```

[Senate Report 107-62]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                       Calendar No. 155
107th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     107-62
_______________________________________________________________________

 
           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
                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-056                     WASHINGTON : 2001
______________________________________________________________________
             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

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                     (107th Congress, 1st Session)

                     CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts     JOHN WARNER, Virginia
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut     JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MAX CLELAND, Georgia                 BOB SMITH, New Hampshire
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JACK REED, Rhode Island              RICK SANTORUM, Pennsylvania
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
BILL NELSON, Florida                 WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska         TIM HUTCHINSON, Arkansas
JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri              JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota               SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico            JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
                     David S. Lyles, Staff Director
                Les Brownlee, Republican Staff Director
                            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
            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
            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
            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
        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
            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
            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
        Exemption from administrative limitations of retired 
          members ordered to active duty as defense and service 
          attaches (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
        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
    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
        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
        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
    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
        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
        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
                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
        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
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     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

                              R E P O R T

                             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;
          (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 ascyberwarfare 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 smaller-scale 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 information and communications 
technology in an intensive and far-reaching 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 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 
budgetsthat 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.
            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 active-duty 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 
commendsthe 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 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 maintenance 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 
allbombers 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 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 thirty-year-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 without major reductions to current defense 
programs. The committee urges the administration to address 
this situation witha 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 operational 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 foursubmarines, 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 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 
recommending an increase of more than $80 million to fund 
various high-priority 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 terrorism. 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 
millionfor 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.
            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 $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 ballistic 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.
            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.
            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 
majoracquisition 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 support 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.

            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.
    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

                             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 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 re-manufactured 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 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 recommends 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.

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 SECOMP-I system provides for 
voice and limited data communications.
    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 year. The Army intends to upgrade some of the TUAV systems 
and payloads for the full rate production version of the system 
to a so-called ``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

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:
                  (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 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 orwhether 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 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 year2001 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 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 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/
10transmitter 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 section 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 anti-surface 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.
    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-
3aircraft 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 anti-ship 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.

Gun mount modifications

    The budget request included $5.7 million in gun mount 
modifications, 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 self-defense 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 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 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 operatingcosts; 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.

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 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

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 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.
    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
          (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.

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 
optionson 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, 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

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 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 
theProcurement, 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 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 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 high-
capacity 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 
thecomplete 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 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 life-cycle 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 packet-switched 
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 
FYDPunder current budgets, and all current programs and plans, 
should be assessed objectively against those KPPs, as was done for the 
NIMA.
    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.
    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 ``shipbuilding 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.
    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 
multi-cellular 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 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.
         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

    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 recommendation 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 
theDepartment 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 distinct 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 
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. 
OnJuly 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 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 counter-countermeasures 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 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.

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 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 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 
systemsidentified 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 accordance 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 Technology Transition Initiative Manager 
designated pursuant to this provision. The senior technology 
transition advocates in the military services should work to 
identify andtransition 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, non-traditional 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 high-tech, 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

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 tocommercially 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 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.

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 
wellas 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 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 
self-contained, 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 
industrial-scale 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 capabilities 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 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.
    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 capabilities, 
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 
terrainelevation 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

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 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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Budget      Committee
         PE            Project Number/Title      request     recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
62123N.............  Force Protection              117,072            0
                      Advanced Technology.
62111N.............  Surface/Aerospace                   0       44,092
                      Surveillance & Weapons
                      Technology.
                     Missile Defense and       ...........      (33,804)
                      Directed Energy.
                     Navy Air Vehicle          ...........      (10,288)
                      Technology.
62121N.............  Surface Ship Technology.            0       56,064
62234N.............  Materials and Radio                 0       14,278
                      Frequency/Electro-
                      optics/Infrared
                      Electronics Technology.
62633N.............  Undersea Warfare Weapons            0        2,638
                      Technology.
62747N.............  Undersea Warfare Applied       76,510            0
                      Research.
62633N.............  Undersea Warfare Weapons            0       60,941
                      Technology.
62314N.............  Undersea Surveillance               0       15,569
                      and Weapons Technology.
63123N.............  Force Protection               85,297            0
                      Advanced Technology.
63508N.............  Surface Ship and Sub                0       66,658
                      HM&E Advanced
                      Technology.
                     R2224/Automation to                 0       (1,000)
                      Reduce Manning.
                     Advanced Electrical                 0      (16,800)
                      Systems.
                     Advanced Coating                    0       (9,358)
                      Systems, Machinery
                      Flanking/heavy truss.
                     Dynamic and Passive                 0       (2,000)
                      Magazine Protection.
                     Advanced Damage                     0       (1,000)
                      Countermeasures.
                     Near Field De-amping....            0       (1,200)
                     Ship Surveillance &                 0       (8,100)
                      Protection.
                     Electronic Building                 0       (7,200)
                      Blocks.
                     Ship hull design for AOE-           0      (20,000)
                      10 class & MPF (Future).
63792N.............  Air Systems & Weapons               0       18,639
                      Advanced Technology
                      Transition.
                     R0466 Advanced Avionics             0       (3,586)
                      Subsystems.
                     W2014 Integrated High               0       (7,534)
                      Performance Turbine
                      Engine Technology.
                     R0477 Weapons Advanced              0       (7,519)
                      Technology.
                                              --------------------------
                           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 human-made 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 
recommends 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 research 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 
defensetechnologies 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.

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 
I-beams 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 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.

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 
supportcapability 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.

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.

Aegis operational readiness test system

    The budget request included $0.3 million in PE 64307N to 
continue design efforts for a replacement for the 
Aegisoperational 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 frequency (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 multi-purpose 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 
fleetintroduction 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 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.

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 
bestpractices 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.
    The JHMCS system, when combined with the new AIM-9X air-to-
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.

Vertical takeoff and landing tactical unmanned aerial vehicle 
        development

    The budget request included $66.3 million in PE 35204N 
todevelop 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

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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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 
importanceof 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, off-the-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.

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 high-altitude 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 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 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) 
anEconomic 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 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

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 twelveyears 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 2003, and prior to the results of 
those tests, the performance of the half-power ABL will not be 
known. Furthermore, even if the half-power ABL tests are 
successful, the program still must demonstrate the ability to 
scale the laser components up to the full-power 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 
(Sea-based 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 Theater-Wide 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, 
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 objective (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-
earth-orbit 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 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 
anddiscrimination 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 
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-to-failure'' 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 thatthe 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 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.
            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 recommends 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), 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 SBIRS-Low system will 
gather, for a small fraction of the cost of SBIRS-Low. 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 disbanded. 
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 
high-density 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 procedures 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 tothe 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 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.

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 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.

Naval unmanned combat air vehicle

    The budget request included $153.7 million in PE 63285E to 
develop 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-the-loop 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. 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 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 
forward-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) 
initiatedseveral 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 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 short-term 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 concern are the investment 
in air- and space-based technologies and information systems. 
The committeeencourages 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 decisions 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, 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 development 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 
operationalrequirements 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 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.
                  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

              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.
    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 
equipmentwhere 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.
    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 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 
andsignificantly 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, 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 
inorder 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.

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 the Army use $6.6 million of these 
funds to purchase 452 M-Gators, 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 
facilitiesthat 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.
    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 $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 lessonslearned 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 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 post-USS 
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 fleecepullovers, 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.

                               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.

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 aclear 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 information 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.

               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 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 
executiveagent. 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 information 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 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 
aminimum 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.
    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 
depot-level 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, 
andprojected 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 
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.
              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          2002          2002
                              authorization    request    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          2002          2002
                              authorization    request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of         350,526       350,000        350,000
 the United States..........
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          108,022       108,400        108,400
 the United States..........
The Air Force Reserve.......        74,358        74,700         74,700
The Coast Guard Reserve.....         8,000         8,000          8,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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          2002          2002
                              authorization    request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army National Guard of          22,974        22,974         23,698
 the United States..........
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           11,170        11,591         11,591
 the United States..........
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 fortransition 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          2002          2002
                              authorization    request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army Reserve............         5,921         5,999          6,249
The Army National Guard of          23,128        23,128         23,615
 the United States..........
The Air Force Reserve.......         9,785         9,818          9,818
The Air National Guard of           22,247        22,422         22,422
 the United States..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 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          2002          2002
                              authorization    request    recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Army Reserve............         1,195         1,095          1,095
The Army National Guard of           1,600         1,600          1,600
 the United States..........
The Air Force Reserve.......            10             0              0
The Air National Guard of              326           350            350
 the United States..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

              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. 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 attaches (sec. 506)

    The committee recommends a provision that would exclude 
retired members recalled to active duty for service as defense 
or service attaches 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 ispotentially 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.

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 promotion, 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.

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 reimbursement. 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 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.

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.

             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.

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 follow-on 
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.

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 torelief 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 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 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.
          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 part-time 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 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 out-of-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. 
Therecommended 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 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.

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 andcombat 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.

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.

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.
    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.
                         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.

                       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, 
anddurable 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 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 Computer-Based 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.
    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 
costsof 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.

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.
  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; competition 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 
requiring 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 performance-based 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.

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 
alwaysleads 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 establish 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 sole-source 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.

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 costeffective 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.
    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 toidentify whether a procurement in 
excess of $5.0 million has been consolidated or not.
    The committee is concerned that efforts to impose new 
record-keeping 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, 
woman-owned 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.

 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 domestic 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 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.
      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.
    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 jointwarfighting 
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 
command 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 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.
                      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 common-funded 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.
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 toredirect 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.

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 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 theannouncement, 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.
    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, 
then-Governor 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 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 thatrevealed 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.

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 
vaccineproduction, the committee directs that all applicable 
competitive procedures be used in site selection and in the award of 
contracts 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 Retirement 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.

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).
    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 ofDefense 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 one-time transfer will eliminate the financial 
cost, labor and liabilities associated with this equipment so 
long as it remains DOD property.

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. 
Thereport should be submitted to Congress no later than March 
4, 2002.

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.

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.

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 Education 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.
       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 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 high-grade, 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.
              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.
    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.

                       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)) 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.
         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 Impoundment 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.
                            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.

                            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.
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.
                         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.

                        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.
                      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 expects 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 
GrassArmy 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 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.
   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.
            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.
        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 
section 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 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.

        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.

                      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 toreplace 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 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 personalproperty 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.

                        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 
moratoriumon 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 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.
            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 structure 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 non-DOD 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 reduction 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.
 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.
    The following table summarizes the budget request and the 
committee recommendations:

         SUBTITLE A--NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS AUTHORIZATIONS

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 sciences and technologies. 
Campaigns focus research and development activities on clearly 
defined objectives and deliverables.
    The committee recommends $52.6 million for primary 
certification, 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 
certification 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 petawatt-
class 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 anduntil 
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 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 
facilities, 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 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 $42.0million 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 support 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, $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/NNSAefforts, 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 respect 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 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.
            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 attractcommercial 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 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 adequate 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 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 combined. The NNSA has announced a major 
headquartersreorganization 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 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 
andEmergency 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.

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.

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 theSecretary 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.

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 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 
themaintenance 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 five-year 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 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.

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, 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 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 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 theNational 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.

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 Los Alamos Public Schools. The 
provision would also allow the DOE to extendthe 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 
self-sustainable 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 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 long-term 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 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 (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 thisimportant 
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 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.
          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.
                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.
                 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.

                           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.

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, 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 
newstrategic 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. 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 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 beproduced 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 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 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.

                  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 re-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.

                 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 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.

                 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 striking this provision when the full Senate 
considers this legislation.

                                                       Jim Bunning.

                                  

```