of $88.0 million for

F100–PW–229 engines for block 42 F–16 aircraft, a total authorization of $320.0 million in F–16 aircraft modifications.

C–17 simulator

The budget request included $139.3 million for modifications to

the C–17 aircraft, but included no funding for several efforts: (1)

buying a training evaluation performance training set (TEPATS);

(2) upgrading trainers to maintain the same configuration as newer

operating aircraft (called ‘‘block concurrency upgrades’’); and (3)

buying a combined aircraft engine trainer and engine cowling

trainer.

With C–17 aircraft being assigned to additional operating locations, there is a requirement to provide adequate training for support and maintenance crews. Absent training devices of the correct

type, the Air Force would have to conduct training on actual aircraft, or send personnel on temporary duty to locations that do

have the training devices. If training devices are available, but are

not in the proper configuration, the training administered can be

incomplete or ineffective.

To correct these potential problems, the committee recommends

an overall increase of $21.1 million for C–17 aircraft modifications,

a total authorization of $160.4 million, as follows:

(1) an increase of $9.8 million for the procurement of a C–

17 TEPATS;

(2) an increase of $2.1 million for the procurement of C–17

aircraft trainer block concurrency upgrades; and

105

(3) an increase of $9.2 million for the procurement of a C–

17 aircraft combined aircraft engine trainer and engine cowling

trainer.

Joint surveillance target attack radar system

The budget request included $83.0 million of procurement funding for modifications to the E–8 joint surveillance target attack

radar system (JSTARS) aircraft, and $147.9 million in PE 27581F

for JSTARS-related research and development projects.

Of the procurement modifications request, $5.7 million was included for the procurement and installation of satellite communication (SATCOM) kits. The committee has been notified that delays

in the development of the government-furnished SATCOM kits

have negated the requirement for procurement funding, but established a need for continued research and development funding.

Of the procurement modifications request, $25.3 million was requested for so-called ‘‘vanguard’’ reliability and maintainability upgrades for the aircraft and prime mission equipment. The Air Force

notified the committee that, subsequent to the delivery of the fiscal

year 2002 budget request, the cost estimates for the higher priority

global air traffic management (GATM) efforts in the integration of

GATM-compliant radios has made this planned integration impossible without additional research and development funds.

The committee recommends a transfer of $11.5 million from

JSTARS aircraft procurement modifications to PE 27581F for

JSTARS systems development, including $5.7 million for SATCOM

kit development and $5.8 million for GATM radio integration efforts.

Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program

The budget request included $90.3 million for support equipment

for the Defense Airborne Reconnaissance Program (DARP), but no

funding for the procurement of spare parts to support operational

deployment of a preplanned product improvement for the U–2 aircraft Senior Year electro-optic reconnaissance system (SYERS).

This new sensor is a high resolution sensor capable of collecting

image information in multiple bands of the spectrum.

This SYERS P3I sensor system completed operational testing in

2000 and is scheduled to deploy later this year. The committee believes that the Air Force needs to buy spare parts for this SYERS

P3I system to ensure a high likelihood of the system’s availability

for deployed U–2 activities.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million

for the procurement of additional U–2 SYERS spares equipment, a

total authorization of $93.3 million in DARP support equipment.

Air Force Missiles

Minuteman III modifications

The budget request included $552.7 million in missile procurement Air Force for modifications to the Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. The committee recommends an additional

$4.2 million for replacement emergency batteries.

106

Peacekeeper Ballistic Missile

The budget request included $5.1 million for the Peacekeeper

(M–X) ballistic missile.

The committee recommends an increase of $12.2 million to fund

long lead equipment items to support retirement of the Peacekeeper missile.

Wideband gapfiller satellites

The budget request included $13.4 million for the wideband gapfiller satellites. The committee recommends an additional $32.6

million in advance procurement to exercise unfunded options on

the wideband gapfiller satellite contract to buy three additional

satellites to increase the number of satellites on orbit from three

to six. These three additional satellites will allow the Air Force to

maintain global wideband communications coverage and to meet

both training and operational wideband communications needs.

This will also ensure that there is an on orbit backup capability for

the satellite system. Additionally, this was included on the Air

Force list of unfunded priorities.

The committee prohibits obligation of the additional funds until

such time as the Secretary of the Air Force submits to the congressional defense committees a report explaining how the balance of

the cost of the three additional satellites will be funded in the Future Years Defense Program.

Other Air Force Procurement

Base information infrastructure

The budget request included $154.1 million for the procurement

and installation of base information infrastructure improvements.

Within this category, the Air Force provides upgrades for the combat information transport system (CITS), including its subsets: (1)

information transport system (ITS); (2) network management system; (3) voice switching system; and (4) telecommunications management system.

The Air Force has determined that ITS improvements will have

direct effect on war fighting and contingency support. The Air

Force has appropriately placed a high priority on providing enhancements to the ITS portion of the CITS program. This priority

is based on the assessment that the current infrastructure is inadequate to support information-intensive command and control systems supporting military operations. The committee recommends an increase of $28.7 million for accelerating procurement and installation of fiber optic communications upgrades within the ITS upgrade effort.

Spacelift range systems

The budget request included $132.8 million in Other Procurement, Air Force for spacelift range systems to support sustainment

and modernization of launch facilities. The committee recommends

an increase of $17.6 million to support improved operational safety

and to modernize or eliminate older systems and equipment.

Improving the safety and long-term viability of the East and

West Coast space ranges at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California,

107

and at Cape Canaveral/Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, is the number one priority on the Air Force list of unfunded priorities. The

committee recommends a total increase for spacelift ranges of $53.9

million for procurement, research and development, and operations

and maintenance accounts.

The additional $17.6 million recommended by the committee

would support efforts to transform the ranges from an analog environment to a digital environment, and move from manual scheduling to electronic scheduling of launches and other activities. In

addition, the additional funds would begin to restore some additional modernization activities to their original schedule. These activities were supposed to have been completed by 2004 under phase

IIA of the Range Standardization and Automation plan but have

slipped to 2006. The Air Force believes that the plan can get substantially back on schedule with the additional provided.

Night vision goggles

The budget request included $3.3 million for the procurement of

night vision goggles (NVGs) for aircrew, maintenance, and security

personnel. The committee supports the Air Force plan to transition

to the newer, panoramic NVGs (PNVGs), and has recommended additional authorization for PNVG development elsewhere in this report.

In the meantime, the Air Force has indicated that additional

funds would allow them to upgrade older versions of NVGs in the

field, and to buy additional test sets. Such an effort would provide

near-term upgrades to those operating with older, less capable

NVGs. It would also hedge against the possibility that the PNVG

program might not be able to deliver volume production as soon as

the Air Force would prefer. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for the

procurement of additional NVG upgrades and test sets, for a total

authorization of $7.3 million.

Spacetrack

The budget request included $8.8 million in Other Procurement,

Air Force, for the Spacetrack for Ground-Based Electro-Optical

Space Surveillance Sustainment (GEODSS) cameras. This amount

should have included $3.6 million for initial spares to support the

GEODSS sustainment program. These funds were inadvertently included for Spacetrack research and development in PE 35901F. The

committee recommends an increase of $3.6 to enable the Air Force

to carry out the procurement of the initial spares, and a corresponding decrease in the research, development, testing and evaluation Air Force account.

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

108

109

110

111

112

113

Extension of pilot program on sales of manufactured articles and services of certain Army industrial facilities

(sec. 141)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the

pilot program for the sale of manufactured articles and services

from Army industrial facilities enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105–85). The Inspector General audit of this program mandated by the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 also recommended

extension of this pilot program.

Defense-Wide Programs

CV–22 procurement

The budget request included $28.2 million for procurement of

Special Operations Forces (SOF) peculiar equipment and engineering support for the CV–22, the SOF variant of the V–22 Osprey.

However, the Air Force subsequently decided to delay fielding of

the CV–22 to reflect the restructuring of the overall MV/CV–22

program into a phased return to flight and fleet introduction. As

a result, the fiscal year 2002 procurement funding request is in excess of requirements. The committee recommends a decrease of

$28.2 million in the Special Operations Force CV–22 SOF Modification procurement account.

Multiband intra/inter team radio procurement

The budget request included $4.7 million for procurement of AN/

PRC–148 Multiband Inter/Intra Team Radios (MBITRs) for Special

Operations Forces (SOF). The MBITR provides SOF teams with the

ability to communicate on multiple frequencies utilizing a single

handheld radio. It replaces the existing system of numerous less

capable, legacy handheld radios that are increasingly costly to

maintain and repair. Procurement of additional MBITRs would significantly improve the operational conditions for SOF elements, significantly reducing the combat load of individual operators. The

committee also notes that the Special Operations Command identified procurement of 1,609 MBITRs to fully outfit SOF components

as its highest priority unfunded requirement for fiscal year 2002.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $14.4 million

to the Special Operations Force Communications Equipment and

Electronics procurement account for purchase of additional AN/

PRC–148 Multiband Inter/Intra Team Radios (MBITRs).

Advanced lightweight grenade launcher

The budget request included $6.9 million for the Special Operations Forces Small Arms and Weapons procurement account, but

did not include funding for Advanced Lightweight Grenade Launcher (ALGL) systems for the Special Operations Command (SOCOM).

The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million to the Special Operations Forces Small Arms and Weapons procurement account to purchase additional Advanced Lightweight Grenade

Launcher (ALGL) systems, which provide first-round-hit capability

on lightly armored vehicles at ranges beyond 1500 meters. The

ALGL procurement would provide special forces operators with an

114

improved 40mm weapon system capability consisting of a lightweight 40 mm grenade launcher, day/night fire control, and mount

(ground and vehicle). The system—a Special Operations Command

unfunded priority for fiscal year 2002—would replace one that is

twice as heavy, non-man portable, and less accurate.

Special operations peculiar M4A1 carbine modification procurement

The budget request included $1.8 million in the Special Operations Force (SOF) Small Arms and Weapons procurement account

in order to purchase mini-night vision sights. These night vision

sights are a component in the Special Operations Peculiar M4A1

Carbine Modifications (SOPMOD) kit, which allows the operator to

tailor the configuration of the M4A1 carbine to the assigned mission and operational environment, including day and night conditions and various target ranges. The M4A1 carbine accessory kit

also includes items such as a day scope, quick attach/detach grenade launcher, forward handgrip, infrared laser aiming light/illuminator, visible aiming light, flashlight, suppressor, close quarters

battle sight, and rail interface system. The SOPMOD increases the

combat firepower of the SOF operator, and therefore enhances operator lethality, safety, and survivability. This procurement constitutes a fiscal year 2002 unfunded requirement for the Special

Operations Command (SOCOM), and was the highest unfunded requirement for SOCOM for fiscal year 2001. The committee authorized additional funding for fiscal year 2001, and continues to support accelerating procurement of the kits. Therefore, the committee

recommends an increase of $1.2 million to the SOF Small Arms

and Weapons procurement account for procurement of SOPMOD

kits.

Chemical-biological individual protective equipment

The budget request included $114.3 million in the Procurement,

Defense-Wide account for individual protection against chemical

and biological warfare. Of this amount, $1.8 million was proposed

for procurement of decontamination items for Navy individual protective gear, including the M291 Skin Decontaminating Kit, the

most efficient, proven and safe method for military personnel to remove toxic chemical agents from their skin. They are used by all

military services and by civilian personnel responsible for responding to terrorist attacks. There is a serious depletion of the national

inventory of these kits. The committee recommends an increase of

$1.0 million to procure additional M291 decontamination kits.

The budget request did not include funds for procurement of M49

filters for chemical-biological defense individual protective gear.

Given the growing risk of chemical attacks, it is important to maintain an adequate supply of these filters. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million for the procurement of additional M49 filters.

Chemical-biological protective shelters

The budget request included $15.7 million for procurement of 32

Chemical Biological Protective Shelter systems in the Collective

Protection portion of the Chemical-Biological Defense Program

115

under Defense-Wide procurement. The Chemical Biological Protective Shelter (CBPS) is being procured to satisfy an urgent need for

medical and other battlefield functions requiring personnel to work

without individual protective clothing and masks. The CBPS is replacing the obsolete M–51 chemical shelter system in order to provide a highly mobile, self-contained collective protection system

that can provide a contamination-free work area for medical treatment in a chemically or biologically contaminated zone.

The committee recommends an addition of $7.0 million to procure additional Chemical Biological Protective Shelters to help satisfy this urgent need in a timely manner.

Defense Production Act

Laser additive manufacturing initiative

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

94903D to develop laser additive manufacturing technologies to

produce high performance military and commercial titanium components. These technologies can help reduce weapon systems costs,

speed production of critical components, and reduce the environmental impact of manufacturing processes. The committee directs

that all applicable competitive procedures be used in the award of

contracts and other agreements under this program.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Acquisition programs at the National Imagery and Mapping

Agency

The Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence) (ASD (C3I)), and the Community Management Staff (CMS) required the National Imagery

and Mapping Agency (NIMA) to conduct a rigorous ‘‘re-baselining’’

effort over most of the last year. This action proved to be very useful, as it revealed serious deficiencies in the NIMA’s preparedness

to task, receive, and exploit data from the Future Imagery Architecture (FIA) being developed by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). The re-baselining effort also produced a credible measurement of what the NIMA’s capabilities will be under current

plans and funding. This assessment shows that the NIMA’s capabilities fall far short of threshold requirements in the key performance parameters.

The committee believes that the development of the FIA requirements, viewed in comparison to other such development processes,

was a very productive effort. However, the horizon may have been

set too narrowly only on the collection aspects of the problem. In

hindsight, the problems that would be facing the NIMA, responsible for other parts of the information chain, are daunting.

To ensure that the NIMA will be ready to task and handle data

from FIA at first launch, hundreds of millions of dollars had to be

shifted from NIMA’s modernization budget mostly to modify legacy

systems for tasking, workflow management, and data transfer.

These modernization funds originally had been intended to develop

newer, more modern systems and capabilities for these functions.

While it is unfortunate that scarce investment funds were devoted

116

to modifying legacy systems with only a limited future. In this

case, however, no other course was possible because of the pressure

of the FIA schedule.

The root cause of the disconnect is that the NRO was given permission to begin the FIA acquisition program before any serious

thought was given to the requirements, cost, and schedule of the

associated ground architecture for tasking, exploiting, and disseminating data from the satellites. What is more, once the costs of the

ground requirements and architecture were defined, neither the

Defense Department nor the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI)

was prepared to sacrifice other programs and activities to pay the

bill. As a result, the NRO is presently on a course to field a highcapacity collection capability mated to a low-performance ground

infrastructure.

This is a lesson that must not be repeated or forgotten. On future

programs to acquire such programs as FIA, the committee insists

that the requirements trade-off process consider the complete picture, not just the more narrow question of the collection instrument. That means that no NRO satellite program should be approved to enter acquisition until the JROC and MRB have approved a set of requirements for end-to-end system performance

(i.e., ground and space segments together), and cost and schedule

estimates to meet those requirements have been prepared by the

NRO and its mission partner or other appropriate organization and

presented to the DCI, Secretary of Defense, and Congress.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense and the Director

of Central Intelligence to ensure that this policy is reflected in the

acquisition policies of OSD, CMS, and the NRO.

Acquisition programs at the National Security Agency

The Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2001 and the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2001 directed the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence) (ASD (C3I)), the Director of

Central Intelligence’s (DCI) Senior Acquisition Executive (SAE),

and the Director of National Security Agency (NSA) to establish a

disciplined acquisition strategy for the NSA’s modernization program, with strong oversight mechanisms, but also tailored to the

special needs of information technology and signals intelligence.

These Acts also directed the DCI’s SAE to review and report on the

NSA’s progress in developing a competent enterprise-wide systems

engineering organization to guide its critical acquisition alternatives.

The DCI’s SAE has provided very valuable analyses and judgments about the NSA’s acquisition problems, but the response of

the NSA, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and the

Community Management Staff (CMS) has otherwise been disappointing.

The SAE has demonstrated that the NSA still lacks a requirements process and a viable enterprise-wide systems engineering capability. Since the SAE reported her findings, the NSA established

a small systems engineering organization under the Chief Technology Officer by contracting sole-source to the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. No aspect of this arrangement

117

provides reassurance that the NSA management understands the

nature or magnitude of the deficiency that the SAE has identified.

With respect to oversight, OSD and CMS have been very active

in oversight of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA),

whose problems and challenges mirror those of the NSA in important respects. However, this does not appear to have been the case

with the NSA. The committee believes that oversight of the NSA

must be every bit as thorough and involved as what has been the

case with the NIMA, since the seriousness of the NSA’s problems

warrants it.

In addition to these deficiencies, the committee is concerned the

NSA has only just begun to plan for the integration of the various

elements of its nascent modernization effort, such as Trailblazer,

cryptologic mission management (CMM), customer relations management (CRM), etc., with each other. Unfortunately, the NSA appears to have no plans or processes in place to integrate these programs with its information technology infrastructure and myriad

collection and access-enabling programs.

Further, the NSA is spending very large sums annually on hundreds of in-house development activities. Unfortunately, the leadership at the NSA cannot say how or even whether these activities

contribute to its modernization needs, or if they do, how they translate into its acquisition plans, such as they are. In fact, as a rule,

the NSA lacks the most basic information on these development activities, such as schedules, milestones, development costs, and lifecycle costs. Thus, it is impossible to know what capabilities the

NSA could have by the end of the Future Years Defense Program

(FYDP) at planned funding levels, much less what its modernization funding requirements overall might be.

The NSA has clearly made great strides in seeking to transform

itself in many areas. However, the NSA appears to have made only

modest progress in the area most important to its future: acquiring

the technical ability to operate effectively against the emerging

global network. The NSA has long known that packet-switched

computer-to-computer communications over an integrated global

network would someday overwhelm traditional circuit-switched

communications. The Director of the NSA testified before Congress

this year that the crossover point has already occurred and that

the NSA still has only rudimentary capabilities to process packetswitched data. While funding constraints could have contributed to

this failure, it is clear that management problems at the NSA also

hindered success. It follows that more money now, without further

reform, will not succeed either.

In light of these problems, the committee directs that OSD and

CMS conduct a ‘‘baselining’’ of the NSA that mirrors the successful

and productive effort performed at the NIMA in the current fiscal

year. The elements of this baseline review are discussed below.

The NSA must create a rational requirements process and

produce a prioritized requirements baseline, approved by the Joint

Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) and Mission Requirements Board (MRB), with measurable key performance parameters

(KPPs). The NSA’s capabilities at the end of the FYDP under current budgets, and all current programs and plans, should be assessed objectively against those KPPs, as was done for the NIMA.

118

This requirements baseline should also be the basis for competitive contract awards for the acquisition of Trailblazer and CMM.

Until this requirements baseline is established, the committee can

see no reason to proceed at full speed to acquisition in these and

other programs. However, OSD, CMS, and the NSA must ensure

that these programs proceed to the next appropriate pre-acquisition

phase to sustain momentum and to keep industry expertise intact.

The committee emphasizes strongly that this requirements baseline should be structured to support a spiral-development approach

to major elements of the modernization program, such as Trailblazer and CMM.

The NSA must also produce for OSD and CMS review a rationalized, integrated schedule and requirements allocation for all the

major elements of its modernization effort (e.g., Trailblazer, CMM,

CRM, information technology infrastructure, and access programs).

The baselining effort must also produce a systems integration

strategy across the entire reference model, including:

(1) a road map of how mission applications will be integrated

into the Trailblazer framework from multiple vendors under

the direction of a Trailblazer prime contractor; and

(2) how Trailblazer will be integrated with the other modernization programs, the information technology infrastructure,

and the collection programs.

The committee directs that the NSA develop plans for OSD and

CMS review that would call for turning over most or all of the systems integration job to a single industry team; options include

granting total systems performance responsibility (TSPR) or a

prime integration contractor (PIC) role to the winner of the Trailblazer competitive acquisition, or to the winner of a separate competition.

The committee directs further that the NSA create a detailed

plan for OSD and CMS to subordinate the interim Trailblazer program under the Objective Trailblazer program upon contract

award. On this note, the committee observes that the Objective

Trailblazer program should be able to produce operational capabilities as quickly and more effectively as the interim program once

the Objective Trailblazer program is restructured to allow the contractor to pursue disciplined spiral development.

The committee believes that the NSA should rescind its direction

that the competing teams for the Objective Trailblazer program

must incorporate elements of the Interim Trailblazer effort. The

contractors should be free to propose what they believe makes the

most sense. Interim Trailblazer achievements will be evaluated as

part of an Analysis of Alternatives process.

The NSA must produce for OSD and CMS review a detailed

audit of all the hundreds of ongoing development activities and programs within the Agency. OSD and CMS must be convinced that

these programs translate into the NSA’s objective architecture, are

meeting a valid requirement, and have documented program plans,

cost estimates, schedules, milestones, and interface standards and

specifications; otherwise, they should be modified or canceled, and

funding transferred to more productive activities.

119

The NSA must produce for OSD and CMS a detailed plan and

schedule to establish a rigorous ‘‘make-versus-buy’’ decision process

for all the NSA acquisition activities.

The NSA must produce a plan acceptable to OSD and the DCI’s

SAE for enterprise-wide systems engineering. The committee believes that most of the funds requested for enterprise-wide systems

engineering should be applied to the SIGINT Directorate’s efforts

to guide the development activities covered by the reference model.

Upon completion of these tasks, the committee expects that OSD,

CMS, and the NSA will provide detailed briefings and reports, as

appropriate, to the congressional defense and intelligence committees.

If these tasks are not completed by December 1, 2002, the committee directs that the NSA’s modernization effort immediately be

designated a major defense acquisition program, with milestone decision authority residing with the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), and subjected to semiannual

Defense Acquisition Board program reviews until initial operational capability (IOC) is achieved.

Air Force C–130 roadmap

The Air Force has developed a long-range plan for modernizing

its fleet of tactical airlift aircraft. The Air Force uses this plan,

called the ‘‘C–130 Roadmap,’’ to assist their planning and budgeting to modernize the existing force, and deploy new production

aircraft that will replace those older aircraft that would be too costly to upgrade.

The committee supports methodical analysis and planning that

considers the needs of the service, the condition of the aircraft to

be replaced, concerns about having to operate mixed types of aircraft, and whether adequate support equipment and facilities are

properly phased to accommodate the deployment.

The committee supports implementation of the C–130 Roadmap,

dated July 20, 2001, recently submitted to the Congress, and encourages the Air Force to use a similar approach with other aircraft systems that it is modernizing.

Arleigh Burke-class destroyer procurement

The Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 expressed the sense of Congress that the Secretary

of the Navy should procure Arleigh Burke-class destroyers at the

most economical rate of procurement of three per year in fiscal

years 2002 and 2003. The budget request included $2.9 billion for

three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in fiscal year 2002, the economic rate suggested by Congress. The committee recommends authorization of the amended budget request.

The Navy updated the ‘‘Arleigh Burke (DDG–51) Class Industrial

Base Study of 1993’’ in November 2000 and again on August 16,

2001. Navy witnesses testified that the updated analysis, among

other things, concluded that: (1) ‘‘both of the destroyer shipbuilders

will have to book unprecedented amounts of additional, non-U.S.

Navy work in order to maintain their workforces during the transition from DDG–51 to DD–21 production’’; and (2) ‘‘the risks of the

destroyer transition are not confined to the’’ destroyer ‘‘shipVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
120

building industrial base. Second tier suppliers of shipboard equipment used on destroyers and other warships will also be affected

. . . These effects could range from higher unit costs . . . to a corporate decision to scale back or stop production.’’ The committee agrees with the assessment that the destroyer industrial base is at risk unless three destroyers are built each year

or unless the destroyer shipbuilders attain significant other work

beyond their historic level. Therefore, the committee reiterates that

the Secretary of the Navy should include procurement of three

Arleigh Burke-class destroyers in the fiscal year 2003 budget request to attain an economic rate of production and consider options

for maintaining and transitioning the industrial base, including

second tier suppliers, to DD–21 production.

Ejection seats for training aircraft

The committee is aware that the ejection seats currently employed in the Air Force T–38 advanced jet training aircraft do not

offer full flight envelope escape for individuals in the anthropometric population accepted for flight training. The committee requests the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report, with the

fiscal year 2003 budget request, that outlines any Air Force plan

to acquire new ejection seats for its T–38 aircraft. The report

should detail how the Air Force is accommodating the anthropometric population of its pilots-in-training should no such plan exist.

Family of medium tactical vehicles A1 Production and Competitive Rebuy

The committee is encouraged by the Army’s response to congressional concerns regarding the Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles

(FMTV) program, which is designed to replace an aging fleet of medium trucks found in the Army today. The Army restructured the

program in accordance with congressional direction to conduct a

fair and open competition to select one winning contractor. The

Army further restructured the program to increase the reliability

testing associated with the Competitive Rebuy (CR) selection process, designed to replace the FMTV A1 model truck with an improved version, called the FMTV CR model.

The committee is interested in the production and fielding of

FMTV CR trucks as quickly as possible, consistent with sound acquisition procedures and testing. However, the committee is concerned with the inherent risk in the program schedule. As the program is currently structured, any slip in the seven-month competitive evaluation test phase may contribute to a possible break in

production during the transition from the FMTV current production contract to the FMTV Competitive Rebuy production contract.

The committee intends to review the results of the testing after the

completion of the competition in March 2003 to determine whether

an adjustment of the schedule is warranted.

Further, to preclude such a break in production, the committee

will monitor the Army’s plans for production verification testing

and the transition from FMTV A1 to FMTV CR production and

fielding and will work with the Army to ensure that any necessary

program actions are undertaken in time to affect fiscal year 2004

production.

121

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to report to the

congressional defense committees on the results of the competitive

evaluation test phase and FMTV CR production plans not later

than thirty days after the source selection decision for the FMTV

Competitive Rebuy.

Mobility requirements for fiscal year 2005

The committee concurs with the findings of the Mobility Requirements Study 2005 (MRS–05) which concluded that additional airlift

is required to carry out the national security strategy considered by

the study. However, the committee acknowledges that the study

will have to be updated. At a minimum, the analysis needs to be

adjusted to reflect the significant changes that are foreshadowed by

transformation of the Army. There is also a distinct possibility that

a revised national security strategy and the Department of Defense’s pending strategy review could significantly alter the force

structure or levels from those assumed in the study.

Unfortunately, the Air Force has not submitted the study addressing the set of so-called ‘‘Oversize-Outsize’’ cargo requirements

that would assist Congress in evaluating the options for improving

strategic airlift. The committee also notes that the analysis of the

joint logistics over-the-shore (JLOTS) in MRS–05 was not comprehensive enough to determine the requirement for future capabilities. The Commander in Chief, U.S. Transportation Command

(CINC TRANSCOM) testified before the committee that ‘‘four of the

last five’’ JLOTS exercises were canceled and that he continues ‘‘to

be concerned about our JLOTS capabilities.’’ The committee concurs with CINC TRANSCOM that regional CINCs should include

JLOTS scenarios in their exercise programs.

Therefore, the committee directs the Chief of Naval Operations

and the Chief of Staff of the Army to review and, where possible,

avail themselves of opportunities to apply, commercial transportation logistics over-the-shore research and development to solving

this military problem.

Multi-cellular geocomposite containment units

The committee is aware that the military services and other

agencies of the Department of Defense have tested and used multicellular geocomposite containment units as modern gabions for

both troop protection and environmental disaster response. These

multi-cellular structures are made of hexagonal double twisted

wire mesh, reinforced with vertical steel rods and internally lined

with a geotextile sleeve. They can be rapidly filled with dirt to create perimeter walls with dual use applications, such as aircraft and

fuel point revetments and other troop protection structures as the

Army has done in the Balkans, or for flood control or containment

of environmental hazards in disaster response contingencies.

These containment units would appear to have great utility, and

would be more cost-effective, more efficient, less manpower intensive, and would have fewer environmental consequences than using

sandbags—the primary alternative. While there may be situations

where the use of sandbags would be more appropriate, the committee believes that the services and agencies of the Department

of Defense should be prepared to quickly deploy these containment

122

units when troop protection or disaster response requirements dictate. The committee realizes that these containment units can be

purchased through the General Services Administration as needed,

but believes that the Department of Defense should stockpile a certain amount for quick deployment, just as is currently done for

sandbags.

The committee directs the Department of Defense to evaluate its

use of these containment units and report the results to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2002. At a minimum,

this report should include a description of where these containment

units are currently in use, testing completed to date and scheduled

for the future, anticipated future uses, stockpile requirements, and

projected future funding for that purpose.

USS Cole damage control lessons learned

The Navy conducted a review of the ship construction and damage control equipment, actions, and capabilities of ships as part of

the investigation of the attack on the USS Cole and the study to

learn lessons from that incident. The investigation and the subsequent Navy analysis suggested that the Department should take a

number of actions to field equipment as soon as feasible to address

the issues of emergency power, flooding control and de-watering,

emergency breathing, information management, emergency communications, smoke clearance and treatment and evacuation of casualties. The Navy has informed the committee that it is implementing these recommendations.

The committee concurs with the recommendations of the Navy’s ‘‘lessons learned’’ analysis and supports the early fielding of these

improvements. In order to ensure continued attention to correcting

these important deficiencies, the committee directs the Secretary of

the Navy to provide:

(1) battery powered, long distance emergency communications capability to all units before they deploy overseas; and

(2) self-contained emergency breathing apparatus to all vessels during their next scheduled selected restricted availability.

(123)

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND

EVALUATION

Explanation of tables

The following tables provide the program-level detailed guidance

for the funding authorized in title II of this Act. The tables also

display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal

year 2002 budget request for research, development, test and evaluation programs and indicate those programs for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. As in

the past, the administration may not exceed the authorized

amounts (as set forth in the tables or, if unchanged from the administration request, as set forth in the Department of Defense’s

budget justification documents) without a reprogramming action in

accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in the report,

funding changes to the budget request are made without prejudice.

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

124

125

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS,

RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS

F–22 aircraft program (sec. 211)

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate the

legislative cost cap for engineering and manufacturing development

(EMD) for the F–22 program.

The Air Force has testified that delays in F–22 EMD and in developmental testing have caused the schedule for operational test

and evaluation to slip by roughly nine months from the dates predicted last year. There have been a number of reasons for these

delays, many of which are to be expected in such an ambitious development effort. Nevertheless, as the date for operational testing

slips, this will cost money that would cause the F–22 program to

exceed the EMD cost cap. The Air force has asked for relief from

the EMD cost cap.

The committee has repeatedly expressed concern about the potential effects of diminishing test content that have been reflected

in successive Air Force budget requests. For this reason, in section

131 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000,

the Congress insisted that the Secretary of Defense certify the adequacy of the EMD test plan before the Air Force would be permitted to award a low rate initial production contract.

The committee has also relied on the independent advice of the

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) in determining the adequacy of the F–22 test program. The DOT&E Acting

Director testified this year that the Air Force would not be ready

to enter operational testing on the original schedule. He also recommended that Congress eliminate the EMD cost cap to ensure

that there would be adequate developmental testing for the Air

Force and for the Defense Department to have high confidence that

the F–22 would be successful in operational testing.

The committee believes that it would be irresponsible to ignore

the possibility that, just short of completing development on an important and expensive program, the pressures of a legislative cost

cap would eliminate or truncate rigorous testing, the very activity

needed to ensure that the program is ready to be fielded.

C–5 aircraft reliability enhancement and reengining (sec.

212)

The budget request included $227.0 million in research and development for C–5 airlift aircraft, including $216.9 million for the

reliability enhancement and reengining program (RERP).

Last year, the engineering and manufacturing development

(EMD) plan encompassed developing upgrade kits for two aircraft,

with both of the kits slated for C–5B aircraft. The committee has

been concerned that the Air Force is focusing upgrade efforts on

the newer C–5B aircraft in an attempt to optimize operational

readiness rates in the near-term, with severe effects on the overall

airlift force readiness in the immediate future. In the Senate report

accompanying S. 2549 (S. Rept. 106–292), the committee gave the

Air Force direction in two areas:

(1) the Secretary of the Air Force was required to submit a

report containing analysis to support the Air Force’s recVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
126

ommendation on the sequence of C–5 aircraft upgrades based

on the lift requirements in the mobility requirements study–

2005 (MRS–05); and

(2) the EMD kit development efforts for two aircraft should

be for one C–5A and one C–5B.

The Air Force submitted the required report on April 5, 2001.

The report included two sections, one dealing with the specific

questions in the original Senate report, and another section providing the analysis of alternatives (AoA) of potential improvements

to strategic airlift capability prepared by the Institute for Defense

Analyses. The AoA concluded that, ‘‘the $5 billion required for the

upgrades in Alt 6’’ (i.e., upgrades for all C–5A and C–5B aircraft)

‘‘more than pays for itself in reduced operating costs over the 40–

year period examined.’’

Notwithstanding this conclusion, the Air Force now intends to include four C–5B aircraft in the RERP EMD program and no C–5A

aircraft. The Air Force has clearly chosen not to comply with the

committee’s direction on including one C–5A aircraft in the EMD

program at this time.

Therefore, the committee is recommending a provision that

would require the Air Force to include an equal number of C–5A

and C–5B kits in the RERP EMD program.

Review of alternatives to the V–22 Osprey aircraft (sec. 213)

The committee recommends a provision that would require that

the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) (USD (AT&L)) conduct a review of potential alternatives for

the V–22 program. The committee has supported the V–22 program

in the past, and has recommended substantial funding for continuing the program in the fiscal year 2002 budget.

Modernizing the Marine Corps medium lift helicopter (CH–46)

and the Special Operations Command aircraft (MH–53) is an important requirement. The committee believes that it would be prudent to conduct a thorough review of alternative systems that the

Department might procure to meet these requirements if the Department decides not to continue the V–22 program.

The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE

64262N for this purpose.

Joint biological defense program (sec. 214)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 217(a) of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 to define permissible obligations and to

identify reports to be delivered to the Congress for fiscal year 2002

for the anthrax vaccine procurement program. The committee notes

that continuing program oversight and funding visibility are necessary due to remaining challenges associated with the procurement of the vaccine for the biological warfare agent anthrax.

SUBTITLE C—MISSILE DEFENSE

Ballistic missile defenses

Ballistic missile defense was one of the most critical issues the

committee faced this year. Ballistic missile threats come in two disVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
127

tinct categories: theater ballistic missiles that threaten U.S. forces

and allies abroad, and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)

that directly threaten U.S. territory.

Theater ballistic missiles have long threatened forward deployed

U.S. forces; countries such as North Korea, Iran, Iraq, China, Syria

and Libya possess such missiles, most of which are capable of carrying chemical or biological weapons. The threat of theater ballistic

missiles is real and growing, and the committee believes that development and deployment of improved theater missile defense systems should occur as soon as possible. Deployment should occur,

however, only after rigorous testing has proven the systems to be

operationally effective. Past experience has shown that attempting

to deploy early ‘‘contingency capabilities’’ prior to adequate testing

can actually delay missile defense programs for years and result in

significant cost increases.

The number of potential adversaries with operational ICBMs is

far smaller than those with theater ballistic missiles. Although

Russia has roughly 1,000 ICBMs, the Cold War is over and the

United States and Russia have agreed not to target their missiles

at each other. China has a small arsenal of about 20 ICBMs that

do not have warheads and fuel installed on a daily basis. This force

is expected to be modernized and expanded in the coming years.

North Korea is developing an ICBM capable of reaching the United

States, although it has voluntarily suspended its long-range missile

flight test program for the time being. Other potential adversaries,

such as Iran, may also eventually develop ICBMs, facilitated by assistance from other nations.

The administration has said it intends to develop a missile defense system aimed at limited missile threats from nations such as

North Korea. Given the potential, longer-term ICBM threat to the

United States from countries such as North Korea, the committee

continues to support an aggressive research, development and testing program for defenses against ICBMs, i.e., national missile defense. This will give the United States the option to deploy such

a system if the situation warrants. The following four criteria have

been and should continue to be applied prior to a national missile

defense deployment:

(1) the threat should warrant deployment;

(2) the system should be demonstrated through realistic testing to be operationally effective;

(3) the cost should be weighed against other critical defense

needs; and

(4) the deployment should make the United States more secure, taking into account the actions of other nations.

The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

The National Missile Defense Act of 1999 included a statement

that it is U.S. policy to deploy an effective limited national missile

defense as soon as technologically possible. The Act also stated that

it is the policy of the United States to ‘‘seek continued negotiated

reductions in Russian nuclear forces.’’ Russia has threatened to

cease adhering to existing nuclear arms reduction treaty obligations or to add new warheads to its nuclear arsenal if the United

States unilaterally abrogates or withdraws from the Anti-Ballistic

128

Missile (ABM) Treaty. Hence, if the United States were to abrogate

or withdraw from the ABM Treaty, it could preclude further negotiated reductions, and thus conflict with the National Missile Defense Act of 1999.

The committee is hopeful that the ABM Treaty can be modified

or replaced with a new mutually agreed strategic framework with

Russia to permit a limited deployment of missile defenses while

preserving strategic stability. Fortunately, the administration has

adequate time to explore options with Russia. The Department of

Defense has requested only Research, Development, Testing and

Evaluation (RDT&E) funding for national missile defense for fiscal

year 2002 because the technology is not yet mature enough to go

into production, and the basic architecture for such a system is still

uncertain.

Moreover, at this time the ABM Treaty is not an obstacle to continued development or testing of a missile defense system. On July

19, 2001, Philip Coyle, former Department of Defense Director of

Operational Test and Evaluation, testified to the committee that

because of the early technological level of national missile defense,

and because the ABM Treaty permits considerable testing, there is

no reason to conduct tests in the near future that would conflict

with the ABM Treaty. ‘‘Since additional test ranges can be established under the ABM Treaty,’’ Mr. Coyle testified, ‘‘the treaty is

not now an obstacle to proper development and testing of a National Missile Defense system. Development of an effective NMD

network, even one with only a limited capability to intercept and

destroy long-range missiles, will take a decade or more. This is for

simple technical and budgetary reasons. In the near-term, the

ABM Treaty hinders neither development nor testing.’’

The administration has been vague and inconsistent regarding

potential conflicts between the ABM Treaty and the missile defense

testing schedule. On June 13, 2001, Lieutenant General Ronald

Kadish, Director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization,

briefed the committee on the Department of Defense missile defense strategy review. General Kadish told the committee that as

far as he knew at the time, the missile defense program proposal

that resulted from the review did not include any activities that

would violate the ABM Treaty in fiscal year 2002. On June 28,

2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told the committee he

‘‘didn’t know’’ if any ballistic missile defense activities in fiscal year

2002 would conflict with the ABM Treaty.

The administration prepared a policy paper in early July that

stated, ‘‘as we have informed our allies and Russia, we expect our

RDT&E efforts will conflict with the ABM Treaty limitations in a

matter of months, not years.’’ On July 12, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz testified to the committee that ‘‘one or more

aspects’’ of the missile defense testing program ‘‘will inevitably

bump up against treaty restrictions. Such an event is likely to

occur in months rather than in years. It is not possible to know

with certainty whether it will occur in the coming year.’’ He also

stated that ‘‘bump up against’’ is different than ‘‘conflict with.’’

These inconsistencies and uncertainties on such a critical issue as

whether proposed missile defense activities, using funds requested

129

for fiscal year 2002, would conflict with a treaty leave Congress

without important, clear and unambiguous information.

No country can have a veto over U.S. defense decisions. But the

reactions of other countries to the possible withdrawal of the

United States from the ABM Treaty should be considered and

weighed in determining whether such withdrawal would leave the

United States more secure. As noted above, unilateral U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty could lead Russia to stop dismantling

nuclear weapons, and to retain or eventually increase its multiple

warheads on long-range missiles. It also could lead other nations

to speed the deployment or increase the number of their long-range

nuclear missiles.

All these activities would result in more nuclear warheads on the

territory of other nations and could lead to an increased risk of

theft or proliferation of such warheads or their materials to rogue

states or terrorists. A bipartisan task force chaired by former Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler stated in its January 2001 report that ‘‘the most

urgent unmet national security threat to the U.S. today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction . . . could be stolen and sold

to terrorists or hostile nation states and used against American

troops abroad or citizens at home.’’ Finally, in response to unilateral U.S. withdrawal from the ABM

Treaty, Russia and China would produce, deploy and probably sell

missile defense countermeasures and decoys to our potential adversaries. A spiraling competition in countermeasures and countercountermeasures would then ensue.

This provision does not limit the President’s power to withdraw

from the ABM Treaty. The Supreme Court has determined that the

question of whether the President can withdraw from a treaty

without Senate approval is a political, non-judiciable issue. However, Congress has the exclusive power to authorize and appropriate funds. If Congress approves funds for activities that would

conflict with a treaty, and if such activities ultimately leave the

United States less secure, Congress would bear joint responsibility

for the consequences. Therefore, the committee recommends that

expenditures for any missile defense activities that would conflict

with the ABM Treaty, as determined by the President, should be

conditioned upon Congress specifically voting to approve such expenditures, under expedited procedures.

Ballistic missile defense funding

The administration has requested $8.3 billion for ballistic missile

defense programs for fiscal year 2002, a $3.0 billion, or 57 percent,

increase in missile defense funding over the fiscal year 2001 level.

This increase far exceeds the 10 percent increase for the Department of Defense as a whole. This funding was proposed for missile

defense despite reduced funding for needs in other defense areas,

such as modernization. As noted elsewhere in this report, in spite

of the large increase in funding requested for the Defense Department in fiscal year 2002, overall funding for modernization in the

budget request is actually below the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.

The increased funding for national missile defense was also proposed even though a ballistic missile attack on the United States

130

is the least likely threat to our country, according to the Joint

Chiefs of Staff and the Intelligence Community. Intelligence officials have stated that there are far more accurate and cheaper

means of delivering a weapon of mass destruction: e.g., by truck,

ship or suitcase. Unlike a ballistic missile, these means of delivery

would not leave a ‘‘return address’’ which the United States could

easily identify and immediately and devastatingly retaliate against.

The committee has also been informed that the number one North

Korean goal is regime survival, but if North Korea used a nuclear

missile against the United States, it would be promptly destroyed,

regime and all. Nevertheless the Department of Defense has proposed the greatest funding increase in response to this highly unlikely threat to our security—an attack by a rogue nation on the

United States with a long-range missile.

Despite the large proposed funding increase, the Department of

Defense has been extremely vague about its plans for missile defenses. No specific multi-year plan has been proposed. Rather, the

Department expects to decide how to proceed with missile defense

as it goes along. As Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz told the

committee on July 17, 2001: ‘‘...when you’re doing a development,

by definition you’re feeling your way. You do one test to see where

you go with the next test.’’ General Kadish told the committee on

July 12, 2001: ‘‘I cannot tell you today exactly what the [national

missile defense] system will look like 15, 10 or even 5 years from

now.’’ These are inadequate justifications for the expenditure of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

In its budget request, the Defense Department proposed aggregating nearly two dozen existing, well-defined missile defense activities into six large, amorphous programs with unclear goals and

insufficient program structure, creating ambiguity where previously there was clarity. Yet clarity is required to spend billions

of dollars of missile defense funding wisely and effectively. Congress must know what activities and programs will be executed

with the authorized missile defense funding. Congress needs to

know the general and specific plans for expenditure of missile defense funding, as well as the objectives and projected outyear costs

of programs that are begun now.

The committee has identified a significant portion of the proposed missile defense funding increase ($1.3 billion) that is poorly

justified and would be better used elsewhere in the Department.

Furthermore, the committee recommends a provision that would

require the Department of Defense to prepare a missile defense

baseline document and an annual R&D plan, to be updated and

submitted with the budget request, following the Department’s annual missile defense review. These documents would contain a comprehensive cost, schedule, and testing baseline and program plan

of the type required by other major defense programs. This will

help ensure that Congress can perform its required oversight function in this important area.

131

Presidential certification and expedited congressional approval process for certain uses of ballistic missile defense funds (sec. 221)

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the obligation or expenditure of funds authorized for ballistic missile defense for any activity that would be inconsistent with the requirements of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, as determined by

the President, if: (1) the ABM Treaty has been modified or replaced

by another agreement that would permit such activity, or (2) Congress has enacted a joint resolution specifically authorizing the obligation or expenditure in accordance with expedited procedures,

following a presidential certification.

In testimony before the committee, administration witnesses

stated that planned or proposed ballistic missile defense activities

of the Department of Defense (DOD) might pose a conflict with the

ABM Treaty ‘‘within months, not years.’’ The witnesses identified

three specific activities that could pose such a conflict in the coming months. Other proposed activities are also under review for

treaty compliance. However, while saying it is determined to proceed with tests that violate the treaty as developments unfold, the

DOD has not reached a conclusion as to whether the activities for

which it seeks funding would be in conflict with the ABM Treaty.

The committee believes that before authorizing funds for an activity that could result in unilateral withdrawal from a treaty that

has allowed nuclear arms reductions and promoted stability, Congress should make a clear and informed choice based on an understanding of the circumstances at the time the activities are proposed. No such understanding exists now.

Under the provision recommended by the committee, a joint resolution approving the expenditure of funds for activities inconsistent

with the ABM Treaty would be considered by Congress pursuant

to the expedited procedures specified in paragraphs (3) through (8)

of section 8066(c) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,

1985, as contained in section 101(h) of Public Law 98–473, 98 Stat.

1936 (except that the resolution would be referred to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives and that 20 hours of floor time would be provided for debate

on the resolution).

Under these expedited procedures, such a resolution would be

considered within 30 days, without the possibility of filibuster or

delay, and would be approved or disapproved by majority vote in

each House. The procedures specify that the two Committees on

Armed Services would have 15 days to consider the resolution. If

the measure were not reported in that time, the committees would

be discharged from further consideration of the resolution. The resolution would be placed directly on the calendar and it would be

in order for any Member of the respective House to move to proceed to its consideration at any time. The motion to proceed would

not be debatable, could not be laid aside to take up other business,

and would not be subject to any motions. Debate on the resolution

would be limited to not more than 20 hours, equally divided, with

no amendments or motions (including motions to proceed to other

business) in order. A resolution approved by one House would not

132

be referred to committee in the other House, and would be subject

to the same expedited floor procedures described above.

This provision would ensure that Congress has an opportunity to

vote specifically on whether to authorize the obligation or expenditure of funds for activities that would be in conflict with the ABM

Treaty. Given that the ABM Treaty permits withdrawal of a party

six months after giving notification, the 30–day limit for this process leading to such a congressional vote would not delay the national missile defense program, unless Congress votes not to permit

funding of the inconsistent activities. The vote would take place

within the six-month window prior to any withdrawal once the administration provides the required certification and notification of

its intent to carry out activities inconsistent with the ABM Treaty.

Program elements and procurement budget displays for ballistic missile defense (sec. 222)

The budget request for ballistic missile defense proposed a significant change in the program element structure of the Ballistic

Missile Defense Organization (BMDO). Instead of some 20 program

elements, including Major Defense Acquisition Programs for the

core ballistic missile defense programs required by section 223 of

title 10, United States Code, the budget request proposed six new

major program elements for $7.0 billion of research and development funding. Within these six elements there would be considerable flexibility to transfer funding without prior congressional approval. The committee is concerned that the proposed program element structure would make it more difficult for Congress to exercise required oversight of ballistic missile defense programs and activities.

The budget request also proposed to transfer to the relevant military departments three theater ballistic missile defense programs,

while transferring to the BMDO three programs that were previously within, or partially funded by, the Air Force. Patriot Advanced Capability–3 (PAC–3) and the Medium Extended Area Defense System (MEADS) would be transferred to the Army, and the

Navy Area Defense program would be transferred to the Navy. The

Airborne Laser (ABL) program, the Space-Based Laser (SBL) program, and the Space-Based Infrared System-Low Component

(SBIRS-Low) would all be transferred into the BMDO. These proposed changes would require a change to section 224 of title 10,

United States Code.

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 223 of title 10, United States Code, and repeal section 224 of

title 10. The provision would establish the six major program elements proposed by the Department and set forth certain additional

information required to be included in each program element with

the budget justification materials submitted to Congress with each

annual budget request. The provision would provide the Secretary

of Defense with authority, under defined circumstances, to vary the

amounts of funding within each program element, pending notification to Congress and after a period of 15 days.

This provision is intended to allow restructuring of the Department’s missile defense program in the manner proposed by the Secretary of Defense, while ensuring that Congress receives the level

133

of information needed to perform oversight of the BMDO’s programs and activities and that funds authorized and appropriated

for those programs are spent in a manner consistent with congressional intent.

Ballistic missile defense research and development program

baseline document (sec. 223)

The budget request proposed a substantially expanded research,

development and test program for ballistic missile defense for fiscal

year 2002. However, the budget request did not include a plan or

schedule for the revised research and development program.

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to submit a baseline document for the ballistic

missile defense research and development program for the Future

Years Defense Program submitted with the budget request by February 2002.

The baseline document would include a statement of objectives

for the program, including the intended standards for achieving the

stated objectives. It would also include an explanation of the technology or technologies to be pursued for each established missile

defense program and class of systems identified in the budget request, including the research and development objectives, cost

baseline and testing baseline for each technology. The provision

would require that the baseline document be updated and submitted annually to Congress for the period fiscal years 2003–2010.

Annual program plan for ballistic missile defense research

and development program (sec. 224)

The budget request did not include a detailed plan for ballistic

missile defense research and development activities. The committee

recommends a provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to submit, with the baseline document and with each annual

update of the baseline document described previously, an annual

plan providing details on the proposed program of research and development for that fiscal year and the following two fiscal years.

The annual plan would include detailed information about the

planned expenditures and schedule for the program and each major

activity included in the program plan, including procurement, military construction, and research and development activities. It

would also include a preliminary assessment of whether the funding and activities proposed are consistent with current United

States treaty obligations.

The provision would also require the submission, within 60 days

of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, of an interim program plan covering the planned activities for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. No more than 25 percent of

the funds authorized for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization

(BMDO) for fiscal year 2002 would be available for obligation or expenditure until the interim program plan is submitted. No more

than 50 percent of the funding authorized for the BMDO would be

available until the submission of the baseline document and the

annual plan.

The provision would require that research, development, test and

evaluation (RDT&E) activities of the BMDO be conducted in acVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
134

cordance with the program plan. The Secretary of Defense would

be permitted to modify the plan at any time, after providing appropriate notice to the congressional defense committees.

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Technology transition initiative (sec. 231)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to carry out a technology transition initiative

to facilitate the rapid transition of new technologies from science

and technology programs of the Department of Defense (DOD) into

acquisition programs for the production of the technologies.

The Senate report accompanying the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (S. Rept. 106–292) required the

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to report to the congressional defense committees on alternative approaches to ensuring that successful research initiatives

are fielded in a timely manner. The Under Secretary’s June, 2001

report points out a number of obstacles to the successful transition

of new technologies into production. For example, the report states:

A key reason why technology transition is difficult is because it requires the collaboration of three diverse groups

of individuals—researchers, acquisition program managers, and military users. Each group has a vital and

unique mission that leads to different cultural perspectives

when transition is required. . . . Effective transition requires these communities to work together as a team,

which is frequently a difficult issue.

The report points to a number of promising initiatives initiated

by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and

the military services to address these issues. For example: (1)

DARPA frequently teams with a military service to jointly fund a

technology for the service, in some cases even establishing a joint

service-DARPA program office; (2) the Navy has established a

Chief Technology Officer (CTO) with the responsibility to serve as

the senior advocate for the movement of technology; and (3) the

Army has established a Warfighter Rapid Acquisition Program

(WRAP) to address the gap in funding resulting from the time necessary to plan, program, budget and receive appropriations for the

procurement of a new technology.

The provision recommended by the committee would build on

these successful initiatives by requiring the Secretary to: (1) designate a senior official to serve as a senior advocate for technology

transition, comparable to the Navy’s CTO; (2) develop memoranda

of agreement, joint funding agreements, and other cooperative arrangements for the transition of technologies into production, similar to those initiated by DARPA; and (3) establish a technology

transition fund, similar to the Army’s WRAP program, to carry out

jointly-funded technology transition projects with the military services.

The committee directs each of the military services to designate

a senior official to serve as a senior advocate for technology transition within the military service and to work with the DOD TechVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
135

nology Transition Initiative Manager designated pursuant to this

provision. The senior technology transition advocates in the military services should work to identify and transition both technologies that are developed within the DOD science and technology

programs and technologies that are developed in the private sector.

In particular, the committee believes that the military services

should establish outreach programs to reach out to the small, nontraditional suppliers that produce much of today’s rapidly evolving,

cutting-edge technology. These outreach programs would facilitate

the rapid insertion of cutting edge technologies developed by hightech, small businesses into DOD acquisition programs. The military

departments should also consider the use of third-party partners,

who can help create and maintain contacts and relationships with

the appropriate high-tech communities.

Communication of safety concerns between operational testing and evaluation officials and program managers (sec.

232)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Director of Operational Test and Evaluation to ensure that safety

concerns developed during operational test and evaluation are

made available to system program managers.

The committee supports the independence of the operational test

agencies in conducting the initial operational test and evaluation

for weapons systems prior to a decision to enter full rate production. This independent assessment is critical in determining the effectiveness and suitability of the system for its intended purpose,

as well as its survivability and vulnerability, or lethality, as appropriate.

However, the committee is aware that, in certain cases, this

independence in conducting the evaluation has been applied in a

manner that places unreasonable limitations on the exchange of information during the course of the operational evaluation. Factual

data, including failure items and modes of failure, have in some

cases not been made available to the developing agency in an accurate or timely manner, as revealed in testimony before the committee in the case of a catastrophic airborne hydraulic failure on

the V–22 aircraft. Under the provision recommended by the committee, the developing agency should have no influence over the

conduct or results of the operational test and evaluation simply by

receiving factual data. In fact, the developing agency could possibly

continue trend analyses that may be useful in system development

and system safety determinations.

The committee believes that this provision should lead, at a minimum, to a concise, consistent, and unambiguous policy that will

give developing agencies visibility of factual data produced during

operational test and evaluation, while not allowing the developmental agency any influence in the outcome of those evaluations.

ADDITIONAL MATTERS OF INTEREST

Army

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

Composite materials basic research

The budget request included $69.1 million in PE 61104A for

multi-disciplinary basic research in university and industry research centers. The committee recommends an increase of $750,000

for basic research into lightweight multi-functional composite

armor to support Army transformation goals.

Advanced materials research for future combat systems

The budget request included $13.8 million in PE 62105A for applied research in Materials Technology. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for materials research that

can contribute to the development of future combat systems. Of

this amount, $4.0 million is to be used for advanced materials processing research in nanomaterials, polymer composites, metals, and

ceramics and $2.0 million is to be used for the development and

transition of emerging multifunctional materials, development of

new simulation tools for rapid design, and technology insertion activities.

Compact kinetic energy missile

The budget request included $40.1 million in PE 62303A for applied research in missile technology. The committee recognizes the

lethality capability that the smaller, lighter compact kinetic energy

missile can provide to future combat systems. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for continuing efforts to incorporate enabling technologies in the next generation of tactical missiles, especially the compact kinetic energy missile. The committee

also recommends an increase of $2.0 million for development of

miniaturized inertial measurement units to provide precision navigational capabilities for the compact kinetic energy missile. The

committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be

used in the award of contracts and other agreements under this

program.

Commercially-based tactical truck

The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE

62601A for an accelerated development program for hybrid platforms under the National Automotive Center (NAC) Commercially

Based Tactical Truck (COMBATT) program, which is part of the

Army 21st Century Truck program. The NAC has been working

under a cost-shared program with industry to develop a commercial

vehicle that could replace a portion of the existing High Mobility

Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) fleet. Work to date has

focused on mobility, durability, and electronic enhancements to

commercially available trucks. Under Phase I of the COMBATT

program, modifications were made to an existing HMMWV to enhance its safety, increase reliability, and enhance performance with

state-of-the-art electronics.

Advancements in alternative propulsion technologies and the integration of these technologies into future Army fleet vehicles is a

critical ingredient for success of the Army’s transformation. Hybrid

technology offers tremendous potential to reduce fuel consumption

and provide greater mobility and agility in military operations.

Under phase II of the COMBATT program, ongoing work in fiscal

147

year 2001 is focused on developing and testing hybrid platforms

that will offer the potential to reduce significantly fuel consumption

and provide increased agility and mobility in operation.

The $20.0 million recommended by the committee would enable

the NAC to initiate phase III of the COMBATT program. This

phase will include continued research and development, design,

and performance and endurance testing of hybrid platforms. Under

phase III, hybrid prototypes will be developed and a total of 18

commercial vehicles will be procured.

If hybrid technology proves to be successful in meeting military

needs, as many as 50,000 to 100,000 hybrid trucks could be required to replace or augment the existing HMMWV fleet of 100,000

vehicles. To provide a basis for future decisions in this area, the

committee directs the NAC to prepare a road map for further development and production of hybrid trucks. The road map should

include an assessment of what additional development or testing

would be required to move forward with rapid large-scale production of these vehicles and should include an estimate of the funding

and time required to complete the job.

Tungsten alloy penetrator

The budget request included $35.5 million in PE 62624A for applied research on weapons and munitions technology. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the development

of affordable processes to manufacture tungsten kinetic energy

penetrators for advanced munitions. The committee notes the possibility of replacing depleted uranium penetrators with potentially

less environmentally-dangerous tungsten penetrators without reducing the lethality of munitions.

Coolers for portable military applications

The budget request included $27.8 million in PE 62705A for electronics and electronic devices. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for research on man-portable cooling systems

that will cool soldiers in nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC)

protective gear and potentially generate power for future Objective

Warrior technologies including navigation, communications, and

computing equipment. The committee directs that all applicable

competitive procedures be used in the award of contracts and other

agreements under this program.

Ground vehicle batteries

The budget request included $27.8 million in PE 62705A for applied research electronics and electronic devices. The committee

notes the need for advanced battery technologies to support requirements of critical ground systems, especially during silent

watch missions. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase

of $1.5 million to develop battery and charger systems to replace

lead acid battery systems. The committee directs that all applicable

competitive procedures be used in the award of contracts and other

agreements under this program.

148

Wireless technology testbed

The budget request included $24.3 million in PE 62782A for

Command, Control, and Communications Technology. The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million for the development

of a testbed to evaluate commercial wireless technologies for specific military applications so that the military can better leverage

technology advancements made by the civilian telecommunications

industry. The committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in the award of contracts and other agreements

under this program.

Geosciences and atmospheric research

The budget request included $42.9 million in PE 62784A for Military Engineering Technology. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for research in the environmental sciences,

including hydrometeorology, climatology, and remote sensing data

fusion techniques. The committee recognizes that this research can

contribute to tactical weather technologies and improve weather intelligence and situational awareness for mission planning and execution.

Arthropod-borne infectious disease control

The budget request included $82.5 million in PE 62787A for

Medical Technology. The committee is concerned about the potential effects of arthropod-borne infectious diseases such as malaria,

dengue fever, Lyme disease, and West Nile virus, as well as the effect these diseases could have on readiness in overseas deployments. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for

research to establish the molecular basis for vaccines to prevent

disease transmission by ticks and mosquitos. The committee directs

that all applicable competitive procedures be used in the award of

contracts and other agreements under this program.

Personal navigation for the objective force warrior

The budget request included $60.3 million in PE 63001A for

Warfighter Advanced Technology. The committee recommends an

increase of $5.0 million to develop microelectromechanical systems

(MEMS)-based combination inertial navigation system and global

positioning system (INS/GPS) precision location information systems to support soldiers operating in urban environments. The

committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be

used in the award of contracts and other agreements under this

program.

Unmanned aerial vehicle wideband radio frequency network

The budget request included $44.8 million in PE 63003A for

Aviation Advanced Technology. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million to develop data links for unmanned aerial vehicles. These capabilities will promote implementation of network

centric warfare concepts and enhance the use of unmanned vehicles

to provide battlefield commanders with improved situational

awareness. The committee directs that all applicable competitive

149

procedures be used in the award of contracts and other agreements

under this program.

Combat vehicle technology development and support

The budget request included $193.9 million for Combat Vehicle

and Automotive Advanced Technology. The committee recommends

an increase of $10.0 million for research and development on advanced combat vehicle technologies to support the goals of Army

transformation.

Of this amount, $5.0 million would be used for research into

lightweight steels, vehicle weight and cost reduction, corrosion control, and vehicle architecture optimization. The committee notes

that novel light truck architectures combined with advanced structural materials could reduce vehicle weight without degrading performance or increasing costs, and could support the Army’s transformation into a lighter, more lethal, survivable and tactically mobile force.

In addition, the committee recommends that $5.0 million be used

for the expansion of the use of standardized product data sets in

Army ground vehicle design and life cycle support activities to ensure timely delivery of replacement parts and to reduce vehicle life

cycle costs.

Mobile parts hospital

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE

63005A for the continuation of the Army’s effort to develop a selfcontained, mobile manufacturing center that can produce spare

parts at the point of need. In developing the program, consideration

should be given to possible partnership with academic institutions

with demonstrated expertise in systems engineering and manufacturing. The committee directs that cost sharing be used to the maximum extent practicable.

Army technology for environmental enhancements

The budget request included $7.5 million in PE 63779A for environmental quality technology demonstrations and validation. The

committee recommends an additional $1.0 million for the implementation of the Managing Army Technologies for Environmental

Enhancement (MANATEE) program.

Plasma energy pyrolysis system

The budget request included $7.5 million in PE 63779A for Environmental Quality Technology Demonstration and Validation. The

committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for industrialscale systems for the destruction of hazardous wastes at Army facilities using plasma energy pyrolysis technologies.

Comanche

The budget request included $787.9 million for development and

operational testing of the RAH–66 Comanche. The Comanche program requires a communications suite that is compatible with air

and ground components in a joint environment. To meet this requirement, the Comanche Program Office had intended to leverage

the development of satellite communications and Link 16 capabiliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
150

ties and miniaturized avionics by the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

program. However, delays in the JSF program require the Army to

develop those capabilities to support Comanche fielding. This is the

highest priority in the modernization category of the Army’s list of

unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends an increase of $28.3 million for a communications suite

for the Comanche, a total authorization of $816.2 million.

Javelin

The budget request included $492,000 in PE 64611A for Counter

Active Protection System (CAPS) countermeasures software. Additional software modifications and the installation of attachment

points and electrical connections needed to incorporate CAPS into

the Javelin missile are high priorities on the Army’s list of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends an increase of $5.2 million for this purpose, a total authorization of $5.7 million.

Movement tracking system

The budget request included no funding in PE 64622A for the

Movement Tracking System. Developing the ability of the Movement Tracking System to interface with other command and control systems, such as the Army Battle Command System and the

Global Combat Support System-Army, is a priority on the Army’s

list of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. The committee

recommends an authorization of $3.0 million for this purpose.

Night vision systems engineering development

The budget request included $16.4 million in PE 64710A for the

development of night vision systems. The Army has begun a program to identify, test, evaluate and fully develop a new night vision

goggle to eliminate some of the shortcomings of the current AN/

PVS–7 goggle. The Army has funded development of the direct

view version of the Enhanced Night Vision Goggle, but has not allocated funding to follow up on the funding provided by Congress

in fiscal year 2001 to continue the development of the electronic

version. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for

this purpose, a total authorization of $18.4 million.

BAT brilliant anti-armor submunition

The budget request included $123.9 million in PE 64768A for development of the BAT brilliant anti-armor submunition for the

Army Tactical Missile System, including $23.4 million for testing.

The June 2001 BAT developmental test was unsuccessful, requiring another developmental test prior to the initial operational test

and evaluation. The committee recommends an increase of $9.0

million for additional BAT testing, a total authorization of $132.9

million.

Programwide activities

The budget request included $69.1 million in PE 65801A for

management support activities. The Army has undertaken the extremely complex task of transforming the force to meet emerging

threats while maintaining current readiness to deter and defeat the

151

threats of today. The committee commends the Army for chartering

a task force to integrate and coordinate the myriad efforts required

to ensure a successful transformation to the Objective Force. The

Task Force is the first priority in the Objective Force category of

the Army’s list of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. The

committee recommends an increase of $18.8 million for the Objective Force Task Force, a total authorization of $87.9 million.

Combat vehicle improvement programs

The budget request included $195.6 million in PE 23735A for

combat vehicle improvement programs, including $12.6 million for

ground combat vehicle horizontal technology integration efforts. Accelerating the development of advanced propulsion hybrid electric

drive for combat vehicle platforms is a high priority on the Army’s

list of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. The committee

supports the Army in this initiative and recommends an increase

of $20.0 million for hybrid electric drive development, a total authorization of $215.6 million.

Aircraft modifications/product improvement program

The budget request included $143.6 million in PE 23744A for aircraft modifications and product improvements, including $25.9 million for the Aerial Common Sensor (ACS). Risk reduction efforts for

the Aerial Common Sensor are a high priority in the Objective

Force category of the Army’s list of unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2002. The committee believes that transforming to the Objective Force must be among the Army’s highest priorities and recommends an increase of $21.5 million for ACS:

(1) $9.0 million for additional communications intelligence

and electronics intelligence sensor packages to support ACS developmental and operational testing;

(2) $2.5 million for a risk reduction initiative that provides

for the tailoring of existing system models and simulation data

bases to provide a more realistic virtual environment for Milestone I and II decisions; and

(3) $10.0 million for purchase, vice leasing, of ACS aircraft

for research and development efforts. The total authorization is

$165.1 million.

Aircraft engine component improvement program

The budget request included $13.0 million in PE 23752A to develop, test and qualify improvements to aircraft engine components, but included no funding to continue the work funded in fiscal year 2001 to further develop the Universal Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) and the Liquid-Or-Light-End (LOLA)

Air Boost Pump.

The Universal FADEC will be applicable to all current and future Army turbine engines, significantly reducing procurement

costs while enhancing engine and aircraft operability. The Army estimates that qualifying and installing the FADEC will result in

cost savings exceeding $100.0 million. More importantly, it will

greatly increase the safety of Army aviators through reduced pilot

workload.

152

Similarly, installing the LOLA boost pump will increase the safety of Army aviators by preventing potential engine flame-outs and

onboard or post-crash fires. Cost savings are estimated at $13.0

million for every $1.0 million invested. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million

to continue the development and qualification of an Universal

FADEC, and an increase of $2.0 million to develop the LOLA, a

total authorization of $23.0 million.

Rapid acquisition program for transformation

The budget request included $23.59 million in PE 23761A for the

Rapid Acquisition Program for Transformation (RAPT). The committee supports this program’s goal of rapidly fielding proven technologies to soldiers as quickly as possible using a streamlined acquisition process and believes that the program has successfully

saved significant time and dollars. The committee notes that 23 of

the 25 initiatives approved by the Congress since fiscal year 1997

have been fielded, that the General Accounting Office’s recommendations for improvements to the process have been implemented, and that the Air Force has initiated a very similar program based upon the observed success of the Army program.

The committee recommends the transfer of funding from the

RAPT program element to the program elements supporting the

systems chosen by the Army for entry into the program for fiscal

year 2002 as follows: (1) $6.0 million in PE 63639A for XM 1028 Cartridge;

(2) $1.2 million in PE 64804A for Unit Water Pod (CAMEL);

(3) $1.0 million in PE 64804A for Load Handling System

Compatible Water Tankrack (HIPPO); (4) $1.3 million in PE 64328A for Project D (Classified Program); (5) $4.4 million in PE 64818A for Information Dissemination

Management—Tactical (IDM–T);

(6) $2.7 million in PE 64713A for Authorized Stockage List

Mobility System (ASLMS);

(7) $2.2 million in PE 64710A for Digital Reconnaissance,

Surveillance, and Target Acquisition System (DRSTA);

(8) $1.0 million in PE 33141A and $0.3 million in Other Procurement Army, budget line 104, for the Future Finance System; and

(9) $3.5 million in Other Procurement Army, budget line 33,

for Global Positioning System (GPS) capability in the Single

Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS).

Information operations training

The budget request included $8.3 million in PE 33140A for the

Information Systems Security Program. The committee notes the

critical need for training of officers in information security technologies and operations, especially as the military moves toward

more joint, network centric operations. Therefore, the committee

recommends an increase of $1.0 million to supplement the training

of officers in Information Operations to better integrate efforts to

protect the force’s command, control, communications, computers,

intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) and other caVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
153

pabilities, attack adversary C4ISR and respond to potentially hostile C4ISR.

Tactical unmanned aerial vehicle development

The budget request included $38.2 million in PE 35204A to develop tactical unmanned aerial vehicle (TUAV) systems, including

$16.4 million to continue development of advanced payloads.

The Army proposed to use the advanced payloads funding to

evaluate the maturity of various technology efforts and pursue

those that might lead to an employable TUAV capability. The

Army would also use these funds to transition technologies that

could directly support the Army’s Objective Force capabilities. The

Army has identified needed payloads as those that would contribute to missions such as countermine, counter camouflage, and

counter weapons of mass destruction.

The Army has informed the committee of two opportunities for

exploring new payloads. One opportunity would involve repackaging a laser light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor that was

demonstrated in the rapid terrain visualization (RTV) advanced

concept technology demonstration (ACTD). The RTV ACTD effort

demonstrated acquiring high-resolution digital terrain elevation

data in support of war fighter exercises. The Army estimates that,

with an additional $5.0 million, they would be able to repackage

this sensor and make it ready for employment on the TUAV.

The second initiative would involve demonstrating a potential

TUAV attack capability. This demonstration would investigate employing a brilliant anti-tank (BAT) munition on a surrogate vehicle,

an existing Hunter UAV. The Army has estimated that this effort

would entail spending an additional $1.0 million in fiscal year

2002.

The committee believes that these would be important activities

for supporting objective force capabilities and should proceed as

quickly as is prudent. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 35204A to support these additional

tasks in fiscal year 2002.

Navy

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

Navy research and development budget justification material

The budget justification materials provided to Congress are required by the Department of Defense (DOD) Financial Management Regulation (DOD 7000.14–R) to include, at a minimum, the

following information:

(1) clear and concise exhibits;

(2) project justification for each project that has funding greater than $1.0 million;

(3) new starts within the project;

(4) the military requirements the project is being designed to

meet;

(5) total funding, schedule, and technical changes since the

previous budget submission;

(6) related efforts by appropriation, budget activity, line item

and program element/line number;

(7) justification narratives for the past year, the current

year, and the budget year;

(8) total funding in the narratives that matches total funding

in the program element; and

(9) if program element restructuring and project realignment

diminish the value of cumulative resource information for the

past year, explanation of the program elements that were restructured and realigned.

The Navy’s fiscal year 2002 research and development budget

justification did not comply with the DOD Financial Management

Regulation and was insufficient for the committee to determine the

status of past year and current year programs. In addition, the justification materials did not provide the information summarized in

the items (1) through (9) for the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

Upon discovering that the amended budget request justification

materials provided neither the DOD required information nor a coherent track of prior, current, and future years funding, the committee requested additional explanatory information from the

Navy. The Navy provided some additional information that made

it apparent that a number of programs previously funded were not

accounted for and previous investments were not carried forward.

Of particular concern was the Navy’s request to combine program

elements into a lesser number of program elements. The Navy has

completed a two-year effort to restructure the science and technology planning process and realigned the science and technology

(S&T) funding under a new set of program elements. Although the

committee has been generally supportive of realignments to

streamline the management of the S&T process, this proposed program element realignment would result in the loss of visibility for

a number of key efforts that have been robustly funded in previous

Navy budget requests and closely scrutinized by this committee.

The committee notes that the Air Force has proposed a realignment of its S&T program elements that did not cause this loss of

visibility and is accompanied by adequate budget justification material.

The committee considers program element organization vital to

focus key efforts throughout the budget planning and execution

cycle and is unwilling to relinquish oversight responsibilities by

168

combining a number of program elements into larger, less focused

efforts for which the service provides inadequate budget justification material.

In addition, the committee is concerned with a statement by a

senior Navy official which indicated that the fiscal year 2002 and

subsequent budget requests would not include research and development to correct fleet problem areas. However, a survey of Pacific

and Atlantic fleet type commanders revealed that there are a number of current fleet operational issues that require research and development to correct, including some that relate directly to force

protection ‘‘lesson learned’’ from the USS Cole incident.

The committee believes that funding technologies for future concepts must be balanced with correcting current and future fleet

known deficiencies. Therefore, the committee directs the Assistant

Secretary of the Navy (Research, Development and Acquisition)

(ASN (RD&A)) to report, no later than January 31, 2002, to the

congressional defense committees, a plan that focuses on transition

of S&T products into operational systems.

In addition, the committee recommends restoring the program

element structure included in previous budget requests. The committee directs the ASN (RD&A) to provide the defense committees

of Congress, no later than 30 days after passage of the Senate authorization of the budget request, and prior to the execution of any

funds authorized by this Act, an amended justification of estimates

for budget activities 1–3 in the research, development, test & evaluation accounts. This amended justification will include clear accounting for all programs funded in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 and

the migration of programs and funding levels in new program elements proposed in fiscal year 2002.

The Secretary of the Navy is directed to provide, in future budget

requests, the information to Congress as required by the DOD Financial Management Regulation.

The following program elements requested in the amended budget request are authorized as follows:

PE Project Number/Title Budget

request

Committee

recommended

62123N ...... Force Protection Advanced Technology ................................................................. 117,072 0

62111N ...... Surface/Aerospace Surveillance & Weapons Technology ...................................... 0 44,092

Missile Defense and Directed Energy ................................................................... .................... (33,804)

Navy Air Vehicle Technology ................................................................................. .................... (10,288)

62121N ...... Surface Ship Technology ....................................................................................... 0 56,064

62234N ...... Materials and Radio Frequency/Electro-optics/Infrared Electronics Technology .. 0 14,278

62633N ...... Undersea Warfare Weapons Technology ............................................................... 0 2,638

62747N ...... Undersea Warfare Applied Research .................................................................... 76,510 0

62633N ...... Undersea Warfare Weapons Technology ............................................................... 0 60,941

62314N ...... Undersea Surveillance and Weapons Technology ................................................. 0 15,569

63123N ...... Force Protection Advanced Technology ................................................................. 85,297 0

63508N ...... Surface Ship and Sub HM&E Advanced Technology ............................................ 0 66,658

R2224/Automation to Reduce Manning ................................................................ 0 (1,000)

Advanced Electrical Systems ................................................................................ 0 (16,800)

Advanced Coating Systems, Machinery Flanking/heavy truss ............................. 0 (9,358)

Dynamic and Passive Magazine Protection .......................................................... 0 (2,000)

Advanced Damage Countermeasures ................................................................... 0 (1,000)

Near Field De-amping ........................................................................................... 0 (1,200)

Ship Surveillance & Protection ............................................................................. 0 (8,100)

Electronic Building Blocks .................................................................................... 0 (7,200)

Ship hull design for AOE–10 class & MPF (Future) ............................................ 0 (20,000)

63792N ...... Air Systems & Weapons Advanced Technology Transition ................................... 0 18,639

169

PE Project Number/Title Budget

request

Committee

recommended

R0466 Advanced Avionics Subsystems ................................................................ 0 (3,586)

W2014 Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Technology ....................... 0 (7,534)

R0477 Weapons Advanced Technology ................................................................. 0 (7,519)

Total ......................................................................................................... 278,879 278,879

Marine mammal research

The budget request included $389.8 million in PE 61153N for Defense Research Sciences. The committee notes the recent finding of

the National Research Council that there is an inadequacy of

knowledge of how marine mammals react to natural and humanmade sound. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of

$1.0 million for basic research on the effects of military and commercial operations, especially the generation of low frequency

sound, on the behavior of marine mammals. The committee directs

that all applicable competitive procedures be used in the award of

contracts and other agreements under this program.

Ocean observing program

The budget request included $389.8 million in PE 61153N for Defense Research Sciences. The committee recommends an additional

$8.0 million for basic research to establish an integrated, sustained

ocean observing system to support safe navigation, maritime operations, and characterization of environmental conditions for training exercises.

Integrated biological and chemical defense technology platform

The budget request included $66.3 million in PE 62114N for

Power Projection Applied Research. The committee recommends an

increase of $2.0 million for development of a network that links

harmful agent sensors with appropriate medical, government, and

military officials. These efforts are part of the committee’s thrust

in developing technologies to address terrorist threats, particularly

those involving the use of weapons of mass destruction. The committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in

the award of contracts and other agreements under this program.

Data fusion

The committee recommends an increase in PE 62232N of $5.0

million for the development of a dedicated data fusion processor

and its algorithms which will lead to the ability to fuse

hyperspectral and panchromatic data. Data fusion technology is

critical for warfighters to make use of the full capabilities of advanced battlefield sensors and achieve the potential of network centric warfare, which is designed to integrate information systems,

weapons systems and decision-makers.

Advanced personal communicator

The budget request included $83.6 million in PE 62235N for

Common Picture Applied Research to develop technologies to improve situational awareness for the warfighter. The committee recVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00191 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
170

ommends an increase of $3.0 million for the development of

handheld software radio technology to emulate multiple diverse

wireless devices in accordance with military requirements. This

technology can allow military personnel to communicate with numerous radios and other wireless devices in support of concepts of

network centric operations.

Bioenvironmental hazards research

The budget request included $71.3 million in PE 63236N for

Warfighter Sustainment Applied Research. The committee continues to be concerned that there is insufficient understanding of

the full impact and hazards to humans, animals, and plants from

the use of biological agents. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for bioenvironmental hazards research, including the development of biosensors and biomarkers.

Nanotechnology research

The committee recognizes the revolutionary capabilities that the

application of nanoscience and nanotechnology can have on future

Naval operations. As part of the Department’s participation in the

National Nanotechnology Initiative, the committee recommends an

increase of $8.0 million in naval research into this burgeoning scientific field.

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

62271N for nanotechnology research to support Future Naval Capabilities. Of this amount, $3.0 million would be used for research

into highly multi-functional nanoscale sensors that combine sensing, processing, computation, and communications functions; and

$1.0 million would be used for research to characterize the properties of wide bandgap semiconductor nanomaterials. The committee also recommends an increase of $4.0 million in

PE 62236N for research on the development of biosensor

nanotechnology to sense low, sublethal concentrations of biological

agents at long ranges.

Training immersion facility

The budget request included $71.3 million in PE 62236N for

Warfighter Sustainment Applied Research. The committee recognizes the potential of exploiting advances in virtual reality technologies to develop more realistic training environments for

warfighters. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million

to initiate development of a modeling, simulation and training immersion facility and to carry out research in immersive training

technologies.

Electronics research for naval applications

The budget request included $62.1 million in PE 62271N for applied research in radio frequency systems. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million for applied research in electronics that will enable future naval technologies, especially those

required to support network centric operations. Of this amount,

$3.0 million would be used for developing semiconductor and superconducting technology to produce a flexible digital waveform generator for future RF systems; and $2.5 million would be used for reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
171

search on wide bandgap semiconductor materials and devices for

application in advanced power electronics, communications, and

sensor systems. The committee also recommends an increase of

$2.5 million for research on high brightness electron sources for

vacuum electronics applications. The committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in the award of contracts

or other agreements under these programs and that cost sharing

be used to the maximum extent practicable.

Both solid state and vacuum electronics are critical defense technologies and are integral to the performance of numerous current

and future military systems. The committee recognizes the importance of a balanced research investment in radio frequency electronics and directs the Department of Defense to ensure that the

variety of technologies within this area continue to receive adequate funding to exploit new discoveries and the evolution of past

research.

Ship service fuel cell technology trainer

The committee supports the development of energy efficient and

environmentally sound power plants for future use on Naval vessels and recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63508N for

the establishment of a ship service fuel cell technology trainer.

Advanced composite modular ship hulls

The budget request included no funds for advanced composite

modular hull research, development, test and evaluation. The Navy

intends to increase the use of composite construction materials in

future Navy ships. Constructing composite hull sections and connecting them to form a hull module would be a building block toward increasing the knowledge base for ship construction using

composites. Composites have the potential to increase ship self-defense capabilities by enabling a wider range of hull design options.

In addition, embedding sensors in composites has the potential to

reduce life cycle costs by reducing maintenance requirements.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million

in PE 63508N for construction and testing of advanced composite

modular ship hull sections.

DDG–51 class rudder improvement

The budget request included no funds to initiate a corrective design action for the excessive corrosion the Navy has been experiencing on the rudders of DDG–51–class destroyers. Rudder corrosion is causing unexpected increases in cost and schedule for DDG–

51 ship maintenance availabilities. Any such increase directly leads

to reduced operational availability.

Using composites for construction, and applying a design modification to reshape a section of the rudder, have the potential to:

(1) solve the excessive corrosion problems; (2) reduce cost and

schedule delays in maintenance; and (3) increase operational availability.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million

in PE 63508N for DDG–51–class composite rudder design and testing.

172

Laser welding and cutting for ship manufacturing

The budget request included no funds for the optimized laser

manufacturing program in PE 63508N. Improvements in laser

welding and cutting technology have the potential to reduce the

cost of manufacturing the smaller components required to build

ships that require more precision than large sheets of steel or aluminum. The current process that cuts small components out of Ibeams creates an amount of useless scrap and is not precise. More

effective use of laser welding and cutting has the potential to reduce the scrap and cut precise parts by cutting components from

sheets of metal instead of I-beams. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.3 million in PE 63508N to continue and

complete an initiative started in fiscal year 2001 for demonstration

and qualification of laser welding and cutting technologies.

Technology demonstration for future ship systems

The budget request included no funds in PE 63508N for a focused effort to demonstrate specific technologies in a shipboard environment. Such demonstrations could help mitigate risk in fielding

new capabilities for future Navy ships.

The committee believes that there are a number of maturing

technologies that would benefit from shipboard testing prior to

being included in ship designs. These maturing technologies include electric waste systems, electronic generators using wind as

the motive force, electronic valve controls, wearable computer technology, gas plasma antennas, embedded sensor systems, and power

electronic building blocks. These technologies have the potential to

lower total operating costs, reduce maintenance requirements, and

improve operational effectiveness of future Navy ships. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million

in PE 63508N for at-sea demonstrations of the maturing technologies listed above.

Ocean modeling research for mine and expeditionary warfare

The budget request included $48.3 million in PE 63782N for various mine and expeditionary warfare advanced technology efforts,

including ocean modeling and simulation to provide concept-based

assessment for organic mine countermeasures. The Navy established a limited network of sensors for ocean modeling and simulation to collect key information including current and eddy flow, bottom contour and content, thermal layer behavior, and cold water

phenomena. The Navy needs additional sensors to provide effective

undersea and expeditionary warfare environmental information in

the form of situational awareness predictions for regional commanders in chief (CINCs) and tactical commanders.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.7 million

in PE 63782N to expand the network of sensors and continue ocean

modeling research.

Deployable joint command and control

The budget request included $50.0 million in PE 63237N for a

new start effort to develop a future command center. The single

page of budget justification material indicates that the Department

173

would use these funds to create a prototype command center, provide manning during the testing phase, keep it ready to deploy in

case of contingencies, and turn the prototype over to the unified

commands when the next iteration of a command center is ready

for testing.

There is no indication that the effort involves utilizing ongoing

efforts and funding from the other services’ programs to support

this activity. Nevertheless, the committee considers this goal reasonable, but questions whether the Department could effectively

use this amount of money on such a new start activity.

The committee recommends a reduction of $20.0 million in PE

63237N and directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide more thorough budget justification material in future budget requests, consistent with direction the committee is recommending elsewhere in

this report.

Electromechanical actuators

The budget request included no funds for continuing a small

business innovation research (SBIR) initiative to replace maintenance-intensive, hydraulic valve actuators with electromechanical

actuators. The SBIR program demonstrated the potential for

electromechanical actuators to increase reliability, decrease maintenance, and reduce total operating costs for ships and submarines.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.9 million

in PE 63561N to continue the SBIR initiative to replace hydraulic

actuators with electromechanical actuators.

Submarine composite sail

The budget request included no funding for development of composite material components for a submarine’s sail area. A composite sail has the potential to improve operational performance

while reducing total operating costs of future submarines. An effort

to develop and test a composite sail is consistent with the technology insertion approach of the Virginia-class submarine program.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million

in PE 63561N for development of an advanced submarine composite sail.

Neutralization of facility threats

The budget request included $26.0 million in PE 63635M for Marine Corps ground combat supporting arms systems. The committee

is concerned that technologies to neutralize and destroy threats

posed by chemical and biological weapons have not been integrated

into operational systems. The committee recommends an increase

of $2.0 million for environmental testing, concept-of-operations development, and research and development to rapidly field operational systems utilizing nanotechnologies that are capable of

clearing facilities of chemical and biological agent contamination.

The committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be

used in the award of contracts and other agreements under this

program.

174

Urban operations environment research

The budget request included $26.0 million in PE 63635M for Marine Corps ground combat supporting arms systems. The committee

recommends an increase of $4.0 million for assessment, analysis,

and development of environmental remediation capabilities to support the use of nonlethal weapons to minimize environmental effects. The committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in the award of contracts and other agreements

under this program.

Ship-based missile fire support for ashore forces

The budget request included $34.5 million in PE 63795N for the

land attack standard missile (LASM) and no funding for the advanced land attack missile (ALAM). In addition, the budget request

included no procurement funding for LASM.

Congress supported the Navy’s requests in fiscal years 1999

through 2001 for rapid development and fielding of an interim land

attack missile system to provide fire support for Marines ashore.

LASM, the interim system proposed by the Navy, was purported to

be a low risk, minimum cost system that would refurbish and reuse

standard missile (SM–2) Block II and III missiles already in the

Navy inventory. In addition, the system was supposed to be an interim step to provide fire support capability while the Navy completed an analysis of alternatives to determine what ALAM option

would meet the Marine Corps requirements for fire support.

The Navy has completed the analysis of alternatives, but has not

funded development of the ALAM, the objective fire support missile

system. The committee recognizes that the former Under Secretary

of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics) (USD(AT&L))

had approved the Navy’s plan to move forward with the LASM program, but only on the condition that the ALAM program move forward as well. If the current USD(AT&L) has made a decision to

truncate the ALAM effort, such a decision has not been conveyed

to the committee.

In addition, the LASM program has been experiencing development delays and cost increases. These delays have resulted in the

Navy canceling the fiscal year 2002 procurement and delaying the

fiscal year 2003 initial operating capability (IOC) of LASM to a

later fiscal year. It is not apparent whether or not the Department

of Defense intends to complete development, testing, and fielding

of LASM because there is no Future Years Defense Program for

Congress to review. In addition, given the LASM program delay,

increased development cost, delayed IOC, and completion of the

ALAM analysis of alternatives, it is prudent to reassess the requirement, cost, schedule, and war fighting impact of continuing

the LASM development.

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $19.5 million

in PE 63795N for land attack missile development. Further, the

committee directs the USD(AT&L) to review the Navy’s plan to

provide fire support for the Marine Corps, and to report to the congressional defense committees no later than December 1, 2001 on

his recommendations regarding the plan.

175

Budget technical adjustment

The budget request included $25.6 million in PE 63216N for

aviation survivability activities. The Navy informed the committee

that the intended request for this program element was $7.5 million. The amount requested in that line included $18.0 million that

should have been requested in PE 64272N for the tactical aircraft

directed infrared countermeasure (TADIRCM) program.

The committee recommends adjusting the two budget lines to

correct this error.

Aircrew systems development

The budget request included $7.7 million in PE 64264N for aircrew systems development, but included no funding for developing

the Navy’s integrated common display helmet concept. This modular helmet concept would be based around a common inner helmet, which would provide basic life support functions. The Navy

would attach other, mission-specific equipment to the common

inner helmet, such as night vision and target cueing systems. Such

a common helmet approach could help reduce stress on aircrews

and make it easier for the Navy to field newer technologies more

efficiently.

The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE

64264N for the development and flight evaluation of the Navy common display helmet, a total authorization of $13.7 million for aircrew systems development.

Power node control centers

The budget request included no funds for the continued development of power node control centers (PNCC). PNCCs integrate shipboard power functions, including conversion, switching, distribution, and protection. The technology is applicable to all ship classes,

and will be a building block as the Navy transitions to an all electric ship.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million

in PE 64300N to install, test and evaluate PNCCs.

Shipboard personnel tracking and location system

The budget request included no funds in PE 64300N for shipboard personnel tracking and location technologies. The Navy has

indicated that one of their challenges to reduced manning on ships

is to know where personnel are located within the ship. A system

that provides personnel location and status could be crucial in

making critical damage control and ‘‘search and rescue’’ decisions.

The Navy had previously begun to explore the possibility of using

ultra wideband (UWB) radio frequency technology to solve the challenge of providing personnel location information aboard ships.

Systems that employ UWB technology have the potential to provide

precision tracking, better performance in multi-path environments,

and lower power requirements compared to traditional radio frequency technologies.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million

in PE 63400N to build upon previous research for a shipboard personnel tracking and location system using UWB technology.

176

Aegis operational readiness test system

The budget request included $0.3 million in PE 64307N to continue design efforts for a replacement for the Aegis operational

readiness test system. This system provides real time analysis and

testing which enables operators to maximize performance of both

the Aegis radar and the MK 99 missile fire control system. The

present testing system is based upon a legacy desktop computer.

The fact that this computer is no longer in production raises serious concerns about the Navy’s ability to support this test system

over the long-term.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million

in PE 64307N for development and operational tests for an Aegis

operational readiness replacement.

Joint air-to-surface standoff missile

The budget request included $1.9 million in PE 64312N for continued Navy unique testing for the joint air-to-surface standoff missile (JASSM). Carrier operability is one of the key performance parameters against which the JASSM program is being measured.

Although the Navy has not programmed any funds to integrate

JASSM on a particular aircraft, there are several Navy candidate

platforms for the missile once the Air Force completes the development phase. JASSM offers the potential of improved performance

and lower cost than alternative weapons that the Navy could employ. The committee believes the missile has reached a maturity

level sufficient to begin serious integration tasks on Navy platforms, particularly the F/A–18E/F.

The committee recommends an increase of $8.1 million in PE

64312N to begin JASSM integration efforts on the F/A–18E/F, for

a total authorization of $10.0 million.

Standard missile advanced optical correlator

The budget request included no funds for the standard missile

advanced optical correlator. Using optical correlation enhances the

ability to recognize and track targets. This enhanced ability translates into significantly better performance of ship self-defense systems.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million

in PE 64366N for continued development of an optical correlator to

improve the standard missile performance.

Submarine antenna technology improvement

The budget request included $43.7 million in submarine systems

development, including $2.9 million for various submarine integrated antenna systems developments.

Participating fully in the Navy’s new efforts to implement network centric warfare requires that ships have higher data rate

communications than are currently available on submarines. The

Navy has developed a preliminary design of a modification to a current mast antenna system that could help submarines achieve the

objective of increasing connectivity across all submarine missions.

The committee recommends an increase of $3.3 million to develop

an engineering change proposal package to upgrade ultra high freVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
177

quency (UHF) antenna systems to provide the required higher data

rate communications.

Submarine tactical information management

The budget request included $43.7 million in PE 64503N to develop and improve systems to increase the operational effectiveness

of submarine system equipment. The program to field the multipurpose processor (MPP) and advance processor build (APB) have

been successful in upgrading submarine sonar information processing capabilities.

A small business innovation research (SBIR) phase III program

demonstrated that a similar process has potential to improve the

information processing within a submarine’s control center. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE

64503N for an SBIR phase III follow-on to apply the MPP and APB

process to improve submarine tactical control information.

Navy common command and decision system

The budget request included $5.4 million in PE 64518N for development of a common command and decision computer program for

the Aegis weapon system and the ship self defense system (SSDS)

MK 2. A common computer program for these systems has the potential to reduce life cycle costs, improve inter-operability among

systems and ease the introduction of new capabilities by eliminating redundant and conflicting processing.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million

in PE 64518N for continued development of the common command

and decision system.

Submarine combat systems modernization

The budget request included $29.2 million in PE 64562N to develop and integrate software upgrades to integrate improved weapons capabilities within the various submarine combat control systems (CCSs). This program also develops improvements to submarine hardware which has become increasingly difficult and costly to maintain.

The thrust of the CCS improvement program is the fleet introduction of an improved CCS system within which the Navy will

converge multiple submarine combat system developments into a

single effort to minimize submarine life cycle costs. Current plans

include converging CCS systems for the SSN–688–class, the SSN–

688I-class and the SSBN–726–class. Additional funding would

allow the Navy to accelerate the upgrade of the Seawolf-class combat control systems and achieve fleet commonality by as much as

36 months earlier than planned.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $27.0 million in PE 64562N to achieve commonality in combat control systems sooner among all the various submarine classes and configurations within those classes.

Infrared search and track

The budget request included $52.2 million for ship self-defense

development in PE 64755N, including $2.7 million for continued

178

development of an infrared search and track (IRST) system for use

aboard Navy vessels.

Such an IRST system has demonstrated high potential for improving a ship’s ability to detect anti-ship cruise missiles in the

presence of environmental and geographical conditions that degrade radar system performance. The amended budget would not

provide sufficient funds to continue the IRST program along a reasonable development path, leading to robust field testing. In fact,

the committee is concerned that the Navy schedule and funding for

the IRST development effort would fail to field any capability in

the fleet for the foreseeable future.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for the IRST program to: (1) conduct robust field testing; (2)

integrate IRST electronics into standard Navy consoles; and (3)

begin integrating the IRST capability into combat systems.

NULKA anti-ship missile decoy system

The budget request included in $41.7 million for ship self-defense-soft kill systems development in PE 64757N, including $0.5

million to develop a capability for radar systems to cue the launch

of the NULKA decoy to defeat anti-ship missiles (ASMs).

The Navy has identified a series of three potential improvements

in the NULKA payload that are required to deal with emerging

threats:

(1) an improved payload that would provide radio frequency

coverage of more than one band of the spectrum to deal with

anti-ship missiles;

(2) an improved capability to prevent loss of the technology

through reverse engineering, by developing anti-tamper capability for the NULKA payload; and

(3) an improved guidance and propulsion system to allow

more precise positioning of the decoy during operations.

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million for the

NULKA development program to develop an enhanced payload,

pursue anti-tamper technologies and develop an improved guidance

and propulsion system.

Navy single integrated human resources strategy

The budget request included $49.3 million in PE 65013N for information technology development. The Navy has been designated

as the lead agency for a program to develop and manage software

that will be used by all services to consolidate pay and personnel

reporting systems. This program is called the Defense Integrated

Military Human Resources System (DIMHRS). The budget request

also included $47.2 million in PE 65014N for DIHMRS development.

The Navy needs to continue development of upgrades to Navy

legacy systems that will provide input data to the DIMHRS. The

committee recommends an additional $5.0 million in PE 65013N to

support business process re-engineering of Navy legacy systems in

support of the overall DIMHRS program.

179

Budget technical adjustment

The budget request included $120.6 million in PE 64215N for

standards development. The Navy informed the committee that the

intended request for standards development was $66.7 million. The

amount requested in that line included $53.8 million that should

have been requested in PE 65500N for the multi-mission maritime

aircraft (MMA) program.

The committee recommends adjusting the two budget lines to

correct this error.

Supply chain best practices

The budget request included $1.0 million in PE 65804N to reduce

life-cycle costs for technical information services by fostering relationships between industry and the Navy. The Navy requires the

services of a number of information systems to ensure ships, submarines, and aircraft receive supplies and repair parts. The industry and Navy have identified a number of electronic commerce and

technical information initiatives that have the potential to reduce

the cost of supplies and repair parts while improving response

times for fleet requests. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million

in PE 65804N to develop and field supply chain best practices

which have the potential to reduce support costs and improve responsiveness of the total supply system.

Nanotechnology for consequence management

The budget request included $9.6 million in PE 65873M for Marine Corps program wide support. The committee recognizes an urgent need for consequence management (including decontamination

and neutralization) as well as protection from the effects of

weaponized chemical and biological agents. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.2 million to develop, test and

field nanoparticle-based countermeasures, decontamination agents,

and protection technologies for chemical and biological threats. The

committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be

used in the award of contracts and other agreements under this

program.

Strategic submarine and weapons system support

The budget request included $43.3 million for strategic submarine and weapons systems support. The committee continues to

support research and development efforts to develop low cost materials for ballistic missile reentry systems. The committee directs

that $2.0 million shall be available for the continuation of this effort.

Joint helmet mounted cueing system

The budget request included $253.3 million in PE 24136N for

operational systems development of the F/A–18 series of aircraft,

including $136.6 million for F/A–18 improvements. The budget request supports finishing integration tasks for outfitting the F/A–

18E/F aircraft with the joint helmet mounted cueing system

(JHMCS). The budget request, however, included no funding for integrating the JHMCS into the F/A–18C/D aircraft.

180

The JHMCS system, when combined with the new AIM–9X airto-air missile, has the potential to offer significant qualitative advantage to our aircraft in air-to-air combat. The JHMCS system

also has the potential to enhance flexibility for air crews in cueing

weapons and sensors in the stressful air-to-ground tactical environment.

The Marine Corps has indicated that an additional $27.0 million

would permit the Department of the Navy to complete integrating

JHMCS into the F/A–18C/D. This would be particularly important

to the Marine Corps, since the Marine Corps will not be operating

the F/A–18E/F aircraft.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $27.0 million in PE 24136N for integration of JHMCS on the F/A–18C/D aircraft, a total authorization of $280.3 million.

MK–48 advanced capability torpedo development

The budget request included $17.1 million in PE 25632N to develop improvements for the MK–48 advanced capability (ADCAP)

heavyweight torpedo. The Navy has begun applying a new approach, called the advanced processor build (APB) program, to torpedo upgrade programs. The Navy found that this approach has

worked very successfully in achieving upgraded submarine sonar

information processing capabilities.

The committee believes that, with additional funding, the Navy

could avail itself of additional opportunities to use the APB process.

Such opportunities should include developing, evaluating and implementing science and technology algorithms from Navy laboratories, university laboratories, and small businesses. This would be

a particularly important opportunity, since the Navy needs to improve torpedo capability to operate in harsh conditions in shallower

water operations. The committee also understands that the fleets

have identified a number of requirements that remain unmet, but

that the Navy might be able to meet using such an expanded process.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million

in PE 25632N to apply more widely the APB process to improve

MK–48 ADCAP capabilities.

Marine Corps communications systems

The budget request included $104.8 million for the operational

systems development of Marine Corps communications systems in

PE 26313M, of which $9.9 million was for the development of a

unit operations center (UOC). The Marine Corps believes that the

UOC will be the cornerstone of ground command and control. That

view is based on an assessment that the UOC will enhance the Marine Corps’ ability to fight and win in future conflicts by providing

the command element with an integrated facility and components.

The Marine Corps has identified extra funds to provide additional

risk reduction funding for the engineering and manufacturing development effort for the UOC as a high priority requirement.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million

to accelerate the UOC development effort.

181

Vertical takeoff and landing tactical unmanned aerial vehicle development

The budget request included $66.3 million in PE 35204N to develop tactical unmanned aerial vehicle (TUAV) systems, including

$48.2 million to continue development of a vertical takeoff and

landing tactical UAV (VTUAV).

The Navy proposed to use these funds to continue VTUAV development activities, including:

(1) continue contractor engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) design, fabrication and testing;

(2) continue testing and engineering, logistics and integration support activities; and

(3) complete developmental testing and begin operational

test and evaluation (OT&E).

The Navy has informed the committee that there have been unforeseen changes in the scope of work in the VTUAV EMD effort.

Absent additional funding in fiscal year 2002, the VTUAV program

could be delayed in order to afford additional software effort. The

Navy informs the committee that it would use additional funds to

complete these tasks and to perform risk reduction testing.

The committee believes that fielding the capability that is promised by the VTUAV program is important, and should proceed as

quickly as is prudent. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $11.0 million in PE 35204N to enable the Navy to complete the additional software tasks and conduct risk reduction testing.

Modeling and simulation

The budget request included $7.8 million in PE 38601N for Navy

modeling and simulation development activities. The Navy has

been using modeling and simulation to provide important information to make certain acquisition and program decisions, which

thereby reduces the research, development, test and evaluation

costs for Navy programs. The Navy has found that they are able

to eliminate a number of acquisition and program possibilities

using computer simulation based on validated models. Narrowing

the range of possibilities has yielded proven cost savings.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million

in PE 38601N to continue enhancements to, and usage of, computer

modeling and simulation in Navy research and development activities.

Air Force

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

Aerospace materials manufacturing and research

The budget request included $77.2 million in PE 62102F for applied research in materials and processing technologies to improve

performance and reduce life cycle costs of current and future air

force systems. It is critical that the United States metals industry

maintains strong research efforts in order to remain globally competitive and have the capability to meet future defense aerospace

requirements. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of

$16.5 million in funding in this area, reflecting a dual concern of

the need for research to address materials issues associated with

aging aircraft and high operational tempos, as well as the need for

new materials technologies to support the development of future

air force systems, including space-based systems and unmanned vehicles. Of this amount, $5.0 million would be used for improvements in the manufacturing of speciality aerospace materials; $7.5

million for the development of titanium matrix composites technology for transition to aerospace applications; $1.5 million for research on environmentally-sound corrosion coatings for military

and commercial aircraft; and $2.5 million for the development and

application of a high power, tunable, ultraviolet laser processing

tool for the fabrication of micro-engineered components.

Information protection and authentication

The budget request included $61.7 million in PE 62702F for

Command, Control, and Communications. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million for applied research toward

securing national security information through techniques including steganography and digital watermarking. The committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in the

award of contracts and other agreements under this program.

Aluminum aerostructures

The budget request included $32.7 million in PE 63112F for advanced materials for weapon systems. The committee notes the

need for a materials research portfolio that balances efforts in all

types of aerospace materials, including composites, ceramics, and

metals. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0

million for research on the use of aluminum aerostructures for

aerospace components, which improve processing technologies and

reduce installment and life cycle costs.

Fly-by-light actuators

The budget request included $26.3 million in PE 63211F for aerospace technology development and demonstration. This program

element reflects a realignment by the Department under which the

program element now includes those projects that had previously

been in the flight vehicle technology integration program.

The committee is aware of continuing advances in flight control

systems, with fiber optic cabling having the potential to offer significant weight and performance advantages over conventional hydraulic systems. These advantages would be particularly significant

in vehicles like unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs), where

every pound of saved platform weight equates to an additional

pound of payload or additional endurance.

193

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE

63211F for the demonstration of a light-controlled flight actuator

with potential UCAV application, a total authorization of $30.3 million.

B–2 Spirit

The budget request included $155.0 million in PE 64240F for the

B–2 bomber. The committee recommends an additional $74.0 million in upgrades for the B–2 bomber. Of this amount the committee

recommends an additional $63.0 million to continue the Link–16/

CID/IFR integration effort, and $11.0 million for other upgrades

and improvements, for a total authorization of $229.0 million.

The Link–16 mission management system is the primary method

of tactical information exchange, cooperative identification (friend

or foe), and position reporting in the tactical theater. This upgrade

satisfies the B–2 requirement for two-way line-of-sight jam-resistant digital data link communications. In addition, this upgrade will

allow the B–2 to be fully integrated into the joint command, control, and communications network and increases the flexibility of

the B–2 and the crew’s situation awareness. All Air Force platforms must have Link–16 by 2005. This was included on the Air

Force list of unfunded priorities.

The committee also recommends an additional $11.0 million to

address a number of shortfalls in the B–2 program including $2.9

million for hand-held holographic radar guns to ensure that repairs

to the low observable coatings do not change the radar signature

of the B–2. The remaining $8.1 million is available to address requirements identified on the Air Force list of unfunded priorities

for fiscal year 2002 for the B–2.

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense and

the Air Force are not adequately supporting the aging bomber fleet.

Under current assumptions the fleet of B–2, B–52 and B–1B bombers will remain in the inventory until 2037 and beyond. In order

to reach this extraordinary goal and be able to continue to rely on

the performance capabilities demonstrated in Operation ALLIED

FORCE, the Air Force must sustain an aggressive bomber upgrade

effort.

Precision location and identification program

The budget request included $41.3 million in PE 64270F for electronic warfare development, including $1.8 million for engineering

and manufacturing development (EMD) for the precision location

and identification (PLAID) program. The PLAID program is intended to lead to modernization of several families of radar warning receivers.

Under the current schedule, the Air Force would begin production of PLAID-derivative hardware in fiscal year 2003. The PLAID

program has not completed development of the geo-location capability, one of the key performance parameters for the PLAID program. The Air Force would prefer to conduct activities, including

flight test demonstrations, that would lead to reducing the risk of

successfully completing the PLAID program. However, the budget

request provided no funding for this activity.

194

The committee recommends an increase of $13.3 million in PE

64270F to fund options to the EMD contract that would provide

PLAID performance enhancements, including risk reduction flight

test activities, that would lead to having higher confidence of successfully completing the PLAID EMD program.

Panoramic night vision goggles

The budget request included $4.6 million in PE 64706F for life

support systems, but included no funding for panoramic night vision goggles (PNVGs). The Air Force has informed the committee

that the tremendous improvement in field-of-view offered by

PNVGs will greatly improve situational awareness, reduce aircrew

spatial disorientation, and enable quicker, more accurate target

identification. The improvements directly translate to greatly enhanced aircrew safety. The Air Force needs an additional $8.0 million in fiscal year 2002 to complete development and qualification

of the basic PNVGs, leading to a transition to production in fiscal

year 2003.

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE

64706F to complete development and qualification of the basic

PNVGs.

Joint Strike Fighter

The budget request included $767.3 million in PE 64800N and

$769.5 million in PE 64800F for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. These funds would be used to begin the engineering and

manufacturing development (EMD) phase of the JSF program. This

transition to EMD would be preceded by selection of a single contractor team, a winner-take-all approach for at least the EMD portion of the program. The budget request included no funds in either

PE 63800N or PE 63800F to continue any JSF concept demonstration activities leading to EMD.

The purpose of the JSF program is to provide an affordable replacement strike fighter aircraft for major portions of the fleets of

the Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps. The Air Force variant will be a conventional takeoff and landing aircraft (called

CTOL), the Navy variant will be aircraft carrier capable (called

CV), and the Marine Corps variant will be capable of short takeoff

and vertical landing (called STOVL). Central to the whole JSF program is achieving an affordable option for these modernization efforts. Commonality within this family of aircraft is crucial to keeping the overall tactical aviation modernization program affordable.

Leading up to the source selection decision, each contractor team

was required to fly concept demonstration aircraft to prove that

they could achieve, for each of the three variants: (1) commonality;

and (2) required performance levels.

When the committee reviewed the program last year, the program had been scheduled to enter EMD at the middle of fiscal year

2001. It was clear to the committee that the final phase of testing

for the STOVL concept demonstrator aircraft was far enough behind schedule that the Department of Defense (DOD) could not,

and should not, make a final decision on the source selection as

had been scheduled.

195

The two contractor teams have only recently completed their flying demonstrations. The committee understands that the two

teams achieved the objectives that the program office set for them

during this phase of the testing program. The program office believes that the two teams are ready to make their final proposals

to the Department on a schedule that would permit DOD to make

a decision on the winning team in October.

DOD officials claim that they will be ready to make a decision

in October. However, the ability of the DOD to make this decision

in October is far from certain, given its recent experience with

other major acquisition programs:

(1) In February 2001, the F–22 program had met all of the

exit criteria established to measure whether the program

should move to low rate initial production (LRIP). However,

DOD officials have informed the committee that it was not

until August 2001 that the Air Force received approval to move

to LRIP by the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB).

(2) The Navy had originally planned to award a major contract for the next generation land attack destroyer, called DD–

21, in April 2001. Additional discussions between the Navy and

the contractor teams on their proposals had taken longer than

planned. Thereafter, the Navy had been ready to make a decision in June 2001. Just before the Navy was ready to proceed,

DOD leadership initiated a study of the Navy’s shipbuilding

plan between now and about 2030. Now the decision on the

DD–21 program seems to have been postponed, with no indication when the program might go forward.

By law, the DOD must submit to Congress the results of the

Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) by September 30, 2001. The

committee had expected that major questions of future force structure, transformation path(s) forward, and choices among major investment and modernization alternatives would have been completed as part of the QDR. Central to any discussion of modernization and affordability of the military departments is the subject of

tactical aviation modernization.

However, recent statements by senior DOD officials have indicated that many of these answers may be deferred until the submission of the fiscal year 2003 budget, or later. The committee understands that a number of major acquisition programs, including

the JSF program, are to be studied further as a result of direction

in an internal planning document called the Defense Planning

Guidance.

The JSF program manager believes that he needs to complete

the source selection and start EMD to ensure that the program will

be able to achieve first flight of the CTOL and STOVL version of

the aircraft and make a JSF LRIP decision in fiscal year 2006. This

assumes completion of first flights in March 2006. The program

could delay this decision by a couple of months and still make the

decision during fiscal year 2006. Certainly, the JSF program should

not be launched with no margin for error in the schedule. Nevertheless, the fact that the Department could delay a decision without affecting the initial operational capability (IOC) of the JSF indicates that this will likely be the outcome.

196

The committee believes that, under these circumstances, the Department is not likely to make a decision on the JSF program or

its future in accordance with the current schedule. Therefore, the

committee recommends a net reduction of $247.2 million, evenly divided between the Navy and Air Force accounts, representing a

two-month delay in an EMD decision. The committee recommends

adding $30.0 million each to PE 63800N and PE 63800F to keep

the two platform contractor teams, an engine contractor team and

the program office together pending a transition to EMD. The committee also recommends a reduction of $153.6 million each to PE

64800N and PE 64800F.

The committee has not changed its view about the importance of

the JSF program, or about the need to modernize our aviation

forces. However, the committee, believes that it would be inappropriate to leave a portion of the JSF EMD funds unused when other

programs could make better use of the funds. Funds in the EMD

program lines would likewise be unavailable to the program until

a decision is made. This situation could require the contractor

teams to invest private funds in the program pending a decision,

a situation that the committee has consistently opposed. The recommendation involves shifting funds to PE 63800N and PE 63800F

sufficient to support program office and contractor team activities

until a decision is made.

Evolved expendable launch vehicle

The budget request included $320.3 million for the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program. The committee continues to support the development of composite materials manufacturing and processing technologies for space launch structures,

such as payload fittings and fairings, to improve the performance

and lower the cost of U.S. space launch. The committee directs that

of the funds available for EELV, $3.8 million shall be available for

composite materials manufacturing.

F–15E squadrons

The budget request included $101.4 million in PE 27134F for

continued operational systems development of the F–15 aircraft,

but included no funds to begin F–15 integration tasks that would

lead to replacing aging identification friend or foe (IFF) equipment.

The current IFF systems are exhibiting high failure rates and

are becoming an increasingly difficult burden on aircraft maintenance crews. The Air Force believes that there are commercial, offthe-shelf (COTS) non-developmental items available to replace the

current IFF system. However, there are a number of integration

and testing tasks that the Air Force will need to complete before

they will be ready to purchase new IFF systems for the F–15.

The Air Force estimates that it will not be able to buy spare

parts for the current systems starting in fiscal year 2004. The Air

Force needs to begin necessary integration tasks in fiscal year 2002

to be ready to begin production and installation of a new system

in fiscal year 2004.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $8.4 million

in PE 27134F to integrate and test a replacement for the current

F–15 IFF system.

197

Cyber security research

The budget request included $7.9 million in PE 33140F for information systems security. The committee notes the critical role that

this type of research will play in combating future asymmetric

threats, including global cyber-terrorist threats. The committee further notes the lead role that the Air Force and its research laboratories and systems centers play in developing the technologies to

detect and combat cyber threats. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for research on computer system

vulnerabilities and threats, including intrusion detection, identification of mailicous code, cyber forensics, damage assessment, and

vulnerability analyses.

Spacelift range system

The budget request included $65.1 million in PE 35182F for Air

Force spacelift range systems. The committee recommends an increase of $18.0 million to improve range safety and operations by

reducing reliance on antiquated and manpower intensive systems

and eliminating potential launch delays. Making the improvements

is the Air Force’s highest priority on its list of unfunded priorities

in fiscal year 2002.

As part of its Range Standardization and Automation project, the

Air Force is moving from analog to digital telemetry. The increase

recommended by the committee would help accelerate this transition and restore the project to its original 2004 schedule. In addition, this increase would accelerate work on electronic range scheduling and video surveillance systems. These systems will allow

faster, more accurate launch scheduling and faster launch turnaround times, which will make the ranges and facilities available

to more users. These upgrades will allow the ranges to operate

more efficiently and reduce user costs.

Dragon U–2

The budget request included $32.8 million in PE 35202F for continued operational systems development of the U–2 reconnaissance

aircraft, but included no funding for the continued polarimetric

preplanned product improvement program for the Senior Year

electro-optic reconnaissance system (SYERS). This system is designed to defeat potential enemy camouflage, concealment, and deception techniques. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0

million in PE 35202F to provide an operational demonstration of

the polarimetric preplanned product improvement version of

SYERS on the U–2 aircraft, a total authorization of $36.8 million.

Global Hawk high-altitude endurance unmanned aerial vehicle

The budget request included $190.2 million in PE 35205F for

operational systems development of endurance unmanned aerial

vehicle (EUAV) systems, of which $184.2 million is for engineering

and manufacturing development of the RQ–4A Global Hawk highaltitude endurance unmanned aerial vehicle (HAE UAV).

The Global Hawk spiral development plan has been designed to

improve the vehicle to carry imagery and signals intelligence

(SIGINT) sensors that would match the capability provided by the

198

U–2 aircraft and its sensors. The committee is encouraged by the

recent Defense Department decision to accelerate the development

and fielding of the Global Hawk.

Under this new plan, the Air Force would begin producing newer

air vehicles in fiscal year 2003. These vehicles would provide more

electrical generating capability, greater cooling ability, and larger

payloads. The plan would also have the Air Force begin integrating

the high band subsystem (HBSS) of the joint signals intelligence

architecture family (JSAF) into the improved Global Hawk during

fiscal year 2003.

The committee understands that conducting a demonstration of

this capability could reduce the risk of such an integration effort

and yield a better understanding of future concepts of operations.

Although some have suggested that such a demonstration might be

conducted overseas to support a regional combatant commander,

the committee believes otherwise. The Air Force should conduct

such a demonstration under controlled test situations using ranges

within the continental United States. Such a demonstration, with

more readily verifiable results, could lead to accelerated fielding of

improved SIGINT capability. The committee recommends an increase of $16.0 million in PE

35205F to: (1) begin integration of JSAF–HBSS into an existing

Global Hawk HAE UAV; and (2) conduct a test to demonstrate the

potential contributions of a Global Hawk carrying a SIGINT payload. If this demonstration were to prove successful, the committee

expects that the results would serve as the basis for developing a

validated requirement for a SIGINT payload for Global Hawk.

Spacetrack

The budget request included $32.6 million in PE 35910F for the

Air Force for space surveillance survivability and space control.

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million to modernize the space surveillance network and a decrease of $3.6 million that was included in the Spacetrack research and development

budget request that should have been included in the procurement

budget request. The $3.6 million is moved to Spacetrack procurement to purchase initial spares to support upgrades to the Ground

Based Electro-Optical Deep Space Surveillance Sustainment

(GEODSS). Thus, the committee recommends $37.0 million in PE

35910F.

The space surveillance network involves 31 optical, radar and

passive radio frequency sensors world-wide to track objects in

space, to notify U.S. forces of satellite flyovers, to provide satellite

attack warnings and to improve situational awareness in space.

The additional $8.0 million funds full power operations of the

Cobra Dane radar facility consistent with the Space Surveillance

task force recommendations and begins the small aperture telescope augmentation procurement for the GEODSS camera.

NUDET detection system

The budget request included $18.8 million in PE 35913F for the

NUDET detection system. The committee recommends an additional $12.8 million to ensure the NUDET detection system is incorporated in the first Global Positioning System (GPS) block IIF

199

satellite, to retain the ability to process the signals from the

gamma neutron sensors on the Defense Support Program (DSP)

early warning satellites, and to ensure follow-on gamma neutron

sensors are available. This item was included on the Air Force’s list

of unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2002.

The NUDET detection system provides the capability to detect,

locate, and report nuclear detonations on a global basis in near real

time. The sensors that make up the NUDET system include optical, x-ray, electromagnetic pulse, and dosimeter sensors. Currently,

NUDET sensors fly on both GPS and the DSP satellites. The DSP

satellite system will be replaced by new early warning satellites.

During the transition period from DSP to the new satellites, the

new control system that will be responsible for controlling the new

early warning satellites will also control DSP through the end of

its life. Without the increase recommended by the committee the

new control system will not have the capability to receive the information provided by the NUDET sensors current on DSP satellites.

KC–135 research and development

The budget request included $5.4 million in PE 41218F for conducting research and development supporting the KC–135 strategic

tanker fleet, including $3.0 million for KC–135 replacement analysis of alternatives (AoA).

The Commander in Chief, U.S. Transportation Command, testified before the committee this year on a number of transportation

priorities. Among the analyses that he mentioned in his testimony

were two efforts relating to the strategic tanker fleet: (1) the Tanker Requirements Study 2005; and (2) an Economic Service Life

Study.

The Tanker Requirements Study 2005 is a companion to the Mobility Requirements Study–2005 (MRS–05), a study that was required to be submitted to the Congress by section 1034 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000.

The Air Force has informed the committee that the KC–135 Economic Service Life Study consisted of studies for structure, systems, and component support as well as cost benefit analyses to

support an AOA. The Air Force says that this AOA would address

a replacement for the KC–135 based on economic decision points

and requirements for the tanker fleet.

The services are operating aircraft fleets that are increasing in

terms of average age. Each of the services has indicated that supporting this aging population is causing exorbitant annual increases in operation and maintenance funding. One of the aircraft

categories cited most frequently is the strategic tanker fleet, consisting primarily of KC–135 tankers. Air Force officials cite anecdotal evidence of very much longer programmed depot maintenance

(PDM) cycle times as evidence of the problem.

A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) called

into question this generally-accepted assertion that the aging aircraft fleet is absorbing an accelerating portion of the budget. There

have also been indications that at least part of the problem contributing to increased KC–135 PDM cycle times is maintenance management policy. There have been reports that aircraft will be

200

parked awaiting maintenance and that those ‘‘parked’’ days are

then charged to the PDM overhead.

The committee believes that there are increases associated with

supporting aging aircraft. However, despite repeated attempts to

get the Air Force to provide the Tanker Requirements Study 2005

and the Economic Service Life Study, the Air Force has refused.

The committee cannot agree to support new initiatives such as

this one when the service is unwilling to respond to a legitimate

request for information. Therefore, the committee recommends a

decrease of $3.0 million in PE 41218F for the follow-on tanker

study activities.

Defense-Wide

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

Ballistic missile defense funding adjustments

The committee’s adjustments to the funding request for ballistic

missile defense programs are discussed below.

Boost defense segment

The budget request included $685.4 million in PE 63883C for boost phase defense programs, of which $20.0 million was for

Space-Based Kinetic Kill, $50.0 million was for Sea-Based Boost,

$170.0 million was for Space-Based Laser, $410.0 million was for

Airborne Laser, and $35.4 million was for systems engineering and

integration and program operations.

Space-based kinetic kill

The budget request included $20.0 million in PE 63883C to begin

concept of operations, concept definition and experiment design

work on a Space-Based Kinetic Kill program. The committee believes that $20.0 million is a large amount to spend on such preliminary design activities. Therefore, the committee recommends a

maximum of $5.0 million for Space-Based Kinetic concept definition.

Sea-based boost

The budget request included $50.0 million in PE 63883C for a

new initiative intended to develop and test a new, fast booster design and conduct concept development and assessment of sea-based

boost-phase intercept alternatives. However, the committee understands that the design of the new booster does not yet exist, and

that the Navy has not been involved in the conceptual design process. Boost-phase technology is extremely challenging, and since

boost-phase hardware does not yet exist, it is unlikely that actual

tests of such hardware would be warranted or possible in the first

year of such an initiative. Therefore, the committee recommends a

maximum of $10.0 million for sea-based boost concept definition,

and urges the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) to involve the Navy in sea-based boost concept development before proceeding further.

Space-based laser

The budget request included $170.0 million in PE 63883C to continue and accelerate development of a Space-Based Laser. This program aims to conduct a technology demonstration experiment in

fiscal year 2012. However, since the program is more than twelve

years away from the first technology demonstration, the committee

does not consider such acceleration warranted. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $28.0 million, the amount added

for program acceleration.

Airborne laser

The budget request included $410.0 million in PE 63883C for

Airborne Laser (ABL). The request included funding for procurement of long-lead materials for a full-power ABL demonstration as

early as 2008. The committee is concerned that procurement of

long-lead materials for a demonstration over six years away is premature. Half-power ABL testing is not scheduled until fiscal year

214

2003, and prior to the results of those tests, the performance of the

half-power ABL will not be known. Furthermore, even if the halfpower ABL tests are successful, the program still must demonstrate the ability to scale the laser components up to the fullpower system. The program is currently struggling to overcome

concerns over the laser system’s weight, which, if not controlled,

will diminish the viability of the full-power ABL. Therefore, the

committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million, the cost of the

long-lead materials for the full-power ABL aircraft.

The budget request also included significant funding for spare

parts procurement for the ABL test aircraft. However, the committee believes that funding of spare parts is not warranted for a

program at this early stage of development. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $70.0 million for the cost of the

spare parts and other support activities not directly related to the

fiscal year 2003 ABL test program.

Midcourse defense segment

The budget request included $3.9 billion in PE 63882C for the Midcourse Defense Segment, of which $3.2 billion was for the

ground-based midcourse system (the former National Missile Defense program), $596.0 million was for Navy Theater-Wide (Seabased Midcourse), $44.0 million was for Systems Engineering and

Integration, and $69.8 million was for Program Operations.

Navy theater-wide

The budget request included $596.0 million in PE 63882C for the Navy Theater-Wide program. Of this funding, $100.0 million was

to initiate procurement of extra interceptors to support a possible

‘‘contingency deployment’’ of the system in 2004. The proposed interceptor procurement would start prior to the completion of the

ambitious series of intercept tests of the system, planned for fiscal

year 2002. Moreover, problems with the Navy Theater-Wide interceptor divert system, which is critical to the interceptor’s ability to

hit a target, call into question the reliability and affordability of

the interceptor design. Therefore, the committee believes it would

be unwise to procure extra interceptors at this time, and recommends a reduction of $100.0 million for that purpose.

The budget request included $60.0 million for concept definition

for the Navy Theater-Wide program. It is not clear to the committee why this much funding is required for concept definition

work. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $50.0

million for Navy Theater-Wide concept definition.

The budget request included $177.0 million for Block II risk reduction efforts, including funds for both S-band and X-band radar

technology. The committee is encouraged that the Department of

Defense is funding radar technology work for the Navy TheaterWide program, but is concerned that the Ballistic Missile Defense

Organization (BMDO) has not yet decided which radar technology

is best suited for ballistic missile defense.

In a briefing provided to the committee in February 2001, Rear

Admiral John Morgan, BMDO Deputy for Acquisition Strategy,

stated that the BMDO recommended X-band radar technology for

Navy Theater-Wide. In a briefing to the committee on July 27,

215

2001, Lieutenant General Ronald Kadish, Director of the Ballistic

Missile Defense Organization, stated that ‘‘we have not changed

our point of view over the value of X-band’’ because ‘‘in order to do

the countermeasure problem you are going to need the kind of fine

discrimination capability afforded by the X-band.’’ Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $87.0 million for Navy Theater-Wide radar risk reduction efforts. The committee urges the BMDO to focus the remaining $90.0 million on the

radar technology that the BMDO determines is best suited for ballistic missile defense.

The budget request included $260.0 million for Aegis Leap Intercept (ALI) testing of the Block I Navy Theater-Wide interceptor in

fiscal year 2002. The committee is encouraged by the strong testing

focus, but is concerned about the large increase in the funding for

the ALI test program—almost double what was planned last year

for fiscal year 2002. A total of five flight tests are planned in 2002

alone. This is a large number for any ballistic missile defense program—more than any other such program has achieved in a single

year. Furthermore, the Block I interceptor has had developmental

problems that have called into question the reliability and

producibility of the interceptor’s divert system, which is critical to

the missile’s ability to hit a target. As such, the likelihood of successfully conducting all five planned flight tests in fiscal year 2002

seems remote. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of

$110.0 million for the Aegis Leap Interceptor testing program.

Earlier this year, BMDO representatives briefed the committee

on the results of a BMDO-led study that determined the optimal

path to pursue for Navy Theater-Wide was to focus efforts on the

more capable Block II system. This determination was based on

concerns that the Block I system did not adequately address the

likely threat, and that the limited planned quantities of Block I

missiles added little military value. Furthermore, the study stated

that if the Block I effort was not pursued, the Block II system could

be accelerated by two years and $3.8 billion could be saved over the

life of the program.

The results of the BMDO study are consistent with a report

issued in 1998 by an independent review panel led by General

Larry Welch, which was set up by the BMDO and the Director,

Operational Test and Evaluation to investigate ballistic missile defense test programs. The panel’s report, entitled ‘‘Reducing Risk in

Ballistic Missile Defense Test Programs,’’ recommended that ballistic missile defense programs not try to deploy minimal operational capabilities early, since ‘‘regardless of the desire for ‘early’

capability, this approach is unlikely to be productive for programs

of this complexity . . . the drive for early capability is proving to

be counterproductive.’’

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees no later than

April 30, 2002 on the Department’s ultimate plans for the Navy

Theater-Wide system. The report should indicate whether the Department still plans on pursuing a Block I variant of the system,

and if so, provide technical and force structure details on Block I

and a quantitative analysis as to the military value of Block I. The

report should also specify the planned date of deployment of the obVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00237 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
216

jective (Block II) Navy Theater-Wide system, the technical characteristics of the objective system (e.g., radar and missile type and

performance), and the total planned objective force structure of

ships and missiles. The report should also provide year-by-year and

total life cycle cost estimates for the objective system and separate

year-by-year and total life cycle costs for any planned Block I system.

Ground-based midcourse system

The budget request included $2.4 billion in PE 63882C for the

Block 2006 Ground-Based Midcourse system, formerly known as

the National Missile Defense system. This represents a substantial,

32 percent increase over the fiscal year 2001 level of $1.8 billion.

However, the Department of Defense has yet to commit to the

Ground-Based Midcourse system as part of the national missile defense architecture or to specify the requirements and the schedule

for the system. Given the uncertainties in the Department’s missile

defense plans, the committee recommends a reduction of $240.0

million in PE 63882C for the Block 2006 Ground-Based Midcourse

system, which still represents a funding increase of 20 percent over

last year’s level.

2004 testbed testing

The budget request included $786.5 million in PE 63882C for the

new, Block I midcourse testbed, scheduled to be completed in 2004.

Included in the request for the testbed was $98.5 million for the

actual Block I test program. However, since the testbed has not yet

been constructed, substantial funding will not be needed in fiscal

year 2002 for the test program. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $90.0 million, leaving $8.5 million for

Block I midcourse test program planning.

Sensors segment

The budget request included $495.6 million in PE 63884C for the

Sensors Segment, of which $384.8 million was for Space-Based

Infra-Red System, Low Component (SBIRS-Low), $75.3 million was

for the Russian-American Observation Satellite (RAMOS) program,

and $35.4 million was for Systems Engineering, Test and Evaluation, and Program Operations.

Space-based infra-red system, low component

The budget request included $384.8 million in PE 63884C for the

SBIRS-Low program, which is being designed primarily to support

the National Missile Defense (NMD) mission by tracking and discriminating incoming warheads from decoys during their midcourse

phase of flight. The requested funding for SBIRS-Low would accelerate deployment of the full constellation of SBIRS-Low satellites

to fiscal year 2011.

SBIRS-Low is a large, complex system of interlinked low-earthorbit missile tracking satellites—a type of system never before developed. The technical risks associated with SBIRS-Low are not

trivial, nor are the expected costs for the program, rough estimates

of which currently approach $20.0 billion. The committee is concerned about emerging cost growth for the SBIRS-Low system and

217

a lack of consensus within the Department of Defense as to what

the ultimate SBIRS-Low requirements, architecture, and design

will be.

A joint BMDO/Program Analysis and Evaluation study is currently underway to determine the contributions SBIRS-Low could

make toward the NMD mission, and whether there might be other,

more cost effective ways to obtain the tracking and discrimination

data SBIRS-Low is being designed to provide. The committee directs that the Secretary of Defense submit a report to the congressional defense committees on SBIRS-Low by March 31, 2002. This

report should contain the following:

(1) an analysis of what essential national missile defense requirements the proposed SBIRS-Low system will fulfill, and

what alternative systems (e.g., ground-based radars, laser radars, and/or other sensor platforms, including the Airborne Infrared Surveillance system (AIRS) being developed by the

BMDO) could also fulfill such requirements;

(2) a quantitative assessment of the national missile defense

system performance (e.g. threat missile leakage probability)

without SBIRS-Low or any alternative system;

(3) a quantitative assessment of the national missile defense

system performance with SBIRS-Low and with each alternative system;

(4) an estimate of the year-by-year costs of SBIRS-Low, and

of each alternative system, beginning with fiscal year 2002, including all previous fiscal years and all fiscal years through deployment of a fully operational system;

(5) a risk assessment of SBIRS-Low, and of each alternative

system; and

(6) a qualitative assessment of the strengths and weaknesses

of SBIRS-Low and each alternative system.

The budget request included funding to award a new ‘‘program

definition extension’’ contract to the two SBIRS-Low competitors.

The committee believes that such a contract extension, as well as

acceleration of the program, are both premature pending the outcome of the study and report discussed above. Furthermore, acceleration of the program is inadvisable as the Department has not

yet decided upon the final design of the satellite, the overall system

architecture, or the system cost. Moreover, this could result in buying satellites before full testing is completed, a strategy that might

result in the need to replace numerous satellites at great expense.

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $96.6 million,

the funding for the SBIRS-Low contract extensions.

Terminal segment

The budget request included $988.2 million in PE 63881C for the

Terminal Defense Segment, of which $909.3 million was for the

Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program, $65.7 million was for the Arrow program, and $13.2 million was for Program

Operations.

Theater high altitude area defense

The budget request included $909.3 million in PE 63881C for the

THAAD program. This would fund THAAD development toward a

218

2006 First Unit Equipped (FUE), accelerate delivery of the first

radar, and procure 10 additional prototype missiles to provide a

‘‘contingency capability’’ in fiscal year 2004. However, flight testing

for THAAD is not scheduled to begin until fiscal year 2004. The

committee supports the development of THAAD as the premier

land-based upper-tier theater missile defense system, but believes

that hasty procurement of a radar and prototype missiles two years

prior to beginning flight testing is imprudent, and runs the risk of

changing the focus from a well-managed THAAD program to establishing an early contingency capability with experimental missiles.

A similar acquisition strategy caused a series of high-profile test

failures for THAAD several years ago.

Partly as a result of the previous THAAD test problems, a panel

was set up by BMDO and the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation to investigate ballistic missile defense test programs. The

panel, led by General Larry Welch, issued a report in early 1998

entitled ‘‘Reducing Risk in Ballistic Missile Defense Test Programs.’’ This report concluded that the THAAD program’s ‘‘rush-tofailure’’ was caused in part by the decision to buy operational missiles early. It stated that aiming for an early operational capability

‘‘compromised the best practices for test missiles and the test program’’ and contributed to the early THAAD test failures.

Even if the 10 extra missiles function properly, the value of these

missiles in an actual conflict would be minimal, since our potential

adversaries have substantial short-range, theater ballistic missile

arsenals that could easily overwhelm such a minimal inventory of

defensive missiles.

The committee seeks to avoid a return to the failed strategy for

THAAD, and also seeks to avoid buying missiles that are not fully

tested and have doubtful military utility. Therefore, the committee

recommends a reduction of $210.0 million, the cost to accelerate

the radar and procure 10 extra prototype missiles.

Arrow

The budget request included $65.7 million in PE 63881C for the

Arrow ballistic missile defense system. The Arrow program is the

most advanced cooperative military project between the United

States and Israel, and a joint program critical to the defense of

Israel against existing and growing regional ballistic missile

threats. The Arrow system could also help protect U.S. forces in the

region during a conflict, and is intended to be interoperable with

U.S. theater missile defense systems. It is essential that the Arrow

program be upgraded to cope with evolving missile threats such as

Iran’s Shahab–3 missile and to be made interoperable with U.S.

missile defense systems such as PAC–3, Navy Area Defense,

THAAD, and Navy Theater-Wide. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $76.0 million to continue the Arrow System Improvement Program (ASIP) and for further joint interoperability efforts.

Terminal defense segment program operations

The budget request included $13.9 million in PE 63881C for terminal defense segment program operations. This funding is separate from the funding request for THAAD and Arrow, the only two

219

programs currently in the terminal defense segment. Since the

committee understands that there is no work planned in fiscal year

2002 on any other terminal defense program besides THAAD and

Arrow, it is not clear why funding is required for general terminal

defense segment program operations. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $13.9 million for this purpose.

Ballistic missile defense system

The budget request included $779.6 million in PE 63880C for the

Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) System program element. This

program element funds a variety of BMDO-wide activities, including systems engineering and architecture, battle management,

modeling and simulation, communications, and test and evaluation.

None of these activities are specifically tied to a particular BMD

program.

Most of the activities in this program element were funded in fiscal year 2001 at significantly lower levels. It is not clear to the

committee that such substantial increases in these BMDO-wide activities are required, especially since so much funding was added

in other program elements for similar tasks. For example, over

$800.0 million was added to the Midcourse Segment program element for test and evaluation, systems engineering, and modeling

and simulation.

Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction of $33.0 million for BMDO-wide systems engineering and architecture, a reduction of $49.0 million for BMDO-wide modeling and simulation, a reduction of $55.0 million for BMDO-wide test support, and a reduction of $67.0 million in Program-wide test and evaluation. This reduces funding for these efforts to the fiscal year 2001 level, plus inflation.

Ballistic missile defense advanced technology

The committee supports research and development of advanced

technology for ballistic missile defense, and is concerned that the

budget request for this work, $110.1 million in PE 63175C, is significantly lower than the 2001 level of $186.5 million. This is despite the large funding increase in other ballistic missile defense

program elements. For example, the budget request increased funding for programs within PE 63882C, the Midcourse Defense Segment by more than $1.0 billion. The committee notes that a number of critical ballistic missile defense technology activities could be

funded by transferring funds from lower-priority activities in PE

63882C. Specific recommendations are listed in the following paragraphs.

Thermionic technology

Thermionic power systems use highly efficient solid-state energy

converters to transform heat directly into electricity, enabling more

efficient, lighter and more reliable electrical power for space-based

surveillance systems. The committee recommends that, of the funding authorized for PE 63882C, $8.0 million be used for thermionic

technology development.

220

Magdalena Ridge Observatory

The Magdalena Ridge Observatory is a facility supporting missile

defense testing at the White Sands Missile Range. The facility will

be used to provide detailed images to enhance understanding of

lethality and kill assessment during intercept tests for national

missile defense, THAAD, and PAC–3 systems. The committee rec- ommends that, of the funding authorized for PE 63882C, $9.0 million be used to procure three large telescopes and adaptive optics

planned for the observatory.

Short-range missile defense

The Army Space and Missile Defense Command has conducted

the Short-range missile defense With Optimal Radar Distribution

(SWORD) technology development program for almost a decade to

develop a radar capable of command guiding a hit-to-kill missile

against short-range theater ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.

Successful development of this technology could result in cost savings for missile defense, since command guided interceptors do not

need an onboard sensor and guidance system. The committee recommends that, of the funding authorized for PE 63882C, $1.9 million be used for the SWORD program.

Tactical high energy laser

The Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) program is an important joint program between the United States and Israel to develop

a technology demonstrator to defeat short-range rocket and artillery attacks. The THEL demonstrator is undergoing field testing

against live Katyusha rockets and artillery in flight. The current

demonstrator configuration lacks mobility and thus deployability.

Israel and the United States allocated funding in fiscal year 2001

to initiate a joint study of a mobile THEL (MTHEL) system. In

light of past test successes and the desire to evaluate a mobile

version of the system with much more operational utility for the

United States and for Israel, the committee recommends that, of

the funding authorized for PE 63882C, $9.0 million be used for the

MTHEL program.

Software defined radio

Software defined radio (SDR) is a new technology that has the

potential to solve problems of existing wireless communications

systems, improve communication performance and reduce infrastructure and operating costs. Phases I and II of this program have

already been funded under the BMDO Small Business Innovative

Research budget. The committee recommends that, of the funding

authorized for PE 63882C, $5.0 million be used for Phase III the

Software Defined Radio program.

Patriot air and missile defense

The Patriot air and missile defense system is an important program that requires periodic upgrades to modernize and reduce the

obsolescence of older components, while at the same time adding to

the overall system’s capability through programs such as PAC–3.

The committee understands the Army is considering a program, a

Patriot ground equipment Service Life Extension Program (SLEP),

221

that is intended to reduce the size of Patriot equipment, making

the system more transportable, while reducing projected obsolescence.

The committee recommends that, of the funding authorized for PE 63882C, $7.6 million be used for Patriot ground equipment upgrades and life extension efforts.

Aerostat design and manufacturing

The Army is developing an aerostat surveillance platform called

the Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor (JLENS) system. One potential problem for JLENS is the vulnerability of the aerostat to climatic conditions. The Aerostat Design and Manufacturing (ADAM) Program was created to facilitate

the design and manufacture of affordable aerostats with improved

performance and continuous availability. The committee recommends that, of the funding authorized for PE 63882C, $3.8 million be used for the ADAM Program.

Advanced research center

The Army Space and Missile Defense Command’s Advanced Research Center (ARC) continues to be a premier facility which supports the nation’s missile defense efforts. The ARC plans to expand

its customer testbed capability, as well as augmenting the Integrated System Test Capability (ISTC), deemed critical to the National Missile Defense (NMD) Program. The committee recommends that, of the funding authorized for PE 63882C, $8.0 million be used for the ARC.

Space and missile defense battle lab

The Army Space and Missile Defense Battle Lab coordinates,

conducts and participates in space and missile defense-related exercises, analysis efforts, and simulations for the Army and jointly

with the other military services. Current capabilities include the

Israeli testbed, which was jointly developed to provide missile defense simulation capability to Israel. The committee understands

that the funding for the Space and Missile Defense Battle Lab proposed in the budget request was reduced significantly from the fiscal year 2001 level. In order to mitigate this decrease, the committee recommends that, of the funding authorized for PE 63882C,

$11.0 million be used for the Space and Missile Defense Battle Lab.

Airborne infrared surveillance system

The Airborne Infrared Surveillance System (AIRS) will fulfill two

ballistic missile defense missions. The first is to gather critical infrared signature data on foreign re-entry vehicles in their midcourse stage of flight, and the second is to downlink fire control solutions to interceptor platforms, such as Navy Theater-Wide.

Variants of the AIRS could eventually be placed on long-endurance,

high-altitude platforms to gather data similar to what the SBIRSLow system will gather, for a small fraction of the cost of SBIRSLow. The AIRS will be installed on a Gulfstream aircraft in early

fiscal year 2002, and the BMDO plans to install it on the Global

Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle. Without additional funding, however, the technical team supporting AIRS may have to be disVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00243 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
222

banded. The committee recommends that, of the funding authorized for PE 63882C, $8.0 million be used for the AIRS program.

Liquid fueled target program

The BMDO is pursuing a liquid fueled booster program to provide more threat-representative targets. Both the Scorpius low-cost

launch program and the Excalibur low-cost reusable booster program are developing liquid fueled booster technology that is potentially applicable to the BMDO target program. Therefore, the committee recommends that of the funding authorized for PE 63882C,

$15.0 million be used for the Excalibur and Scorpius concepts.

Bottom anti-reflective coatings for circuit boards

Bottom Anti-Reflective Coatings (BARC) are used for ultra highdensity circuits to reduce the feature size on circuit boards. If the

BARC program is successful, printed circuit cards could be reduced

in size by as much as 40 percent, ultimately allowing the size and

weight of computers in missile defense components, such as interceptors, to be reduced commensurately. The committee recommends that of the funding authorized for PE 63882C, $2.5 million be used for BARC.

Ultra-flat planarization technology

Ultra-flat planarization technology, once developed, will allow integrated circuits to have multiple levels of wiring using a process

more efficient than the current chemical-mechanical process. This

technology could also substantially outperform the current process,

thereby ultimately enhancing the capacity of missile defense computing systems. The committee recommends that of the funding authorized for PE 63882C, $7.5 million be used for ultra-flat

planarization technology.

Atmospheric interceptor technology

The Atmospheric Interceptor Technology (AIT) program objective

is to identify, develop, integrate and test promising advanced lightweight component technology that can enhance the performance

and reduce the cost of future interceptors. The AIT program has

potential application across a number of different ballistic missile

defense (BMD) systems. Therefore, the committee recommends that

of the funding authorized for PE 63880C, the BMD System program element, $10.0 million be used for AIT.

National nanotechnology initiative

The budget request included $240.4 million in PE 61103D8Z for

University Research Initiatives. The committee recognizes the importance of this program in performing revolutionary fundamental

research in areas that will lead to the development of the next generation of military capabilities. In addition, this program provides

significant support for the training of the next generation of scientists and engineers, many of whom will continue to work on defense research and technology problems throughout their careers.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in this program for basic research related to the National Nanotechnology Initiative. The committee directs that all applicable competitive proceVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00244 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
223

dures be used in the award of contracts and other agreements

under this program.

The committee recognizes that military and civilian investments

in nanoscience and nanotechnology research and development are

fundamental to the genesis of revolutionary military technologies.

Furthermore, the committee notes the revolutionary potential of

nanoscience and nanotechnology to transform military operations.

Advances in nanoscience and nanotechnology may lead to new and

more sensitive sensors, including portable chemical and biological

agent sensors; miniaturized electronics, providing more efficient

and smaller communications systems, information systems, navigation aids, and computer processors; novel materials with enhanced

structural, mechanical, electrical, and optical performance; medical

technologies, including bio-nanodevices for mitigation of threats to

humans; miniaturized platforms with enhanced reconnaissance and

offensive capabilities; and novel manufacturing technologies. These

investments will also enable the United States to maintain technological dominance in military operations by training the next generation of scientists and engineers, and will provide resources required for building and sustaining the national infrastructure supporting training and research in these fields.

The National Nanotechnology Initiative, launched in 2000, manages a set of increased investments across a range of disciplines

and in a number of federal agencies, and will lay the foundation

for the development of the commercial and military technologies

enabled by nanosystems. The Department of Defense, including all

the armed services and the Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency, have made significant and valuable investments in these

areas of research and technology development. These investments,

in coordination with the overall federal nanotechnology research

and development program, have created new innovations and technologies that could contribute to fulfilling the requirements of

warfighters and also could provide many benefits both for the commercial sector and for medical and scientific research. The Department of Defense’s financial commitments to the National

Nanotechnology Initiative investment strategy, in current and future fiscal years, are important to the long-term planning for

nanoscience and nanotechnology research. Not honoring such commitments may compromise progress in these important research

areas and jeopardize the Department’s position as a leader in this

multi-agency initiative.

The committee directs the Department of Defense to renew its

commitment to the National Nanotechnology Initiative, including

participation in the broad federal coordination activities of the

Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience, Engineering and

Technology, and to coordinate its own investments in nanoscience

and nanotechnology within the broader federal program.

The increase for the National Nanotechnology Initiative is one

element in an overall increase of $22.7 million recommended by the

committee across the Department of Defense for basic and applied

research aimed at developing nanotechnology to meet military

needs. Other recommended increases discussed elsewhere in this

report include $4.5 million in research in Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency accounts and $13.2 million in Navy RDT&E

224

accounts, including significant investments to combat future terrorist and chemical and biological agent threats.

Nanotechnology research and development

The budget request included $358.3 million in PE 62712E for

Materials and Electronics Technology. The committee recommends

an increase of $4.5 million to this account for research in

nanoscience and nanotechnology, which are fundamental to the

genesis of revolutionary military technology and operations. Of this

amount, $1.5 million would be used for research on

nanotechnologies for the detection and destruction of chemical

weapons and an additional $3.0 million would be used for the development of frequency-tunable nanocomposite materials for antenna, circuit, filter, and coating applications. The committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in the

award of contracts and other agreements under this program.

Three-dimensional microelectronics

The budget request included $358.3 million in PE 62712E for applied research on materials and electronics technology. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million for the design and

fabrication of three-dimensional device structures for novel microelectronics. This work will address device architecture and performance issues as transistors and other electronics get smaller and

technology moves toward three-dimensional circuits. These advances will support the development of the next generation of miniaturized integrated circuits for use in commercial and military systems.

Radiation hardened electronics

The budget request included $295.1 million in PE 62715BR for

applied research in nuclear sustainment and counterproliferation

technologies. The committee notes the critical need to develop radiation hardened microelectronics that can approach the capabilities

of advanced commercial electronics in order to the meet the requirements of many advanced weapon systems, especially those involved in space operations. Therefore, the committee recommends

an increase of $3.0 million to improve the manufacturability of radiation hardened microelectronics for large scale integrated circuit

technologies. The committee directs that all applicable competitive

procedures be used in the award of contracts and other agreements

under this program.

The committee further notes and supports the efforts of the Secretary of Defense to include radiation hardened electronics as part

of the Department of Defense’s Advanced Electronics Initiative, a

strategy for electronics technology development to support future

warfighter needs. This includes funding in the science and technology activities of the military services and defense agencies as

well as under the authority of the Defense Production Act. The

committee directs the military services and defense agencies to

align their future investment strategies in radiation hardened

microelectronics to be consistent with the stated Department strategy and funding plan in order to support this critical strategic capability.

225

Combating nontraditional and asymmetric threats

The committee recommends an increase of $69.7 million in investments in the fundamental science and technology necessary to

support Department of Defense activities in combating nontraditional and asymmetric threats in the future. The committee recommends increases of $41.0 million in Defense-Wide Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) accounts, $3.0 million in

Army RDT&E accounts, $14.2 million in Navy RDT&E accounts,

$8.0 million in Air Force RDT&E programs, and $3.5 million in Defense-Wide Operations and Maintenance accounts towards this initiative.

Combating Terrorism Technology Support Working

Group

The committee commends the efforts of the Combating Terrorism

Technology Support Working Group (TSWG) in investing in the scientific research, and performing the technology development and

system field testing, necessary to rapidly field the next generation

of systems to combat future terrorist threats. The budget request included $42.2 million in PE 63122D8Z for

Combating Terrorism Technology Support. The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million to fund these activities. Of

this amount, $5.0 million would be used to supplement ongoing

standoff explosive detection work by soliciting and developing additional approaches in a rapid prototyping mode. This investment

supports the efforts of TSWG, in the aftermath of the USS Cole,

to develop standoff explosive detection technologies to meet critical

military requirements. Additionally, $3.0 million would be used for

the continued development of real-time, lightweight, man portable

aerogel-based chemical and biological detectors; $7.0 million would

be used for blast mitigation testing, including the development of

retrofits for buildings and components, and the performance of testing using large-scale computer simulation, testing in controlled and

repeatable laboratory environments and the qualification of new

structural designs; $8.0 million would be used for the testing and

evaluation of environmentally safe, non-corrosive, and affordable

chemical and biological agent decontamination technologies; and

$2.0 million would be used to develop a proof of concept system for

protection of critical assets by pre-detonation of improvised explosive devices. The committee directs that all applicable competitive

procedures be used in the award of contracts and other agreements

under this program.

Chemical and Biological Defense Program

The committee recognizes the threat of terrorist attack using

weapons of mass destruction (WMD), especially chemical and biological agents, that are relatively easy to procure, produce, and

weaponize. The committee has identified a number of priority

science and technology programs that will address critical standoff

detection, sample collection and analysis, protection, and decontamination issues that are central to programs in chemical biological defense.

The budget request included $125.5 million in PE 62384BP for

applied research in chemical and biological defense. The committee

226

recommends an increase of $7.5 million in this account for applied

research in protecting military personnel and civilians in the presence of chemical or biological agents. Of this amount, $2.0 million

would be used for modeling and testing of regenerative air filtration devices for ground vehicles and aircraft; $1.5 million to develop

a database of biological pathogen information and bioinformatics

tools to support development of medical biological countermeasures;

$1.0 million for research on the protection of the pulmonary system

from the effects of mustard gas; $2.0 million for sensors for portable biological and chemical agent detectors; and $1.0 million for

improving the capability of the Joint Forces Command, government

agencies, state and local authorities to model chemical, biological,

or radiological incidents from the initial detection of the attack and

the resultant effects through the medical response to the incident

in an integrated, interoperable manner. The committee directs that

all applicable competitive procedures be used in the award of contracts and other agreements under this program.

The budget request included $69.2 million in PE 63384BP for advanced technology development in chemical and biological defense.

The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million for the

Safeguard project to develop joint standoff detection capabilities for

biological and chemical agents from unmanned aerial vehicles

(UAVs). The funds would be used to address systems integration

and operational issues involved in putting chemical and biological

agent sensor systems on UAVs, including sensor package payload

impacts on UAV operations, on-board information processing and

communications, and utilization of UAVs for chemical and biological agent sensing in a joint operational environment. The committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in

the award of contracts and other agreements under this program.

The committee directs the Department to conduct a review of

technology development efforts, concepts-of-operation, and acquisition plans to use UAVs in chemical and biological defense and report back to the congressional defense committees on the Department’s budget plan and schedule to implement these technologies

in operational environments as part of the fiscal year 2003 budget

request.

The committee notes that the Marine Corps Systems Command

is committed to developing chemical and biological warfare agent

decontamination technologies. These advanced decontamination

technologies are an essential tool for the Marine Corps’ Chemical

and Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF).

Decontamination of casualties, contaminated personnel, and sensitive equipment is a fundamental CBIRF mission. For this reason,

CBIRF teams deploy with Marine Corps units worldwide and the

teams also deploy around the nation in support of homeland defense preparedness. The committee notes the recent CBIRF deployment in support of the January 2001 presidential inauguration activities and pending deployment to support the Winter Olympics.

The committee recommends that the Department continue to

support the development of chemical and biological decontamination technologies by the Marine Corps Systems Command through

the Chemical and Biological Defense Program.

227

Naval unmanned combat air vehicle

The budget request included $153.7 million in PE 63285E to de- velop advanced aerospace systems, including $27.0 million to continue development of a naval unmanned combat air vehicle

(UCAV–N).

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) proposed to use these funds to:

(1) demonstrate technologies, processes, and systems attributes that would lead to determining the feasibility of employing UCAV–N systems from ships to conduct maritime operations using network centric warfare principles, including:

(a) demonstrate shipboard suitability;

(b) demonstrate robust and secure command, control and

communications; (c) explore the full range of man-in-theloop controls and mission planning approaches;

(d) evaluate sensors, weapons load-out and mission effectiveness; and

(e) demonstrate real-time targeting and weapons delivery compatibility.

(2) initiate detailed design of a UCAV–N demonstrator aircraft.

The committee appreciates the fact that DARPA is moving toward achieving the goals established in section 220 of the Floyd D.

Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.

This section, based on an initiative sponsored by this committee,

established the goal that, within 10 years, one-third of U.S. military operational deep strike aircraft would be unmanned, and,

within 15 years, one-third of all U.S. military ground combat vehicles would be unmanned.

The committee believes that DARPA should be able to make additional progress. The committee recommends an increase of $9.0

million in PE 63285E to enable DARPA to make greater progress

in the UCAV–N development efforts described above. Additional

recommendations on development of unmanned ground combat vehicles are described elsewhere in this report.

Complex systems design

The budget request included $11.0 million in PE 63704D8Z for

special technology support. The committee recommends an increase

of $2.0 million for development of non-proprietary multi-view data

standards for use in data integration during systems engineering

of complex defense systems. These standards have the potential to

improve the interoperability of computer-based analysis tools during the life cycle of complex defense systems.

Competitiveness sustainment initiative

The budget request included $2.0 million in PE 78011S for the

Competitiveness Sustainment Initiative. This initiative plays an

important role in the effort of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)

to reduce the cost of sustaining existing weapons systems and to

improve their readiness through the application of new business

practices. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million

in PE 78011S to fund additional projects intended to promote effective supply partnerships and streamlined maintenance processes.

228

However, the committee believes that funding for the program in

future years would more appropriately be provided through the operation and maintenance accounts of the Department of Defense.

The committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be

used in the award of contracts or other agreements under this program and that cost sharing be used to the maximum extent practicable.

Unmanned ground combat vehicle

The budget request included $90.0 million in PE 63764E for future combat systems. The committee recommends an increase of

$11.0 million for research and development of Unmanned Ground

Combat Vehicles (UGCV) as part of the DARPA/Army Future Combat Systems (FCS) program.

The committee notes that the future military requirement for unmanned systems, including unmanned aircraft with advanced capability, unmanned ground combat vehicles and unmanned underwater craft, is clear. The ability of unmanned systems to provide

deep strike and high risk mission support will be critical in future

military engagements. Due to the increasing need for this capability, the committee last year added $200.0 million to Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) -led unmanned and robotics efforts to expand the pursuit of technologies for fielding remotely controlled combat systems, and established the goal that

within 10 years one-third of U.S. military operational deep strike

aircraft would be unmanned and within 15 years one-third of all

U.S. military ground combat vehicles would be unmanned. For fiscal year 2002, the budget request included over $250.0

million for unmanned and robotics programs. While the committee

applauds the effort made by the Department of Defense, and in

particular DARPA, to increase the budget to support the congressionally-mandated goal for unmanned systems, additional funding

is needed in this area. Therefore, the committee is recommending

increases totaling $20.0 million for unmanned and robotics systems, including increases for both the Naval Unmanned Combat

Air Vehicle (UCAV–N) and UGCV programs.

Environmental security technology certification program

The budget request included $25.0 million in PE 63851D8Z for

the Environmental Security Technology Certification Program

(ESTCP). The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in

PE 63851D8Z to sustain efforts initiated within the ESTCP program last year for the demonstration and validation of viable, cost

effective solutions that will help the military departments meet the

extraordinary challenge of remediating unexploded ordnance (UXO)

and related constituents at active, inactive, closed, transferred, and

transferring ranges.

The committee notes that the budget request included $20.0 million in PE 63716D8Z for advanced research on the remediation of

UXO and related constituents through the Strategic Environmental

Research and Development Program (SERDP). This investment is

an important step toward bringing down the cost of addressing the

Department of Defense’s UXO problem, which has been estimated

at more than $100 billion. The committee urges the Department to

229

maintain stable funding for UXO-related science and technology in

both the SERDP program and the ESTCP program in future years.

Budget technical adjustments

The budget request included $56.7 million in PE 65710D8Z for

classified programs for the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence) (ASD (C3I)). The

Defense Department informed the committee that the intended request for this program element was $16.7 million. The amount requested in that line included: (a) $8.0 million that should have been requested in PE

65116D8Z for general support to C3I; and (b) $32.0 million that should have been requested in Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide for the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

The committee recommends adjusting the budget lines to correct

this error.

Regional pilot program for infrastructure protection

The budget request included $414.8 million in PE 33140G for the

information systems security program, including a number of programs focusing on infrastructure protection.

Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD 63) requires the development and implementation of systems and procedures designed to

protect strategic infrastructure, critical facilities and military, industrial and information support services necessary to preserve

critical domestic services (e.g., air traffic control systems, petroleum refineries, power generation facilities, pipelines, etc.), project

U.S. combat power overseas in times of conflict and sustain our

military and industrial infrastructure.

The committee believes that the Department of Defense could

undertake a regional pilot program where representative critical facilities and military support services reside. The program could

identify opportunities for providing necessary support for DOD operations defending against transnational threats, information sabotage and attempts to exploit sensitive technology or extract sensitive data.

The committee understands that the Department would need to

expend some funds to develop the appropriate defenses and protections that could ensure the safety of our populace and the continuous operation of critical military and industrial facilities in the

event of a terrorist attack or security threat. The costs of repair,

replacement and interruption of such critical military and nonmilitary services would far exceed the insurance provided by the

information derived from the design and implementation of a regional pilot program for infrastructure protection.

Therefore, the committee recommends that, of the funds available within the information systems security program, $5.0 million

be applied to these purposes.

Broadcast-request imagery technology experiment

At the request of U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM),

the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) developed a unique capability to disseminate timely, tailored imagery products to forVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00251 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
230

ward-deployed special operations elements via existing communications architectures. This capability has been named broadcast-request imagery technology experiment (BRITE). In accordance with

normal procedures, once developmental work on this program was

completed, NRO has transferred responsibility for BRITE to the

National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) for fielding and

sustainment. NIMA has been very supportive of this technology,

but competing priorities did not allow NIMA to include this program in the budget request.

The committee understands the funding challenges facing NIMA,

but is also concerned that a capability that has been developed to

meet an urgent operational requirement will not be fielded in the

foreseeable future.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million

to PE 35102BQ to ensure timely fielding of BRITE capability to

operational elements.

Intelligent spatial technologies for smart maps

To meet implicit and derived requirements of Joint Vision 2020,

the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) initiated several research and development efforts to develop appropriate software tools to enable military operators and planners to better use

and integrate geospatial data. One such program, intelligent spatial technologies for smart maps, has shown great promise. With

additional development, this technology could be transferred to

commercial developers where its commercial and military potential

will be fully developed and made available to military and other

users at reasonable cost. NIMA has been very supportive of this

program, and has assessed that it would have high military value.

However, competing priorities did not permit NIMA to include continued funding for intelligent spatial technologies in the budget request.

The committee is concerned that an ongoing program requiring

continuity of funding to develop its potential has not been recommended for continued funding.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million

to PE 35102BQ to ensure continued development of this important

program.

Budget technical adjustments

The budget request included $40.0 million in PE 35191D8Z for

the technology development program. The Defense Department informed the committee that the intended request for this program

element was $35.0 million. The amount requested in that line included $5.0 million that should been requested in PE 35889D8Z for

the joint electromagnetic technology program.

The committee recommends adjusting the two budget lines to

correct this error.

CV–22 research and development

The budget request included $101.7 million in PE 1160444BB for

research, development, test and evaluation for the CV–22, the Special Operations Forces (SOF) variant of the V–22 Osprey. However,

the Air Force subsequently decided to delay fielding of the CV–22

231

to reflect the restructuring of the overall MV/CV–22 program into

a phased return to flight and fleet introduction. Most of the research and development planned for fiscal year 2002 is necessary

to achieve full operations capability for the CV–22, and the committee supports a continuation of this work. However, a portion of

the fiscal year 2002 request is no longer needed, and the committee

recommends a decrease of $1.9 million in PE 1160444BB.

Digital imagery systems

The budget request included $113.6 million in PE 64940D8Z for

the Central Test and Evaluation Investment Development Program

(CTEIP), which seeks to improve the efficiency of management of

the Department of Defense’s test and evaluation facilities, and

modernize the technologies used to test the next generation of defense systems. Given the importance of test and evaluation activities in reducing the risks and costs associated with new acquisition

programs, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million

for the development and implementation of digital video systems to

replace film-based munitions and missile test observation systems

and convert test data from analog film to digital formats. The committee directs that all applicable competitive procedures be used in

the award of contracts and other agreements under this program.

The committee also directs the Department to consider the recommendations of the Defense Science Board’s recent evaluation of

test and evaluation capabilities, as it works to reorganize and improve the management and coordination of these critical assets and

capabilities. The committee directs the Department to develop a

budget plan and schedule for the implementation of the Defense

Science Board’s recommendations, to be submitted along with the

fiscal year 2003 budget request.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Air Force science & technology planning and investments

Section 252 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 required the Secretary of the Air

Force to complete a review of the long-term challenges and shortterm objectives of the Air Force science and technology (S&T) program. Though this review is ongoing, the committee is encouraged

by the progress reported to date. The Air Force appears to have

embraced a modified planning process and has initiated important

science and technology strategic reviews. In addition, the Air Force

has involved high-ranking decision-makers in the process and appears to have the concurrence of the Secretary of the Air Force on

the importance of the planning process and the science and technology program as a whole.

The committee remains concerned, however, about the level of investment in the Air Force science and technology program. The

science and technology base has atrophied over the past decade

and, as a result, the Air Force has possibly undermined long-term

superiority in several key technology areas. This finding is outlined

in a recent National Research Council review, which reports that

the Air Force investment in science and technology is down by 46

percent in real dollars since fiscal year 1989. Areas of specific conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00253 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
232

cern are the investment in air- and space-based technologies and

information systems. The committee encourages the Secretary of

the Air Force to review the findings of the National Research Council, and take into account their expert guidance during future priority-setting and budget planning and programming activities.

Defense/Industry fuel cell partnership

The committee directs the National Automotive Center (NAC) to

develop a plan for the establishment of a Defense/Industry Fuel

Cell Partnership to leverage the investments of both the military

and the private sector in the area of fuel cell technology.

Fuel cell technology is currently being developed for use as auxiliary power units and for vehicle propulsion, both of which offer

great benefits to the Army’s transformation strategy in reducing

the size of the deployed logistics footprint and the signature of future Army platforms. Use of fuel cell technology also offers potential for increased range and enhanced stealth missions due to its

inherent high efficiency and quiet operation. Significant advancements have been made in the development of fuel cell technology,

but the committee believes that more could be accomplished, particularly if this work is done in cooperation with private industry.

A Defense/Industry Fuel Cell Partnership offers the best opportunity to take technology advancements in the commercial sector

and adapt them to the needs of the military. The key to establishing such a partnership will be development of a research plan

to assess and evaluate current and future fuel cell technologies and

to assess where such technologies can meet current and future

military requirements. The committee directs the NAC to develop

the plan, in cooperation with industry and other appropriate federal agencies, and to submit the plan to the congressional defense

committees by no later than April 30, 2002.

Navy shipbuilding requirements and transformation

The committee is concerned that the Navy may intend to use

scarce resources for ship research and development programs other

than those that would support ships included in the long-range

shipbuilding plan delivered to Congress on June 26, 2000. This approach is of concern because budget requests and the result of congressional actions have not been sufficient to procure the number

of ships required to recapitalize the fleet. Additionally complicating

this situation is the fact that the projected costs of ships have not

always been within normal estimating ranges.

Despite the Navy’s having received additional resources in the

fiscal year 2002 budget, the Chief of Naval Operations has submitted a list of fiscal year 2002 unfunded ship construction research and development projects.

The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) established a three star

admiral position on his staff, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for

Warfare Requirements and Programs (DCNO, WR&P, N7), as the

focal point for determining Navy warfare requirements and the

possible means of meeting those requirements. The committee has

been told that all Navy requirements are vetted through this office

and that analysis of alternatives are conducted prior to making deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00254 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
233

cisions to invest funds for research and development and procurement.

Subsequent to the establishment of the new N7 organization, the

Navy has built, leased, and entered into international agreements

for testing improvements in ship construction as well as key technologies that should reduce the total operating costs of ships while

improving operational performance. The Navy efforts underway include:

(1) Testing electric ship and integrated power systems are

being tested in the large-scale vehicle. In addition, the Navy

entered into an agreement with Great Britain which resulted

in the British designing their trimaran research and development vessel to accept U.S. integrated power systems for research and development testing.

(2) Gathering significant data from U.S.-funded instrumentation on the British vessel with a trimaran hull structure.

(3) Investigating composite mast, composite submarine sail,

and modular construction of advanced hull forms in ongoing research programs that could yield insights into structures

issues.

(4) Conducting ongoing research and development for undersea manned and unmanned vessels and unmanned aerial vehicles appear to accomplish many of the same tactical missions

that would be expected of a small, manned surface combatant.

(5) Investing significant resources in cruiser conversion,

CVN–77, CVN(X), Virginia-class technology insertion, DD–21

and smart ship programs to achieve reduced manning and operating costs, and to foster electric ship initiatives.

(6) Leasing in fiscal year 2001, in partnership with the

Army, a high speed vessel to explore potential missions including:

(a) deploying and operating an expeditionary sensor

grid;

(b) providing logistics support or the Army and Marine

Corps; and

(c) operating different variants of high speed vessels to

support so-called ‘‘street fighter’’ missions.

The committee fully supports these efforts. In particular, the

committee notes that the Army has identified a need for additional

funds to continue gathering data from the lease of a high speed

vessel in fiscal year 2002. Although the Navy participated with the

Army in this program during fiscal year 2001, the Navy did not include funds in the fiscal year 2002 budget request to continue this

effort.

The committee concurs with a General Accounting Office (GAO)

report on Navy Transformation which concluded, ‘‘the Navy has devoted little of its experimentation effort exploring long-term force

structure and operational issues such as new ship design concepts.’’

The fact that the CNO submitted an unfunded requirements list

for fiscal year 2002 that identifies ship design shortfalls provides

further testimony to the GAO conclusion.

Therefore, the committee encourages the Navy to focus ship design efforts on programs that will collect the type of information

that will be needed to make decisions on future combatant ships,

234

the future amphibious ship (LH(X)), the future joint command and

control ship (JCC(X)), and the maritime prepositioning force ship of

the future (MPF(F)), rather than duplicating efforts already underway.

Networking and information technology research and development

The committee notes the sustained and successful investments

by the Department of Defense, and especially the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, in High Performance Computing

and Communications research and technologies. These investments, in coordination with the overall federal information technology research and development program, have created new innovations and technologies that have contributed to fulfilling the requirements of warfighters, especially in the areas of information security and assurance, reliable software, networking of battlefield

systems, modeling and simulation, and the Department of Energy’s

Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative. These efforts have also

provided many benefits for the commercial sector, medical and scientific research, and efficiency of government services.

Given the importance of these technologies in meeting the emerging threats of the new century, and in shaping and controlling the

battlefields of the future through network centric operations, the

committee directs the Department of Defense to continue its participation in the on-going federal Networking and Information

Technology Research and Development program, including the

Interagency Working Group and the National Coordination Office

for Information Technology Research and Development, and to coordinate its own investments in Information Technology Research

and Development within the broader federal program.

Reusable Launch Vehicles

The committee has been concerned for a number of years about

the high cost and unreliability of launch operations. To address

these issues, since 1994, NASA and the Air Force have shared responsibility for launch vehicle development. The Air Force has had

primary responsibility for the development of expendable launch

vehicles and has developed the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV). The EELV is intended to provide 25 to 50 percent

launch cost savings over the current generation of launch vehicles

through a low-risk, evolutionary development approach. NASA has

had primary responsibility for development of next-generation reusable launch vehicles (RLVs). In March 2001, NASA terminated its

RLV technology demonstration efforts, the X–33 and X–34 RLVs,

and instituted a program to explore technologies relevant to RLV

development with no commitment to a specific vehicle design. Since

then, NASA and the Air Force have also abandoned the X–37 space

maneuver vehicle effort, and have agreed not to provide funds to

sustain any of these programs.

The committee believes that an assured, rapid, on-demand, and

low-cost launch capability could be provided by RLVs and could

have significant military and civil utility. The committee recognizes

that the Air Force has a substantial interest in the successful deVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00256 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
235

velopment of RLVs, as it is responsible for space launch for the Department of Defense.

The committee believes that the Department of Defense should

review the 1994 agreement between NASA and the Air Force that

assigned primary responsibility for RLV and expendable launch vehicle development, respectively. As part of this review, the committee urges the Department of Defense to look at the possibility

of establishing a joint NASA-Air Force program where the Air

Force would have responsibility for developing a military variant of

an RLV. In the event that the Secretary of the Air Force determines that a joint effort is not feasible, the committee urges the

Secretary to explore how DOD would develop and pursue a an RLV

program independent of NASA.

The committee continues to believe, however, that even an independent program should be conducted in close coordination with

NASA. The committee further directs the Secretary to submit his

findings in a report to the congressional defense committees by

May 1, 2002.

The committee also directs the Secretary of the Air Force to determine if there are any defense requirements for an RLV. If the

Secretary determines that there are such requirements, then the

Secretary shall describe and define the operational requirements to

be met by RLVs, study concepts of operations that will support

those requirements, identify key and militarily unique RLV technologies, and plan a critical path forward for those technologies.

These requirements shall be included in the report to the congressional defense committees due on May 1, 2002.

Review of mine countermeasures plans and programs

The Navy requested that fiscal year 2001 funds be reprogrammed from two sources in order to fully fund a refueling overhaul for USS Albuquerque. One of the sources of funds was procurement funding to buy shallow water assault breaching system

(SABRE) and distributed explosive technology (DET) systems for

shallow water mine countermeasures (MCM). Navy witnesses have

testified that the systems did not perform well in operational testing.

The committee has maintained a strong interest in these programs and finds this change of heart troubling from several aspects:

(1) First, the committee understands that the Navy may

have changed its mind about buying these systems because

they were being tested against a more stringent requirement

than those against which the systems were developed.

(2) Secondly, the committee is concerned that the original requirement for these systems, in retrospect, may not have been

drawn in a manner adequate to meet the needs of the fleets.

Given the attention the Navy has claimed that was being paid

to these programs, it is hard for the committee to reconcile this

situation with those previous claims.

(3) Finally, since there are no near-term alternatives available to satisfy this mission, the committee believes that the

Navy is being somewhat short-sighted. It is hard to see why

236

we are better off waiting for a perfect solution some time in the

future, when we have nearly no capability now.

At a minimum, the committee believes that the Navy must conduct a thorough review of all MCM programs and requirements to

verify that the fleet operators will stand behind all requirements

documents, and that all MCM programs are operating under a validated set of requirements.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report on this review with the submission of the fiscal year 2003

budget request.

Track conversion system for lightweight wheeled vehicles

In 1997, the Army tested a track conversion system for lightweight wheeled vehicles at the Aberdeen Test Center, noting several advantages, including increased soft soil mobility, soft soil

drawbar pull and reduced ground pressure, which increased the

probability of mine overpass. The test also documented limitations

in the areas of speed, steering and other performance characteristics. The committee understands that those limitations have been

substantially corrected through subsequent improvements to the

system. The committee directs the Army to assess those improvements to determine whether additional testing is warranted and to

report its findings to Congress.

(237)

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

Explanation of tables

The following tables provide the program-level detailed guidance

for the funding authorized in title III of this Act. The tables also

display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal

year 2002 budget request for operations and maintenance programs

and indicate those programs for which the committee either increased or decreased the requested amounts. As in the past, the administration may not exceed the authorized amounts (as set forth

in the tables or, if unchanged from the administration request, as

set forth in the Department of Defense’s budget justification documents) without a reprogramming action in accordance with established procedures. Unless noted in the report, funding changes to

the budget request are made without prejudice.

Summary of National Defense Authorization for FY 2000

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 303)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

appropriation of $71.4 million from the Armed Forces Retirement

Home Trust Fund for fiscal year 2002.

Assistance to local educational agencies that benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and Department of Defense civilian employees (sec. 304)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

$35.0 million for continuation of the Department of Defense assistance program to local educational agencies that benefit dependents

of service members and Department of Defense civilian employees.

Amount for impact aid for children with severe disabilities

(sec. 305)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

$5.0 million for continuation of the Department of Defense assistance program to local educational agencies that benefit dependents

with severe disabilities.

SUBTITLE B—ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS

Establishment in environmental restoration accounts of

sub-accounts for unexploded ordnance and other related

constituents (sec. 311)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2703 of title 10, United States Code, by inserting a new paragraph that would designate sub-accounts for the remediation of

unexploded ordnance and other related constituents on active

ranges, sites subject to base realignment and closure, and formerly

used defense sites.

Assessment of environmental remediation of unexploded

ordnance and related constituents (sec. 312)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Department of Defense (DOD) to develop a comprehensive assessment of the extent of problems with unexploded ordnance (UXO)

and related constituents at current and former DOD facilities. This

assessment would be included in the annual environmental remediation report required by section 2706(a) of title 10, United States

Code.

The four military services have been firing ordnance on training

ranges for decades. It now appears that the cost of addressing problems with UXO and related constituents on active facilities, closed

and closing installations, and formerly used defense sites could run

into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

The Senate Report on the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2000 required the Department to develop a comprehensive estimate of the costs of addressing problems with UXO and related constituents at the Department’s current and former facilities. Unfortunately, the report provided by the Department fails to

provide this information.

277

The provision recommended by the committee would address this

problem by placing a statutory requirement on the Department to

develop a comprehensive reliable estimate of the costs of addressing problems with UXO and related constituents and a roadmap for

doing so.

Department of Defense energy efficiency program (sec. 313)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to carry out a program to significantly improve the energy efficiency of the Department of Defense (DOD)

over the next 10 years.

The committee believes that energy conservation is an essential

element in addressing rising energy prices and supply problems.

The DOD has a robust energy conservation program in place,

which has already reduced the Department’s energy consumption

by more than 20 percent over the last 10 years, resulting in billions

of dollars of cost avoidance.

The provision recommended by the committee would codify the

existing Department of Defense energy conservation program and

extend it through 2010. The energy efficiency goals established by

the provision would not be mandatory, but should ensure that the

Department continues to achieve reduced energy consumption and

resulting savings. DOD officials have indicated that these goals are

achievable.

The provision would also require that the Secretary pursue a

number of proven energy efficiency strategies, including: the purchase of energy-efficient products; the use of energy savings performance contracts and other contracts designed to achieve energy

conservation objectives; the use of life-cycle cost analysis (including

life-cycle energy costs) in making purchases; the use of energy-efficiency audits; the use of more energy efficient steam systems, boiler systems, and industrial processes; and the early retirement of

inefficient equipment where replacement results in lower life-cycle

costs.

With regard to the purchase of energy-efficient products for DOD

facilities, the committee directs the Department to develop and

submit to the congressional defense committees, by no later than

March 1, 2002, a comprehensive plan for replacing standard light

bulbs with energy-efficient light bulbs, to the maximum extent

practicable, over a five-year period.

The information required in annual reports to the congressional

defense committees pursuant to this provision is consistent with

the information already required in annual reports to the President

on the same dates, pursuant to Executive Order 13123. The committee expects to receive the same information in the same format

as the President. For this reason, the reporting requirement should

not impose any additional burden on the Department.

Extension of pilot program for the sale of air pollution emission reduction incentives (sec. 314)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the

authority for the Department of Defense to conduct a pilot program

for the sale of air pollution emission reduction incentives.

278

Section 351 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1998 authorized the Department to retain proceeds from the

sale of Clean Air Act emission reduction credits, allowances, offsets,

or comparable economic incentives. This authority had enabled the

Department to participate in emissions trading pursuant to the

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (Public Law 101–549). The provision recommended by the committee would extend the authority

through September 30, 2003.

Reimbursement of Environmental Protection Agency for

certain response costs in connection with Hooper Sands

Site, South Berwick, Maine (sec. 315)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to reimburse the Environmental Protection

Agency for costs incurred by the agency for actions taken pursuant

to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9602, et seq.) (CERCLA). The committee understands that activities of the Navy are liable for these

costs under CERCLA as generators who arranged for disposal of

the hazardous substances that ended up at the site.

Conformity of surety authority under environmental restoration program with surety authority under Superfund (sec. 316)

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate the

sunset date in section 2701 of title 10, United States Code, making

permanent the protection that this provision provides to sureties

for Defense Environmental Restoration Program response actions.

This change would conform section 2701 to a parallel surety provision in section 119 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), covering response actions under the Superfund program, which was made permanent in 1998.

Procurement of alternative fueled and hybrid electric light

duty trucks (sec. 317)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to coordinate with the Administrator of General Services to ensure that only hybrid electric vehicles are procured for the Department of Defense (DOD) fleet of light duty

trucks beginning in fiscal year 2005. This requirement applies to

those vehicles not otherwise considered ‘‘covered’’ fleet vehicles

under the Energy Policy Act (EPAct). The Secretary, in consultation with the Administrator, may waive the requirement under certain circumstances if necessary to meet specific requirements for

vehicle capabilities, to meet applicable standards for procurement

of fleet vehicles, or to adjust to limitations on the commercial availability of hybrid electric light duty trucks.

The provision also would require that the Secretary coordinate

with the Administrator to ensure that certain additional requirements are met with respect to the Department of Defense’s light

duty trucks that are considered part of its ‘‘covered’’ fleet vehicles

under EPAct. Specifically, the provision would require that: (1) five

percent of the ‘‘covered’’ fleet vehicles acquired in fiscal years 2005

279

and 2006 by the DOD be either alternative fuel vehicles or hybrid

electric vehicles; and (2) 10 percent of the ‘‘covered’’ fleet vehicles

acquired in fiscal year 2007 and thereafter by the DOD be either

alternative fuel vehicles or hybrid electric vehicles. These requirements for acquisition of alternative fuel vehicles or hybrid electric

vehicles in fiscal year 2005 and thereafter are in addition to those

already required under EPAct.

The DOD acquires approximately 22,400 new light duty vehicles

annually, approximately half of which are light duty trucks and

half are sedans. Manufacturers are expected to produce significant

quantities of hybrid electric light duty trucks beginning in 2005.

Hybrid electric vehicle technology offers tremendous potential to reduce fuel consumption and significantly increase fuel efficiency.

Use of this technology in federal fleets will help reduce petroleum

costs significantly and will assist in meeting overall targets for reduction of fuel consumption in the Federal Government.

SUBTITLE C—COMMISSARIES AND NONAPPROPRIATED

FUND INSTRUMENTALITIES

Rebate agreements with producers of foods provided under

the special supplemental food program (sec. 321)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to enter into annual contracts for rebates with

producers of food products for the exclusive right to provide food in

commissary stores as supplemental food for the Women, Infants,

and Children (WIC) Overseas Program. The recommended provision would allow rebates to be credited to the appropriation available for carrying out the WIC program and would require the use

of competitive procedures to enter into contracts for rebates.

Reimbursement for use of commissary facilities by military

departments for purposes other than commissary sales

(sec. 322)

The committee recommends a provision that would require service secretaries to reimburse the Defense Commissary Agency for a

share of the depreciated value of a commissary facility when a military department uses, for non-commissary related purposes, a facility previously acquired, constructed or improved with commissary

surcharge funds.

Public releases of commercially valuable information of

commissary stores (sec. 323)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to limit release to the public of commercially

valuable commissary store information and to use competitive contracting procedures to sell commissary sales data, customer demographic information, and information pertaining to commissary

transactions and operations. The recommended provision would

prohibit release of information in a form that would make it possible to identify a customer. The recommended provision would also

authorize the Secretary to sell or license the use of business programs, systems, and applications and to release, without charge,

280

information about items sold in commissaries to the manufacturer

of the item.

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Codification of authority for Department of Defense support

for counterdrug activities of other agencies (sec. 331)

The committee recognizes that with the passage of time and several amendments over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for Department of Defense (DOD) personnel in the field to

keep abreast of section 1004 of the National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 1991, which authorizes DOD support for the

counterdrug activities of any other department or agency of the

Federal Government or of any state, local or foreign law enforcement agency. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision

that would codify that section in Chapter 18 of title 10, United

States Code.

Exclusion of certain expenditures from limitation on private

sector performance of depot-level maintenance (sec. 332)

The committee recommends a provision that would allow the

military departments to exclude private sector depot-level maintenance and repair performed in partnerships at Centers of Industrial and Technical Excellence from the calculations of public and

private sector maintenance required by section 2466 of title 10,

United States Code. All other provisions of chapter 146 of title 10

would continue to apply to such maintenance.

The committee supports the goal of increasing public-private

partnerships to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the

maintenance of military equipment and urges the military departments to more fully utilize the partnering authorities under section

2474 of title 10. The authority to exclude private sector work performed in such partnerships from the requirements of section 2466

of title 10 contained in this provision represents an additional incentive to create such partnerships.

Repair, restoration, and preservation of Lafayette Escadrille

Memorial, Marnes la-Coquette, France (sec. 333)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of the Air Force to provide a grant to the Lafayette Escadrille Memorial Foundation, Inc. to repair and restore the Lafayette Escadrille Memorial in Marnes la-Coquette, France.

The committee does not intend this provision to establish a

precedent for federal funding of privately owned memorials. However, the committee believes that in this instance a contribution by

the United States government is appropriate in order to honorably

preserve the remains of American pilots who volunteered to fight

in World War I. The memorial has suffered severe water damage.

The committee understands that the government of France is also

contributing funds to the restoration of this memorial. The committee expects the Lafayette Escadrille Memorial Foundation to ensure that this memorial is maintained in the future without additional government contributions once this restoration is accomplished.

281

Implementation of the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet contract

(sec. 334)

The budget request included $647.7 million to support 270,000

work stations for the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) in fiscal

year 2002. Due to schedule slippage, the committee believes that

the Navy has overestimated the number of work stations it will be

able to purchase during fiscal year 2002. Therefore, the committee

recommends a decrease of $59.3 million from Department of the

Navy operation and maintenance accounts. Additionally, the committee understands that approximately 23 percent of the fiscal year

2002 funding was requested as part of Navy working capital fund

(NWCF) operations. The committee directs the Navy to ensure that

the NWCF bears a proportionate share of the above reduction.

The committee further understands that slower schedules have

affected the Navy’s ability to fulfill requirements for system testing

established in section 814 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. The committee continues to

believe that the NMCI program must be tested and proven before

it is fully deployed. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision establishing an event-driven plan for phased NMCI implementation throughout fiscal year 2002. Under the plan, the Navy will

limit contracts for additional workstations to 15 percent of the projected steady-state purchase pending completion of three-phased,

government-observed contractor and user testing. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics will

then review the results of those tests and determine whether a second increment of work stations may be ordered. Notification of this

determination will be provided to the congressional defense committees.

At the point at which 20,000 work stations are operational and

meeting all performance targets established in service-level agreements, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology

and Logistics will make another determination about the program’s

continued viability. A favorable determination will result in the release of a third increment of work station orders, again with notification to the congressional defense committees. Finally, the original evaluation of program viability included in the Floyd D. Spence

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 will be

conducted once 15 percent of NMCI work stations are fully operational. Under existing law, results of these tests will be used to

make a certification to the Congress that the continued implementation of NMCI is in the best interests of the Department of the

Navy. If at that point the testing schedule has proceeded favorably,

and the Navy determines that additional funds will increase cost

effectiveness and/or operational efficiency, the Navy may request a

reprogramming to return the program to the originally-requested

level of 270,000 work stations in fiscal year 2002.

ADDITIONAL MATTERS OF INTEREST

Battlefield mobility enhancement program

The committee recommends an increase of $9.7 million to Army

operation and maintenance accounts to enhance its capabilities for

casualty evacuation and resupply. The committee recommends that

282

the Army use $6.6 million of these funds to purchase 452 MGators, a light-weight tactical utility vehicle. The committee recommends that the Army National Guard use the remaining $3.1

million to purchase 200 M-Gators and associated training and support packages.

Civilian underexecution

The Department of Defense has consistently underexecuted funding requested for civilian personnel. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $132.6 million, based on past levels of

underexecution. Of this amount, the committee recommends that

operation and maintenance funds be reduced by $51.3 million for

the Army, $32.6 million for the Navy, $3.6 million for the Marine

Corps, $15.7 million for the Air Force, and $29.4 million for Defense-Wide accounts.

Corrosion prevention

The committee is strongly interested in efforts to mitigate the effects of corrosion on military equipment, facilities, and infrastructure. All of the military services maintain facilities and operate

equipment in high-salt, wet, and desert environments, conditions

that accelerate corrosion.

Addressing this problem imposes a significant maintenance

workload on military personnel. In addition, corrosion shortens the

service life of parts, critical equipment, and facilities that are important both to military operations and to service members’ quality

of life. This results in higher-than-necessary replacement rates for

many items, and thus higher costs.

The committee is aware that each of the military services is pursuing anti-corrosion technologies and products. The committee is

concerned, however, that these efforts lack coherence and result in

inefficiency. Therefore, the committee directs the Department of

Defense to identify a single office with overall responsibility for

anti-corrosion programs. The designated office should develop and

execute an action plan to address corrosion, and include a description of how information and data on accepted practices and products are to be collected and disseminated to all interested parties,

especially ship and installation commanders. The designated office

shall also develop and issue common product testing and certification criteria. Assessments of anti-corrosion technologies shall address product effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and environmental

impacts. Finally, the designated office shall serve as the coordinator and joint representative for anti-corrosion efforts in the Department of Defense’s internal resourcing process.

While the committee believes that anti-corrosion initiatives must

be rationalized and consolidated in the future, it understands that

each of the military services continues to face current corrosion

problems. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of

$5.4 million to Army operation and maintenance funds to continue

applications of anti-corrosion treatments for new and existing

equipment, and to support further anti-corrosion efforts in the Pacific theater. The committee further urges the Army to expand its

focus on equipment, to include infrastructure and facilities.

283

The committee also understands that technological advances

such as ambient temperature-cured glass coatings may contribute

significantly to efforts to combat corrosion and facilities degradation. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to Navy operations and maintenance funds to expand testing

of these technologies.

Foreign currency fluctuation

The committee recommends a decrease of $137.9 million from operation and maintenance funds for anticipated savings from foreign

currency fluctuations. Of this amount, the committee recommends

a reduction of $89.4 million for the Army, $15.4 million for the

Navy, $1.4 million for the Marine Corps, $24.4 million for the Air

Force, and $7.3 million for Defense-Wide accounts.

Personal gear for servicemembers

The committee is concerned that the budget request would not

adequately fund personal gear for soldiers and airmen. Sufficient

funding for these programs is essential for the safety and comfort

of our service members in the field. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in the operation and maintenance accounts ($10.0 million for the Army, $6.0 million for the

Army Reserves, $4.0 million for the Army National Guard, and

$5.0 million for the Air National Guard) to purchase items of individual combat clothing and equipment, including the Extended

Cold Weather Clothing System (ECWCS) and the Mobile Sleep System (MSS).

Army

Objective force task force

As stated elsewhere in this report, the committee commends the

Army for chartering a task force to integrate and coordinate the

myriad efforts required to ensure a successful transformation to the

Objective Force. The Task Force is the first priority in the Objective Force category of the Army’s list of unfunded requirements for

fiscal year 2002. The committee believes that transforming to the

Objective Force must be among the Army’s highest priorities. Consistent with actions taken elsewhere in the budget to fund the Task

Force, the committee recommends an increase of $1.2 million in

Operation and Maintenance, Army, to fund the personnel and support requirements of the Objective Force Task Force.

Interim brigade combat team training

The committee fully supports the Army’s efforts to transform to

a lighter, more rapidly-deployable force. The development of Interim Brigade Combat Teams (IBCTs) are a key component of the

Army’s transformation plan, and, as new organizations, these units

have new training requirements. To support those requirements,

the committee recommends an increase of $3.7 million to Army operations and maintenance funds. Of these funds, $2.3 million would

be spent to fund mobile training teams, which would go to IBCT

locations to train soldiers in new tactics, techniques and procedures

for IBCT operations. The subcommittee recommends an additional

284

$1.4 million for an IBCT Warfighter exercise at the Battle Command Training Program. This capstone training event would allow

IBCT leaders to practice integrating IBCT and legacy forces under

unique, stressing conditions. The Army would also be able to apply

the lessons learned from this event to future IBCT development,

accelerating and improving the process of transformation.

Army installation security

The committee recommends an increase of $77.7 million to address force protection vulnerabilities on Army installations in Europe and Asia. The budget request included $128.0 million to establish entry and access control at Army installations in the United

States and abroad. However, the request left an unfunded priority

of $306.0 million, required to provide the minimum requirements

for securing overseas and domestic installations. The $77.7 million

recommended by the committee would be used to complete the

process of establishing minimum controls (barriers, blast mitigation

devices, intrusion detection devices, vehicle registration, visitor

pass control facilities, guard shacks, vehicle inspection areas and

security personnel) at the most vulnerable Army installations overseas.

Navy

Surface ship depot maintenance

The budget request included $2.9 billion for ship depot maintenance. This amount funded 86 percent of the requirement for surface ships, 92 percent for carriers, and 90 percent for submarines.

The committee recommends an increase of $75.4 million to raise

the funding for surface ship depot maintenance to 90 percent of the

requirement in fiscal year 2002.

Mk–45 gun overhauls

The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million to the

Navy’s operation and maintenance account to fund overhauls for

two Mk–45 guns. These overhauls will improve the operational

availability of the Mk–45 gun weapons system and maintain critical workforce skills in support of the Navy’s Cruiser Conversion

Program.

Shipyard apprentice program

The committee is concerned about the continued vitality of the

shipyard workforce as it adjusts to downsizing and infrastructure

realignment. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of

$4.0 million in the operation and maintenance accounts for the

Navy to support apprentice programs. These programs allow Navy

managers to hire new apprentices and other skilled workers, ensuring the long-term health of our shipyard workforce.

Navy explosive detectors

The budget request included $2.0 million to purchase explosive

detectors for seagoing Navy vessels. The committee recommends an

increase of $6.0 million to purchase and deploy hand held explosive

detection devices as on-board inventory items for all carrier battle

285

groups. The detection equipment would use ion trap mobility spectrometer technology on board deploying Navy vessels to screen people, mail and cargo approaching and coming aboard ships. This additional funding would procure at least 150 units along with the associated training, maintenance and warranty contracts. The procurement of these devices addresses one of the Navy’s highest postUSS Cole attack priorities for force protection. The Navy is encouraged to explore complementing these devices with other means of

detection, including canine detection.

Surf Eagle for the Naval Oceanographic Office

The Naval Oceanographic Office (NAVOCEANO) is responsible,

within the Department of Defense, for acquiring and analyzing

data on the oceans and on littoral areas. NAVOCEANO and the

National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) have been running

a joint program to provide geospatial products to its customers

called Surf Eagle.

The committee understands that the Navy needs to upgrade and

expand their capabilities, including expanding the ability to perform feature extraction and developing feature attribution tools, to

increase the productivity of oceanographic and imagery analysts.

Such productivity increases will be necessary to keep up with demand and handle the much larger volumes of data that can be expected over the next several years.

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million

for these purposes.

Marine Corps

USMC initial issue

The committee is concerned that the budget request would not

adequately fund personal items for new members of the Marine

Corps. Many of these items are important for the safety and comfort of our Marines in the field. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in the operation and maintenance accounts for the Marine Corps to purchase individual combat

clothing and equipment items, including polar fleece pullovers,

modular tents, ultra-light camouflage, and combat casualty care

equipment.

USMC depot maintenance

The committee remains concerned about the rising costs and

time required to repair aging equipment, trends that impede unit

readiness and strain limited resources. The budget request included $107.8 million for depot maintenance, an amount the committee believes is inadequate to support the maintenance that

must be performed to restore equipment readiness. Therefore, the

committee recommends an increase of $14.4 million to depot-level

maintenance for Marine Corps equipment. The committee understands that this increase will support 90 percent of the Marine

Corps’ executable requirement in fiscal year 2002.

286

Air Force

Spacelift range facilities

The budget request included $258.8 million for Operation and

Maintenance, Air Force for launch facilities. The committee recommends an increase of $18.3 million to improve the safety and operating efficiency of launch facilities at Vandenberg Air Force Base

and Cape Canaveral/Patrick Air Force Base. This is the highest

priority on the Air Force’s list of unfunded priorities for fiscal year

2002.

For several years, the Air Force has been in the process of automating and standardizing the East and West Coast ranges. The

recommended increase would allow the Air Force to test and integrate new systems more quickly and with less disruption to operational activities. This would also include continuation of the core

crew concept to ensure there are sufficient launch crews to support

both all launch and range activities. The additional funds would

also support greater use of commercial satellite communication systems.

Civil Air Patrol

The budget request included $18.3 million for the Civil Air Patrol

(CAP) Corporation, a voluntary auxiliary of the Air Force. The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million to Air Force operation and maintenance funds for CAP operations. The additional

funds are allocated to support the thousands of CAP volunteers

who assist their communities in search and rescue, disaster relief,

drug interdiction, humanitarian support, and other key missions.

Defense-Wide

Special operations combating terrorism training

The budget request included funding for counterterrorism training, but did not include full funding for enhanced counterterrorism

training, a crucial readiness requirement ensuring that U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) are prepared to counter terrorist

threats and/or rescue hostages during terrorist attacks. Combating

terrorism through defensive means and through counterterrorism

operations is one of the primary missions of special operations

forces. The enhanced training for such operations is geared toward

providing the most realistic potential terrorist scenarios, through

elements such as locale and enemy weaponry. Counterterrorism

training promotes operator survivability and accomplishment of future missions. The committee regards this shortfall in funding as

a critical item in need of redress, because of its impact on combating terrorism, and its negative impact on readiness. Therefore,

the committee recommends an increase of $14.3 million for the U.S.

Special Operations Command (SOCOM) operation and maintenance account for SOCOM’s combating terrorism training activities. This increase would bolster U.S. efforts to combat terrorism,

and it would eliminate SOCOM’s third highest unfunded requirement. The increase would remedy a gap in SOCOM readiness that

was not addressed by the budget request.

287

Commercial imagery to support military requirements

The budget request included $30.0 million for purchasing commercial imagery products in support of national needs.

The committee continues to support the use of commercial

sources to help meet the imagery requirements of United States

and coalition forces, and the geospatial requirements of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA). The committee also

continues to support the objectives of Presidential Decision Directive—23 (PDD–23), which sought to: (1) establish the United States

as the world’s leader in commercial remote sensing; and (2) contribute to a stable, sustainable customer base for the U.S. satellite

industry.

The committee understands that the intelligence community and

the Department of Defense are developing a commercial imagery

strategy to help meet the NIMA’s mapping and military support

functions. The committee strongly endorses the development of

such a strategy and believes that, to be successful, the U.S. Government will need to become a reliable customer of commercial imagery. To date, the objectives of PDD–23 remain unfulfilled due to

the slow pace of the U.S. Government in articulating a clear strategy for the use of commercial imagery, and in providing adequate

funding to help sustain a U.S. commercial base to provide those images and geospatial data.

NIMA officials have represented to the committee that there may

be opportunities for establishing stronger ties with the private sector. They have suggested that NIMA might enter into prototype

contracts with commercial remote sensing entities to provide commercial imagery for NIMA. Under such an approach, NIMA would

contract with one or more U.S. commercial imagery providers to

provide support to a customer or group of customers in a particular

region, as opposed to merely trying to fill random customer orders.

The committee believes that such an approach might provide the

Department of Defense, the intelligence community, combatant

commanders and the committee the information needed to better

evaluate the value of commercial imagery, the mechanisms needed

to fully utilize the unique advantages of commercial imagery to

support military requirements, and procedures to support in-theater tasking, receipt and utilization of commercial imagery.

For these purposes, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million above the President’s budget request. The committee

understands that NIMA would want to use these funds, along with

other funds in the budget, to establish these prototype contracts.

In the longer term, NIMA officials have suggested the possibility

of establishing an ‘‘anchor-tenant’’ business relationship between

the Department of Defense and one or more remote sensing entities

will be central to any commercial imagery strategy. The committee

understands that this may be an attractive approach, but needs to

understand more about such an alternative before endorsing it. The

committee looks forward to hearing a more formal proposal from

the administration on this issue.

Information security scholarship program

The budget request included $1.5 million in PE 65710D8Z, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide for the inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00309 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
288

formation assurance scholarship program. This program was established by section 922 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.

The committee strongly supports moving forward with this program. Department of Defense officials have indicated that they

fully support the intent of the program to bolster the number of,

and training for, personnel in the Defense Department’s information assurance career field. The committee believes that the Department is being too tentative in its implementation, and that

making more funds available would result in more near-term

progress.

The committee recommends an additional $3.5 million to increase the number of grants and scholarships that the Department

will be able to implement during fiscal year 2002.

Department of Defense officials have indicated that requesting

the funds in this research and development account was an error.

The funds are more appropriately budgeted within the Operation

and Maintenance, Defense-wide account.

The committee agrees with this assessment. Therefore, the committee recommends providing the funds, $5.0 million in total, in

the Operation and Maintenance, Defense-wide account.

Defense information services agency

The budget request included $803.1 million for the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), an increase of $42.6 million over

the fiscal year 2001 level. The committee has not received sufficient

justification for the requested program growth, and therefore recommends a decrease of $24.7 million. This decrease will maintain

DISA activities at the fiscal year 2001 level, after accounting for

$17.9 million in price increases.

Washington Headquarters Services

The budget request included $324.2 million for activities of

Washington Headquarters Services (WHS). The committee has not

received sufficient justification for the requested program growth,

and therefore recommends a decrease of $18.1 million from the Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide account for WHS. This decrease will maintain WHS activities at the fiscal year 2001 level,

after accounting for price increases.

Guard and Reserve Components

B–1B Lancer bomber

The budget request contained no funds for the Air National

Guard for operations and maintenance for the B–1B Lancer bomber. The budget request included $64.8 million in the Air Force operation and maintenance for the B–1B Lancer bomber. The committee recommends an increase of $164.8 million in Air National

Guard operation and maintenance for the B–1B Lancer bomber and

a decrease of $64.8 million in Air Force operations and maintenance. The additional funds will allow the National Guard to continue to maintain the B–1Bs that will remain in the National

Guard until such time as the study that would be required by section 1012 is completed.

289

Miscellaneous Additional Items of Interest

Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities

The budget request included $1.0 billion for drug interdiction and

other counterdrug activities of the Department of Defense (DOD):

$820.4 million in the central transfer account; $166.8 million in the

operating budgets of the military services for authorized

counterdrug operations; and $12.5 million in the military construction account for infrastructure improvements at the forward operating locations.

The committee recommends the following fiscal year 2002 budget

for the Department’s counterdrug activities.

Drug Interdiction and Counterdrug Activities, Operation and Maintenance

[In thousands of dollars—may not add due to rounding]

Fiscal Year 2002 Counterdrug Request ......................................................... $999.7

Goal 1 (Educate America’s Youth) .......................................................... 25.3

Goal 2 (Increase safety of citizens) ......................................................... 78.5

Goal 3 (Reduce health and social costs) ................................................. 77.7

Goal 4 (Shield America’s frontiers) ......................................................... 334.5

Goal 5 (Break drug sources of supply) .................................................... 304.5

Increases: National Guard Support ............................................................... 40.0

Total Fiscal Year 2002 Drug and Counterdrug Funding .................. 1,039.7

National Guard counterdrug activities

The committee values the contribution that the National Guard

makes to the national counterdrug effort. Therefore, the committee

recommends an increase in $40.0 million for the counterdrug activities of the National Guard, including National Guard State Plans

and the National Guard Counterdrug Schools.

Kaho’olawe Island trust fund

The budget request included $25.0 million for the Kaho’olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental Restoration

Trust Fund. The committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million dollars to maintain the Fund’s activities at current levels.

Cultural and historic activities

The budget request included $289,000 for cultural and historic

preservation activities funded through the Legacy Resource Management Program. The committee recommends an increase of $8.0

million for the recovery and preservation of sunken vessels of cultural and historic significance.

The committee is aware of a number proposals to recover and

preserve sunken vessels that have considerable cultural and historical significance. The committee directs the Department of Defense

to use competitive procedures to select recovery and preservation

efforts for funding based on the merits of the proposals received

and the cultural and historical significance of the vessels to be recovered and preserved.

Fuel savings

The committee believes that recent declines in fuel prices have

resulted in an overestimation of future fuel costs. Therefore, the

290

committee recommends a decrease of $34.8 million to the Defense

Working Capital Fund.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Common access cards

The committee is concerned with the problems that the Department of Defense is experiencing in the deployment of the Common

Access Card (CAC). A central part of the problem appears to be

that there is no single office in the Department of Defense that is

in charge of the overall deployment of the CAC. Several offices

have significant responsibilities for elements of the deployment and

these offices tend to ‘‘stovepipe’’ in such a way that the integration

of the various efforts is far less than optimal. As a result, the committee is very concerned that much of the smart card functionality

developed by the Department over the previous five years may be

lost.

The primary reason Congress has supported DOD smart card development in past years has been the technology’s ability to

streamline administrative processes, dramatically improve readiness processing and provide functionality to the war-fighter. DOD

has invested significant amounts of money in developing these applications and they should continue to be at the forefront as DOD

migrates to the CAC.

Although the committee understands that the Department of the

Navy has been designated as the lead agency for the deployment

of the CAC, its role is less than that of an executive agent. As a

result, while the Department of the Navy has expended considerable resources and effort in attempting to integrate the deployment

of the CAC, it lacks the kind of management and resource authority required to manage the deployment of the CAC effectively and

efficiently. The committee believes that such authority should be

vested in the Department of the Navy so that there will be a single

office that can be held responsible for the proper deployment of the

CAC.

To build on the progress made to date and achieve the potential

that smart cards hold for the military services, the committee

urges the Department of Defense to designate the Department of

the Navy as the executive agent for the common access card.

Defense Environmental Security Corporate Information

Management Program

On May 25, 2001, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics terminated the Defense Environmental Security Corporate Information Management System

(DESCIM) and delegated executive agent authority to the Secretary

of the Army for the 10 systems formerly associated with the

DESCIM program.

As a result of this delegation of responsibility, the Secretary of

the Army is responsible for oversight and implementation of the

next generation of Department of Defense environmental security

information technology management. For this reason, the committee expects the Secretary of the Army to: (1) provide guidance

and establish requirements to ensure that the next generation inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00312 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
291

formation technology program meets the needs of the Department

of Defense and the military departments; (2) develop and implement a phased plan for the program by the end of fiscal year 2002;

(3) establish measures of merit by which to evaluate the effectiveness of the program; (4) monitor and evaluate program effectiveness; and (5) prioritize and allocate resources to manage and execute the program.

Environmental compliance funding

The committee has been concerned by reports that the military

departments may not have provided full funding to some installations for high priority environmental compliance efforts. Although

it is the policy of the Department of Defense (DOD) to fully fund

environmental compliance activities if the failure to fund those activities would leave the Department in violation of applicable requirements of law or regulation, the committee understands that

the Department’s lengthy budget cycle may result in a failure to

fund some of these essential activities.

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United

States to review the methods by which the military departments

identify, prioritize, track, and fund environmental compliance requirements. The Comptroller General’s report to Congress should

specifically address the issue of requirements that are identified

after the initial development of budget priorities, and should include any recommendations the Comptroller General may have for

addressing this issue.

Factors affecting military training practices

Over the last several years, the military services have had to adjust training practices and incur added expenses to address concerns about endangered species, critical habitats, the marine environment, airspace management, air pollution, unexploded ordnance, noise pollution, and the assignment of radio frequency spectrum away from the Department of Defense (DOD).

Witnesses at the March 20, 2001, hearing of the Readiness Subcommittee on this issue expressed concern that the cumulative effect of these constraints may be starting to have an adverse impact

on the military’s ability to perform its mission. For example, Major

General R. L. Van Antwerp, the Army Assistant Chief of Staff for

Installation Management, testified that: ‘‘Our training practices

bring noise, dust, expenditure of munitions, and ground activities

that can be viewed as a nuisance and annoyance to those who have

become our neighbors.’’ However, General Van Antwerp testified:

‘‘Live-fire training in the Army cannot be reduced without serious

degradation to readiness and the concurrent increased risk to

American soldiers.’’ The result of this conflict was summarized by

Vice Admiral James F. Amerault, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Fleet Readiness and Logistics, who testified: ‘‘We are witnessing a loss of training realism. . . . Training schedules are becoming more complex—resulting in increased time away from

home, higher training costs, and decreased readiness.’’

The committee recognizes that the underlying cause of many of

these problems—the increasing urbanization and population of the

United States—may be beyond the control of the Department or

292

the Congress. Moreover, the DOD environmental program is essential to protect our forces, their families, and military communities

from environmental health and safety hazards. The committee understands that the Department’s good faith effort to comply with

applicable environmental laws and regulations enables it to retain

the confidence of the American people that it will act as a responsible custodian of public lands and as a good neighbor to the communities in which DOD bases are located.

In many cases, there are likely to be constructive ways for the

DOD to comply with applicable laws and regulations with a minimum impact on training and readiness. In other cases, it may be

possible to address military-unique issues in other ways without

adversely impacting the underlying purpose of the laws or regulations. However, it will take hard work with regulators and impacted communities on a case-by-case basis to achieve these solutions. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense

to provide the Armed Services Committees of the Senate and the

House of Representatives a copy of the sustainable ranges action

plan being developed by the Senior Readiness Oversight Council to

address factors affecting military readiness.

Movement of household goods

The committee supports the Department of Defense’s efforts to

improve the quality of shipments of household goods for service

members. These efforts include pilot programs to evaluate different

models of providing moving services. However, the committee is

concerned that the Department is not providing sufficient funds to

complete ongoing demonstration programs. The committee believes

that these programs, when fully executed, will provide the best information to assess which features of the moving process are most

important to service members and their families, and to shaping

the program that ultimately will be extended to all military personnel worldwide. Therefore, the committee directs the Department

to complete all demonstration programs that were initiated prior to

October 1, 2000 using existing funds available for household moves.

Rocky Mountain Arsenal

The cleanup of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) is an important priority for the State of Colorado and the Department of the

Army. The committee commends the cooperation shown by the

Army and the State in successfully disposing of six sarin nerve gas

bomblets found at RMA late in calendar year 2000. The committee

continues to strongly support the cleanup of RMA and urges the

Secretary of the Army to ensure that this critical cleanup effort is

completed in a timely and safe manner.

Ship disposal project

In 1999, the Navy initiated a competitive pilot program, known

as the ship disposal project, to assemble appropriate data on the

cost of scrapping naval vessels in an environmentally responsible

manner. Section 318 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 required the Department of

Defense to continue to carry out the ship disposal project during

fiscal year 2001.

293

The committee expects the Secretary of the Navy to remain committed to reducing and eliminating any environmental risks posed

by the Department’s inactive ships, and to reduce the size of the

inactive fleet in the manner most advantageous to the Navy. The

committee directs the Secretary to continue to evaluate the full

range of options for ship disposal, taking into consideration the environment, worker safety and health, cost performance, schedule

performance, and the benefits of competitive contracting procedures.

Shipyard maintenance

The committee is concerned that the Navy has not managed its

ship maintenance and repair program as effectively as possible. For

example, the committee understands that the uncertainty over

whether scheduled maintenance availabilities will actually materialize and the fluctuation of ship maintenance workloads over the

course of the fiscal year at private sector shipyards result in costly

inefficiencies. In addition, fluctuating employment levels act as a

disincentive for workers to enter or remain in skilled trades critical

to shipyard work. The Navy has also had difficulty in accurately

determining its requirement for ship maintenance funding, which

has led to an excessive reliance on supplemental appropriations.

The committee is also aware of proposals that might make depotlevel maintenance and repair of Navy ships less, rather than more,

efficient. These proposals include reassigning maintenance of certain ship classes on the East Coast to Coast Guard or other shipyards with less experience than those shipyards currently performing this work.

The committee believes that the Department of Defense’s maintenance policy and practices must balance a complex set of factors,

including the importance of competition as a means to improve efficiency, the need to maintain an inherent governmental capability

for ship repair, and the desirability of conducting ship maintenance

at home ports where sailors are stationed, to lower costs and improve sailors’ quality of life.

The committee directs the Navy to review its current procedures

to determine whether any improvements can be made that would

more evenly distribute the maintenance and repair workload

throughout the year. The committee further directs the Navy to

evaluate its policies for assigning ship maintenance and repair

work in public and private shipyards on both the East and West

coasts, and to apply those policies that best meet the needs of the

Navy.

If, upon completion of the review, the Navy determines that

changes are required, the Navy shall submit a report to the congressional defense committees stating the reasons for, and projected savings from, any proposed changes. The report should include an analysis of the impact of the changes on (a) the preservation of an inherent governmental repair capability; (b) competition

between and among public and private shipyards; (c) direct and indirect costs of ship repair and construction, including the impact of

any excess capacity created by diversion of maintenance work into

shipyards not currently performing such work; (d) quality of life for

service members; (e) the training, development, and retention of

294

skilled workers in both the public and private sectors; and (f) any

other relevant factors.

St. Louis Army Ammunition Plant

The committee is concerned that the site of the former St. Louis

Army Ammunition Plant remains contaminated with exceptionally

high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls. This 21-acre site has been

completely vacated since 1998. The committee is also concerned

that the current condition of the property has hindered economic

development efforts. Although the Department of the Army determined in 1989 that this site was no longer required to support its

mission, the environmental baseline studies required to facilitate

the property’s disposal remain incomplete. The committee directs

the Army to submit a report on its plans for the cleanup of this

site, including a description of any proposed schedule or estimated

cost for the cleanup, to the committee when the Department of Defense submits the fiscal year 2003 budget request.

Use of advanced battery systems for energy storage

The committee recommends that the Department of Defense

(DOD) evaluate the potential benefits of utilizing advanced battery

systems for energy storage at DOD facilities and installations to reduce peak energy needs for these facilities. Advanced battery systems currently being demonstrated by some local utility systems

could reduce the high-cost electrical energy required during peak

load periods at DOD facilities and installations by use of less expensive energy generated and stored by the battery system during

non-peak periods. Increased use of battery systems for energy storage could also minimize the extent to which additional generating

facilities are required, reduce overall energy costs at DOD facilities,

and improve the overall quality of power at DOD facilities by protecting against electrical interruptions or disturbances.

Winter Harbor, Maine

The committee is concerned that the Department of the Navy closure of the Naval Security Group Activity (NSGA) Winter Harbor,

Maine, may have significant economic impacts for the small surrounding communities. The committee urges the Department of the

Navy to work with the Department of the Interior to participate in

an economic transition plan for the activity and for the areas impacted by its closure.

(295)

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS

SUBTITLE A—ACTIVE FORCES

End strengths for active forces (sec. 401)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize active duty end strengths for fiscal year 2002, as shown below:

2001 authorization 2002 request 2002 recommendation

Army ........................................................................................................................ 480,000 480,000 480,000

Navy ........................................................................................................................ 372,642 376,000 376,000

Marine Corps ........................................................................................................... 172,600 172,600 172,600

Air Force .................................................................................................................. 357,000 358,800 358,800

Authorized daily average active duty strength for Navy enlisted members in pay grade E–8 (sec. 402)

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the

authorized daily average of enlisted members in the pay grade of

E–8 for the Navy, consistent with the authority already provided

to the Army. The committee recognizes the need for more senior

level experience because of the shift in grade balance that has occurred in the top enlisted ranks in the Navy over the course of the

force drawdown, increased fleet requirements, and the impact of

additional technical responsibilities.

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE FORCES

End strengths for Selected Reserve (sec. 411)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize Selected Reserve end strengths for fiscal year 2002, as shown below:

Fiscal year—

2001 authorization 2002 request 2002 recommendation

The Army National Guard of the United States ..................................................... 350,526 350,000 350,000

The Army Reserve ................................................................................................... 205,300 205,000 205,000

The Navy Reserve .................................................................................................... 88,900 87,000 87,000

The Marine Corps Reserve ...................................................................................... 39,558 39,558 39,558

The Air National Guard of the United States ......................................................... 108,022 108,400 108,400

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................. 74,358 74,700 74,700

The Coast Guard Reserve ....................................................................................... 8,000 8,000 8,000

296

End strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the

reserves (sec. 412)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

full-time support end strengths for fiscal year 2002, as shown

below:

Fiscal year—

2001 author- ization 2002 request 2002 recommendation

The Army National Guard of the United States ..................................................... 22,974 22,974 23,698

The Army Reserve ................................................................................................... 13,106 13,108 13,406

The Navy Reserve .................................................................................................... 14,649 14,811 14,811

The Marine Corps Reserve ...................................................................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261

The Air National Guard of the United States ......................................................... 11,170 11,591 11,591

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................. 1,336 1,437 1,437

Full-time support has been identified as the top readiness issue

of the reserve components and directly impacts the ability to train,

administer and prepare ready units and individuals for transition

from a peacetime to a wartime posture. The Army developed a plan

to incrementally increase the Reserve Component Full-Time Support Program over 11 years, beginning in fiscal year 2002, to

achieve a level of full-time support manning of 90 percent for units

that deploy in less than 30 days, 80 percent for units that deploy

between 30 and 75 days, 70 percent for units that deploy between

75 and 180 days, and 65 percent for units deploying after 180 days.

The committee is disappointed that the requested end strength

for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves is less than

required to implement this plan in fiscal year 2002. The recommended increase of 298 in the Army Reserve and 724 in the

Army National Guard would bring the end strength up to the end

strength in the plan for fiscal year 2002.

End strengths for military technicians (dual status) (sec.

413)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

minimum level of dual status technician end strengths for fiscal

year 2002, as shown below:

Fiscal year—

2001 author- ization 2002 request 2002 recommendation

The Army Reserve ................................................................................................... 5,921 5,999 6,249

The Army National Guard of the United States ..................................................... 23,128 23,128 23,615

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................. 9,785 9,818 9,818

The Air National Guard of the United States ......................................................... 22,247 22,422 22,422

Full-time support has been identified as the top readiness issue

of the reserve components and directly impacts the ability to train,

administer and prepare ready units and individuals for transition

from a peacetime to a wartime posture. The Army developed a plan

to incrementally increase the Reserve Component Full-Time SupVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00318 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
297

port Program over 11 years, beginning in fiscal year 2002, to

achieve a level of full-time support manning of 90 percent for units

that deploy in less than 30 days, 80 percent for units that deploy

between 30 and 75 days, 70 percent for units that deploy between

75 and 180 days, and 65 percent for units deploying after 180 days.

The committee is disappointed that the requested end strength

for dual status technicians is less than required to implement this

plan in fiscal year 2002. The recommended increase of 487 dual

status military technicians in the Army Reserve and 250 dual status military technicians in the Army National Guard would bring

the end strength up to the end strength in the plan for fiscal year

2002.

Fiscal Year 2002 limitation on non-dual status technicians

(sec. 414)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish numerical limits on the number of non-dual status technicians who

may be employed in the Department of Defense as of September

30, 2002, as shown below:

Fiscal year—

2001 authorization 2002 request 2002 recommendation

The Army Reserve ................................................................................................... 1,195 1,095 1,095

The Army National Guard of the United States ..................................................... 1,600 1,600 1,600

The Air Force Reserve ............................................................................................. 10 0 0

The Air National Guard of the United States ......................................................... 326 350 350

Limitations on numbers of reserve personnel serving on active duty or full-time national guard duty in certain

grades for administration of reserve components (sec.

415)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

senior grade Active Guard and Reserve member end strengths by

a table similar to that used for Active component senior grade officers. The table would correlate the number of senior grade authorizations to the size of the Active Guard and Reserve force.

Strength and grade limitation accounting for reserve component members on active duty in support of a contingency operation (sec. 416)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to increase the limit on active duty end

strengths of members of the reserve components in pay grades E–

8, E–9, 0–4, 0–5, 0–6, and general and flag officers by the number

in those pay grades serving on active duty, with their consent, in

support of a contingency operation. Currently, members involuntarily ordered to active duty are exempt from end strength limitations. The recommended provision would make no distinction between reserve members who volunteer or are involuntarily ordered

to active duty, which would make it easier for the services to use

volunteers to meet contingency operation mission requirements.

298

SUBTITLE C—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Authorization of appropriations for military personnel (sec.

421)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a

total of $82.4 billion to be appropriated to the Department of Defense for military personnel, $89.6 million more than the fiscal year

2002 budget request.

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY

SUBTITLE A—OFFICER PERSONNEL POLICY

General officer positions (sec. 501)

The committee recommends a provision that would increase the

grade of the Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau to lieutenant

general, the grades of the heads of the Nurse Corps for the Army

and the Air Force to major general and of the Navy to rear admiral

(upper half), and the grade of the Chief of Army Veterinary Corps

to brigadier general. The recommended provision would authorize

one additional Marine general above the grade of major general

and exclude an officer serving as the Senior Military Assistant to

the Secretary of Defense in the grade of general or lieutenant general, or admiral or vice admiral, from the limit on officers serving

in that grade for his or her service.

Reduction of time-in-grade requirement for eligibility for

promotion of first lieutenants and lieutenants (junior

grade) (sec. 502)

The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the

minimum time in grade for promotion of lieutenants and lieutenants (junior grade) from two years to 18 months.

Promotion of officers to the grade of captain in the Army,

Air Force, or Marine Corps or to the grade of lieutenant

in the Navy without selection board action (sec. 503)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

promotion of officers on the active-duty list and on the reserve active-status list to captain in the Army, Air Force, or Marine Corps,

or to the grade of lieutenant in the Navy without selection board

action when the secretary concerned determines that all fully qualified officers eligible for consideration for promotion are needed in

the next higher grade to accomplish mission objectives. The recommended provision would provide that an officer who is not promoted because the secretary concerned determines that the officer

is not fully qualified for promotion will be treated as having failed

of selection for promotion.

Authority to adjust date of rank (sec. 504)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

service secretaries to adjust dates of rank of officers in grades 0–

6 and below when the officers’ promotions are delayed because of

unusual circumstances causing an unintended delay in the processing or approval of a report of a selection board or promotion list.

299

The secretary concerned would be required to report to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate the names of the officers

concerned and the reason for the changes when dates of rank are

changed to a date earlier than the date of Senate confirmation.

This provision is intended to authorize the service secretaries to

correct problems caused by inadvertent administrative delays in

processing reports of selection boards and promotion lists. It would

apply only where the entire report or list is unintentionally delayed.

Extension of deferments of retirement or separation for

medical reasons (sec. 505)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

service secretaries to extend for an additional 30 days the separation or retirement of members whose mandatory separation or retirement had been deferred for medical reasons. The recommended

provision would afford members up to 30 days to transition to civilian life.

Exemption from administrative limitations of retired members ordered to active duty as defense and service

attache ́s (sec. 506)

The committee recommends a provision that would exclude retired members recalled to active duty for service as defense or service attache ́s from the limitations on the number of retired members

who can be recalled to active duty and from the time limit on the

period of a recall to active duty.

Certifications of satisfactory performance for retirements of

officers in grades above major general and rear admiral

(sec. 507)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to delegate authority to the Under Secretary

of Defense for Personnel and Readiness or the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to certify to the

President and to Congress that certain officers have served satisfactorily in the grade of general, admiral, lieutenant general, or

vice admiral before authorizing retirement in that grade. The recommended provision would require the Secretary of Defense to act

personally on cases where there is potentially adverse information

that has not previously been reported to the Senate in connection

with a previous appointment.

Effective date of mandatory separation or retirement of regular officer delayed by a suspension of certain law

under emergency authority of the President (sec. 508)

The committee recommends a provision that would delay by an

additional 90 days the mandatory separation or retirement dates of

regular officers whose mandatory dates of separation or retirement

were delayed pursuant to section 12305 of title 10, United States

Code. The recommended provision would afford members whose

mandatory dates of separation or retirement were delayed due to

a suspension of law under emergency authority a period of time to

transition to civilian life following termination of the suspension.

300

Detail and grade of officer in charge of the United States

Navy Band (sec. 509)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Navy to detail an officer above the grade of lieutenant as Officer

in Charge of the United States Navy Band. The officer would serve

in the grade of captain while in this position.

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE COMPONENT PERSONNEL

POLICY

Reauthorization and expansion of temporary waiver of the

requirement for a baccalaureate degree for promotion

of certain reserve officers of the Army (sec. 511)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend by

three years, to September 30, 2003, the authority of the Secretary

of the Army to waive, on a case by case basis, the requirement for

reserve officers commissioned through the Army Officer Candidate

School to possess a baccalaureate degree before being promoted to

the grade of captain.

The committee expects that the Secretary of the Army will only

grant waivers to those individuals who have demonstrated progress

toward achieving the goal of earning a baccalaureate degree.

Status list of reserve officers on active duty for a period of

three years or less (sec. 512)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 641(1)(D) of title 10, United States Code, to provide that reserve officers ordered to active duty for three years or less would

be placed on the active duty list unless their orders to active duty

specify continuation on the reserve active-status list. The recommended provision would authorize the service secretaries retroactively to place officers on the active duty list or the reserve active-status list of their service in accordance with this provision.

Prior changes to section 641(1)(D) of title 10, United States Code

inadvertently excluded a number of reserve officers on active duty

for three years or less who should properly be considered on the active duty list.

Equal treatment of reserves and full-time active duty members for purposes of managing deployments of personnel

(sec. 513)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the

definition of deployment for reservists to include performance of

duty that makes it impossible or infeasible to spend off-duty time

in the housing that the member usually occupies during off-duty

time when on garrison duty.

Modification of physical examination requirements for

members of the Individual Ready Reserve (sec. 514)

The committee recommends a provision that would eliminate the

requirement that members of the Individual Ready Reserve receive

a physical examination every five years. The recommended provision would require a physical examination as necessary to determine the member’s physical fitness for military duty or for proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00322 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
301

motion, attendance at an armed forces’ school, or other action related to career progression.

Members of reserve components afflicted while remaining

overnight at duty station within commuting distance of

home (sec. 515)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize certain benefits for members of the reserve components who become

injured or ill in the line of duty when they are authorized to remain overnight at an inactive duty training site that is within a

reasonable commuting distance of home. The benefits include medical and dental care for the member and the member’s dependents;

eligibility for disability retirement or separation; recovery, care,

and disposition of remains; basic pay; and compensation for inactive-duty training.

Retirement of reserve personnel without request (sec. 516)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

service secretaries to transfer to the Retired Reserve, unless the

member requests not to be transferred to the Retired Reserve, officers who are required to be removed from active status because of

failure of selection for promotion, length of service or age, and warrant officers and enlisted members who are required to be discharged or removed from active status because of years of service

or age.

Currently, service secretaries must remove from active status or

discharge these individuals unless they request transfer to the Retired Reserve, in many cases resulting in a diminished retirement

benefit. This provision would require reservists who elect not to

transfer to the Retired Reserve to make a positive election to be

discharged or transferred to an inactive status with a full understanding of the possible economic consequences of that decision.

Space-required travel by reserves on military aircraft (sec.

517)

The committee recommends a provision that would remove annual training duty from section 18501 of title 10, United States

Code, which authorizes space-required travel for reservists traveling for annual training duty or inactive-duty training. Reservists

performing annual training duty are already authorized to travel

in a space-required status by other authority.

SUBTITLE C—EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Improved benefits under the Army College First program

(sec. 531)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify the

Army College First program by extending the period of delayed

entry from two years to 30 months and increasing the monthly allowance to the higher of $250 or the amount of subsistence allowance for members of the Senior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps.

302

Repeal of limitation on number of Junior Officers’ Training

Corps units (sec. 532)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the

limitation on the number of Junior Reserve Officers’ Training

Corps (JROTC) units. Removal of the statutory limit on the number of JROTC units would enable the Department of Defense to be

responsive to schools that request a JROTC unit.

Acceptance of fellowships, scholarships, or grants for legal

education of officers participating in the Funded Legal

Education Program (sec. 533)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an

officer attending law school under the Funded Legal Education

Program to accept a scholarship from the law school or other entity. The recommended provision would require that the officer serve

consecutively the service obligations incurred for participation in

the Funded Legal Education Program and for acceptance of the

scholarship.

Grant of degree by Defense Language Institute Foreign Language Center (sec. 534)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Foreign Language Center of the Defense Language Institute to

grant an Associate of Arts degree. The Secretary of Education has

endorsed the recommendation of the Accrediting Commission for

Community and Junior Colleges of the Western Association of

Schools and Colleges that the Institute obtain degree-granting status.

Authority for the Marine Corps University to award the degree of master of strategic studies (sec. 535)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Marine Corps University to confer a degree of master of strategic

studies to graduates of the Marine Corps War College, and the degree of master of military studies to graduates of the Command

and Staff College. The authority to award the master of strategic

studies degree cannot be exercised until the Secretary of Education

notifies the Secretary of the Navy of a determination that the requirements for the degree are in accordance with the requirements

typically imposed for awards of the degree of master of arts by institutions of higher education in the United States.

Foreign persons attending the service academies (sec. 536)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

service secretaries to permit 60 persons from foreign countries to

attend the service’s academy at any one time. The recommended

provision would authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive, in

whole or in part, the requirement for reimbursement of the cost of

providing instruction to a foreign cadet.

The committee expects the Department to exercise its authority

to waive reimbursement in a fiscally prudent manner, recognizing

the extraordinary value of a service academy education. The Department should give full consideration to all the factors concerning

the ability of the foreign country to provide partial or complete reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00324 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
303

imbursement. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to include in the justification materials submitted with the annual

budget request an exhibit describing the number of waivers granted and the rationale for approving the waivers in each service.

Expansion of financial assistance program for health-care

professionals in reserve components to include students

in programs of education leading to initial degree in

medicine or dentistry (sec. 537)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

payment of a financial assistance stipend to a student who has

been accepted into an accredited medical or dental school. The recommended provision would also provide for subsequent financial

assistance to officers who have completed medical or dental school

and enter residency training in a healthcare professions wartime

skill designated by the Secretary of Defense as critically short.

The recommended provision would allow service obligations to be

reduced to one-for-one when a physician or dentist accepts additional financial assistance for residency training and allows those

service obligations that require a two-for-one payback to be incurred in six-month increments.

The recommended provision would provide recruiters with a robust incentive program to offer students in the healthcare professions to entice them into accepting an appointment as an officer in

a reserve component of the armed forces.

Pilot program for Department of Veterans Affairs support

for graduate medical education and training of medical

personnel of the armed forces (sec. 538)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to jointly carry out a pilot program of graduate medical education and

training for medical personnel of the armed forces in Department

of Veterans Affairs’ medical centers.

The committee is aware of the Department of Defense’s concern

about the ability to conduct graduate medical education in military

hospitals if large numbers of retirees elect health care treatment

outside of military treatment facilities. This pilot program would

evaluate the effectiveness of conducting graduate medical education

for military personnel in Veterans Administration facilities.

Transfer of entitlement to educational assistance under

Montgomery GI Bill by members of the armed forces

with critical military skills (sec. 539)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

service secretaries to permit certain service members with critical

military skills to transfer up to 18 months of unused basic Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits to family members. To be eligible

for this benefit, a service member must complete at least six years

of service and enter into an agreement to serve at least four more

years. Spouses could use transferred benefits immediately, while

children could use the transferred benefits only after the service

member completes 10 years of service. The services would deposit

the actuarially determined increased cost for use of the transferred

304

benefit into the Department of Defense Education Fund. The recommended provision would authorize $30.0 million for this purpose

for fiscal year 2002.

All services report that they are having difficulty retaining service members with critical skills, even with increased retention bonuses. The committee believes that the ability to transfer unused

MGIB benefits would be a powerful retention tool that would appeal to many of these members who would otherwise leave the

service. The small cost of the increased use of an otherwise unused

benefit is far more economical than training new members to replace the experienced members leaving the service. The committee

encourages the services to use a portion of the funds currently used

for bonuses for transferability of benefits under this program to assess its effectiveness in retaining members with critical skills.

SUBTITLE D—DECORATIONS, AWARDS AND

COMMENDATIONS

Authority for award of the Medal of Honor to Humbert R.

Versace for valor during the Vietnam War (sec. 551)

The committee recommends a provision that would waive the

statutory time limits and authorize the President to award the

Medal of Honor to Humbert R. Versace for valor during the Vietnam War.

Review regarding award of medal of honor to certain Jewish American war veterans (sec. 552)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the

service secretaries to conduct a review of Jewish American war veterans’ service records to determine whether or not a veteran should

be awarded the Medal of Honor. The recommended provision provides for the review of the records of any Jewish American war veteran who was previously awarded the Distinguished Service Cross,

the Navy Cross, or the Air Force Cross, and any other Jewish

American war veteran whose name is submitted, within a one year

period, to the secretary concerned by the Jewish War Veterans of

the United States of America. The recommended provision authorizes the President to award the Medal of Honor in accordance with

the recommendation of the service secretary.

Issuance of duplicate and replacement medals of honor (sec.

553)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

service secretaries to issue a duplicate medal of honor to medal of

honor recipients. Issuance of a duplicate medal of honor would

allow recipients to place their original medal in safe keeping or donate them to institutions for permanent display while retaining the

duplicate for other purposes. The recommended provision would

also authorize the free replacement of certain medals stolen without fault or neglect of the persons to whom the medals were awarded.

305

Waiver of time limitations for award of certain decorations

to certain persons (sec. 554)

The committee recommends a provision that would waive the

statutory time limits for award of military decorations to certain

individuals who have been recommended by the service secretaries

for these awards.

Sense of the Senate on issuance of Korea Defense Service

Medal (sec. 555)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the

sense of the Senate that the Secretary of Defense should consider

authorizing the issuance of the Korea Defense Service Medal to individuals who served in the armed forces in the Republic of Korea,

or the waters adjacent thereto, during the period beginning on July

28, 1954, and ending on a date determined by the Secretary.

SUBTITLE E—FUNERAL HONORS DUTY

Active duty end strength exclusion for reserves on active

duty or full-time National Guard duty for funeral honors

duty (sec. 561)

The committee recommends a provision that would exclude from

active duty end strengths members of reserve components on active

duty or full-time National Guard duty preparing for and performing funeral honors functions.

Participation of retirees in funeral honors details (sec. 562)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

military retirees to serve as a member of a funeral honors detail.

The recommended provision would authorize payment of funeral

honors duty allowance to military retirees who volunteer to perform honors at the funeral of a veteran. The retiree would not forfeit any retired or retainer pay, disability compensation, or any

other compensation received.

Benefits and protections for members in a funeral honors

duty status (sec. 563)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide to

members of the reserve components in a funeral honors duty status

the same benefits and protections as are provided when they are

performing inactive duty training or traveling to or from inactive

duty training.

Military leave for civilian employees serving as military

members of funeral honors detail (sec. 564)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize federal employees to take military leave from their civilian employment to serve as military members performing funeral honors duty.

306

SUBTITLE F—UNIFORMED SERVICES OVERSEAS

VOTING

Sense of the Senate regarding the importance of voting by

members of the uniformed services (sec. 571)

The committee recommends a provision that would express the

sense of the Senate that each administrator of a Federal, State, or

local election should be aware of the importance of the ability of

each uniformed services voter to exercise their right to vote, and

that the administrators should perform their duties with the intent

to ensure that each uniformed services voter receives the utmost

consideration and cooperation when voting, and that each valid ballot cast by such a voter is duly counted.

Uniform nondiscriminatory voting standards for administration of elections under State and local election systems (sec. 572)

The committee recommends a provision that would require

States to ensure that voting systems used for Federal, State and

local elections provide overseas voters and absent uniformed service voters with a meaningful opportunity to exercise their voting

rights as United States citizens. The recommended provision requires States to count absentee ballots of these voters for Federal,

State and local elections if they are submitted in a timely manner

and are otherwise valid.

Guarantee of residence for military personnel (sec. 573)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide that

for purposes of voting in any Federal, State of local election, a person absent from a State pursuant to military orders would not,

solely by reason of that absence, be deemed to have (1) lost a residence or domicile in that State, (2) acquired a residence or domicile

in another State, or (3) become a resident in or of any other State.

Extension of registration and balloting rights for absent

uniformed services voters to State and local elections

(sec. 574)

The committee recommends a provision that would require

States to permit uniformed services voters to use absentee procedures to register and vote in State and local elections. The recommended provision would also require States to accept and process any otherwise valid voter registration application from absent

uniformed services voters if the application is received not less

than 30 days before the election.

Use of single application as a simultaneous absentee voter

registration application and absentee ballot application

(sec. 575)

The committee recommends a provision that would require

States to accept and process the official post card form as a simultaneous absentee voter register application and absentee ballot application.

307

Use of single application for absentee ballots for all Federal

elections (sec. 576)

The committee recommends a provision that would require

States to accept and process a single absentee ballot application

from an absent uniformed services voter or overseas voter for all

general, special, primary, and runoff Federal elections occurring

during a year if the application is received not less than 30 days

before the first Federal election occurring that year.

Electronic voting demonstration program (sec. 577)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to carry out a demonstration project under

which absent uniformed services voters would be permitted to cast

ballots through an electronic voting system in the November, 2002,

Federal election.

In the committee’s view, the Federal Voting Assistance Program’s Voting Over the Internet (VOI) Pilot Project is an important

first step in assessing how to use the internet to enhance absentee

voting. This pilot demonstrated that a remote internet registration

and voting system can provide electoral process integrity; it reduced traditional barriers to participation in elections by absentee

voters; and it provided insight into issues that must be considered

for broader use of remote registration and voting via the internet.

The committee encourages the Department of Defense to build on

the experience gained in this groundbreaking project with a followon demonstration project designed to ensure a judicious and methodical progression from the current by-mail process to a secure,

easy-to-use, and expedient remote internet registration and voting

system.

Federal voting assistance program (sec. 578)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to promulgate regulations to ensure that each

service complies with directives implementing the Federal Voting

Assistance Program (FVAP). The recommended provision would require the Inspector General of each of the services to conduct an

annual review of compliance with the FVAP and report the results

to the Department of Defense Inspector General, who will report

annually to Congress on the effectiveness and compliance with the

FVAP.

SUBTITLE G—OTHER MATTERS

Persons authorized to be included in surveys of military

families regarding federal programs (sec. 581)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to add family members of retirees or surviving

spouses to those who may be surveyed to determine the effectiveness of federal programs relating to military families and the need

for new programs.

308

Correction and extension of certain Army recruiting pilot

program authorities (sec. 582)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of the Army to include replacement of Army Reserve recruiters by contract recruiters in the pilot program involving contract recruiting initiatives. The recommended provision would also

remove the requirement that contract recruiters operate under the

military recruiter chain of command, extends the termination date

for the pilot programs to September 30, 2007, and changes the date

for the report to Congress to February 1, 2008.

Offense of drunken operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or vessel

under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (sec. 583)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend Article 111 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. 911) to

lower the blood alcohol concentration necessary to establish drunken operation of a motor vehicle, aircraft, or vessel from 0.1 to 0.08

grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or 0.08 per 210

liters of breath. The amendment would take effect on the date of

enactment and would apply to offenses committed on or after that

date.

Authority of civilian employees to act as notaries (sec. 584)

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the

authority of civilian attorneys in military legal assistance offices to

perform notarial acts. The recommended provision would also authorize civilian employees of a military department or the Coast

Guard who are designated by service regulation to perform such

acts while serving outside the United States.

Review of actions of selection boards (sec. 585)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide that

service members or former service members challenging the results

of selection boards or promotion boards are not entitled to relief in

a judicial proceeding unless the matter was first considered by a

special board or a special selection board, or the secretary concerned denied such consideration. The recommended provision

would authorize the service secretaries to establish special boards

to review decisions of selection boards. Selection boards are boards

convened to recommend persons for appointment, enlistment, reenlistment, assignment, certain promotions, or retention in the armed

forces, or for separation, retirement, or transfer to inactive status

in a reserve component. Special selection boards, already authorized in section 628 of title 10, United States Code, would review

the actions of certain promotion boards. The recommended provision provides a standard for judicial review of the actions of the

secretary concerned, special boards, and special selection boards,

and requires the court to remand cases for corrective action when

the court determines that the action of the board or the secretary

concerned was unlawful.

The recommended provision would not deny service members or

former members access to courts concerning actions of selection

boards and promotion boards. It would provide for exhaustion of

administrative remedies prior to taking an action to court. If the

309

administrative process does not provide the relief requested, the

member still has access to court. If the administrative process resolves the member’s concern, there is no need for court action. If

relief is granted, the recommended provision provides for retroactive and prospective restoration to the same status, rights, and

entitlements (less appropriate offsets against back pay and allowances) as the person would have had if the challenged selection

board or promotion board made the correct decision.

The recommended provision would take effect on the date of enactment, and would apply to any proceeding pending on or after

that date without regard to whether a challenge to an action of a

selection board was initiated before, on, or after that date. The recommended provision would not apply to any action commenced in

a court of the United States before the date of enactment.

Acceptance of voluntary legal assistance for the civil affairs

of members and former members of the uniformed services and their dependents (sec. 586)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

service secretaries to accept voluntary legal services. The recommended provision would treat a volunteer providing legal services the same as an attorney on the legal staff within the Department of Defense for defense of legal malpractice.

Extension of Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence (sec.

587)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the

termination date of the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence

to April 24, 2003.

Transportation to annual meeting of next-of-kin of persons

unaccounted for from conflicts after World War II (sec.

588)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to provide transportation to and from annual

meetings sanctioned by the Department of Defense (DOD) for the

next-of-kin of persons who are unaccounted for from the Korean

conflict, the Cold War, Vietnam War era, or the Persian Gulf War.

The committee intends that this authority would be used to provide transportation to no more than two persons from the family

of an unaccounted for military member to attend annual Government briefings on efforts to account for missing service members in

the same manner as DOD has provided transportation under the

Counter Insurgency Assistance (Coin Assist) Program, and would

be limited to one meeting each year.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

National Guard members of funeral honors detail

Section 1491(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, requires that

a funeral honors detail for a deceased veteran include at least two

members of the armed forces, at least one of whom is a member

of the veteran’s armed force. Members of the Army National Guard

of the United States and the Air National Guard of the United

310

States are members of the armed forces even when performing in

a state status. They can participate in a funeral honors detail in

either a state or federal status, and should be considered as one of

the required members of the armed forces.

Notification to service members regarding adverse information

The committee is concerned about reports that military personnel

are not always informed in a timely manner of administrative determinations that allegations of potentially adverse information

concerning them are substantiated. On occasion, this results in

delay or denial of favorable personnel actions with little or no notice to the affected service members even though the information

is known to the service and could have been made available to the

members.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to promulgate

regulations requiring timely notice to service members when an allegation of potentially adverse information concerning them is substantiated. The notification should, as a minimum, inform the

member of the nature of the potentially adverse information, any

appeal available to the member, and whether and to what extent

this determination can be considered in future personnel actions.

If a favorable personnel action is denied or delayed because of allegations of potentially adverse information concerning a member

and the investigation is not complete, the member should be given

reasonable notice that the personnel action will be denied or delayed and provided as much information about the allegation as

can be given, consistent with sound investigative practices.

(311)

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL

BENEFITS

SUBTITLE A—PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Increase in basic pay for fiscal year 2002 (sec. 601)

The committee recommends a provision that would waive section

1009 of title 37, United States Code, and restructure the pay tables

to provide a targeted pay raise ranging from five percent to 10 percent, effective January 1, 2002.

Basic pay rate for certain reserve commissioned officers

with prior service as an enlisted member or warrant officer (sec. 602)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

payment at the 0–1E, 0–2E or 0–3E rate to reserve component

commissioned officers in the pay grade of 0–1, 0–2, or 0–3, who are

not on active duty, but have accumulated the equivalent of four

years of active duty service as a warrant officer or enlisted member. These officers have gained significant similar military experience over a longer period of time through the nature of their parttime service. Allowing these officers to receive this increase in pay

recognizes and rewards that experience on the same basis as officers who gained their experience through active duty service.

Reserve component compensation for distributed learning

activities performed as inactive-duty training (sec. 603)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

compensation for members in grades E–6 and below for distributed

learning activities performed as inactive-duty training.

Clarifications for transition to reformed basic allowance for

subsistence (sec. 604)

The committee recommends a provision that would define the

baseline for determining future rates for basic allowance for subsistence as $233. The recommended provision would also allow 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, to prescribe a higher rate of basic allowance for subsistence for enlisted members when messing facilities of the United

States are not available to them. The recommended provision also

changes the effective date for early termination of basic allowance

for subsistence transitional authority to January 1, 2002.

Increase in Basic Allowance for Housing in the United

States (sec. 605)

The committee recommends a provision that would accelerate the

current five-year plan to eliminate out-of-pocket housing expenses

312

by two years, increasing the Basic Allowance for Housing so that,

after September 30, 2002, it would not be less than the median cost

of adequate housing for members in that grade and dependency

status in that area. The recommended provision would limit outof-pocket housing expenses in fiscal year 2002 to 7.5 percent of the

median cost of adequate housing for members in that grade and dependency status in that area and makes $232.0 million available

for this purpose.

Clarification of eligibility for supplemental subsistence allowance (sec. 606)

The committee recommends a provision that would make a technical correction to section 402a(b)(1) of title 37, United States Code,

to clarify that only members with dependents are entitled to payment of the supplemental subsistence allowance designed to remove the member’s household from eligibility for benefits under the

food stamp program.

Correction of limitation on additional uniform allowance for

officers (sec. 607)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a

technical correction to the additional uniform allowance for officers

enacted in section 610 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001. That provision increased the

one-time initial uniform allowance to $400 and the one-time additional uniform allowance to $200. The recommended provision

would remove a limitation that the additional uniform allowance

may not be paid to an officer who has received an initial uniform

allowance of more than $200.

Payment for unused leave in excess of 60 days accrued by

members of reserve components on active duty for one

year or less (sec. 608)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

payment for accrued leave in excess of the current limit of 60 days

to certain members of the reserve components. The recommended

provision applies to reservists on active duty for more than 30 days

but less than 365 days for missions other than in support of contingency operations. Many reservists ordered to active duty for these

missions are not afforded the opportunity to use leave during the

period they are ordered to active duty and, as a result, they forfeit

accrued leave. The recommended provision is similar to authority

currently in effect for reservists serving on active duty in support

of contingency operations.

SUBTITLE B—BONUSES AND SPECIAL INCENTIVE PAYS

Extension of certain bonuses and special pay authorities for

reserve forces (sec. 611)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, until

December 31, 2002, the authority to pay the special pay for critically short wartime health care specialists in the Selected Reserve,

the Selected Reserve re-enlistment bonus, the Selected Reserve enlistment bonus, the special pay for enlisted members assigned to

313

certain high priority units in the Selected Reserve, the Selected Reserve affiliation bonus, the Ready Reserve enlistment and re-enlistment bonus, and the prior service enlistment bonus. The recommended provision would extend, until January 1, 2003, the authority for the repayment of education loans for certain health professionals who serve in the Selected Reserve.

Extension of certain bonuses and special pay authorities for

nurse officer candidates, registered nurses, and nurse

anesthetists (sec. 612)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, until

December 31, 2002, the authority to pay certain bonuses and special pay for nurse officer candidates, registered nurses, and nurse

anesthetists.

Extension of special pay and bonus authorities for nuclear

officers (sec. 613)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, until

December 31, 2002, the authority for special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending their period of active service, the nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive

bonus.

Extension of authorities relating to payment of other bonuses and special pays (sec. 614)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, until

December 31, 2002, the authority to pay the aviation officer retention bonus, the re-enlistment bonus for active members, the bonus

for enlistment for two or more years, and the retention bonus for

members with critical skills.

Hazardous duty pay for members of maritime visit, board,

search, and seizure teams (sec. 615)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

hazardous duty incentive pay for members of teams that conduct

visit, board, search, and seizure operations aboard vessels in support of maritime interdiction operations. The recommended provision would provide financial recognition to personnel participating

in these unusually hazardous operations.

Submarine duty incentive pay rates (sec. 616)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of the Navy to adjust submarine duty incentive pay rates

up to a maximum rate of $1000 when changes are needed to support submarine accession and retention requirements. The recommended provision would afford greater flexibility in responding

to recruiting and retention requirements for submarine duty.

Career sea pay (sec. 617)

The committee recommends a provision that would ensure receipt of career sea pay by all military members, regardless of rank,

pay grade, or accrued time in service, if they are assigned to qualifying sea duty.

314

Modification of eligibility requirements for Individual

Ready Reserve bonus for re-enlistment, enlistment, or

extension of enlistment (sec. 618)

The committee recommends a provision that would modify existing provisions to authorize payment of a bonus to individuals who

possess a skill that is designated as critically short to meet wartime requirements and who agree to enlist, reenlist or voluntarily

extend an enlistment in the Individual Ready Reserve. This would

authorize payment to service members serving in combat service

support skills as well as combat and combat support skills.

Accession bonus for officers in critical skills (sec. 619)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize an

accession bonus of up to $20,000 for persons who agree to accept

a commission as an officer and serve on active duty in a skill designated as critical by the Secretary of Defense.

Modification of the nurse officer candidate accession program restriction on students attending civilian educational institutions with Senior Reserve Officers Training programs (sec. 620)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend eligibility for financial assistance under the Nurse Officer Candidate

Accession Program to nurse officer candidates who attend civilian

educational institutions with a Senior Reserve Officers Training

Program but who are not eligible for enrollment in that program.

Current law restricts eligibility for participation in the Nurse Officer Candidate Accession Program to students enrolled in a nursing

program at civilian education institutions that do not have a Senior

Reserve Officers Training Program. The recommended provision

would eliminate this restriction and expand the applicant pool of

future nurse officers.

SUBTITLE C—TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION

ALLOWANCES

Eligibility for temporary housing allowance while in travel

or leave status between permanent duty stations (sec.

631)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

payment of a temporary basic allowance for housing to any service

member in a leave or travel status between permanent duty stations. Presently, only members in pay grade E–4 (4 or more years

of service) and above receive this allowance.

Eligibility for payment of subsistence expenses associated

with occupancy of temporary lodging incident to reporting to first permanent duty station (sec. 632)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

payment of subsistence expenses to officers making their first permanent change of station. Enlisted members are currently entitled

to payment of subsistence expenses when making their first permanent change of station.

315

Eligibility for dislocation allowance (sec. 633)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

payment of a dislocation allowance to a member when the member’s dependents make an authorized move in connection with the

member’s move to the first duty station. The recommended provision would also authorize payment of a single dislocation allowance

to married service members, where both husband and wife are

members without dependents, when both move to a new duty station and occupy government family quarters.

Allowance for dislocation for the convenience of the government at home station (sec. 634)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize payment of a partial dislocation allowance of $500 to service members who are ordered, for the convenience of the government, to

move into or out of military family housing at their current duty

station. The recommended provision would permit payment in advance and would require that the amount be increased at the same

time and in the same amount as increases in basic pay.

Travel and transportation allowances for family members to

attend the burial of a deceased member of the uniformed services (sec. 635)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize allowances for family members and others to attend burial ceremonies of deceased members of the uniformed forces who die while

on active duty or inactive duty. The recommended provision would

consolidate and standardize benefits currently authorized in three

different statutes and provide uniform treatment of family members of personnel who die while on active or inactive duty.

Family separation allowance for members electing unaccompanied tour by reason of health limitations of dependents (sec. 636)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

payment of a family separation allowance to members who elect to

serve an unaccompanied tour instead of an accompanied tour, because the member’s dependents cannot accompany the member to

a permanent duty station for medical reasons certified by a health

care professional.

Funded student travel for foreign study under an education

program approved by a United States school (sec. 637)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the

authority to pay funded student travel to dependents of members

who are stationed outside the continental United States. To qualify, a dependent under the age of 23 who is enrolled in a school located in the continental United States must attend a school outside

the United States as part of a school-sponsored exchange program.

The recommended provision would remedy an inequity under existing law for those members whose dependents are enrolled in a

school in the United States but participate in a temporary exchange program outside the United States by reimbursing travel

expenses for one annual trip.

316

Transportation or storage of privately owned vehicles on

change of permanent station (sec. 638)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize advance payment of vehicle storage costs in commercial facilities. The

recommended provision would also authorize payment for shipping

a privately owned vehicle between permanent duty stations in the

continental United States when it is more advantageous and cost

effective for the government to do so.

SUBTITLE D—MATTERS RELATING TO RETIREMENT

AND SURVIVOR BENEFITS

Payment of retired pay and compensation to disabled military retirees (sec. 651)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize retired members of the armed forces who have a service connected

disability to receive military retired pay concurrently with veterans’ disability compensation.

Currently, disabled military retirees are prohibited from concurrent receipt of military retired pay and Veterans’ Administration

disability compensation. They can receive disability compensation

only if they agree to waive a portion of their retired pay equal to

the amount of disability compensation.

The committee believes that the requirement to offset disability

compensation with a reduction in retired pay is unfair to disabled

career service members who, in effect, pay their own disability

compensation. Military retirement pay and disability compensation

were earned and awarded for entirely different purposes. Military

retired pay is awarded for a career of service in the armed forces.

Disability compensation is awarded to compensate a veteran for injury incurred in the line of duty. The committee believes that a veteran who has earned retired pay and has suffered a disability

should receive compensation for both.

The allocation of mandatory spending authority provided to the

Committee on Armed Services in the Concurrent Resolution on the

Budget for Fiscal Year 2002 was not increased to accommodate the

substantial direct spending cost of this provision. Because no direct

spending offset is available to the committee, this provision is contingent on the President proposing, and Congress enacting, legislation that would offset the increased monetary outlays for fiscal

years 2003 through 2012.

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Education savings plan for reenlistments and extensions of

service in critical specialties (sec. 661)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to purchase U.S. savings bonds with a face

value of up to $30,000 for military personnel who have completed

specified periods of active duty and enter into a commitment to

perform at least six additional years of active duty service in a specialty designated as critical by the Secretary. The recommended

provision would authorize $20.0 million for this purpose for fiscal

year 2002.

317

Service members in critical specialities, who agree to a service

commitment, would be provided resources that could be applied to

cover the expenses of higher education for their families, including

their spouse and children. The committee encourages service members to use this program for educational obligations where the increased value of the savings bond would be exempt from federal

taxes.

Commissary benefits for new members of the Ready Reserve

(sec. 662)

The committee recommends a provision that would grant new

members of the Ready Reserve access to commissary stores. Access

to commissary stores would accrue at the rate of two days for each

month in which the member participates satisfactorily in required

training.

Authorization of transitional compensation and commissary

and exchange benefits for dependents of commissioned

officers of the Public Health Service and the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who are separated for dependent abuse (sec. 663)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

transitional benefits for the dependents of commissioned officers of

the Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration separated for dependent abuse. The benefits

would be the same as the benefits available to dependents of members of the armed forces who are separated for dependent abuse.

(319)

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE

SUBTITLE A—TRICARE BENEFITS MODERNIZATION

Requirement for integration of benefits (sec. 701)

The committee recommends a provision that would terminate the

Individual Case Management Program and integrate the beneficiaries of that program into the modified TRICARE program. The

recommended provision grandfathers persons who received benefits

under the Individual Case Management Program prior to October

1, 2001.

Domiciliary and custodial care (sec. 702)

The committee recommends a provision that would define domiciliary and custodial care in a manner that is consistent with the

definitions in most federal health plans.

Long-term care (sec. 703)

The committee recommends a provision that would align the provision of long-term care benefits under the TRICARE program with

the benefits under Medicare. The recommended provision would integrate these benefits with the benefits provided on a less than a

long-term basis under the TRICARE program. The long-term care

benefits include extended care services, post-hospital extended care

services, and comprehensive intermittent home health services.

Extended benefits for disabled beneficiaries (sec. 704)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize extended benefits for certain dependents who have moderate or severe mental retardation, a serious physical disability, or an extraordinary physical or psychological condition. The extended benefits would include comprehensive health care and case management services for the dependent, and respite care for the primary

caregiver. The recommended provision would authorize expanded

home health supplies and services when medically appropriate and

when the cost is equal to or less than the cost of similar supplies

and services in a skilled nursing facility.

Conforming repeals (sec. 705)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal prior

provisions of law defining custodial care and providing for domiciliary and custodial care under the Individual Case Management

Program.

Effective date (sec. 706)

The committee recommends a provision that would make the

TRICARE Benefits Modernization provisions effective on October 1,

2001.

320

SUBTITLE B—OTHER MATTERS

Repeal of requirement for periodic screenings and examinations and related care for members of Army reserve

units scheduled for early deployment (sec. 711)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the requirement to provide certain medical and dental services to members of the Selected Reserve of the Army scheduled for deployment

within 75 days after mobilization. The recommended provision

would eliminate the requirement for an annual medical screening,

a full medical examination every two years for members over 40

years of age, an annual dental screening, and dental care required

to meet mobilization standards.

Clarification of eligibility for reimbursement of travel expenses of adult accompanying patient in travel for specialty care (sec. 712)

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify the

eligibility for coverage of travel expenses by a parent, guardian or

family member while accompanying a covered beneficiary referred

for specialty care to be received more than 100 miles from the location of primary care. The committee believes that when a covered

beneficiary is unable to travel alone, whether due to the beneficiary’s age, physical incapacity, or other similar condition, it is

reasonable to reimburse travel expenses incurred by the attending

parent, guardian or responsible family member.

TRICARE program limitations on payment rates for institutional health care providers and on balance billing by

institutional and non-institutional health care providers

(sec. 713)

The committee recommends a provision that would reinforce and

expedite reform of TRICARE payment methods. The recommended

provision would expedite adoption of Medicare’s prospective payments rates for nursing home care, outpatient services, and durable medical equipment.

Two-year extension of health care management demonstration program (sec. 714)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend, until

December 31, 2003, the demonstration of simulation modeling to

improve health care delivery in the Defense Health Program. This

demonstration was authorized in section 733 of the Floyd D.

Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.

However, funding constraints have limited full implementation.

The committee recognizes the value of simulation models in studying alternative health care delivery policies, processes, organizations, and technologies and encourages the full implementation of

this demonstration program.

Study of health care coverage of members of the Selected

Reserve (sec. 715)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study of the

321

health care coverage of members of the Selected Reserve and to report on cost effective options for providing health care benefits to

members of the Selected Reserve and their families.

Study of adequacy and quality of health care provided to

women under the Defense Health Program (sec. 716)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a study of the

adequacy and quality of the health care provided to women under

the Defense Health Program. The study would include an intensive

review of the availability and quality of reproductive health care

services.

Pilot program for Department of Veterans Affairs support

for Department of Defense in the performance of separation physical examinations (sec. 717)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry

out a pilot program in which the Veterans Administration would

conduct physical examinations of members separating from the

uniformed services.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Defense Health Program simplification of claims processing

procedures and communications

The committee directs the Department of Defense to carefully examine current processes and procedures related to the processing,

payment, and dissemination of information related to health care

delivery claims. Technological advances hold much promise in expediting the payment of claims and simplifying and clarifying for

beneficiaries information related to procedures and resources associated with health care delivery. The current explanation of benefits information provided to beneficiaries is not timely and is highly

technical and confusing. The Department is encouraged to reduce

the high cost of claims processing, improve the timeliness of payment of claims and explanation of benefits, and simplify the information provided to beneficiaries related to such claims through

lower cost and more automated processing that is flexible and understandable.

Electronic medical records

The committee continues to support efforts to integrate more

fully and utilize efficiently the health care capabilities of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The

committee supported the initiation of the Government ComputerBased Patient Record (GCPR) project to allow health care providers

from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense, and the Indian Health Service to share patient information

using an electronic medical record. An April 2001 report issued by

the General Accounting Office indicated that the GCPR program

lacks central oversight and full agency commitment and that it is

not moving forward as anticipated.

322

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the

House of Representatives by March 31, 2002, on the planning, development, oversight, management, scope, objectives, and timetable

for allowing health care providers to share comprehensive patient

information electronically between the Veterans Administration

and the Department of Defense. The report should include a clear

statement of an agreed upon mission, goals, objectives, performance

measures, schedule, and financing; designation of a lead entity

with clear authority to oversee this program; and plans for privacy

and security of patient health data.

Funding the Defense Health Program

The committee recognizes the difficulty in forecasting costs of the

Defense Health Program accurately. Historically, budget estimates

for the Defense Health Program have not been adjusted to include

the health care inflation indices normally associated with private

sector health plans. These indices are much higher than the average annual government-wide inflation factors that have been routinely applied to medical programs. The Defense Health Program

still has to deal with the same variable factors as private health

plans—the impact of medical technology growth and intensity,

medical supplies, and cost increases in health care services.

The committee is concerned about the large variation in estimates of costs associated with the expansion of military retiree

health benefits. While health care costs are extremely volatile, a

more reliable forecasting method is critical to appropriate financing

of this system.

The committee is pleased with recent efforts to fully fund the Defense Health Program. The proposed fiscal year 2002 budget of

$17.9 billion funds the new Medicare-eligible health care and pharmacy benefits authorized by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 and is based on a 15 percent growth rate for pharmacy benefits and 12 percent growth rate

for civilian purchased care. These indices are in line with reasonable estimates in the private sector. Funding decisions about the

Defense Health Program for fiscal year 2003 and beyond will be of

paramount importance, particularly while incorporating the Medicare-eligible retirees into the system. The committee encourages

the Department of Defense to continue to take actions to improve

funding projection mechanisms for the Defense Health Program

that take into account the realities of the health care delivery market.

HIV/AIDS Oral Fluids Testing Pilot Program

The committee directs the Department of Defense to conduct a

pilot program utilizing a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved oral fluids HIV/AIDS testing method. It is anticipated that

FDA approval of such a method will occur in the near future, and

the committee believes such new testing may have merit. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Committees

on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives

on the feasibility and desirability of utilizing oral fluids testing for

HIV/AIDS.

323

Immunization against Hepatitis B

Hepatitis B is a chronic, incurable, and life threatening illness

acquired through exposure to semen, blood, and saliva. Approximately 350 million people worldwide carry the Hepatitis B virus.

Many children in the United States receive a three-shot series of

vaccine that immunizes them for the Hepatitis B virus. Current

military policy requires vaccination of all military healthcare personnel and active duty personnel deployed to high risk areas.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to assess whether

medical readiness warrants requiring immunization of all military

personnel against the Hepatitis B virus and to submit a report on

the findings and recommendations of this assessment to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives by March 1, 2002. The assessment should address the

feasibility and desirability of (1) screening all active duty members

for documentation showing they have already been immunized for

the Hepatitis B virus and (2) requiring vaccination of those who

have not been immunized.

Trauma and medical care

Military medical trauma centers frequently provide medical care

to seriously injured patients. Current reimbursement rates for care

provided to patients not entitled to military medical care for trauma and other emergency medical care are less than the cost of providing the care. The committee directs the Department of Defense

to implement procedures using itemized billing charges, where appropriate, to ensure proper reimbursement for medical care provided to non-beneficiaries.

Use of clinical decision support information tools

The Department of Defense has made significant strides in improving the quality of health care in the military health care system through the use of computer-based technologies to access

health care information, use decision support technology tools to facilitate diagnoses, and integrate beneficiary surveys. The next step

is to use these technologies to generate information that will support improvements in care through the use of applied clinical research methods to measure, evaluate, and improve clinical outcomes and quality of care. The committee encourages the continued

integration of clinical decision support information tools into the

military health care system.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a

study on the use of clinical decision support information tools to

measure, evaluate, and improve clinical outcomes and quality of

care in the military health care system and to submit a report to

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of

Representatives on the study by March 31, 2004.

(325)

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION

MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS

SUBTITLE A—PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT AND

ADMINISTRATION

Management of procurements of services (sec. 801)

The committee recommends a provision that would improve the

Department of Defense’s management of the acquisition of services.

The committee continues to be concerned that the DOD has not adjusted its contracting and oversight practices to meet the increasing significance of services contracting.

The provision recommended by the committee would require the

Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to establish a management oversight structure for the acquisition of services. This structure would be designed to provide management visibility and establish accountability for services contracts, and to ensure that appropriate contracting vehicles such as

performance-based contracts and task orders are used to the maximum extent practicable. Under this provision, contracts or task orders for services that are not performance-based would be prohibited in the absence of a determination that exceptional circumstances justify the use of another contracting method in the

best interests of the Department of Defense.

The provision would also require the Secretary of Defense to establish an automated data system to help track and manage purchases of services in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold.

The committee is concerned that there is insufficient data available

to effectively support management decisions in determining whether the Department is choosing the most appropriate vehicle to obtain the best price or best value in its purchases of services. The

data collection system required by this provision is comparable to

the system required for information technology purchases under

section 2225 of Title 10, United States Code. The committee believes that the Department should be able to use a single data collection system to meet both requirements.

Finally, the provision would require the Department to establish

a program review structure for major services acquisitions that is

similar to the review structure already in place for the major weapons systems acquisitions. The committee understands that an effort

to develop such a system is already under way within the Department.

Savings goals for procurements of services (sec. 802)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish savings goals for the Department of Defense (DOD) to achieve through

the use of improved management practices for procurements of

services, including performance-based services contracting; comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00347 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
326

petition for task orders under services contracts; and program review, spending analyses, and other best practices commonly used

in the commercial sector.

The committee believes that the Department can achieve significant savings without any reduction in services through effective

management of its services contracts. The Secretary of Defense has

testified that the Department should be able to achieve 5 percent

savings across the board through management improvements. At a

committee hearing on July 10, 2001, each of the three service secretaries was asked whether the Department should be able to

achieve significant savings by instituting best commercial practices

for the management of its $50.0 billion of service contracts. The

Secretary of the Army responded: ‘‘Yes, I do. It’s done all the time

in the business world.’’ The secretaries of the other two military departments agreed.

Over the last decade, the Department’s expenditures for the procurement of services have increased by 20 percent, to more than

$50.0 billion a year, while expenditures for the procurement of

weapon systems and other products have remained flat. Unfortunately, the Department has never provided the management attention needed to ensure that this money is well spent.

Last year, the DOD Inspector General reviewed the Department’s $10.0 billion of annual expenditures for professional, administrative, and management support services, and found an almost

complete failure to comply with basic contracting requirements.

Other reviews by the Inspector General and the General Accounting Office (GAO) have revealed that the Department has failed to

complete requirements for the delivery of services, as required by

law and regulation, and has barely begun to implement requirements for performance-based services contracting. The GAO and

the DOD Inspector General have found that DoD managers failed

to complete services work in up to three-quarters of the cases they

examined.

At a more fundamental level, DOD has no centralized management structure for services contracts. Rather, the award of these

contracts is dispersed throughout the Department with little management oversight. As a result, the Department has never conducted a comprehensive spending analysis of its services contracts

and has made little effort to leverage its buying power, improve the

performance of its services contractors, rationalize its supplier

base, or otherwise ensure that its dollars are well spent. Moreover,

the Department has failed to provide its acquisition professionals

with the training and guidance needed to manage the Department’s service contracts in a cost-effective manner.

The GAO has informed the committee that a number of companies in the private sector have achieved significant savings without

any reduction in services by instituting best practices such as centralizing key functions, promoting strategic orientation, improving

personnel skills and capabilities, conducting spending analyses,

rationalizing supplier bases, and expanding the use of cross-functional, commodity-based teams.

The committee believes that the Department already has the

freedom to manage these contracts in a cost-effective manner. Sec.

801 would promote the use of best commercial practices by requirVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00348 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
327

ing the Department to establish a management structure for services contracts and to institute a system of program review for larger contracts that is comparable to the system already in place for

major weapons systems. Sec. 803 would address management deficiencies by strengthening competition requirements for the award

of task orders for services under multiple award contracts. These

new provisions would build on sec. 821 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, which required the Department to establish a preference for performancebased services contracting, provide enhanced training in services

contracting for its acquisition personnel, and establish centers of

excellence to identify best practices in services contracting.

The provision recommended by the committee would establish

savings goals of 3 percent in fiscal year 2002, 4 percent in fiscal

year 2003, 5 percent in fiscal year 2004, and 10 percent in fiscal

year 2011.

Competition requirement for purchases pursuant to multiple award contracts (sec. 803)

The committee recommends a provision that would require that

each individual procurement of products and services in excess of

$50,000 awarded under a multiple award contract shall be made on

a competitive basis. This requirement could be waived by a contracting officer of the Department of Defense (DOD) under conditions specified in section 2304(c) paragraphs 1–4 of title 10, United

States Code.

The committee is concerned about the failure of the Department

to comply with existing requirements to compete task orders under

multiple award contacts. Recent reports by the Department of Defense Inspector General and the General Accounting Office (GAO)

have documented serious issues with the Department’s compliance

with competition requirements and ordering procedures in placing

orders under government-wide acquisition contracts (GWAC’s),

multiple agency contracts (MAC’s), and the General Service Administration’s multiple award schedule program.

The committee is also aware that the military departments have

failed to use competitive procedures to award task orders under

multiple award contracts for the performance of a variety of environmental services. In one case, a military service informed the

committee that it has been using a process that it called ‘‘internal

competition,’’ in which task orders are negotiated with a single contractor without providing any other contractor with notice or an opportunity to compete. This is not competition at all.

The committee is convinced that competitive practices have continually proven to be in the best interest of DOD and the taxpayers. The Department of Defense must reinforce its management

controls to ensure that the acquisition reform tools developed over

the last decade are not used to circumvent competition. The provision recommended by the committee would require the Department

to establish such management controls and ensure that competition

actually takes place.

328

Risk reduction at initiation of major defense acquisition

program (sec. 804)

The committee recommends a provision that would help shorten

the acquisition cycle by requiring the Department of Defense

(DOD) to reduce program risk prior to initiating a major defense

acquisition program.

For the last three years, at the direction of the committee, the

General Accounting Office (GAO), has conducted a review comparing the Department’s approach to incorporating technology into

new products to approaches successfully applied in the private sector. The GAO found that private industry fields new products faster and more successfully because they make sure that new technologies have been proven in the laboratory before they try to incorporate them into new products. According to the GAO:

The experiences of DOD and commercial technology development cases GAO reviewed indicate that demonstrating a high level of maturity before new technologies

are incorporated into product development programs puts

those programs in a better position to succeed. . . . Leading commercial firms recognize a distinct difference between technology development and product development;

accordingly, they develop technology before introducing it

into product development programs. They minimize risk,

improve cost and schedule outcomes, reduce cycle time,

and improve quality during product development by gaining significant knowledge about a technology before

launching the product development.

According to the GAO, ‘‘It is a rare program that can proceed

with a gap between product requirements and the maturity of key

technologies and still be delivered on time and within costs.’’

The DOD, however, frequently tries to move technologies to product development programs before they are mature. According to the

GAO, the effort to field immature technologies almost always leads

to schedule delays and cost increases:

[Technology development problems need to be addressed]

at a time when the product should be undergoing design

and manufacturing development. As a result, the pace of

technology advances outruns the time to develop a weapon

system and some of the more mature components designed

into a weapon system become obsolete before the weapon

is manufactured. For example, the F–22 will have almost

600 obsolete components by fiscal year 2000 while the aircraft is still in development.

The provision recommended by the committee would address this

problem by requiring that critical technologies be successfully demonstrated in a relevant environment before they may be incorporated into a major defense acquisition program. To ensure that

the Department retains needed flexibility, the provision authorizes

the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to waive the requirement when it is in the best interest of

the Department to do so. A separate provision (Sec. 231) would esVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00350 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
329

tablish a technology transition program to assist the Department

in bringing critical technologies to the required level of maturity.

Follow-on production contracts for products developed pursuant to prototype projects (sec. 805)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Department of Defense to enter follow-on production contracts for

a limited number of items developed pursuant to transactions

(other than contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements) on a solesource basis. Such sole-source contracts would be authorized only

in the case of prototype projects for which parties other than the

Federal Government have provided at least one-third of the funds.

The number of items that could be purchased on a sole source basis

would be established in the initial transaction, based on a balancing of the extent to which parties other than the Federal Government have invested their own funds and the interest of the Federal Government in competition for the acquisition of the items.

SUBTITLE B—DEFENSE ACQUISITION AND SUPPORT

WORKFORCE

Report on implementation of recommendations of the Acquisition 2005 Task Force (sec. 811)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to report on the implementation of the recommendations of the Department of Defense Acquisition 2005 Task

Force included in the report entitled ‘‘Shaping the Civilian Acquisition Workforce of the Future.’’

The committee is concerned about the impact of reductions in the

acquisition workforce on the Department of Defense’s ability to manage effectively the acquisition of more than $140.0 billion in

goods and services each year. The DOD has reduced its acquisition

workforce by about 50 percent in the last 10 years while the workload has remained essentially constant, and even increased by

some measures. Over the next five years, the Department is projected to lose an additional 55,000 of its most experienced acquisition personnel.

The Department established the Acquisition 2005 Task Force to

address these challenges. The provision recommended by the committee would require the Secretary to report on actions taken to

implement the recommendations of the Task Force, and any additional actions taken by the DOD to address concerns about the size

and structure of the acquisition workforce.

The committee expects the Department to conduct a thorough review of the personnel system to identify any enhanced personnel

flexibility that may be needed to attract and retain quality acquisition personnel. The committee notes that section 4308 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 authorized

the Department to establish an acquisition workforce demonstration project. This authority, which enables the Department to

waive certain regulatory requirements, has been utilized only on a

small scale to date. The Department’s review should identify any

steps that would enable it to make better use of the demonstration

authority.

330

Moratorium on reduction of defense acquisition and support workforce (sec. 812)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a

moratorium on further cuts in the acquisition workforce for three

years. The Secretary of Defense would be authorized to waive this

prohibition upon certification to Congress that any reductions to

the workforce would not negatively impact the ability of the workforce to efficiently and effectively carry out its legally required

functions.

Twelve consecutive years of downsizing have left the Department

of Defense (DOD) with a workforce that is smaller (by 51 percent),

older (with an average age of 46.7 years), more senior (with an average of 20.2 years of service), higher grade, and rapidly approaching retirement. Last year, the Department of Defense Inspector

General reported that expected acquisition workload reductions

had not occurred, and as a result many defense components now

have insufficient staff to manage requirements in a cost effective

manner. Further cuts in the acquisition workforce are likely to exacerbate this problem.

The Department has embarked upon a human resource strategic

planning effort to address acquisition workforce issues. The committee believes that no further cuts should be made until the strategic planning effort has been completed and the Department is

prepared to address shortcomings in the workforce on a comprehensive basis.

Revision of acquisition workforce qualifications (sec. 813)

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify that

the amendments made to section 1724 of title 10, United States

Code by Section 808 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 apply only to new entrants

into the acquisition workforce, not to employees who were already

in the workforce prior to the enactment of the amendments. The

provision would also add a new section 1724a to title 10, authorizing the Secretary of Defense to establish a contracting workforce

to deploy in support of contingency operations.

SUBTITLE C—USE OF PREFERRED SOURCES

Applicability of competition requirements to purchases

from a required source (sec. 821)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend chapter 141 of title 10, United State Code, to change the procedures the

Department of Defense (DOD) uses to make purchases from Federal Prison Industries (FPI).

The provision would permit DOD to perform market research to

determine whether products offered by private sector companies

provide a better value than FPI. If FPI offers a product that is

comparable in price, quality, and time of delivery to the most suitable products available from the private sector, the Department

would be required to purchase that product on a sole-source basis

from FPI. If DOD determines that the FPI product is not competitive, it would conduct a competition in which FPI would be permitted to participate.

331

The provision would also permit the Department of Defense to

purchase from a source other than FPI a product that is integral

to, or embedded in, another product. For example, in a major construction project, the Department’s prime contractor would be permitted to utilize its usual commercial sources and purchase products in the most economical manner.

In addition, the provision would exempt national security systems from the FPI mandatory source requirement, reflecting the

committee’s view that it is not appropriate to require the Department of Defense (as FPI has done in the past) to purchase missile

guidance systems or other critical defense items that are made

with prison labor.

Finally, the provision would permit DOD to make purchases of less than $2,500 from sources other than FPI. This provision is consistent with the ‘‘micro-purchase threshold’’ that has been set in

law to enable DOD officials to use credit cards for small purchases.

Under current regulations, FPI exempts only purchases of $25 or

less—an approach that is inconsistent with the Department’s acquisition streamlining efforts.

Consolidation of contract requirements (sec. 822)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the consolidation of contract requirements in excess of $5.0 million absent a written determination that the benefits of the acquisition

strategy including the consolidated contract requirements substantially exceed the benefits of alternative contracting approaches that

would involve a lesser degree of consolidation.

Sections 411 through 413 of the Small Business Reauthorization

Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–135) require federal agencies to conduct market research to assess the potential impact of ‘‘bundled

contracts,’’ and to proceed with such contracts only if the benefits

of bundling substantially exceed the benefits of proceeding with

separate contracts. Section 414 requires agencies to collect data regarding bundling of contract requirements in excess of $5.0 million.

Unfortunately, it appears that the Department of Defense and

other agencies have failed fully to comply with these requirements.

This failure appears to be attributable, in significant part, to the

narrow interpretation that has been given to the provision.

For example, the Small Business Reauthorization Act defined

bundling to include consolidated contracts that are ‘‘likely to be unsuitable for award to a small business concern.’’ The General Accounting Office recently concluded that a contract cannot be considered unsuitable for award to a small business concern if a team of

contractors, including small business concerns, could bid on the

contract. Since a team of contractors could bid on virtually any requirement, this interpretation would appear to exclude virtually all

contracts from the application of the bundling provisions.

The provision recommended by the committee would address

these problems by requiring the Department to justify any consolidation of contract requirements in excess of $5.0 million, regardless

of whether the consolidation constitutes ‘‘bundling.’’ The Department would also be required to modify its data reporting systems

to identify whether a procurement in excess of $5.0 million has

been consolidated or not.

332

The committee is concerned that efforts to impose new recordkeeping requirements with regard to bundled contracts could unduly burden the defense acquisition system. For this reason, the

provision would prohibit the Department from implementing new

data collection systems with regard to the bundling or consolidation

of contracts, except as necessary to comply with the requirement to

identify consolidated contracts in excess of $5.0 million.

The committee is also aware that in some cases where contracts

are legitimately consolidated, small-business-only joint ventures

may serve as an effective means to enable small businesses to continue to participate in the procurement process. The committee directs the Department to work with the Small Business Administration in conducting outreach to promote such joint ventures and encourage their participation in the procurement process.

Codification and continuation of Mentor-Protege Program

as permanent program (sec. 823)

The committee recommends a provision to codify the pilot Mentor-Protege program established by section 831 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 and make the program permanent.

The Mentor-Protege program provides incentives to major defense contractors to assist small disadvantaged businesses, womanowned businesses, and qualified organizations employing the severely disabled to enhance their capabilities as contractors on Department of Defense contracts. The Mentor-Protege program does

not guarantee contracts to qualified small businesses. Instead, it is

designed to equip these businesses with the knowledge and expertise that they need to win such contracts on their own, in the competitive market place.

Section 811 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2000 incorporated a number of management controls to ensure the success of the program. These included: limiting program

participation terms to three years, absent exceptional circumstances; limiting the annual funding of a Mentor-Protege

agreement to $1.0 million a year, absent exceptional circumstances;

requiring annual reviews of the performance of Mentor-Protege

agreements by the Defense Contract Management Command; making incremental funding of Mentor-Protege agreements contingent

upon past performance; and requiring annual reports to Congress

on program performance. These program reforms, which appear to

have resulted in significantly improved program performance, are

incorporated into the codified provision.

The committee expects the Department to continue to work to

strengthen the Mentor-Protege program by improving compliance

with tracking and reporting requirements and enforcing the required linkages between performance and funding.

333

SUBTITLE D—AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL CONTRACTING AUTHORITIES PROCEDURES, AND RELATED MATTERS

Amendments to conform with administrative changes in acquisition phase and milestone terminology and to make

related adjustments in certain requirements applicable

at milestone transition points (sec. 831)

The committee recommends a provision that would make a series

of modifications to title 10, United States Code, and related statutes, to substitute references to the acquisition milestones established by revised Department of Defense Directive 5000.2 for obsolete references currently contained in those statutes.

The committee is aware that the Department recently rewrote its

basic acquisition policy directives to focus on providing proven technology to the warfighter faster, reducing total ownership cost, and

emphasizing affordability, supportability, and interoperability. The

new directives are intended to separate technology development

from system integration, allow multiple entry points into the acquisition process, and require demonstration of utility, supportability,

and interoperability prior to making a commitment to production.

As part of the rewrite, milestone names were changed to Milestone

A (approval to begin analysis of alternatives), Milestone B (approval to begin integrated system development and demonstration),

and Milestone C (approval to begin low-rate production).

The phases of acquisition were changed to Concept and Technology Development (in which alternative concepts are considered

and technology development is completed), System Development

and Demonstration (in which components are integrated into a system and the system is demonstrated), and Production and Deployment (in which the system is produced at a low-rate to allow for

initial operational test and evaluation, creation of a production

base, efficient ramp-up of production to full-rate, and deployment).

Within the Production and Deployment phase is the Full-Rate Production Decision Review at which the results of operational test

and evaluation and live-fire test are considered.

Under the new approach, program initiation begins later than

under the old model. The new model anticipates more extensive

technology development before committing to a new program using

those technologies, while the old model completed technology development after program initiation. This is consistent with sec. 804,

which requires that critical technologies be successfully demonstrated in a relevant environment before they may be incorporated into a major defense acquisition program.

The provision recommended by the committee would make technical changes to existing statutes to reflect the new milestone process established by the revised directives.

Inapplicability of limitation to small purchases of miniature

or instrument ball or roller bearings under certain circumstances (sec. 832)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide certain exceptions to the requirement in section 2534 of title 10,

United States Code, to purchase ball and roller bearings from doVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00355 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
334

mestic sources. This provision would provide added flexibility to the

Department of Defense while reserving large and complex purchases of ball and roller bearings for the national technology and

industrial base.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Continuity of service in critical acquisition positions

Section 1734 of title 10, United States Code, addresses the issue

of continuity of service in critical acquisition positions in the Department of Defense (DOD). Section 1734(a) mandates a three-year

assignment period for any person assigned to a critical acquisition

position, while section 1734(b) requires that program managers and

deputy program managers be assigned to a program until completion of the major milestone that occurs closest to the time at which

the person has served in the position for four years.

The administration has proposed to limit the three-year tenure

requirement to program managers, deputy program manager, and

senior contracting officials. The committee does not believe that the

Department’s interest in effective management of large, complex,

and time-consuming acquisitions would be served by the elimination of tenure requirements for thousands of critical acquisition

positions. Frequent turnover in these positions can make it more

difficult for the Department to maintain an appropriate focus on

long-term goals, such as shortening the acquisition cycle, minimizing concurrency, ensuring the maintainability and reliability of

new systems, and reducing life-cycle costs.

The committee understands that the Under Secretary of Defense

for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics has undertaken a comprehensive review of issues affecting the acquisition workforce. The

committee believes that as the Department considers how to reshape the acquisition workforce, it should give strong consideration

to the problems that can be caused by frequent turnovers in key

acquisition positions.

Direct payment of subcontractors

A number of small businesses currently performing work under

the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) contract have expressed

concerns to the committee about a provision in the contract requiring that the government, rather than the prime contractor, make

payments to subcontractors on the program. These companies state

that direct payment has increased, rather than decreased, the

amount of time it takes for them to be paid. The committee is also

concerned that direct payment may blur the lines of responsibility

for ensuring that subcontractors are performing in accordance with

the terms of the contract and that payments are made when due.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to review this

issue in consultation with the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics and to determine the circumstances, if any, under which it is in the interest of the Department of Defense to pay subcontractors directly. The committee believes that payments to subcontractors should be made by prime

contractors, not the government, unless and until the Department

of Defense has determined that appropriate systems, guidance, and

335

training are in place to ensure that direct payments can be made

quickly and accurately, and in a manner that does not undermine

the contractual responsibilities of the prime contractor.

Internal controls on the use of credit cards

Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office (GAO) completed

a review of internal controls and accounting practices for purchase

card transactions and payments for two Navy units based in San

Diego. The GAO found a weak overall internal control environment, flawed or nonexistent policies and procedures, and a lack of

adherence to those policies and procedures that were in place. According to the GAO:

[M]anagement was not effectively utilizing internal reviews and audits to determine whether purchase card internal controls were being effectively implemented. In fact,

we found evidence that . . . management ignored internal

review results that demonstrated some . . . serious problems . . . primarily because of complaints from cardholders and their supervisors regarding the administrative

burden associated with procedural changes that would be

needed to address the review findings.

The committee continues to believe that credit cards can play an

important role in streamlining the procurement system and eliminating unneeded paperwork. However, streamlined purchasing

techniques such as purchase cards can also be abused in the absence of appropriate internal controls and management attention.

The committee directs the Department of Defense (DOD) to review

this issue and take action to ensure that: (1) appropriate internal

controls for credit card purchases are in place throughout the Department; and (2) DOD credit card holders and their managers are

fully trained and aware of the importance of compliance with these

policies and procedures.

(337)

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION

AND MANAGEMENT

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (sec. 901)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a

new position of Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel

and Readiness and eliminate one Assistant Secretary of Defense

position.

Responsibility of Under Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition of space launch vehicles and space launch

services (sec. 902)

The committee recommends a provision that would assign responsibility for the acquisition of space launch vehicles and space

launch services for the Department of Defense and the National

Reconnaissance Office (NRO) to the Under Secretary of the Air

Force. The provision would ensure the acquisition of space launch

vehicles and services for the Department of Defense and the NRO

is coordinated and consolidated so that the Department can take

full advantage of the cost savings that come from a such an approach.

This provision maintains the current Air Force responsibility for

space launch and is consistent with long-term plans for reinvigorating U.S. launch capabilities, particularly efforts to regain a competitive U.S. heavy launch capability.

Sense of Congress regarding the selection of officers for assignment as the Commander in Chief, United States

Transportation Command (sec. 903)

The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization

Act of 1986 envisioned that an officer would be assigned to serve

as the commander of a combatant command on the basis of being

the best qualified officer for the assignment, rather than the best

qualified officer of the armed service that has historically supplied

an officer to serve in that assignment.

Most of the positions of commanders of the combatant commands

have been filled successively by officers of more than one of the

armed services since the enactment of that Act. However, the position of Commander in Chief, U.S. Transportation Command has

only been filled by general officers of the Air Force. Until the most

recent Air Force nominee to this position, that officer has usually

had limited experience in the transportation services.

The U.S. Transportation Command and its component commands

could benefit from the appointment of an officer selected from the

two armed services that are the primary users of their transportation resources, namely the Army and the Marine Corps.

338

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would express the sense of Congress that when deciding on the next officer

to be nominated to the position of Commander in Chief, U.S.

Transportation Command, the Secretary of Defense shall consider

nominating highly qualified officers from the ranks of Army and

Marine Corps flag officers.

Organizational realignment for Navy Director for Expeditionary Warfare (sec. 904)

The committee recommends a provision that would reflect a recent organizational realignment within the Office of the Chief of

Naval Operations by amending section 5038(a) of title 10, United

States Code, to recognize that the Director for Expeditionary Warfare is now in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations

for Warfare Requirements and Programs. The committee notes,

however, that the Director for Expeditionary Warfare maintains

the same roles and responsibilities.

Revised requirements for content of annual report on joint

warfighting experimentation (sec. 905)

The committee continues to strongly support joint warfighting

experimentation and to believe that it will play a key role in the

Department’s transformation efforts. In that regard, the committee

notes with satisfaction that the budget request increased substantially funding for joint warfighting experimentation for U.S. Joint

Forces Command to $118.8 million for fiscal year 2002. This should

provide sufficient funding to conduct the congressionally-mandated

Millennium Challenge 2002, the Department’s first major joint

field experiment, as well as to carry out ongoing joint concept development and experimentation. The committee is also encouraged

by the fact that the services, U.S. Special Operations Command

and the Defense Agencies are participating so robustly in the planning for, and are budgeting sufficient funds to participate meaningfully in, Millennium Challenge 02.

The committee believes that the time has come to consider providing additional authorities to the Commander in Chief, U.S. Joint

Forces Command to facilitate the conduct of joint warfighting experimentation and to develop and acquire promising technology of

unique relevance to conducting joint military operations. Accordingly, the committee recommends an amendment to section 485 of

title 10, United States Code, to require the annual joint

warfighting report to include a specific assessment of whether

there is a need for a major force program, or some other resource

mechanism, for funding joint warfighting experimentation and for

funding the rapid development and acquisition on uniquely joint

warfighting technologies that have been empirically demonstrated

through such experimentation.

Suspension of reorganization engineering and technical authority policy within the Naval Sea Systems Command

(sec. 906)

The committee is concerned that the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) may launch a reorganization that would change

the engineering and technical authority reporting chain of comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00360 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
339

mand within the Command and within the organizations that report to the Command, including the naval warfare centers. This reorganization would apparently imply centralizing day-to-day management of subsets of the activities within the warfare centers to

an official or officials within the NAVSEA headquarters.

The Congress and the Navy depend upon the quality of the research activities of the naval warfare centers to yield integrated,

well engineered improvements in warfighting capability to the

fleet. The committee is concerned that the proposed reorganization

would undermine the efficiency and effectiveness of the warfare

centers. The Navy established the warfare centers, concentrating

all of the work and talent associated with one technical area at one

activity, in order to: (1) eliminate unwarranted duplication of effort;

and (2) develop centers of technical excellence and a critical mass

of capability.

The committee also recognizes that the warfare centers were established to operate under a common set of working capital fund

rules and guidelines, which focuses their efforts on efficiency, quality and customer satisfaction. This arrangement would appear to

be consistent with the more business-like approach that the administration has identified as a central focus of their efforts to make

the Defense Department more efficient.

The committee believes that realigning the management of the

warfare centers along functional lines, such as engineering or directing technical activities, is potentially much less effective than

the current approach of having the warfare centers managing mission areas, such as surface warfare and undersea warfare. The proposed reorganization would appear to violate a number of tenets of

good management:

(1) The more normal business model would involve central

establishment of policy by the NAVSEA headquarters, with decentralized management by field operating activities.

(2) Centralizing day-to-day management of engineering and

technical direction authority within the NAVSEA headquarters

would appear to violate the well-understood policy of unity of

command. When several people are in charge, no one is really

in charge. More importantly, however, when several people are

in charge, no one is responsible.

(3) As a general rule, the Department of Defense has been

reorganizing its acquisition and development programs to create integrated product teams, where different functional specialities are brought together to focus on delivery of a product

or capability in a more efficient manner. The proposed

NAVSEA reorganization would appear to imply breaking apart

the integrated product teams within the naval warfare centers

that are focusing different scientific and technical disciplines

on mission needs. The Navy could then be faced with recreating what it is breaking apart by this reorganization.

Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would

delay the implementation of this realignment until such time as

the Secretary of the Navy provides his analysis of the proposed reorganization and how he believes such a reorganization would contribute to: (1) eliminating unwarranted duplication of effort; (2) developing and supporting centers of technical excellence and critical

340

masses of capability; (3) improving business-like management procedures for conducting the activities of the naval warfare centers;

and (4) improving the quality of support to the fleet in meeting

critical mission needs.

Conforming amendments relating to change of name of Air

Mobility Command (sec. 907)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend references to the former Military Airlift Command to refer to the command by its current designation as the Air Mobility Command.

(341)

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—FINANCIAL MATTERS

Transfer authority (sec. 1001)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide for

the transfer of funds authorized in Division A of this Act to unforeseen higher priority needs in accordance with normal reprogramming procedures.

Reduction in certain authorizations of appropriations for

management efficiencies (sec. 1002)

The Secretary of Defense has testified that the Department of

Defense should be able to achieve five percent savings across the

board through management improvements. The committee believes

that the Department should be able to achieve significant savings

in fiscal year 2002 through improved management efficiency; reform of business processes; improved processes for the procurement

of property and services; and increased use of best business practices adopted from the private sector.

The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the

authorizations of appropriations for the Department of Defense in

this Act by $1,630.0 million. The committee expects the Department of Defense to achieve these savings by implementing the requirements of Title VIII and by pursuing other management efficiencies developed by the Business Initiative Council that do not

require enactment of new legislation by the Congress.

Authorization of supplemental appropriations for fiscal year

2001 (sec. 1003)

This provision would authorize the supplemental appropriations

for fiscal year 2001 enacted in the Supplemental Appropriations

Act, 2001 (Public Law 107–20).

United States contribution to NATO common-funded budgets in fiscal year 2002 (sec. 1004)

The resolution of ratification for the Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 on the Accession of Poland, Hungary and the

Czech Republic contained a provision (section 3(2)(c)(ii)) that requires a specific authorization for U.S. payments to the commonfunded budgets of NATO for each fiscal year, beginning in fiscal

year 1999, that U.S. payments exceed the fiscal year 1998 total.

The committee recommends a provision to authorize the U.S. contribution to NATO common-funded budgets for fiscal year 2002, including the use of unexpended balances from prior years.

342

Clarification of applicability of interest penalties for late

payment of interim payments due under contracts for

services (sec. 1005)

Section 1010 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 extended prompt payment requirements to interim payments due under contracts for services.

The committee recommends a provision clarifying that the

change made by section 1010 applies to payments due on or after

the date of enactment of that provision under all Department of

Defense contracts, regardless of when they may have been entered.

Reliability of Department of Defense financial statements

(sec. 1006)

The committee recommends a provision that would enable the

Department of Defense (DOD) to save resources that are currently

expended to prepare and audit financial statements that are considered by the General Accounting Office to be essentially

unauditable. The provision would direct that the resources saved

be used to address underlying problems in the Department’s financial management systems and facilitate the Department’s ability to

routinely produce reliable financial information by no later than

fiscal year 2006.

The committee is aware that because the Department’s financial

management systems are seriously deficient, it has been unable to

produce reliable financial information or auditable financial statements. Nonetheless, the DOD expends significant resources preparing, reviewing and correcting financial statements, and the Department’s Inspector General expends considerable resources trying

to audit them. The committee considers these practices to be a

waste of resources that could better be used to improve the Department’s financial management systems so that reliable financial information is available on the Department’s activities.

The provision recommended by the committee would direct the

Department to streamline its processes for preparation and audit

of financial statements until the Department’s systems are able to

generate reliable information, which the committee expects will

take place in time to produce financial statements for fiscal year

2006.

In particular, the provision would direct the Department to identify in advance financial statements that will be unreliable and to

minimize the resources that are used to prepare them. The DOD

Comptroller would be required to estimate the amount of resources

saved by minimizing efforts on these financial statements, and to

redirect these resources to the improvement of the Department’s financial management systems, policies, and procedures.

In addition, the Inspector General would be directed to perform

only those audit procedures that are consistent with generally accepted government auditing standards for financial statements that

management has reported as unreliable. The committee expects

that the Inspector General will use the resulting savings to improve the oversight of Department of Defense management and

help the Department identify actions needed to improve financial

management policies, procedures and internal controls or to verify

that improvements in these areas have been made.

343

Senior Financial Management Oversight Council and financial feeder systems compliance process (sec. 1007)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to establish a Senior Financial Management

Oversight Council, to establish a financial and feeder systems compliance process, and to supervise and monitor the actions that are

necessary to carry out that process.

In the committee’s view, the Department of Defense must address problems with the reliability of financial and feeder systems

data and interfaces between these systems in order to ensure proper accountability and control over its physical assets, proper accounting for the costs of operations, and proper recording and reconciling of disbursements.

Section 1008 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1998 required the Department to submit to Congress biennial

financial improvement plans. Through the process of developing

these plans, the Department is finally beginning to develop a roadmap of actions necessary to address the deficiencies in its financial

and feeder systems. Although this roadmap is still far from complete, it provides an important first step toward addressing the Department’s financial management problems.

The provision recommended by the committee would build on

this progress by requiring the Department to establish an oversight

council and a management process for implementing changes identified in the congressionally-mandated financial management improvement plans.

Combating terrorism readiness initiatives fund for combatant commands (sec. 1008)

The committee recommends a provision that would codify in title

10, United States Code, the authority and specific activities to be

funded under the combating terrorism readiness initiatives fund.

The fund, which was established in fiscal year 1996, is designed to

meet emergency and emergent high-priority combating terrorism

requirements of the combatant commanders. The fund, which is

managed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was characterized by the Crouch/Gehman USS COLE Commission Report as

‘‘a responsive and relevant program.’’ The committee agrees and recommends authorizing $38.0 million for the fund, an increase of

$10.0 million over the requested amount.

SUBTITLE B—STRATEGIC FORCES

Repeal of limitation on retirement or dismantlement of strategic nuclear delivery systems (sec. 1011)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal section

1302 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

1998, which requires the United States to maintain a Strategic

Arms Reduction Treaty (START) I force structure level until

START II enters into force.

President Bush has called for substantial reductions in the number of nuclear warheads. On May 23, 2000, then-Governor Bush

said: ‘‘I will pursue the lowest possible number [of nuclear weapons] consistent with our national security. It should be possible to

344

reduce the number of American nuclear weapons significantly further than what has been already agreed to under START II without compromising our security in any way.’’

More recently, President Bush, in a speech at the National Defense University on May 1, 2001, said: ‘‘I am committed to achieving a credible deterrent with the lowest-possible number of nuclear

weapons consistent with our national security needs, including our

obligations to our allies. My goal is to move quickly to reduce nuclear forces. The United States will lead by example to achieve our

interests and the interests for peace in the world.’’

Repeal of section 1302 would allow the President to carry out

such reductions in nuclear forces and for the United States to be

a leader in reducing nuclear forces.

Bomber force structure (sec. 1012)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the

use of any funds available to the Department of Defense for fiscal

year 2002 from being used to retire, move or dismantle any B–1B

Lancer bombers until certain specified events occur.

In June 2001, the Air Force announced a plan to retire 33 B–1B

Lancer bombers and to consolidate the remaining B–1B Lancer

bombers in the active duty Air Force. This decision would remove

all B–1B Lancer bombers from the Air National Guard. Under the

plan as announced, this consolidation and retirement was to have

been completed by the end of fiscal year 2001. Subsequent to the

announcement, Congress passed the Fiscal Year 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act, prohibiting the Air Force from implementing the consolidation using fiscal year 2001 funds.

The committee is concerned that the decision to retire 33 B–1B

Lancer bombers and consolidate the remaining bombers was made

without a full analysis of the costs and benefits of all potential options for the B–1B Lancer bomber fleet. In addition, the committee

believes that any decision on the future of the B–1B Lancer bomber

fleet should be made only after larger defense strategy reviews

have been completed. As a result, the committee recommends a

provision that would prohibit the use of fiscal year 2002 funds

available to the Department of Defense from being used to implement the decision to retire or consolidate the B–1B Lancer bomber

until after the National Security Strategy has been submitted to

Congress, the Quadrennial Defense Review and the Nuclear Posture Review are completed, and the Secretary of Defense submits

to the congressional defense committees a report on the B–1B

Lancer bomber.

The report would include a review of the future roles, missions,

and makeup of the bomber force structure; a comparative cost analysis of maintaining, upgrading, basing, and operating the B–1B

Lancer bombers in the active and reserve components; and the

plans for assigning other missions to the National Guard units that

currently fly B–1B Lancer bombers.

The provision would also require the Comptroller General of the

United States to conduct a study on the same matters that would

be required in the report to be prepared by the Secretary of Defense. This report would be due on January 31, 2002.

345

The budget request did not include any funds to maintain the B–

1B Lancer bomber in the National Guard units in fiscal year 2002.

The budget request assumed the consolidation would have been

completed during the course of fiscal year 2001 and, thus, no funds

would be needed by the National Guard in fiscal year 2002 for the

B–1B Lancer. As a result of the Fiscal Year 2001 Supplemental Appropriations Act, the National Guard will continue to be responsible for the B–1s beyond the end of FY 2001. In Title III of this

bill the committee has recommended including the funds that are

necessary to allow the National Guard to maintain the B–1

through fiscal year 2002.

Additional element for revised Nuclear Posture Review (sec.

1013)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1041 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2001 by adding a new element to the nuclear posture review. In

keeping with President Bush’s desire to dealert nuclear weapons,

this provision would add deactivation or dealerting as an additional

element to the nuclear posture review.

In remarks at the National Press Club on May 23, 2000, thenGovernor Bush said: ‘‘[T]he United States should remove as many

weapons as possible from high alert, hair-trigger status, another

vestige of the Cold War confrontation. Preparation for quick launch

within minutes after a warning of an attack was the rule during

the era of superpower rivalry. But today, for two nations at peace,

keeping so many weapons on high alert may create unacceptable

risks of accidental or unauthorized launch.’’

The committee believes this provision would ensure that

dealerting and deactivation are included as elements in the upcoming nuclear posture review. The committee urges the Secretary of

Defense to ensure that all options are explored, in the context of

the nuclear posture review, that could enhance the safety and security of U.S. nuclear forces and warheads. In addition, the committee urges the Secretary to implement any such steps as soon as

possible.

SUBTITLE C—REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Information and recommendations on congressional reporting requirements applicable to the Department of Defense (sec. 1021)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the

Secretary of Defense an opportunity to address concerns about the

proliferation of recurring reporting requirements in the Department of Defense (DOD). This provision is a successor to the Federal

Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (P.L. 104–66), which

eliminated numerous reporting requirements previously imposed

on DOD and other federal agencies.

The provision recommended by the committee would require the

Secretary to compile a list of all provisions of law that require the

Department to report to Congress on a recurring basis. The list

would include the Secretary’s assessment of the continuing utility

of each report and any recommendation of the Secretary for the

346

consolidation or elimination of reports. The committee notes that

the reporting requirement contained in this section was requested

by the Department of Defense.

Report on combating terrorism (sec. 1022)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to submit a report to Congress on the Department of Defense (DOD) policies, plans and procedures for combating terrorism. The Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities held a hearing on May 1, 2001 relating to the Department’s Weapons of Mass Destruction—Civil Support Teams

(WMD–CSTs) in the aftermath of a DOD Inspector General (IG) report that revealed numerous problems with a number of aspects of

the teams. In the course of that hearing, it became apparent that

the structure, strategy, roles, relationships and responsibilities of

the various DOD entities with responsibilities relating to combating terrorism remain unclear. The committee appreciates that

the Secretary of Defense has only recently implemented a provision

of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 by designating the Assistant Secretary of Defense for

Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict (ASD/SOLIC) with

the duty to provide overall direction and supervision for policy, program planning and execution, and allocation and use of resources

for combating terrorism. The committee expects the preparation of

this report to serve as the means by which the ASD/SOLIC assists

the Secretary of Defense in addressing the various issues pertaining to combating terrorism.

Revised requirement for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff to advise Secretary of Defense on the assignment

of roles and missions to the armed forces (sec. 1023)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the requirement contained in section 153(b) of title 10, United States

Code, for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to submit a review of roles and missions of the armed forces to the Secretary of

Defense every three years. The provision would, instead, amend

section 118(e) of title 10, United States Code, to require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to include his review of roles and

missions of the armed forces in his assessment of the congressionally-mandated Quadrennial Defense Review.

Revision of deadline for annual report on commercial and

industrial activities (sec. 1024)

The committee recommends a provision that would change the

due date for the Commercial Activities Report to Congress, required by section 2461(g) of title 10, United States Code, from February 1 to June 30 of each year, as requested by the Department.

The change in the due date of the report should give the Department time to consider challenges to the previous year’s inventory

prior to compiling a new report to Congress.

347

Production and acquisition of vaccines for defense against

biological warfare agents (sec. 1025)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense, subject to the availability of authorized and

appropriated funds for such purpose, to design, construct, and operate on a military installation a government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) vaccine production facility. The provision would also

authorize the Secretary to use Department of Defense (DOD) funds

to qualify and validate the GOCO vaccine production facility in accordance with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines and

standards. Lastly, the provision would require the Secretary of Defense to develop a long-range plan for the production and acquisition of vaccines to defend against biological warfare agents and to

report to the congressional defense committees on that plan by

February 1, 2002.

The Department of Defense is considering various options for the

production of biological warfare defense vaccines to meet the Department’s current and future requirements. These options include

private sector production; a government-owned, contractor operated

(GOCO) facility; and other options.

The committee understands that, as Department officials indicated earlier this year, any new vaccine production facility will

take five to seven years to build, obtain FDA approval, and begin

production of various vaccines. The committee also notes that a significant amount of analysis and review has been conducted by both

the Department and the committee on a GOCO vaccine production

facility in particular.

Given the urgent requirement to vaccinate military personnel

against biological warfare agents, and the need to transition several newly developed vaccines from the Joint Vaccine Acquisition

Program (JVAP) to a production process in approximately three to

five years, the Department should ensure that vaccine production

facilities are available when required.

It is important that the Department prepare a plan and report

to Congress expeditiously, as required in this provision, in order to

proceed with vaccine production and acquisition efforts as soon as

practicable. The committee supports the fiscal year 2002 budget request of $3.1 million for a GOCO vaccine production facility program management office and preliminary design.

The requirement in this provision for a plan and report would

not supercede or replace previously directed requirements for developing and reporting on Department of Defense vaccine acquisition plans. The statement of managers accompanying the Floyd D.

Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (S.

Rept. 106–945) has specific reporting requirements to the congressional defense committees that would not be rescinded by this provision. The provision would require the Department to consider, in

preparing the plan and report required by this provision, the analysis and information developed to meet the requirements of section

218 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 2001 and of S. Rept. 106–945.

Should the Secretary proceed with a GOCO facility for vaccine

production, the committee directs that all applicable competitive

procedures be used in site selection and in the award of contracts

348

or other agreements to construct and operate a GOCO vaccine production facility. Cost sharing should be used to the maximum extent practicable. Lastly, the committee recommends that the Department maximize the participation of FDA officials in the planning, design, and construction of the GOCO vaccine production facility.

Extension of times for Commission on the Future of the

United States Aerospace Industry to report and to terminate (sec. 1026)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1097 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 to ensure that the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry has a full year to

carry out its work and to allow the commission 60 rather than 30

days to archive documents and complete other activities after the

submission of its final report.

SUBTITLE D—ARMED FORCES RETIREMENT HOME

Amendment of Armed Forces Retirement Home Act of 1991

(sec. 1041)

The committee recommends a revision of the Armed Forces Retirement Act of 1991 to implement changes resulting from a Department of Defense review of the management structure of the

Armed Forces Retirement Home. The recommended provisions

would change the names of the facilities to Armed Forces Retirement Home-Washington and Armed Forces Retirement Home-Gulfport, and would authorize appointment of: (1) a Chief Operating

Officer responsible for the overall operation of the Armed Forces

Retirement Home; (2) a military officer as director for each facility;

(3) a civilian with experience in running a retirement home as deputy director for each facility; and (4) a local board of trustees for

each facility to serve in an advisory capacity to the director. The

recommended provisions would establish a three-tier fee structure

and authorize a temporary reduced fee for residents of Armed

Forces Retirement Home-Gulfport until their residence is renovated.

Definitions (sec. 1042)

The committee recommends a provision that would define the

terms Retirement Home, Local Board, Armed Forces Retirement

Home Trust Fund, and Fund.

Revision of authority establishing the Armed Forces Retirement Home (sec. 1043)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish the

Armed Forces Retirement Home as an independent establishment

of the executive branch to provide residences and related services

for certain retired and former members of the armed forces. The

Retirement Home would operate two facilities, the Armed Forces

Retirement Home-Washington and the Armed Forces Retirement

Home-Gulfport. The recommended provision authorizes the Secretary of Defense to acquire property for the benefit of the RetireVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00370 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
349

ment Home, to dispose of property of the Retirement Home, and to

provide Department of Defense support to the Retirement Home on

a non-reimbursable basis.

Chief Operating Officer (sec. 1044)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to appoint a Chief Operating Officer for the

Retirement Home who would be responsible for the overall direction, operation, and management of the Armed Forces Retirement

Home and who would report to the Secretary of Defense. The recommended provision would authorize the Chief Operating Officer

to appoint a staff to assist in the administration of the Retirement

Home and to accept gifts on behalf of the home.

Residents of Retirement Home (sec. 1045)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal the requirement for a resident to reapply for acceptance as a resident

when absent from the home for more than 45 consecutive days. The

recommended provision would authorize the Chief Operating Officer to prescribe the monthly fees for the residents of the Armed

Forces Retirement Home based on the financial needs of the Retirement Home and the ability of the residents to pay. The fees would

be the same for each facility of the Retirement Home, except for

residents of the Armed Forces Retirement Home-Gulfport, who

would pay a reduced rate until the resident occupies a renovated

room.

Local boards of trustees (sec. 1046)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to appoint a local board of trustees for each

facility of the Armed Forces Retirement Home to serve in an advisory capacity to the Director of the facility and to the Chief Operating Officer.

Directors, Deputy Directors, and staff of facilities (sec. 1047)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to appoint a Director and a Deputy Director

for each facility of the Armed Forces Retirement Home. The Director of a facility would be an active duty military officer in a grade

above lieutenant colonel or commander, and would be responsible

for the day-to-day operation of the facility. The Deputy Director

would be a civilian with experience as a continuing care retirement

community professional. The recommended provision authorizes

the Director of a facility to appoint staff to assist in the operation

of the facility.

Disposition of effects of deceased persons and unclaimed

property (sec. 1048)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Director of a facility of the Armed Forces Retirement Home to designate an attorney who is a full-time officer or employee of the

United States or a member of the armed forces on active duty to

serve as attorney or agent for the facility in certain probate proceedings.

350

Transitional provisions (sec. 1049)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Armed Forces Retirement Home Board to continue to serve and

perform the duties of the Chief Operating Officer until the Secretary of Defense appoints the first Chief Operating Officer. The

recommended provision would also authorize the person serving as

the Director of the Armed Forces Retirement Home-Washington to

continue to serve as the Director of that facility until April 2, 2002,

and the persons serving as the Deputy Directors of the facilities to

serve until a Deputy Director is appointed for that facility.

Conforming and clerical amendments and repeals of obsolete provisions (sec. 1050)

The committee recommends a provision that would make conforming technical amendments to title 24, United States Code.

Amendments of other laws (sec. 1051)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 4301(2) of title 5, United States Code, to exclude the Chief Operating Officer and the Deputy Directors of the Armed Forces Retirement Home from the definition of employee for purposes of performance appraisals under chapter 43 of title 5, United States

Code. The recommended provision would amend various sections of

title 10, United States Code, to exclude general or flag officers,

while serving as Directors of facilities of the Armed Forces Retirement Home, from limitations applicable to general and flag officers

on active duty.

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Requirement to conduct certain previously authorized educational programs for children and youth (sec. 1061)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Secretary of Defense to conduct the National Guard Challenge Program and the STARBASE program.

One of the key recommendations from the Secretary of Defense’s

Defense Strategy Review is to engage the American public by expanding citizenship and community outreach programs. The committee strongly endorses this recommendation.

Two of the Department of Defense’s most effective community

outreach programs are the National Guard Challenge program and

the STARBASE program. The direct role of the military in both

programs is key to their success. These programs enhance a positive image of the armed forces as they expose youth, parents, and

teachers to the value of military service. They also serve as an entree for military recruiters seeking access to secondary schools.

Authority to ensure demilitarization of significant military

equipment formerly owned by the Department of Defense (sec. 1062)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide authority to ensure demilitarization of significant military equipment

formerly owned by the Department of Defense (DOD).

351

The possession of improperly demilitarized DOD property by individuals and business entities was the subject of a recent study

of the Defense Science Board and has raised considerable public

concern. Section 1051 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 required DOD to develop a

plan for improving the demilitarization of excess and surplus defense property and propose appropriate legislation to clarify the authority of the government to recover critical defense property that

has not been properly demilitarized. The Department complied

with this requirement and proposed legislation addressing this

issue.

The provision recommended by the committee would make it unlawful for any person to possess significant military equipment formerly owned by DOD that has not been demilitarized, without

proper authorization. Under this provision, the Secretary of Defense would be required to notify the Attorney General of potential

violations of this prohibition, and the Attorney General would be

authorized to take appropriate steps to ensure that the equipment

is demilitarized or returned.

The committee notes that military equipment would be covered

by this provision only if it is specifically designated as significant

military equipment. Public safety should be the foremost consideration in making any such designation, but the Secretary may also

take into consideration the historic or cultural significance of certain equipment. For example, the committee does not believe that

civil war cannon would or should be designated as significant military equipment. Similarly, the committee does not expect that

World War II aircraft from which all weapons systems have been

removed would or should be designated as significant military

equipment.

Conveyances of equipment and related materials loaned to

state and local governments as assistance for emergency

response to a use or threatened use of a weapon of mass

destruction (sec. 1063)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Department of Defense (DOD) to transfer to state and local authorities training equipment it has loaned to them as part of the

Domestic Preparedness Program, which was established in accordance with the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act

of 1996 (otherwise known as the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Act).

The equipment was purchased by the Department on behalf of

cities participating in the Domestic Preparedness Program. That

equipment has been permanently retained and maintained on loan

due to the legal prohibition against transferring DOD property directly to non-federal government agencies. As a result, the Department has been required to inventory, and to hold some liability for,

this equipment. In addition, local authorities have incurred the additional task of maintaining records to DOD standards. This onetime transfer will eliminate the financial cost, labor and liabilities

associated with this equipment so long as it remains DOD property.

352

Authority to pay gratuity to members of the Armed Forces

and civilian employees of the United States for slave

labor performed for Japan during World War II (sec.

1064)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay a $20,000 gratuity to a veteran

or civilian internee, or the surviving spouse of a veteran or civilian

internee, who (1) served in or with United States combat forces

during World War II, (2) was captured and held as a prisoner of

war by Japan, and (3) was required to perform slave labor for

Japan.

Retention of travel promotional items (sec. 1065)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

Federal employees of the Executive Branch, members of the foreign

service, military members, and their family members to retain for

personal use promotional items received as a result of using travel

or transportation services paid for by the Executive Branch. The

promotional items, including frequent flyer miles, upgrades, and

access to carrier clubs or facilities, could be retained if awarded

under the same conditions as offered to the general public and at

no additional cost to the government.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Comptroller General report on policies and plans regarding

the preparedness of military installations for incidents

involving weapons of mass destruction

The committee directs the Comptroller General to study and provide a report to the Congress on Department of Defense (DOD)

policies and plans to ensure the preparedness of military installations for terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction

(WMD). The report shall include an assessment of existing efforts

to improve military installation preparedness against terrorist attacks involving WMD. The report should also evaluate whether

current policies facilitate defense-wide sharing of priorities and information, and/or foster efficiencies in allocating resources.

A recent DOD study of the Installation Pilot Program (mandated

by the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001, Public Law 106–398) revealed a lack of preparedness at military installations to manage the consequences of a

WMD terrorist attack. The study demonstrated that standards, priorities and implementation schedules varied from service to service

and from installation to installation. In addition, this study and the

DOD-directed study of Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base indicated that military installations lack sufficient coordination with civilian first responders in the surrounding communities. Therefore,

the Comptroller’s report shall describe planning and training with

local community first responders and efforts to achieve military

and civil-military interoperability.

The committee directs the Comptroller General to include within

the report a description of the Department’s utilization and management of resources to carry out this critical mission. The report

should be submitted to Congress no later than March 4, 2002.

353

Department of Defense management reform initiatives

In November 1997, the Secretary of Defense initiated a set of initiatives, known as the Defense Reform Initiative (DRI), aimed at

improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department of Defense’s business operations. Major elements of the DRI included:

adopting private sector best business practices, consolidating operations, subjecting more commercial-type activities to public-private

competition, modernizing logistics operations, and improving the

acquisition process.

Earlier this year, the new Secretary of Defense announced his

own management reform program and created a Senior Executive

Committee and a Business Initiative Council to oversee the improvement of the Department’s business management practices.

The Secretary’s program appears to include a number of initiatives

that are similar to those undertaken by the last administration.

The committee believes that the reform of the Department’s business practices will not be successful without many years of sustained effort continuing through several administrations. To ensure

that valuable initiatives have not been dropped in the transition

from one administration to the next, the committee directs the Department to review each element of the DRI and make a determination by no later than March 1, 2002, which of these initiatives

should be continued and incorporated into the new management reform program.

Further, the committee directs the General Accounting Office to

review the determinations made by the Department and report to

Congress by no later than May 1, 2002, on which DRI initiatives

have been incorporated into the new management reform program

and which initiatives have been dropped.

GAO report on advanced SEAL delivery system program

The committee directs the Comptroller General to conduct a review and provide a report on the progress of the Advanced SEAL

Delivery System (ASDS) program. The program has encountered

significant technical, financial and management problems over the

past several years. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 required the Department of Defense to review this

program and consider elevating it to a higher level of acquisition

review. The Department has conducted a review and has instituted

a more rigorous oversight mechanism.

The committee recognizes the technical challenges associated

with this unique system and feels the program management team

has been making progress addressing these challenges. Nevertheless, the committee is concerned about subsequent delays and additional cost growth. To address these outstanding concerns, the committee directs the Comptroller General to report to the congressional defense committees on the ASDS program no later than

March 11, 2002. At a minimum, the report should include an assessment of the results of contractor testing concluded in September 2001, as well as the results of the overarching integrated

product team review of the ASDS program to be conducted subsequent to that testing.

354

GAO Reports on National Reconnaissance Office and National Imagery and Mapping Agency Commissions

Two important commissions, the National Commission for the

Review of the National Reconnaissance Office and the Independent

Commission on the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, reviewed the activities and performance of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and the National Mapping and Imagery Agency

(NIMA) and reported their findings and recommendations in fiscal

year 2001. Both commissions made substantive recommendations

to enhance the effectiveness of the NRO and NIMA.

The committee reviewed both reports and received testimony

from representatives of both commissions. The committee has been

generally receptive to the recommendations of both commissions.

The committee wants to fully understand how the Department of

Defense and the intelligence community are implementing the commissions’ respective recommendations.

The committee directs the Comptroller General of the United

States to conduct two studies, as follows:

(1) a study of the measures undertaken by the Secretary of

Defense, the Director of Central Intelligence, and the Director

of the NRO to implement the recommendations of the National

Commission for the Review of the NRO; and

(2) a study of the measures undertaken by the Secretary of

Defense, the Director of Central Intelligence, the Director of

the NRO, and the Director of NIMA to implement the recommendations of the Independent Commission on the NIMA.

The committee further directs that the Comptroller General submit these reports to the congressional defense and intelligence committees no later than February 15, 2002.

Military child care programs

The military Child Development Program is a model for the nation for providing high-quality, affordable child care. As demonstrated by the level of national accreditation, military programs

have achieved quality unequaled in the civilian community. Despite these achievements, little is known about the impact on the

developmental outcomes of children receiving care in these facilities.

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to carry out a

study on how military child development programs that meet accreditation standards of an appropriate national early childhood accrediting body affect the development of preschool-age children.

The study shall compare the developmental status and educational

performance of children who attended Department of Defense certified child development programs as compared to children who attended non-military child care programs. The children in the study

must be enrolled in child care for at least one year prior to school

entry and must have completed at least the first grade at the time

their developmental status is evaluated.

The Secretary should report the results of this study to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later than March 15, 2003.

355

Military spouse employment

Opportunities for spouse employment play a key role in the quality of life of military families. Many military career decisions are

influenced by the ability of the member’s spouse to find meaningful

employment.

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to examine current Department of Defense

and other federal, state, and nongovernmental programs to explore

opportunities to improve retention of military personnel by increasing employability of military spouses and assisting spouses in gaining access to financial and other assistance for job training and

education. The examination should include the feasibility and desirability of a program for direct financial assistance to military

spouses to increase their qualifications for employment.

The committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to submit a report on the results of this examination not later than March 30, 2002, to the Committees on

Armed Services of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Professional development and training of financial management personnel

The committee remains concerned about the education, technical

competence, and experience of personnel serving in financial management positions in the Department of Defense (DOD). Section

1007(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2000 required the Department to develop a financial management

competency plan to address this issue. The committee directs the

DOD Comptroller to report to the congressional defense committees

on the status of the required plan and the Department’s efforts to

enhance the professional qualifications of key financial managers

in the Department.

Reach Out and Read Program

The Reach Out and Read Program, available in 50 states, Puerto

Rico, and the District of Columbia, facilitates development of reading skills in young children. Volunteers participating in this program read to children in waiting rooms while children await pediatric check-ups, and the program provides children’s books to pediatricians, nurses, and early childhood educators to give to parents

of young children.

The committee recognizes the link between programs to improve

literacy and the quality of life of military personnel and encourages

the Department of Defense to make this program available to children through military medical treatment facilities, TRICARE contractors, child development programs and new parent support programs.

Secondary Education Transition Study

Children of military families face unique challenges in their pursuit of educational excellence. On average, these children move

every two to six years and attend schools in six different school districts between kindergarten and high school graduation. In order

to understand and address problems faced by military families with

high school age children, the Army conducted the Secondary EduVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00377 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
356

cation Transition Study. As a result of this study, nine high school

districts serving large military installations have agreed to a number of measures to address transition issues faced by military high

school students as they move from one school district to another.

These measures include improving the timely transfer of school

records; developing systems to ease student transition during the

first two weeks of enrollment; promoting practices to foster access

to extracurricular programs; establishing procedures to lessen the

adverse impact of moves from the end of junior year through the

senior year; communicating variations in school calendars and

schedules; creating and implementing professional development

systems; continuing strong, child-centered partnerships between installations and the supporting school; providing information concerning graduation requirements; and providing specialized services for students applying for funding for post-secondary study. Additionally, the Army will hire school liaison officers at Army installations to help the schools to understand and address concerns of

military families, and to help military families to understand and

comply with school policies and procedures.

The committee commends the Army for this initiative. The lessons learned from this important study apply to all military services. The committee encourages all services to examine the findings

and recommendations of this study and to work with supporting

schools to address the transition issues faced by children of military families.

(357)

TITLE XI—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN

PERSONNEL POLICY

SUBTITLE A—INTELLIGENCE PERSONNEL

Authority to increase maximum number of positions in the

Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service (sec. 1101)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to increase the number of Defense Intelligence

Senior Executive Service positions by the number of Senior Intelligence Service positions eliminated from the Cental Intelligence

Agency. The recommended provision would limit the total number

of Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service positions to 544

positions.

Continued applicability of certain civil service protections

for employees integrated into the National Imagery and

Mapping Agency from the Defense Mapping Agency (sec.

1102)

The committee recommends a provision that would clarify that

former Defense Mapping Agency personnel transferred into the National Imagery and Mapping Agency pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 retain certain civil

service protections for as long as they remain Department of Defense employees employed without a break in service in the National Imagery and Mapping Agency.

SUBTITLE B—MATTERS RELATING TO RETIREMENT

Federal employment retirement credit for non-appropriated

fund instrumentality service (sec. 1111)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize federal employees the opportunity to receive either Civil Service Retirement System or Federal Employees Retirement System credit

for prior non-appropriated fund service. Under this provision, employees who choose to receive this credit would have their Civil

Service Retirement System or Federal Employees Retirement System annuity reduced commensurate with the cost of funding the

present value of the non-appropriated fund service.

Improved portability of retirement coverage for employees

moving between civil service employment and employment by non-appropriated fund instrumentalities (sec.

1112)

The committee recommends a provision that would remove the

requirement that employees who move between non-appropriated

and appropriated fund employment systems have five or more

years of service in a system to elect to continue in the Civil Service

358

Retirement System, Federal Employees Retirement System, or

Non-appropriated Fund Retirement Systems, as applicable. The

committee recognizes that employees who render valuable federal

service in both capacities move between the two systems, sometimes not remaining in either system long enough to become vested

in a retirement program.

Repeal of fiscal year 2003 limitation on exercise of voluntary separation incentive pay authority and voluntary early retirement authority (sec. 1113)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense, during fiscal year 2003, to use voluntary separation incentives and voluntary early retirement authority for

workforce restructuring to meet mission needs, achieve strength reductions, correct skill imbalances or reduce the number of highgrade, managerial, or supervisory positions. This authority would

be limited to separation of 4,000 employees.

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Housing allowance for the chaplain for the corps of cadets

at the United States Military Academy (sec. 1121)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a

housing allowance for the chaplain for the Corps of Cadets at the

United States Military Academy.

Study of adequacy of compensation provided for teachers in

the Department of Defense overseas dependents’ schools

(sec. 1122)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Comptroller General to conduct a study and report on whether

compensation for teachers in the defense dependents’ education

program is adequate for recruiting and retaining high quality

teachers, and whether changes in the methodology for computing

teacher pay are necessary. The recommended provision requires

the Comptroller General to report conclusions and recommendations to Congress by March 1, 2002.

Pilot program for payment of retraining expenses incurred

by employers of persons involuntarily separated from

employment by the Department of Defense (sec. 1123)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize a

three-year pilot program to facilitate the reemployment of Department of Defense (DOD) employees who are involuntarily separated

because of reductions in force or transfers of functions. The recommended provision would authorize retraining incentive payments of up to $10,000 to civilian employers who agree to hire,

train, and employ the DOD employee for at least one year.

(359)

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS

SUBTITLE A—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH

STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION

Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs

and funds (sec. 1201)

The committee recommends a provision that would define the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, define the funds as

those authorized to be appropriated in section 301, and authorize

the CTR funds to be available for obligation for three fiscal years.

Funding allocations (sec. 1202)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $403.0 million, the amount included in the budget request, for the

Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs. The provision

would also establish the funding levels for each of the program elements in the CTR program and provide limited authority to vary

the amounts authorized for specific program elements.

The committee continues to support the CTR program and believes it is one of the most important national security efforts to reduce the threats posed by former Soviet Union offensive nuclear

weapons and delivery systems, weapons-usable plutonium and uranium, and chemical and biological weapons and materials.

Chemical weapons destruction (sec. 1203)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1305 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2000 to establish an annual certification process by the Secretary

of Defense that must be completed before any funds could be spent

for design and construction of a facility to destroy Russian chemical

munitions at Shchuch’ye, Russia. The budget request included $50.0 million for destruction of Russian chemical weapons. The committee recommends this amount be

included in the funds authorized for the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program in section 301.

The provision would prohibit the funds authorized in section 301

for the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program from being

obligated until the Secretary of Defense certifies that Russia has:

(1) accurately disclosed the size of its existing chemical weapons

stockpile; (2) demonstrated an annual commitment of at least $25.0

million to chemical weapons elimination; (3) developed a plan to destroy its stockpiles of nerve agents; (4) enacted a law that would

provide for the elimination of all Russian nerve agents at a single

site; (5) agreed to destroy its chemical weapons production facilities

at Volgograd and Novocheboksark; and (6) demonstrated a commitment from the international community to fund and build infrastructure needed to support and operate the facility.

360

The committee believes that destruction of the Russian chemical

munitions at Shchuch’ye is the only sure way to prevent these and

other chemical munitions from being lost or stolen. Until such time

as these munitions are destroyed, the committee will support efforts to improve the physical security of the munitions.

Russia has recently begun to demonstrate its commitment to

support chemical weapons destruction. The U.S. commitment is to

build the destruction facility itself. Russia and the international

community must plan to fund and build the infrastructure needed

to support the facility as well as operate the facility until all the

nerve agent is destroyed. It is only with this continued commitment

on the part of the Russian government and the international community that the committee believes the United States should provide funds to design and build the facility.

The committee directs the Department of Defense to include in

its annual budget request for the CTR program the financial commitment the Department expects to receive from Russia and from

the international community for the fiscal year for which the budget request is submitted.

Management of Cooperative Threat Reduction program and

funds (sec. 1204)

The committee recommends a provision that would require the

Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program to continue to be financed, managed, and implemented by the Department of Defense.

In addition, the provision would require the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) to continue in its role as the executive agent

for the CTR program.

The committee recommends this provision to ensure that responsibility for and management of the CTR program is not transferred

to any other federal agency. Nothing in this provision is intended

by the committee to interfere in any way with the current relationships that the CTR program has with other federal agencies. The

committee believes that the cooperation and coordination that has

been instituted among the CTR program and other related programs, particularly at the Department of Energy and the Department of State, is working well and should be maintained.

Additional matter in annual report on activities and assistance under the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs.

(Sec. 1205)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the

annual report on Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) to add a new

reporting requirement. The provision would direct the Secretary of

Defense to include in the report a description of the amount of the

financial commitment received, from the international community

and from Russia, for the chemical weapons destruction facility located at Shchuch’ye, Russia. The report would include a description

of the commitment received during the reporting year.

361

SUBTITLE B—OTHER MATTERS

Support of United Nations-sponsored efforts to inspect and

monitor Iraqi weapons activities (sec. 1211)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend,

through fiscal year 2002, the authority of the Department of Defense to support United Nations-sponsored inspection and monitoring efforts to ensure Iraqi compliance with its international obligations to destroy its weapons of mass destruction programs and

associated delivery systems. The provision would limit the assistance that could be provided by the Secretary of Defense to $15.0

million for fiscal year 2002.

Cooperative research and development projects with NATO

and other countries (sec. 1212)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2350 of title 10, United States Code, to expand the entities,

to include friendly foreign countries, with which the Department of

Defense is authorized to enter into cooperative research and development agreements.

International cooperative agreements on use of ranges and

other facilities for testing of defense equipment (sec.

1213)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of

State, to enter into a formal agreement with an eligible foreign

country or international organization to provide reciprocal access to

each other’s ranges and other facilities for testing of defense equipment.

Clarification of authority to furnish nuclear test monitoring

equipment to foreign governments (sec. 1214)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 1203 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization

Act for Fiscal Year 2001 to clarify that the Department of Defense

has the authority to transfer title of existing nuclear test monitoring equipment to foreign host nations, and to inspect and maintain such equipment to ensure that it continues to provide the data

needed to satisfy United States nuclear test monitoring requirements.

The committee understands that the existing section 1203 is unclear regarding the Department’s authority to transfer title for the

equipment to host nations, and that this situation is jeopardizing

existing bilateral cooperation on nuclear test monitoring with some

nations. The Department of Defense has requested a revision to the

existing section to resolve this problem.

Participation of government contractors in chemical weapons inspections at United States Government facilities

under the Chemical Weapons Convention (sec. 1215)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 303(b)(2) and section 304(c) of the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C. 6723(b)(2) and 6724(c))

362

to permit federal contractor personnel to participate in inspections

of U.S. Government facilities conducted under the Act. The provision makes clear that federal contractor personnel may participate

in such inspections only at U.S. Government facilities and only if

led by a Federal Government employee.

The committee understands that the existing sections of the Act

preclude contractor personnel from participating in such inspections to accompany inspection teams. The Department of Defense

has requested that the committee amend the Act to provide the Department with greater flexibility in providing personnel to accompany inspection teams while implementing the Act. The committee

realizes that with the downsizing of the U.S. Government, more

contractor personnel are used to support government activities and

that this process has proven to be more economical and efficient.

Consequently, the committee believes the Department should have

this flexibility to facilitate better implementation of the Act.

Authority to transfer naval vessels to certain foreign countries (sec. 1216)

The committee recommends a provision that would transfer to

various countries:

(1) on a grant basis, one Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate

and six Knox-class frigates; and

(2) on a sale basis, four Kidd-class destroyers and two Oliver

Hazard Perry-class frigates.

The provision would direct that, to the maximum extent practicable, the President shall require, as a condition of transfer, that

repair and refurbishment associated with the transfer be accomplished in a shipyard located in the United States.

The authority under this provision would expire at the end of the

two-year period that begins on the date of enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002.

(363)

TITLE XIII—CONTINGENT AUTHORIZATION OF

APPROPRIATIONS

Authorization of appropriations contingent on increased allocation of new budget authority (sec. 1301)

The committee recommends a provision that would make the authorization of specified amounts contingent upon the availability of

funds in accordance with the requirements of the congressional

budget process.

Section 217 of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2002, H.Con.Res. 83, provides that:

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), if the President submits a budget amendment and the Committee on

Appropriations or the Committee on Armed Services of the

Senate reports a bill, or an amendment thereto is offered,

or a conference report thereon is submitted, that provides

additional resources for defense spending in response to

the recommendations of the President’s National Defense

Review, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget

may increase the allocation of new budget authority and

outlays to that committee for fiscal year 2002 by the

amount of new budget authority (and the outlays resulting

therefrom) provided by that measure for that purpose.

(b) SURPLUS.—Legislation described in subsection (a)

may not, when taken together with all other previously-enacted legislation (except for legislation enacted pursuant to

section 211), reduce the on-budget surplus below the level

of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund surplus in

any fiscal year covered by this resolution.

On June 27, 2001, the President submitted a budget amendment,

in accordance with the requirements of section 217(a), that would

increase the amount available for the Department of Defense by

$18.4 billion over the amount for the National Defense function in

the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2002.

However, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget has not

determined whether this amount can be made available consistent

with the requirements of section 217(b), and has not made an allocation of new budget authority for defense spending.

The amounts authorized in this bill include the $18.4 billion increase recommended by the President. The committee recognizes,

however, that some or all of this amount may not be available. For

this reason, the provision recommended by the committee would

make the authorization of certain funds contingent upon either: (1)

an allocation by the chairman of the Committee on the Budget in

accordance with the requirements of section 217; or (2) a vote to

waive the point of order under the Congressional Budget and ImVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00385 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
364

poundment Control Act of 1974 and make additional amounts

available, notwithstanding the requirements of section 217.

The provision would also specify that if an amount less than $18.4 billion is made available, the reduction shall be distributed

on a proportionate basis across the specified budget accounts.

Reductions (sec. 1302)

Section 1301 of the bill would make the authorization of $15.2

billion contingent upon the availability of funds in accordance with

the requirements of the congressional budget process. The provision recommended by the committee would specify the amounts of

funds that are made contingent.

The amounts and accounts specified are those that were identified by the President in his June 27, 2001 budget amendment. As

outlined by the Department of Defense, these amounts include $1.6

billion for base operations support; $1.3 billion for flying hours;

$2.6 billion for depot maintenance, spares, range and training center modernization, and force protection; $2.6 billion for facility construction and repair, and utilities; $850.0 million for the National

Foreign Intelligence Program; $3.6 billion for command and control

systems, information operations systems, airlift spares and aircraft,

ships, and experimentation; and $600.0 million for missile defense. Amounts provided for military pay ($2.0 billion) would not be

made contingent because the committee believes that providing fair

compensation to our men and women in uniform must be our first

priority. Amounts provided for military health care ($1.6 billion)

would not be made contingent because these amounts are necessary to meet the requirements of Title VII of the Floyd D. Spence

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001.

Reference to Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2002 (sec. 1303)

The committee recommends a provision providing a proper reference for the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year

2002, for the purpose of sections making reference to such Concurrent Resolution.

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

AUTHORIZATIONS

Explanation of funding table

Division B of this Act authorizes funding for military construction projects of the Department of Defense. It includes funding authorizations for the construction and operation of military family

housing and military construction for the reserve components, the

defense agencies, and the NATO Security Investment program. It

also provides authorization for the base closure account that funds

environmental cleanup and other activities associated with the implementation of previous base closure rounds.

The following tables provide the project-level authorizations for

the military construction funding authorized in Division B of this

Act and summarize that funding by account. The tables also display the funding requested by the administration in the fiscal year

2002 budget amendment for military construction and family housing projects.

(365)

TITLE XXI—ARMY

SUMMARY

The Army requested authorization of $1,760,541,000 for military

construction and $1,400,533,000 for family housing for fiscal year

2002. The committee recommends authorization of $1,635,341,000

for military construction and $1,422,843,000 for family housing for

fiscal year 2002.

The amounts authorized for military construction and family

housing reflect a reduction of $3.3 million to be achieved from savings in the foreign currency account. This reduction shall not cancel any military construction authorized by title XXI of this bill.

Authorized Army construction and land acquisition projects

(sec. 2101)

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.

Family housing (sec. 2102)

This section would authorize new construction and planning and

design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 2002.

Improvement to military family housing units (sec. 2103)

This section would authorize improvements to existing family

housing units for fiscal year 2002.

Authorization of appropriations, Army (sec. 2104)

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.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year

2001 projects (sec. 2105)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (division B of Public Law 106–398) to increase the total project authorizations for the following projects by the following amounts: $4.4

million for a basic training barracks project at Fort Leonard Wood,

Missouri; $3.0 million for a battle simulation center at Fort Drum,

New York; and $3.0 million for a digital training range at Fort

Hood, Texas.

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

(385)

TITLE XXII—NAVY

SUMMARY

The Navy requested authorization of $1,071,408,000 for military

construction and $1,222,495,000 for family housing for fiscal year

2002. The committee recommends authorization of $1,146,948,000

for military construction and $1,230,686,000 for family housing for

fiscal year 2002.

The amounts authorized for military construction and family

housing reflect a reduction of $700,000 to be achieved from savings

in the foreign currency account. This reduction shall not cancel any

military construction authorized by title XXII of this bill.

Authorized Navy construction and land acquisition projects

(sec. 2201)

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.

Family housing (sec. 2202)

This section would authorize new construction and planning and

design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 2002.

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2203)

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of

family housing for fiscal year 2002.

Authorization of appropriations, Navy (sec. 2204)

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.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year

2001 project (sec. 2205)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2201(a) of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal Year 2001

(division B of Public Law 106–398; 114 Stat. 1654A–395) to correct

the funding authorization for the Naval Shipyard, Bremerton,

Puget Sound, Washington, from $100,740,000 to $98,740,000, and

for Naval Station, Bremerton, Washington, from $11,930,000 to

$1,930,000. The provision would also correct the total funding authorized for construction projects inside the United States from

$811,497,000 to $799,497,000.

386

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year

2000 project (sec. 2206)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (division B of Public Law 106–65) to increase the total project authorization for the headquarters facility for the Commander in Chief of

the Pacific Fleet at Camp Smith, Hawaii by $3.0 million.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Planning and design, Navy

The committee directs that of the amount authorized for appropriation for Navy planning and design, not more than the amount

indicated for each respective project be directed toward the design

of the following projects: $1,450,000 for an Aircraft Prototype Facility at Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Maryland; and $1,790,000

for a National Security Research Center at the Naval War College,

Newport, Rhode Island.

Unspecified minor construction, Navy

The committee authorizes the Secretary of the Navy, using funds

authorized for unspecified minor construction, to construct a fire

station at the Naval Computer Telecommunications Area, Master

Station, Cutler, Maine.

(387)

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE

SUMMARY

The Air Force requested authorization of $1,068,250,000 for military construction and $1,387,358,000 for family housing for fiscal

year 2002. The committee recommends authorization of

$1,168,289,000 for military construction and $1,411,502,000 for

family housing for fiscal year 2002.

The amounts authorized for military construction and family

housing reflect a reduction of $3.3 million to be achieved from savings in the foreign currency account. This reduction shall not cancel any military construction authorized by title XXIII of this bill.

Authorized Air Force construction and land acquisition

projects (sec. 2301)

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.

Family housing (sec. 2302)

This section would authorize new construction and planning and

design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal year

2002.

Improvements to military family housing units (sec. 2303)

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of

family housing for fiscal year 2002.

The amounts authorized include $18.0 million for the improvement of 164 housing units at Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri

and $4.5 million for the improvement of housing units at Hunley

Park at Charleston Air Force Base, South Carolina.

Authorization of appropriations, Air Force (sec. 2304)

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.

Modification of authority to carry out fiscal year 2001

project (sec. 2305)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2302(a) of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal Year 2001

(division B of Public Law 106–398; 114 Stat. 1654A–400) to correct

the number of family housing units authorized for construction at

Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho, from 119 units to 46 units.

388

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Planning and design, Air Force

The committee directs that of the amount authorized for appropriation for Air Force planning and design for military construction, not more than the amount indicated for each respective

project be directed toward the design of the following projects:

$1,250,000 for a Corrosion Control Paint Facility at Robins Air

Force Base, Georgia; $490,000 for a replacement Fire/Crash Rescue

Station at Seymour-Johnson Air Force Base, North Carolina; and

$1,500,000 for a Depot Maintenance Hangar at Hill Air Force Base,

Utah.

The committee directs that of the amount authorized for appropriation for planning and design for family housing, not more than

the $870,000 be directed toward the design of phase 4A of the replacement of family housing at Mountain Home Air Force Base,

Idaho.

(389)

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES

SUMMARY

The Defense Agencies requested authorization of $694,558,000

for military construction and $46,012,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends authorization of

$859,744,000 for military construction and $46,012,000 for family

housing or fiscal year 2002.

The amounts authorized for military construction and family

housing reflect a reduction of $1.7 million to be achieved from savings in the foreign currency account. This reduction shall not cancel any military construction authorized by title XXIV of this bill.

The committee reiterates its position that while the Army serves

as the executive agent for chemical munitions destruction within

the Department of Defense, the responsibility for chemical demilitarization rests with the Department of Defense as a whole. The

committee has authorized military construction funding for fiscal

year 2002 chemical demilitarization projects requested in the

Army’s military construction budget in this account. The committee

directs the Department of Defense to include funding for this mission in the Defense-Wide category rather than in the budget of the

Department of the Army in future budget submissions.

Authorized Defense Agency construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2401)

This section contains the list of authorized Defense Agency 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.

Energy conservation projects (sec. 2402)

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry

out energy conservation projects.

Authorization of appropriations, Defense Agencies (sec.

2403)

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each Defense Agency military construction program for fiscal year 2002.

This section also would provide an overall limit on the amount that

may be spent on such military construction projects.

The committee bill would authorize an additional $60.0 million

for cleanup of former Department of the Navy facilities closed by

previous base realignment and closure rounds. The committee is

disappointed that the Navy budget did not include sufficient funding to fund the agreements the Navy has reached with local redevelopment authorities for the cleanup of these properties and exVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00411 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
390

pects the Navy to fully fund its obligations in this respect in the

future.

Cancellation of authority to carry out certain fiscal year

2001 projects (sec. 2404)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (division B of Public Law 106–398) to cancel the project authorizations

for four TRICARE Management Agency medical/dental clinic and

support facility projects at Camp Pendleton, California since the

funds authorized in fiscal year 2001 were used for payment of a

claim related to the construction of the Portsmouth Naval Hospital,

Virginia. These projects would be authorized for fiscal year 2002 in

section 2403 of this Act.

Cancellation of authority to carry out certain fiscal year

2001 project (sec. 2405)

The committee recommends a provision that would reduce the

fiscal year 2001 project authorization and the authorization of appropriations for military construction for a national missile defense

system by $55.0 million to reflect the administration’s proposal in

the fiscal year 2002 budget to build any facilities related to ballistic

missile defenses with research and development funds rather than

military construction funds. The committee notes that $20.0 million of the original appropriation has already been reprogrammed into planning and design

funds, and another $9.0 million has been proposed for site preparation work. The committee also notes the testimony before the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support by the Deputy

Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment) that

there were ‘‘no plans at the moment for the so-called remainder’’ of the funds.

Therefore, the committee recommends that these funds be used

for more pressing military construction needs and deletes the unused balance of this authorization without prejudice.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year

2000 projects (sec. 2406)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (division B of Public Law 106–65) to increase the project authorization

for a chemical demilitarization facility at Blue Grass Army Depot,

Kentucky by $47.2 million and the authorization for a hospital at

Fort Wainwright, Alaska by $82 million.

The provision would also cancel the project authorizations for an

aircrew water survival training facility at Whidbey Island Naval

Air Station, Washington since the funds authorized in fiscal year

2000 were used for payment of a claim related to the construction

of the Portsmouth Naval Hospital, Virginia. This project would be

authorized for fiscal year 2002 in section 2403 of this Act.

The committee notes that the increase in the cost of the hospital

at Fort Wainwright, Alaska represents a cost increase of over 60

percent from the amount authorized in fiscal year 2000. The committee urges the TRICARE Management Agency and the Army

391

Corps of Engineers to review their cost estimating and contracting

procedures so that such excessive cost increases will be not be required for similar projects in the future.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year

1999 projects (sec. 2407)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the

Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (division B of Public Law 105–261) to increase the project authorization

for a chemical demilitarization facility at Aberdeen Proving

Ground, Maryland by $37.6 million.

Modification of authority to carry out certain fiscal year

1995 project (sec. 2408)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the

table in section 2401 of the Military Construction Authorization Act

for Fiscal Year 1995 (division B of Public Law 103–337; 108 Stat.

3040), as amended, to increase the funding for Chemical Weapons

and Munitions Destruction related to Pine Bluff, Arkansas, by

$23.0 million.

(393)

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION

SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM

SUMMARY

The Department of Defense requested authorization of

$162,600,00 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends an authorization of $162,600,000 for fiscal year 2002.

Authorized NATO construction and land acquisition

projects (sec. 2501)

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to make

contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)

Security Investment Program in an amount equal to the sum of the

amount specifically authorized in section 2502 of this title and the

amount of recoupment due to the United States for construction

previously financed by the United States.

Authorization of appropriations, NATO (sec. 2502)

This section would authorize appropriations of $162,600,000 for

the United States contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Security Investment Program for fiscal year 2002.

(395)

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES

SUMMARY

The Department of Defense requested a military construction authorization of $615,238,000 for fiscal year 2002 for National Guard

and Reserve facilities. The committee recommends authorizations

for fiscal year 2002 of $791,249,000 to be distributed as follows:

Army National Guard ............................................................................ $365,240,000

Air National Guard ................................................................................ 227,232,000

Army Reserve ......................................................................................... 111,404,000

Air Force Reserve .................................................................................. 53,732,000

Naval and Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................ 33,641,000

Total ............................................................................................. 791,249,000

Authorized Guard and Reserve construction and land acquisition projects (sec. 2601)

This section would authorize appropriations for military construction for the National 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.

The committee directs that of the amount authorized for appropriation for planning and design for the Air National Guard, not

more than $280,000 be directed toward the design of a replacement

for the Vehicle Maintenance Complex at Mansfield-Lahm Airport,

Mansfield, Ohio.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Report on requirement for Regional Training Institute

The committee understands that the Army plans to construct a

Regional Training Institute (RTI), part of the Total Army School

System (TASS), at Camp Rowland in Niantic, Connecticut. The

committee further understands that the Chief of Staff of the Army

has directed that Camp Rowland be the Northeast training facility

for active, National Guard, and Reserve units in eight states. The

committee understands that Camp Rowland would require upgrades to its infrastructure, educational, administrative, and

billeting facilities, which are World War II vintage, in order to

meet this expanded mission. The committee directs the Secretary

of the Army to review the requirement for construction of a Northeast Regional Training Institute and to report to the Committee on

the Army’s plan for construction of this facility not later than

March 1, 2002.

(397)

TITLE XXVII—EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF

AUTHORIZATIONS

Expiration of authorizations and amounts required to be

specified by law (sec. 2701)

This section would provide that authorizations for military construction projects, repair of real property, land acquisition, family

housing projects, contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization infrastructure program, and National Guard and Reserve

military construction 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 projects for which appropriated funds have been obligated before October 1, 2004 or the

date of enactment of an Act authorizing funding for military construction for fiscal year 2005, whichever is later.

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1999

projects (sec. 2702)

This section would extend the authorizations for certain fiscal

year 1999 military construction projects until October 1, 2002, or

the date of enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2003, whichever is later.

Extension of authorizations of certain fiscal year 1998

projects (sec. 2703)

This section would extend the authorizations for certain fiscal

year 1998 military construction projects until October 1, 2002, or

the date of enactment of an Act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2003, whichever is later.

Effective date (sec. 2704)

This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV,

XXV, and XXVI of this Act shall take effect on October 1, 2001, or

the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is later.

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS

SUBTITLE A—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND

MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING CHANGES

Increase in thresholds for certain unspecified minor military construction projects (sec. 2801)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend sec- tion 2805 of title 10, United States Code to increase from $500,000

to $750,000 the cost of an unspecified minor construction project requiring approval by the Secretary concerned. The provision would

further amend section 2805 to increase the amount the Secretary

398

concerned may spend from appropriated operations and maintenance amounts for projects intended to correct deficiencies that are

a threat to life, health, or safety from $1.0 million to $1.5 million

and for other unspecified minor construction projects from $500,000

to $750,000.

Unforseen environmental hazard remediation as basis for

authorized cost variations for military construction and

family housing construction projects (sec. 2802)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 2853 of title 10, United States Code, to exclude the cost associated with unforseen environmental hazard remediation from the

limitation on cost increases in military construction projects. Costs

that could be excluded would include asbestos removal, radon

abatement, lead-based paint removal or abatement, and any other

legislated environmental hazard remediation that could not be reasonably anticipated at the time the funding for the project was approved by the Congress.

Repeal of requirement for annual reports to Congress on

military construction and military family housing activities (sec. 2803)

The committee recommends a provision that would repeal a statutory requirement for an annual report to Congress on the status

of military construction and family housing projects and trends in

the funding for various aspects of military construction.

Authority available for lease of property and facilities

under alternative authority for acquisition and improvement of military housing (sec. 2804)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the

authorities for lease or conveyance of property in connection with

military family housing privatization to allow the military departments to use the authorities contained in section 2667 of title 10,

United States Code. This provision would provide additional flexibility for the military departments to make use of the value of assets at one installation at privatization projects at other installations.

Funds for housing allowances of members assigned to military family housing under alternative authority for acquisition and improvement of military housing (sec.

2805)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense, to the extent provided in advance in appropriations acts, during the year in which a contract is awarded for

a family housing privatization project, to reimburse the Military

Personnel appropriations account from the Family Housing Maintenance and Operations appropriations the amounts necessary to offset the additional cost of housing allowances that would be paid as

a result of a housing privatization project. The provision would also

make certain technical changes.

399

SUBTITLE B—REAL PROPERTY AND FACILITIES

ADMINISTRATION

Availability of proceeds from sales of Department of Defense property when the installation where the property

sold is closed (sec. 2811)

The committee recommends a provision that would increase from

50 percent to 100 percent the share of the proceeds from the sale

of surplus Department of Defense property at closed installations

that may be used for infrastructure maintenance and environmental restoration at other installations within the service that operated the closed installation.

Pilot efficient facilities initiative (sec. 2812)

On August 3, 2001 the Department of Defense submitted its Efficient Facilities Initiative (EFI) legislative proposal to the Congress.

The bulk of that proposal concerned authorization of an additional

round of base realignment and closure in 2003, which has been addressed separately. The Department’s EFI proposal also requested

permanent authority to waive a number of property management

and other legislative restrictions at any military installation.

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Defense to carry out a pilot program to determine the

potential for increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the operation of military installations. The pilot program would terminate

four years after the date of enactment of this Act.

The provision would permit the Secretary to designate up to two

installations in each military department as participants in the efficient facilities initiative. The Secretary would be required to develop a management plan to carry out the initiative at each designated installation and submit that plan to the Congress. The Secretary would be required to identify any statutes he proposes to

waive under this authority. Such waivers would have to be enacted

into law in subsequent legislation before they would take effect.

Funds received by the military departments pursuant to this authority would be deposited in an Installation Efficiency Project

Fund, which could be used to manage capital assets and provide

support services at installations participating in the initiative.

Demonstration program on reduction in long-term facility

maintenance costs (sec. 2813)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of the Army to enter into no more than three contracts

in any fiscal year that would require the contractor to maintain a

facility constructed for the Army for up to the first five years of operation of that facility and would include any costs for the performance of such maintenance in the cost of construction of the project.

The demonstration program would be authorized for fiscal years

2002 through 2006.

400

SUBTITLE C—LAND CONVEYANCES

Land conveyance, Engineer Proving Ground, Fort Belvoir,

Virginia (sec. 2821)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of the Army to convey to the Commonwealth of Virginia

11.45 acres located at the Engineer Proving Ground, Fort Belvoir,

Virginia for the purpose of constructing a portion of Interstate

Highway 95 through the Engineer Proving Ground and 170 acres

for the purpose of constructing a portion of the Fairfax County

Parkway through the Engineer Proving Ground. The Commonwealth of Virginia would agree to design and construct that portion

of the Fairfax County Parkway through the Engineer Proving

Ground; design, for eventual construction, the necessary access into

the Engineer Proving Ground; provide utility permits; and provide

funding to replace an existing building located on the property to

be conveyed.

Modification of authority for conveyance of Naval Computer

and Telecommunications Station, Cutler, Maine (sec.

2822)

This section would make certain technical corrections to section

2853(a) of the Military Construction Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (division B of Public Law 106–398: 114 Stat. 1654A) to clarify that all

or part of the specified property may be conveyed.

Land transfer and conveyance, Naval Security Group Activity, Winter Harbor, Maine (sec. 2823)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of the Navy to transfer administrative jurisdiction of a

parcel of real property consisting of approximately 26 acres located

at the former facilities of the National Security Group Activity,

Winter Harbor Maine, Hancock County, Maine, to the Secretary of

the Interior. The transfer would be concurrent with the reversion

of approximately 71 acres from the Secretary of Navy to the Secretary of Interior as authorized by Public Law 80–260 (61 Stat.

519) and to be executed on or about June 30, 2002.

The provision would also authorize the Secretary of the Navy to

convey for public benefit purposes, 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 a parcel of real

property, including improvements, consisting of approximately 485

acres and comprising the former facilities of the National Security

Group Activity, Winter Harbor Maine, Hancock County, Maine.

The Secretary would be authorized to transfer, without consideration, any or all personal property associated with the parcels

transferred or conveyed. The Secretary of the Navy would be required to maintain the property at current standards until the conveyance of the property or September 30, 2003, whichever is earlier. Until the conveyance of the property is executed, the Secretary

of the Navy may lease all or part of the property, at a price determined by the Secretary, to any person or entity the Secretary determines as appropriate. The amount of rent would be determined

by the Secretary. The Secretary would credit any amount received

401

for a lease of real property to the appropriate account providing

funds for the operations and maintenance of the property or for

procurement of utility. The provision would authorize the Secretary

of the Navy to seek reimbursement from the recipient of the property of the costs incurred for any studies, assessments or analysis

related to the conveyance of the property.

Conveyance of segment of Loring Petroleum Pipeline, Maine

and related easements (sec. 2824)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of the Air Force to convey, without consideration, to the

Loring Development Authority, Maine, a segment of the Loring Petroleum Pipeline, Maine, and related easements, consisting of approximately 27 miles and running between the Searsport, Maine,

terminal and Bangor Air National Guard Base, Maine. The provision would require the Loring Development Authority to reimburse

the Secretary for any environmental assessment, study, analysis or

other expenses incurred for the conveyance.

Land conveyance, petroleum terminal serving former

Loring Air Force Base and Bangor Air National Guard

Base, Maine (sec. 2825)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of the Air Force to convey to the Maine Port Authority

of the State of Maine the Petroleum Terminal at Mack Point,

Searsport, Maine. The conveyance may include a parcel of real

property consisting of approximately 20 acres and comprising a

portion of the Petroleum Terminal and any additional fuel tanks,

other improvements, and equipment located at the 43–acre parcel

located adjacent to the Petroleum Terminal and currently leased by

the Secretary. The Secretary would not be authorized to convey the

property unless the Authority agrees to use the property solely for

economic development.

As consideration the Authority shall lease at no cost for a period

of no more than 25 years approximately one acre, including improvements, that constitutes the Aerospace Fuels Laboratory. As

part of the lease, the Authority shall maintain around the real

property a zone free of improvements or encumbrances. The provision would prelude the Secretary from conveying the property until

the lease on the 43–acres leased by the Secretary expires and until

the Secretary completes any environmental remediation required

by law. The provision would also require the Authority to reimburse the Secretary for the costs incurred by the Secretary for any

environmental assessment, study, or analysis, or for any other expense incurred by the Secretary for the conveyance.

Land conveyance, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant,

Toledo, Ohio (sec. 2826)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of the Navy to convey, without consideration, to the Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority, Ohio a parcel of real property

consisting of approximately 29 acres comprising the Naval Industrial Reserve Plant, Toledo, Ohio. The Secretary would be authorized to convey such facilities, equipment, fixtures and other perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00423 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
402

sonal property located or based on the parcel that the Secretary

considers excess to the Navy. Until such time as the real property

is conveyed, the Secretary would be authorized to lease the property to the Port Authority in exchange for security, fire protection

and maintenance services.

The provision would require as conditions of conveyance that the

Port Authority accept all property in the condition at the time of

conveyance or lease and that the property be used for economic development. The Port Authority would be authorized to sublease the

facility subject to prior approval of the Secretary. The provision

would require the Port Authority to reimburse the Secretary for

any environmental assessment, study, analysis or other expense incurred for the lease or conveyance.

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Development of United States Army Heritage and Education

Center at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania (sec. 2841)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of the Army to enter into a partnership with the Military

Heritage Foundation for the design, construction and operation of

a US Army Heritage and Education Center at Carlisle Barracks,

Pennsylvania. The facility would provide research facilities, classrooms, offices and associated activities for the study and storage of

artifacts. The Secretary would be authorized to accept funds from

the Heritage Foundation for the design and construction of the US

Army Heritage and Education Center. The facility would become

the property of the Department of the Army upon the satisfaction

of any and all financial obligations incurred by the Military Heritage Foundation. The provision would also authorize the Commandant of the US Army War College, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, to accept gifts for the benefit of the

United State Army Heritage and Education Center.

Limitation on availability of funds for renovation of the

Pentagon Reservation (sec. 2842)

The committee is concerned that plans for security modifications

to offices for senior Department of Defense officials have been

changed, without adequate notification to the Congress, in ways

that may reduce the security benefits originally intended when the

Congress approved an increase in the ceiling on Pentagon renovation funding for these modifications. Therefore, the committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the obligation of funds for

secure secretarial offices and support facilities in the Pentagon

until the Secretary of Defense certifies that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency has certified that such new offices and facilities

would meet applicable force protection requirements.

Naming of Patricia C. Lamar Army National Guard Readiness Center, Oxford, Mississippi (sec. 2843)

The committee recommends a provision that would name the Oxford Army National Guard Readiness Center as the Patricia C.

Lamar Army National Guard Readiness Center.

403

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Competition in military housing privatization

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense has

not taken sufficient steps to ensure competition in the award of

contracts for housing privatization. The committee believes that

qualified firms of all sizes, both local and national, should have an

opportunity to participate in this program in order to achieve the

full benefits of competition. Department of Defense notification procedures for housing privatization solicitations should advance this

objective. In accordance with the requirements of section

15.305(a)(2)(ii) of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, any evaluation of past performance conducted in the evaluation of proposals

should consider performance history on relevant contracts with private entities as well as Federal, State, and local government entities.

The committee directs the Department of Defense to review its

procedures to ensure that solicitations for housing privatization

projects allow full and open competition in all stages of the process.

Military unaccompanied housing privatization

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has placed

high priority on improving housing for unaccompanied military personnel. Although the committee strongly supports this effort, the

committee is concerned that the Department has not utilized the

authorities to privatize military unaccompanied housing provided

in subchapter IV of Title 10, United States Code. The committee

urges the Secretary of Defense to consider use of this authority as

a cost saving alternative to military construction in his effort to improve unaccompanied housing.

Land acquisition moratorium

In 1990, the Deputy Secretary of Defense imposed a moratorium

on the acquisition of land by the military departments. Under this

policy, any land acquisition involving more than 1000 acres or costing over $1.0 million requires the prior approval of the Office of the

Secretary of Defense.

The committee understands and supports the rationale behind

this policy, which is to ensure that in an era of downsizing of defense infrastructure, that the military departments should not acquire more property unless there is a demonstrated need.

However, in recent years the committee and the Department of

Defense have become more concerned about the actual and potential conflicts between military training requirements and the restrictions imposed by the civilian populations around military installations. One approach to reducing such conflicts may be for the

military departments to acquire additional land either as training

areas, or as buffer zones to separate training areas from the surrounding population and provide additional flexibility in meeting

environmental requirements or providing habitat for listed species.

The current moratorium appears to inhibit the military departments from acting in a timely fashion to seize such opportunities.

The committee urges the Secretary of Defense to review whether

changes in the current land acquisition policy could address some

404

of the concerns being studied in the review of ‘‘encroachment’’ issues being conducted by the Senior Readiness Oversight Council.

Review of need for military land withdrawals in Nevada

The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to review the

use of all lands currently withdrawn from public use as military

training ranges and for all airspace in the military operating area

or otherwise designated as restricted for military training associated with these ranges at Naval Air Station Fallon, Nevada and

submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate

and the House of Representatives not later than June 30, 2002.

The Secretary is directed to identify any land or airspace no longer

needed for military use in that report.

The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to review

the use of all lands currently withdrawn from public use as ranges

for military training purposes and for all airspace in the military

operating area or otherwise designated as restricted for military

training associated with these ranges at Nellis Air Force Base in

Nevada and submit a report to the Committees on Armed Services

of the Senate and the House of Representatives not later than June

30, 2002. The Secretary is directed to identify in that report any

land or airspace no longer needed for military use in that report.

(405)

TITLE XXIX—DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND

REALIGNMENT

SUBTITLE A—MODIFICATIONS OF 1990 BASE CLOSURE

LAW

Modifications of 1990 base closure law (secs. 2901–2904)

On February 27, 2001, a bill (S. 397) was introduced in the Senate and referred to the committee which would authorize two additional base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds in 2003 and

2005 under the terms of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (the 1990 Act), which set the terms for the 1991,

1993 and 1995 base realignment and closure rounds. This legislation also contained several changes to the procedures in the 1990

Act, including a prohibition on privatization in place of closed or realigned facilities unless it was specifically recommended by the

base closure commission and determined to be the most cost-effective option and a requirement that any selection criteria relating

to the cost or savings of proposed closures take into account the impact of the closure on other federal agency operations on that installation.

On August 3, 2001, the administration submitted a legislative

proposal to the Congress that would authorize an additional round

of base closures in 2003. This was the fifth consecutive year the

Department of Defense (DOD) has requested additional base closure authority from the Congress. The administration proposal also

contained changes to the procedures of the 1990 law, including an

increase in the number of commissioners, language placing the emphasis on military value that has been used as the selection criteria in previous rounds in the BRAC statute, new language allowing the DOD to pay the difference to the recipient if the estimated

cost to the recipient to clean up a BRAC site exceeds the value of

the property, and language extending the scope of the BRAC process to non-DOD facilities that support DOD missions or installations.

The committee believes the arguments for allowing the closure of

additional military facilities are clear and compelling: DOD has excess facilities, closing bases saves money, and the military services

have higher priority uses that could be funded with those savings.

The savings from BRAC are significant. The General Accounting

Office reported in August 2001 that ‘‘audits of BRAC financial

records have shown that BRAC has enabled DOD to save billions

of dollars.’’ According to the Department of Defense, previous base closure rounds are already saving $6.0 billion each and every year.

The authorization of an additional round of base realignment and

closure is an essential element of reshaping our military. The committee believes that giving the Secretary of Defense the authority

to recommend and implement changes to reshape our base strucVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00427 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
406

ture will not only free up funds to be applied to modernization and

other higher priority needs, but that it is essential to the implementation of the Quadrennial Defense Review and the successful

transformation of our military to meet the threats of the future.

Therefore the committee recommends a series of provisions incorporating elements of both S. 397 and the administration proposal

that would extend and amend the 1990 Act to authorize an additional round of base realignment and closure in 2003. The committee did not agree to expand the scope of the BRAC law to nonDOD facilities.

Section 2901 would extend the authorities of the 1990 Act, which

expired after the 1995 round, to authorize a new BRAC round in

2003.

Section 2902 would establish a separate account to track the

costs and savings of the 2003 round.

Section 2903 would make substantive changes in the 1990 Act

that would apply to the 2003 round. This provision would increase

the number of commissioners from eight to nine; require that the

selection criteria emphasize military value; require that any selection criteria relating to the cost or savings of proposed closures

take into account the impact of the closure on other federal agency

operations on that installation; require the Secretary of Defense to

review every type of installation and to take into account the anticipated need for and availability of overseas installations in the

future; and require the Secretary to consider any notice from a

local government that the government would approve of the closure

of a neighboring installation.

This section would also give the commission an additional 24

hours to provide information received from certain individuals to

the Congress; require that the Secretary of Defense be given an opportunity to testify before the commission on changes made by the

commission to the Secretary’s recommendations; prohibit privatization in place of closed or realigned facilities unless it was specifically recommended by the base closure commission and determined

to be the most cost-effective option; allow payment to a local redevelopment authority for services provided on property leased back

by the United States; and allow the DOD to pay the difference to

the recipient if the estimated cost to the recipient to clean up a

BRAC site exceeds the value of the property.

Section 2904 would make technical and clarifying changes to the

1990 Act.

The committee notes the increasing limitations certain constraints are placing on training and operations at military installations nationwide. Such constraints include endangered species, critical habitats, the marine environment, airspace management, air

pollution, and noise pollution. The committee understands, for example, that virtually every major U.S. military installation has had

to reconcile its mission with these constraints. Fully consistent

with the proposal to authorize base realignment and closures included in this title, the committee encourages the Secretary, when

composing selection criteria, to consider the absence of significant

encroachment issues.

In authorizing this round of base realignment and closures, the

committee is not endorsing any specific target for a percentage reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00428 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
407

duction in excess capacity to be achieved from this round, and does

not expect the Department of Defense or commission recommendations to be designed to achieve any predetermined target. Reductions should be based on the force structure plan that is submitted

in accordance with the requirements of this legislation.

SUBTITLE B—MODIFICATION OF 1988 BASE CLOSURE

LAW

Modification of 1988 base closure law (sec. 2911)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend the

1988 base closure authorities to allow payment to a local redevelopment authority for services provided on property leased back by the

United States.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Economic development conveyances

Section 2821 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2000 authorized the military departments to transfer base

closure properties for economic development purposes at less than

fair market value, to include conveyance of such property without

consideration. When the Department of Defense requested this legislative change, its stated intent was to apply stringent criteria to

this new authority. This new authority was also intended to induce

communities to accept conveyance of such property earlier. Since

enactment of this authority, every conveyance of base closure property has been at no cost to the recipient. The committee urges the

Department of Defense to review their procedures in this area and

ensure that conveyances for economic development at less than fair

market value, in particular those to be conveyed at no cost, merit

such treatment in each case. The committee also urges the Department of Defense to review the desirability of linking the discounting of such properties below fair market value to the speed

with which the community accepts the property.

(409)

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL

SECURITY PROGRAMS

Atomic Energy Defense Activities

Title XXXI authorizes appropriations for the atomic energy defense activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2002,

including: the purchase, construction, and acquisition of plant and

capital equipment; research and development; nuclear weapons;

naval nuclear propulsion; environmental restoration and waste

management; operating expenses; and other expenses necessary to

carry out the purpose of the Department of Energy Organization

Act (Public Law 95–91). The title would authorize appropriations

in six categories: national nuclear security administration; defense

environmental restoration and waste management; defense environmental management privatization; other defense activities; and

defense nuclear waste disposal.

The budget request for atomic energy defense activities totaled

$13.4 billion, a 0.9 percent decrease over the adjusted fiscal year

2001 level. Of the total amount requested: $5.3 billion was for

weapons activities; $4.5 billion was for defense environmental restoration and waste management activities; $1.1 billion was for defense facility closure projects; $141.5 million was for defense environmental management privatization; $527.6 million was for other

defense activities; and $310.0 million was for defense nuclear waste

disposal.

The committee recommends $14.3 billion for atomic energy defense activities, an increase of $911.0 million to the budget request.

The committee recommends $7.4 billion for the National Nuclear

Security Administration (NNSA), an increase of $575.0 million to

the budget request. The amount authorized for the NNSA is as follows: $5.5 billion for weapons activities, an increase of $152.8 million to the budget request; $830.5 million for defense nuclear nonproliferation, an increase of $56.8 million to the budget request;

and $688.0 million for naval reactors, the amount of the budget request. The committee further recommends $6.1 billion for defense

environmental restoration and waste management, including defense facility closure projects, an increase of $422.2 million to the

budget request, of which $157.5 million is for defense environmental management privatization, a $16.0 million increase to the

budget request. The committee recommends $501.5 million for

other defense activities, a decrease of $26.0 million to the budget

request; and $250.0 million for defense nuclear waste disposal, a

reduction of $60.0 million to the budget request.

410

The following table summarizes the budget request and the committee recommendations:

SUBTITLE A—NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS

AUTHORIZATIONS

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

National Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3101)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

$7.352 billion for the Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) an increase of $574.9 million above the

budget request.

Weapons activities

The committee recommends $5.5 billion for weapons activities,

an increase of $152.8 million above the budget request. The

amount authorized is for the following activities: $1.0 billion for directed stockpile work, a decrease of $26.9 million; $2.1 billion for

campaigns, an increase of $140.9 million; $1.5 billion for readiness

in the technical base and facilities, an increase of $86.2 million;

$77.6 million for secure transportation assets, a decrease of $44.2

million; $448.9 million for safeguards and security, the amount of

the budget request; and $267.9 million for facilities and infrastructure, an increase of $267.9 million.

Directed stockpile work

The committee recommends $1.0 billion for directed stockpile

work, a reduction of $26.8 million from the $1.0 billion requested.

Directed stockpile work supports the NNSA mission to maintain

the safety, security, reliability, and performance of the Nation’s nuclear stockpile without underground nuclear explosive testing. The

program is designed to ensure that nuclear weapons continue to

meet their military requirements.

The committee recommends $305.5 million for research and development, the amount of the budget request.

The committee recommends $362.5 million for stockpile maintenance, the amount of the request.

The committee recommends $178.6 million for stockpile evaluation, a reduction of $2.2 million below the budget request. The committee recommends $29.1 million for dismantlement/disposal, a reduction of $6.3 million below the budget request. These reductions

are available as a result of changes in the W56 and W–79 dismantlement lines.

The amount recommended for production support is $134.9 million, a reduction of $17.9 million below the budget request.

The committee recommends $6.4 million for field engineering,

training, and manuals, a reduction of $0.3 million below the budget

request.

Campaigns

The committee recommends $2.1 billion for the stockpile stewardship campaigns of the NNSA, an increase of $140.9 million

above the budget request. The campaigns are focused scientific and

engineering efforts, involving the three NNSA weapons laboratories, the production plants, and the Nevada Test Site to develop

and maintain the special capabilities and tools needed for continued certification of the stockpile, now and into the future, in the

absence of underground nuclear explosive testing. The goal of the

campaigns is to provide the capability to address current and future questions about the stockpile using the most advanced

434

sciences and technologies. Campaigns focus research and development activities on clearly defined objectives and deliverables. The committee recommends $52.6 million for primary certifi- cation, a reduction of $2.9 million from the budget request. The committee recommends $93.6 million for dynamic materials properties, a reduction of $4.2 million from the budget request. The committee recommends $44.5 million for secondary certifi- cation and nuclear systems margins, a reduction of $2.7 million

from the budget request. The committee supports the NNSA efforts

in high energy density physics partnerships with universities and

urges the NNSA to expand these whenever possible. The committee recommends $492.4 million for inertial confinement fusion ignition and high yield, an increase of $24.5 million

above the budget requested. The additional funds would provide

$10.0 million to enhance National Ignition Facility diagnostics and

cryogenic target activities; $7.0 million to address shortfalls in the

inertial confinement fusion programs base program; $3.0 million to

support conceptual and preliminary design activities of a petawattclass laser at Sandia National Laboratory’s Z-machine; $2.0 million

to initiate development of critical short-pulse laser technologies;

and $2.4 million to support university partnerships. The committee recommends $755.0 million for advanced simulation and computing, an increase of $17.0 million above the budget

request. This increase would add $17.0 million to construction

project 00–D–103, Terascale simulation facility at the Lawrence

Livermore National laboratory so that this project can be completed

in time to house the next computer under the advanced computing

initiative.

The committee recommends $237.7 million for pit manufacturing and certification, an increase of $109.2 million above the budget request. The additional funds would fully fund all increases associated with efforts to manufacture and certify a new pit. The committee believes that this project must continue to be managed on

a project basis. The committee recognizes the difficulty of certifying

a new pit and urges NNSA to develop a multi-lab team to develop

an approach for certification of a new pit. In addition, the committee believes it is premature to rush to design a new pit manufacturing facility when there are significant uncertainties about the

size of the nuclear weapons stockpile in the future and until such

time as the ability to manufacture a certifiable pit is restored.

The committee remains concerned however about the reliability,

safety and security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile. Earlier

this year, the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety and Security

of the United States Nuclear Stockpile issued its report and testified before the committee. That testimony reiterated the critical

need to restore missing pit production capabilities and refurbish

the production complex. This recommendation was based on the

Panel’s observation that the United States remains unable to

produce or reproduce all of the components in the existing weapons

inventory. To establish and sustain the capability to restore integrated design, fabrication, and qualification capabilities for the full

range of weapon components, the panel recommended the following

efforts be undertaken: (a) restore the capability to support needed

weapons work; (b) restore nuclear facilities adequate to long-term

435

needs, including facilities for pit production; and (c) improve the

design and production process.

The committee notes the panel’s estimate that it will take ten or

more years to build an adequate pit production facility. The committee urges the administration to begin a time-phased program to

design and build a pit production facility. The pending Nuclear

Posture Review is expected to outline such critical concerns as the

size of a future arsenal and mix of weapons. This review is scheduled to be released in December 2001. Conceptual design should

proceed at the conclusion of this study in order to facilitate a timely decision on facility construction.

The Department of Energy’s request included $4.0 million for

conceptual design activities for a modern pit facility. The committee recommends that of the funds available for pit manufacture

and certification an additional $10 million be available to select an

architect-engineering organization to begin the conceptual design

and report process, in order to keep the new pit production facility

on schedule.

Readiness in technical base and facilities

The committee recommends $1.5 billion in readiness in technical

base and facilities, an increase of $86.2 million above the budget

request. Readiness in technical base and facilities ensures safe operation of NNSA defense program facilities. The committee recommends $900.4 million for operations of fa- cilities, an increase of $70.0 million above the budget request. The

additional funds will provide $10.0 million for additional operation

of the pulsed-power facilities at Sandia National Laboratory and

$10.0 million to refurbish the Z-machine at Sandia National Laboratory. In addition, the funds would provide $50 million to address

a number of shortfalls at the weapons plants. The committee recommends $197.2 million in program readiness, an increase of $9.1 million above the budget request for infrastructure shortfalls and to maintain materials processing capabilities.

The committee recommends $60.4 million in special projects, a

$4.1 million reduction from the budget request. From the funds

available for this account the committee directs the Administrator

to identify the costs and the schedule that would be necessary to

move the NNSA Atomic Museum off of the grounds of Kirtland Air

Force Base.

The committee recommends $90.3 million for material recycle

and recovery, a decrease of $11.0 million below the budget request.

The committee recommends $88.9 million for nuclear weapons

incident response, a decrease of $0.2 million to the budget request.

The committee recommends $39.0 million for project 02–D–101

Microsystem and Engineering Science Applications (MESA) lab, an

increase of $37.0 million above the budget request.

The committee recommends $31.1 million for project 02–D–103

Project engineering and design, various locations, an increase of

$21.9 million above the budget request. The additional funds would

allow the NNSA to begin preliminary design activity on replacing

and consolidating facilities across the complex. The committee believes that when the NNSA establishes a new construction project

that the new project should include the cost of demolishing any

436

buildings being replaced. NNSA has significantly more square feet

of space then it requires, although much of the existing space is

substandard. In order to reduce the maintenance costs over the

long term, the NNSA must begin to reduce the total number of

square feet of space it owns. The committee directs the NNSA to

include in all construction project requests an explanation as to

how the construction project will decrease the overall number of

square feet of space at the site where the construction project is

planned. The committee recommends $16.4 million in 01–D–103, Preliminary Design and Engineering, a decrease of $29.0 million below the

budget request.

The committee recommends no money for 01–D–124, Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Storage Facility, Y–12 Plant, a reduction of

$9.5 million to the budget request. The committee recommends $2.0 million for project 99–D–108

Renovate existing roadways, Nevada Test Site, an increase of $2.0

million to upgrade roads at the Nevada Test Site.

Defense nuclear nonproliferation

The budget request included $773.7 million for defense nuclear

nonproliferation programs at the Department of Energy, National

Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA). This amount represents the amount requested, $815.7 million, reduced by the use

of $42.0 million in prior year balances. The committee recommends

$830.5 million for these programs, after adjustments of $42.0 million, an increase of $56.8 million above the budget request. The

committee further recommends a decrease of $51.5 million in program direction funds in the defense nuclear nonproliferation account, moving the program direction funds to a consolidated program account for the NNSA. The committee recommends an overall

programmatic increase of $108.2 million for DOE/NNSA defense

nuclear nonproliferation programs.

Nonproliferation and verification research and development

The budget request included $206.1 million for nonproliferation

and verification research and development. The committee recommends an increase of $52.0 million to restore funding for this

important research to the fiscal year 2001 level.

The additional funds would allow DOE/NNSA to continue a wide

variety of research efforts to improve detection, identification,

measuring, and modeling capabilities to support U.S. nonproliferation activities. The research capabilities that DOE/NNSA and its

laboratories and facilities carry out provide technical capability and

assistance for a wide range of uses across the Federal Government.

Some of the technologies that would be supported by the additional funds include: improved remote effluent detection using

Lidar and Hyperspectral infrared imaging systems; better remote

physical detection capabilities; expanded regional ground-based

seismic systems and improved seismic calibration capabilities; improved radiation detection and nuclear materials analysis capabilities; development of microtechnologies and micromachining technologies to reduce the size of detectors; improved modeling to supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00458 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
437

port chemical and biological materials detection, fate and transport

in urban environments, and decontamination; and the HAZMAT

spill test center at the Nevada Test Site.

International nuclear safety and cooperation

The budget request included $13.8 million for International Nuclear Safety and Cooperation.

The committee recommends an increase of $5.7 million, to restore the program to its fiscal year 2001 level.

The committee continues to support the effort to enhance the

operational safety of Soviet-designed nuclear power plants and to

improve the nuclear safety infrastructure in the countries that operate these reactors. The DOE/NNSA works with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as part of an international effort to improve

the operational safety of certain types of Soviet-designed reactors.

This program also works closely with the Department of Defense

Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program office to shut down

the last remaining Russian plutonium producing power reactors.

While there are substantial and valid concerns about the ability of

these reactors to continue to operate until they can be shut down

and replaced with fossil fueled power plants, the committee urges

the DOE/NNSA to make only those improvements at those reactors

that meet urgent short-term safety needs. The committee does not

support, and recommends no funds for, actions designed to increase

the operational life of those reactors, or actions that would delay

the CTR program efforts to shut down the reactors.

Highly enriched uranium transparency implementation

The budget request included $13.9 million for the Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) transparency implementation program. The

committee recommends $13.9 million, the amount of the request.

The HEU transparency implementation program is responsible for

monitoring the nonproliferation aspects of the February 1993 HEU

Purchase Agreement between the United States and Russia. This

program ensures that the $12.0 billion of HEU sold to the United

States under the HEU Purchase Agreement is derived from 500

metric tons of HEU that has been removed from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons. The committee is concerned, however, that

this funding level supports only 18 of the 24 special monitoring visits to the four Russian uranium processing facilities and urges the

DOE/NNSA to carry out as many of the allowed visits as possible.

Moreover, the committee expects the fiscal year 2003 budget to

fund all such permitted visits.

Arms control and nonproliferation

The budget request included $101.5 million for Arms Control and

Nonproliferation. This request included $22.1 million for the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), $6.6 million for the Nuclear

Cities Initiative (NCI), and $8.9 million for Spent Fuel Activities in

Kazakhstan.

The committee recommends an increase of $36.5 million for Arms

Control and Nonproliferation, including $14.5 million for the NCI,

438

$15.0 million for IPP, and $7.0 million for Spent Fuel Activities in

Kazakhstan.

The fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Arms Control and

Nonproliferation programs at the DOE/NNSA represented a reduction of $46.9 million, or 32 percent, below the amount appropriated

for these programs in fiscal year 2001. The Arms Control programs

at DOE/NNSA fund a wide variety of important efforts to detect,

prevent, and reverse the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction materials, technology, and expertise. The DOE/NNSA efforts,

in these and the companion Materials Protection Control and Accounting programs, are designed to address what the Baker-Cutler

task force described as the ‘‘most urgent unmet national security

threat to the United States today.’’ In its January 2001 report, the Task Force on the Evaluation of

the Department of Energy’s Nonproliferation Programs With Russia, chaired by former Senator Howard Baker and former White

House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, identified and discussed this threat.

The task force reached the following conclusions:

(1) The most urgent unmet national security threat to the United

States today is the danger that weapons of mass destruction or

weapons-usable material in Russia could be stolen and sold to terrorists or hostile nation states and used against American troops

abroad and citizens at home.

(2) Current nonproliferation programs in the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and related agencies have

achieved impressive results thus far, but their limited mandate and

funding fall short of what is required to address adequately the

threat.

The task force went on to specifically find:

(1) By and large, current DOE programs are having a significant

and positive effect. The strategic plan recommended by the task

force should review the needs of each of these programs and, where

appropriate, provide for a substantial increase in funding. Expansions of program scope and increases in funding, however, must

take careful account of the pace at which funds can usefully be expended in each individual program.

(2) The strategic plan and the associated budgets should identify

specific goals and measurable objectives for each program, as well

as provide criteria for success and an exit strategy. These should

be factored into the five-year budget plan currently being developed

for the National Nuclear Security Administration.

(3) A major obstacle to further expansion and success of current

programs is the continuation of differences between the U.S. and

Russia over transparency and access. As a condition for a substantially expanded program, the U.S. and Russia should agree at a

high level on the degree of transparency needed to assure that

U.S.-funded activity has measurable impacts on program objectives

and that U.S. taxpayer dollars are being spent as intended.

(4) Given the gravity of the existing situation and the nature of

the challenge before us, it is imperative that the President establish a high-level leadership position in the White House with responsibility for policy and budget coordination for threat reduction

and nonproliferation programs across the U.S. Government. The

President should appoint a person of stature who commands the reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00460 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
439

spect and attention of relevant Cabinet officers and Congressional

leaders to lead this program.

(5) The U.S. administration of these programs should seek to

eliminate any unnecessary and overly restrictive controls that hamper swift and efficient action. To overcome potential impediments

that often arise from ‘‘business as usual’’ practices within the Russian and U.S. bureaucracies, DOE and related agencies should take

practical steps, including further enlargement of the DOE team

working with the U.S. Ambassador in Moscow, to ensure the most

efficient on-the-ground implementation of the programs in Russia.

(6) It is imperative to mobilize the sustained interest and concern

of the Congress. The task force urges the Congress to consider the

creation of a joint committee on weapons of mass destruction, nuclear safety and nonproliferation, modeled after the former Joint

Committee on Atomic Energy. Creation of such a committee would

ensure that the issues receive adequate high-level attention and

that Member and staff expertise is developed and preserved.

The task force also discusses Russia’s role in this effort:

While emphasizing that enhanced efforts are needed

from the U.S., the Task Force underscores that enhanced

efforts are also required from Russia. Ultimately, Russia

will be responsible for securing its remaining nuclear arsenal. If this program is conceived in full cooperation with

the Russian Federation, is adequately financed, and is implemented as part of a growing, open and transparent

partnership, then the task force believes that Russia

should be positioned to take over any work remaining at

the end of the eight to ten year period. If Russia is not prepared for such a partnership, then full success will not be

achieved.

Bearing this in mind, the task force report outlines an

enhanced national security program as described above.

This program could be carried out for less than one percent of the U.S. defense budget, or up to a total of $30.0

billion over the next eight to ten years. The Russian Government would, of course, be expected to make a significant contribution commensurate with its own financial

ability. The national security benefits to U.S. citizens from

securing and/or neutralizing the equivalent of more than

80,000 nuclear weapons and potential nuclear weapons

would constitute the highest return on investment in any

current U.S. national security and defense program. The

new President should press other major powers such as

the European Union, Japan and Canada to assume a fair

share of the costs of these efforts designed also to enhance

the security of these countries. Contributions from other

countries could significantly reduce U.S. costs.

The committee urges the DOE/NNSA to fund these programs to

address adequately the threat. As the task force concluded, ‘‘the

limited mandate and funding fall short of what is required to address adequately the threat.’’

For over forty years the International Atomic Energy Agency and

its member states have undertaken an intense effort to establish

440

increasingly credible systems for accounting and control of special

and other fissionable material (SNM) and the facilities that

produce SNM. The committee recognizes that the quantity and

complexity of materials and facilities that require international

safeguards has increased the potential threat that such materials

and facilities could be diverted to clandestine unsafeguarded activities. It is, therefore, increasingly important that sophisticated nuclear monitoring systems, capable of handling the vast number of

facilities requiring such safeguards, be developed and implemented

to ensure the integrity of international nuclear safeguards programs.

The committee, therefore, directs that $5.0 million of the funds

available to the Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation (NN–

40) be used to develop advanced instrumentation and provide these

advanced safeguards systems for implementation by the International Atomic Energy Agency as part of its advanced safeguards

system. Furthermore, these systems should also offer increased

confidence building measures that will help strengthen U.S. and

international confidence in the accuracy and integrity of international safeguards over nuclear weapons usable material.

Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention

The committee continues to support the IPP program and recommends that, of the funds available to the IPP program, $5.0 million should be dedicated to working in those cities in Russia that

will be closed or downsized pursuant to the NCI program. The IPP

program sponsors focused applied research projects in Russia,

Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, in conjunction with U.S. industry. Its efforts extend beyond the former Soviet nuclear programs and include a range of other former program participants including

former biological weapons scientists. These projects must have significant potential for commercialization in order to be approved for

IPP funding. The ultimate goal of the IPP program is to have these

projects commercialized in a way that could provide full-time employment for Russian and other scientists and engineers. To date,

approximately three hundred full-time jobs have been created. Several additional projects are about to be commercialized with the expectation that over the course of the next year or so, as many as

2,000 new full-time jobs will be created.

The IPP program has been very successful in providing valuable

non-military research opportunities to the former Soviet scientists

and engineers and preventing a brain drain. At the same time, the

IPP commercial partners have received valuable research and development efforts. The committee urges the IPP program efforts in

the closing Russian nuclear cities to focus on applied research that

could lead to creation of full-time commercial jobs in the closed cities. The committee believes that the IPP program is a successful,

very focused program that should maintain its focus and purpose

and should not be merged into the NCI program. At the same time,

it should work more closely with the NCI program in its efforts in

the nuclear cities that will be closed or downsized.

441

Nuclear Cities Initiative

The NCI program was established by a March 1998 agreement

between the United States and Russia to address the brain drain

problem and to work with Russia to shrink the size of the Russian

nuclear weapons complex. Unlike the IPP program, which focuses

its efforts on scientists still at work in the weapons complex, NCI

was intended to provide assistance to scientists, engineers, technicians, and others as they loose their jobs as a result of the Russian

effort to downsize nuclear weapons facilities. Russia requested U.S.

assistance in finding employment for these displaced workers and

to help accelerate the planned downsizing.

NCI has been criticized since its inception for, among other

things, being overly broad in its goals and largely unfocused in how

it would achieve those goals. Some of this criticism was merited.

The NCI program has just completed its second full year in operation and has begun to establish clearer mission goals. It has one

project that has significant potential to provide a substantial number of skilled technical jobs.

The committee believes that the NCI program should continue to

restrict its activities to three Russian closed cities and to two serial

production facilities. The DOE/NNSA should continue discussions

with Russia and identify appropriate pilot projects that have a high

probability of success. The committee believes that commercial

partners are essential to the success of the overall NCI effort.

NCI should limit its programmatic focus as well. Whereas IPP is

actively engaged in providing research opportunities, primarily to

scientists and engineers who are still employed by their institutes,

NCI should focus on helping the Russian cities attract commercial

ventures that will provide jobs to those who will be laid-off as the

Russian nuclear weapons complex downsizes. DOE/NNSA should

focus its NCI efforts to help the facilities at these cities attract new

investments and preparing the cities to be attractive to new investment.

The work that NCI has undertaken at Avangard, Russia—such

as moving fences and other site preparation work to enable and facilitate a new commercial joint venture to come to Avangard—is

precisely the type of work that should be conducted by the NCI

program. NCI should continue to work with Russia, other U.S. Federal Government agencies, and the private sector to encourage and

facilitate commercial development at the closed cities. NCI should

expand in the future only as it becomes clear which approaches

work and which do not. On the other hand, it is unrealistic to expect NCI to attract the large numbers of jobs that will ultimately

be needed for the displaced workers. NCI should assist in what is

fundamentally a Russian effort to close facilities. NCI should work

toward an agreement with Russia that will identify realistic programmatic expectations and a realistic time line in which to complete the program.

The committee does not support merging the IPP and NCI programs into a single program at this time. Nevertheless, the committee believes the programs should be joined to form parts of a

single division in the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation in

the NNSA. This division should be under common leadership and

administrative support. This new division should be structured to

442

call upon the commercial participants in the IPP program to help

the NCI program attract commercial firms to the closed or closing

Russian facilities. The committee recognizes that the NNSA is in

transition and that a new Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation has not yet been confirmed. Therefore, the

committee directs the NNSA to submit to the congressional defense

committees a program plan that will bring the IPP and the NCI

programs together under common senior management. The committee expects the plan to be submitted four months after the Deputy Administrator has been sworn in, and the plan to be implemented no later than six months after a new Deputy Administrator

has been sworn in. The committee expects this program plan will

also address needed management improvements, greater coordination between the two programs, and improved programmatic plans

for the NCI program.

The committee notes that the European Community has recently

initiated a European NCI program. The committee strongly supports this initiative and urges DOE/NNSA to cooperate with and

work with the European NCI program wherever possible.

Spent Fuel Activities in Kazakhstan

The additional $7.0 million recommended by the committee for

Spent Fuel Activities in Kazakhstan will restore this program to

roughly its fiscal year 2001 appropriated level so that the DOE/

NNSA can continue to support the efforts in Kazakhstan to store

spent fuel safely and securely at the Aktau reactor.

International Materials Protection Control and Accounting

The budget request included $138.8 million for International Materials Protection Control and Accounting (MPC&A). The committee recommends $143.8 million, an increase of $5.0 million to

complete additional permanent security upgrades.

The committee believes that theft of weapons-grade nuclear materials in the former Soviet Union is one of the most critical national security and proliferation threats to the United States. The

committee commends the MPC&A program for its success in increasing the security of approximately 50 percent of the Russian

stockpile of nuclear weapons-usable material not contained in Russian nuclear weapons. A significant number of challenges remain,

however, in the effort to improve permanently the level of security

for this material.

Among the challenges to achieving the overall goal of safely securing and storing all weapons-usable material in Russia and the

other countries of the former Soviet Union are ensuring continued

access to sites where improvements have been made, completing

comprehensive long-term improvements, and ensuring Russian

support to operate and maintain the security improvements and

systems.

Although more than the budget request, the funding recommended by the committee represents a $25.7 million reduction

from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level. The committee is concerned that decreasing funding for this program may not be adeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00464 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
443

quate to meet current needs as well as the significant challenges

confronting the program.

The committee urges the administration to work at the highest

levels of the Russian and U.S. governments to address the issues

of access, transparency, and the other challenges, and to work to

accelerate security upgrades at the remaining facilities and buildings. In addition, the United States should work with Russia to

consider efforts to consolidate the number of sites where material

is stored.

The DOE/NNSA second line of defense program, which helps to

improves detection capabilities at border control points, is an integral part of the overall effort to prevent and detect theft of nuclear

materials. The committee believes these programs should be managed under one effort. Accordingly, the committee directs that the

second line of defense program be merged into the MPC&A program and managed as one integrated program. The committee further directs that $4.0 million of the funds available to the Arms

Control program be made available for second line of defense activities.

Related to second line of defense activities are efforts to improve

and strengthen export control regimes. The committee directs the

DOE/NNSA to use up to $5.0 million of the funds available for the

Defense nuclear nonproliferation programs be used to work with

key supplier states and regions of concern to develop or improve export control regimes. This effort should include efforts to expand

cooperative activities to strengthen nuclear export controls worldwide, strengthen the DOE/NNSA role in the technical analysis of

proliferation problem and increase the role DOE/NNSA plays in the

evaluation of U.S. export licenses.

Russian surplus fissile materials disposition

The budget request included $57.0 million for Russian surplus

fissile materials disposition. The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million to support the continued development of advanced reactor technologies in

Russia to burn up large quantities of excess Russian plutonium.

It is estimated that Russia currently has in excess of 100 tons

of excess weapons grade plutonium. If U.S. and Russian efforts to

reduce the number of nuclear weapons and dismantle additional

warheads are to be successful, the amount of surplus plutonium

should increase.

The September 2000 agreement between Russia and the United

States detailed technologies to be used to dispose of excess plutonium. Under the agreement, both Russia and the United States

will convert the plutonium to an oxide form to be used in Mixed

Oxide (MOX) fuel. The Russian reactors that are capable of burning MOX fuel can burn approximately two metric tons of plutonium

per year. In order to increase the burn rate of plutonium, the

United States and Russia have jointly funded a research and development effort to development new reactor technology. The committee supports this effort and urges the (DOE/NNSA) to accelerate

demonstration of new reactor technology. As in the past, the committee expects continued Russian contributions to the research and

development effort. The committee urges the DOE/NNSA to solicit

444

aggressively financial commitments from other nations to continue

development of this technology.

U.S. surplus fissile materials disposition

The budget request included $233.0 million for the U.S. surplus

fissile materials disposition program. The committee recommends

the amount of the request, but is concerned that this amount is significantly less than the amount needed to support the hybrid plutonium disposition program established by DOE/NNSA in January

2000 and the U.S. HEU project to transfer 50 metric tons of HEU

to the United States Enrichment Corporation.

In January 1997 the DOE announced it would pursue a hybrid

disposition strategy for surplus U.S. plutonium. This strategy relies

on two technologies: irradiation and immobilization. The former

will convert the plutonium to an oxide form, and combine it with

uranium oxide to make a mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. This fuel will be

irradiated in a commercial nuclear power plant to make electricity.

The latter, immobilization, will take plutonium not suitable for use

in MOX fuel, and convert it into a stable ceramic form. This plutonium ceramic will be surrounded by vitrified high level nuclear

waste and disposed of in a permanent spent fuel repository. In January 2000, the DOE issued the record of decision to implement the

hybrid program.

The funding included in the budget request would limit the MOX

fuel program to a technology demonstration program only and suspend the immobilization program. This puts in possible jeopardy

the ability of the DOE/NNSA to support a long-term disposition effort for surplus weapons grade plutonium as well as the ability of

the DOE to store additional plutonium at the DOE Savannah River

Site. The committee understands that the slowdown in the plutonium disposition program is largely the result of the administration’s ongoing review of all nonproliferation programs. The committee urges the DOE to complete the review as quickly as possible

and reinstate the hybrid plutonium disposition program.

Secure Transportation Asset

The committee recommends $77.6 million for Secure Transport

Asset, a decrease of $44.2 million below the budget request.

Safeguards and security

The committee recommends $448.9 million for safeguards and security, the amount of the budget request.

Facilities and infrastructure

The committee recommends $267.9 million for facilities and infrastructure, an increase of $267.9 million above the budget request.

Office of Administrator and program direction

The committee recommends $380.4 million for program direction

for the National Nuclear Security Administration, an increase of

$365.4 million above the budget request. All of the program direction accounts of the NNSA, with the exception of the program direction account for the Office of Naval Reactors, would be comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00466 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
445

bined. The NNSA has announced a major headquarters reorganization that will begin to move the NNSA into an integrated organization. The committee commends the NNSA for this action and urges

NNSA to complete a reorganization of the field structure of the

NNSA.

Defense Environmental restoration and waste management

(sec. 3102)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize $6.2 billion for defense environmental restoration and waste management, an increase of $422.2 million above the budget request.

The amount authorized is for the following activities: closure

projects $1.1 billion, an increase of $30.0 million over the budget

request; $943.2 million for site/project completion, an increase of

$31.2 million over the budget request; $3.2 billion for post-2006

completion, an increase of $325.0 million over the budget request;

$1.3 million for excess facilities, the amount of the budget request;

$205.6 million for safeguards and security, the amount of the request; $216.0 million for science and technology development, an

increase of $20.0 million over the budget request; $355.8 million for

program direction, the amount of the budget request.

Closure projects

The committee recommends $1.1 billion in defense facilities closure projects, an increase of $30.0 million above the budget request. The site closure account includes sites that will be closed by

the end of 2006. The committee believes that if a site does not have

a reasonable opportunity to close by 2006, then the site should not

be included in this account and the funding for the site should be

transferred to the post-2006 completion account. The committee

also believes that if new sites are scheduled to close within the

five-year period after 2006, and there is high confidence in the ability of these sites to close within such a time period, then the Department of Energy (DOE) should consider establishing a second

closure account for those sites. The committee recommends the additional funds to ensure that the projects in this account meet their

closure dates.

Site and project completion

The committee recommends $943.2 million for site and project

completion, an increase of $31.2 million to the budget request, to

ensure that the terms and conditions of enforceable cleanup and

other agreements with the states and Environmental Protection

Agency are met. The committee recommends a reduction of $15.8

million, the amount of the budget request for project 92–D–140

F&H Canyon exhaust upgrades.

Post-2006 Completion

The committee recommends $3.2 billion for post-2006 completion,

an increase of $325.0 million above the budget request. Included in

the additional amounts are $120.0 million for the DOE Savannah

River and $105.0 million for the Hanford Sites. Of the funds available to the Hanford Site, the committee directs the DOE to continue with the reactor cocooning project. Of the funds available to

446

DOE in the Post-2006 completion account $20.0 shall million be

available for Los Alamos and Livermore National Laboratories to

continue waste management and remediation activities; $21.6 million shall be available to ensure that sufficient TRU-pact containers are available to continue shipping tru-wastes from Rocky

Flats to the Waste Isolation Pilot Project; $4 million shall be available to continue ground water-monitoring activities at the Nevada

Test Site; $5 million shall be available for the Mexico Border

health initiative; and, $3.6 million shall be made available for

spent fuel stabilization activities at the Savannah River Site.

Included in the budget request for Post-2206 completion is the

budget request for the Office of River Protection. The committee

recommends $862.4 million for the Office of River Protection, $50.0

million above the request for tank farm operations.

Science and technology

The committee recommends $216.0 million for Science and technology, an increase of $20.0 million to the budget request. The committee notes that the budget request for science and technology for

fiscal year 2002 is $56.0 million below the amount appropriated in

fiscal year 2001, a significant reduction. The committee strongly

supports the research, development, and demonstration work of the

Office of Science and Technology and urges the DOE to fully fund

this office in the future. The new cleanup and waste treatment

technologies that have resulted from the research conducted by the

office of science have provided significant savings to the DOE

cleanup program. The committee urges the DOE to work with

small business to identify new technologies as well as the large

DOE contractors.

Other Defense Activities (sec. 3103)

The committee authorizes $501.4 million for other defense activities, after adjustments, a reduction of $26.1 million to the budget

request.

Security and Emergency Operations

The committee recommends $247.6 million for Security and

Emergency Operations, a reduction of $21.7 million to the budget

request. This reduction reflects a $20.0 million decrease in the corporate management information program, and a $1.7 million decrease in program direction.

Worker and community transition

The committee recommends $20.0 million for worker and community transition, a reduction of $4.4 million to the budget request.

Defense Environmental management privatization (sec.

3104)

The committee recommends $157.5 million for environmental

management privatization, an increase of $16.0 million over the

budget request. The $16.0 million increase is for project 97–PVT–

2, advanced mixed waste treatment project, Idaho Falls, Idaho.

447

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal (sec. 3105)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

$250.0 million for defense nuclear waste disposal, a $60.0 million

reduction below the budget request of $310.0 million.

SUBTITLE B—RECURRING GENERAL PROVISIONS

Reprogramming (sec. 3121)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the

reprogramming of funds in excess of 110 percent of the amount authorized for the program, or in excess on $2.0 million above the

amount authorized for the program, whichever is less, until: (1) the

Secretary of Energy submits a report to the congressional defense

committees; and (2) a period of 30 days has elapsed after the date

on which the report is received. The committee recommends an increase in the threshold for reprogrammings from the $1.0 million

threshold that has been in place in previous years, bringing the Department of Energy more in line with the reprogramming authority

provided to the Department of Defense. The committee notes that

the threshold level for reprogramming actions had been $10.0 million but was reduced to $1.0 million in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995. The committee believes that

$1.0 million has become an unrealistic threshold and DOE programmatic execution may be unnecessarily delayed by maintaining

a $1.0 million threshold.

Limits on minor construction projects (sec. 3122)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize the

Secretary of Energy to carry out minor construction projects using

operation and maintenance funds, or facilities and infrastructure

funds, if the total estimated cost of the minor construction project

does not exceed $5.0 million. In addition, the provision would require the Secretary to submit an annual report identifying each

minor construction project undertaken during the previous fiscal

year. The committee directs the Secretary to submit this report at

the same time the Secretary submits the Department of Energy

budget request for fiscal year 2003, or as soon thereafter as possible.

Limits on construction projects (sec. 3123)

The committee recommends a provision that would permit any

construction project to be initiated and continued only if the estimated cost for the project does not exceed 125 percent of the higher

of the amount authorized for the project or the most recent total

estimated cost presented to the Congress as justification for such

a project. The Secretary of Energy may not exceed such limits until

30 legislative days after the Secretary submits to the congressional

defense committees a detailed report setting forth the reasons for

the increase. This provision would also specify that the 125 percent

limitation would not apply to projects estimated to cost under $5.0

million.

448

Fund transfer authority (sec. 3124)

The committee recommends a provision that would permit funds

authorized by this Act to be transferred to other agencies of the

government for performance of work for which the funds were authorized and appropriated. The provision would permit the merger

of such transferred funds with the authorizations of the agency to

which they are transferred. The provision would also limit, to not

more than five percent of the account, the amount of funds authorized by this Act that may be transferred between authorization accounts within the Department of Energy.

Authority for conceptual and construction design (sec. 3125)

The committee recommends a provision that would limit the Secretary of Energy’s authority to request construction funding until

the Secretary has completed a conceptual design. This limitation

would apply to construction projects with a total estimated cost

greater than $5.0 million. If the estimated cost to prepare the construction design exceeds $600,000, the provision would require the

Secretary to obtain a specific authorization to obligate such funds.

If the estimated cost to prepare a conceptual design exceeds $3.0

million, the provision would require the Secretary to request funds

for the conceptual design before requesting funds for construction.

The provision would further require the Secretary to submit to

Congress a report on each conceptual design completed under this

provision. The provision would also provide an exception to these

requirements in the case of an emergency.

Authority for emergency planning, design, and construction

activities (sec. 3126)

The committee recommends a provision that would permit the

Secretary of Energy to perform planning and design with any funds

available to the Department of Energy pursuant to this title, including those funds authorized for advance planning and construction design, 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.

Funds available for all national security programs of the

Department of Energy (sec. 3127)

The committee recommends a provision that 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.

Availability of funds (sec. 3128)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

amounts appropriated for operating expenses or for plant and capital equipment for the Department of Energy to remain available

until expended. Program direction funds would remain available

until the end of fiscal year 2003.

449

Transfers of defense environmental management funds (sec.

3129)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the

manager of each field office of the Department of Energy with limited authority to transfer up to $5.0 million in fiscal year 2002 defense environmental management funds from one program or

project, including site project and completion and post 2006 completion funds, three times in a fiscal year. Each transfer shall not exceed $5.0 million and the transfers shall not be aggregated.

Transfer of weapons activities funds (sec. 3130)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide the

manager of each Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security

Administration (DOE/NNSA) office with limited authority to transfer up to $5.0 million in fiscal year 2002 weapons activities funds

from one program or project under the manager’s jurisdiction to another. Each manager would be able to use this authority up to

three times per year. This authority is similar to that which has

been provided to the managers of the DOE environmental management sites. Each transfer shall not exceed $5.0 million and the

transfers shall not be aggregated.

SUBTITLE C—PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS,

RESTRICTIONS, AND LIMITATIONS

Limitation on availability of funds for weapons activities for

facilities and infrastructure (sec. 3131)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration

(NNSA) to establish criteria for the facilities and infrastructure

program. Over the years, the Department of Energy has deferred

much of the routine maintenance of real property and facilities

needed to maintain adequately the defense program facilities. The

committee recommends $267.9 million in section 3101 to begin to

address this backlog of deferred maintenance. Although the budget

request did not create such an account in the DOE/NNSA budget,

the Administrator of the NNSA testified before the committee that

such an account would be needed to begin to correct the substantial

maintenance backlog at DOE/NNSA facilities.

The committee believes that firm criteria must be established

against which projects can be judged and priorities established.

This will ensure that the projects funded by this account are high

priority projects necessary to ensure worker and community health

and safety, comply with environmental requirements, meet safeguards and security requirements and ensure the mission of the

defense programs is maintained on a timely basis. The criteria

should provide a mechanism to allow priorities to be established by

site and among sites so that a integrated list of priority projects

can be developed. The committee believes that the projects should

be funded on the priority of the projects to Defense Programs of the

DOE and NNSA and not based on any requirement for an equitable distribution of the funds by site.

As a result, the committee recommends a provision that would

require the Administrator to establish such criteria before more

450

than fifty percent of the funds authorized to be appropriated by the

Act are obligated or expended.

The committee fully supports the efforts to address the maintenance backlog at the DOE/NNSA sites. The committee believes

that it is equally important, however, for the DOE/NNSA to plan

and budget adequately in the future for needed real property maintenance; to ensure that maintenance costs are included in the fiveyear budget plan for new construction; and to ensure that all new

construction is planned to include funds to tear down the facilities

they are replacing.

Limitation on availability of funds for other defense activities for national security programs administrative support (sec. 3132)

The committee recommends a provision that would prevent the

Secretary of Energy from using more than $5.0 million of the funds

authorized to be appropriated for national security programs administrative support pursuant to section 3103(a)(8) until such time

as the Secretary submits the future years nuclear security program

required by section 3253 of the National Nuclear Security Act (title

XXXII of Public Law 106–65) and until the Secretary submits a

justification document for the national security programs administrative support activities describing the activities to be carried out

with the funds provided.

The Department of Energy (DOE) included $25.0 million in its

national security budget request in the Other Defense Activities account, apparently to supplement the DOE non-defense funded

budget request for Departmental Administration. DOE did not include this amount in any of its budget justification books. Not only

did the budget justification book for Other Defense Activities not

include any reference to this request, the budget request summary

tables included in this book showed the DOE fiscal year 2001 request but not the fiscal year 2002 budget request.

The committee understands that the DOE was aware of these

mistakes and omissions in its Other Defense Activities budget justification book at the time it submitted this material to the committee. Nevertheless, the DOE failed to supply any supplemental

or additional material to Congress to display, acknowledge, or justify the $25.0 million requested for national security programs administrative support.

The committee further understands that the $25.0 million requested was to augment the non-defense funded Departmental Administration account. This account funds general DOE administrative expenses such as the Office of the Secretary, the General

Counsel, the Chief Financial Officer, and the Office of Policy. The

budget request for the Departmental Administration account for

fiscal year 2002 was $83.8 million. The budget justification for this

amount describes the administrative services that will be provided

to the entire DOE from the $83.8 million requested but contains no

reference to the additional $25.0 million. Thus, the provision recommended by the committee directs the Secretary to submit a detailed plan, at the same level of detail contained in the DOE budget justification books, for the activities to be funded by the $25.0

451

million requested by DOE for national security programs administrative support.

The DOE also failed to submit the future years nuclear security

program plan. When this plan is submitted as required, together

with the justification material discussed above, the Secretary may

obligate and expend the balance of the $25.0 million authorized to

be appropriated.

Until such time as the reports required by this provision are submitted, the activities that would have been funded by the national

security programs administrative support account shall be funded

by the funds available to the Department for Departmental Administration.

Nuclear Cities Initiative (sec. 3133)

The committee recommends a provision that would prohibit the

use of funds authorized to be appropriated after fiscal year 2001 for

the Nuclear Cities Initiative (NCI) from being obligated or expended to expand the NCI program beyond its current scope until

thirty days after the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration submits to Congress an agreement on access

signed by the United States and Russia. The current scope of the

program is three nuclear cities and two serial production facilities.

The provision would also require the Administrator to submit a

report to Congress on the financial and programmatic activities of

the NCI. This report would be submitted no later than the first

Monday in February of each year and would cover activities that

occurred during the fiscal year preceding the year in which the report is filed. Included in the report would be a certification by the

Administrator that each NCI project is contributing to the

downsizing effort. The first report would be due in February 2002

covering the fiscal year 2001 program.

Construction of Department of Energy operations office

complex. (sec. 3134)

The committee recommends a provision that would provide discretionary authority to the Secretary of Energy to provide for design and construction of a new Department of Energy (DOE) operations office complex using energy savings performance contracts.

These contracts would be those entered into in accordance with the

provisions of title VII of the National Energy Policy Conservation

Act (NEPCA)(42 U.S.C. 8287 et seq.)

In exercising this authority, the Secretary of Energy must still

comply with the sections in Title XXXI Subtitle B of this Act dealing with construction and construction project funding.

The committee believes that the DOE should explore all possible

options for saving money on its construction projects. While recognizing that this is a creative use of the authority provided by

NEPCA, if successful, this could result in considerable cost savings.

452

SUBTITLE D—MATTERS RELATING TO MANAGEMENT OF

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Establishment of position of deputy administrator for nuclear security (sec. 3141)

The committee recommends a provision that would establish a

principle deputy administrator for nuclear security in the National

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).

In May of 2001, the NNSA announced a reorganization that will

begin to ensure that the NNSA operates as a fully integrated organization. Key to this reorganization is the establishment of a new

position of principle deputy administrator. This new position

should be filled by an individual appointed by the President with

the advice and consent of the Senate. The committee believes this

new position will be important to assist the Administrator of the

NNSA with the day-to-day management of the NNSA. As a result,

the committee believes that the position of principle deputy should

be filled with an individual who is very familiar with both the mission and operations of the NNSA and its facilities, and who can

bring sound management, judgement, and experience to the position.

Responsibility for national security laboratories and weapons production facilities of Deputy Administrator of National Security Administration for Defense Programs

(sec. 3142)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3214 of the National Nuclear Security Administration Act by

striking subsection (c), which directs the contractor managers and

directors of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

weapons production plants and national laboratories to report to

the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs. In May 2001, the

NNSA announced a reorganization of headquarters NNSA federal

employees. Repeal of this provision would allow the managers and

directors of these facilities to report as determined by the Administrator of the NNSA under the reorganization plan. In addition, repeal of subsection (c) would allow the Administrator to carry out

a planned reorganization of the NNSA field federal employees in

fiscal year 2002. The committee supports this reorganization as it

will help to create a fully integrated NNSA.

Clarification of status within the Department of Energy of

Administration and contractor personnel of the National

Nuclear Security Administration (sec. 3143)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3219 of the National Nuclear Security Administration Act to

clarify that when work performed at National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) facilities is sponsored by Department of Energy (DOE) offices outside of the NNSA, the sponsoring office can

supervise the work being performed and to allow NNSA employees

to serve on DOE task forces. This provision has been requested by

the DOE/NNSA.

As a matter of statute and policy, the NNSA encourages the use

of NNSA facilities by DOE offices outside of the NNSA. This work,

453

known as ‘‘work for others,’’ is very important to the NNSA facilities. Work for others helps to provide a wider variety of work to

the NNSA employees than can be provided by the NNSA and helps

to defray some of the costs to the NNSA of these facilities. In fiscal

years 1999 and 2000, more than 20 percent of the work performed

at NNSA facilities was work sponsored and paid for by DOE offices

outside of the NNSA. This provision would clarify that these other

offices can continue their normal practice of providing technical expertise, supervision and direction of the work that they fund. Without this clarification, the NNSA facilities are at risk of losing this

important work.

This provision would also clarify the ability of NNSA employees

to serve on DOE task forces. During the recent California energy

crisis, the Secretary of Energy sought the assistance of a senior

NNSA employee to chair an energy task force. In order to allow the

NNSA employee to participate in the task force, the NNSA employee had to be detailed to the DOE, thus disrupting the work of

his office in NNSA. This provision would clarify the ability of

NNSA employees to serve on DOE task forces while continuing to

perform their NNSA duties.

Modification of authority of Administrator for Nuclear Security to establish scientific, engineering and technical positions (sec. 3144)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3241 of the National Security Administration Act to allow the

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to expand the

number of scientific and technical positions available to the NNSA

from the current 300 positions to 500 positions. This provision

would also clarify that these positions are not Senior Executive

Service (SES) positions. While the NNSA does have positions classified as SES positions, the positions filled using the authority provided by section 3241 are not SES positions.

The committee is aware that NNSA would like to consider the

possibility of converting additional or even all NNSA employees to

excepted service status. The committee urges the Administrator of

the NNSA to work closely with the Office of Personnel Management to explore this option further. The committee would be willing to hold hearings on this issue next year if the Administrator

makes any additional legislative proposals that would expand the

hiring authority provided by section 3241 beyond the additional

200 positions provided by this provision.

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Improvements to Energy employees occupational illness

compensation program (sec. 3151)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend and

clarify the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation

Program Act of 2000 (title XXXVI of the Floyd D. Spence National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001).

The provision would add leukemias to the list of diseases covered

under the Act with the exception of chronic lymphocytic leukemia,

that were the result of occupational exposures that occurred before

454

the age of 21 years. Current law covers leukemias, with the exception of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, that were the result of occupational exposures that occurred after the age of 21 years. This

provision would clarify that all leukemias, with the exception of

chronic lymphocytic leukemia, that were the result of occupational

exposures, regardless of the age at which the occupational exposure

occurred, are included in the compensation regime.

The provision would clarify that a special cohort employee included in the study, as required by section 3626 of the Act, includes

both Department of Energy (DOE) contractor employees and employees of any atomic weapons employer facility. A special cohort

employee is defined in the Act as an employee of either a DOE contractor or an atomic weapons employer, but the Act failed to include employees of an atomic weapons employer in the study. This

provision would remedy that oversight.

The provision would expand the category of employees diagnosed

with chronic silicosis from category 1/1 to the medically accepted

definition of chronic silicosis, category 1/0.

The provision would clarify the definition of survivor to allow

surviving children, including adopted or step-children, to divide

equally with a surviving spouse, any unpaid compensation under

the Act. If there are surviving children, but no surviving spouse,

the provision provides that any unpaid compensation due under the

Act would be equally divided among the surviving children. If there

were no surviving children, but there was a surviving spouse, the

provision would require all unpaid compensation to be paid to the

surviving spouse. In the absence of either a surviving spouse or

surviving children, any unpaid compensation would be divided

among surviving parents, grandparents, and grandchildren.

The provision would clarify that if a covered employee had been

a plaintiff in a lawsuit seeking compensation as a result of any occupational exposure covered by the Act, and the suit was dismissed

or otherwise brought to a close in a manner that did not provide

any recovery to the plaintiff, the covered employee is not barred

from compensation under the Act. In such circumstances, the covered employee would have to satisfy the terms and conditions for

compensation under the Act.

The provision would clarify that a covered employee may hire

and pay an attorney up to 10 percent of the compensation paid if

the services rendered by the attorney were for other than services

rendered in support of the filing of the initial claim. This provision

would allow, for instance, an attorney to assist with an appeal from

a denial of an initial claim, and be compensated at 10 percent of

the compensation paid.

The provision would also clarify that the limitations on attorney

fees would not extend to any representation or assistance provided

after an award of compensation for a matter not related to the compensation award or claim.

The provision would also require the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to conduct a study to determine if there was any residual contamination in the facility of any

atomic weapons employer or beryllium vendor after such facility

discontinued operations and activities related to the production of

nuclear weapons. In the event such contamination was present, the

455

provision would require NIOSH to determine if the residual contamination could have caused or contributed to the cancer or covered beryllium illness of any covered employee. The provision

would also require NIOSH to submit the report compiled as a result of the study to the congressional defense committees.

Department of Energy counterintelligence polygraph program (sec. 3152)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the

Secretary of Energy to submit a plan for an interim counterintelligence polygraph program to the congressional defense committees

120 days after the date of enactment of this Act. This provision

would also direct the Secretary to establish by regulation, subject

to public notice and comment, a permanent counterintelligence

polygraph program. The permanent program would utilize the results of the ongoing review of polygraphs by the Committee to Review the Scientific Evidence on the Polygraph of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The draft of these new regulations must be

published within six months after the date on which the Secretary

receives the report of the NAS Committee. To enable the Secretary

to establish a new science-based counterintelligence polygraph program, the provision would also repeal section 3154 of the Department of Energy Facilities Safeguards, Security, and Counter Intelligence Act of 1999 (Subtitle D of title XXXI of Public Law 106–65).

The committee believes that a science-based counterintelligence

polygraph program can only be created after completion of the NAS

Committee review and only by counterintelligence professionals

and polygraph experts who understand the value and limitations of

polygraphs. The current program is too large, too expensive, and is

not designed to take maximum advantage of polygraphs in a counterintelligence program.

The primary purpose of this provision is to establish a program

that utilizes polygraphs as part of a comprehensive counterintelligence program. The committee has no objection to the Secretary

continuing the current DOE polygraph program as the interim program. If the interim program is not the current program, then the

interim program shall not take effect until 30 days after the date

that the Secretary has submitted the interim plan that would be

required by the provision.

One-year extension of authority of Department of Energy to

pay voluntary separation incentive payments (sec. 3153)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3161(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2000 to provide a one-year extension of the Department of

Energy (DOE) authority to make voluntary separation incentive

payments. The committee is aware that the DOE would like to extend the ability to encourage voluntary separations and avoid any

future need to conduct a reduction in force. This provision would

allow the DOE to do long-term planning for reductions as a result

of future reorganizations.

456

Additional objective for Department of Energy defense nuclear facilities work force restructuring plan (sec. 3154)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3161(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 1993 to add a new element to the required workforce restructuring plan. This additional plan element would require the Secretary of Energy to consider and promote economic diversification

when these plans are developed.

Modification of date of report of panel to assess the reliability, safety, and security of the United States nuclear

stockpile (sec. 3155)

The committee recommends a provision that would amend section 3159(d) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 by extending the due date for the

third report required by that section from October 1, 2001 to February 1, 2002.

Reports on achievement of milestones for National Ignition

Facility (sec. 3156)

The committee recommends a provision that would direct the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration

(NNSA) to notify the congressional defense committees when the

National Ignition Facility (NIF) achieves each level one and level

two milestone.

The NIF is an essential element of the NNSA stockpile stewardship program that is being constructed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The NIF is the only facility that will allow direct

experimental study in the laboratory of issues that affect the aging

stockpile in temperature and pressure regimes approaching those

that occur in nuclear weapons. It will play a major role in providing the underlying science needed to validate the state of the art

nuclear weapon simulation computer codes under development by

the Advanced Simulation Computing program.

After experiencing major schedule and budgetary problems in

early 2000, the NNSA revised the NIF project and budget baseline

in August 2001. The actions taken by the NNSA to restructure and

reorganize the management of NIF appear to have been successful

in addressing the budgetary and schedule problems. Given the importance of the NIF program and its previous problems, the committee believes that reports to the congressional defense committees on progress in meeting major NIF milestones will help to ensure that Congress is kept informed of the progress of the program.

Support for public education in the vicinity of Los Alamos

National Laboratory, New Mexico (sec. 3157)

The committee recommends a provision that would extend the

period of time in which the Department of Energy (DOE) may

make contributions to the Los Alamos Education Foundation and

authorizes $6.9 million, the amount contained in the budget request, to be paid to the Foundation in fiscal year 2002. In addition,

the provision would authorize $8.0 million for the fiscal year 2002

payment, to be made from the funds available to the Department

of Energy, to offset cost of living expenses for school teachers at the

457

Los Alamos Public Schools. The provision would also allow the

DOE to extend the current contract with the Los Alamos Public

Schools, pursuant to which these funds are paid.

Section 3167(a) of the National Defense Authorization Act for

Fiscal Year 1998 established the Los Alamos Education Foundation

to provide educational enrichment assistance to the communities

surrounding Los Alamos. The DOE has not kept pace with the contributions planned under that provision. As a result, even though

the Foundation has been very successful in raising private funds,

additional funds are still needed from the DOE.

The committee believes that the DOE should bring its annual

contributions to a close when the Foundation has reached a selfsustainable level of funding, and in any event no longer than 10

years. The provision would direct the Secretary to conduct a study

and then make recommendations as to how the DOE could meet

the goals of the section 3167(a) and the Foundation and then terminate all contributions to the Foundation. Also included in the required report would be a recommendation from the Secretary regarding the advisability of continuing to pay the cost of living payments to Los Alamos Schools. Included in this report should be a

recommendation as to how the DOE can make payments that

would resemble impact aid provided to communities with large populations of school age dependents.

Improvements to Corral Hollow Road, Livermore, California

(sec. 3158)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize up

to $0.3 million for safety improvements to Corral Hollow Road, a

narrow two-lane road that provides the only access to the Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/

NNSA) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300 facility.

Over the years, the population in the area has grown substantially as has traffic on the road, making left turns into Site 300

dangerous. In order to ensure that the employees and visitors to

Site 300 are safe, this provision would allow DOE/NNSA to widen

the road so that left turn and acceleration lanes can be added to

Site 300.

SUBTITLE F—ROCKY FLATS NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE

Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 (sec. 3171–

3181)

The committee recommends a provision, known as the Rocky

Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001, that would require the

Department of Energy (DOE), in cooperation with the Department

of Interior and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, to permanently designate at Rocky Flats a national wildlife refuge

known as the ‘‘Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge.’’

The creation of the National Wildlife Refuge by the DOE and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service represents the first completed cleanup and closure of a major DOE Environmental Management (EM)

site. The designation of the Rocky Flats site as a wildlife refuge

will ensure that appropriate land uses are maintained and that an

458

environmentally sound end state will result. As cleanup and closure continues, the committee urges the DOE to consult with the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure a smooth transition from

an EM site into a Wildlife Refuge.

Specifically, the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001

(the RFNWR Act) provides that: the land that presently comprises

the Rocky Flats site will remain in federal ownership; no part of

the Rocky Flats site can be annexed by a local government; and no

through roads can be built through the site.

Additionally, the RFNWR Act requires the DOE and the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding 18 months after enactment of the Act to address administrative issues and make preparations regarding the future transfer

of the site to the Fish and Wildlife Service and to divide responsibilities between the agencies until the transfer occurs. The Act

provides that when the cleanup is completed and the site is closed

as a DOE facility, the transfer of the site will occur from the DOE

to the Fish and Wildlife Service. While most of the site will be

transferred from the DOE to the Fish and Wildlife Service, any

cleanup facilities or structures that the DOE must maintain and

remain liable for will be excluded from transfer. It directs that the

transfer will not result in costs to the Fish and Wildlife Service and

requires the DOE to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service on

the identification of lands transferred. Finally, it requires the DOE

to continue cleanup at the site and mandates that any conflicts between the two agencies be resolved, but that cleanup shall take priority.

The RFNWR Act mandates that the DOE continue to clean up

and close the site under all existing laws, regulations and agreements; the establishment of the site as a National Wildlife Refuge

shall not affect the level of cleanup required; the DOE shall clean

up the site to levels that are established in the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement as the agreement is revised based on input from the

public, the regulators, and any other interested state and federal

government agencies; and the DOE will remain liable for any longterm cleanup obligations and be required to pay for this long-term

site care.

The RFNWR Act establishes the Rocky Flats site as a National

Wildlife Refuge 30 days after transfer of the site to the Fish and

Wildlife Service. It directs that the refuge shall be managed in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration

Act.

The RFNWR Act directs the Fish and Wildlife Service to convene

a public process to develop management plans for the refuge, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, and to consult with the local

communities in the creation of this public process.

The RFNWR Act also recognizes and preserves the existence of

other property rights on the Rocky Flats site, such as mineral

rights, water rights, and utility rights-of-way for all relevant parties. It allows the DOE and the Fish and Wildlife Service to impose

reasonable conditions on the access to private property rights for

cleanup and refuge management purposes. It requires the DOE to

seek acquisition of the mineral rights underlying the site held by

private owners. In addition, it allows the owners of any water ditch

459

easements to come on the site to survey these rights and describe

them for legal purposes.

The RFNWR Act authorizes the establishment of a Rocky Flats

museum to commemorate the history of the site, its operation, and

cleanup.

Finally, the RFNWR Act requires the DOE and the Fish and

Wildlife Service to inform Congress on the costs associated with implementing the Act.

The committee recognizes that the Department of Energy’s top

priority at Rocky Flats is safe cleanup and closure, and strongly

supports the 2006 closure date. The committee further recognizes

that the accelerated cleanup at Rocky Flats and creation of the

Wildlife Refuge has been achieved through strong support and cooperation from the surrounding communities, the State of Colorado, and the Colorado Congressional delegation.

Creation of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge provides an

important path forward for Rocky Flats and a model for other EM

sites across the nation.

OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST

Fissile material disposition

At the end of the Cold War it became clear that the United

States and Russia had significant quantities of surplus weapons

grade plutonium. This plutonium had to be secured and permanently destroyed if it was not to fall into the hands of terrorists or

others seeking to develop a nuclear weapon, or to be reused in

weapons. The committee has long supported efforts to permanently

dispose of weapons grade plutonium in the United States and Russia. The committee’s efforts began in 1993 with the creation of the

Office of Fissile Material Disposition at the Department of Energy.

In 1998, as the threat presented by the hundreds of tons of plutonium—enough to make tens of thousands of nuclear weapons—became more apparent, the United States and Russia agreed to convert 50 tons of plutonium to forms not suitable for weapons use.

In August of 2000, Russia and the United States followed with an

agreement to dispose of 34 tons each of weapons grade plutonium.

They agreed to irradiate the plutonium as fuel in nuclear reactors,

immobilize the plutonium, or otherwise dispose of the plutonium by

other methods mutually agreed upon. Each side agreed to begin operation of disposition facilities by the end of 2007.

To help Russia in its effort, the United States agreed to provide

up to $200 million or more, if the parties agreed. In addition, the

United States agreed to help Russia raise funds from the international community to help with the disposition effort. The August

2000 agreement addressed plutonium in various forms and specified disposition according to form. The United States agreed to dispose of 25.5 tons by irradiation and 9 tons by immobilization. Russia planned to dispose of all 34 tons by irradiation as fuel in nuclear reactors.

This agreement was the result of DOE efforts to identify suitable

plutonium disposition methods. In January 1997, the Department

issued its plan to develop a dual track approach to plutonium disposition. In January 2000, the DOE issued the Record of Decision

460

(ROD) supporting the dual track approach that became the basis

for the August 2000 agreement with Russia.

The DOE worked very hard to position the United States program to meet the goal of operating disposition facilities by the end

of 2007. By the end of 2001, the DOE had completed Title I and

II design on a Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MOX) and

had submitted a construction request to the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission. Title I design for the Pit Disassembly and Conversion

Facility is 35 percent complete; the DOE has operated the technology to disassemble pits, and has completed twelve studies to resolve design issues. In support of the immobilization effort, the

DOE installed and operated a prototype conversion and

ceramification facility.

The DOE fiscal year 2002 budget request signaled a major policy

shift in efforts to dispose of surplus plutonium. The budget for the

Russian program was reduced by 62 percent. The immobilization

program was suspended, the MOX fuel fabrication delayed and the

pit disassembly facility work was reduced to a limited technology

demonstration effort. In addition, the United States reduced efforts

to help Russia raise funds in the international community. At

about the same time the budget was submitted, the new administration announced it was conducting a review on US threat reduction programs and nonproliferation programs. These actions now

appear to have put the whole program in jeopardy, particularly the

U. S. domestic disposition program. The committee is disappointed

that the DOE is edging away from implementing the ROD for this

important nonproliferation program. Significant money, time and

effort has been invested in this effort to dispose of plutonium for

thousands of nuclear weapons. Now it appears that these efforts

could be wasted and that the opportunity to prevent 34 tons of

weapons grade plutonium from being used for nuclear weapons

may have been squandered.

The actions of the administration have significantly delayed the

plutonium disposition program. Moreover, these actions have

caused major concerns at the DOE Savannah River Site and jeopardized DOE’s ability to continue to ship excess plutonium to the

Savannah River Site.

The DOE Savannah River was selected to be the site for the

three disposition facilities. Savannah River is also the site where

most of the surplus plutonium not in pit form will be stored. Most

of this plutonium is being shipped to Savannah River from other

DOE sites. These shipments were predicated on the existence of a

robust plutonium disposition effort. Without the full plutonium disposition effort, as specified in the ROD, the Savannah River site

may be forced to store this plutonium indefinitely—an unacceptable

situation.

In the past several months this carefully structured nonproliferation program, with far reaching implications, has changed from

being on track to nearly falling apart. The committee urges the

DOE to get this program back on track immediately and not to

squander this opportunity to permanently dispose of the plutonium.

For the reasons stated, the committee directs the Secretary of

Energy to provide to the committee a report setting forth a plan

461

with milestones; to comply with the agreement with Russia, and

have disposition operations begin by 2007; to assist Russia with

raising funds in the international community; and to complete and

report on all reviews of this program no later than March 1, 2002.

Office of Engineering and Construction Management

The National Research Council reaffirmed its recommendation

that the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Engineering and

Construction Management (OECM) ‘‘would have a greater positive

impact if it were elevated to the level of assistant secretary and reported directly to the deputy secretary.’’ The OECM has been integral to the progress the DOE has made

over the last several years in significantly improving project and

construction management. Nevertheless, the committee believes

that much more needs to be done. As a result, the committee urges

the Secretary to have the OECM report directly to the Deputy Secretary. The committee further believes that the director of the

OECM should be a career employee with significant senior level

project and construction management experience.

The Secretary should also establish clear lines of authority for

OECM; provide necessary staff and resources to improve DOE

project management; development and implement contract performance measurement systems; design and implement an information-management system to track contracts and contractor performance; and continue emphasis on close cooperation and trust within

DOE and its contractors.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Office of

Project Management, working closely with the OECM, has worked

to improve the project and construction management abilities of

the NNSA. The committee commends the OECM and the NNSA

Office of Project Management for the significant improvement that

has resulted from their efforts.

Alternative dispute resolution

The Department of Energy (DOE) and several of its contractor

operators at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory (INEEL) have been engaged in litigation in the United

States Court of Claims (civil actions No. 98–468C and No. 00–156).

These actions arise out of efforts to cleanup the Pit 9 facility at the

INEEL. The committee urges the DOE and its contractor to explore

the possibility of using alternative dispute resolution to resolve the

substance of these actions pursuant to the Administrative Dispute

Resolution Act, 5 U.S.C. section 581(a), and in accordance with the

Construction Industry Arbitration and Mediation Rules of the

American Arbitration Association as modified by agreement of the

parties.

(463)

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY

BOARD

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (sec. 3201)

The committee recommends $18.5 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) for fiscal year 2002, the

amount of the request.

(465)

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE

National defense stockpile (secs. 3301–3304)

The committee recommends a provision (sec. 3301) that would

authorize the disposal of additional materials from the National

Defense Stockpile in fiscal year 2002 as proposed in the fiscal year

2002 budget request.

The committee further recommends two provisions (sec. 3302,

3303) that would revise limitations contained in previous authorization acts on the disposal of cobalt and accelerate the disposal of

cobalt required by a previous authorization act.

The committee further recommends a provision (sec. 3304) that

would revise a limitation on the disposal of manganese ferro contained in a previous authorization act to prohibit disposals of manganese ferro during fiscal year 2002.

(467)

TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES

Authorization of appropriations (sec. 3401)

The committee recommends a provision that would authorize

$17.4 million to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for the

Naval Petroleum Reserves.

LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS

Departmental Recommendations

By letter dated June 29, 2001, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense forwarded to the President of the Senate proposed legislation ‘‘To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2002

for military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe

military personnel strengths for fiscal years 2002, and for other

purposes.’’ The transmittal letter and proposed legislation were officially referred as Executive Communication 2954 to the Committee on Armed Services on June 29, 2001. Executive Communication 2954 is available for review at the committee. Senators Levin

and Warner introduced this legislative proposal as S.1155, by request, on June 29, 2001.

Committee Action

In accordance with the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as

amended by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, there is set

forth below the committee vote to report the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002.

In favor: Senators Levin, Kennedy, Byrd, Lieberman, Cleland,

Landrieu, Reed, Akaka, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska,

Carnahan, Dayton and Bingaman.

Opposed: Senators Warner, Thurmond, McCain, Smith, Inhofe,

Santorum, Roberts, Allard, Hutchinson, Sessions, Collins and

Bunning.

Vote: 13–12.

The roll call votes on amendments to the bill which were considered during the course of the mark-up have been made public and

are available at the committee.

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

It was not possible to include the Congressional Budget Office

cost estimate on this legislation because it was not available at the

time the report was filed. It will be included in material presented

during floor debate on the legislation.

468

Regulatory Impact

Paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate requires that a report on the regulatory impact of the bill be

included in the report on the bill. The committee finds that there

is no regulatory impact in the case of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2002.

Changes in Existing Law

Pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the

Standing Rules of the Senate, the changes in existing law made by

certain portions of the bill have not been shown in this section of

the report because, in the opinion of the committee, it is necessary

to dispense with showing such changes in order to expedite the

business of the Senate and reduce the expenditure of funds.

(469)

MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATORS JOHN W. WARNER, STROM

THURMOND, BOB SMITH, JAMES M. INHOFE, RICK

SANTORUM, PAT ROBERTS, WAYNE ALLARD, TIM HUTCHINSON, JEFF SESSIONS, SUSAN M. COLLINS, AND JIM

BUNNING

For the first time in decades—perhaps for the first time in the

history of the Senate Armed Services Committee—the annual defense authorization bill was reported to the Senate on a straight

party-line vote. This is an action that we have not taken lightly.

In deference to the extraordinary bipartisan traditions of this Committee, it is regrettable, but it is a clear and necessary manifestation of the support we have for the President of the United States

and his missile defense initiatives.

The Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Authorization Bill reported to the

Senate by the Armed Services Committee fails to support the President’s top national security priorities. In addresses to the Nation,

as a candidate and as the Commander-in-Chief, President George

W. Bush has repeatedly stressed the importance of ensuring the security of our homeland from traditional and non-traditional

threats, transforming the military to more effectively deal with

21st Century emerging threats, and achieving a new strategic

framework with Russia. This bill, in its current form, greatly undermines the ability of the Department of Defense to rapidly develop and test the technologies needed to protect our Nation from

limited, accidental or unintentional ballistic missile attack and ties

the hands of the President in unprecedented ways, inhibiting his

ability to reach agreement with the Russians on a meaningful

framework for the future.

Differences over the future course of the development and deployment of ballistic missile defenses—consistent with Public Law

106–38—to protect the American people, U.S. troops overseas, and

our allies and friends, deeply divided the Committee during its deliberations. The Majority included provisions in this bill related to

missile defense which would encroach on the President’s constitutional authority, impede progress on critical missile defense development and testing efforts, and impose unprecedented and unnecessary reporting requirements and administrative burdens on the

missile defense program. In addition, the bill contains a significant

cut—$1.3 billion—from the President’s request, including a cut of

over $650 million in theater missile defense programs.

Although we offered reasonable compromises, the Majority repeatedly voted unanimously to retain these egregious missile defense provisions and funding reductions despite the fact that they

know these provisions will never be enacted into law. The inclusion

of these provisions in this important Department of Defense authorization bill at this time sends the wrong message to our allies,

470

friends and potential adversaries around the world, and undermines the President’s on-going efforts with Russia.

For these reasons, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld wrote

to the Committee, prior to the final vote, advising that he would

recommend that the President veto the bill because of the missile

defense provisions. Secretary Rumsfeld stated, ‘‘If such language

were to become law, the U.S. would fall still further behind in

countering the threats of long-range missiles. If the language the

Committee is considering were to be adopted by the Congress and

forwarded to the President for his signature, I would have to recommend to the President that he veto the FY02 National Defense

Authorization Act.’’ We agree that such a recommendation is warranted if the offending provisions are not modified or removed.

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

Many of us on this Committee, together with numerous other colleagues in the Senate, have long been in the forefront of efforts to

develop missile defenses to protect our nation from a limited ballistic missile attack, and to protect our soldiers, sailors, airmen and

Marines deployed overseas, and our allies and friends from the burgeoning threat posed by the proliferation of ballistic missiles. It has

been a long and arduous struggle. Unfortunately, the legislative

provisions and funding reductions imposed on ballistic missile defense programs and activities in this bill greatly reduce the possibility of fielding a missile defense system in time to deal with the

current and rapidly emerging ballistic missile threats around the

world.

President Bush has proposed a bold new approach—to depart

from the thinking of the past and pursue a new strategic framework with Russia which recognizes the dramatically changed strategic environment. The President outlined this new approach during a May 1, 2001, speech at the National Defense University.

‘‘Today, the sun comes up on a vastly different world. The Wall is

gone, and so is the Soviet Union * * * Today’s Russia is not our

enemy * * * Yet this is still a dangerous world, a less certain, a

less predictable one. More nations have nuclear weapons and still

more have nuclear aspirations. Many have chemical and biological

weapons. Some already have developed the ballistic missile technology that would allow them to deliver weapons of mass destruction at long distances * * * We need new concepts of deterrence

that rely on both offensive and defensive forces * * * We need a

new framework that allows us to build missile defenses to counter

the different threats of today’s world.’’

We wholeheartedly endorse the President’s goals and commend

him for the consultative approach he has adopted—seeking the

views of our allies and friends, engaging in discussions with the

Russians. The President and his top advisers are involved in intensive dialogue with top Russian officials to achieve a new strategic

framework that will move us beyond the constraints of the ABM

Treaty and allow us to provide for the defense of our nation.

Most Americans are not aware that over 10 years after the missile attacks which we and our allies suffered during the Persian

Gulf War, our nation, and our allies, remain virtually defenseless

against such attacks. President Bush is committed to correct that.

471

We support him in his efforts, as our actions in this markup indicate.

As a nation we have no greater responsibility than to protect our

citizens, our forward deployed forces, and our allies from the threat

of weapons of mass destruction and the missiles, of all ranges, that

deliver them. Our ability to provide a measure of protection against

these threats is presently obstructed by the ABM Treaty.

Whatever follows the current ABM Treaty must enable the

United States to develop and deploy missile defenses to protect our

nation from a limited ballistic missile attack, and to protect our

forces deployed overseas, as well as our allies and friends. It must

allow the United States, and Russia, to pursue all the technologies

needed to achieve an effective defense against limited ballistic missile attacks against our respective homelands, and remove current

prohibitions on sharing missile defense technology with our allies

and friends.

The President, by virtue of the powers granted by the Constitution of the United States, is the chief architect of this nation’s foreign policy. However, the President’s ability to succeed in his foreign policy endeavors is greatly enhanced by the support of the

Congress. Congress is a co-equal branch of government under the

Constitution and plays a vital role in issues of foreign policy. Congress must be a true partner in the President’s efforts to achieve

a new strategic framework for the future. As Members of the Senate, we must not impede the President’s ability to reach an agreement with the Russians by legislatively imposing unreasonable

conditions or fiscal constraints on his missile defense program. Unfortunately, the missile defense provisions included in this bill do

exactly that.

Most troublesome is the legislative provision that would restrict

the President from exercising his constitutional authority to conduct foreign policy. We strongly object to section 221 of this bill

which would, if enacted, have the effect of usurping the President’s

authority—under Article 15 of the ABM Treaty—to exercise the

right to withdraw from that Treaty and, thereby undercut the

President during his ongoing discussions with Russia. This provision would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds for any

activities that ‘‘are inconsistent with the terms of the ABM Treaty,’’

until after the receipt of a Presidential certification and a subsequent vote of the Congress to approve the funds for these specific

activities. This provision would apply even if the United States

were no longer a party to the ABM Treaty. In effect, this provision

would give Congress the power to mandate continued adherence to

a treaty even after the President exercised his right—as specified

in the treaty—to withdraw from that treaty. This is an unprecedented and unacceptable encroachment on presidential authority.

The Majority justified this provision in large part by claiming

that the Administration has been unclear on whether the BMD test

activities contained in the fiscal year 2002 request would violate

the ABM Treaty. On the contrary, the Administration has been

clear and consistent on this issue. The President, the Secretary of

Defense, the National Security Adviser and the Deputy Secretary

of Defense have consistently stated that the United States will not

violate the ABM Treaty. This position was reaffirmed in Secretary

472

Rumsfeld’s letter to Senator Warner during the course of the Committee markup.

The Majority professes frustration with Administration statements that it cannot determine now whether planned activities and

tests in fiscal year 2002 might come into conflict with the ABM

Treaty. The Majority insists that it requires complete clarity on

this issue prior to approving funding for BMD activities for fiscal

year 2002. Yet the Senate has never voted for a defense authorization bill with a complete understanding of the Treaty compliance

of requested BMD activities—those determinations have simply not

been made before Congress votes on the annual defense authorization bills. The Majority now demands a standard in this bill never

imposed on nor achieved by its own previous Administration.

The inconsistency of the Majority’s position on this issue is clearly illustrated by the fact that all committee members voted to approve the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001

with the knowledge that the Act included funding for early deployment activities of a national missile defense—a clear ABM Treaty

violation.

We also note that the bill contains three sections that constrain

BMDO’s programmatic flexibility and subvert the BMDO’s proposed approach to develop and deploy BMD systems efficiently and

effectively. These provisions limit BMDO’s ability to transfer funds

to successful technology efforts, and require BMDO to develop extraordinarily detailed baselines, annual program plans, and treaty

compliance plans for virtually all of its activities.

The BMDO’s proposed program for fiscal year 2002 employs the

best business practices identified by GAO in a series of reports— practices which this committee has both sponsored and endorsed.

These best practices include: matching requirements with technology maturity; an emphasis on technology development and driving technology to maturity before it is incorporated into systems;

and substantial testing and simulation to assure that the system

can be produced and function reliably. The GAO reports describe

a capabilities-based (as opposed to requirements based) approach

that requires flexibility to mature technologies, incorporate them

into systems, and evolve those systems incrementally. We believe

that BMDO’s proposed approach holds considerable promise, and

we oppose the provisions included in the bill that serve to undermine it.

We are also concerned about the extent of the reduction in funding of the ballistic missile defense programs included in this bill.

This reduction targets testing, risk reduction and BMD system integration, and the most mature technologies available for defense

of the United States against limited missile attack. In addition, a

substantial reduction has been taken from theater missile defense

programs—programs to meet the most urgent threats facing our

deployed troops today. The results of these cuts would be to increase the risk for virtually all BMD programs, decrease confidence

that our missile defense system can work together, and delay the

effort to develop and deploy defenses against missiles of all ranges.

Inconsistencies between these reductions and the Majority’s stated priorities abound. The Majority believes that theater missile defenses deserve high priority—but they would reduce theater missile

473

defense programs by $650 million. All agree that missile defense

systems should not be deployed until they are thoroughly tested.

This is reflected in BMDO’s very strong emphasis this year on

technology development, filling out test inventories, providing

spare parts that support test programs, and increasing funding for

test support and evaluation—but the reductions in this bill would

force cut backs for testing in virtually all BMD programs. We believe that these reductions are ill-conceived, and must be restored.

THE BUDGET REQUEST

The new Bush Administration inherited a proud armed force that

was showing the effects of a decade of underfunding and overuse.

While U.S. servicemen and women have performed their military

missions with great dedication and professionalism, military personnel, equipment and infrastructure are increasingly stressed by

the effects of the unprecedented number of military deployments

over the past decade, combined with years of declining defense

spending. At the same time military force structure was declining

in size by almost 40%, overseas deployments for peacekeeping and

other military operations increased by over 300%. This contributed

to what General Hugh Shelton, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff referred to as the ‘‘strategy-resource mismatch’’—a mismatch

that will, hopefully, be resolved in the Fiscal Year 2002 Quadrennial Defense Review and associated strategic review process. As the

Service Chiefs have told this Committee repeatedly, future readiness and the upkeep of military facilities were continually deferred

to pay for current operations and maintenance.

The Congress was sensitive to this issue, providing much needed

increases in defense funding in recent years. In Fiscal Year 2000,

the Congress reversed a 14-year decline by authorizing a real increase in defense spending. Last year, the Congress continued that

momentum by providing an even larger real increase for Fiscal

Year 2001. Over the past two years, the Congress increased military pay by over 8%, restored retirement and health care benefits

to keep faith with those who serve, raised procurement levels to

begin recapitalization and modernization of aging equipment, and

significantly increased investment in research and development for

the future.

While much has been done, more is needed. President Bush is to

be commended for the increases he has proposed in defense spending. The President recommended increases for Fiscal Year 2002 totaling $38.2 billion. These increases represent an almost 11% increase in defense spending above the amount available in Fiscal

Year 2001. The President’s budget request begins to address chronic underfunding, reverse negative readiness trends, keeps faith

with our men and women in uniform, and fulfills his promise to the

American people that he will take the steps necessary to protect

our Nation and our vital interests from the full spectrum of threats

that confront us in an increasingly complex, dangerous world.

Apart from the ballistic missile defense issue, which has previously drawn widespread bipartisan support, the Committee did

take many important actions to support the President’s initiatives

and to improve national security and defense programs. The bill includes a substantial pay raise for military personnel and other

474

quality of life initiatives, a significant increase in the defense

health program, and increased funding for current readiness. As

this bill moves forward, we will work to modify or eliminate the offending missile defense provisions from the bill and restore funding

that enables the Nation to have the ability to protect itself against

weapons of mass destruction and the ballistic missile threat. We

will do everything we can to ensure that Congress acts in a way

that best serves the American people and the men and women who

serve to protect them.

JOHN W. WARNER.

STROM THURMOND.

BOB SMITH.

JAMES M. INHOFE.

RICK SANTORUM.

PAT ROBERTS.

WAYNE ALLARD.

TIM HUTCHINSON.

JEFF SESSIONS.

SUSAN M. COLLINS.

JIM BUNNING.

(475)

MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR BOB SMITH

I am disappointed in the outcome of the defense markup this

year, particularly in the draconian cuts to the Administration’s

missile defense budget, and attempt to mandate compliance with

the ABM Treaty, even if the President decided to withdraw from

the Treaty with six months’ notice. The ABM Treaty is a Cold War

relic and should be discarded. It has left us naked to the real

threat of nuclear missiles on U.S. territory or on U.S. forces deployed overseas, and has not prevented widespread proliferation of

these weapons of mass destruction, including to rogue regimes. Before Secretary Rumsfeld joined the Bush Administration, he

chaired a bipartisan Commission, now well-known for publicizing

the near-term threat of ballistic missiles. As the Committee completed its mark up, news reports announced that China is on the

verge of deploying its new mobile ICBM, the DF–31, which can

reach the western United States. More than twenty Third World

countries now have ballistic missile programs. The actions by this

Committee, if permitted to go into effect, will only forestall the day

that this nation is protected from missile attack.

Since the Rumsfeld Commission, another Commission, known as

Hart-Rudman, warned that secure access to outer space and cyberspace is the sine qua non of the US military’s ability to function

effectively. The commission advised the US to use both technological and diplomatic means to guard against the possibility of

‘‘breakout’’ capabilities in space or cyberspace that would threaten

U.S. national security.

I am therefore very disappointed that the Committee would not

agree to include legislation which Senator Allard and I sponsored

which would implement the findings of the Space Commission, also

chaired by Donald Rumsfeld. Increasingly, our adversaries are recognizing the importance of space control, yet it appears that the

Committee is locked, whether by constraining the U.S. to the outmoded ABM Treaty, or as with opposing space legislation, into the

status quo. We need to have a more dynamic, more fluid defense

policy, one which addresses threats when they arise and which

takes advantage of our superior technological base and know-how,

to keep U.S. military weaponry and forces unsurpassed and unchallenged in the world.

Finally, I am also in disagreement with the Committee over the

base closure language in the bill. While I have supported the BRAC

process in the past when I believed we had a surplus of military

infrastructure, I am now concerned that we have gone too far, and

that the promised savings never materialized. In fact, according to

the CBO and GAO, the savings are not auditable. I am also worried that we have under-estimated the costs of clean-up of closed

bases. In New Hampshire, I am particularly concerned about the

future of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard because I know that reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 17:04 Sep 13, 2001 Jkt 075056 PO 00000 Frm 00497 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR062.XXX pfrm07 PsN: SR062
476

opening a shipyard is not a possibility after closure. I would support a process in which the Secretary of Defense announces which

facilities should be shut down, and presents such a list to the Senate and House. I no longer support a process which unnecessarily

puts every facility at risk, and which only rewards the legions of

consultants and lobbyists paid to ward off becoming a target of a

BRAC round.

BOB SMITH.

(477)

MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR WAYNE ALLARD

I think it is vital to discuss two issues regarding this year’s defense authorization bill—military voting and the strategic subcommittee mark.

1. MILITARY VOTING RIGHTS

I was surprised to discover that the original Chairman’s Mark

contained no provisions to improve overseas and absentee military

voting. I would have thought that recent election problems would

have demanded a Committee response. Thankfully my proposed

amendment, which was based on my bill S. 381, started the necessary discussions and some language was added to the legislation

to improve the military voting situation. It appears as if the Majority is now willing to at least admit that the issue needs addressing.

While I was pleased that these improvements were made, stronger legislative measures are still needed. I was disappointed that

the Majority was not amicable to making all the needed corrections

to the system. Solutions to critical problems related to recently separated uniformed voters, standards of absentee ballot invalidation

(including postmark requirement clarification) and polling place location were rejected by the Majority but still need to be addressed.

2. STRATEGIC SUBCOMMITTEE

As the ranking member on the Strategic Subcommittee, I believe

there are some good provisions in the bill which are at risk due to

the serious flaws in the bill.

I appreciate the efforts in the area of Defense Environmental

Management. In particular, the support in the bill for closure sites

would benefit the sites’ surrounding communities and the nation as

a whole. This would provide a clean and safe environment at the

sites of former defense nuclear weapons facilities. It would free up

scarce resources as these sites are cleaned up and closed down to

help advance environmental cleanup and restoration at other Environmental Management sites.

I also appreciate the efforts for the National Nuclear Security

Administration (NNSA). The NNSA appears to be making important strides. There are still enormous challenges ahead, but NNSA

seems to be moving in the right direction.

In intelligence matters, I was encouraged by the support for unmanned aerial vehicles, sensor capabilities, and commercial satellite imagery. I am still concerned, however, that other critical

components of the intelligence architecture did not receive similar

support. Processing and dissemination of intelligence products remains a weakness in the overall system. Current programs are underfunded and would greatly benefit from increased support.

I was pleased with the support for greater DOD involvement in

the development of reusable launch vehicles. However, I should

478

note that I was disappointed that the committee has opted not to

implement any of the reforms of the Space Commission. This is an

area of particular interest to me and to another former Chairman

of the Subcommittee, Senator Bob Smith.

Early in the process of the mark-up, I made it clear that my top

priority was missile defense. I made it clear that I would not support a mark that cut these programs too deeply or that encumbered

them with too many restrictions. Unfortunately, this was the case

and I therefore could not support the bill.

I was disappointed I could not support the Subcommittee mark

but I was extremely disappointed by the uncompromising and strident full committee Majority position. Senator Warner and I offered reasonable compromises to the extreme language concerning

the ABM Treaty, restrictive programmatic flexibility, extraordinary

planning and reporting requirements, and the net cut of $1.3 billion (or about 16 percent) from the missile defense budget request.

I am convinced that the funding reductions in combination with restrictive bill language would, if enacted, hobble the President in his

effort to come to a satisfactory agreement with Russia on a new

strategic relationship. I must state forthrightly that, just measuring the impact of these cuts and the restrictive provisions, unless

there is honest negotiation and compromise between the Majority,

the Minority, and the Administration on all these issues, this bill

is at risk of not becoming law due to strong floor opposition or by

the Administration’s threatened veto.

WAYNE ALLARD.

(479)

MINORITY VIEWS OF SENATOR JIM BUNNING

I object to the base closure provision included within the 2002

Defense Authorization Bill, previously known as the Base Realignment And Closure (BRAC) and now called the Efficient Facilities

Initiative (EFI). It provides for one more round of base closures in

2003. My biggest concern is that we are proposing to conduct another expensive round of base closures without knowing if the first

four rounds have saved us any money. Everyone acknowledges that

base closure is very expensive up front. Supporters maintain that

in the long term there will be savings. The problem is that they

can’t definitively show us any savings yet.

I have heard so-called ‘savings numbers’ from DOD here and

there, but by their own admission those numbers have been projections and predictions at best. I have asked the Department of Defense numerous times to be provided with detailed numbers to

their cost savings from previous BRAC rounds and they have been

unable to provide me with a detailed account of where these savings have come from and where those savings were applied.

The Congressional Research Service and the General Accounting

Office have been asked to find a definitive savings, as well, and

they have had a tough time finding a consistent and detailed cost

savings number. They quote DOD projections and predictions as

their source, but we have learned that DOD cannot provide us with

accurate detailed numbers as to how much the previous closings

have saved us.

Just the other day we heard in the SASC Readiness Subcommittee from Committee staff that one of the reasons DoD cannot provide us accurate cost savings numbers is because environmental cleanup costs from previous BRAC rounds continue to climb

above expectations. The Defense Department cannot give an accurate estimate on when these costs will cease. They keep finding

more and more environmental problems, such as unexploded ordinance, that need to be dealt with before the bases can be closed

and returned to the civilian sector.

Finally, with the Quadrennial Defense Review still unfinished, I

believe it is premature to authorize a future base closure round.

This review tells us what our force structure should be, and correspondingly, whether there is really a need to reduce our base

structure, and what the long term plan is for how our base structure and facilities management fit into our military strategy and

policy.

It is primarily for these reasons that I oppose the base closure

provision in this bill, and it is for these reasons why I will support

480

striking this provision when the full Senate considers this legislation.

JIM BUNNING.

Æ