" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 108TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

108–106

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON

H.R. 1588

together with

ADDITIONAL, DISSENTING, AND 

SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

MAY 16, 2003.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


congress.#13
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

00–000

" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 108TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2003

108–106

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ON

H.R. 1588

together with

ADDITIONAL, DISSENTING, AND 

SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

MAY 16, 2003.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed


congress.#13
(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

DUNCAN HUNTER, California, Chairman 

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JIM SAXTON, New Jersey 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

HOWARD P. ‘‘BUCK’’ MCKEON, California 

MAC THORNBERRY, Texas 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

JIM GIBBONS, Nevada 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

KEN CALVERT, California 

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

ED SCHROCK, Virginia 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

ROB BISHOP, Utah 

MICHAEL TURNER, Ohio 

JOHN KLINE, Minnesota 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

IKE SKELTON, Missouri 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

MARTY MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

JIM TURNER, Texas 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

MIKE MCINTYRE, North Carolina 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JIM MARSHALL, Georgia 

KENDRICK B. MEEK, Florida 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

ROBERT S. RANGEL, Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Explanation of the Committee Amendments ........................................................ 1

Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 2

Relationship of Authorization to Appropriations .................................................. 2

Summary of Authorization in the Bill ................................................................... 2

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

Rationale for the Committee Bill ........................................................................... 11

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 16

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION .................... 17

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT ................................................................................... 18

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 18

Aircraft Procurement, Army ............................................................................ 19

Overview ........................................................................................................ 19

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 23

Kiowa warrior ............................................................................................ 23

UH-60 blackhawk ...................................................................................... 23

UH-60 modifications ................................................................................. 23

Missile Procurement, Army ............................................................................. 24

Overview ........................................................................................................ 24

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

Patriot PAC–3 ............................................................................................ 27

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army ............................................. 27

Overview ........................................................................................................ 27

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 31

Counterattack corps modernization ......................................................... 31

Ammunition Procurement, Army .................................................................... 32

Overview ........................................................................................................ 32

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 36

Army ammunition procurement ............................................................... 36

Joint ammunition production base upgrades and capacity ................... 36

Other Procurement, Army ............................................................................... 37

Overview ........................................................................................................ 37

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 47

Communications-electronics equipment fielding .................................... 47

Construction equipment ESP ................................................................... 47

Family of heavy tactical vehicles ............................................................. 47

Full tracked tractor ................................................................................... 48

High mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs) .................. 48

Joint tactical area command systems ...................................................... 48

Knight family ............................................................................................. 49

Land warrior .............................................................................................. 49

Lightweight video reconnaissance system (LVRS) ................................. 50

Local area network upgrades ................................................................... 50

Logistic support vessel (LSV) ................................................................... 50

Nonsystem training devices ...................................................................... 51

Warfighter information network-tactical (WIN–T) ................................. 51

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ............................................................................ 51

Overview ........................................................................................................ 51

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

AV–8B series modifications ...................................................................... 56

EA–6B modifications ................................................................................. 56

Joint Primary Air Training System (JPATS) .......................................... 57

P–3 series modifications ........................................................................... 57

T–45A to T–45C conversion ...................................................................... 58

Page

IV

Weapons Procurement, Navy ........................................................................... 58

Overview ........................................................................................................ 58

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 62

Close-in weapon system (CIWS) block 1B upgrade ................................ 62

GQM–163A coyote supersonic sea skimming target .............................. 62

Tomahawk missile ..................................................................................... 62

Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps ........................................ 63

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

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 66

Marine Corps ammunition procurement ................................................. 66

Navy ammunition procurement ............................................................... 66

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy ................................................................ 66

Overview ........................................................................................................ 66

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 70

Landing craft air cushion (LCAC) service life extension program 

(SLEP) .................................................................................................... 70

Minehunter small waterplane area twin hull (SWATH) boats ............. 70

Other Procurement, Navy ................................................................................ 70

Overview ........................................................................................................ 70

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 79

Fuel and engine maintenance savings system (FEMSS) ....................... 79

Law enforcement information exchange .................................................. 79

Naval fires control system (NFCS) .......................................................... 79

Navy tactical data systems ....................................................................... 79

Non-lethal swimmer detection systems ................................................... 80

Operating forces industrial plant equipment .......................................... 80

Other supply support equipment ............................................................. 80

Radar support ............................................................................................ 81

Procurement, Marine Corps ............................................................................. 81

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

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 86

Night vision equipment ............................................................................. 86

Radio systems ............................................................................................ 86

Weapons and combat vehicles under $5.0 million .................................. 86

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ...................................................................... 87

Overview ........................................................................................................ 87

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 94

Air Force air refueling transfer account .................................................. 94

B–1B modifications ................................................................................... 95

B–2 modifications and development ........................................................ 95

C–5 modifications and force structure ..................................................... 96

C–17 ............................................................................................................ 97

C–130 modifications .................................................................................. 98

E–8C joint surveillance and target attack radar system (JSTARS) 

reengining ............................................................................................... 98

F–15 modifications .................................................................................... 98

F–16 Air National Guard (ANG) force structure .................................... 99

F–16 modifications .................................................................................... 99

F/A–22 ........................................................................................................ 100

Fixed aircrew standardized seats (FASS) ............................................... 101

H–60 modifications .................................................................................... 101

Predator B unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) ........................................... 102

Ammunition Procurement, Air Force .............................................................. 102

Overview ........................................................................................................ 102

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 104

Air Force ammunition procurement ........................................................ 104

Missile Procurement, Air Force ....................................................................... 104

Overview ........................................................................................................ 104

Other Procurement, Air Force ......................................................................... 107

Overview ........................................................................................................ 107

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 113

Air Force information technology procurement ...................................... 113

Combat arms training system (CATS) .................................................... 113

General information technology ............................................................... 113

Miniature-multiple threat emitter system (Mini-MUTES) .................... 114

Point of maintenance initiative (POMX) ................................................. 114

Procurement, Defense-Wide ............................................................................. 114

Page

V

Overview ........................................................................................................ 114

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 119

Chemical/biological defense procurement program ................................ 119

Defense wide information technology procurement ................................ 119

Department of defense budget justification documentation .................. 119

Information technology ............................................................................. 121

Military tactical radio procurement ......................................................... 121

Operation Iraqi Freedom lessons learned ............................................... 121

Secure wireless technology ....................................................................... 122

Special operations forces (SOF) ordnance ............................................... 122

Special operations forces (SOF) weapons improvements ....................... 123

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 123

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

Sections 101–104—Authorization of Appropriations ................................. 123

Subtitle B—Army Programs ............................................................................ 123

Section 111—Stryker Vehicle Program ....................................................... 123

Subtitle C—Navy Programs ............................................................................ 123

Section 121—Multiyear Procurement Authority for F/A–18 Aircraft Program ........................................................................................................... 123

Section 122—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Tactical Tomahawk 

Cruise Missile Program ............................................................................ 123

Section 123—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Virginia Class Submarine Program ........................................................................................ 124

Section 124—Multiyear Procurement Authority for E–2C Aircraft Program ........................................................................................................... 124

Section 125—LPD–17 Class Vessel ............................................................. 124

Subtitle D—Air Force Programs ..................................................................... 124

Section 131—Air Force Air Refueling Transfer Account ........................... 124

Section 132—Increase in Number of Aircraft Authorized to be Procured 

Under Multiyear Procurement Authority for Air Force C–130J Aircraft Program ............................................................................................. 125

Section 133—Limitation on Retiring C–5 Aircraft ..................................... 125

Section 134—Limitation on Obligation of Funds for Procurement of 

F/A–22 Aircraft .......................................................................................... 125

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION .......... 125

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 125

Army Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation ....................................... 128

Overview ........................................................................................................ 128

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 140

Advanced battery technology initiative ................................................... 140

Advanced cluster energetics ..................................................................... 140

Advanced electric drive ............................................................................. 140

Advanced precision kill weapon system (APKWS) ................................. 141

Armored Systems Modernization ............................................................. 141

Army Centers of Excellence ...................................................................... 142

Army Evaluation Center ........................................................................... 142

Army information dominance center expanded processing for advanced data analysis ............................................................................. 143

Army integrated broadcast service integration ....................................... 143

Army manufacturing and maintenance organization ............................. 143

Army unmanned aerial vehicle advocacy ................................................ 143

Asbestos pilot project ................................................................................ 144

Brilliant anti-armor submunition ............................................................ 144

Broad area unmanned responsive re-supply operations ........................ 145

Brooks Energy and Sustainability Lab ................................................... 145

Cadmium zinc telluride detectors ............................................................ 145

Commercial-off-the Shelf (COTS) fuel filtration device ......................... 145

Defense Language Institute research and development ........................ 146

Desert terrain analysis ............................................................................. 146

Electromagnetic Gun Initiative ................................................................ 146

Hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier ............................................................ 147

Intelligence and Security Command global information portal ............. 148

Legacy parts reinvention .......................................................................... 148

Medium Extended Air Defense System ................................................... 148

Metallic particles in defense applications obscurant smokes ................ 149

Micro electro-mechanical systems inertial measurement unit/global 

positioning system ................................................................................. 149

Page

VI

Modular multi function laser system ....................................................... 149

Non system training devices and constructive simulation systems 

development ........................................................................................... 149

Objective force bandwidth report ............................................................. 150

Palletized synthetic aperture radar moving target indicator radar 

sets .......................................................................................................... 150

Patriot PAC–3 ............................................................................................ 150

Patriot PAC–2 ............................................................................................ 151

Portable and mobile emergency broadband system ................................ 151

Pseudofollicullitus Barbae Research ........................................................ 151

Reconfiguring tooling ................................................................................ 151

Remote acoustic hemostasis ..................................................................... 152

Rugged textile electronic garments for combat casualty care ............... 152

ScramFire 120mm powered munition ..................................................... 152

Wire detection, wind sensor and obstacle avoidance system for helicopters ..................................................................................................... 153

Navy Research, Development, Test & Evaluation ......................................... 153

Overview ........................................................................................................ 153

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 167

Advanced cable design for mine and submarine warfare ...................... 167

Advanced composite sail phase II ............................................................ 167

Advanced Navy materials ......................................................................... 167

Advanced sensor initiative ........................................................................ 167

Advanced WaterJet-21 .............................................................................. 168

Aegis open architecture ............................................................................ 168

Affordable towed array construction (ATAC) program .......................... 169

Affordable weapons system ...................................................................... 169

Airborne buried mine detection ................................................................ 170

ALE–55 development testing ................................................................... 170

All optical underwater segments ............................................................. 171

Anti-surface warfare improvement program (AIP) phased capability 

update (PCU) ......................................................................................... 171

Automated wire analysis .......................................................................... 171

Autonomous naval support round ............................................................ 171

AV–8B engine life management program (ELMP) ................................. 172

Battle force tactical training coalition interoperability .......................... 172

Biomedical Research Imaging .................................................................. 173

Claymore Marine ....................................................................................... 173

COBRA JUDY ........................................................................................... 173

Combat systems integration/battle force interoperability ...................... 173

Consolidated undersea situational awareness system ........................... 174

Cruise missile real time retargeting/laser radar technology ................. 174

DD(X) multi-mission surface combatant ................................................. 175

Deployable joint command and control ................................................... 175

Digital intelligence situation mapboard .................................................. 176

DP–2 thrust vectoring system .................................................................. 177

Emerging/Critical interconnection technology ........................................ 177

Fire-retarded POSS composites ............................................................... 178

Formable aligned carbon thermosets ....................................................... 178

Global Hawk maritime demonstration .................................................... 178

High performance electric brush .............................................................. 179

High temperature superconducting AC synchronous ship propulsion 

motor ....................................................................................................... 179

IMPRINT ................................................................................................... 180

Integrated Maritime Picture System of Systems .................................... 180

Integrated radar optical surveillance and sighting system ................... 180

Joint integrated satellite communications technology (JIST) ............... 181

Joint warfare experiments ........................................................................ 181

Joint warfare experimentation program ................................................. 181

Knowledge projection for fleet maintenance ........................................... 182

Littoral combat ship .................................................................................. 182

Littoral combat ship mission module development ................................ 183

Littoral support craft-experiment ............................................................ 184

Low acoustic signature motor/propulsor .................................................. 185

Low-power mega-performance unmanned aerial vehicle processing 

engines .................................................................................................... 185

Low probability of intercept surveillance radar demonstration ............ 185

Page

VII

Manned reconnaissance aircraft replacement ......................................... 186

Marine mammal research program ......................................................... 186

Metrology ................................................................................................... 187

Mobile expandable shelters ...................................................................... 187

Modeling and simulation of surgical procedures for battlefield trauma ........................................................................................................... 187

Multi-mission maritime aircraft ............................................................... 187

Naval architecture and engineering ........................................................ 188

Naval collaboration tool set ...................................................................... 188

Naval fires network tactical dissemination module ............................... 189

Navy circuit breaker electronic trip unit second source ......................... 189

Navy information technology research and development ...................... 189

Nonlinear dynamics stochastic resonance ............................................... 189

Offshore mobile basing .............................................................................. 190

Open architecture wireless sensors ......................................................... 190

Organ transfer technology ........................................................................ 190

Project M .................................................................................................... 191

Quad hull security caisson technical demonstration .............................. 192

Rapid deployment fortification wall live-fire testing .............................. 192

Reduction of catapult post-retraction exhaust discharge ....................... 192

Remote ocean surveillance system ........................................................... 193

Shadow 200 system components for the Marine Corps ......................... 193

Shipboard fire protection .......................................................................... 193

Silver Fox unmanned aerial vehicle ........................................................ 194

Station-keeping ocean environment sensors ........................................... 194

Submarine payloads and sensors ............................................................. 194

Submarine sonar improvements .............................................................. 195

Superconducting DC homopolar motor .................................................... 195

Surface Navy integrated undersea tactical technology—mine warfare 

trainer ..................................................................................................... 195

Theater undersea warfare initiative ........................................................ 196

Unmanned aerial vehicle joint operational test bed system .................. 197

Unmanned aerial vehicles concept of operations .................................... 197

Vacuum electronics ................................................................................... 197

Virginia class multi-mission module ........................................................ 198

Wide band gap semiconductor power electronics .................................... 198

Air Force Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation ................................. 199

Overview ........................................................................................................ 199

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 212

3D Bias Woven Preforms .......................................................................... 212

Advanced extremely high frequency MILSATCOM ............................... 212

Advanced spacecraft technology ............................................................... 212

Advanced Threat Alert Receiver (ATAR)/Lightweight Modular Support Jammer (LMSJ) ............................................................................. 212

Advanced wideband system ...................................................................... 213

Aircraft turbine engine sustainment ....................................................... 213

Air Force information technology research and development ............... 213

Air Force space fence ................................................................................ 213

Ballistic missile technology program ....................................................... 214

Central measurement intelligence office ................................................. 214

Civil reserve space service ........................................................................ 214

Common aero vehicle ................................................................................ 214

Distributed common ground system ........................................................ 215

Distributed mission interoperability toolkit (DMIT) program ............... 215

Enhanced techniques for detection of explosives .................................... 215

F–15 C/D radar block upgrade ................................................................. 216

F–16 squadrons ......................................................................................... 216

F–16 theater airborne reconnaissance system (TARS) .......................... 217

Flexible display and integrated communications devices ...................... 217

Force protection and survivability for deployed forces ........................... 217

Fusion SIGINT enhancements for network-centric intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance ................................................................ 218

Global Hawk advanced imagery architecture ......................................... 218

Hardening technologies for satellite protection ...................................... 218

High Accuracy network determination system ....................................... 218

Hybrid bearings ......................................................................................... 219

Integrated broadcast service .................................................................... 219

Page

VIII

Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology (IHPRPT) program ........................................................................................................ 219

Link 16 weapon data terminal ................................................................. 219

Low emission/efficient hybrid aviation refueling truck propulsion ....... 220

Metals affordability ................................................................................... 220

Nanomaterials ........................................................................................... 220

National operational signature production and research capability ..... 220

NAVSTAR Global positioning system III ................................................ 220

Next generation bomber program ............................................................ 221

Nuclear detonation detection system ....................................................... 221

Operationally responsive launch .............................................................. 221

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

Space based radar ..................................................................................... 222

Defense-Wide Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation .......................... 222

Overview ........................................................................................................ 222

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

Advanced Micro/Nano-Electromechanical Systems Technology ............ 233

Advanced sensor applications program ................................................... 233

Advanced solid-state dye laser ................................................................. 233

Advanced target identification capability for AC–130U gunships ........ 233

Air to air technology .................................................................................. 234

Anti-radiation drug development and trials program ............................ 234

Asymmetric protocols for biological defense ............................................ 234

Ballistic missile defense ............................................................................ 235

Technology and advanced concepts ...................................................... 235

Terminal defense segment .................................................................... 236

Midcourse defense segment .................................................................. 236

System interceptor ................................................................................. 237

System core segment ............................................................................. 237

Products .................................................................................................. 238

Ballistic missile defense testing ............................................................... 238

Ballistic missile defense reporting requirements ................................... 238

Blast mitigation and analysis technology ............................................... 239

Chemical/biological defense research, development, test and evaluation program ....................................................................................... 239

Chemical biological defense applied research initiative ..................... 240

Chemical biological defense advanced technology development initiative .................................................................................................. 240

Chemical biological electrostatic decontamination system .................... 241

Cobra blue force tracking ......................................................................... 241

Connectory for rapid identification of technology sources ..................... 241

Department of Defense information technology research and development ........................................................................................................ 242

Defense science and technology funding ................................................. 242

Advanced concept technology demonstrations and technology transition .................................................................................................... 243

Devolvement ........................................................................................... 243

Navy science and technology program ................................................. 244

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency ...................................... 244

Facial recognition access control technology ........................................... 244

Integrated nano- and micro-manufacturing technology ......................... 245

Magnetic Quadrupole Resonance Explosives Detection ......................... 245

Man Portable Air Defense System (MANPADS) Defense Program ...... 245

Medical free electron laser ........................................................................ 245

Multi-wavelength surface scanning biologics sensor .............................. 246

National Defense University sponsored research program .................... 246

Nuclear weapons effects ............................................................................ 247

‘‘PackBot’’ tactical mobile robot ................................................................ 247

Primate biomedical laboratory test and evaluation capability .............. 247

Re-defined Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence) role ....................................................... 248

Special Operations Advanced Technology Development ........................ 249

Support to homeland security .................................................................. 249

Technology development ........................................................................... 249

Unmanned aerial vehicle acquisition management ................................ 249

Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense .................................................... 250

Overview ........................................................................................................ 250

Page

IX

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 252

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 252

Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations ........................................... 252

Section 202—Amount for Defense Science and Technology ...................... 252

Subtitle B—Program Requirements, Restrictions, and Limitations ............ 252

Section 211—Collaborative Program for Development of Electromagnetic Gun Technology ......................................................................... 252

Section 212—Authority to Select Civilian Employees of Department 

of Defense as Director of Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center ......................................................................................... 253

Section 213—Joint Tactical Radio System .................................................. 254

Section 214—Future Combat Systems ........................................................ 254

Section 215—Army Program To Pursue Technologies Leading To The 

Enhanced Production Of Titanium By The United States .................... 254

Section 216—Extension of Reporting Requirement for RAH-66 Comanche Aircraft Program ................................................................................. 254

Section 217—Future Fleet Architecture Studies ........................................ 255

Subtitle C—Ballistic Missile Defense ............................................................. 257

Section 221—Ballistic Missile Defense System .......................................... 257

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................ 257

READINESS OVERVIEW ................................................................................... 257

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 290

Budget Request Adjustments—Readiness ...................................................... 290

Budget Request Display Issues—Readiness ................................................... 291

Base Operating Support ............................................................................... 291

Civilian Career Program Relocations—Air Force ....................................... 291

Civilian Personnel Budget—Army ............................................................... 291

Civilian Separation Incentives—Air Force ................................................. 291

Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities—Defense Logistics 

Agency ........................................................................................................ 292

Consumable Repair Parts—Army ................................................................ 292

Contingency Operations Funding—Southwest Asia .................................. 292

Defense Information Systems Agency ......................................................... 292

Defense Policy Analysis Office ..................................................................... 292

Depot Funding ............................................................................................... 293

Army ........................................................................................................... 293

Air Force .................................................................................................... 293

Navy ........................................................................................................... 294

Marine Corps ............................................................................................. 294

Fuel Costs—Defense Logistics Agency ........................................................ 294

Initial Issue Equipment—Marine Corps ..................................................... 295

Office of Secretary of Defense, Contracts and Other Support Services .... 295

Overseas Contingency Operations Fund ..................................................... 295

Supply Management Activity Group—Air Force ........................................ 295

Transportation Working Capital Fund—Air Force .................................... 296

Working Capital Fund Cash Management ................................................. 296

Budget Request—Other Matters ..................................................................... 296

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction ............................................. 296

Defense and Security Cooperation with Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania 298

Expansion of Export Control Database ....................................................... 298

Information Technology Issues ........................................................................ 299

Overview ........................................................................................................ 299

Budget Displays ............................................................................................ 300

General Reductions ....................................................................................... 300

Global Information Grid Bandwidth Expansion ........................................ 300

Information Technology Specific Reductions .............................................. 301

Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic Network (NDFON) ............................. 302

Other Issues ...................................................................................................... 302

Budget Justification Exhibit Materials ....................................................... 302

Cash Management ........................................................................................ 303

Depot Maintenance Long-Term Strategy .................................................... 304

Expansion of Export Control Database ....................................................... 304

Facility Sustainment, Renovation and Modernization .............................. 305

Foreign Currency Accounts .......................................................................... 305

Maintaining the Strategic Domestic Beryllium Supply ............................. 305

Ship Intermediate and Depot Maintenance Funding ................................ 306

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 306

Page

X

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 306

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding .................................. 306

Section 302—Working Capital Funds ......................................................... 306

Section 303—Other Department of Defense Programs .............................. 306

Subtitle B—Environmental Provisions ........................................................... 306

Section 311—Reauthorization and Modification of Title I of Sikes Act ... 306

Section 312—Authorization for Defense Participation in Wetland Mitigation Banks .............................................................................................. 307

Section 313—Inclusion of Environmental Response Equipment and 

Services in Navy Definitions of Salvage Facilities and Salvage Services .............................................................................................................. 307

Section 314—Clarification of Department of Defense Response to Environmental Emergencies ............................................................................ 307

Section 315—Requirements for Restoration Advisory Boards and Exemption from Federal Advisory Committee Act ..................................... 307

Section 316—Report Regarding Impact of Civilian Community Encroachment and Certain Legal Requirements on Military Installations and Ranges ....................................................................................... 307

Section 317—Military Readiness and Conservation of Protected Species .............................................................................................................. 308

Section 318—Military Readiness and Marine Mammal Protection .......... 308

Section 319—Limitation on Department of Defense Responsibility for 

Civilian Water Consumption Impacts Related to Fort Huachuca, 

Arizona ....................................................................................................... 309

Section 320—Construction of Wetland Crossings, Camp Shelby Combined Arms Maneuver Area, Camp Shelby, Mississippi ........................ 309

Subtitle C—Workplace and Depot Issues ....................................................... 310

Section 321—Exclusion of Certain Expenditures from Percentage Limitation on Contracting for Performance of Depot-Level Maintenance 

and Repair Workloads ............................................................................... 310

Section 322—High-Performing Organization Business Process Reengineering Pilot Program ........................................................................ 310

Section 323—Delayed Implementation of Office of Revised Management 

and Budget Circular A–76 by Department of Defense Pending Report ............................................................................................................. 311

Section 324—Naval Aviation Depots Multi-Trades Demonstration 

Project ........................................................................................................ 311

Subtitle D—Information Technology .............................................................. 311

Section 331—Performance-based and Results-based Management Requirements for Chief Information Officers of Department of Defense .. 311

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 311

Section 341—Cataloging and Standardization for Defense Supply Management ...................................................................................................... 311

Section 342—Space-Available Transportation for Dependents of Members Assigned to Overseas Duty Locations for Continuous Period 

in Excess of One Year ............................................................................... 312

Section 343—Preservation of Military Weather Reconnaissance Mission ............................................................................................................. 312

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL AUTHORIZATIONS ............................... 312

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 312

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 313

Military Manpower Reductions .................................................................... 313

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 314

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 314

Section 401—End Strengths for Active Forces ........................................... 314

Section 402—Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum Levels .............................................................................................. 315

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 315

Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve ..................................... 315

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

of the Reserves ........................................................................................... 315

Section 413—End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status) ....... 316

Section 414—Fiscal Year 2004 Limitation on Non-Dual Satus Technicians ............................................................................................................ 316

Section 415—Permanent Limitations on Number of Non-Dual Status 

Technicians ................................................................................................ 316

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 316

Page

XI

Section 421—Military Personnel ................................................................. 316

Section 422—Armed Forces Retirement Home .......................................... 317

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY ..................................................... 317

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 317

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 317

Department of Defense Education Partnerships ........................................ 317

Department of Defense Overseas Schools Teacher Recruitment Incentives ............................................................................................................ 317

Electronic Voting Demonstration ................................................................ 318

Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot ................................................................ 318

Joint Advertising and Market Research ..................................................... 318

Warrant Officer Appointments for the Army National Guard .................. 319

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 319

Subtitle A—General and Flag Officer Matters .............................................. 319

Section 501—Standardization of Qualifications for Appointment as 

Service Chief .............................................................................................. 319

Subtitle B—Other Officer Personnel Policy Matters ..................................... 319

Section 511—Repeal of Prohibition on Transfer Between Line of the 

Navy and Navy Staff Corps Applicable to Regular Navy Officers 

in Grades Above Lieutenant Commander ............................................... 319

Section 512—Retention of Health Professions Officers to Fulfill ActiveDuty Service Commitments Following Promotion Nonselection ........... 320

Section 513—Increased Flexibility for Voluntary Retirement for Military Officers ............................................................................................... 320

Subtitle C—Reserve Component Matters ....................................................... 320

Section 521—Streamlined Process for Continuation of Officers on the 

Reserve Active-Status List ....................................................................... 320

Section 522—Consideration of Reserve Officers for Position Vacancy 

Promotions in Time of War or National Emergency .............................. 320

Section 523—Simplification of Determination of Annual Participation 

for Purposes of Ready Reserve Training Requirements ......................... 321

Section 524—Authority for Delegation of Required Secretarial Special 

Finding for Placement of Certain Retired Members in Ready Reserve 321

Section 525—Authority to Provide Expenses of Army and Air Staff 

Personnel and National Guard Bureau Personnel Attending National 

Conventions of Certain Military Associations ......................................... 321

Subtitle D—Military Education and Training ............................................... 321

Section 531—Authority for the Marine Corps University to Award the 

Degree of Master of Operational Studies ................................................ 321

Section 532—Expanded Educational Assistance Authority for Cadets 

and Midshipmen Receiving ROTC Scholarships .................................... 321

Section 533—Increase in Allocation of Scholarships Under Army Reserve ROTC Scholarship Program to Students at Military Junior 

Colleges ...................................................................................................... 322

Section 534—Inclusion of Accrued Interest in Amounts that May be 

Repaid Under Selected Reserve Critical Specialties Education Loan 

Repayment Program ................................................................................. 322

Section 535—Authority for Nonscholarship Senior ROTC Sophomores 

to Voluntarily Contract for and Receive Subsistence Allowance ........... 322

Section 536—Appointments to Military Service Academies from Nominations Made by Delegates from Guam, Virgin Islands, and American 

Samoa ......................................................................................................... 322

Section 537—Readmission to Service Academies of Certain Former Cadets and Midshipmen ................................................................................ 322

Section 538—Authorization for Naval Postgraduate School to Provide 

Instruction to Enlisted Members Participating in Certain Programs .. 323

Section 539—Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence 

at the Military Service Academies ........................................................... 323

Subtitle E—Administrative Matters ............................................................... 323

Section 541—Enhancements to High-Tempo Personnel Program ............ 323

Section 542—Enhanced Retention of Accumulated Leave for High-Deployment Members .................................................................................... 324

Section 543—Standardization of Time-in-Service Requirements for Voluntary Retirement of Members of the Navy and Marine Corps with 

Army and Air Force Requirements .......................................................... 324

Page

XII

Section 544—Standardization of Statutory Authorities for Exemptions 

from Requirement for Access to Secondary Schools by Military Recruiters ....................................................................................................... 324

Section 545—Procedures for Consideration of Applications for Award 

of the Purple Heart Medal to Veterans Held as Prisoners of War 

Before April 25, 1962 ................................................................................ 324

Section 546—Authority for Reserve and Retired Regular Officers to 

Hold State and Local Elective Office Notwithstanding Call to Active 

Duty ............................................................................................................ 324

Section 547—Clarification of Offense Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice Relating to Drunken or Reckless Operation of a Vehicle, 

Aircraft or Vessel ....................................................................................... 324

Section 548—Public Identification of Casualties No Sooner than 24 

Hours After Notification of Next-of-Kin .................................................. 325

Subtitle F—Benefits ......................................................................................... 325

Section 551—Additional Classes of Individuals Eligible to Participate 

in the Federal Long-Term Care Insurance Program .............................. 325

Section 552—Authority to Transport Remains of Retirees and Retiree 

Dependents Who Die in Military Treatment Facilities Outside the 

United States ............................................................................................. 325

Section 553—Eligibility for Dependents of Certain Mobilized Reservists 

Stationed Overseas to Attend Defense Dependents Schools Overseas . 325

Subtitle G—Other Matters .............................................................................. 326

Section 561—Extension of Requirement for Exemplary Conduct by 

Commanding Officers and Others in Authority to Include Civilians 

in Authority in the Department of Defense ............................................ 326

Section 562—Recognition of Military Families .......................................... 326

Section 563—Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that Benefit 

Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of 

Defense Civilian Employees ..................................................................... 326

Section 564—Permanent Authority for Support for Certain ChaplainLed Military Family Support Programs .................................................. 326

Section 565—Department of Defense—Department of Veterans Affairs 

Joint Executive Committee ....................................................................... 326

Section 566—Limitation on Aviation Force Structure Changes in the 

Department of the Navy ........................................................................... 327

Section 567—Impact-Aid Eligibility for Heavily Impacted Local Educational Agencies Affected by Privatization of Military Housing .......... 327

Section 568—Investigation into the 1991 Death of Marine Corps Colonel James E. Sabow .................................................................................. 327

Subtitle H—Domestic Violence ........................................................................ 327

Section 571—Travel and Transportation for Dependents Relocating for 

Reasons of Personal Safety ....................................................................... 327

Section 572—Commencement and Duration of Payment of Transitional 

Compensation ............................................................................................ 327

Section 573—Flexibility in Eligibility for Transitional Compensation ..... 328

Section 574—Types of Administrative Separations Triggering Coverage 328

Section 575—On-Going Review Group ........................................................ 328

Section 576—Resources for Department of Defense Implementation Organization ................................................................................................... 328

Section 577—Fatality Reviews .................................................................... 328

Section 578—Sense of Congress .................................................................. 328

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER PERSONNEL BENEFITS .......... 328

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 328

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 329

Survivor Benefit Program ............................................................................ 329

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

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

Section 601—Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2004 ......................... 329

Section 602—Computation of Basic Pay Rate for Commissioned Officers 

with Prior Enlisted or Warrant Officer Service ...................................... 329

Section 603—Special Subsistence Allowance Authorities for Members 

Assigned to High-Cost Duty Location or Under Other Unique and 

Unusual Circumstances ............................................................................ 330

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

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

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

Page

XIII

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

Authorities for Certain Health Care Professionals ................................ 330

Section 613—One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus Authorities 

for Nuclear Officers ................................................................................... 330

Section 614—One-Year Extension of Other Bonus and Special Pay Authorities ...................................................................................................... 330

Section 615—Computation of Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay for Demolition Duty and Parachute Jumping by Members of Reserve Components Entitled to Compensation Under Section 206 of Title 37 ............ 330

Section 616—Availability of Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay 

for Reserve Component Members on Inactive Duty ............................... 331

Section 617—Expansion of Overseas Tour Extension Incentive Program 

to Officers ................................................................................................... 331

Section 618—Eligibility of Appointed Warrant Officers for Accession 

Bonus for New Officers in Critical Skills ................................................ 331

Section 619—Incentive Pay for Duty on Ground in Antarctica or on 

Arctic Icepack ............................................................................................ 331

Section 620—Special Pay for Service as Member of Weapons of Mass 

Destruction Civil Support Team .............................................................. 331

Section 621—Incentive Bonus for Agreement to Serve in Critically 

Short Military Occupational Specialty .................................................... 331

Section 622—Increase in Rate for Imminent Danger Pay and Family 

Separation Allowance Related to Service in Operation Iraqi Freedom 

or Operation Enduring Freedom .............................................................. 331

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

Section 631—Shipment of Privately Owned Motor Vehicle Within Continental United States .............................................................................. 332

Section 632—Payment or Reimbursement of Student Baggage Storage 

Costs for Dependent Children of Members Stationed Overseas ............ 332

Section 633—Reimbursement for Lodging Expenses of Certain Reserve 

Component and Retired Members During Authorized Leave From 

Temporary Duty Location ......................................................................... 332

Subtitle D—Retired Pay and Survivors Benefits ........................................... 332

Section 641—Funding for Special Compensation Authorities for Department of Defense Retirees .......................................................................... 332

Subtitle E—Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality 

Benefits .......................................................................................................... 333

Section 651—Expanded Commissary Access for Selected Reserve Members, Reserve Retirees Under Age 60, and Their Dependents ............... 333

Section 652—Defense Commissary System and Exchange Stores System .............................................................................................................. 333

Section 653—Limitations on Private Operation of Defense Commissary 

Store Functions ......................................................................................... 333

Section 654—Use of Appropriated Funds to Operate Defense Commissary System ......................................................................................... 333

Section 655—Recovery of Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality and 

Commissary Store Investments in Real Property at Military Installations Closed or Realigned ......................................................................... 333

Section 656—Commissary Shelf-Stocking Pilot Program .......................... 334

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 334

Section 661—Repeal of Congressional Notification Requirement for 

Designation of Critical Military Skills for Retention Bonus .................. 334

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS ......................................................... 334

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 334

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 335

Cost Containment in Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care System ........................................................... 335

Force Health Protection and Surveillance .................................................. 336

Military-Civilian Education Programs Related to Sexual Health Decision-Making ............................................................................................... 336

Population-Based Medical Research ............................................................ 337

Study of Cost and Feasibility of TRICARE Eligibility for Adult Disabled 

Family Members ........................................................................................ 337

Study of TRICARE Options for Puerto Rico ............................................... 337

TRICARE Provider Participation ................................................................ 338

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

Page

XIV

Section 701—Revision of Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund to Permit More Accurate Actuarial Valuations .......................................................................................................... 338

Section 702—Transfer of Certain Members from Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee to Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel 

Under the Pharmacy Benefits Program .................................................. 338

Section 703—Permanent Extension of Authority to Enter into Personal 

Services Contracts for the Performance of Health Care Responsibilities at Locations Other than Military Medical Treatment Facilities ... 339

Section 704—Plan for Providing Health Coverage Information to Members, Former Members and Dependents Eligible for Certain Health 

Benefits ...................................................................................................... 339

Section 705—Working Group on Military Health Care for Persons Reliant on Health Care Facilities at Military Installations to be Closed 

or Realigned ............................................................................................... 339

Section 706—Acceleration of Implementation of Chiropractic Health 

Care for Members on Active Duty ........................................................... 340

Section 707—Medical and Dental Screening for Members of Selected 

Reserve Units Alerted for Mobilization ................................................... 340

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS ...................................................................................... 340

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 340

Medical Equipment and Supplies ................................................................... 340

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

Subtitle A—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations ......................................................................................... 341

Section 801—Extension of Authority to Carry Out Certain Prototype 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 341

Section 802—Elimination of Certain Subcontract Notification Requirements .......................................................................................................... 341

Section 803—Elimination of the Requirement to Furnish Written Assurances of Technical Data Conformity ................................................... 341

Section 804—Limitation Period for Task and Delivery Order Contracts . 341

Section 805—Additional Authorities Relating to Obtaining Personal 

Services ...................................................................................................... 341

Subtitle B—United States Defense Industrial Base Provisions ................... 342

Part I—Critical Items Identification and Domestic Production Capabilities Improvement Program ....................................................................... 342

Section 811—Assessment of United States Defense Industrial Base Capabilities ..................................................................................................... 342

Section 812—Identification of Critical Items: Military System Breakout 

List .............................................................................................................. 343

Section 813—Procurement of Certain Critical Items from American 

Sources ....................................................................................................... 343

Section 814—Production Capabilities Improvement for Certain Critical 

Items Using Defense Industrial Base Capabilities Fund ....................... 343

Part II—Requirements Relating to Specific Items ........................................ 344

Section 821—Domestic Source Limitation for Certain Additional Items . 344

Section 822—Requirements Relating To Buying Specialty Metals from 

American Sources ...................................................................................... 344

Section 823—Elimination of Unreliable Sources of Defense Items and 

Components ............................................................................................... 345

Section 824—Congressional Notification Required Before Exercising Exception to Requirement to Buy Specialty Metals from American 

Sources ....................................................................................................... 345

Section 825—Repeal of Authority for Foreign Procurement of ParaAramid Fibers and Yarns ......................................................................... 346

Section 826—Requirement for Major Defense Acquisition Programs to 

use Machine Tools Entirely Produced within the United States .......... 346

Part III—General Provisions ........................................................................... 346

Section 831—Definitions .............................................................................. 346

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................ 346

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 346

Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Joint Chiefs of Staff ............... 346

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 347

Page

XV

Section 901—Change in Title of Secretary of the Navy to Secretary 

of the Navy and Marine Corps ................................................................. 347

Section 902—Redesignation of National Imagery and Mapping Agency 

as National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency ............................................ 347

Section 903—Pilot Program for Provision of Space Surveillance Network Services to Non-United States Government Entities ................... 347

Section 904—Clarification of Responsibility of Military Departments 

to Support Combatant Commands ........................................................... 347

Section 905—Biennial Review of National Military Strategy by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ............................................................... 347

Section 906—Authority for Acceptance by Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies of Gifts and Donations from Non-foreign Sources ............. 348

Section 907—Repeal of Rotating Chairmanship of Economic Adjustment 

Committee .................................................................................................. 348

Section 908—Pilot Program for Improved Civilian Personnel Management ............................................................................................................ 348

Section 909—Extension of Certain Authorities Applicable to the Pentagon Reservation to Include Designated Pentagon Continuity-of-Government Locations ..................................................................................... 349

Section 910—Defense Acquisition Workforce Reductions .......................... 349

Section 911—Required Force Structure ...................................................... 349

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 350

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 350

Counter-Drug Activities ................................................................................... 350

Overview ........................................................................................................ 350

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 350

Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and tanker support ...... 350

Ground based end game operations ......................................................... 351

Airborne Reconnaissance Low .................................................................. 351

Maritime patrol aircraft upgrades ........................................................... 351

Hemispheric radar system ........................................................................ 351

Counter-Drug Command and Management System ............................... 351

Pacific command operations support ....................................................... 352

Southwest Border Fence ........................................................................... 352

Intelligence analysts and mobile training teams .................................... 352

Counter-drug airborne intelligence systems ........................................... 352

Expanded use of National Guard counter-drug aircraft ........................ 353

Global War on Terrorism ................................................................................. 354

Overview ........................................................................................................ 354

Effective use of the National Guard ........................................................ 354

Integration of Departments of Defense and Homeland Security Activities ..................................................................................................... 355

United States Northern Command .......................................................... 355

United States Special Operations Command .......................................... 355

Strategic Force Structure ................................................................................. 356

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

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 357

Section 1001—Transfer Authority ............................................................... 357

Section 1002—Authorization of Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal 

Year 2003 ................................................................................................... 357

Section 1003—Authority to Transfer Procurement Funds for a Major 

Defense Acquisition Program for Continued Development Work on 

that Program ............................................................................................. 357

Section 1004—Restoration of Authority to Enter into 12-month Leases 

at any Time During the Fiscal Year ........................................................ 357

Section 1005—Authority for Retention of Additional Amounts Realized 

from Energy Cost Savings ........................................................................ 357

Section 1006—Repeal of Requirement for Two-Year Budget Cycle for 

the Department of Defense ....................................................................... 358

Section 1007—Authority to Provide Reimbursement for Cellular Telephones When Used for Official Government Business ........................... 358

Subtitle B—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 358

Section 1011—Repeal of Requirement Regarding Preservation of Surge 

Capability for Naval Surface Combatants .............................................. 358

Section 1012—Enhancement of Authority Relating to Use for Experimental Purposes of Vessels Stricken from Naval Vessel Register ........ 358

Page

XVI

Section 1013—Authorization for Transfer of Vessels Sticken From the 

Naval Vessel Register for Use as Artificial Reefs ................................... 358

Section 1014—Pilot Program for Sealift Ship Construction ...................... 359

Subtitle C—Reports .......................................................................................... 359

Section 1021—Repeal and Modification of Various Reporting Requirements Applicable to the Department of Defense .................................... 359

Section 1022—Department of Defense Report on the Conduct of Operation Iraqi Freedom .................................................................................. 359

Section 1023—Report on Department of Defense Post-Conflict Activities 

in Iraq ......................................................................................................... 359

Section 1024—Report on Development of Mechanisms to Better Connect Department of Defense Space Capabilities to the War Fighter .... 360

Subtitle D—Procurement of Defense Biomedical Countermeasures ............ 360

Section 1031—Research and Development of Defense Bio-Medical 

Countermeasures ....................................................................................... 360

Section 1032—Procurement of Defense Biomedical Countermeasures .... 361

Section 1033—Authorization for Use of Medical Products in Emergencies ........................................................................................................ 361

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 361

Section 1041—Codification and Revision of Defense Counterintelligence 

Polygraph Program Authority .................................................................. 361

Section 1042—Codification and Revision of Limitation on Modification 

of Major Items of Equipment Scheduled for Retirement or Disposal ... 362

Section 1043—Additional Definitions for Purposes of Title 10, United 

States Code ................................................................................................ 362

Section 1044—Inclusion of Annual Military Construction Authorization 

Request in Annual Defense Authorization Request ............................... 362

Section 1045—Technical and Clerical Amendments .................................. 362

Section 1046—Authority to Provide Living Quarters for Certain Students in Cooperative and Summer Education Programs of the National Security Agency .............................................................................. 362

Section 1047—Use of Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Funds to 

Support Activities of the Government of Colombia ................................ 362

Section 1048—Authority for Joint Task Forces to provide Support to 

Law Enforcement Agencies Conducting Counter-Terrorism Activities 363

Section 1049—Use of National Driver Register for Personnel Security 

Investigations and Determinations .......................................................... 363

Section 1050—Protection of Operational Files of the National Security 

Agency ........................................................................................................ 363

Section 1051—Assistance for Study of Feasibility of Biennial International Air Trade Show in the United States and for Initial Implementation ................................................................................................... 363

Section 1052—Continuation of Reasonable Access to Military Installations for Personal Commercial Solicitation ............................................. 364

Section 1053—Commission on Nuclear Strategy of the United States .... 364

Section 1054—Extension of Counterproliferation Program Review Committee ......................................................................................................... 365

TITLE XI—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL ............... 365

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 365

Subtitle A—Department of Defense Civilian Personnel Generally .............. 365

Section 1101—Modification of the Overtime Pay Cap ............................... 365

Section 1102—Military Leave for Mobilized Federal Civilian 

Employees .................................................................................................. 365

Section 1103—Common Occupational and Health Standards for Differential Payments as a Consequence of Exposure to Asbestos ............ 365

Section 1104—Increase in Annual Student Loan Repayment Authority . 365

Section 1105—Authorization for Cabinet Secretaries, Secretaries of 

Military Departments, and Heads of Executive Agencies to be Paid 

on a Biweedly Basis .................................................................................. 365

Section 1106—Senior Executive Service and Performance ....................... 366

Section 1107—Design Elements of Pay-for-Performance Systems in 

Demonstration Projects ............................................................................. 366

Section 1108—Federal Flexible Benefits Plan Administrative Costs ....... 366

Section 1109—Clarification to Hatch Act: Limitation on Disclosure of 

Certain Records ......................................................................................... 367

Section 1110—Employee Surveys ................................................................ 367

Subtitle B—Department of Defense National Security Personnel System .. 367

Page

XVII

Section 1111—Department of Defense National Security Personnel System .............................................................................................................. 367

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS .............................. 368

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 368

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 368

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

Section 1201—Expansion of Authority to Provide Administrative Support and Services and Travel and Subsistence Expenses for Certain 

Foreign Liaison Officers ............................................................................ 369

Section 1202—Recognition of Superior Noncombat Achievements or 

Performance by Members of Friendly Foreign Forces and Other Foreign Nationals ............................................................................................ 369

Section 1203—Expansion of Authority to Waive Charges for Costs of 

Attendance at George C. Marshall Center for Security Studies ........... 370

Section 1204—Goods and Technologies Critical for Military Superiority 370

Section 1205—Report on Iraqi Acquisition of Advanced Weapons ........... 370

Section 1206—Authority for Check-Cashing and Currency Exchange 

Services to be Provided to Foreign Military Members Participating 

in Certain Activities with United States Forces ..................................... 371

Section 1207—Requirements for Transfer to Foreign Countries of Certain Specified Types of Excess Aircraft ................................................... 371

Section 1208—Limitation on Number of United States Military Personnel in Colombia .................................................................................... 371

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF 

THE FORMER SOVIET UNION ........................................................................ 371

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

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 374

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs 

and Funds .................................................................................................. 374

Section 1302—Funding Allocations ............................................................. 374

Section 1303—Limitation on Use of Funds until Certain Permits Obtained .......................................................................................................... 374

Section 1304—Limitation on Use of Funds for Biological Research in 

the Former Soviet Union .......................................................................... 374

Section 1305—Authority and Funds for Nonproliferation and Disarmament ...................................................................................................... 375

Section 1306—Requirement for On-site Managers .................................... 375

Section 1307—Provisions Relating to Funding for Chemical Weapons 

Destruction Facility in Russia .................................................................. 376

TITLE XIV—SERVICES ACQUISITION REFORM ............................................ 377

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 377

Section 1401—Short Title ............................................................................ 377

Section 1402—Executive Agency Defined ................................................... 377

Subtitle A—Acquisition Workforce and Training .......................................... 377

Section 1411—Definition of Acquisition ...................................................... 377

Section 1412—Acquisition Workforce Training Fund ................................ 377

Section 1413—Acquisition Workforce Recruitment Program .................... 377

Section 1414—Architectural and Engineering Acquisition Workforce ..... 378

Subtitle B—Adaptation of Business Acquisition Practices ........................... 378

Part I—Adaptation of Business Management Practices ............................... 378

Section 1421—Chief Acquisition Officers .................................................... 378

Section 1422—Chief Acquisition Officers Council ...................................... 378

Section 1423—Statutory and Regulatory Review ....................................... 379

Part II—Other Acquisition Improvements ..................................................... 379

Section 1426—Extension of Authority to Carry Out Franchise Fund 

Programs .................................................................................................... 379

Section 1427—Agency Acquisition Protests ................................................ 379

Section 1428—Improvements in Contracting for Architectural and Engineering Services ..................................................................................... 379

Section 1429—Authorization of Telecommuting for Federal Contractors 380

Subtitle C—Contract Incentives ...................................................................... 380

Section 1431—Incentives for Contract Efficiency ...................................... 380

Subtitle D—Acquisition of Commercial Items ............................................... 380

Section 1441—Preference for Performance-Based Contracting ................ 380

Section 1442—Authorization of Additional Commercial Contract Types . 380

Section 1443—Clarification of Commercial Services Definition ............... 381

Page

XVIII

Section 1444—Designation of Commercial Business Entities ................... 381

Subtitle E—Other Matters .............................................................................. 381

Section 1451—Authority to Enter into Certain Procurement-Related 

Transactions and to Carry Out Certain Prototype Projects .................. 381

Section 1452—Authority to Make Inflation Adjustments to Simplified 

Acquisition Threshold ............................................................................... 382

Section 1453—Technical Correction Related to Duplicative Amendments .......................................................................................................... 382

Section 1454—Prohibition on Use of Quotas .............................................. 382

Section 1455—Applicability of Certain Provisions to Sole Source Contracts for Goods and Services Treated as Commercial Items ................ 382

Section 1456—Public Disclosure of Noncompetitive Contracting for the 

Reconstruction of Infrastructure in Iraq ................................................. 382

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZATIONS ................... 382

PURPOSE ............................................................................................................. 382

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW ...................................................... 383

TITLE XXI—ARMY ................................................................................................. 399

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 399

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 399

Planning and Design .................................................................................... 399

Unspecified Minor Construction .................................................................. 399

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 399

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 399

Section 2102—Family Housing .................................................................... 399

Section 2103—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 399

Section 2104—Authorization of Appropriations, Army .............................. 399

Section 2105—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

year 2002 Projects ..................................................................................... 400

TITLE XXII—NAVY ................................................................................................ 400

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

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

Planning and Design .................................................................................... 400

Unspecified Minor Construction .................................................................. 400

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

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 

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

Section 2202—Family Housing .................................................................... 400

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 400

Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy .............................. 401

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE .................................................................................... 401

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 401

Reserve Associate Program .......................................................................... 401

Planning and Design .................................................................................... 401

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

Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 402

Section 2302—Family Housing .................................................................... 402

Section 2303—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 402

Section 2304—Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force ....................... 402

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

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

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 402

Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs Health Care Sharing ....... 402

Planning and Design .................................................................................... 403

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 403

Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land Acquisition Projects ....................................................................................... 403

Section 2402—Family Housing .................................................................... 403

Section 2403—Improvements to Military Housing Units .......................... 403

Section 2404—Energy Conservation Projects ............................................. 403

Section 2405—Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies .......... 403

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

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 404

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

Page

XIX

Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition 

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

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

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES FACILITIES ........................ 404

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

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 404

Planning and Design, Air National Guard ................................................. 404

Planning and Design, Air Reserve .............................................................. 405

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

Unspecified Minor Construction, Army National Guard ........................... 405

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 405

Section 2601—Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects ................................................................................... 405

TITLE XXVII—EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS ..... 405

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 405

Section 2701—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to 

be Specified by Law ................................................................................... 405

Section 2702—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2001 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 406

Section 2703—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2000 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 406

Section 2704—Effective Date ....................................................................... 406

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS ........................................................... 406

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 406

Housing Privatization Programs ................................................................. 406

U.S.-Mexico Border Airspace ....................................................................... 407

Base Realignment and Closure .................................................................... 407

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 408

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ...................................................................................................... 408

Section 2801—Increase in Maximum Amount of Authorized Annual 

Emergency Construction ........................................................................... 408

Section 2802—Authority to Lease Military Family Housing Units in 

Italy ............................................................................................................ 408

Section 2803—Changes to Alternative Authority for Acquisition and 

Improvement of Military Housing ........................................................... 408

Section 2804—Additional Material for Annual Report on Housing Privatization Program .................................................................................... 408

Section 2805—Authority to Convey Property at Military Installations 

Closed or to be Closed in Exchange for Military Construction Activities .............................................................................................................. 409

Section 2806—Congressional Notification and Reporting Requirements 

and Limitations Regarding Use of Operation and Maintenance Funds 

for Construction ......................................................................................... 409

Section 2807—Increase in Authorized Maximum Lease Term for Family 

Housing and Other Facilities in Certain Foreign Countries ................. 410

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 410

Section 2811—Real Property Transactions ................................................. 410

Subtitle C—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 411

Section 2821—Termination of Lease and Conveyance of Army Reserve 

Center, Conway, Arkansas ....................................................................... 411

Section 2822—Actions to Quiet Title, Fallin Waters Subdivision, Eglin 

Air Force Base, Florida ............................................................................. 411

Section 2823—Modification of Land Conveyance, Eglin Air Force Base, 

Florida ........................................................................................................ 411

Section 2824—Land Conveyance, Fort Campbell, Kentucky and Tennessee ......................................................................................................... 411

Section 2825—Land Conveyance, Army and Air Force Exchange Service 

Property, Dallas, Texas ............................................................................. 411

Section 2826—Land Conveyance, Naval Reserve Center, Orange, TX .... 412

Subtitle D—Other Matters .............................................................................. 412

Section 2841—Redesignation of Yuma Training Range Complex as Bob 

Stump Training Range Complex .............................................................. 412

Section 2842—Modification of Authority to Conduct a Round of Realignments and Closures of Military Installations in 2005 ................... 412

Page

XX

Section 2843—Use of Force-Structure Plan for the Armed Forces in 

Preparation of Selection Criteria for Base Closure Round .................... 412

Section 2844—Requirement for Unanimous Vote of Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission to Recommend Closure of Military 

Installation not Recommended for Closure by Secretary of Defense .... 413

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATION AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ..................................... 413

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY 

PROGRAMS ...................................................................................................... 413

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 413

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 427

National Nuclear Security Administration .................................................... 427

Overview ........................................................................................................ 427

Adjustments to the Budget Request ............................................................ 427

Reductions .................................................................................................. 427

Increases .................................................................................................... 429

Advanced Weapons Concepts ....................................................................... 429

Coordination of Nonproliferation and Threat Reduction Programs .......... 430

Management of Stockpile Life Extension Programs .................................. 430

NNSA Management Structure ..................................................................... 431

Support for Los Alamos Public Schools ....................................................... 431

Test Readiness .............................................................................................. 432

Environmental and Other Defense Activities ................................................ 432

Overview ........................................................................................................ 432

Adjustments to the Budget Request ............................................................ 432

Reductions .................................................................................................. 432

Increases .................................................................................................... 432

Cleanup Acceleration .................................................................................... 433

Energy Supply .................................................................................................. 433

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 434

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 434

Section 3101—National Nuclear Security Administration ........................ 434

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Management ................................ 434

Section 3103—Other Defense Activities ...................................................... 434

Section 3104—Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ........................................ 434

Section 3105—Energy Supply ...................................................................... 434

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 434

Section 3111—Modification of Prohibition Relating to Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons ............................................................................................ 434

Section 3112—Termination of Requirement for Annual Updates of 

Long-Term Plan for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Life Extension Program ........................................................................................................... 434

Section 3113—Extension to All DOE Facilities of Authority to Prohibit 

Dissemination of Certain Unclassified Information ............................... 435

Section 3114—Department of Energy Project Review Groups Not Subject to Federal Advisory Committee Act by Reason of Inclusion of 

Employees of Department of Energy Management and Operating 

Contractors ................................................................................................ 435

Section 3115—Availability of Funds ........................................................... 435

Section 3116—Limitation on Obligation of Funds for Nuclear Test 

Readiness Program ................................................................................... 435

Section 3117—Requirement for On-Site Managers .................................... 435

Subtitle C—Consolidation of National Security Provisions .......................... 436

Section 3121—Consolidation and Assembly of Recurring and General 

Provisions on Department of Energy National Security Programs ...... 436

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ............. 436

LEGISLATIVE PROVISION ............................................................................... 436

Section 3201—Authorization ........................................................................ 436

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE ........................................ 436

LEGISLATIVE PROVISION ............................................................................... 436

Section 3301—Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile Funds .... 436

Section 3302—Revisions to Objectives for Receipts for Fiscal Year 2000 

Disposals .................................................................................................... 437

TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES ........................................... 437

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 437

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations ......................................... 437

Page

XXI

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION ................................................. 437

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 437

Authorization of Maritime Security Program ............................................. 437

Obsolete Vessel Disposal .............................................................................. 439

Merchant Mariner Training to Meet Sealift Requirements ...................... 440

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 441

Subtitle A—General Provisions; Maritime Administration Authorization .. 441

Section 3501—Short Title ............................................................................ 441

Section 3502—Definitions ............................................................................ 441

Subtitle B—Maritime Security Fleet .............................................................. 441

Section 3511—Establishment of Maritime Security Fleet ......................... 441

Section 3512—Award of Operating Agreements ........................................ 441

Section 3513—Effectiveness of Operating Agreements ............................. 441

Section 3514—Obligations and Rights Under Operating Agreements ..... 441

Section 3515—Payments .............................................................................. 442

Section 3516—National Security Requirements ........................................ 442

Section 3517—Regulatory Relief .................................................................. 442

Section 3518—Special Rule Regarding Age of Former Participating 

Fleet Vessel ................................................................................................ 442

Section 3519—Authorization of Appropriations ......................................... 442

Section 3520—Amendment to Shipping Act, 1916 ..................................... 442

Section 3521—Regulations ........................................................................... 443

Section 3522—Repeals and Conforming Amendments .............................. 443

Section 3523—Effective Dates ..................................................................... 443

Subtitle C—National Defense Tank Vessel Construction Assistance .......... 443

Section 3531—National Defense Tank Vessel Construction Program ...... 443

Section 3532—Application Procedure .......................................................... 443

Section 3533—Award of Assistance ............................................................. 443

Section 3534—Priority for Title XI Assistance ........................................... 443

Section 3535—Authorization of Appropriations ......................................... 444

Subtitle D—Maritime Administration ............................................................ 444

Section 3541—Authorization of Appropriations for Maritime Administration for Fiscal Year 2004 ..................................................................... 444

Section 3542—Authority to Convey Vessel USS Hoist (ARS-40) .............. 444

Departmental Data .................................................................................................. 444

Department of Defense Authorization Request ................................................. 444

Military Transformation Authorization Request ............................................... 445

Committee Position ................................................................................................. 445

Communications From Other Committees ............................................................ 445

Fiscal Data ............................................................................................................... 458

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ............................................................... 458

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ...................................................... 459

Committee Cost Estimate .................................................................................... 483

Oversight Findings .................................................................................................. 483

General Performance Goals and Objectives .......................................................... 484

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 485

Statement of Federal Mandates ............................................................................. 485

Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 486

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 514

Additional, Dissenting, and Supplemental Views ................................................. 515

Additional views of Ike Skelton, John Spratt, Gene Taylor, Lane Evans, 

Marty Meehan, Neil Abercrombie, Silvestre Reyes, Ciro D. Rodriguez, 

Vic Snyder, Loretta Sanchez, Susan A. Davis, Rick Larsen, Jim Cooper, 

Baron P. Hill, Ellen O. Tauscher, John B. Larson, Kendrick B. Meek, 

Jim Langevin, Tim Ryan, Adam Smith, Robert A. Brady, Rodney Alexander, Jim Turner, Steve Israel, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Mike McIntyre, 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Jim Marshall ...................................................................... 515

Additional views of Ike Skelton, John Spratt, Gene Taylor, Lane Evans, 

Marty Meehan, Neil Abercrombie, Silvestre Reyes, Vic Snyder, Loretta 

Sanchez, Adam Smith, Robert A. Brady, Rodney Alexander, Jim Turner, 

Rick Larsen, Jim Cooper, Baron P. Hill, Ellen O. Tauscher, John B. 

Larson, Kendrick B. Meek, Jim Langevin, Tim Ryan, Steve Israel, Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Susan A. Davis, Solomon P. Ortiz ................................... 518

Additional views of Susan A. Davis, Lane Evans, Neil Abercrombie, Ciro 

D. Rodriguez, Loretta Sanchez, Ellen O. Tauscher, Jim Langevin, Tim 

Ryan, John B. Larson ....................................................................................... 522

Page

XXII

Additional views of Jim Cooper, Ike Skelton, John Spratt, Gene Taylor, 

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Silvestre Reyes, Neil Abercrombie, Susan A. Davis, 

Adam Smith, James Langevin, John B. Larson, Steve Israel, Robert 

A. Brady, Kendrick B. Meek, Solomon P. Ortiz, Rick Larsen, Tim Ryan, 

Ellen O. Tauscher ............................................................................................. 524

Additional and Supplemental views of Tim Ryan ............................................. 526

Dissenting views of Lane Evans ......................................................................... 527

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 1st Session 108–106 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2004

MAY 16, 2003.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of 

the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HUNTER, from the Committee on Armed Services, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL, DISSENTING, AND SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1588] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 1588) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for 

military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2004, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with 

amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

The amendments are as follows: 

The amendment strikes all after the enacting clause of the bill 

and inserts a new text which appears in italic type in the reported 

bill. 

The title of the bill is amended to reflect the amendment to the 

text of the bill. 

EXPLANATION OF THE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS 

The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute during the consideration of H.R. 1588. The title of the bill 

is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the bill. The 

remainder of the report discusses the bill, as amended.

2

PURPOSE 

The bill would—(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 

for procurement and for research, development, test and evaluation 

(RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3) 

Authorize for fiscal year 2004: (a) the personnel strength for each 

active duty component of the military departments; (b) the personnel strength for the Selected Reserve for each reserve component of the armed forces; (c) the military training student loads for 

each of the active and reserve components of the military departments; (4) Modify various elements of compensation for military 

personnel and impose certain requirements and limitations on personnel actions in the defense establishment; (5) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for military construction and family 

housing; (6) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for the 

Department of Energy national security programs; (7) Modify provisions related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (8) Authorize 

appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for the Maritime Administration. 

RELATIONSHIP OF AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATIONS 

The bill does not generally provide budget authority. The bill authorizes appropriations. Subsequent appropriation acts provide 

budget authority. The bill addresses the following categories in the 

Department of Defense budget: procurement; research, development, test and evaluation; operation and maintenance; working 

capital funds, military personnel; and military construction and 

family housing. The bill also addresses Department of Energy National Security Programs and the Maritime Administration. 

Active duty and reserve personnel strengths authorized in this 

bill and legislation affecting compensation for military personnel 

determine the remaining appropriation requirements of the Department of Defense. However, this bill does not provide authorization 

of specific dollar amounts for personnel. 

SUMMARY OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE BILL 

The President requested budget authority of $399.7 billion for 

the national defense budget function for fiscal year 2004. Of this 

amount, the President requested $379.6 billion for the Department 

of Defense, including $9.1 billion for military construction and family housing. The defense budget request for fiscal year 2004 also included $17.3 billion for Department of Energy national security 

programs and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. 

The committee recommends an overall level of $400.5 billion in 

budget authority. This amount represents an increase of approximately $17.7 billion from the amount authorized for appropriation 

by the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314).

SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATIONS 

The following table provides a summary of the amounts requested and that would be authorized for appropriation in the bill 

(in the column labeled ‘‘Budget Authority Implication of Committee 

3

Recommendation’’) and the committee’s estimate of how the committee’s recommendations relate to the budget totals for the national defense function. For purposes of estimating the budget authority implications of committee action, the table reflects the numbers contained in the President’s budget for proposals not in the 

committee’s legislative jurisdiction.

4


Insert graphic folio 28 87068.001
5


Insert graphic folio 29 87068.002
6


Insert graphic folio 30 87068.003
7


Insert graphic folio 31 87068.004
8


Insert graphic folio 32 87068.005
9


Insert graphic folio 33 87068.006
10


Insert graphic folio 34 87068.007
11

RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL 

The fiscal year 2004 National Defense Authorization Act is the 

first defense authorization act prepared in the aftermath of Operation Iraqi Freedom. That victory, combined with the extraordinary 

defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, has placed the ongoing debate 

about the future of the U.S. armed forces in sharper focus. 

Advocates of rapid transformation argue that Operation Enduring Freedom’s unique combination of airpower and special operations forces, networked with advanced sensors and communication 

systems, constituted a new ‘‘transformational’’ model for waging 

warfare. The new model stresses speed and information over firepower and mass in conducting military operations. Many such advocates would reduce our current force structure as a means of 

freeing up resources to accelerate a transformation in the U.S. military to lighter, faster forces. 

An alternative view points to the success of well-armored Army 

and Marine divisions in toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime and the 

critical contributions of long-range conventional bombers to victory 

over Taliban and Al Qaeda forces in Afghanistan as evidence of our 

continued dependence on the existing force structure. This school 

of thought argues that transformation should be pursued at a more 

measured pace, lest it undermine the effectiveness of our current 

systems, which have proven their worth repeatedly in combat. The 

debate among defense analysts, both inside and outside the Department of Defense, presents the committee with an interesting dilemma. Outside forces urge Congress to adopt one position to the 

exclusion of the other. 

At its core, the current debate revolves around the assumption 

and management of near- and long-term risk. Most analysts agree 

that the U.S. armed forces must change in order to meet the challenges of the 21st century. However, accelerating transformation by 

reducing current force structure to pay for future systems may undermine the readiness and capabilities of the forces we rely on 

today. This approach could endanger our current security if those 

forces develop vulnerabilities or are called on to perform missions 

for which they are no longer prepared. Thus, rapid transformation 

involves increased near-term risk. On the other hand, focusing on 

modernizing our current force structure at the expense of transformation creates long term risks if it precludes the military from 

adopting technologies or creating capabilities that improve its future effectiveness against adversaries developing asymmetric 

means of countering existing forces. 

The committee believes that discussions of U.S. national security 

cannot, and must not, be reduced to such an oversimplified and unrealistic choice. Instead, the United States must strike a balance 

between: (1) modernizing and enhancing the combat forces that 

have demonstrated their lethality to America’s adversaries and (2) 

developing transformational capabilities that ensure the United 

States military maintains its effectiveness advantages over all future adversaries. H.R. 1588, therefore, contains provisions that will 

invest in key transformational capabilities for the long term, while 

recommending increased spending on our currently deployed capabilities to ensure their continued battlefield dominance. Drawing on 

early lessons from the war in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi 

12

Freedom, H.R. 1588 authorizes incremental improvements to sustain current capabilities and force structure while investing in 

transformational technologies and initiatives. 

Transformation

The Committee has a long and bipartisan history of supporting 

the development of transformational technologies and capabilities. 

The success of transformational systems, ranging from the enhanced intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities 

made possible by Unmanned Aerial Vehicles to the increased 

lethality of Precision Guided Munitions (PGMs) demonstrates the 

wisdom of that approach. Overall for fiscal year 2004, the committee recommends an increase of $663 million over the Administration’s request for defense Science and Technology programs, 

which traditionally drive long-term improvements in U.S. military 

capability. The increases are spread across several categories, including strike systems, advanced munitions, sensors, and communications. 

During Operation Desert Storm nine percent of all weapons 

dropped by the United States were PGMs. Conversely, PGMs constituted 67 percent of all weapons employed by the Air Force during Operation Iraqi Freedom, a clear indicator of their superior 

value to the U.S. military. Combined with an innovative campaign 

strategy and the best soldiers in the world, precision strike capabilities enabled the coalition during Operation Iraqi Freedom to 

achieve a broader and significantly more challenging objective with 

fewer forces, when compared to their Operation Desert Storm predecessors. Thus, the bill would add $376 million to the Administration’s request for procurement of such successful transformational 

technologies as the Tactical Tomahawk cruise missile and $178 

million for the Affordable Weapon System, a committee initiative 

to reduce the cost of PGMs through the development of more affordable military systems. Additionally, the committee recommends 

beginning research and development on new strike platforms; in 

particular it recommends $100 million to begin research and development work on a new deep strike bomber to complement or succeed the current fleet of B–1, B–2, and B–52 bombers. Such systems represent an investment in 21st deep strike capabilities and 

will help address basing problems highlighted during Operation 

Iraqi Freedom. 

In addition to transformational delivery platforms and munitions, the committee recognizes the transformational value of advanced sensor, network, and positioning systems in their role as 

force multipliers. Therefore, the committee recommends approving 

the budget request for E–2 Hawkeye aircraft, and increasing funding by $132 million over the request for the EA–6B Prowler, by $27 

million for the E–8C Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar 

System (JSTARS), by $10 million for surface combatant systems 

engineering to improve the development of an open architecture for 

the Aegis system and $17 million for a new Littoral Surveillance 

System. The committee also recommends authorizing the funds requested for the Global Hawk Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), an 

$18 million increase over the request for the Predator UAV, and a 

$20.9 million increase for advanced research and development for 

the Shadow 200 Tactical UAV. The committee also recommends 

13

full funding for the Space-Based Radar, a program that could revolutionize our sensor capabilities and reduce the demands made on 

tactical surveillance systems in the long term. These systems are 

increasingly important high-demand, low-density systems that give 

U.S. military forces a decisive information advantage over their adversaries and should continue to be improved. To the degree that 

information technologies enable the long-term transformation of 

U.S. military forces, these funding levels will help enable the Department of Defense to continue transformation in the information 

age. 

Just as the military services are creating new capabilities to deal 

with the security environment of the 21st century, the Administration requested authority to transform the very management structures and processes of the Department of Defense, many of which 

trace their heritage back to the lessons of World War II and the 

National Security Act of 1947. Given the radical changes in the 

international security environment, the committee believes it is 

vital to transform the way the Department of Defense operates. 

Consequently, after careful consideration and coordination with the 

other relevant committees of the House of Representatives, the 

committee recommends approving significant portions of the Administration’s proposed ‘‘Defense Transformation for the 21st Century Act’’ as elements of the fiscal year 2004 national defense authorization act. 

The committee recommends development of a modernized national security personnel system. In particular, in cooperation with 

the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, it adopted 

provisions creating a more flexible merit-based pay system to attract and retain talented individuals in government service. It also 

recommends the establishment of an early retirement program and 

greater flexibility for the Secretary of Defense to hire experts with 

critical scientific, technical, or management skills at appropriate 

pay for a period of up to five years. Taken together, these provisions would help retain, protect, and support the current civilian 

workforce in the Department of Defense while giving the Secretary 

of Defense greater personnel flexibility to reward exceptional performance and address key skill shortfalls. 

Taken together, these initiatives will enable the United States 

military to continue on the path of transformation and develop 

those capabilities needed to maintain, and extend, the U.S. military 

advantage over potential adversaries in the long term. 

Modernizing the Existing Force 

At the same time, the bill recognizes that the success of transformational capabilities in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq built 

upon the foundation of a broad range of existing capabilities to engage adversaries across the range of conflict. Current force structure and weapons platforms, some of which are nearly four decades 

old, were the backbone upon which new capabilities in precision, 

communications, and intelligence created their transformational 

impact. The war in Afghanistan, for example, became famous for 

its horse-riding special operations forces directing modern precision-guided munitions, delivered by forty-year-old B–52 bombers 

onto Taliban and Al Qaeda fighting positions. That chain of capabilities is only as strong as its weakest link, which may soon prove 

14

to be the aging delivery platforms upon which we rely to deliver 

firepower around the world. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the B–52, B–

1, and B–2 strategic bombers proved the value of long-range airpower able to operate independently of forward bases that may not 

be available in future conflicts. Similarly, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, the deployment of heavily armored ground forces demonstrated the seriousness of coalition intent, while their firepower, 

mobility, and protective capabilities were key in demonstrating to 

Saddam Hussein and his regime that resistance was futile. By 

moving about at will throughout Baghdad, the coalition deprived 

Saddam Hussein’s regime of its control over the capital, contributing to its quick downfall. 

Recognizing these realities, and that transformational technologies work when married to proven systems, the committee recommends several measures that will sustain and improve the 

lethality of our existing forces. In particular, the committee recommends provisions to preserve our existing deep-strike capabilities, which make fewer demands on forward operating bases. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $20.3 million 

to the administration’s request for improvements in the B1–B 

Lancer in order to begin the regeneration process for 23 B1–Bs currently slated for retirement. This provision would enable the 

United States military to retain more than the 60 B1–Bs it currently plans to protect from retirement. Additionally, the committee recommends increasing funding for the B–2 Spirit bomber 

by $85.3 million to sustain its mission capability rates and invest 

in communications capabilities. 

The committee is particularly concerned about redressing shortfalls in the improvement in our ground systems experienced over 

the last decade. In Iraq, heavy armor proved that the combination 

of mass, speed, and firepower remain decisive. Abrams tanks and 

Bradley Fighting Vehicles operating in Baghdad demonstrated the 

seriousness of American purpose while ensuring that all units were 

strong enough to deal with any type of resistance. As the President 

noted in a speech at the Lima, Ohio M–1 Abrams plant, ‘‘In the liberation of Iraq, we’ve applied powerful weapons, like the tank you 

build here, to strike our enemy with speed and precision. In the 

use of the Abrams tank we have got a vehicle that is the most safe 

vehicle for our fighting personnel, precise enough to protect innocent lives. . . . Throughout the campaign, our enemy learned that 

when Abrams tanks are on the battlefield, America means business.’’ Thus, the committee believes it is vital to sustain this critical and unique capability and recommends an increase of $726.8 

million for heavy forces modernization. Of these funds, the committee recommends $424 million for the M1A2 Abrams systems enhancement program, $258.8 million for M3A2 upgrades, and $44 

million for combat support and service support improvements. 

Finally, the committee continues to believe that military personnel are the U.S. armed forces’ greatest asset. Therefore, it recommends an average increase of 4.1% in base pay for our men and 

women in uniform and placing housing allowances on a path to 

eliminate out-of-pocket expenses completely by fiscal year 2005. 

The committee also recommends supplemental subsistence allowances for military personnel assigned to areas with a high cost of 

living and extending active duty special pay and bonuses. 

15

The committee also notes that our total force policies developed 

after the Vietnam war have combined with the global war on terror 

to make increasing demands on personnel and units located in the 

reserves and national guard. Therefore, the committee recommends 

increasing the budget request by $196.7 million for reserve component training and readiness and extending certain special pay and 

bonuses for reserve personnel through the end of calendar year 

2004. 

Collectively, these initiatives will maintain and enhance the military advantages that our current forces have over potential adversaries, ensuring that when the President and Congress contemplate sending the nation’s young men and women into combat, 

those personnel will have the best equipment and training that the 

United States can provide. 

Force Structure 

During much of the last decade, the U.S. military was subjected 

to force structure reductions that have increasingly stressed it. At 

the same time, changes in the international security environment 

are making increased demands on the Department of Defense. As 

a result of ongoing peacekeeping operations in the Balkans and 

Sinai Peninsula, Cold War deployments in Korea and Europe, and 

the need to deploy and conduct operations in the global war on terror in places as diverse as Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. military 

units find themselves facing an extraordinary operational tempo. 

For example, during the first quarter of fiscal year 2003, the U.S. 

Navy exceeded its planned number of steaming days by roughly 18 

percent. While the U.S. Navy has performed magnificently under 

these conditions, they cannot be endured indefinitely. Other services are under similar stress. 

While the committee retains full confidence that the men and 

women of the United States military will continue to perform their 

missions successfully and admirably, it is concerned that the increased demands made on individual units may make it more difficult for them to achieve their missions in the future. This creates 

risk for U.S. national security. In 1991, the Defense Department 

development the concept of a ‘‘base force’’ to guide our post-Cold 

War force structure. As the official history of the development of 

the base force notes, certain elements in the Department of Defense believed, ‘‘this force option provided the minimum force structure that the United States could adopt without incurring undue 

risk.’’ The committee notes that the 1991 base force was slightly 

larger than our current force structure, and that in 1991 the 

United States was a country at peace, not in the midst of a global 

war on terror. 

While transformation and modernization may reduce some 

strains, ultimately it will be necessary to explore changes in the 

current force structure in order to ensure the security of the American people. Therefore, the committee recommends two provisions 

that will factor into this process. 

First, the committee recommends a provision that would establish the current force structure of the Army, Navy, and Air Force 

as a legislative minimum, just as Congress did for the Marine 

Corps. Given the growing demands on our current forces, uncertainty about the security environment, and uncertainty about the 

16

success of certain transformational efforts, the committee believes 

that cutting force structure below current levels would create an 

unacceptable degree of risk to U.S. national security. 

Second, the committee recommends a more aggressive look into 

the future in order to assess the force structure that will be needed 

in the new security environment. It endorsed a provision calling for 

a national military strategy to be prepared by the Chairman of the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff and the respective service chiefs. The national 

military strategy will help connect broad policy guidelines contained in the President’s National Security Strategy and the Quadrennial Defense Review to more specific military capabilities, deployments, basing decisions, and force structure. Additionally, the 

committee recommends a measure that would connect future military forces to the Department of Defense’s global infrastructure. 

The bill contains a provision that would specify the assumptions to 

be made during the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. The provision would direct the BRAC Commission to consider 

the need to surge U.S. capabilities over and above our current force 

structure and the possibility that it may become necessary to base 

our forces entirely in the United States when assessing DOD infrastructure within the BRAC process. The committee believes that 

doing so will ensure that the Department of Defense retains sufficient infrastructure to accommodate a larger force structure, should 

one prove necessary. 

Conclusion 

Some might argue that the United States cannot afford to both 

modernize its existing force structure while developing the transformational capabilities needed for the future. The committee believes that as a country at war with global terrorism, the United 

States can ill afford not to do both. In 1983, the United States 

spent roughly six percent of its gross domestic product on defense. 

In 2004, in the midst of a war on global terrorism that has already 

required it to eliminate threats from two nation-states, the United 

States is projected to spend roughly 3.4 percent of gross domestic 

product on defense. In that context, it is vital that defense budgets 

properly manage risks by funding the long-term transformation of 

the military forces critical to our future security while sustaining 

and modernizing those forces upon which our security rests today. 

H.R. 1588 does that.

HEARINGS 

Committee consideration of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004 results from hearings that began on February 5, 2003 and that were completed on May 2, 2003. The full 

committee conducted 11 sessions. In addition, a total of 25 sessions 

were conducted by six different subcommittees on various titles of 

the bill. 

17

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATION 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT 

OVERVIEW 

The amended budget request for fiscal year 2004 contained 

$72,653.5 million for procurement. This represents a $1,315.8 million decrease from the amount authorized for fiscal year 2003. 

The committee recommends authorization of $74,910.0 million, 

an increase of $2,256.5 million from the fiscal year 2004 request. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2004 procurement program are identified in the table below. Major issues are 

discussed following the table.

18


Insert graphic folio 42 87068.008
19

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2004 contained $2,128.5 million for Aircraft Procurement, Army. The committee recommends 

authorization of $2,194.6 million, an increase of $66.1 million, for 

fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2004 Aircraft 

Procurement, Army program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Army request are discussed following the 

table.

20


Insert graphic folio 44 87068.009
21


Insert graphic folio 45 87068.010
22


Insert graphic folio 46 87068.011
23

Items of Special Interest 

Kiowa warrior 

The budget request contained $45.1 million for the procurement 

of Kiowa Warrior safety modifications, but included no funds to 

procure helmet-mounted displays for OH–58D Kiowa Warrior aircrew. 

The committee understands that a commercial-off-the-shelf 

(COTS), daylight readable, see-through display, which can be 

mounted to exiting Army aircrew helmets is capable of being integrated into the OH–58D Kiowa Warrior. The committee believes 

this system would improve aircrew operational effectiveness and 

safety and provide a low-cost, aircraft sensor targeting capability. 

The committee recommends $54.1 million for the Kiowa Warrior 

program, an increase of $9.0 million for procurement of COTS, daylight readable, see-through, helmet-mounted displays for Kiowa 

Warrior aircrew. 

UH–60 blackhawk 

The budget request contained $138.9 million for the procurement 

of 10 UH–60L Blackhawks for the Army, but no funds were requested for additional helicopters for the Army National Guard 

(ARNG). 

The committee notes that the Army’s ongoing deployments in 

both Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom have precluded the cascading of certain active component unit’s aircraft to 

the ARNG, as directed by the Army’s aviation modernization plan. 

Accordingly, the committee notes that the ARNG continues to have 

an outstanding requirement for additional Blackhawk helicopters. 

The committee recommends $251.7 million, an increase of $52.0 

million for 5 UH–60L utility variants, and $60.8 million for 4 HH–

60L medical evacuation aircraft, for a total increase of $112.8 million, for additional ARNG Blackhawk helicopters. 

UH–60 modifications 

The budget request contained $136.5 million for UH–60 modifications, of which $113.5 million is for the UH–60M recapitalization 

and upgrade program. 

The committee understands that the UH–60M upgrade program, 

which will incorporate airframe and engine power improvements, 

as well as a digitized cockpit for enhanced long-range precision 

navigation, command and control interoperability, and future 

worldwide air traffic management requirements, has experienced 

cost growth as a result of added requirements and the implementation of earned value management on the development program. 

The committee is concerned with cost growth for an upgrade program of an aircraft which has been in production for over 25 years 

and will closely monitor the progress of the restructured development program through fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommends a transfer of $100.0 million from 

UH–60 modifications to PE 23744A for continued development and 

procurement of additional prototype aircraft, in the hopes of mitigating the impact of the delay of fielding this upgrade to soldiers.

24

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2004 contained $1,459.5 million for Missile Procurement, Army. The committee recommends 

authorization of $1,594.7 million, an increase of $135.2 million, for 

fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2004 Missile 

Procurement, Army program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Army request are discussed following the 

table.

25


Insert graphic folio 49 87068.012
26


Insert graphic folio 50 87068.013
27

Items of Special Interest 

Patriot PAC–3 

The budget request contained $561.6 million for Patriot PAC–3 

procurement. 

The committee is encouraged by the performance of Patriot PAC–

3 in testing and actual operations. Therefore, the committee recommends $687.6 for the Patriot PAC–3 system, an increase of 

$126.0 million, of which $90.0 million is to be used for procurement 

of 30 additional PAC–3 missiles, and $36.0 million is to be used for 

upgraded radars and launch communication enhancements. 

WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2004 contained $1,640.7 million for Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $2,197.4 million, an increase 

of $556.7 million, for fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2004 Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army program are identified in 

the table below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed 

following the table.

28


Insert graphic folio 53 87068.014
29


Insert graphic folio 54 87068.015
30


Insert graphic folio 55 87068.016
31

Items of Special Interest 

Counterattack corps modernization 

The budget request included $113.3 million for fielding M2‘‘A3’’ 

Bradley Fighting Vehicle upgrades procured in prior fiscal years. 

The budget request also included no funds in the M1A2 System Enhancement Program (SEP) for upgrading M1A2 Abrams tanks to 

the M1A2 SEP tank variant. The budget request also included 

$268.6 million for M1 Abrams tank modifications, of which $154.4 

million is for the procurement of the LV100 engine. However, both 

the M2 Bradley upgrade and M1A2 Abrams tank upgrade programs were terminated in the fiscal year 2004 budget request. 

In light of the dominant role that heavy armored forces played 

in Operation Iraqi Freedom and their ability to employ rapid maneuver and lethality, as well as support infantry in urban combat, 

the committee is concerned that the Army has chosen to terminate 

its heavy armor digitized upgrades at two divisions. In prior years, 

and in its fiscal year 2003 budget, the Army originally planned to 

field a counterattack corps comprised of three and one third heavy 

armored, digitized divisions. However in the fiscal year 2004 budget request, the Army terminated its heavy armored force digital upgrades. The committee is extremely concerned with both the force 

structure and industrial implications that this new plan may have. 

The committee understands that the Army was faced with a series of difficult choices in the construct of its fiscal year 2004 budget request in order to fund Future Combat Systems (FCS) and fulfill other current modernization goals. However, the committee is 

very concerned that the Army has now abandoned its counterattack 

corps digital upgrade initiative and not developed a transition plan 

for the heavy armor production industrial base before it determines 

what type of FCS ground vehicle technologies and production requirements are needed in order to both sustain its legacy force, 

which is planned to be maintained through at least 2030, and if required, also transition to be able to produce the next generation 

FCS ground vehicles. 

The committee also understands that an armored cavalry regiment (ACR), the reconnaissance and scout ‘‘eyes and ears’’ of its 

counterattack corps, was originally scheduled to receive digital upgrades in prior year plans. Currently, this unit has approximately 

130 analog M3A2 Bradley scout vehicles and 129 M1A2 Abrams 

tanks, which can be upgraded with improved digital technologies, 

such as a second generation forward looking infrared sensor, Force 

XXI Battle Command, Brigade and Below situational awareness 

system, and a zero-mile vehicle refurbishment. The committee understands that a M1A2 to M1A2 SEP upgrade unit cost would be 

$3.6 million per tank and the committee’s recommended increase 

herein for SEP upgrades is based on that cost. 

The committee notes that the current AGT–1500 engine in the 

Abrams tank is the highest operations and support (O&S) cost 

driver of the vehicle and represents approximately 60 percent of 

the O&S costs. The committee also notes that the replacement 

LV100 engine, once fully tested and integrated into the Abrams 

tank, is expected to result in a 20 percent improvement in fuel consumption and a 43 percent reduction of parts. While the committee 

is supportive of this program and understands its benefits, it notes 

32

that the LV100 is not ready to enter into procurement because of 

technical delays due to power shortfalls, and therefore, recommends a decrease of $108.0 million from the Abrams Modification program for the procurement of LV100 engines and a transfer 

of these funds to the M1A2 SEP program for the procurement of 

43 M1A2 Abrams SEP upgrades. Additionally, the committee notes 

$32.0 million for Abrams Integrated Management refurbishment 

within the Abrams Upgrade Program is not required if M1A2 SEP 

tank upgrades are continued and recommends a transfer of this 

amount to the M1A2 SEP program. Additionally, the committee notes that $108.0 million for procurement of LV100 engines may become available depending on the 

outcome of engine reliability testing scheduled for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2003. Also, the committee understands that up to 

$68.0 million for SEP program components of fiscal year 2003 

funds has not been executed. In order to accelerate Abrams SEP 

tank upgrades, the committee strongly urges the Secretary of the 

Army to reprogram these funds if they are available to begin upgrades of 43 M1A2 Abrams tanks to the M1A2 Abrams SEP configuration in fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends $372.1 million, an increase of $258.8 

million, for Bradley M3A2 Operation Desert Storm ‘‘D+’’ upgrades, 

and, an increase of $424.0 million for M1A2 Abrams to M1A2 

Abrams SEP tank upgrades, both for counterattack corps modernization and to maintain a warm heavy armor production industrial base. An increase of $44.0 million is also recommended within 

Other Procurement, Army, for combat support and combat service 

support equipment for counterattack corps modernization. 

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2004 contained $1,310.0 million for Ammunition Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $1,429.0 million, an increase of $119.0 

million, for fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2004 Ammunition Procurement, Army program are identified in the table 

below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed following 

the table.

33


Insert graphic folio 59 87068.017
34


Insert graphic folio 60 87068.018
35


Insert graphic folio 61 87068.019
36

Items of Special Interest 

Army ammunition procurement 

The budget request contained $1,310.0 million for procurement of 

ammunition and production base support. The committee recommends $1,429.0 million, an increase of $119.0 million, for the 

following types of ammunition programs, of which ammunition production is among the top unfunded requirements identified by the 

Army Chief of Staff in fiscal year 2004:

[In millions of dollars] 

Small/Medium Caliber Ammunition: 

CTG 25mm, APFSDS–T M919 ................................................................ 25.0 

Mortar Ammunition: 

CTG 60mm Full Range Practice, M769 .................................................. (1.0) 

CTG 120mm M930A1 Illum .................................................................... 5.0 

CTG 120mm M931 Full Range Practice ................................................. 2.0 

CTG 120mm M934A1 HE ........................................................................ 5.0 

Artillery Ammunition: 

Cartridge, Artillery 105mm Illum M314 ................................................ 4.0 

Modular Artillery Charge System ........................................................... 20.0 

Rockets: 

HYDRA–70, All Types .............................................................................. 11.0 

Demolition Munitions, All Types: 

Modernization Demolition Initiators ...................................................... 4.0 

Production Base Support: 

Flexible LAP for modern munitions ........................................................ 15.0 

Small Caliber production line upgrades ................................................. 24.0 

Medium Caliber Links manf. die sets ..................................................... 5.0

Joint ammunition production base upgrades and capacity 

The budget request contained $138.5 million for ammunition production base support, of which $33.6 million is for the provision of 

industrial facilities. However, no funds were requested for flexible 

load, assemble, and pack (LAP) upgrades for modern munitions or 

small and medium caliber production line upgrades. 

In the committee report on H.R. 4546 (H. Rept. 107–436), the 

committee directed the Secretary of the Army to provide a report 

to the congressional defense committees by January 15, 2003, 

which would outline the conventional ammunition industrial base 

requirements, including LAP capacity, to fulfill the ammunition requirements for the Department of Defense’s new capabilities-based 

strategy and Army Chief of Staff unfunded requirements. The service secretary requested an extension on February 25, 2003, for submission of the report to the congressional defense committees because the strategy needed to be briefed to the Office of the Secretary of Defense prior to its submission to the congressional defense committees. The committee did not receive the report prior 

to its action on the fiscal year 2004 budget request. 

Absent this information, the committee firmly believes that the 

Department of Defense has not adequately funded or addressed the 

requirements for production line upgrades to the nation’s ammunition production industrial base. Further, the committee believes 

that these upgrades are required, to not only update World War IIera production lines, but are also needed to fulfill the increased 

production requirements of the growing shortfalls in war reserve 

and training ammunition, which have occurred from increased ammunition use in the war on terrorism. These increased requirements span the spectrum, from small to large caliber conventional 

37

ammunition, as well as conventional bombs and other explosive 

materials. The increased ammunition use rate, combined with the 

atrophy of the ammunition production industrial base, which occurred as a result of the reduction of procurement funds during the 

1990’s, has resulted in a limited production capacity in the United 

States, as well as an increased reliance on foreign sources for ammunition for U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. The committee is disturbed with these trends. 

Absent the Secretary’s input, which would have aided the committee in determining where additional resources could have been 

properly applied, the committee recommends $182.5 million for production base support, an increase of $44.0 million for the following 

ammunition production base upgrades: (1) $15.0 million for flexible LAP for modern munitions; 

(2) $24.0 million for small caliber production line upgrades; and 

(3) $5.0 million for medium caliber links manufacturing die sets. 

The committee understands that additional resources will be required to complete these production line upgrades and strongly 

urges the Secretary of Defense to provide the resources necessary 

in future fiscal year budgets to complete these upgrades in order 

to ensure that the U.S. conventional ammunition production base 

will support the transformational requirements of the nation’s 21st 

Century military. 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2004 contained $4,216.9 million for Other Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $4,321.5 million, an increase of $104.6 million, for 

fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2004 Other 

Procurement, Army program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Army request are discussed following the 

table.

38


Insert graphic folio 65 87068.020
39


Insert graphic folio 66 87068.021
40


Insert graphic folio 67 87068.022
41


Insert graphic folio 68 87068.023
42


Insert graphic folio 69 87068.024
43


Insert graphic folio 70 87068.025
44


Insert graphic folio 71 87068.026
45


Insert graphic folio 72 87068.027
46


Insert graphic folio 73 87068.028
47

Items of Special Interest 

Communications-electronics equipment fielding 

The budget request contained $15.9 million for the procurement 

and fielding of communications-electronics equipment, but included 

no funds for the procurement of the AN/PRC–148 Multiband InterTeam Radio (MBITR). 

The AN/PRC–148 MBITR is the interim platoon, squad and specials operations team leader radio for selected light infantry units, 

which provides small unit secure and non-secure communications. 

The committee notes that this radio will provide small unit communications until the Joint Tactical Radio System handheld ‘‘cluster 

II’’ requirements are identified and developed and that additional 

requirements for the MBITR exist in infantry units. The committee 

also notes that the Army Chief of Staff has identified a $9.4 million 

fiscal year 2004 unfunded requirement for the AN/PRC–148 

MBITR as part of the rapid fielding initiative. The committee recommends $23.9 million, an increase of $8.0 

million, for additional AN/PRC–148 MBITR systems for the rapid 

fielding initiative and notes that this increase is a transfer of funds 

from the Land Warrior program. 

Construction equipment ESP 

The budget request contained no funds for a construction equipment service life extension program (SLEP) for the Army National 

Guard or Army Reserve. 

The committee notes that this SLEP has been an extremely successful program in prior fiscal years for both the active and reserve 

components and provides for an overhaul and ‘‘zero-mile’’ refurbishment of aging combat construction equipment. The committee also 

notes that the Army Chief of Staff has identified a $10.2 million 

fiscal year 2004 unfunded requirement for this purpose. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million for construction equipment SLEP for the reserve component. 

Family of heavy tactical vehicles 

The budget request contained $133.0 million to procure palletized 

load systems, heavy equipment transporter systems, heavy expanded mobility tactical trucks and other related equipment of 

which $10.4 million was included to procure 656 movement tracking systems (MTS). However, no funds were budgeted for the Army 

Reserve. 

The MTS is a satellite-based tracking, communication system 

providing combat service support units with total asset visibility, 

global positioning system vehicle location, and tracking and twoway text messaging between stationary base locations and vehicles. 

The committee understands the MTS significantly enhances the 

Army’s ability to strategically position vehicles based on battlefield 

requirements, monitor, and track re-supply items, while providing 

near real-time command and control of in-theater logistical requirements and assets. As Army Reserve deployments increase, the committee believes there is an increasing need for better communications interoperability between the digitized Counterattack Corps 

and mobilized Reserve combat service support units directly participating in real world scenarios. The committee also notes the 

48

Chief of the Army Reserve has identified a fiscal year 2004 unfunded requirement for MTS. The committee recommends $142.0 million for the family of heavy tactical vehicles, an increase of $9.0 million, to accelerate 

procurement of MTS for the Army Reserve. 

Full tracked tractor 

The budget request contained no funds to procure full tracked 

tractor dozers for either the Counterattack Corps or the Army National Guard (ARNG). 

The full tracked tractor dozer provides a heavy dozing and clearing capability for combat heavy construction battalions and construction support companies in support of heavy forces and national emergency response by the ARNG. The committee notes that 

the Army Chief of Staff has identified a fiscal year 2004, $18.4 million unfunded requirement for these vehicles. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million, $5.0 

million for active component dozers, and, $5.0 million for ARNG 

dozers to field additional capability in support of heavy counterattack corps and ARNG requirements. 

High mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWVs) 

The budget request contained $137.8 million for HMMWVs, of which $38.4 million was included to procure 250 of the M1114 UpArmor variant. 

The Up-Armor HMMWV is a multi-service, four wheel drive utility vehicle that provides proven ballistic protection for soldiers from 

anti-personnel and anti-tank mines and armored piercing munitions. The committee notes the Chief of the National Guard has 

identified a critical shortfall of 3,410 vehicles, and the Chief of the 

Army Reserve has identified this program as a top unfunded requirement. The committee understands these additional vehicles 

will supplement deployed Army Reserve units in combat support 

missions and also accelerate fielding to the National Guard, now 

performing expanded homeland security duties. 

The committee recommends $155.8 million, an increase of $18.0 

million for additional M1114 Up-Armor HMMWVs to address 

guard and reserve shortfalls, recognizing the ongoing importance of 

force protection and in light of lessons learned from previous urban 

and combat operations. 

Joint tactical area command systems 

The budget request contained $900,000 for management of joint 

tactical area command systems, but included no funds to upgrade 

existing AN/ARS–6 (V) personnel locator communications systems 

with state-of-the-art, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) technology. 

The AN/ARS–6 (V) personnel locator communications system is 

an airborne electronic locator, which can precisely locate survivors 

on the ground equipped with AN/PRC–112 survival radios. The 

committee understands that this COTS upgrade will include a global positioning system waveform for currently fielded systems, but 

is also required as well to provide interoperability with next generation Combat Survivor Evader Locator survival radios. The committee believes that this capability may aid in the rescue and recovery of personnel and survivors in extremis situations. 

49

The committee recommends $8.9 million for joint tactical area command systems, an increase of $8.0 million, for AN/ARS–6 (V) 

COTS insertion upgrades.

Knight family 

The budget request contained $6.7 million for engineering support and fielding of the Knight command and control and targeting 

system, but included no funds for the procurement of Knight systems for the Army National Guard (ARNG). 

The Knight system is a high mobility multi-purpose wheeled vehicle mounted system, which incorporates a Bradley fire support 

vehicle mission equipment package of a laser rangefinder/designator, thermal sight, handheld computer, and both inertial navigation and global positioning systems. The Knight system is operated 

by combat observation lasing teams as an integral part of heavy 

and light division and ARNG enhanced separate brigade reconnaissance teams to locate and designate targets for laser-guided ordnance. 

The committee notes that the system will be terminated in fiscal 

year 2004, which will only allow this system to be fielded to Counterattack Corps units and that funds appropriated in prior years 

for the ARNG Knight systems enabled the fielding of only approximately 50 percent of the requirement for an ARNG enhanced separate brigade. The committee recommends $35.2 million, an increase of $28.5 

million for 39 Knight family systems to accelerate fielding to the 

ARNG. 

Land warrior 

The budget request contained $94.8 million for the procurement 

of Land Warrior systems. The committee notes that this system 

failed developmental tests and that the program has been restructured in fiscal year 2003 to continue development of system software to correct reliability deficiencies which resulted in the developmental test failure. The committee also notes that this is the 

Army’s second unsuccessful attempt to enter into procurement of 

the Land Warrior system, the last of which occurred six years ago 

in fiscal year 1999. The committee understands that technologies 

incorporated into this system, which would enhance a soldier’s situational awareness, are continually improving. As a result, the committee is very concerned with these continued program delays and 

that the Army has not structured this program to field capabilities 

in a block format. The committee strongly urges the Army to freeze 

an achievable design so this system can enter into procurement 

and be fielded to warfighters who would benefit from it. The committee will monitor the system’s progress through fiscal year 2004 

and will consider less costly alternative technologies in the future, 

which are readily available and can be rapidly fielded, if this system does not show improvement in development. 

Consequently, the Army has restructured the program and requested, and the committee recommends, that $58.5 million be 

transferred from procurement to PE 64713A for continued system 

development and demonstration. Further, the committee recommends no funds for the procurement of the Land Warrior system, however, it recommends a transfer of $6.9 million to Weapons 

50

and Tracked Combat Vehicles for the procurement of Squad Automatic Weapons, and, $8.0 million to Other Procurement, Army, 

Communications-Electronics Equipment Fielding for AN/PRC–148 

radios. 

Lightweight video reconnaissance system (LVRS) 

The budget request contained no funds for LVRS. 

The LVRS provides scouts, long range surveillance units, and 

special operations forces the capability to capture still frame photographic images in all light conditions, especially low light and low 

visibility situations, and then transmit those images via military 

radio to higher headquarters for near real-time information, intelligence and enhanced situational awareness. The committee notes 

this system was terminated by the Secretary of the Army in the 

fiscal year 2004 budget request because the Land Warrior system 

was to replace its capability. However, the committee notes that 

the Land Warrior system will not enter into procurement in fiscal 

year 2004 as originally planned, and notes that an increase of 

$10.7 million would procure enough LVRS to complete fielding to 

the United States Army Special Operations Command (USASOC). The committee recommends an increase of $10.7 million for the 

procurement of LVRS to complete the fielding of this system to 

USASOC. 

Local area network upgrades 

The budget request contained $96.5 million to upgrade the local 

area networks at several Army installations. The local area network forms the communications backbone of an installation, and is 

a critical component that enables an installation to rapidly and efficiently deploy the combat units resident at that installation. The 

committee is concerned that the installations hosting XVIII Airborne Corps major units have not received necessary upgrades to 

ensure that the Army’s combat power can move quickly when needed and believes that additional effort is required to fully upgrade 

these local area networks. At some locations, outmoded asynchronous transmission mode switching equipment has not been replaced by gigabit ethernet switching with open standard spaced 

software. The committee believes the installations hosting these 

important units should be upgraded as soon as possible to ensure 

compatibility with Army-wide open standard systems. 

The committee recommends $104.5 million for upgrades of Army 

installation local area networks, an increase of $8.0 million. 

Logistic support vessel (LSV) 

The budget request contained no funds for procurement of an 

LSV. 

The Department of the Army’s eight-ship LSV fleet provides 

worldwide transport of its combat vehicles, personnel and 

sustainment cargo, and is capable of ship-to-shore operations including those in remote areas with unimproved beaches or inland 

waterways. The committee notes that the recent Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom have highlighted the importance 

of LSV’s to the Army’s strategic vision of rapid brigade and division 

deployment, and believes that an additional LSV would meet 

emerging requirements to support the global war on terrorism. 

51

The committee recommends an increase of $33.0 million for an 

additional LSV. 

Nonsystem training devices 

The budget request contained $165.3 million to procure nonsytem 

training devices, but included no funds to procure BEAMHIT laser 

marksmanship training systems (LMTS) for the Army Reserve. 

The committee understands that the Army Reserve lacks adequate BEAMHIT LMTS to maintain marksmanship training skills. 

The committee notes that the Army Chief of Staff increased marksmanship training and readiness requirements for combat service 

support (CSS) and combat support (CS) units to fight the global 

war on terrorism, after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks 

on the United States. The committee also notes that the Army Reserve comprises a substantial amount of the Army’s CSS and CS 

units. 

The committee recommends $175.3 million, an increase of $10.0 

million, for additional BEAMHIT LMTS for the Army Reserve. 

Warfighter information network-tactical (WIN–T) 

The budget request contained $3.2 million for the procurement of 

‘‘prototype sensor particulate, noble gas detection equipment and 

associated field station infrastructure for automated, remote operation for WIN–T.’’ 

The committee notes that the justification for this program does 

not fit the information system requirements outlined in the WIN–

T operational requirements document and notes that procurement 

was not planned to begin until fiscal year 2005. The committee recommends a decrease of $3.2 million for WIN–

T. 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2004 contained $8,788.1 million for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends 

authorization of $9,050.0 million, an increase of $261.9 million, for 

fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2004 Aircraft 

Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following the 

table.

52


Insert graphic folio 80 87068.029
53


Insert graphic folio 81 87068.030
54


Insert graphic folio 82 87068.031
55


Insert graphic folio 83 87068.032
56

Items of Special Interest 

AV–8B series modifications 

The budget request contained $20.9 million for AV–8B series 

modifications, but included no funds for Litening advanced airborne targeting and navigation (AT) pods or for the upgrade of 

Litening II pods to the Litening AT configuration. 

The Litening AT pod is the next generation Litening pod system 

that will incorporate an advanced forward-looking infra-red radar 

and other enhancements to the existing multi-sensor and precision 

strike capability. The committee understands that the Marine 

Corps has a requirement for 98 Litening targeting pods but has 

thus far only procured 76, for a shortfall of 22. Additionally, the 

committee understands that the Marine Corps has a requirement 

to upgrade eight Litening II pods to the Litening AT configuration 

so that all AV–8B Litening pods maintain the same configuration. 

The committee notes that both the 22 Litening AT pods and the 

upgrade of eight Litening II pods to the Litening AT configuration 

are included among the Commandant of the Marine Corps’ unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommends $57.9 million for AV–8B series modifications, an increase of $37.0 million for this purpose. 

EA–6B modifications 

The budget request contained $207.1 million for EA–6B modifications, of which $89.6 million was included for improved capabilities 

(ICAP) III modification kits, but included no funds to replace the 

outer wing panel (OWP), or for the on-board oxygen-generating system (OBOGS). The Department of the Navy’s fleet of 121 EA–6B 

aircraft is the Department of Defense’s only aircraft configured to 

provide the electronic-jamming capability to deny and degrade the 

acquisition of friendly forces by enemy air defense systems. 

The ICAP III modification significantly improves the EA–6B’s 

ability to suppress and destroy modern enemy air defenses by accurately identifying the specific emitter type, and by providing the 

enemy emitter’s range and bearing thereby allowing timely employment of suppression or destruction weapons. The committee notes 

that both the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of 

the Marine Corps have included additional ICAP III modification 

kits among their unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2004, and 

therefore recommends an increase of $66.4 million for eight additional ICAP III modification kits. 

The committee understands that recent EA–6B fatigue life inspections have revealed that OWPs are aging more rapidly than expected due to fatigue cracking, and that this situation has prompted the Navy to ground eight of its EA–6Bs in December 2002, and 

to restrict EA–6B flight operations in 23 aircraft to less than three 

times the force of gravity, or ‘‘g’s,’’ rather than its full operating envelope of 5.5 g’s. To restore these aircraft to their full operating envelope, OWPs must be replaced and the committee notes that the 

Chief of Naval Operations has included replacement EA–6B OWPs 

among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2004. Accordingly, the 

committee recommends an increase of $60.0 million to procure and 

install 18 OWP sets. 

57

The OBOGS replaces the antiquated liquid oxygen system by creating a continuous supply of breathing oxygen to aircrews by using 

pressurized engine bleed air routed through a molecular sieve 

which removes nitrogen, yielding 93 percent pure oxygen. The committee understands that the EA–6B is one of two remaining nonOBOGS equipped carrier wing aircraft, and that additional funds 

are required in fiscal year 2004 to complete non-recurring engineering to fully integrate OBOGS in the EA–6B. Consequently, the 

committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for this purpose. In total, the committee recommends $339.5 million for EA–6B 

modifications, an increase of $132.4 million. 

Joint Primary Air Training System (JPATS) 

The budget request contained $2.4 million for procurement of 

JPATS support equipment, but included no funds to procure T–6A 

aircraft or associated ground-based training systems. 

The JPATS, consisting of both the T–6A aircraft and a groundbased training system, will be used by the Navy and Air Force for 

primary pilot training. The T–6A will replace both the Navy’s T–

34 and Air Force’s T–37B fleets, providing safer, more economical 

and more effective training for future student pilots. 

Despite the Department of the Navy’s intention not to continue 

JPATS procurement until fiscal year 2007, the committee continues 

to believe that its procurement for the Navy would not only reduce 

procurement costs for both the Navy and the Air Force but would 

also reduce operations and maintenance costs. The committee recommends $17.1 million for JPATS, an increase 

of $14.7 million for T–6A aircraft and associated ground-based 

training systems. 

P–3 series modifications 

The budget request contained $95.0 million for P–3 series modifications but included no funds for procurement of electro-optic sensors and communications upgrades for non anti-surface warfare improvement program (AIP) equipped aircraft. 

The AIP upgrade improves the P–3’s communications, survivability, and over-the-horizon targeting capabilities through the installation of commercial-off-the-shelf components. The committee 

understands that AIP-equipped P–3s are the theater commander’s 

platform of choice for overland intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) missions, and that, as a result of extensive tasking, 

AIP-equipped P–3s are rapidly consuming aircraft life. The committee notes, however, that of the Navy’s 288-aircraft P–3 inventory, only 69 aircraft have been, or are planned to be, modified 

with the AIP upgrade leaving 219 aircraft that have been subject 

to a diminished theater commander demand. The committee understands that some of the remaining 219 non-AIP equipped aircraft 

could be upgraded with electro-optic sensors and communication 

upgrades allowing those P–3 aircraft to assume lower priority ISR 

missions thereby conserving aircraft life on AIP-equipped P–3 aircraft. 

The committee recommends $104.0 million, an increase of $9.0 

million for procurement of electro-optic sensors and communication 

upgrades for one non-AIP equipped P–3 aircraft and its associated 

non-recurring engineering. 

58

T–45A to T–45C conversion 

The budget request contained $22.3 million for T–45 series modifications, but included no funds for the conversion of T–45A aircraft 

to the T–45C configuration. The T–45 is a two-seat, aircraft carriercapable aircraft used for the Navy’s intermediate-level undergraduate pilot training. The T–45A has an analog cockpit, while 

the T–45C is equipped with digital cockpit displays. 

The committee understands that the T–45A’s analog cockpit display configuration does not provide the same quality of training 

provided by the T–45C’s digital cockpit display design since current 

aircraft such as the F/A–18E/F are equipped with digital cockpit 

displays and future aircraft such as the F–35 are also planned to 

have digital cockpit displays. The committee also understands that 

the Navy Chief of Naval Air Training has identified the conversion 

of T–45A’s to the T–45C configuration as his number two priority. 

The committee recommends $41.4 million for T–45 series modifications, an increase of $19.1 million for conversion of T–45A aircraft to the T–45C configuration, to improve the quality of T–45 

pilot training. 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2004 contained $1,991.8 million for Weapons Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends 

authorization of $2,529.8 million, an increase of $538.0 million, for 

fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2004 Weapons Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following the 

table.

59


Insert graphic folio 88 87068.033
60


Insert graphic folio 89 87068.034
61


Insert graphic folio 90 87068.035
62

Items of Special Interest 

Close-in weapon system (CIWS) block 1B upgrade 

The budget request contained $41.4 million for CIWS modifications, all of which is for the CIWS block 1B upgrade. 

The CIWS is a high-fire rate weapon system that automatically 

acquires, tracks and destroys anti-ship missiles that have penetrated all the other ship’s defenses. The CIWS block 1B upgrade incorporates a thermal imager, to further improve anti-ship missile 

defense, and an automatic acquisition video tracker that provides 

the additional capability to engage small, high-speed maneuvering 

surface craft and low, slow aircraft and helicopters. The committee 

notes that the Department of the Navy plans to increase CIWS 

block 1B upgrade annual budgets by over 350 percent for fiscal 

years 2005 through 2009, and believes that, since this upgrade provides significant anti-terrorism and force protection capability, it 

should be accelerated in fiscal year 2004. The committee recommends $50.4 million for CIWS modifications, an increase of $9.0 million to accelerate procurement of 

CIWS block 1B systems. 

GQM–163A coyote supersonic sea skimming target 

The budget request contained $70.7 million for procurement of Navy aerial targets, including $17.6 million for procurement of supersonic sea skimming targets (SSST). 

The Navy is developing the GQM–163A Coyote SSST to replace 

the VANDAL SSST, which is now out of production and the supply 

of which is almost exhausted. The GQM–163A is a high-fidelity target that will replicate the performance of sophisticated anti-ship 

cruise missiles. 

The committee recommends $85.7 million for procurement of Navy aerial targets, including an increase of $15.0 million to accelerate the procurement of the GQM–163A Coyote SSST. 

Tomahawk missile 

The budget request contained $277.6 million for 267 tactical 

tomahawk (TACTOM) missiles. 

The Tomahawk missile is a long-range, precision-strike cruise 

missile launched from surface ships or submarines. The TACTOM 

missile will provide improved performance at a lower unit cost than 

previous missile versions. The existing maximum TACTOM production capacity is 450 missiles per year. 

The committee notes that the Department of the Navy’s programmed budget for Tomahawk missiles would result in an inventory that is significantly below the Navy’s stated Tomahawk required inventory levels, and that recent Tomahawk missile expenditures, which have been in excess of 700 for Operation Iraqi Freedom, have exacerbated this shortfall. The committee also notes that 

the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 108–11) established a $15.7 billion Iraqi 

Freedom Fund to provide for additional expenses associated with 

the ongoing military operations in Iraq including the replacement 

of munitions. Additionally, the statement of the managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 1559 (H. Rept. 108–76) specifically identified TACTOM missiles among those precision guided 

63

munitions that should be procured from the funds provided. Since 

the committee believes that the Tomahawk missile shortage is severe and should be aggressively addressed in fiscal year 2003, it directs the Department of Defense to obligate at least $24.0 million 

from funds provided in the Iraqi Freedom Fund by Public Law 

108–11 to increase TACTOM production capacity to 600 missiles 

per year and to obligate at least $336.0 million for an additional 

300 TACTOMs. The committee understands that the additional 

TACTOMs can be delivered beginning in January 2005 with an associated production rate increase to 600 missiles per year beginning in November 2006. 

To sustain TACTOM production at a rate of 600 missiles per 

year for fiscal year 2004, the committee recommends an increase 

of $336.0 million for an additional 333 TACTOM missiles. 

The committee also believes that future wartime expenditures 

may require inventory replenishment rates up to 900 missiles per 

year. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $40.0 

million for further tooling and test equipment, and understands 

that a contract award in the second quarter of fiscal year 2004 

would allow a 900-missile-per-year production capacity to be 

achieved by the second quarter of fiscal year 2006. The committee recommends $653.6 million for the TACTOM missile, an increase of $376.0 million. 

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, NAVY & MARINE CORPS

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2004 contained $922.4 million 

for Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps. The committee recommends authorization of $963.4 million, an increase of 

$41.0 million, for fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2004 Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps program are identified 

in the table below. Major changes to the Navy & Marine Corps request are discussed following the table.

64


Insert graphic folio 94 87068.036
65


Insert graphic folio 95 87068.037
66

Items of Special Interest 

Marine Corps ammunition procurement 

The budget request contained $232.4 million for procurement of ammunition. The committee recommends $253.4 million, an increase of $21.0 million for the following types of ammunition, which 

were identified as top unfunded requirements by the Commandant 

of the Marine Corps for fiscal year 2004:

[In millions of dollars] 

5.56mm, All Types: 

M855 lead-free .......................................................................................... 5.0 

60mm, All Types: 

M720A1 HE .............................................................................................. 6.0 

Artillery, All Types: 

155mm M795 HE ..................................................................................... 10.0

Navy ammunition procurement 

The budget request contained $690.0 million for the procurement 

of conventional ammunition. The committee recommends $710.0 

million, an increase of $20.0 million for the procurement of ammunition, which was a top unfunded requirement identified by the 

Chief of Naval Operations for fiscal year 2004:

[In millions of dollars] 

General Purpose Bombs .................................................................................. 20.0 

(to be used only for the procurement of bomb bodies to synchronize 

with precision guided munitions kits)

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2004 contained $11,439.0 million for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $11,472.4 million, an increase of $33.4 

million, for fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2004 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy program are identified in the table 

below. Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following 

the table.

67


Insert graphic folio 98 87068.038
68


Insert graphic folio 99 87068.039
69


Insert graphic folio 100 87068.040
70

Items of Special Interest 

Landing craft air cushion (LCAC) service life extension program 

(SLEP) 

The budget request contained $73.1 million for three LCAC 

SLEPs. 

The LCAC is the only surface platform that can provide highspeed, heavy lift for Marine Corps amphibious operations from 

over-the-horizon. The SLEP, which includes hull, engine and communications upgrades, would extend the LCAC’s service life from 

twenty years to thirty years. The committee understands that an 

annual quantity of three LCAC SLEPs is one less than the minimum production sustainment level and that production of four 

LCAC SLEPs in fiscal year 2004 would prevent a production line 

break. The committee believes that uninterrupted production is 

critical to a cost-effective LCAC SLEP program. The committee recommends $94.1 million, an increase of $21.0 

million for the procurement of one additional LCAC SLEP. 

Minehunter small waterplane area twin hull (SWATH) boats 

The budget request contained no funds for procurement of second 

generation Minehunter SWATH boats or for their associated mine 

countermeasures equipment suites. 

The Minehunter SWATH boat is a 40-foot, twin-hull vessel that 

can operate in very shallow water with increased stability in rough 

seas compared to a similar size mono hull ship. The second generation Minehunter SWATH boat will be capable of remote operation, 

greatly reducing manning requirements. The Navy’s mine hunting 

fleet includes one Minehunter SWATH boat, which is its only surface mine warfare vessel capable of operating in very shallow water 

or capable of transport by C–5 aircraft for operational deployment 

within 24 hours. The committee believes that the capability to provide prompt mine hunting support to United States harbors is critical to the homeland security mission. 

The committee recommends an increase of $9.4 million for the 

procurement of two second generation Minehunter SWATH boats 

and their associated mine countermeasures equipment suites. 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2004 contained $4,679.4 million for Other Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $4,614.9 million, a decrease of $64.6 million, for fiscal 

year 2004. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2004 Other 

Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following the 

table.

71


Insert graphic folio 103 87068.041
72


Insert graphic folio 104 87068.042
73


Insert graphic folio 105 87068.043
74


Insert graphic folio 106 87068.044
75


Insert graphic folio 107 87068.045
76


Insert graphic folio 108 87068.046
77


Insert graphic folio 109 87068.047
78


Insert graphic folio 110 87068.048
79

Items of Special Interest 

Fuel and engine maintenance savings system (FEMSS) 

The budget request included no funds for FEMSS. The committee 

understands that the request for fiscal year 2004 has been slipped 

to 2006. 

The FEMSS has demonstrated a savings of more than $200,000 

per ship per year in fuel and maintenance costs, paying for itself 

in five years. The committee recommends an authorization of $3.0 million to 

procure three ship sets of FEMMS for the procurement and installation of FEMS on three LSD 41/49 class of ships. 

Law enforcement information exchange 

The budget request contained $15.4 million for items less than $5.0 million, but contained no funding for the Law Enforcement Information Exchange system. This system would allow the Naval 

Criminal Investigation Service to share law enforcement information with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies 

to detect and deter terrorist activities. 

The committee recommends $19.4 million for items less than 

$5.0 million, an increase of $4.0 million. 

Naval fires control system (NFCS) 

The budget request contained $4.3 million for the procurement of 

the NFCS, however, no funds were requested for the Littoral Surveillance System (LSS). 

The LSS is a high mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle-based 

node within the Joint Fires Network which provides intelligence, 

surveillance, reconnaissance, and targeting from imagery, signals, 

and measurement/signature intelligence data. The LSS receives its 

data from both manned and unmanned aircraft and unmanned 

ground, underwater and space-based sensors. The committee notes 

that the Chief of Naval Operations has identified a fiscal year 2004 

unfunded requirement of $14.7 million for LSS hardware, software, 

and communications upgrades, which would make LSS units 1 and 

2 fully operational. The committee is supportive of networked fire 

support that will provide targeting data and solutions for naval 

and joint assets to employ precision guided munitions in support of 

time critical strike and time sensitive targeting missions. 

The committee recommends $9.0 million for NFCS, an increase 

of $4.7 million, for LSS hardware, software, and communications 

upgrades to make LSS units 1 and 2 fully operational. 

Navy tactical data systems 

The budget request contained no funds for Navy tactical data 

systems. 

The committee is aware of the high cost of replacing peripheral 

sub systems and equipment in the front line Aegis platforms that 

are currently globally deployed. Obsolescing equipment used to 

load programs into the Aegis weapons system are incurring high 

maintenance costs as they continue to be utilized beyond their anticipated life cycles. Digital support equipment based on commercial-off-the-shelf technologies would significantly reduce maintenance costs and would increase weapons systems availability. 

80

The committee recommends $6.5 million for Navy tactical data 

systems to replace Aegis Combat System peripheral equipment. 

Non-lethal swimmer detection systems 

The budget request contained $74.6 million for physical security 

equipment, but included no funds for non-lethal swimmer detection 

systems. 

Non-lethal swimmer detection systems include a variety of new 

technologies and systems that provide shipboard force protection 

for pier side or anchored Navy ships, when they are most vulnerable to submerged swimmer threats. The committee understands 

that the Navy does not have any non-lethal swimmer detection capability for its ships at pier side or at anchorage, and that non-lethal swimmer detections systems would automate the detection 

and identification of underwater threats, allowing the ship’s crew 

to take the necessary actions to prevent the placement of underwater devices intended to cause damage to a ship or injury to its 

crew. 

To address this shortfall, the committee notes that the Chief of 

Naval Operations included non-lethal swimmer detection systems 

among his top four unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends $91.6 million for physical security systems, an increase of $17.0 million for non-lethal swimmer detection systems. 

Operating forces industrial plant equipment 

The budget request contained $5.5 million for operating forces industrial plant equipment, but included no funds for expeditionary 

maintenance facilities (EMF). 

The committee is aware that the Navy has decommissioned the 

majority of its repair tenders to include all tenders associated with 

surface combatant repair. This significantly impacts the ability of 

the Navy to repair and perform depot level maintenance for forward deployed fleet units. The committee is aware of the capabilities imbedded in the expeditionary maintenance facilities (EMF) in 

that the EMF is air transportable, modular and capable of being 

configured to meet specific requirements based on deployment geography. The committee is also aware that this system can be deployed within 72 hours to any theater of operations where repair 

and maintenance support is needed. The committee believes that 

the EMF concept will enhance forward deployed repair requirements. 

The committee recommends $13.5 million for operating forces industrial plant equipment, an increase of $8.0 million, for procurement of two EMF sets. 

Other supply support equipment 

The budget request contained $13.9 million for the procurement 

of other supply support equipment, of which no funds were allocated for the automatic identification technology (AIT) in support 

of the serial number tracking system (SNTS). 

The SNTS uses commercial AIT to provide web-based, cradle-tograve, total asset visibility on individual components throughout 

the supply, maintenance, and transportation transfer process within the Naval and Marine Corps aviation depots and enhances the 

81

maintenance, remanufacture, and rebuild process of Navy and Marine Corps aircraft. The committee believes that streamlining business processes, such as SNTS, can be readily achieved by implementing AIT and has recommended increases for this technology 

for maintenance and ammunition tracking systems for other military services in prior fiscal years. The committee recommends $19.9 million for other supply sup- port equipment, an increase of $6.0 million for the SNTS. 

Radar support 

The budget request contained $9.7 million for procurement of one 

A/N–SPQ–9B Radar. The A/N–SPQ–9B radar is designed to provide early and reliable detection of sea skimming missiles so that 

they can be tracked, targeted, and neutralized. This expanded capability is added with no degradation to the original function of 

highly accurate surface gunfire support and navigation utilization. 

The committee believes that the anti-sea skimming mission is vital 

to the defensive capabilities of ships operating in the near coast 

and littoral areas of the maritime environment. 

The committee recommends $29.5 million for upgrades to the re- maining 20 fleet radar sets, an increase of $19.8 million. 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2004 contained $1,071.0 million for Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends 

authorization of $1,154.3 million, an increase of $83.3 million, for 

fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2004 Procurement, Marine Corps program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Marine Corps request are discussed following 

the table.

82


Insert graphic folio 115 87068.049
83


Insert graphic folio 116 87068.050
84


Insert graphic folio 117 87068.051
85


Insert graphic folio 118 87068.052
86

Items of Special Interest 

Night vision equipment 

The budget request contained $24.4 million to procure night vision equipment, but included no funds to procure either AN/PVS–

14 night vision goggles or AN/PVS–17 miniature night sights. 

The AN/PVS–14 is a state-of-the-art, lightweight, helmet-mounted, image-intensification, monocular night vision device used by 

light forces for night visual enhancement and situational awareness. 

The AN/PVS–17 is a lightweight, rifle-mounted, generation III, 

image intensification night vision sight that replaces obsolete, postVietnam era AN/PVS–4 sights. 

The committee notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps 

has identified fiscal year 2004 unfunded requirements of $5.4 million to procure additional AN/PVS–14 monocular night vision devices, and $10.5 million for additional AN/PVS–17 night vision 

sights. In support of the Commandant of the Marine Corps unfunded requirements and consistent with prior year actions, the 

committee continues to recognize the increased benefits of night vision technology. 

The committee recommends $34.8 million for night vision equipment, an increase of $5.4 million for AN/PVS–14 monocular night 

vision devices and an increase of $5.0 million for AN/PVS–17 miniature night vision sights, for a total increase of $10.4 million. 

Radio systems 

The budget request contained $10.6 million to procure radio systems, but included no funds to procure AN/PRC–148 Tactical Hand 

Held Radios (THHR) for the Marine Corps Reserve. 

The AN/PRC–148 THHR is a multi-band, secure voice and data 

radio that provides Marine reconnaissance teams and squad/platoon-size units with a lightweight, standardized, maintainable communications capability that is interoperable with numerous Department of Defense legacy communications radios. The committee 

notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps has identified a 

fiscal year 2004 unfunded requirement for AN/PRC–148 THHRs. 

The committee recommends $20.2 million for radio systems, an 

increase of $9.6 million, for both active and reserve Marine Corps 

forces. 

Weapons and combat vehicles under $5.0 million 

The budget request contained $5.0 million for the procurement of 

weapons and combat vehicles under $5.0 million, of which $3.1 million was for the procurement of the M249 squad automatic weapon 

(SAW). The M249 SAW is a lightweight machine gun capable of delivering a sustained volume of automatic, accurate, and highly lethal fire up to 800 meters in range. The committee notes that this 

has been one of the infantry’s critical weapon systems in both Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Further, the committee notes that the Commandant of the Marine Corps has identified a $8.1 million fiscal year 2004 unfunded requirement to alleviate an increasing failure rate of currently fielded weapons. 

87

The committee recommends $13.1 million for procurement of weapons and combat vehicles under $5.0 million, an increase of 

$8.1 million to replace obsolete M249 SAWs.

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2004 contained $12,079.4 million for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $12,604.5 million, an increase of $525.1 

million, for fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2004 Aircraft 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the 

table.

88


Insert graphic folio 121 87068.053
89


Insert graphic folio 122 87068.054
90


Insert graphic folio 123 87068.055
91


Insert graphic folio 124 87068.056
92


Insert graphic folio 125 87068.057
93


Insert graphic folio 126 87068.058
94

Items of Special Interest 

Air Force air refueling transfer account 

The budget request contained no funds for an Air Force air refueling transfer account. 

The Air Force air refueling tanker fleet is comprised of 59 KC–

10 aircraft and 544 KC–135 aircraft. While the first KC–10 aircraft 

were delivered in 1981 and the fleet’s average age is about 17 

years, the KC–135s were delivered to the Air Force between 1957 

and 1965 and the KC–135 fleet’s average age is 42 years. Since the 

KC–135 comprises most of the Air Force’s air refueling tanker fleet, 

the committee is concerned that a substantial portion of the Air 

Force’s air refueling fleet will reach simultaneous maturity, and 

will require substantial investment to operate, maintain, and eventually replace this fleet. 

The committee also notes that air refueling aircraft have been 

used extensively during the past four years in Operations Allied 

Force, Noble Eagle, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. Accordingly, the committee believes that recent operational demands have 

further consumed aircraft life and will increase costs for future 

maintenance and repair activity. As recent Air Force combat operations have demonstrated, the committee further believes that future Air Force air combat operations are likely to require increased 

air refueling tanker capacity. Moreover, the committee notes that 

the Tanker Requirements Study for Fiscal Year 2005, which was 

released before the current defense planning guidance increased 

combat capability requirements to conduct theater operations and 

homeland defense activities, identified tanker shortfalls driven in 

large part by the high number of KC–135 aircraft in a depot status. 

Consequently, the committee is perplexed by the Air Force’s decision to retire, rather than upgrade, 44 KC–135E aircraft in fiscal 

year 2004 and a remaining 22 KC–135E aircraft within the future 

years defense program. 

Additionally, the committee notes that the Air Force budget 

would only provide for seventy-nine percent of depot purchased 

equipment maintenance (DPEM) in fiscal year 2004, and that the 

Air Force Chief of Staff has included $516.0 million to provide for 

increased DPEM funding for the Air Force’s aircraft fleet as his 

first, of sixty-six, unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2004. The committee understands that of the $516.0 million amount, thirty-five 

percent would be planned for KC–135 aircraft depot-level repairs 

to sustain the aircraft’s mission readiness. 

To replace the KC–135 fleet, the Air Force has informed the committee that it supports a lease or procurement of replacement tanker aircraft, but the committee is puzzled by the Air Force’s decision 

not to budget funds in fiscal year 2004 for this purpose. However, 

the committee notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has included 

$132.0 million for the necessary expenses to prepare for the lease, 

or $154.0 million for the necessary expenses to prepare for the purchase, of replacement tanker aircraft as his sixth unfunded priority 

for fiscal year 2004. 

To address the Air Force’s air refueling tanker fleet requirements 

for fiscal year 2004 within a flexible funding framework, the committee recommends a provision (Section 131) that would establish 

a $229.2 million Air Force air refueling transfer account which 

95

would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to use these funds 

for the necessary fiscal year 2004 expenses to proceed with any 

combination of the following that best meets tanker requirements: 

(1) lease preparation: $132.0 million; (2) purchase preparation: 

$154.0 million; (3) retaining 44 KC–135E aircraft: $75.2 million; 

and/or (4) KC–135 DPEM: $180.6 million. 

B–1B modifications

The budget request contained $91.6 million for B–1B modifications but included no funds for the modifications required to regenerate 23 additional aircraft. The B–1B is a multi-engine, supersonic, long-range bomber capable of delivering nuclear or conventional munitions. 

The committee notes that the Air Force plans to retire 32 of its 

92 B–1B aircraft fleet by the end of fiscal year 2003. However, the 

committee observed the B–1B’s long-range capability to deliver conventional precision-guided munitions against strategic and tactical 

targets during the recent Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi 

Freedom, and believes that the B–1B’s contributions were crucial 

to the success of both operations. Moreover, the committee believes 

that future conflicts will require an increased number of long-range 

bomber aircraft to deliver precision-guided munitions since basing 

for shorter range aircraft may not be assured. 

To address the need for additional long-range bomber aircraft, 

the committee understands that 23, of the 32 B–1B aircraft to be 

retired in fiscal year 2003, are available to be regenerated, and 

that the Air Force-preferred force structure would be to reconstitute one 12-aircraft squadron, with two additional training aircraft 

and nine additional attrition reserve or back-up aircraft. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $111.9 million for B–1B 

modifications, an increase of $20.3 million, for the additional fiscal 

year 2004 modification costs to begin the regeneration of the 23 B–

1B aircraft. Elsewhere in this report, the committee recommends 

increases for military construction, personnel and base operating 

support for this purpose. 

In making this recommendation to reconstitute the additional 23 

B–1B aircraft,the committee understands that the Department of 

the Air Force would need to budget for an additional $1.1 billion 

in its B–1B future years defense program, and the committee 

strongly urges the Department to take this action. 

B–2 modifications and development 

The procurement budget request contained $76.5 million for various B–2 modifications, but included no funds to modify the B–2’s 

aft deck. Additionally, the research, development, test and evaluation (RDTE) budget request contained $152.1 million in line 68 in 

PE 64240F for B–2 system development, but included no funds to 

complete development activities to modify the B–2’s aft deck or to 

develop the extremely high frequency (EHF) satellite communications (SATCOM) system. Also, the RDTE budget request contained 

$24.7 million in line 116, again labeled PE 64240F, for the B–2 advanced technology bomber. The B–2 is the Department of Defense’s 

most advanced long-range strike aircraft, capable of global force 

projection in a highly defended target environment. 

96

The committee understands that recently-discovered crack 

growth in the B–2’s aft deck requires a modification to improve its 

durability and to sustain both its existing mission capable rates 

and low-observable performance characteristics. Accordingly, the 

committee recommends an increase in RDTE line 68 in PE 64240F 

of $3.9 million to complete development and design of aft deck repair kits, and an increase in B–2 modifications of $27.1 million to 

procure aft deck repair. 

The EHF SATCOM system is being developed to provide high 

bandwidth communications for both nuclear and conventional B–2 

missions. The committee understands that the Air Force’s programmed EHF SATCOM development budget will not deliver any 

EHF SATCOM equipped B–2 aircraft at the time required by the 

Commander of the Strategic Command, and therefore recommends 

an increase of $29.6 million in line 68 RDTE PE 64240F to accelerate development of the EHF SATCOM system by one year to deliver 17 EHF SATCOM equipped B–2 aircraft by the need date established by the Commander of the Strategic Command. 

Subsequent to submission of the budget request, the Air Force informed the committee that it had inadvertently placed $24.7 million in RDTE line 116 in PE 64240F, which should have been included for B–2 procurement modifications. Accordingly, the committee recommends no funds for PE 64240F in RDTE line 116, a 

decrease of $24.7 million, and a corresponding increase of $24.7 

million for B–2 procurement modifications. The committee recommends $128.3 million for B–2 procurement modifications, an increase of $51.8 million; $185.6 million in line 68 

RDTE PE 64240F, an increase of $33.5 million; and no funds in 

line 116 RDTE PE 64240F, a decrease of $24.7 million. 

C–5 modifications and force structure 

The budget request contained $92.0 million for C–5 modifica- tions, of which $79.9 million was included for 18 C–5 AMP kits. 

The C–5 AMP replaces unreliable and unsupportable engine 

flight instruments and flight system components. The committee 

notes that the budget request is 32 kits lower than projected for 

fiscal year 2004 when the fiscal year 2003 budget request was submitted last year, and that the Air Force Chief of Staff has included 

12 C–5 AMP kits among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 

2004. 

The committee recommends $131.4 million for C–5 modifications, 

an increase of $39.4 million for 12 C–5 AMP kits. 

Additionally, the committee notes that the Secretary of the Air 

Force testified before the committee on February 27, 2003, that the 

Air Force hypothesizes that its fleet of C–5As will prove too costly 

to maintain. However, the committee understands that current Air 

Force plans include the retention of at least 62 C–5A’s and 50 C–

5B’s for a total of 112 C–5 aircraft, and that a reliability and reengining program (RERP) is underway to develop and test a RERP 

configuration for two C–5B’s and one C–5A. Subsequent to the test 

and evaluation of both the RERP-configured C–5A and the C–5B 

aircraft, the committee understands that the Department of the Air 

Force will then decide whether its fleet of C–5A’s are too costly to 

maintain, and believes that this course of action is prudent to sustain the required strategic airlift capability. To ensure that the Air 

97

Force’s current C–5 force structure plan is fully evaluated before 

C–5A retirement decisions are made, the committee recommends a 

provision (section 133) that would limit the Secretary of the Air 

Force from proceeding with a decision to retire C–5A aircraft from 

the active inventory if the active inventory of such aircraft would 

fall below 112, until a RERP-configured C–5A aircraft completes a 

dedicated initial operational test and evaluation, and the Department of Defense’s Director of the Operational Test and Evaluation 

has provided his assessment of the RERP-configured C–5A’s performance to both the Secretary of Defense and the congressional 

defense committees. 

C–17 

The budget request contained $2,027.6 million to procure 11 C–

17 aircraft and $504.1 million for advance procurement of 14 aircraft in fiscal year 2005. The budget request also contained $42.8 

million for C–17 modifications. 

The C–17 is a strategic cargo aircraft, capable of rapid delivery 

to main operating bases, or directly to forward bases in the deployment area, and is also capable of performing tactical airlift and airdrop missions. The C–17 is currently procured under a multiyear 

procurement contract that ends in fiscal year 2008 at a delivery 

rate of 15 aircraft per year. 

The committee notes that the January 2001 Mobility Requirements Study 2005 (MRS–05) concluded that the airlift capacity to 

transport 54.5 million ton miles per day (MTM/D) is needed to execute the national military strategy with a moderate degree of risk, 

but understands that currently airlift capacity is approximately 

47.4 MTM/D. While the committee further understands that the 

Department of the Air Force plans to achieve 54.5 MTM/D airlift 

capacity in fiscal year 2012 by procuring a total of 180 C–17s and 

modernizing the C–5 aircraft fleet, it notes that the MRS–05 was 

completed before the global war on terrorism began, and believes 

that achieving a 54.5 MTM/D airlift capacity should be accelerated 

to meet emerging airlift requirements. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $182.0 million for procurement 

of one additional aircraft in fiscal year 2004. In making this recommendation, the committee expects that the Department of the 

Air Force will increase its C–17 production rate in order to deliver 

16 aircraft per year for the remaining years of the current 

multiyear procurement contract. 

Subsequent to submission of the budget request, the Department 

of the Air Force informed the committee of an error in both its C–

17 aircraft procurement and its C–17 modification budget lines and 

requested that the committee make the appropriate corrections. 

Consistent with the Department’s request, the committee recommends a decrease of $10.0 million for C–17 procurement and an 

increase of $6.3 million for C–17 modifications. 

In total, the committee recommends $2,199.6 million for C–17 

procurement, an increase of $172.0 million; and $49.1 million for 

C–17 modifications, an increase of $6.3 million. 

98

C–130 modifications 

The budget request contained $195.7 million for C–130 modifications but included no funds for the AN/APN–241 radar for the Air 

National Guard’s (ANG) C–130 fleet. 

The AN/APN–241 is a weather and navigation radar that replaces the 1950’s-era 1AN/APN–59 radar currently installed on the 

ANG’s C–130 aircraft fleet. The committee understands that the 

AN/APN–59, in addition to being obsolete, has a mean-time-between-failure (MTBF) rate of 50 hours and is very costly to maintain while the AN/APN–241 radar has significantly improved performance capabilities, and a MTBF rate of 1000 hours. Additionally, the committee notes that the Air National Guard director has 

included the AN/APN–241 radar as his highest unfunded C–130 

modernization priority for fiscal year 2004. The committee recommends $201.8 million for C–130 modifications, an increase of $6.1 million for eight AN/APN–241 radars for 

the ANG’s C–130 fleet. 

E–8C joint surveillance and target attack radar system (JSTARS) 

reengining 

The budget request contained $36.0 million for E–8 modifications, but included no funds to reengine the E–8C Joint STARS aircraft. 

The E–8C Joint STARS aircraft provides near real-time surveillance and targeting information on moving and stationary ground 

targets, enabling battlefield commanders to quickly make and execute engagement decisions. The committee understands that the E–

8C’s current engines are old, inefficient, provide marginal power to 

support the E–8C’s mission tasking, and are expensive to operate 

and maintain compared to new engines currently available in the 

commercial marketplace. The committee believes that new, replacement engines would allow the E–8C to climb more rapidly to the 

operationally required altitudes, maintain longer on-station times, 

provide improved aircraft availability, and would be more economical to operate and maintain. The committee recommends $63.0 million for E–8 modifications, 

an increase of $27.0 million to begin a reengining program for the 

E–8C Joint STARS aircraft. 

F–15 modifications 

The budget request contained $197.6 million for F–15 modifica- tions, of which $67.8 million was included for 32 F100 conversion 

kits and $17.1 million was included for four ALQ–135 band 1.5 

modification kits, but included no funds to convert the Air National 

Guard’s (ANG) F100 engines in their F–15 aircraft to the F100–

220E configuration. 

The ALQ–135 band 1.5 countermeasures system modification 

provides a self-protection jamming capability against modern surface-to-air enemy missiles and is integrated with the F–15E’s existing internal countermeasure set and its ALR–56C radar warning 

receiver to provide full threat coverage. The committee believes 

that improved self-protection capability such as the ALQ–135 band 

1.5 countermeasures system modification addresses critical deficiencies identified subsequent to Operation Allied Force in 1999, 

and that the ALQ–135 band 1.5 countermeasures system should be 

99

produced at the most efficient rates and installed in all F–15E aircraft as rapidly as possible. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to procure four additional 

ALQ–135 band 1.5 modification kits, and encourages the Air Force 

to complete ALQ–135 band 1.5 production and installation all F–

15E aircraft by fiscal year 2006. 

Conversion kits for the F–15’s F100 engine, also known as ‘‘Ekits,’’ provide increased thrust, greater reliability, better fuel efficiency, and reduced operations and maintenance costs. The committee notes that the ANG’s F–15 aircraft make a critical contribution to the both the Air Force’s Air Expeditionary Forces and to 

homeland security in the air defense mission, and believes that engine conversion kits for the ANG’s F–15 aircraft should be continued. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $30.0 

million to continue to convert the ANG F–15’s F100 engines to the 

F100–220E configuration. In total, the committee recommends $237.6 million for F–15 

modifications, an increase of $40.0 million. 

F–16 Air National Guard (ANG) force structure 

The committee notes that the 177th Fighter Wing (FW) in Atlantic City, New Jersey has recently been designated as one of the several full time combat air patrol (CAP) alert sites by the United 

States Northern Command. The 177th FW currently possesses a 

primary assigned aircraft (PAA) strength of only 15 F–16 aircraft, 

but the committee believes that an increase to 24 PAA would enable the 177th FW to meet its CAP commitments to protect the 

citizens and property located on the east coast of the United States. 

The committee understands that the 144th FW at Fresno, California, which currently flies the F–16 block 25 aircraft, is scheduled 

to convert to the F–15 aircraft, and the committee encourages the 

Air Force to accelerate the 144th FW’s planned conversion and to 

transfer 11 of the 144th FW’s block 25 F–16 aircraft to the 177th 

FW in order to increase the 177th FW’s PAA by nine aircraft and 

to provide two aircraft as back up inventory.

F–16 modifications 

The budget request contained $300.6 million for F–16 modifications, of which $43.0 million was included for the Falcon structural 

augmentation roadmap (STAR), but included no funds to retrofit 

the Air Reserve Component’s (ARC) F–16 aircraft with the onboard oxygen-generating system (OBOGS). The ARC is comprised 

of both the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve. 

Falcon STAR is a depot-level upgrade program that replaces or 

modifies known life-limited F–16 aircraft structure to preclude the 

onset of widespread fatigue damage, maintain safety of flight, enhance aircraft availability, and extend the life of affected components to 8,000 hours. The committee notes that the Air Force Chief 

of Staff has included additional funding for the Falcon STAR program to address depot labor rate cost increases among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2004, and therefore, the committee 

recommends an increase of $5.8 million for this purpose. 

The F–16 OBOGS replaces the antiquated liquid oxygen system 

by creating a continuous supply of breathing oxygen to pilots by 

using pressurized engine bleed air routed through a molecular 

100

sieve which removes nitrogen, yielding 93 percent pure oxygen. The 

committee understands that Air Force studies project that each aircraft equipped with OBOGS will result in a $12,000 per year savings, and the investment to install the OBOGS will be returned 

within three to five years. Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $8.4 million to install the OBOGS on ARC 

F–16 aircraft. 

The committee recommends $314.8 million for F–16 modifications, an increase of $14.2 million. 

F/A–22 

The budget request contained $3,727.1 million for 22 F/A–22 aircraft. 

The committee notes that although $4,061.9 million was appropriated for 23 F/A–22 in fiscal year 2003, the Department of Defense requested a recent reprogramming to decrease that amount 

by $27.9 million leaving $4,034.0 million and sufficient funds for a 

planned quantity of only 20 F/A–22 aircraft in fiscal year 2003. 

However, the Department of the Air Force informed the committee 

that, as a result of increased efficiencies and lower negotiated vendor costs, actual contracted unit costs for the airframe, engine and 

avionics were reduced, and the Air Force will procure an additional 

aircraft in fiscal year 2003. 

Since the fiscal year 2003 unit costs have been reduced, the committee believes that fiscal year 2004 unit costs will also be reduced 

due to increased learning curve efficiencies and lower negotiated 

vendor costs, and that the F/A–22 budget request exceeds requirements by $161.0 million for the planned quantity of 22 aircraft. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $3,566.1 million for 22 F/

A–22 aircraft, a decrease of $161.0 million. 

Additionally, the committee notes that the Air Force testified before the Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces on April 2, 

2003, that the F/A–22 program’s key challenge is to deliver a stable 

and fully tested avionics software operational flight program (OFP) 

that runs for a sufficient period of time before an instability event 

occurs. Also in testimony before the subcommittee, the General Accounting Office stated that software instability had hampered efforts to integrate advanced avionics capabilities into the F/A–22 

system, and that in its research on the F/A–22 program, the Air 

Force acknowledged that avionics have failed or shut down during 

numerous tests of F/A–22 aircraft due to software problems and 

that these shutdowns have occurred when the pilot attempts to use 

the radar, communication, navigation, identification, and electronic 

systems concurrently. The committee further notes that the Air 

Force testified that its then-current avionics software OFP version 

was only performing at a rate of 1.3 hours mean time between instability events (MTBIE), but understands that the Air Force plans 

to introduce avionics software OFP version 3.1.2, or a later version, 

that would achieve a goal of 20 hours MTBIE before the commencement of dedicated initial operational test and evaluation 

(DIOT&E), currently scheduled for October 2003. As a result of this 

testimony, the committee believes that attaining a goal of at least 

20 hours MTBIE before the commencement of the F/A–22 DIOT&E 

program is critical to successful completion of DIOT&E, for introVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.021 A106HR
101

duction of the F/A–22 into the Air Force’s operational fleet, and for 

continuation of F/A–22 production at requested rates. 

Consequently, the committee recommends a provision (section 

134) that would limit the obligation of $136.0 million of the amount 

appropriated for fiscal year 2004 F/A–22 aircraft procurement, or 

an amount for one F/A–22 aircraft, until the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics certifies to the 

congressional defense committees that the four primary aircraft 

designated to participate in the F/A–22’s DIOT&E program have 

been equipped with the avionics software OFP version 3.1.2, or a 

later version, and that before the commencement of the DIOT&E, 

those four aircraft demonstrate, on average, an avionics software 

MTBIE of at least 20 hours. If the Under Secretary notifies the 

Secretary of Defense that the Under Secretary is unable to make 

the certification described above, then the Secretary of Defense 

may waive the limitation by notifying the congressional defense 

committees of his reasons therefore, and funds may be obligated at 

the end of a 30–day period beginning on the date on which the Secretary’s notification is received by the committees. 

Fixed aircrew standardized seats (FASS) 

The budget request contained $69.7 million for other modifications, but included no funds for FASS. 

FASS would provide crewmembers and passengers on C–130, C–

135, C–141, C–5, E–3, KC–10, C–17, and E–8 aircraft protection 

against aircraft crash loads up to 16 times the force of gravity. In 

prior years, the committee has supported the development of the 

FASS, and understands that production-ready seats can be procured for the C–130 and KC–135 aircraft by the second quarter of 

fiscal year 2004. The committee continues to believe that FASS 

procurement would not only increase safety, but would also reduce 

supply and maintenance costs through commonality and interchangeability of parts. 

The committee recommends $74.5 million for other modifications, 

an increase of $4.8 million for procurement of 240 FASS. 

H–60 modifications 

The budget request contained $44.7 million for H–60 modifications, but included no funds to upgrade the AN/ARS–6 personnel 

locator system (PLS) with version 12 capability. 

The AN/ARS–6 PLS is a radio system which has been in use 

with the Air National Guard for the past 15 years, used to detect 

and locate downed military and civilian aviators. The version 12 

upgrade would allow operation with all current and future survival 

radios, including emergency beacons in both the defense and civil 

environments. The committee understands that the AN/ARS–6 PLS 

version 12 upgrade also includes technology upgrades making the 

system lighter and more powerful. 

The committee recommends $49.7 million for H–60 modifications, 

an increase of $4.7 million to upgrade the AN/ARS–6 PLS with 

version 12 capability and to conduct an operational evaluation of 

this system for the search and rescue mission. 

102

Predator B unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) 

The budget request contained $193.6 million for procurement of 

16 Predator UAV systems. 

The Predator UAV system provides long-dwell, real-time intelligence information to Joint Task Force Commanders. The committee notes that the employment of the Predator UAV system in 

Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom demonstrated both Predator system intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities and Hellfire missile delivery capability. 

As missions for the Predator UAV system expand, the committee 

believes that the improved speed and payload capacity of the Predator B UAV is critical to future combat operations. 

The committee recommends $211.6 million, an increase of $18.0 

million for Predator B UAV systems and associated spare parts. 

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2004 contained $1,284.7 million for Ammunition Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $1,324.7 million, an increase of $40.0 

million, for fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2004 Ammunition Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the table 

below. Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the table.

103


Insert graphic folio 136 87068.059
104

Items of Special Interest 

Air Force ammunition procurement 

The budget request contained $1,265.7 million for procurement of ammunition. The committee recommends $1,305.7 million, an increase of $40.0 million for the following types of ammunition programs, which were identified as top unfunded requirements by the 

Chief of Staff of the Air Force for fiscal year 2004:

[In millions of dollars] 

Rockets: 

2.75 inch War Reserve/Training rounds ................................................. 10.0 

Bombs: 

General Purpose Bombs ........................................................................... 20.0 

(to be used only for the procurement of bomb bodies to synchronize 

with precision guided munitions kits) 

Flares: 

War Reserve/Training Pyrotechnics ........................................................ 10.0

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2004 contained $4,393.0 million for Missile Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $4,348.0 million, a decrease of $45.0 million, for fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2004 Missile 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the 

table.

105


Insert graphic folio 139 87068.060
106


Insert graphic folio 140 87068.061
107

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2004 contained $11,583.7 million for Other Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends 

authorization of $11,376.1 million, a decrease of $207.6 million, for 

fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2004 Other 

Prucurement, Air Force program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the 

table.

108


Insert graphic folio 142 87068.062
109


Insert graphic folio 143 87068.063
110


Insert graphic folio 144 87068.064
111


Insert graphic folio 145 87068.065
112


Insert graphic folio 146 87068.066
113

Items of Special Interest 

Air Force information technology procurement 

The budget request for Other Procurement, Air Force, contained 

$48.9 million for high performance computing modernization, 

$119.5 million for general information technology, and $268.4 million for base information infrastructure. 

The committee is concerned about the excessive and unjustified 

growth in the Air Force’s procurement for information technology 

(IT) programs. While the committee supports the procurement of IT 

systems that will transform the way the Air Force plans and tasks 

weather, intelligence gathering, targeting and airspace information, 

the committee is also concerned that some of the programs lack 

credible evidence to justify the double or triple amount of growth 

in this budget. 

The committee recommends $23.9 million for high performance 

computing modernization, a decrease of $25.0 million; a decrease of 

$17.0 million in the Joint Personnel Adjudication System requested 

in general information technology; and $243.4 million for base information infrastructure, a decrease of $25.0 million in the Defending the Enclave Boundary Program. 

Combat arms training system (CATS) 

The budget request contained $9.6 million for base procured 

equipment, but included no funds for CATS. CATS is a computerbased simulation system that provides both marksmanship and 

tactical situation scenario training for security force personnel. 

The committee understands that since September 11, 2001, Air 

National Guard (ANG) bases, which are each equipped with one 

CATS, are used daily to train security force personnel, and that, as 

a result of this daily use, two additional systems are required at 

each ANG base leaving a shortfall of 184 systems. With limited access to firing ranges and training munitions, the committee believes that the CATS is proving to be an essential asset to meet the 

ANG personnel marksmanship and weapons certification training, 

and to meet situational scenario readiness requirements. 

The committee recommends $18.6 million for base procured 

equipment, an increase of $9.0 million for the CATS. 

General information technology 

The budget request contained $119.5 million for general information technologies, but included no funds for procurement of the 

science and engineering lab data integration (SELDI) program. 

The Air Force Material Command’s science and engineering lab 

captures, analyzes and disseminates lab test data to the Air Force’s 

engineering and system overhaul operations, and the committee 

notes that the SELDI program facilitates this mission by providing 

more rapid lab data access affecting overhaul operations, providing 

accident investigators with immediate access to lab results of failed 

components, enabling component failure trend analysis, and implementing new acoustic signature sensors to ensure the proper chemical composition of materials and equipment.

The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million for the 

SELDI program, and understands that the SELDI program would 

114

improve operational aircraft readiness, increase flight safety and 

reduce support costs. 

Miniature-multiple threat emitter system (Mini-MUTES) 

The budget request contained $23.4 million for combat training 

ranges, but included no funds for Mini-MUTES initial spares. 

The Mini-MUTEs is an electronic warfare training system which 

simulates radar emissions for use in aircrew training. The committee understands that the Mini-MUTES is undergoing a modernization program to improve its capabilities to simulate advanced 

surface-to-air missile threats, but that initial spares for the modernization program have not been budgeted. The committee further 

understands that providing for initial spares in fiscal year 2004 

would save an additional $3.0 million in future years, and notes 

that the Air Force Chief of Staff has included Mini-MUTES initial 

spares among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2004. The committee recommends $32.2 million for combat training ranges an increase of $8.8 million for initial spares for MiniMUTES modernization program. 

Point of maintenance initiative (POMX) 

The budget request contained $13.9 million for mechanized material handling equipment, but included no funds for procurement of 

the POMX. 

The POMX is a maintenance data collection program that uses 

equipment and methodologies that are currently in widespread 

commercial use to increase the timeliness and accuracy of the critical data collected. Examples of POMX equipment include: handheld terminals, bar codes, and wireless local area networks. The 

committee notes that the POMX objective is to increase the timeliness and accuracy of maintenance data collection while reducing 

the administrative burden on maintenance technicians, and understands that its use has already been validated at one Air Force 

base. 

The committee recommends $25.9 million for mechanized material handling equipment, an increase of $12.0 million, to continue 

the POMX. 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE

Overview 

The amended budget request for fiscal year 2004 contained 

$3,665.5 million for Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee 

recommends authorization of $3,734.8 million, an increase of $69.3 

million, for fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2004 Procurement, Defense-Wide program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Defense-Wide request are discussed following 

the table.

115


Insert graphic folio 150 87068.067
116


Insert graphic folio 151 87068.068
117


Insert graphic folio 152 87068.069
118


Insert graphic folio 153 87068.070
119

Items of Special Interest 

Chemical/biological defense procurement program 

The budget request contained $505.7 million for chemical/biological defense (CBD) procurement, including $85.0 million for procurement of individual protection equipment, $12.6 million for decontamination equipment, $72.0 million for the joint biological defense 

program, $17.6 million for collective protection equipment, and 

$318.5 million for contamination avoidance equipment. 

The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for procurement of the Joint Chemical Agent Detector (JCAD), an increase of $10.0 million for procurement of the M22 Automatic 

Chemical Agent Alarm for the Army National Guard, and a total 

of $53.6 million for collective protection equipment, including an increase of $31.0 million for procurement of chemical biological protective shelters for field medical treatment, forward surgical teams, 

and battalion medical units, and $5.0 million for M28 collective 

protection equipment. 

Defense wide information technology procurement 

The budget request contained $21.6 million for procurement for 

Washington Headquarters Services, including $10.4 million for the 

Case Control Management System. 

This program supports the Defense Security Service’s (DSS) mission to handle personnel security investigations by providing the 

processing of military, civilian, and contractor personnel security 

actions for the Department of Defense. The committee is concerned 

that the overall plan to incorporate this system with the Air Force 

Joint Personnel Adjudication System has not been clearly defined 

in order to seamlessly merge these two systems into one functioning system that will serve the entire Department. 

The committee recommends $16.6 million for procurement for 

Washington Headquarters Services procurement, a decrease of $5.0 

million in the Case Control Management System. 

Department of defense budget justification documentation 

The committee notes the delayed submission, perfunctory content, conflicting budgetary data, and administratively-challenged 

display of many of the exhibits included in the budget justification 

documentation provided to the congressional defense committees by 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the military services. 

Several OSD exhibits dated February 2003 were provided to the 

committees in April. Individual programs were often randomly organized, misidentified, duplicated item numbers, and aggregated 

unrelated projects. In the OSD submission for procurement, Patriot 

is identified as item 23 in the P–1 summary table exhibit and item 

10 in the budget estimate exhibit. Also in the OSD procurement 

submission, there are two items identified as 15. Under the second, 

‘‘Items under $5 million,’’ one item requested is for $16.054 million, 

one item for $9.75 million, one item for $6.5 million, etc. The total 

for this P–1 line item is $70.0 million. The total requested in the 

budget estimate displays is $61.592 million. The committee recommends $61.592 million, a reduction of $8.408 million. 

120

Since December 2002, the Department has been unable to pro- vide a cross walk between budget lines items and the $27.0 billion 

identified in its ‘‘Information Technology FY 2003 Budget Estimates’’ exhibit. The Department has similarly failed to provide the 

same requested information for the fiscal year 2004 submission of 

$27.9 billion. As a result, it is not possible to validate the $27.9 billion request. 

Numerous inconsistencies in program identification and item 

enumeration exist between the OSD provided tables; P–1 and R–

1; and justification in the biennial budget estimate exhibits. OSD 

and the military services increasingly aggregate large numbers of 

often unrelated projects in common program elements, effectively 

limiting congressional oversight. 

The Navy identified a request in its R–1, line 111, for ‘‘unguided conventional air launched weapons’’ of $9.701 million. Examination 

of the R–2, line 108, indicated that the request was for the precision guided Standoff Land Attack Missile. The Navy also requested 

$25.137 million for the Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile, a program cancelled ten years ago. Further examination of the backup 

material indicated the request was for the Joint Air to Surface 

Standoff Missile. Similarly, the budget request for EA–18G, a projected multi-billion dollar program, is subsumed in the budget request for electronic warfare with five other projects. The committee 

directs that a new program element be established for the EA–18G 

of PE 64271N of $204.822 million, with a corresponding reduction 

in PE 64270N. 

The Air Force used the same program element numbers for the 

same program in different phases of development, one in advanced 

technology development, the other in operational systems development, and randomly aggregated and incorrectly enumerated much 

of the materials provided in the research and development submission. Further, programs were frequently placed in research and development budget activities without regard to the actual phase of 

development, e.g., MC2A. 

The Army request included extraneous, unrelated descriptive 

material for the Warfighter Information Network request and identified many of its special access programs using program element 

numbers unrelated to the provided R–1 exhibit. 

Taken individually, these examples may seem trifling. Yet, they 

involve billions of taxpayer dollars. Taken together, these inconsistencies and mistakes call into question the effectiveness of the oversight provided by OSD. As noted above, the procurement and research and development displays for similar items in the military 

services are more often than not arrayed and consolidated differently, making meaningful comparisons among service programs 

more difficult for Congress, the Executive Office of the President, 

and OSD. Given the Secretary of Defense’s emphasis on transformation, joint warfighting, and auditable financial systems and 

the responsibilities of senior executive branch officials and members of Congress to make reasoned judgments about spending taxpayer dollars, the committee believes that more rigorous oversight 

of budget exhibits by responsible OSD officials is required. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2003 his recommendaVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.025 A106HR
121

tions for providing timely, consistent, clear, and meaningful budget 

presentations to Congress. 

Information technology 

The budget request included $10.8 billion, $28.9 billion, and $29.3 billion in Army, Navy, and Air Force, respectively, in procurement and $9.1 billion, $14.1 billion, $20.3 billion, and $17.1 billion, respectively, in Army, Navy, Air Force, and defense-wide Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E), including information technology (IT) systems and programs. The committee is 

concerned about the lack of oversight and management attention in 

many of these IT programs. Therefore the committee recommends 

the following reductions:

Other procurement 

[In millions of dollars] 

Army ................................................................................................................. 68.0 

Navy .................................................................................................................. 100.0 

Air Force ........................................................................................................... 200.0

RDT&E 

[In millions of dollars] 

Army ................................................................................................................. 68.0 

Navy .................................................................................................................. 100.0 

Air Force ........................................................................................................... 200.0 

Defense-wide .................................................................................................... 100.0

Military tactical radio procurement 

The committee is aware that the Secretary of Defense requires 

a waiver prior to a military service purchase of tactical radios that 

are not compliant with the joint tactical radio system (JTRS) standards. The committee notes that delay in fielding JTRS has created 

a need for the military services to purchase non-compliant radios 

to bridge the gap until JTRS is fielded. The committee further 

notes that the existing waiver process may hinder timely replacement of radios and place an undue administrative burden on the 

military services. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense 

to simplify or hold in abeyance the requirement for waivers for tactical radio systems until JTRS deployment is more predictable and 

delivery dates make JTRS purchase in lieu of legacy radios logical, 

as was originally intended by the waiver requirement. 

Operation Iraqi Freedom lessons learned 

As a result of early lessons learned emerging from Operation 

Iraqi Freedom, military officials reviewed the performance of their 

respective weapon systems and determined that certain programs 

would benefit from increased funds, many of which were official, 

Service chiefs’ unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2004. Upon cessation of hostilities in Iraq, the senior operations officers for each 

of the military services, in testimony before the committee, highlighted that Operation Iraqi Freedom combat operations validated 

the need to accelerate procurement of both new systems and ongoing upgrade programs for several weapon systems, many of which 

will remain in the United States’ (U.S.) inventory for the foreseeable future. The committee has responded with increases for several programs, noted elsewhere in the report. 

122

The Army highlighted the benefits of 2nd generation forward 

looking infrared sensors, for additional Bradley A2 Operation 

Desert Storm ‘‘D+’’ Fighting Vehicles and for M1A2 Abrams System 

Enhancement Program tank upgrades; Soldier Rapid Fielding Initiative weapons and communications equipment; and night vision 

devices for light infantry brigades, which are addressed elsewhere 

in the report. 

The Navy identified a requirement to accelerate procurement of 

additional F/A–18 E/F aircraft armament equipment kits and that 

limited numbers of these kits inhibited combat operations for these 

aircraft due to the seven carrier air wings deployed for this operation. The Marine Corps outlined the need to accelerate procurement of H–1 helicopter infrared (IR) suppressors to mitigate IR 

surface-to-air-missile threats and Amphibious Assault Vehicle and 

Light Armored Vehicle reliability, availability, and maintainability 

(RAM) upgrades for its pre-positioned equipment. 

Finally, the Air Force identified both Global Positioning System 

(GPS) III satellite program upgrades, to counter GPS jammers (covered elsewhere in the report), which can inhibit the guidance and 

accuracy of GPS precision guided munitions, and additional wiring 

kits and targeting pods for B–52 bombers, which enable these aircraft to carry targeting pods, in order to provide a rapid, precise 

onboard target acquisition capability for precision guided munitions.

[In millions of dollars] 

Navy: 

F/A–18 E/F Aircraft Armament Equipment ........................................... 25.0 

Marine Corps: 

H–1 IR Suppressors ................................................................................. 12.0 

Amphibious Assault Vehicle RAM .......................................................... 25.0 

Light Armored Vehicle RAM ................................................................... 12.7 

Air Force: 

B–52 wiring kits/targeting pods .............................................................. 19.0

Secure wireless technology 

The committee believes that homeland security could be greatly 

enhanced through the increased use of National Security Agency 

(NSA) approved secure cell phones for communications. The committee is aware that the faster-than-expected development of the 

next-generation, nationwide, integrated Type 1 secure digital cell 

phones provides an opportunity to fill this urgent security requirement. The committee encourages the Department of Defense and 

NSA to take advantage of this opportunity and accelerate the deployment of these next generation secure cell phones. 

Special operations forces (SOF) ordnance 

The budget request contained $22.5 million to procure SOF 

weapons, but included no funds to procure the AT4-confined space 

(CS) anti-armor and bunker defeat and breeching weapon. The 

committee notes that the AT4–CS is the primary shoulder fired 

SOF weapons system for use in confined space and is high on the 

unfunded priority list of the commander of the Special Operations 

Command. 

The committee recommends $33.0 million for SOF ordnance acquisition, an increase of $10.5 million for additional AT4–CS weapons. 

123

Special operations forces (SOF) weapons improvements

The budget request contained $16.0 million to procure Special 

Operations Forces (SOF) small arms and weapons, but included no 

funding to procure the AN/PVS–17A mini night sight, no funding 

to procure the infrared zoom laser illuminator/designator, and no 

funding to procure the light weight counter mortar radar, all of 

which promise to increase the combat capability of special operations tactical units. The AN/PVS–17A mini night sight will be a 

very effective addition to the M–4 carbine Special Operations Peculiar Modification (SOPMOD) kit and the infrared zoom laser illuminator/designator will permit the surgical delivery of global positioning system guided weapons onto targets identified by special 

forces operators. In addition, the light weight counter mortar radar 

will allow special forces under mortar attack to neutralize the 

enemy with accurate, timely counter fire. The committee notes that 

all three of these items are on the unfunded priority list of the commander of the Special Operations Command. 

The committee recommends $32.5 million for SOF small arms 

and weapons procurement, an increase of $8 million in the M–4 

carbine SOPMOD kit program for the procurement of mini night 

vision sights, an increase of $3.5 million for the procurement of infrared zoom laser illuminator/designator, and an increase of $5.0 

million for initial fielding of the light weight counter mortar radar. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sections 101–104—Authorization of Appropriations 

These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year 

2004 funding levels for all procurement accounts. 

SUBTITLE B—ARMY PROGRAMS

Section 111—Stryker Vehicle Program 

This section would authorize appropriations of $655.0 million of 

the $955.0 million fiscal year 2004 budget request for the Stryker 

Vehicle Program and condition authorization of the remaining 

$300.0 million upon receipt by the congressional defense committees of a report and certification. 

SUBTITLE C—NAVY PROGRAMS

Section 121—Multiyear Procurement Authority for F/A–18 Aircraft 

Program 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter 

into a multiyear procurement contract for F/A–18E, F/A–18F and 

EA–18G aircraft beginning with the fiscal year 2005 program year. 

Section 122—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Tactical 

Tomahawk Cruise Missile Program 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter 

into a multiyear procurement contract for Tactical Tomahawk misVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.026 A106HR
124

siles beginning with the fiscal year 2004 program year for a quantity of missiles to be determined by the Secretary of the Navy. 

Section 123—Multiyear Procurement Authority for Virginia Class 

Submarine Program 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Navy to enter into 

a multiyear procurement contract for seven Virginia Class submarines beginning with the fiscal year 2004 program year subject 

to a certification to the congressional defense committees that each 

of the conditions specified in Section 2306b(a) of title 10, United 

States Code have been satisfied with respect to that contract, and 

a period of thirty days has elapsed after the date of the transmission of such certification. 

Section 124—Multiyear Procurement Authority for E–2C Aircraft 

Program 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter 

into a four-year multiyear procurement contract for E–2C and TE–

2C aircraft and their associated engines beginning with the fiscal 

year 2004 program year. 

Section 125—LPD–17 Class Vessel 

This section would, if after May 7, 2003, Congress enacts a Department of Defense supplemental appropriations Act for fiscal 

year 2003 that includes appropriations for Tomahawk missiles, reduce the amount authorized to be appropriated for the Tomahawk 

missile by an equivalent amount of the supplemental request, or 

$200.0 million, whichever is less. The reduction in Tomahawk missile authorization would be applied to advance procurement of long 

lead items, to include the advance fabrication of components for 

one LPD–17 class vessel. 

SUBTITLE D—AIR FORCE PROGRAMS

Section 131—Air Force Air Refueling Transfer Account 

This section would establish a $229.2 million Air Force air refueling transfer account which would authorize the Secretary of the Air 

Force to use these funds for the necessary fiscal year 2004 expenses to prepare for either the lease or purchase of replacement 

tanker aircraft; retaining, rather than retiring, KC–135E aircraft; 

or for KC–135 depot purchased equipment maintenance. Funds 

provided from the Air Force air refueling transfer account would be 

limited so that they would not be used to enter into contracts for 

either the lease or purchase of tanker replacement, and the Secretary of the Air Force could not transfer funds until the congressional defense committees were notified of the proposed transfer 

and thirty days had elapsed after the notice was received by those 

committees. 

125

Section 132—Increase in Number of Aircraft Authorized to be Procured Under Multiyear Procurement Authority for Air Force C–

130J Aircraft Program 

This section would amend section 131(a) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (P.L. 107–

314) by striking ‘‘40 C–130J aircraft’’ and inserting ‘‘42 C–130J aircraft’’. 

Section 133—Limitation on Retiring C–5 Aircraft

This section would limit the Secretary of the Air Force from proceeding with a decision to retire C–5A aircraft from the active inventory if the active inventory of such aircraft would fall below 

112, until a reliability and reengining program (RERP)-configured 

C–5A aircraft completes a dedicated initial operational test and 

evaluation, and the Department of Defense’s Director of the Operational Test and Evaluation has provided his assessment of the 

RERP—configured C–5A’s performance to both the Secretary of Defense and the congressional defense committees. 

Section 134—Limitation on Obligation of Funds for Procurement of 

F/A–22 Aircraft 

This section would limit the obligation of $136.0 million of the 

amount appropriated for fiscal year 2004, F/A–22 aircraft procurement until the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics certifies to the congressional defense committees that the four primary aircraft designated to participate in the 

dedicated initial operational test and evaluation (DIOT&E) program for the F/A–22 aircraft have been equipped with the version 

of the avionics software operational flight program known as 

version 3.1.2 or a later version, and that before the commencement 

of the DIOT&E, those four aircraft demonstrate, on average, an 

avionics software mean time between instability events of at least 

20 hours. If the Under Secretary notifies the Secretary of Defense 

that the Under Secretary is unable to make the certification described above, then the Secretary of Defense may waive the limitation by notifying the congressional defense committees of his reasons therefor, and funds may be obligated at the end of a 30–day 

period beginning on the date on which the Secretary’s notification 

is received by the committees. 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, & 

EVALUATION 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request contained $61,826.7 million for research, development, test, & evaluation (RDT&E). The committee recommends $62,685.7 million, an increase of $859.0 million to the 

budget request.

126


Insert graphic folio 161 87068.071
127


Insert graphic folio 162 87068.072
128

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, & EVALUATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $9,122.8 million for Army research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). 

The committee recommends $9,332.4 million, an increase of 

$209.6 million to the budget request.

129


Insert graphic folio 164 87068.073
130


Insert graphic folio 165 87068.074
131


Insert graphic folio 166 87068.075
132


Insert graphic folio 167 87068.076
133


Insert graphic folio 168 87068.077
134


Insert graphic folio 169 87068.078
135


Insert graphic folio 170 87068.079
136


Insert graphic folio 171 87068.080
137


Insert graphic folio 172 87068.081
138


Insert graphic folio 173 87068.082
139


Insert graphic folio 174 87068.083
140

Items of Special Interest 

Advanced battery technology initiative 

The budget request contained $33.7 million in PE 62705A for applied research in electronics and electronic devices. 

The committee notes continuing requirements for small, lightweight, efficient, and portable battery and non-battery power 

sources for U.S. forces and of on-going applied research and development activities of the military departments that address these 

requirements. The committee is aware of a number of emerging 

battery and non-battery power technologies that have the potential 

for meeting the requirements of the military services, including but 

not limited to alkaline cylindrical cells, cylindrical zinc air batteries, high capacity nickel/zinc rechargeable cells, lithium 

oxyhalide and lithium ion thin-film technology, lithium carbon 

monoflouride cells, and proton exchange membrane fuel cells. 

The committee urges that these technologies be considered for 

potential funded research and development under the services’ ongoing programs on the basis of technical merit, cost effectiveness, 

and the potential of the particular technology to meet service 

needs. The committee also urges establishment of a battery/portable power technology initiative in the Army that will address Department of Defense needs for small, light-weight, efficient, portable battery and non-battery power sources. The initiative should 

be conducted under the RDT&E Reliance process to insure that the 

program meets the needs of all the military services. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 

62705A for the battery/portable power technology initiative. 

Advanced cluster energetics 

The budget request contained $19.9 million in PE 65805A for munitions standardization, effectiveness, and safety, including $2.5 

million for development and assessment of munitions life cycle pilot 

processes. 

The committee notes the development of innovative processes in 

cluster munitions production engineering that have resulted in the 

ability to manufacture uniform energetic products without the need 

for high stress and inherently dangerous mixing processes. These 

processes will result in reductions in the cost to manufacture propellants and explosives, as well as improvements in manufacturing 

performance and safety. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

65805A for continued development of advanced cluster energetics 

manufacturing technology. 

Advanced electric drive 

The budget request contained $80.9 million in PE 62601A for 

combat vehicle and automotive advanced technology, but included 

no funds for advanced electric drive. 

The committee notes that present military drive systems require 

greater vehicle efficiency and performance. The committee is aware 

that the advanced electric drive (AED) project is to develop intelligent electric wheel-end and axle designs with integral drive motors that would yield higher vehicle efficiencies, greater power densities, and greater torque. 

141

The committee recommends $83.9 million in PE 62601A, an increase of $3.0 million for AED. 

Advanced precision kill weapon system (APKWS) 

The budget request contained $35.1 million in PE 64802A for 

continued block I systems development and demonstration of the 

APKWS. 

The APKWS upgrade will provide a family of precision guided 

rockets by combining a newly designed semi-active laser section 

with the air-launched, unguided 2.75 inch HYDRA–70 rocket. The 

APKWS block I upgrade entered systems development and demonstration in fiscal year 2003 and is planned to develop, test and 

qualify the laser-guided HYDRA–70 rocket. However, the committee notes that funds for future block II improvements, which 

would include development and qualification of an improved warhead and advanced fuzing, are not planned to be budgeted for until 

fiscal years 2006 and 2007. The committee understands that by 

adding additional funds in fiscal year 2004, the Army could accelerate technology demonstrations for block II improvements and 

thereby ensure continuity between fiscal years 2005 and 2006 in 

block I and block II development schedules. Therefore, the committee recommends $44.1 million in PE 64802A, an increase of $9.0 

million, to accelerate technology demonstrations of critical technologies for APKWS block II improvements. 

Armored Systems Modernization 

The budget request included $1.7 billion in PE 64645A for Armored Systems Modernization for three projects: Future Combat 

System (FCS), Networked Fires Systems Technology, and Objective 

Force Indirect Fires. 

The committee supports the Army’s transformational objectives 

of achieving a more agile, light, and lethal objective force. The 

Army envisions a highly interdependent system that will be required to interface with other FCS units; complementary systems 

using the Joint Tactical Radio System and the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical; other systems of the objective force; and 

joint forces. 

However, the committee has several concerns with the Armored 

Systems Modernization Program, as requested: 

(1) The Army is embarking on a System Development and 

Demonstration program of major technical complexity, which 

to date is largely undefined with regard to architecture, requirements, schedule and cost; 

(2) The key performance parameters are of such a general 

nature, lacking any metrics, that many current Army systems 

meet the key performance parameters, precluding a need for a 

new program; 

(3) The Army’s performance in major programs of significantly less complexity like Land Warrior and the Comanche 

helicopter program has been lacking; 

(4) The intended construct of the program, placing all FCS 

projects in the same program element limits quantitative and 

qualitative congressional oversight; 

(5) The Army’s budget request for FCS is not supported by 

the program descriptive material provided to justify the budget 

142

request of $1.7 billion for the three projects. As an example, 

the $1.25 billion requested for FCS includes $439.0 million for 

fiscal year 2004, for detailed system design that at present consists of one element: the communications network intended to 

link FCS systems. The Army was unable to provide the scope 

of work for the $439.0 million requested; and 

(6) Layered management overly insulates senior Army management from FCS program managers—the only relevant 

Army officials that did not appreciate the original timeline for 

fielding the first unit equipped by 2008 was not executable 

were the Army’s senior leadership; 

Consequently, the committee recommends a provision (section 214) that would: 

(7) Restructure the current three projects within the Armored Systems Modernization program into three program elements and require any future additional FCS-related programs 

to be requested by program element, in the appropriate budget 

activity; 

(8) Preclude authorization of appropriations until thirty days 

after the congressional defense committees are provided sufficient budget descriptive detail to justify a $1.7 billion budget 

request. 

Army Centers of Excellence 

The budget request contained $84.8 million in PE 61104A for 

university and industry research centers and included $2.5 million 

to establish a center of excellence for optimizing cognitive readiness 

under combat conditions and to improve tactical mobility through 

innovative research initiatives. 

The committee has long supported the Army’s Center of Excellence program and is particularly supportive of the Army’s new effort to leverage current research in the areas of modeling and simulation, protective materials, and health and human performance. 

The committee encourages further work in this area. 

The committee recommends $87.3 million in PE 61104A for university and industry research centers, an increase of $2.5 million 

for competitive establishment of a center of excellence for cognitive 

research under the Army center of excellence program. 

Army Evaluation Center 

The budget request contained $57.1 million for the Army Evaluation Center. 

This program funds evaluations of all major Army acquisition 

programs. The evaluation provides information and data on individual systems’ performance, effectiveness, and survivability to the 

Army’s senior leadership and Congress. The committee is concerned that the growth in this program’s research, development, 

testing, and evaluation’s budget is unclear and not supported in the 

documentation submitted. 

The committee recommends $47.1 million in PE 65716A, a decrease of $10.0 million in this program. 

143

Army information dominance center expanded processing for advanced data analysis 

The budget request contained no funding in PE 33028A for the 

Army information dominance center’s (IDC) expanded processing 

for advanced data analysis. 

The committee is aware that additional funding would allow integration of the IDC’s software analysis tools onto mainframe platforms with much higher computing capability which would increase 

mission effectiveness. 

The committee recommends $5.0 million in PE 33028A, an increase of $5.0 million for the Army IDC’s expanded processing for 

advanced data analysis. 

Army integrated broadcast service integration 

The budget request contained $2.1 million in PE 63850A for integrated broadcast system (IBS) (JMIP/DISTP), specifically for modules for the joint tactical radio system (JTRS) IBS function. 

The committee notes that Army JTRS funding in PE 64280A increases 214 percent over last year, and contains sufficient funding 

to tailor JTRS to the IBS for the Army. The committee supports 

the need for IBS, however, it believes that the JTRS program is 

sufficiently funded to develop the minor modifications necessary to 

process the IBS waveform within the JTRS radio. 

The committee recommends no funds in PE 63850A, a decrease 

of $2.1 million. 

Army manufacturing and maintenance organization 

The budget request contained $111.3 million in PE 63313A for 

missile and rocket advanced technology, but included no funds for 

the Army maintenance and manufacturing organization (AMMO). 

The committee is aware that the AMMO of the Army Aviation 

and Missile Command has initiated seven projects to extend the 

life of weapons systems such as helicopters and missiles. The committee recommends $116.3 million in PE 63313A, an increase of $5.0 million for the AMMO to continue its weapons systems life extension programs. 

Army unmanned aerial vehicle advocacy 

The committee notes that until now the Army unmanned aerial 

vehicle (UAV) advocacy has been in the Army military intelligence 

branch. The committee is aware that the Army intends to transfer 

UAV advocacy, including that for the tactical UAV (TUAV) program, to the Army aviation directorate as part of overall Army reorganization. The committee understands that the Army believes 

that UAV’s can best be developed by the aviation directorate because that directorate is fully aware of the totality of UAV missions, including those related to intelligence. 

The committee is informed that only UAV advocacy is changing, 

and that funding for UAV’s and related components will remain as 

is. 

The committee is concerned that UAV program funding may suffer in budget competition with manned programs within the directorate, as a result of the advocacy transfer. Additionally, while assigning the Communications and Electronics Command responsibility for UAV sensor development may be an appropriate decision, 

144

there remains a strong possibility that the split responsibility may 

lead to schedule conflicts between the platform and sensor programs. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to ensure that 

UAV and sensor programs are not weakened as a result of the proposed transfer of responsibility. 

Asbestos pilot project 

The budget request contained $11.5 million in PE 63779A for environmental quality technology, but included no funds for the asbestos pilot project. The committee supports research and development to improve asbestos waste reduction and reduce disposal cost.

The committee recommends $13.5 million in PE 63779A, an increase of $2.0 million for the asbestos pilot project. 

Brilliant anti-armor submunition 

The budget request contained $55.1 million in PE 64768A for the 

development of an Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) Penetrator program. The committee notes that $30.4 million is also included in PE 64327N in the future years defense program (FYDP) 

to develop the system concept and architecture and demonstrate 

and validate an ATACMS encapsulated launch capability from a 

Ship, Submersible, Guided Nuclear (SSGN) platform. 

The committee understands that the ATACMS Penetrator program was developed from an advanced concept technology demonstration and originated from a fiscal year 1998 Defense Threat 

Reduction Agency study, which identified the need to attack a finite target set in one worldwide theater of operation. The committee also understands that an adequate number of ATACMS 

Penetrator missiles have been produced to fulfill this requirement. 

However, the Army now has been burdened with a development 

and procurement program to produce 180 missiles to service hardened and deeply buried targets in multiple theaters of operation, 

which is well beyond the scope of the initial requirement. The committee understands the original requirement, however, it notes 

that initially the Army, Department of Energy, and the Department of the Navy were equal partners at the program inception. 

Now the Army alone has been directed to fund $425.2 million for 

this project through the FYDP out of existing budget authority for 

a vaguely defined Office of the Secretary of Defense project. 

While the committee understands the need for options to service 

hardened and deeply buried targets, it believes that this weapon 

may have limited effectiveness against these types of targets based 

on technical data provided to the committee by the Department of 

Defense, and that other, less costly capabilities exist in the United 

States’ inventory to better address these threats. The committee 

notes that the operational requirements document (ORD) is not expected to be completed until February 2004, and that it is only 

planned to be an Army ORD, yet an extended range variant may 

be developed by the Army, which would be incorporated into Navy 

SSGN platforms. The committee also questions the incorporation of 

this capability into SSGNs, which the committee believes may unnecessarily expose these submarines to threats in littoral regions 

when required to operate close to shore to ensure that these misVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.030 A106HR
145

siles can be effectively employed against targets in interior regions 

of potentially hostile countries. 

Prior to the obligation of any fiscal year 2004 funds for ATACMS 

Pentrator in PE 64768A, the committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to review the ATACMS Penetrator program to determine if a more efficient and cost effective ATACMS capability 

could be fielded versus a system with a projected $1.1 million unit 

cost, which only provides a limited capability to penetrate earthen 

or reinforced structures up to 20 feet deep. The Secretary is also 

urged to review the utility of the program with regards to the missile’s operational ranges and the impact of those ranges on the 

weapon’s employment by both ground forces as well as from 

SSGNs. 

Broad area unmanned responsive re-supply operations 

The budget request contained $72.1 million in PE 63003A for 

aviation advanced technology, but included no funds for broad area 

unmanned re-supply operations (BURRO). 

The committee is aware that the Army aviation technology directorate is working to develop an autonomous external lift unmanned 

aerial vehicle. The committee is also aware that the Marine Corps 

has previously conducted similar work including BURRO. The committee recommends an increase of $9.7 million in PE 63003A to include BURRO in the quick delivery advanced concept technology 

demonstration. 

Brooks Energy and Sustainability Lab 

The budget request included $45.4 million in PE 62784A for military engineering technology but no funding for the Brooks Energy 

and Sustainability Lab. 

The committee supports energy conservation initiatives of the 

Department of Defense, encourages further efforts to enhance infrastructure life cycle operations and cost effectiveness, and to improve energy efficiency on military installations. 

The committee recommends $47.4 million in PE 62784A, an increase of $2.0 million for the Brooks Energy and Sustainability 

Lab. 

Cadmium zinc telluride detectors 

The budget request contained $19.9 million in PE 65805A for 

munitions standardization, effectiveness and safety, and included 

$2.5 million for lifecycle pilot processes. 

The committee is aware that an important part of lifecycle cost 

reduction efforts is developing and prototyping critical technologies 

that can be transferred to the ammunition industrial base. The 

committee notes that cadmium zinc telluride technology holds 

promise of affordable x-ray detectors for both munitions inspection 

and baggage surveillance. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 

65805A for cadmium zinc telluride detector development. 

Commercial-off-the-Shelf (COTS) fuel filtration device 

The budget request included $25.0 million in PE 62601A for 

leveraging commercial investments in automotive technology reVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.031 A106HR
146

search and development to support the Army’s current and future 

combat and tactical wheeled vehicle fleet. 

The committee has long supported efforts to advance the operational performance and overall life cycle costs of defense weapon 

systems and tactical vehicles. The committee is aware of and supports current Department of Defense affordability initiatives, including efforts aimed at fuel efficiency improvements. The committee is aware of a commercially-developed air/fuel separation and 

filtration technology offering improvements in engine performance 

and fuel savings in diesel, JP–8, and potential biodiesel applications. Performance tests to date indicate fuel savings as high as 40 

percent in some scenarios. Tests also suggest improvements in engine torque output, horsepower, particulate emissions, and throttle 

response. The committee believes a comprehensive scientific test of 

the technology on current Army tactical vehicles would be beneficial, encourages further work in this area, and supports a collaborative effort between the Department of the Army and the Center 

for Environmental Science and Technology. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million 

in PE 62601A to conduct a comprehensive collaborative test of filtration technology. 

Defense Language Institute research and development

The budget request contained no research and development 

funds for the Defense Language Institute (DLI). 

The committee is aware that DLI has been using operations and 

maintenance funding to support language training research and development. The committee notes that emerging technology offers 

potential to greatly improve language training, increase instructor 

efficiency, and support better maintenance of language proficiency. 

The committee believes that appropriate research and development 

funding should be provided to develop better language training capability. The committee recommends an additional $5.0 million for language training technology development in PE 63748A, and directs 

the Secretary of Defense to establish a permanent program element 

for this purpose. 

Desert terrain analysis 

The budget request contained $128.8 million in PE 61102A for 

Defense research sciences, but included no funds for desert terrain 

analysis (DTA). 

The committee is aware that the desert terrain analysis project 

is to develop technologies for predicting terrain conditions and surface responses in desert regions for the purpose of supporting military operations. 

The committee recommends $132.8 million in PE 61102A, an increase of $4.0 million for DTA. 

Electromagnetic Gun Initiative 

The budget request contains $5.9 million in PE 61104A for electromagnetic gun basic research, $4.9 million in PE 62618A for applied research in electromagnetic gun technology and $19.7 million 

in PE 63004A for electromagnetic gun advanced technology development. The budget request also contained $50.6 million in PE 

147

63123N for force protection advanced technology development, including $30.0 million for surface ship and submarine hull, mechanical, and electrical advanced technology development. The Navy’s 

descriptive summary accompanying the budget request states that 

the Navy will initiate a program for the development of electromagnetic gun technology in fiscal year 2004; however, no specific 

funds were designated for this activity. 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee has recommended a legislative provision that would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a collaborative program to develop and demonstrate advanced technologies and concepts that would lead to advanced guns 

systems that use electromagnetic propulsion for direct and indirect 

fire applications. The committee believes that the development of 

electromagnetic gun technology would have potentially high payoff 

for U.S. armed forces in both direct and indirect fire weapons system, and that the major investment made by the Department of 

Defense (principally by the Army) in this technology over the last 

20 years is beginning to provide significant returns. The committee 

believes that stable funding for continuing technology development 

and demonstration is needed to establish the viability of the technology for potential applications, including ground combat vehicle 

main guns, air defense, long-range ship-to-shore fire support, and 

precision air-to-ground standoff weapons. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends the budget requests of 

$4.9 million in PE 62618A for electromagnetic gun applied research 

and $19.7 million in PE 63004A for electromagnetic gun advanced 

technology development. The committee also recommends $8.0 million in PE 61104A for electromagnetic gun basic research, an increase of $2.1 million, and an increase of $7.6 million in PE 

63123N for electro-magnetic gun advanced technology development. 

Hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier 

The budget request contained $35.2 million in PE 63002A for 

medical advanced technology development and $9.1 million in PE 

64771N for medical system development and demonstration. No 

funds were specifically requested to continue the development of 

hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier technology. 

The committee notes the Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector 

General’s audit of DOD’s blood program in 2001 that highlighted 

programmatic shortfalls in the Department’s ability to meet its 

stated requirements and noted specifically that hemoglobin-based 

oxygen carriers could minimize or eliminate the storage and transportation problems identified in the report. Congress provided $1.0 

million in fiscal year 2002 to initiate a program for evaluation of 

hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers for the treatment of trauma casualties and an additional $4.5 million in fiscal year 2003 for an 

Army advanced medical technology program of phase II clinical 

trials. The committee understands that based on the progress in 

the program the Navy has established a cooperative research and 

development agreement for a definitive Phase III clinical trial. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

63002A and $5 million in PE 64771N to continue the program for 

development and clinical trials of hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers 

for treatment of trauma casualties. 

148

Intelligence and Security Command global information portal 

The budget request contained no funding in PE 33028A for security and intelligence activities, including no funding for the U.S. 

Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) global information portal. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 33028A to accelerate the Army INSCOM global information portal development. 

Legacy parts reinvention 

The budget request contained $66.0 million in PE 78045A for 

end-item industrial preparedness activities. 

The committee notes growing logistics problems caused by the 

aging fleet of legacy systems and the increased cost and delays in 

the retooling and manufacture of specialty replacement parts because the original manufacturers either no longer produce the 

parts or are no longer in business. The committee is aware that by 

combining the capability of laser data acquisition and reverse engineering, manufacturing-ready technical data can be offered to multiple approved sources for the rapid manufacturing of obsolete components at significantly reduced costs. Laser processes utilizing 

scanning of parts to produce digital three-dimensional, computer 

aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) models permit the 

rapid prototyping of replacement parts and development of parts 

technical data packages where parts data packages and design 

specification may not have existed.

The committee recommends $69.0 million in PE 78045A, an increase of $3.0 million to further develop the capability for use of 

laser data acquisition and reverse engineering for legacy parts and 

technical data packages in Army arsenals and depots. 

Medium Extended Air Defense System 

The budget request contained $276.3 million in PE 63869A for 

the Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS). 

The committee does not believe that MEADS has reached a level 

of technical maturity that would recommend it for transfer to the 

Army. In August 2000, MEADS began a three year risk reduction 

effort as a follow on to the program definition and validation phase, 

and has not yet entered the system development and demonstration phase. MEADS will use the PAC–3 missile, which has undergone some operational testing, but many other system components 

simply do not exist in any form. For example, the committee is unaware of even a prototype C-130 transportable radar with 360 degree coverage capable of pacing the maneuver force. Pursuant to 

subsection 224(c) of title 10, United States Code, the Department 

of Defense notified the committee of its intent to transfer responsibility for the program from Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to the 

Army on April 2, 2003. However, the committee believes the Department falls short in its obligation under subsection 224(b) to 

certify technical maturity. As one of a very few international cooperative efforts in ballistic missile defense, the committee takes a 

special interest in the viability of this program. 

The committee recommends the transfer of these funds to the 

MDA under the terminal defense segment PE 63881C. This is the 

third year that the committee makes this recommendation. 

149

Metallic particles in defense applications obscurant smokes 

The budget request contained $3.5 million in PE 62622A for 

chemical, smoke and equipment defeating technology, but included 

no funds for the metallic particles in defense applications (MPDA) 

obscurant smokes project. 

The committee is aware that the MDPA project is to develop metallic or metal-based composites which can be used on the battlefield where smoke screens are used to hide troops or equipment 

from enemy view. The committee recommends $8.5 million in PE 62622A, an increase of $5.0 million for MDPA. 

Micro electro-mechanical systems inertial measurement unit/global 

positioning system 

The budget request contained $43.3 million in PE 62303A for missile technology, and included $8.9 million for a micro electromechanical systems based integrated inertial measurement unit 

combined with a global positioning system (MEMS IMU/GPS). 

The committee notes that the Army was selected by the Secretary of Defense to lead the joint service program to develop a 

MEMS IMU/GPS. The MEMS IMU/GPS is essential for precision 

guided weapons, and this competitive program is developing a single chip device that would reduce the cost of such capability by a 

factor of 50–100. 

The committee recommends $53.3 million in PE 62303A, an increase of $10.0 million to accelerate MEMS IMU/GPS development. 

Modular multi function laser system 

The budget request contained $2.0 million in PE 64710A for continued development of the modular multi function laser system. 

The modular multi function laser system development program 

would miniaturize existing laser rangefinder, laser aiming-light, 

and digital compass technologies and combine all these capabilities 

into one unit, which is presently not available for soldiers. Currently, multiple different systems which provide these separate 

functions must be carried by soldiers or be attached to their rifles. 

This new technology would reduce the weight of weapons by reducing the number of modular attachments carried on those weapons 

and simultaneously provide enhanced lethality. The committee understands that additional funds would continue form, fit, and function development of lightweight laser applications, increase laser 

range finding distances, and improve target marking and designation accuracies. 

The committee recommends $5.0 million in PE 64710A, an increase of $3.0 million for continued development of the modular 

multi function laser system to support enhanced lethality in soldier 

systems. 

Non system training devices and constructive simulation systems 

development 

The budget request contained $8.8 million for Non System Training Devices and $14.7 million for Constructive Simulations Systems Development. These two systems are also known collectively 

as Warfighter’s Simulation system (WARSIM). WARSIM is a computer-based simulation with associated hardware to support the 

150

training of unit commanders and their battle staffs, from battalion 

through theater-level, as well as for the use of command post training events in educational institutions. WARSIM is intended to provide a comprehensive training environment capable of linking its 

simulation-based constructive entities with virtual and live entities. WARSIM was initially planned to fit into the larger, more 

comprehensive Joint Simulation system (JSIM) which has been 

cancelled. The committee is concerned that the Army has not taken 

the appropriate steps to re-evaluate WARSIM and what role this 

system will play now that JSIM no longer exists. The committee recommends a reduction of $8.8 million for PE 

64715A and a decrease of $14.7 million in PE 64742A. 

Objective force bandwidth report 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to provide to 

the congressional defense committees a report, on an annual basis 

starting February 13, 2004, identifying Objective Force bandwidth 

requirements, the manner in which development and testing 

progress will be measured against the requirements, and how 

bandwidth and frequency allocations will be made to the many systems that will be considered part of the network. The report should 

also identify and differentiate organic systems from assets borrowed or shared from other sources such as those in the commercial, national, and international domain. 

The committee is aware that the Army’s Objective Force will require a significant amount of bandwidth, throughput, and communications technologies improvements in order to achieve the 

interconnectivity among all of the components within the proposed 

network. This requirement will be a significant part of the Future 

Combat Systems design and directly affects its lethality, survivability, and effectiveness. The committee notes that a high level of 

risk exists with the concepts due to the need to simultaneously develop a number of technologies and operational concepts. 

Palletized synthetic aperture radar moving target indicator radar 

sets 

The budget request contained $20.3 million in PE 63772A for advanced technology development of advanced tactical computer and 

science technologies, but included no funds for Lynx palletized 

radar equipment sets. 

The committee understands that commercially-available Lynx 

radar sets packaged in a palletized form would provide an affordable, state-of-the-art, synthetic aperture radar, ground moving target indicator to evaluate capabilities and requirements for potential 

unmanned aerial vehicle UAV sensors as part of the development 

of Future Combat Systems (FCS). The committee also understands 

that an increase in funds in fiscal year 2004 may accelerate additional situational awareness capabilities for Army combat units 

prior to the fielding of any FCS UAV’s. 

The committee recommends $24.3 million in PE 63772A, an increase of $4.0 million, for Lynx palletized radar equipment sets. 

Patriot PAC–3 

The budget request contained $174.5 million in PE 64865A for 

Patriot PAC–3. 

151

The committee recognizes the need for additional funds for countermeasure improvements and aircraft identification friend or foe 

(IFF). 

The committee recommends $253.5 million in PE 64865A, an increase of $79.0 million for Patriot PAC–3, including $10.0 million 

specifically for improved aircraft IFF. The committee directs that 

no funds for Patriot PAC–3 IFF improvement may be obligated 

until completion of the Army investigation into friendly fire incidents involving Patriot during Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Patriot PAC–2 

The budget request contained $44.5 million in PE 23801A for 

missile/air defense product improvement. 

The committee is aware that additional funding is required for 

Patriot PAC–2 aircraft identification friend or foe (IFF) improvements. 

The committee recommends $54.5 million in PE 23801A, an increase of $10.0 million for Patriot PAC–2 aircraft IFF improvements. The committee directs that no funds for Patriot PAC–2 aircraft IFF improvement may be obligated prior to completion to the 

Army investigation of alleged mishaps involving Patriot during Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Portable and mobile emergency broadband system 

The budget request contained $40.3 million in PE 63008A for 

electronic warfare advanced technology, but included no funding for 

the portable and mobile emergency broadband system. The committee is aware that the portable and mobile emergency broadband 

system provides a wide-area, rapidly deployable wireless voice and 

data network. 

The committee recommends $48.9 million in PE 63008A, an increase of $8.6 million for the portable and mobile emergency 

broadband system. 

Pseudofollicullitus Barbae Research 

The budget request included $35.2 million in PE 63002A for medical advanced technology but no funding for the development of a 

treatment for Pseudofollicullitus Barbae. 

The committee recognizes the importance of Pseudofollicullitus 

Barbae research, particularly as it affects military personnel 

deployability rates. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 

63002A for Pseudofollicullitus Barbae research. 

Reconfiguring tooling 

The budget request contained $72.1 million in PE 63003A for 

aviation advanced technology, but included no funds for the reconfiguring tooling system. 

The committee recognizes the impact on the Army’s aviation logistic and supply system from the increase in aviation deployments 

world-wide. The committee notes that development of a 

reconfigurable tooling system (RTS) that would allow repair of 

aviation composite materials at the deployed site would be beneficial to aviation readiness. 

152

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

63003A for RTS. 

Remote acoustic hemostasis 

The budget request contained $58.9 million in PE 62787A for 

medical technology applied research. 

The committee notes the results of research in high-intensity focused ultrasound technology that promises to provide a highly effective means of controlling internal bleeding. Lightweight, portable, and highly effective, remote acoustic hemostasis technology 

provides the capability to identify, and then eliminate the source 

of internal bleeding. Ongoing applied research and development 

has produced technologies and initial devices for advanced remote 

acoustic hemostasis that promises to improve battlefield combat 

casualty care and reduce battlefield and other trauma mortality 

among members of the armed services and among civilian personnel. 

The committee recommends an increase of $8.2 million in PE 

62787A to continue the development of this highly successful remote acoustic hemostasis technology. 

Rugged textile electronic garments for combat casualty care 

The budget request contained $35.2 million in PE 63002A for medical advanced technology development, including $1.5 million 

for advanced field medical protection technology. No funds were 

provided for development of rugged textile electronic garments for 

combat casualty care. 

The committee notes advances in sensor technology, textile electronics, information management, and medical science that have 

opened up the potential for remote diagnosis, monitoring, and 

treatment of a range of medical conditions. Positive results from 

combat casualty care and electronic textiles research strongly suggest that major improvements can be made in the survival of 

wounded soldiers through the use of these technologies in an integrated system. Congress provided $1.0 million in fiscal year 2003 

to initiate a program to develop the technology for, and assess the 

contribution that can be made by the use of advanced textile electronic garments in combat casualty care. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

63002A to continue the program for development, demonstration, 

and evaluation of rugged textile electronic garments for combat 

casualty care. 

ScramFire 120mm powered munition 

The budget request contained $47.8 million in PE 63004A for 

weapons and munitions advanced technology, but included no 

funds for the ScramFire 120mm powered munition. 

The committee is aware that powered munitions that accelerate 

throughout flight to the target offer increased velocity at the target 

for direct fire weapons or increased range for indirect fire. The 

committee notes that both the increased velocity for higher 

lethality and increased range for greater survivability are desirable 

characteristics for the Future Combat Systems. 

The committee recommends $52.8 million in PE 63004A, an increase of $5.0 million for the ScramFire 120mm powered munition. 

153

Wire detection, wind sensor and obstacle avoidance system for helicopters 

The budget request contained $47.1 million in PE 63710A for 

night vision advanced technology, but included no funds for the 

wire detection, wind sensor and obstacle avoidance system for helicopters. 

The committee is aware that the wire detection, wind sensor and 

obstacle avoidance system for helicopters offers the potential to 

substantially reduce helicopter accidents and also improve weapons 

delivery accuracy. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

63710A for the wire detection, wind sensor and obstacle avoidance 

system for helicopters. 

NAVY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, & EVALUATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $14,106.7 million for Navy research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). 

The committee recommends $14,343.4 million, an increase of 

$236.7 million to the budget request.

154


Insert graphic folio 188 87068.084
155


Insert graphic folio 189 87068.085
156


Insert graphic folio 190 87068.086
157


Insert graphic folio 191 87068.087
158


Insert graphic folio 192 87068.088
159


Insert graphic folio 193 87068.089
160


Insert graphic folio 194 87068.090
161


Insert graphic folio 195 87068.091
162


Insert graphic folio 196 87068.092
163


Insert graphic folio 197 87068.093
164


Insert graphic folio 198 87068.094
165


Insert graphic folio 199 87068.095
166


Insert graphic folio 200 87068.096
167

Items of Special Interest 

Advanced cable design for mine and submarine warfare 

The budget request contained $66.8 million in PE 64212N for 

anti-submarine warfare and other helicopter improvements. 

The committee notes that anti-submarine warfare and mine 

countermeasures helicopters currently use heavy, steel reinforced 

tow cables that vibrate when deployed and degrade overall system 

performance. To address these shortcomings Congress added $1.2 

million in fiscal year 2003 to initiate a program for development 

and evaluation of improvements in the cables used for towing mine 

and submarine warfare sensors and countermeasures. 

The committee recommends $67.8 million in PE 64212N, an increase of $1.0 million to continue the program for development and 

evaluation of improvements in mine and submarine warfare sensor 

and countermeasure tow cables. 

Advanced composite sail phase II 

The budget request contained $52.7 million in PE 63561N for advanced submarine system development. 

The advanced composite sail program for the Virginia class submarine is intended to demonstrate substantial additional payload 

capacity and low-observable improvements over conventional submarine sails. Phase II of the program addresses the incorporation 

of full-scale design features and load specifications that would be 

encountered by operational submarines, including damage assessment and repair. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

63561N to continue the program for development, demonstration, 

and validation of technologies and techniques for advanced monitoring of the operational condition of composite sails, repair procedures, and procedures for enabling future payloads to be inserted 

into a composite sail without major redesign of the sail structure. 

Advanced Navy materials 

The budget request included $15.3 million in PE 62236N for advanced Navy materials. 

Leadership in aerospace advanced materials technology is fundamental to U.S. competitiveness in the global economy. The Aerospace Materials Technology Consortium consisting of over 30 government, industry, and academic institutions is organized to provide synergy across the aerospace materials community in the development and application of advanced aerospace materials. 

The committee recommends $19.3 million in PE 62236N, an increase of $4.0 million to support partnered projects for advanced 

technology materials development and demonstration projects. 

Advanced sensor initiative 

The budget request contained $13.3 million in PE 35206N for airborne reconnaissance systems, but included no funds for the advanced sensor initiative.

The advanced sensor initiative is a product improvement program to the existing shared reconnaissance pod (SHARP) carried 

on the Navy’s F/A–18E/F aircraft. The SHARP provides continuous 

and immediate intelligence support to the battle group commander 

168

by employing a suite of sensors to collect infrared, visible, and synthetic aperture radar digital imagery at medium and high altitudes. The advanced sensor initiative would further develop 

SHARP capabilities by improving its efficiency and maintainability 

and by providing enhanced processing and dissemination capabilities. The committee understands that such improvements could include replacement of existing mechanical camera shutters with 

semiconductor computer chips, miniaturizing separate mediumand high-altitude cameras into one zoom lens, and upgrading 

image processing to provide more rapid data dissemination capabilities. The committee also understands that reconnaissance products developed through the advanced sensor initiative could be 

adapted for use on smaller and lighter platforms such as unmanned aerial vehicles. 

The committee recommends $24.3 million in PE 35206N, an increase of $11.0 million for the advanced sensor initiative, to improve the capabilities of the SHARP and to develop smaller reconnaissance architecture for other platforms. 

Advanced WaterJet–21 

The budget request contained $55.8 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology. No funds were included to 

continue development and demonstration of the Advanced 

WaterJet–21 (AWJ–21). 

The AWJ–21 is an advanced technology development program by 

the Office of Naval Research to validate the capability of the technology to meet the Navy’s rigorous requirements for increased 

speed, stealth, maneuverability, and shallow draft that will be 

needed for 21st century ships operating in the littorals. Funding to 

date has supported construction of a one-quarter scale demonstrator and testing in the laboratory and in a water tunnel. The results to date indicate the potential for AWJ–21 technology as a low 

cost, low risk, and high performance propulsor for future ships. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

63123N for AWJ–21 ship integration and at-sea testing to complete 

the AWJ–21 advanced technology demonstration. 

Aegis open architecture 

The budget request contained $205.7 million in PE 64307N for 

surface combatant combat system engineering, of which $80.4 million was included to continue development of the computer programs for the cruiser conversion program, but included no funds 

for Aegis open architecture. 

The Aegis open architecture program maximizes software component interoperability for cross-platform re-use. The committee understands that the budget request is not sufficient to develop the 

open architecture required for introduction into the cruiser conversion program in fiscal year 2005, thereby ensuring timely introduction of the Aegis open architecture capabilities by fiscal year 2008 

as required by both the Navy’s and the Missile Defense Agency’s 

sea-based missile defense 2010 plan. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

64307N for the Aegis open architecture program. 

169

Affordable towed array construction (ATAC) program 

The budget request contained $80.8 million in PE 64503N for submarine systems equipment development, of which $5.7 million 

was included to continue development of affordable towed array 

technology initiatives, but included no funds for the ATAC program. 

The ATAC program would accelerate an already planned and 

budgeted development of a fiber optic upgrade to the TB–29 and 

TB–29A towed arrays which are used as external acoustic sensors 

on the Navy’s Los Angeles and Ohio Class submarine fleets. The 

committee understands that the ATAC program would accelerate 

system performance verification testing, implement automated 

manufacturing equipment, and qualify commercial suppliers for 

production of new highly reliable and low cost fiber optic towed arrays. The committee further understands that the ATAC program’s 

methodology would result in a 50 percent reduction in unit cost 

and provide fleet life cycle cost savings of over $100.0 million. The committee recommends $87.3 million in PE 64503N, an increase of $6.5 million for the ATAC program, to improve towed 

array reliability and significantly increase cost savings. 

Affordable weapons system 

The budget request contained $63.4 million in PE 63795N for 

land attack technology advanced component development and prototypes. 

The Office of Naval Research (ONR) Affordable Weapon System 

(AWS) program is an advanced technology initiative to demonstrate 

the ability to design, develop, and build a capable and affordable 

precision guided weapon system at a cost that would be an order 

of magnitude cheaper than comparable weapon systems and in production would achieve a stable unit production cost very early in 

the production cycle. 

The committee notes that the ONR program has been successful 

in all respects. In less than four years, the AWS program has demonstrated the use of commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components to 

construct a 400–600 mile range, subsonic (180–220 knot), ‘‘loitering, 200 pound payload, precision strike missile with global positioning system/inertial navigation system guidance and control and 

a data link.’’ The missile has both line of sight and satellite data 

links for interaction with ground stations and forward observers 

and is reprogrammable in flight. In operational use the missile 

would be launched from CONEX-type containers that hold between 

six and twenty missiles and could be carried on land, sea, or air 

platforms. The initiative has demonstrated that the COTS approach can reduce costs by an order of magnitude from traditional 

cruise missiles. The current missile cost in large scale production, 

exclusive of warhead, is estimated to be $60,000. Within the last 

16 months there have been ten successful flight tests that have 

demonstrated the missile’s range, accuracy and other capabilities. 

The committee believes that the AWS has enormous potential 

both for continued development and procurement as a weapon system to fill the gap between cannons and multiple launch rockets 

and missile systems such as Tomahawk that have longer range and 

larger warheads and in developing a new paradigm for the rapid 

development, transition to production, and fielding of new and inVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.036 A106HR
170

novative weapons systems. The committee notes that there are still 

significant issues to be resolved in transitioning AWS through system development into production: selection and integration of warhead(s); launcher development; production engineering; logistics 

supportability; training development; and development and operational test. The committee understands that the program is under 

review by the Navy for transition in the fiscal year 2006 budget. 

The committee believes that the success demonstrated by the system to date and the operational contribution that the capability 

would provide to U.S. forces justify seeking new ways to accelerate 

transition from science and technology to fielded capability. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million in PE 63795N to continue development of the AWS, and $138.0 

million in Weapons Procurement Navy for AWS procurement. 

Airborne buried mine detection 

The budget request contained $56.5 million in PE 35204N for 

tactical unmanned aerial vehicle development. 

The committee understands that emerging technology for small 

imaging synthetic aperture radars has the potential capability for 

detecting the location of buried metallic and plastic land mines 

with relatively high accuracy. When mounted in an unmanned aerial vehicle, such a capability could meet the requirements of the 

Army, Navy, and Marine Corps for airborne detection of buried 

land mines. The committee further understands that the Department of Defense has allocated $1.0 million for the demonstration 

of an airborne prototype of such a radar in an unmanned aerial vehicle. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

35204N to accelerate the development and demonstration of the 

mine detection capability of small, imaging synthetic aperture radars mounted in an unmanned aerial vehicle. 

ALE–55 development testing 

The budget request contained $256.7 million in PE 64270N for 

electronic warfare development, but included no funds for ALE–55 

development testing. Elsewhere in this report the committee directs that the budget request of $204.8 million, for development of 

the EF–18G aircraft, be established in a new program element, PE 

64271N, leaving $51.9 million in PE 64270N or electronic warfare 

development. 

The ALE–55 is a fiber optic towed decoy being developed for the 

integrated defensive electronic countermeasures system, which is 

planned for future installation on the Navy’s F/A–18E/F aircraft 

fleet. The committee understands that the ALE–55 development 

program has been significantly delayed due to funding limitations 

and terminated Air Force participation, and that further ALE–55 

development delay will place F/A–18E/F aircrews at increased surface-to-air missile attack risk. 

In order to complete ALE–55 development testing and operational evaluation and achieve a ALE–55 F/A–18E/F initial operational capability by fiscal year 2005, the committee recommends 

$66.9 million in PE 64270N, an increase of $15.0 million. 

171

All optical underwater segments 

The budget request contained $14.3 million in PE 24311N for integrated surveillance system operational systems development. 

The committee notes continuing developments in optical fiber 

array technology and the Navy’s application of that technology to 

both towed and fixed array underwater surveillance systems. The committee recommends $21.8 million in PE 24311N, an increase of $7.5 million to accelerate the development of all-optical 

underwater surveillance systems. 

Anti-surface warfare improvement program (AIP) phased capability 

update (PCU) 

The budget request contained $7.3 million in PE 64221N for the 

P–3 modernization program, but included no funds for the AIP 

PCU program. 

The AIP upgrades the P–3’s communications, survivability, and 

over-the-horizon targeting capabilities through the installation of 

commercial-off-the-shelf components, and the PCU program systematically improves the AIP to meet new and emerging operational needs. The committee understands that the next PCU 

phase would develop a real-time targeting capability in AIPequipped P–3 aircraft by improving sensor performance to provide 

precise target locations for dissemination to strike platforms. 

The committee believes that real-time targeting capability is critical to the P–3’s effectiveness. 

The committee recommends $24.8 million in PE 64221N, an increase of $17.5 million for the AIP PCU program. 

Automated wire analysis 

The budget request contained $60.1 million in PE 25633N for 

aviation improvements operational systems development, including 

$1.4 million for development of aircraft equipment reliability and 

maintainability improvements. 

The committee notes that in meeting today’s operational requirements many Navy aircraft are flown beyond their design life, and 

mechanical, chemical, and thermal stress and the maritime environment degrade aircraft wiring systems. The committee is aware 

of automated capabilities for analysis of wiring systems, developed 

in conjunction with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, that can provide instant processing, and highly accurate 

identification and location of faults in wiring harnesses. The committee believes that the improvement in troubleshooting capabilities provided by such technology would reduce operational and logistics costs and also, contribute to the reduction of in-flight failures by providing the ability to predict where a potential failure is 

most likely to occur. 

The committee recommends $63.1 million in PE 25633N, an increase of $3.0 million for the evaluation of automated wire analysis 

technology in the Navy’s aircraft equipment reliability and maintainability program. 

Autonomous naval support round 

The budget request contained $63.4 million in PE 63795N for 

land attack technology, including $10.0 million to begin development of the Extended Range Munition. 

172

The Navy’s Extended Range Guided Munition (ERGM) program 

is developing a long-range, precision munition for fire support of 

ground forces ashore and for surface strike missions. ERGM will be 

capable of being fired from newer DDG–51 destroyers equipped 

with the 5-inch, 62 (5′′/62) caliber gun, but will not be compatible 

with older ships equipped with the 5-inch, 54 caliber (5′′/54) guns. 

The Autonomous Naval Support Round (ANSR) is a rolling airframe, gun-fired projectile that has been used to demonstrate advanced gun-launched projectile and guidance and control technology and is capable of being employed from all Navy 5′′/54-

equipped ships as well as from new 5′′/62-equipped ships. The committee notes that a successful ANSR demonstration program has 

led the Navy to plan a $70.0 million, 24-month system development 

and demonstration program for an Extended Range Munition and 

has included $10.0 million in the budget request to begin the program. The committee further understands that the Navy intends to 

include funding for the balance of the program in the fiscal year 

2005 program objectives memorandum. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 

63795N to accelerate system development and demonstration for 

the Extended Range Munition. 

AV–8B engine life management program (ELMP) 

The budget request contained $10.5 million in PE 64214N for AV–8B design, development, integration and test, of which $2.3 

million was included for the AV–8B ELMP. 

The AV–8B ELMP is a comprehensive F402 engine program to 

improve its safety and reliability, and to increase the mean time 

between engine removals from 275 hours to 800 hours. The F402 

is the single engine installed on all AV–8B aircraft. The committee 

understands that an increase is required in fiscal year 2004 to 

allow a third F402 accelerated simulated mission endurance test, 

to continue engine design improvements, and to provide improvements to the engine monitoring systems. The committee notes that 

both the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the 

Marine Corps have included the AV–8B ELMP among their unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2004. 

Consequently, the committee recommends $17.5 million in PE 

64214N, an increase of $7.0 million. 

Battle force tactical training coalition interoperability 

The budget request contained $21.7 million in PE 24571N for 

consolidated training systems development. 

The Battle Force Tactical Training (BFTT) Programs provides realistic joint warfare training across the spectrum of armed conflict; 

realistic unit level team training in all warfare areas; a means to 

link together ships that are in different homeports for coordinated 

training; external stimulation of shipboard training systems; and 

simulation of non-shipboard forces. The committee believes that extending the BFTT training capability to allied forces and providing 

an enhanced capability for battle force and combat system team 

training in coalition naval operations would significantly enhance 

the operational capability of United States and allied naval forces. 

The committee recommends $22.7 million in PE 24571N, an increase of $1.0 million to initiate a program to develop and demVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00196 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.037 A106HR
173

onstrate in the BFTT program a training systems methodology and 

architecture that would facilitate combined battle force and combat 

systems team training among U.S. and allied naval forces. 

Biomedical Research Imaging 

The budget request contained $11.4 million in PE 63729N for 

warfighter protection advanced technology development. 

The committee continues to note the progress being made in the 

use of advanced imaging technology in biomedical research. New 

imaging technology has allowed the observation of tumors as small 

as 1 mm in diameter and has allowed scientists to observe critical 

bio-chemical changes associated with tumors, strokes, and other 

disease states. The committee believes that these findings have important implications for advances in real-time medical diagnosis 

and treatment. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

63729N to continue research in the applications of advanced imaging technology to biomedical research. 

Claymore Marine 

The budget request contained $11.1 million in PE 63254N for 

anti-submarine warfare (ASW) systems development. 

The committee notes that the Navy established the Claymore 

Marine program to investigate and demonstrate a new littoral antisubmarine warfare (ASW) system that integrates the previously developed ATD–111 airborne ASW and mine hunting system with 

new signal processing algorithms to achieve a significant increase 

in performance. Results to date indicate that the concept should 

succeed. The Navy’s fiscal year 2004 unfunded priorities list includes the need for an additional $2.0 million for the Claymore Marine program to support an at-sea demonstration and transition of 

the program to system development and demonstration. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63254N for the Claymore Marine program. 

COBRA JUDY 

The budget request contained $69.4 million in PE 35149N for 

COBRA JUDY. 

The committee notes that following an analysis of alternatives 

(AoA) for a COBRA JUDY replacement, the Secretary of Defense, 

in agreement with the Director of Central Intelligence, has established a replacement program. The committee believes that even 

though the Air Force is conducting an additional AoA, the present 

program to provide a COBRA JUDY replacement is well founded 

and should go forward. 

The committee is concerned that cost and schedule be maintained, and directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees any changes to the present program 

as a result of the AoA in progress. 

Combat systems integration/battle force interoperability 

The budget request contained $86.8 million in PE 63582N for 

combat systems integration/battle force interoperability (CSI/BFI) 

advanced component development and prototyping, including $25.0 

174

million for the small business innovative research (SBIR) Phase III 

common network interface (CNI) program. 

The committee believes that this program, like the multipurpose 

process/advanced processing build process used in the submarine 

acoustic rapid commercial-off-the-shelf insertion program, can offer 

significant alternative approaches to AEGIS combat system modernization which will permit the rapid and affordable introduction 

of new capabilities and competitive alternatives. 

The committee recommends $86.8 million in PE 63582N for CSI/

BFI advanced component development and protyping, including 

$25.0 million for the SBIR Phase III program for development of 

CNI capabilities for theater missile and air defense. 

Consolidated undersea situational awareness system

The budget request contained $69.2 million in PE 63235N for 

common picture advanced technology development. 

The committee notes that command and control in combat is a 

complicated undertaking across all military problem domains, and 

it is particularly hard for those domains where the commander 

must make decisions based on a mass of dynamically changing, uncertain, and at best, partially correct critical data. The Consolidated Undersea Situational Awareness System (CUSAS) is an 

agent-based decision support system under development for submarine operations that uses an innovative hybrid Bayesian/differential game modeling approach. The resulting theory and technology will facilitate submarine operations by addressing such 

practical problems as tradeoff evaluation for course of action and 

maintaining tactical advantage while avoiding counter detection. In 

addition, the CUSAS system incorporates environmental data by 

integrating existing Navy programs and sonar operator training 

systems. The committee believes that successful development of the 

CUSAS decision support system would provide a capability that 

significantly assists submarine commanders who are under the 

stress of critical combat operations to make rapid, informed, and 

superior decisions. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 

63235N to continue the program for development and demonstration of the consolidated undersea situational awareness system. 

Cruise missile real time retargeting/laser radar technology 

The budget request contained $173.5 million in PE 63114N for 

power projection advanced technology development, including $67.9 

million advanced development of time-critical strike technologies. 

The committee notes progress in the Navy’s program for development of low-cost, active terminal seekers for cruise missile real 

time retargeting. The combination of the three-dimensional mapping capability of a laser radar seeker, automated target recognition algorithms, and mission planning software which is used to 

relay new target search areas and retarget the missile while it is 

in flight provides the capability for rapid and accurate engagement 

of time-critical targets. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

63114N to accelerate the Navy’s program for cruise missile realtime retargeting. 

175

DD(X) multi-mission surface combatant 

The budget request contained $1 billion in PE 64300N to continue the program for development of the DD(X) class of U.S. Navy 

surface combatants, advanced development of component technologies and systems that are integral to DD(X), and preliminary 

and system design for the first DD(X) class ship. DD(X) is a multimission surface combatant tailored for land attack in support of the 

ground campaign and maritime dominance. The program is in the 

pre-systems acquisition phase of development, leading to design reviews in fiscal year 2004 and a Milestone B acquisition decision in 

fiscal year 2005. Delivery of the first ship of the class to the fleet 

is planned for fiscal year 2011. 

The committee notes that the DD(X) program will provide the 

baseline for spiral development of technology and engineering required to meet future maritime requirements and for development 

of a range of future ships such as the future cruiser CG(X) and the 

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). Just as its predecessor the DD–21, 

DD(X) will be the advanced technology platform for transformational technologies including an integrated power system and 

electric drive; the Advanced Gun System; the new Multi-Function 

Radar/Volume Search Radar suite; optimal manning through advanced system automation; stealth through reduced acoustic, magnetic, infrared, and radar cross-section signature; and enhanced 

survivability through automated damage control and fire protection 

systems. 

The original concept for DD–21 that carried over into the DD(X) 

program included an Advanced Gun System and an Advanced Land 

Attack Missile System (ALAM) to provide naval surface fires for 

support of ground forces ashore and precision strike capabilities. 

These requirements have been major factors in driving a ship design for a DD(X) of approximately 17,000 tons, significantly larger 

than the current DDG–51 Arleigh Burke Class destroyer. However, 

an interim land attack missile system based on the Navy’s Standard Missile was terminated in the fall of 2001 and there is no funding for development of ALAM in FY2003 or in the FY2004 budget 

request. 

The committee notes that the Navy is currently engaged in a reassessment of the DD–21 operational requirements document and 

key performance parameters as a part of the DD(X) Spiral Development review, and that the results of the review may lead to decisions with regard to the design and size of the ship. The committee 

requests that the Secretary of the Navy inform the congressional 

defense committees on the results of the review and impact on the 

design and capabilities of DD(X). 

The committee recommends $1 billion in PE 64300N as requested in the budget to continue the development of DD(X). 

Deployable joint command and control 

The budget request contained $79.4 million in PE 63237N for advanced component development and prototyping of the Deployable 

Joint Command and Control System (DJC2) and $46.6 million for 

procurement of a DJC2 suite for Pacific Command and of a technology update for the prototype DJC2 suite deployed with Central 

Command. 

176

DJC2 is a Secretary of Defense and Chairman, Joint Chiefs of 

Staff, priority transformation initiative that would provide a standardized, deployable command and control capability for each regional combatant commander and one maritime variant, replacing 

the ad hoc command and control arrangements that are drawn 

from deploying forces and brought together at the last minute during a crisis. DJC2 supports the standing joint forces headquarters 

concept and doctrine developed by Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) 

in coordination with other regional combatant commanders and the 

Joint Staff, as directed in the Defense Planning Guidance, and 

would support day-to-day operations (including peacetime), as well 

as training and contingency operations. 

The committee has supported the concept of establishing a standing joint force headquarters in each of the regional combatant commands and of providing standing and standardized joint command 

and control capabilities for the commands. 

The committee, however, questions the acquisition strategy and 

program plan that has been proposed for DJC2. The committee 

notes that the initial DJC2 prototype was fielded in Central Command and used during Operation Iraqi Freedom and believes that 

there is much to be learned from the experience gained with the 

prototype. The committee notes further that because of the late establishment of the program office, the program is following an accelerated, highly parallel and overlapping schedule for concept formulation, analysis of alternatives, and operational requirements 

documentation leading to a Defense Acquisition Milestone B in 

April–June 2003, at the same time that the military services are 

compiling and prioritizing service command and control applications to create a DJC2 baseline and establish benchmarks for determining future needs. The fiscal year 2004 program includes procurement of two DJC2 equipment suites for JFCOM for testing and 

for experimentation, while at the same time developing a third 

suite for Pacific Command and upgrading the Central Command 

prototype. In order to make use of the lessons learned from the 

Central Command experience and to provide the opportunity for 

meaningful testing and experimentation before establishing the requirements for and fielding the next generation system, the committee believes a more deliberate development and acquisition 

process should be followed. The committee also questions the wisdom of separating the program office from the technical capabilities 

of the military departments’ command, control, and communications research, development, and engineering activities. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $32.4 million in PE 

63237N for continued development of DJC2, a reduction of $47.0 

million, and no funding for DJC2 procurement, a reduction of $46.6 

million. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy in coordination with the Commander, Joint Forces Command, to report to 

the congressional defense committees by December 31, 2003, the 

operational requirement, program plan and schedule, funding required, and management plan for development of DJC2. 

Digital intelligence situation mapboard 

The budget request contained $235.7 million in PE 26313M for 

Marine Corps communications systems, but included no funding for 

the digital intelligence situation mapboard (DISM). 

177

The committee strongly endorses the use of commercial-off-theshelf (COTS) technology to meet the needs of the Marine Corps, 

while reducing development costs and schedules. The committee 

notes that DISM is a map-based situational awareness system employing standard military maps and messaging, that runs on 

ruggedized palmtop computers and connects to the existing Marine 

Corps SINGARS and other tactical radio networks. The committee 

is aware that after successful demonstration, DISM production was 

accelerated to equip deploying Marines. 

The committee supports continued development of this capa- bility, and recommends $239.7 million in PE 26313M, an increase 

of $4.0 million for DISM development. 

DP–2 thrust vectoring system 

The budget request contained $173.5 million in PE 63114N for 

power projection advanced technology development, but included no 

funding for continuation of the DP–2 thrust vectoring system demonstration. 

DP–2 is a proof-of-concept program to demonstrate the use of jetpowered, thrust vector control in a light weight composite airframe 

to achieve vertical takeoff and short takeoff and landing in a onehalf scale flight test vehicle. The committee notes the progress to 

date in the DP–2 program and believes that the potential of the 

DP–2 proof-of-concepts justifies continuation of the program. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

63114N to continue development and demonstration of the DP–2 

thrust vector system concept, leading to potential flight tests of the 

one-half scale airframe. 

Emerging/Critical interconnection technology 

The budget request contained $54.8 million in PE 63236N for 

warfighter sustainment advanced technology development, but included no funds for continuation of the emerging/critical interconnection technology program. 

The committee notes that printed circuit boards are fundamental 

components of military navigation, guidance and control, electronic 

warfare, missile, and surveillance and communication equipment. 

Most printed circuit boards for military systems are characterized 

by the need for high performance, high reliability and the ability 

to operate under extreme environmental conditions, and require 

the use of high density, highly rugged and highly reliable interconnection technology. The committee also notes that the commercial printed circuit board industry focuses on the design and highvolume production of low-cost boards, and that the United States 

has lost much of its printed circuit board manufacturing capability 

to overseas sources. Recognizing the need to enhance the U.S. capability for development and production of high density, highly reliable printed circuit boards for use in U.S. military systems, Congress provided an increase of $1.0 million to the fiscal year 2003 

budget request to accelerate improvements in printed circuit board 

technology to meet U.S. military requirements now and in the future. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

63236N to continue the program for development of emerging and 

critical printed circuit interconnection technology. 

178

Fire-retarded POSS composites 

The budget request contained $75.9 million in PE 62123N for 

force protection applied research. 

The committee notes that the use of composite materials in naval 

aircraft continues to increase and the use of composites for ship 

and submarine applications is becoming more acceptable. Organic 

polymers are the main component of the composite resin technology 

that is currently in use; however, the limited capability of composites to survive the effects of a shipboard fire is the main obstacle 

to more extensive use and there are no resin systems which entirely meet military standards. The committee notes that hybrid 

(organic-inorganic) POSS polymers have been demonstrated that 

meet the fire retardance standard of Military Specification 2031, 

but have not yet been qualified for use on board ships. The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 

62123N for applied research in the design, fabrication, testing, and 

qualification of POSS composites for shipboard use by the Navy. 

Formable aligned carbon thermosets 

The budget request contained $52.2 million in PE 62236N for 

warfighter sustainment applied research, but included no funds for 

formable aligned carbon thermosets (FACTS). 

The committee notes that composite materials used in aircraft 

construction have been demonstrated to save weight and operation 

and maintenance costs. However, production using existing composite products and composite lay-up procedures is expensive, with 

costs several times that of conventional metal structures. FACTS, 

a new product, employs stretch broken fibers to give the material 

plasticity akin to metals and makes it much easier to form parts. 

The new product is expected to significantly increase the percentage of the airframe that can be fabricated from composites, to reduce the cost of the composite structure, permit the use of more efficient designs, and significantly lower the weight of the airframe. 

Congress added $1.0 million for FACTS applied research in the fiscal year 2003 budget. The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 

62236N to continue the development and demonstration of FACTS 

product technology. 

Global Hawk maritime demonstration 

The budget request contained $101.4 million in PE 35205N for 

endurance-unmanned vehicles, for the Global Hawk maritime demonstration (GHMD). 

The committee notes that the GHMD is a program to determine 

what a high altitude endurance UAV (HAEUAV) can contribute to 

the Navy maritime surveillance mission. However, the committee 

also notes that the Air Force’s Global Hawk program is an established program that is addressing many of the developments that 

the Navy is considering. In particular, the Air Force is addressing 

survivability suites and towed decoys. The committee cannot justify 

funding for duplicative efforts for the identical purpose by the Navy 

and Air Force, and encourages close cooperation. 

The committee supports joint experimentation efforts between 

the Navy and the Air Force in their Global Hawk programs for all 

applications and missions, to include survivability. 

179

The committee recommends $93.0 million in PE 35205N, a decrease of $8.4 million. 

High performance electric brush 

The budget request contained $52.7 million in PE 63561N for advanced submarine system development. 

The committee notes that advanced high performance metal fiber 

brushes have demonstrated the capability to significantly enhance 

performance and reduce maintenance costs in a variety of naval 

motors and generators. The technology reduces environmental hazards associated with carbon brushes, improves operating efficiency 

and personal safety, and significantly reduces equipment failures. 

Advanced metal fiber brush technology is also a key element in the 

development of superconducting direct current homopolar motor 

technology for ship propulsion that is discussed elsewhere in this 

report. 

The committee recommends an increase of $8.7 million in PE 

63561N to accelerate the development and installation of high performance electric brush technology in electric motors and motorgenerators for Navy submarines and other systems. 

High temperature superconducting AC synchronous ship propulsion 

motor 

The budget request contained $55.8 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology development, including $34.2 

million for advanced development of surface ship and submarine 

hull, mechanical, and electrical systems. 

The committee notes that development of component technologies 

for the all electric warship is one of the major goals of the Navy’s 

science and technology program. To this end the Navy has pursued 

the development of several different technologies for ship main propulsion electric motors, including permanent magnet motors, high 

temperature superconducting alternating current (AC) synchronous 

motor technology, and low temperature superconducting direct current homopolar motor technology. The committee notes that permanent magnet motor technology is more mature and represents a potential near-term candidate for a ship main propulsion motor. However, the committee also notes that superconducting motor technology presents a number of advantages with respect to size and 

power density that, if realized, would make that technology potentially advantageous for certain applications. 

The Navy recently awarded a contract for development and demonstration of high temperature, superconducting AC synchronous 

motor technology in a 36.5 megawatt propulsion motor and drive 

system that would be designed to be compatible with Navy electric 

warship concepts and performance requirements. The committee 

understands that the Navy’s budget request includes $10.0 million 

for this project in fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommends an increase of $15.8 million in PE 

63123N to provide a total of $25.8 million in fiscal year 2004 to 

continue the development of the AC synchronous High Temperature Superconducting motor. 

180

IMPRINT 

The budget request contained $54.8 million in PE 63236N for 

warfighter sustainment advanced technology development, including $6.9 million for manpower, personnel, and human factor advanced technology development. No funds were requested to continue adaptation for Navy uses of non-Navy methodologies, such as 

the Army’s MANPRINT program. 

The committee believes that the use of the IMPRINT methodology will improve Navy modeling tools that optimize the classification of sailors to jobs and thereby improve job performance and satisfaction. In the long run, the committee also believes that improvements in performance and job satisfaction will result in improvements in total ownerships costs of Navy systems. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 63236N to continue the development and integration of 

Navy manpower and personnel classification tools. 

Integrated Maritime Picture System of Systems 

The budget request contained $69.2 million in PE 63235N for 

common operational picture advanced technology development. 

The committee notes ongoing activities in the Navy and in the 

other military departments to improve situational awareness and 

develop an integrated common operational picture for air, land, and 

sea commanders and their staffs. The committee also notes that 

the emphasis on increasing force protection for the fleet both in 

port and at sea will require the integration of information about 

sea ports, harbors, anchorages, and the maritime operational environment in an integrated maritime operational picture. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

63235N for advanced development of an integrated maritime common operational picture that will include both force protection and 

seaport security information and systems. 

Integrated radar optical surveillance and sighting system 

The budget request contained $40.9 million in PE 64755N for 

ship self defense (detect and control) system development and demonstration. 

The committee notes that, in view of the current world situation 

and the worldwide deployment of United States naval forces, protection of high value surface assets has become highly important. 

Current shipboard force protection measures are conduced by use 

of roving patrols and watch standers armed with small caliber 

crew-served weapons and short-range visual aids. Besides being 

labor intensive, current force protection measures using small caliber weapons have been shown to be ineffective against small boat 

threats and short-range visual aids do not provide adequate detection and safe stand-off ranges for the user. 

The committee is aware that the Navy regards the Integrated 

Radar Optical Sighting and Surveillance System (IROS3) as a capable solution for shipboard force protection while a ship is alongside the pier, at anchorage, or transiting congested and restricted 

waters ways. IROS3 integrates commercial off-the-shelf systems in 

a non-proprietary, network architecture to provide a digital radar 

picture, electro-optical sensor, non-lethal deterrence, and remote 

engagement by small arms and minor caliber guns. In addition to 

181

providing a capability to detect and classify asymmetric surface 

threats, maintain 360-degree situational awareness around the 

ship, and effectively engage small close-in threats, IROS3 will also 

enhance the capability for surface warfare, navigation, maritime 

intercept operations and related naval missions. In fiscal year 

2002, $4.5 million was provided in Defense Emergency Response 

Funds for IROS3 and the Chief of Naval Operations fiscal year 

2004 unfunded requirements list includes IROS3 as the Navy’s #11 

priority for funding. The committee recommends $56.9 million in PE 64755N, an increase of $16.0 million to complete system development, integration, and test and evaluation of the IROS3 system. 

Joint integrated satellite communications technology (JIST) 

The budget request contain $379.5 million in PE 33109N for the 

Navy’s Satellite Communications (SPACE) program, including 

$585,000 for fleet satellite communications. 

The Joint Integrated Satellite Communications (SATCOM) Technology (JIST) is a web-based satellite communications planning 

and management technology that utilizes the Department of Defense’s existing internet protocol router to expand the flexibility 

and efficiency of military satellite communications across a broad 

spectrum of radio frequencies. The committee believes that developmental systems like JIST, based on common standards, are key to 

increased satellite communications efficiency and maximizing the 

utilization of available spectrum resources across legacy and followon satellite communications systems. The committee recommends $389.5 million in PE 33109N, an increase of $10.0 million to continue the JIST program for development of a uniform web-based architecture for SATCOM mission 

planning and resource allocations. 

Joint warfare experiments 

The budget request contained $13.7 million in PE 63757N for 

Joint Warfare Experiments, all of which is programmed to create 

a software support facility for delivery and maintenance of Block 

I of the Joint Simulation System (JSIMS). 

The committee notes that JSIMS was considered to be the next 

generation modeling and simulation tool to support training for 

combatant commanders, their components, joint task force staffs, 

other joint organizations, Department of Defense agencies and the 

military services. JSIMS and all partner programs have been revised to discontinue development in fiscal year 2003 and the program is to be closed out. 

The committee recommends no funding in PE 63757N for JSIMS 

software support, a decrease of $13.7 million. 

Joint warfare experimentation program 

The budget request contained $151.1 million in PE 63727N for 

the Joint Warfare Experimentation Program Experiments. 

The Combatant Commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command 

(JFCOM) is chartered ‘‘as the Executive Agent for conducting joint 

warfighting concept development and experimentation within the 

Department of Defense.’’ The Joint Warfare Experimentation Program implements this transformation mission through a process of 

182

discovery, innovation, concept development, and experimentation to 

provide for optimal joint future force capabilities. 

The committee has closely monitored the progress in and strongly supports the Joint Warfare Experimentation Program. The committee notes that military service and joint experiments leading up 

to the major exercise Millenium Challenge 2002 and the exercise 

itself developed and confirmed a number of operational concepts 

and changes to military service and joint doctrine that had immediate application in Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

The committee notes, however, that funding for this joint program is reflected in the budget as an element of the Navy’s science 

and technology program. The amount budgeted for the Joint Warfare Experimentation Program has increased significantly in the 

last two years and has now reached a point that it creates a false 

impression of the budget in the Navy science and technology account for support of Navy missions. The committee recommends 

that the program element for the Joint Warfare Experimentation 

Program be transferred to a Defense-wide Account. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends no funding in PE 

63727N for the Joint Warfare Experimentation Program and 

$151.1 million in a new Defense-wide program element, PE 

63xxxD8Z, for the program. 

Knowledge projection for fleet maintenance 

The budget request contained $1.0 billion in PE 64300N for 

DD(X) multi-mission destroyer system development and demonstration, but included no funds to continue the ‘‘Knowledge Projection 

for Fleet Maintenance’’ project. Congress provided $2.5 million in fiscal year 2002 and $1.5 million in fiscal year 2003 to support a collaborative program for development of a new system to remotely monitor Navy ships and enable off-board technical experts to assist ship’s crew on-board technicians in ship maintenance and repair. The committee believes 

that the successful development and implementation of this approach to knowledge-based system diagnosis and repair could be increasingly important as the Navy makes the transition to ships 

with reduced numbers of personnel and as electronic equipment 

and other ships systems continue to become more complex. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

64300N to complete development and demonstration of the ‘‘Knowledge Projection for Fleet Maintenance’’ project. 

Littoral combat ship 

The budget request contained $158.0 million in PE 63581N for 

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) advanced component development and 

prototypes. 

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is a planned new Navy surface 

combatant for fighting in heavily contested littoral waters, and 

would be the smallest member of the Navy’s DD(X) family of next 

generation surface combatants. The committee notes that prior to 

announcing the DD(X) family in November 2001, the Navy had no 

plans to acquire a smaller combatant like the LCS. The primary intended missions of the LCS are countering enemy mines, submarines, and fast attack craft (i.e. ‘‘swarm boats’’) in heavily contested littoral waters. Secondary missions include intelligence, surVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00206 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.042 A106HR
183

veillance, and reconnaissance; homeland defense/maritime intercept; special operations forces support; and logistic support for 

movement of personnel and supplies. LCS would be the first Navy 

ship to separate capability from hull form, and modular mission 

payloads and open-system architecture are intended to be used to 

configure the LCS for particular missions. LCS will displace 2,000 

to 3,000 tons—about the size of a Coast Guard cutter or a corvette, 

have a reduced crew size of 15 to 50 ‘‘core’’ crewmembers, and have 

a maximum speed of 40 to 50 knots. The budget request indicates a total funding requirement of $4.1 

billion in the fiscal year 2004-fiscal year 2009 Future Years Defense Program to accelerate development and construction of nine 

LCS. The desired cost of each ship with a representative mission 

module payload is estimated to be no more than $220 million. The 

Navy plans a spiral development acquisition strategy that will support construction of multiple flights of focused mission LCS with 

progressive capability improvements. The Navy wants to procure a 

total of 30 to 60 LCS toward its goal of achieving an overall fleet 

of 375 ships. 

Prior to announcing the LCS program, the Navy did not conduct 

a formal analysis of alternatives to demonstrate that a ship like 

the LCS would be more cost-effective for performing the stated missions than potential alternative approaches. In the statement of 

managers (H. Rept. 107–772) that accompanied the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 

107–314), the conferees raised a number of issues with respect to 

development of LCS: meeting the requirements of a major defense 

acquisition milestone decision for initiation of concept and technology development; the acquisition strategy for development of the 

ship; development, integration and evaluation of the mission module packages that would be employed on the ship; and the program 

acquisition strategy. The Navy’s February 2003 report that was 

submitted in response to the legislation was a brief, summary document that provided little detail with regard to the analysis performed by the Navy in developing the requirement and the concept 

for LCS. The committee expects that the Secretary of the Navy will 

address more completely the issues raised in the statement of managers prior to proceeding to an Acquisition Program Initiation decision in mid-fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommends an authorization of $158.0 million in 

PE 63581N to continue LCS development. 

Littoral combat ship mission module development 

The budget request contained $158.1 million in PE 63581N for 

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) advanced component development and 

prototyping. 

The committee notes unfunded requirements in the Navy’s budget request for development risk reduction of anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-surface warfare (SUW), and mine warfare (MIW) 

mission modules for the LCS class ships. 

In the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 4546 (H. Rept. 107–772), the conferees expressed concern that the Navy’s strategy for the LCS does not clearly identify 

the plan and funding for development and evaluation of the mission modules upon which the operational capability of the LCS will 

184

depend. The conferees expressed the belief that the strategy for 

LCS development must provide for the identification, transition, 

and integration of the component technologies and subsystems to 

be included in the several mission modules and for the evaluation 

of each mission module as a system before its deployment on the 

LCS. 

The committee notes that additional funds for development risk 

reduction for LCS mission modules would permit more mature 

entry of mission module technologies into the spiral development 

process, and would facilitate early identification and mitigation of 

programmatic risks associated with incorporation and integration 

of these systems into the basic ship design. The committee understands that the additional funds would specifically support interface and SUW, ASW, and MIW mission module development, experimentation, testing, and adaptation of the modules for incorporation into LCS Flight 0 ships. The additional funds would also 

support mission module experimentation and testing focused on 

use of offboard vehicles and Flight I mission module concept development for LCS Flight I ships. The committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million in PE 

63581N for LCS mission module development. 

Littoral support craft-experimental 

The budget request contained $55.8 million in PE 63123N for force projection advanced technology development, including $5.0 

million to continue the development and construction of the Littoral Support Craft—Experimental (LSC–X). 

LSC–X is an Office of Naval Research program for development 

and demonstration of technologies for a small, fast, experimental 

ship designed to operate in the littorals. Designed to carry a variety of mission modules, the ship will serve as a test bed for new 

technologies and new operational concepts that would provide enhanced capabilities for anti-submarine warfare, mine countermeasures, and other operations in the littoral. The Navy has issued 

a contract for construction of the ship, which according to the 

Navy’s plan should be ready for initial sea trials in the summer of 

2004. 

The Secretary of the Navy submitted a report, dated August 6, 

2002, that provides the Navy’s plan for the development of the 

LSC–X. Since that report was prepared, the design for the LSC–

X has matured and the size of the ship has grown, as has the expected cost to complete construction of the ship. 

In the committee report on H.R. 4546 (H. Rept. 107–436), the 

committee expressed the view that a littoral support craft demonstrator such as the LCS–X design could be an effective experimental test bed for many of the technologies that might be chosen 

for use on a littoral combat ship. In the statement of managers accompanying the conference report on H.R. 4546 (H. Rept. 107–772), 

the conferees directed the Secretary of the Navy to develop LSC–

X as a complete system, including such combat, communications 

and weapons systems interfaces as may be required to demonstrate 

technologies and modular payloads, such as the affordable weapon 

system, that might be considered for the Littoral Combat Ship program. The conferees also directed the Secretary to update his report on the LSC–X development plan, identify any funding required 

185

for the LSC–X program, and submit the updated report with the 

budget request for fiscal year 2004. The Secretary’s report has not 

been received by the committee. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 

63123N to continue the program for development and construction 

of the LSC–X as a complete system as directed in the conference 

report referenced above. 

Low acoustic signature motor/propulsor

The budget request contained $62.6 million in PE 62747N for undersea warfare applied research. 

The committee notes that the low acoustic signature motor/

propulsor for electrically powered undersea vehicles (LAMPREY) 

plans to demonstrate an integrated motor-propulsor and power converter with extremely low acoustic signature for undersea vehicles. 

When integrated with an already developed, high power lithiumion battery system, the LAMPREY program will represent a new 

propulsion system for an upgraded MK–48 Advanced Capability 

torpedo. The LAMPREY test vehicle will also represent a 1/20thscale submarine and will provide valuable data for a larger scale 

version of the propulsion system that could ultimately be used in 

Virginia class submarines. The committee believes that a successful LAMPREY program would yield a propulsion system that provides a means of upgrading the existing torpedo inventory to a 

safer, lower cost electric propulsion system, improved torpedo 

stealth and reduced acoustic interference, and a small scale demonstrator for an advanced electric propulsion/integrated propulsor 

configuration for future submarines. Congress provided $2.1 million 

in fiscal year 2003 for the LAMPREY program. The committee recommends $65.1 million in PE 62747N, an increase of $2.5 million to continue development and demonstration 

of the low acoustic signature motor/propulsor. 

Low-power mega-performance unmanned aerial vehicle processing 

engines 

The budget request contained $173.5 million in PE 63114N for 

power projection advanced technology, but included no funding for 

low-power mega-performance unmanned aerial vehicle processing 

engines. 

The committee supports development of improved signal processing capability for unmanned aerial vehicles to support precision 

targeting and other missions. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million in PE 

63114N for low-power mega-performance unmanned aerial vehicle 

processing engines. 

Low probability of intercept surveillance radar demonstration 

The budget request contained $45.5 million in PE 63271N for 

force protection advanced technology development. 

The committee notes that the ability to detect small targets in 

a cluttered sea environment in the littoral is a major problem in 

military operations in the littoral and in coastal surveillance operations. The application of low probability of intercept radars capable of covert detection of small threat ships operating in the sea 

clutter and against the background of the land radar clutter enVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00209 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.043 A106HR
186

hances the capability for both detection and intercept of such 

threats in defensive operations and for avoidance of such threats 

in covert offensive operations. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

63271N for demonstration and evaluation of the use of advanced 

low probability of intercept, surveillance radars in littoral operational and coastal surveillance environments. 

Manned reconnaissance aircraft replacement 

The committee is aware that the military services are each facing 

requirements to replace existing manned reconnaissance aircraft, 

to include Army Guard Rail Common Sensor and Aerial Reconnaissance Low systems, the Navy Orion and the Air Force Rivet Joint. 

The committee is concerned that the services not only validate 

their future manned reconnaissance requirements, but also that 

these requirements be harmonized throughout the Department of 

Defense to prevent unnecessary duplication and assure interoperability, and take into consideration projected ground, unmanned 

and space-based capabilities. 

The committee believes that this broad coordination and validation must be completed prior to selection of appropriate platforms 

by each service. The committee recognizes that platform selection 

is important, but believes that such a decision cannot properly be 

made until the required capability of that platform has been determined. While platform commonality is desirable, the committee recognizes that due to differences in mission requirements that may 

not be practicable or preferable across services. The committee understands that more important than selecting a single aircraft is 

selecting the proper aircraft to meet the mission requirements for 

each service. 

The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense to 

ensure that acquisition of future manned reconnaissance aircraft is 

based on a well defined mission capability the particular platform 

must meet, rather than a desire to use a particular type of aircraft, 

and then fitting the mission to it. 

Marine mammal research program 

The budget request contained $52.2 million in PE 62236N for 

warfighter sustainment applied research. 

The committee notes continuing public concern about the effect 

of sound on the behavior and well-being of marine mammals and 

continues to support research in marine mammal behavior and the 

effects of sound on marine mammals. Fatal whale strandings over 

the past several years have been assumed to be the result of the 

introduction of loud sounds into the ocean, and have led to restrictions on scientific research and naval test and training activities 

that inject such acoustic signatures into the ocean environment. 

The committee also notes that limited data is available on the effects of such noise and that there is a need for greater understanding of the effects of human-generated and naturally-generated 

sounds on marine mammals. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.2 million in PE 62236N to continue the program for research in marine 

mammal behavior and the effects of sound on the behavior of marine mammals. 

187

Metrology 

The budget request contained $50.1 million in PE 64215N for standards development, including $1.3 million for calibration 

standards development. The budget request supports Navy leadservice responsibilities in the Department of Defense Joint Services 

metrology research and development program. 

The Department of Defense’s metrology research and development program develops new measurement standards and capabilities to support the development, test, evaluation, and maintenance 

of emerging military systems. The committee notes that continuing 

shortfalls in the metrology budgets of all the military departments 

have led to the erosion of critical calibration standards development and measurement services to the detriment of the development and support of new weapons systems. The committee is 

aware that while recent efforts to improve research and development funding are helping, a backlog of $22.0 million in projects exists for fiscal year 2004 and is expected to increase in fiscal year 

2005 unless additional funding is made available. The committee recommends $56.1 million in PE 64215N, an increase of $6.0 million for the Navy’s metrology research and development program. 

Mobile expandable shelters 

The budget request contained $56.4 million in PE 63640M for 

Marine Corps advanced technology demonstrations (ATD), but included no funds for mobile expandable rooms. 

The committee is aware of the need for highly mobile structures 

to support military operations including use as tactical shelters, 

emergency medical treatment clinics, food service facilities, and 

command centers. 

The committee recommends an increase of $500,000 in PE 

63640M to demonstrate expandable portable shelters. 

Modeling and simulation of surgical procedures for battlefield trauma 

The budget request contained $11.4 million in PE 63729N for 

warfighter protection advanced technology development. 

The committee notes continuing advances in the use of modeling 

and simulation for the development of advanced surgical procedures for battle trauma and the utility of such simulations for the 

training of field medical personnel. The committee recommends an increase of $4.5 million in PE 

63729N to continue the program for development of new protocols 

for modeling surgical procedures applicable to battlefield trauma. 

Multi-mission maritime aircraft 

The budget request contained $76.2 million in PE 65500N for 

multi-mission maritime aircraft (MMA) replacement systems for 

the aging P–3/EP–3 aircraft. 

The committee is aware that the Navy intends to pursue only the 

P–3 variant replacement system within MMA, and does not intend 

to continue the EP–3 replacement initiative within the line. Therefore, the committee understands that funding for the special reconnaissance technology insertion, replacements, and test articles for 

the EP–3 mission is no longer required. 

188

The committee recommends $58.7 million in PE 65500N, a decrease of $17.5 million for the MMA program. 

Naval architecture and engineering 

The budget request contained $70.7 million in PE 61103N for 

University Research Initiatives. 

The committee notes increased interest by the Navy in smaller, 

high-speed ships, such as the Littoral Combat Ship, for operations 

in the world’s littoral regions. The Coast Guard also has requirements for such vessels for coastal security and drug intercept operations. At the same time that Navy interest in such ships is increasing, the numbers of naval architects and naval engineers 

being trained by the nation’s colleges and universities with maritime engineering programs is decreasing and some institutions of 

higher learning are considering deleting such programs from their 

curricula. The committee believes that unless these trends are reversed, it is inevitable that U.S. Naval ships will eventually lag in 

both innovation and technical development. The committee is 

aware that the root causes of this phenomenon are complex and include the loss of career opportunities and university curricula in 

naval architecture and engineering. The committee believes there 

has been little focus on integrating all the engineering disciplines 

associated with shipbuilding, such as composite materials, hull design, propulsion systems, ship systems integration and automation. 

The committee also believes there is an urgent need for undergraduate and graduate instruction in the various disciplines that 

have contributed to the nation’s preeminence in maritime systems, 

including naval architecture, hydrodynamics, and ocean engineering. The committee notes that the National Research Council recently issued a report on the status of this nation’s facilities in the 

area of naval hydromechanics that called for significant national 

investment directed at improving U.S. capabilities in naval 

hydromechanics, and also called for ‘‘a more active collaborative relationship between university and (Navy) center researchers. . . .’’ 

To address these issues, the committee recommends an increase 

of $6.0 million in PE 61103N for a grant for improvements in highspeed hydrodynamic research capabilities and university research 

programs in naval architecture, hydrodynamics, and ocean engineering. 

Naval collaboration tool set 

The budget request contained $30.6 million in PE 65013N for 

Navy information technology development. 

The committee notes the development and application of network 

centric information systems and collaboration tools that use basic 

internet worldwide web technology and commercial-off-the-shelf 

computer and software products to enable operational commanders 

and their staffs to rapidly share battlespace information and situational awareness, thereby achieving greater mission effectiveness 

and speed of command and control. The ongoing application of information sharing and collaboration tools creates the opportunity 

for the Navy to capitalize on the experience gained in prototype 

web-based information systems now being used in the fleet in various warfare areas and develop a ‘‘best of breed,’’ web-based set of 

collaboration tools that will enhance the ability of naval comVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00212 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.045 A106HR
189

manders and their staffs to operate in a common, integrated data 

environment. Congress provided $5.6 million in fiscal year 2003 to 

accelerate the development of naval collaboration tools that can be 

used in all naval warfare areas and domains. 

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 

65013N to continue the program for development of a common collaboration toolset that will be useable across all Navy warfare 

areas and domains. 

Naval fires network tactical dissemination module 

The budget request contained $63.4 million for land attack technology advanced component and prototype development, including 

$14.7 million for the Naval Fires Network (NFN). 

The Naval Fires Network is a system that will automate, coordinate, and correlate, in real time, the processing of multiple tactical 

data streams from various surveillance and intelligence sources to 

provide time-critical fire control solutions for advanced weapon systems and sensors, and will provide the Navy an ability to quickly 

target and retarget precisions weapons, thereby greatly enhancing 

their effectiveness and lethality. The tactical dissemination module 

will provide the capability for transmitting target data directly 

from the NFN to the weapon system chosen to engage the target. 

As a part of the tactical dissemination module development and integration with NFN, concept of operations and operational deployment tactics are also being developed. The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

63795N to continue the development of the NFN tactical dissemination module. 

Navy circuit breaker electronic trip unit second source 

The budget request contained $20.4 million in PE 63513N for 

shipboard system component development. 

The committee notes the development of circuit breakers with 

communicating electronic trip units and the planned use of such 

‘‘smart circuit breakers’’ on the next-generation CVN-X aircraft carrier and perhaps on the DD(X) multi-mission destroyer as well. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 

63513N to develop and qualify a second source for Navy circuit 

breaker electronic trip units. 

Navy information technology research and development 

The budget request contained $78.7 million for PE 65014N to 

support the development of the Defense Integrated Military 

Human Resource System (DIMHRS). 

The committee is seriously concerned about the lack of management oversight of this program. DIMHRS is already fifteen months 

behind schedule and a contract has not been awarded. Thus, when 

this information technology system begins initial operating capacity, the program will be two years behind schedule. 

The committee recommends $50.7 million for PE 65014N, a decrease of $28.0 million. 

Nonlinear dynamics stochastic resonance 

The budget request contained $11.1 million in PE 63254N for 

anti-submarine warfare (ASW) systems development, including the 

190

continued development and evaluation of nonlinear dynamics and 

stochastic resonance (NDSR) for acoustic, magnetic, and other ASW 

sensor and signal processing applications. 

The committee notes the continuing progress in the application 

of nonlinear dynamics science and technology to nonacoustic shallow water ASW and the potential for greatly improved ASW system 

performance as a result of significantly increased electromagnetic 

detection ranges, enhanced sonar target discrimination, and improved signal processing. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63254N to continue development and evaluation of nonlinear dynamics and stochastic resonance for acoustic, magnetic, and other 

ASW sensor and signal processing applications. 

Offshore mobile basing 

The budget contained no funding for conceptual studies to examine the operational viability, costs and technological feasibility for 

mobile basing concepts. 

The committee believes that based on real world lessons learned 

from both Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, maritime sea basing that removes dependence on host country willingness to allow U.S. forces to access host country facilities 

is a growing option that deserves consideration. Accordingly, the committee authorizes an additional $10.0 million in PE 63123N for the purposes of examining concepts such as 

the Rapidly Deployable Inter-modal Facility for potential development by the Department. 

Open architecture wireless sensors 

The budget request contained $30.6 million in PE 65013N for information technology system development and demonstration. 

The committee notes that the applications of wireless networking 

have achieved significant cost reductions and benefits to the U.S. 

Navy in ship building through the use of wearable computers, personal data assistants, and wireless communications devices that 

enable supervisors, engineers, technicians, and construction workers to coordinate their activities more efficiently. The committee believes that the future insertion of wireless network applications 

through the shipboard environment and the converging of multiple 

networks into a single ship-wide network could facilitate significant 

improvements in ship operations, damage control, maintenance, 

and other activities. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 

65013N for development and demonstration of open architecture 

wireless sensors and their applications to improvements in ship operations, maintenance and monitoring of ship systems, damage 

control, and other activities. 

Organ transfer technology 

The budget request contained $11.4 million in PE 63729N for 

warfighter protection advanced technology development. No funds 

were requested for continuation of the organ transfer technology 

program. 

The committee continues to note progress in the development of 

immune therapies by investigators at the Naval Medical Research 

191

Center that have been shown to prevent the rejection of tissue and 

organ transplants without the need for continuous use of immunosuppressive drugs. In fiscal year 2001 the Chief of Naval Research 

initiated a program to capitalize on these newly developed methods 

of treatment and Congress has provided a total of $8.0 million in 

support of the clinical trials program since fiscal year 2001. 

The committee notes the continuing progress in the clinical trial 

program. The committee believes that the ability to transplant 

massive tissue segments without rejection could revolutionize the 

treatment of combat casualties who suffer significant tissue loss or 

organ damage from blast, missile fragments or burns. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

63729N to continue the organ transfer technology clinical trials 

program. 

Project M 

The budget request contained $55.8 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology development. 

The committee notes the progress in the Office of Naval Research 

(ONR) program to evaluate the ability of Project M technology to 

mitigate the high shock and vibration experienced by the Navy 

SEALS Mark V patrol craft crew and passengers in high-speed special operations. Project M is an active noise and vibration cancellation system that was developed in the Navy’s advanced submarine 

technology program. Proof-of-principle laboratory tests using advanced six degree-of-freedom simulators developed in the program 

have demonstrated the clear ability of the technology to reduce 

Mark V patrol craft shock loading and vertical acceleration to acceptable levels and reduce the potential for crew and passenger injury that would otherwise occur. The committee believes that the 

technology is ready for transition from the science and technology 

base and should be considered favorably by the Navy and by the 

Special Operations Command for implementation in the Mark V 

patrol craft and in other systems in which the acceleration levels 

and shock loading that would be experienced by passengers and 

crew are dangerously high. 

The committee also notes the application of Project M technology 

to reduce the magnetic signature (‘‘degauss’’) of electric propulsion 

motors. As the Navy places increased emphasis on the introduction 

of the ‘‘electric’’ ship and the use of electric motors for ship propulsion, reduction of the magnetic signature of the ship as a defense 

against magnetic-influence mines, particularly in littoral operations, will become increasingly important. Project M technology 

has been demonstrated in the laboratory to reduce the pronounced 

magnetic signature present in a relatively large (1,000 horsepower) 

electric motor to the magnetic intensity of the earth’s magnetic 

field with the result that the motor’s magnetic signature disappears into the background of the earth’s magnetic field. The committee strongly recommends that the Navy consider the exploitation of the Project M technology for magnetic signature reduction 

in new construction ships such as the DD(X) destroyer and the Littoral Combat Ship. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63123N to continue the development and demonstration of Project 

M technology. The committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in 

192

coordination with the Commander, Special Operations Command, 

to report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 

2004, plans for transition of Project M shock reduction technology 

to potential operational use. The committee also directs the Secretary to report Department of the Navy plans for further development, evaluation, and exploitation of Project M technology for magnetic signature reduction. 

Quad hull security caisson technical demonstration 

The budget request contained $55.8 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology development. 

The committee notes that many strategic ports in the United 

States have military pre-positioned ships, sensitive land-based resources, and facilities that are highly vulnerable to waterside terrorist attacks. In high volume, higher threat locations where Navy 

and other strategic ships share the port in close proximity to commercial containers, international tankers, and other watercraft, 

and in ports with international commercial shipping, Navy and 

military strategic ships may require the use of additional protective 

measures that could minimize the potential for damage to the ships 

and their crews. The committee is aware of initial studies and 

analysis of the ability of caisson security barriers to provide robust 

and economical protection against attack, both above and below the 

waterline of the protected ship. The committee recommends an increase of $16.0 million in PE 

63123N to initiate a program for development and evaluation of 

caisson security barriers for ship and port protection. 

Rapid deployment fortification wall live-fire testing 

The budget request contained $56.4 million in PE 63640M for 

Marine Corps advanced technology demonstration (ATD), but included no funds for rapid deployment fortification wall live-fire 

testing. 

The committee is aware that the rapid deployment fortification 

wall, if proven in live-fire testing, offers significantly faster means 

to provide force protection compared to sand bagging. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 

63640M for rapid fortification wall. 

Reduction of catapult post-retraction exhaust discharge 

The budget request contained $54.8 million in PE 63236N for 

warfighter sustainment advanced technology development. 

The committee notes that, prior to an aircraft carrier catapult 

launching stroke, lubricating oil is applied to the catapult cylinder. 

Over the course of multiple launchings the circulation of oil and 

water through the water brake cylinder and tanks leads to the formation of an oil layer in the water brake tank, which must be 

skimmed off and discharged overboard periodically. The committee 

believes that today’s technology allows for the use of dry lubricants 

on sliding mechanisms that have the potential to reduce the overall 

discharge of lubricants into the sea, while at the same time improving catapult system performance and reducing maintenance requirements. The committee recommends that the Secretary of the 

Navy establish a project to analyze failure modes in existing aircraft carrier systems and the potential for replacement of current 

193

petroleum based lubricants with dry lubricants that might be more 

environmentally safe. The committee also believes that this project 

should be accompanied by the development of a wireless system 

that would permit real-time monitoring of catapult performance. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 63236N for reduction of catapult post-retraction exhaust 

discharge and development of a real-time catapult performance 

monitoring system. 

Remote ocean surveillance system 

The budget request contained $45.5 million in PE 63271N for 

radio frequency systems advanced technology development. 

The committee notes developments in high contrast, high resolution multi-spectral sensors and image processing technology that 

indicate potential capabilities for detection of objects in the ocean 

in real time, at various depths, and with relatively high search 

rates. Realization and employment of these technologies in littoral 

areas, estuaries, and ports would provide the capability for a remote ocean surveillance system for mine detection and avoidance, 

force protection, and identification and dissemination of information on surface/sub-surface threat to ports and harbors. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

63271N to initiate a proof-of-concept demonstration of multi-spectral sensor and image processing technology for a remote ocean 

surveillance system. 

Shadow 200 system components for the Marine Corps 

The budget request contained $56.5 million in PE 35204N for 

tactical unmanned aerial vehicles but included no funds for Shadow 200 system components for the Marine Corps.

The committee is aware that operation and maintenance of Marine Corps Pioneer unmanned aerial vehicle systems could be 

greatly enhanced if upgraded with certain Shadow 200 components. 

The committee recommends an increase of $8.5 million in PE 

35204N for Shadow 200 vehicle control system software and ground 

data terminals for the Marine Corps. 

Shipboard fire protection 

The budget included $114.1 million in PE 62114N for applied research, in part, to support the protection of naval shipboard assets 

and expeditionary forces ashore. Shipboard and ashore fires threaten sailors and valuable assets. Current thermal imaging technology 

suffers thermal bloom and inhibits firefighters attempting to rescue 

personnel and contain fires. Technology exists that offers promise 

of providing non-thermal light detection and ranging technology 

that provides both the visualization of victims that are obscured by 

the glare and thermal bloom of fire and their surroundings (steps, 

obstructions, missing floors, fallen objects, etc.). The same technologies could provide operational utility by providing the ability to 

visualize targets through flame and smoke obscured battlefields. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

62114N for applied research into promising non-thermal imaging 

technologies, to include firelidar, for military and civilian firefighting and operational applications. 

194

Silver Fox unmanned aerial vehicle 

The budget request contained $114.1 million in PE 62114N for 

power projection applied research, and included no funds for the 

Silver Fox unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). 

The committee is aware that the Office of Naval Research accelerated development of the Silver Fox UAV to support urgent military requirements. The committee notes that early reports indicate 

that Silver Fox has been very effective in the combat environment. 

The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 

62114N for development and initial fielding of the Silver Fox. 

Station-keeping ocean environment sensors 

The budget request contained $48.8 million in PE 62435N for 

ocean warfighting environment applied research, including $8.1 

million for applied research in battlespace environment sensors 

and data. 

The committee notes the capability to observe the ocean environment at a known location over an extended period of time contributes significantly to understanding the ocean temperature, currents, wave height, sound levels, and other physical phenomena at 

that location and the impact of those phenomena on the global environment. However, such capabilities today are primarily dependent upon the use of moored sensors or sensors emplaced on the 

ocean floor. 

The committee believes that geolocation technologies such as the 

global positioning system when combined with station-keeping and 

intra-sensor communications technologies, could provide the capability for establishing individual or fields of long-term ‘‘stationkeeping’’ ocean environment sensors that would sense and maintain their location and could significantly improve our knowledge 

of the ocean environment in the area where the sensors were emplaced. When applied to undersea warfare sensors, such stationkeeping technologies could provide the capability for rapidly 

emplacing a floating field of ‘‘smart’’ sensors to observe the undersea environment in an area, including the presence of submarines 

and other undersea vehicles, and maintain the position of the individual sensors and the sensor field in the area over an extended 

period of time without the need to lay or anchor such a field on the 

ocean floor. 

The committee believes that there is a range of technologies that 

could be considered to enable the capability for such station-keeping sensors and sensors fields, including some that might rely upon 

local environmental effects (such as wind, solar energy, of temperature differentials) for their motive power, miniaturized geolocation 

technologies, and technologies for sensor data storage, transmission, and intra-field communication. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 

62435N to establish a program to assess the feasibility of such station-keeping sensors and their potential application to oceanographic research and enhanced undersea warfighting capabilities. 

Submarine payloads and sensors 

The budget request contained $52.7 million in PE 63561N for advanced submarine system development. 

195

The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency/Navy submarine payloads and sensors program resulted in the development of a number of innovative but realistic 

payload, sensor, and platform concepts that could enable a revolutionary expansion of capabilities and allow the submarine to play 

a more decisive role in Joint Force operations, especially in the 

ability to exert greater influence over events on shore. The concepts 

provide a potential roadmap to the future through successive implementations that would use the Virginia class nuclear attack submarine as a baseline point of departure. The SSGN conversion of 

the SSBN ballistic missile submarine would provide additional volume that could also be used for significant payload increases. Congress provided $3.5 million in fiscal year 2003 for follow-on studies 

and demonstration of advanced submarine payload, sensors, and 

employment concepts, some of which were demonstrated in the 

Navy’s GIANT SHADOW exercise. The committee is aware that increased funding in fiscal year 2004 would be used for at sea demonstrations of these transformational concepts and to begin development of those new payloads that would provide the most value 

to the joint warfighter. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 63561N for submarine payloads and sensors. 

Submarine sonar improvements 

The budget request contained $80.8 million in PE 64503N for 

submarine sonar improvements system development and demonstration, including $29.1 million for continuation of the acoustic 

rapid commercial-of-the-shelf insertion (A–RCI) program. 

The A–RCI program upgrades current sonar systems with open 

architecture commercial-off-the-shelf computer technology that uses 

advanced processing builds (APB) and multipurpose processor 

(MPP) middleware developed under a small business innovative research (SBIR) Phase III program to provide continued upgrades as 

technology develops. The committee notes the significant improvements in sonar system capabilities that have resulted from the application of MPP/APB technology to Navy submarine sonar systems. The committee has strongly supported the Navy’s selection of 

the MPP as the cornerstone for sonar upgrades for existing submarines the development of advanced MPP signal processing technology and advanced processing builds and the integration of these 

capabilities in submarine, airborne, surface sonar, and undersea 

surveillance systems. The committee believes that the Navy’s funding of the MPP/APB process as part of its core anti-submarine warfare research and development program demonstrates the Navy’s 

commitment to transformation of its anti-submarine warfare capabilities. 

The committee recommends $80.8 million in PE 64503N, including $29.1 million for continued development of the MPP/APB SBIR 

Phase III program for submarine sonar improvements. 

Superconducting DC homopolar motor 

The budget request contained $55.8 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology development, including $34.2 

million for advanced development of surface ship and submarine 

hull, mechanical, and electrical systems. No funds were requested 

196

to continue the program for development and demonstration of a 

superconducting direct current homopolar motor. 

As noted elsewhere in this report, development of component 

technologies for the all electric warship is one of the major goals 

of the Navy’s science and technology program. To this end the 

Navy has pursued the development of several different technologies 

for ship main propulsion electric motors. The committee notes that 

superconducting motor technology presents a number of advantages with respect to size and power density that make that technology potentially advantageous for certain applications. The committee also notes that low temperature superconducting direct current (DC) homopolar motor technology has the potential technical 

advantages of being smaller, lighter, and quieter than alternating 

current (AC) electric motors that, if realized, would make the 

superconducting DC homopolar motor a potentially more suitable 

alternate for use in submarines or in other ship applications where 

these attributes are desired. 

The committee notes the progress that has been made in the Office of Naval Research project for development of superconducting 

DC homopolar motor technology, and recommends that the Navy 

continue to extend the technology to design, development, demonstration, and evaluation of a full-scale motor ship main propulsion motor. 

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 

63123N to continue the development of Superconducting DC 

Homopolar motor technology. 

Surface Navy integrated undersea tactical technology—mine warfare trainer 

The budget request contained $140.7 million in PE 63502N for 

surface and shallow water mine counter measures advanced component development and prototypes. 

The committee notes the critical role played by sonar and mine 

warfare systems operators’ proficiency in distinguishing between 

mines and mine-like objects and in distinguishing between different types of mines. The Surface Navy Integrated Undersea Tactical Technology—Mine Warfare (SNIUTT–MIW) trainer is a comprehensive training demonstration test-bed that is designed to address recognized deficiencies in the sonar operator’s proficiency. 

SNIUTT–MIW leverages and integrates the capabilities of existing 

surface combatant and aircraft carrier mine and sonar systems and 

the lessons learned from those systems to provide a common, coordinated baseline training system capability that is not currently 

available in the Navy mine and undersea warfare force. Congress 

provided $3.8 million in fiscal year 2003 for development of a testbed demonstration to enhance mine warfare operator training and 

performance. 

The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE 

63502N to continue development and evaluation of the SNIUTTMIW test bed undersea warfare systems trainer. 

Theater undersea warfare initiative 

The budget request contained $59.0 million in PE 62235N for 

common picture applied research. No funds were requested to continue the Theater Undersea Warfare Initiative. 

197

The committee notes that Congress added $8.5 million in fiscal 

year 2003 for the Theater Undersea Warfare Initiative, which 

seeks to enhance the Navy’s network centric capability for maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) and provide a near real-time, collaborative communication, command and control capability for MPA operations in the theater. The current program focuses on research, 

development and test of prototype sensor data fusion and automation technology for MPA, improved bandwidth utilization, and incorporation of electro-optical/infrared, radar, magnetic, and other 

onboard digital sensor data. The committee understands that upon 

completion of the initiative, the capabilities developed and demonstrated in the project will transition into the common undersea 

picture program of record. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 

62235N to complete the Theater Undersea Warfare Initiative and 

provide MPA a beyond-line-of-sight, secure digital communications, 

command and control capability with increased capability for sensor data fusion and automation. 

Unmanned aerial vehicle joint operational test bed system 

The budget request contained $56.5 million in PE 35204N for 

tactical unmanned aerial vehicles, but included no funding for the 

Joint Forces Command (JFCOM) unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) 

joint operational test bed system (JOTBS). 

The committee is aware that UAV interoperability is fundamental to optimal joint operations. The Joint Forces Command 

UAV JOTBS was established to further development of various 

service UAV’s to ensure interoperability under realistic conditions, 

and the committee strongly supports this mission. The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 

35204N for the JFCOM JOTBS. 

Unmanned aerial vehicles concept of operations 

The budget request contained $7.1 million in PE 63261N for tactical airborne reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) concept of operations studies for the Navy. 

The committee notes that both the Navy’s broad area maritime 

surveillance (BAMS) and Global Hawk maritime demonstration 

system (GHMD) programs contain funding for concept of operations 

and interoperability studies. The Navy has covered the course for 

UAV concept of operations through the years, and naval UAV integration has shown scant benefit from such efforts. The committee 

believes that the funding is better applied within the UAV programs themselves. 

The committee supports the requirement for UAV integration 

into the naval environment but believes that this program is duplicative of other Navy efforts.

The committee recommends no funds in PE 63261N, a decrease 

of $7.1 million. 

Vacuum electronics 

The budget request contained $44.0 million in PE 62271N for 

radio frequency systems applied research, including $4.5 million for 

applied research in radio frequency vacuum electronics power amplifiers. 

198

The committee report on H.R. 1402 (H. Rept. 106–162) noted the 

committee’s support for a robust vacuum electronics research and 

development program in the Department of Defense and other federal agencies. The committee endorses the criticality of support for 

both vacuum electronics and solid-state power technologies and recommendations for increased funding in the tri-service vacuum electronics program and for advanced wide bandgap semiconductor 

technology development. 

The committee expects the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) through the Director of Defense 

Research and Engineering to ensure a balanced investment strategy for vacuum electronics and solid state power technologies that 

will meet Department of Defense requirements for current and future systems that use radio frequency power electronics. The committee recommends an increase of $9.5 million in PE 

62271N for applied research in vacuum electronics. 

Virginia class multi-mission module 

The budget request contained $112.4 million in PE 64558N for 

Virginia class submarine design development system development 

and demonstration. 

The committee notes the experience gained in the development, 

design, and implementation of multi-mission capabilities in the 

USS Jimmy Carter (SSN–23). The committee believes that the 

modular design of the Virginia class submarine lends itself to the 

evaluation of multi-mission module concepts for that submarine 

that could be considered for insertion in selected hull numbers of 

the class to increase payload capacity, capability for technology insertion, and adaptability to new missions. The committee recommends $122.4 million in PE 64558N, an increase of $10.0 million for the evaluation of modular payload concepts and multi-mission modules for Virginia class submarine 

variants that would increase payload capacity and mission capability. 

Wide band gap semiconductor power electronics 

The budget request contained $32.1 million in PE 62712E and 

$3.5 million in PE 62271N for applied research in wide band gap 

semiconductor electronics. Section 212 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal year 2002 (Public Law 107–107) required 

the Secretary of Defense to carry out a cooperative program to develop and demonstrate advanced technologies and concepts for future Navy radar systems and other applications with particular 

emphasis on development of high frequency and high power wide 

band gap semiconductor materials and devices. 

The committee continues to place a high priority on the development of the technology for advanced wide band gap semiconductor 

materials and devices for future naval radar and other applications. The December 2000 Special Technology Review on Radio Frequency Applications for Wide Band Gap Technology by the Office 

of the under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) recommended an increased science and technology investment in wide band gap materials, devices, circuits, and packaging 

that would total approximately $30.0 million per year over a fiveyear period, beginning in fiscal year 2002, in order to develop the 

199

technologies necessary to field advanced radar systems in time to 

meet the Navy’s and the Department’s requirements in 2015. The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 

62271N for wide band gap semiconductor power electronics applied 

research. 

AIR FORCE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, & EVALUATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $20,336.3 million for Air Force research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). 

The committee recommends $20,548.9 million, an increase of 

$212.6 million to the budget request.

200


Insert graphic folio 233 87068.097
201


Insert graphic folio 234 87068.098
202


Insert graphic folio 235 87068.099
203


Insert graphic folio 236 87068.100
204


Insert graphic folio 237 87068.101
205


Insert graphic folio 238 87068.102
206


Insert graphic folio 239 87068.103
207


Insert graphic folio 240 87068.104
208


Insert graphic folio 241 87068.105
209


Insert graphic folio 242 87068.106
210


Insert graphic folio 243 87068.107
211


Insert graphic folio 244 87068.108
212

Items of Special Interest 

3D Bias Woven Preforms 

The budget request contained no funding for 3D Bias Woven performs. 

The committee believes that fiber weaving technology incorporating +/¥45 degree fibers in 3D composite fiber reinforcements 

for use in aircraft structural joints could increase joint strength 

and damage tolerance, enabling incorporation of low cost composite 

structures technology to highly loaded joint applications. 

The committee recommends an authorization of $34.1 million in 

PE 63211F, an increase of $3.0 million for three dimensional bias 

woven performs phase III. 

Advanced extremely high frequency MILSATCOM 

The budget request contained $778.1 million in PE 63430F for 

advanced extremely high frequency (AEHF) MILSATCOM 

(SPACE). 

The committee is aware of the increased importance of satellite 

communications for the warfighter and the increased capability 

AEHF would provide. The committee notes that additional funding 

is required for program risk reduction and spare parts for the first 

two satellites. 

The committee recommends $838.1 million in PE 63430F, an increase of $60.0 million for AEHF. 

Advanced spacecraft technology 

The budget request contained $72.1 million in PE 63401F for advanced spacecraft technology, but included no funds for small 

launch vehicle thermal protection technology. 

The committee notes that thermal protection system (TPS) technology risk reduction activities such as subscale component and 

flight demonstration are a significant part of the critical path to development of low cost small launch vehicles (SLV) for Department 

of Defense spacelift. The committee is aware that small satellite 

technology has been hindered by the lack of affordable and reliable 

spacelift. 

The committee recommends $74.0 million in PE 63401F, an increase of $1.9 million for SLV thermal protection technology. 

Advanced Threat Alert Receiver (ATAR)/Lightweight Modular Support Jammer (LMSJ)

The budget request contained $28.5 million in PE 63270F for 

electronic combat technology, including $2.8 million for ATAR/

LMSJ. 

ATAR will provide scalable, open architecture, affordable digital 

receiver technology to multiple electronic warfare platforms. LMSJ 

will provide next-generation digital technique generators and solid 

state power module technology in a scalable, open architecture for 

electronic jammers. Several new platforms are being envisioned as 

a follow-on replacement to the EA–6, requiring acceleration of 

ATAR/LMSJ technology to ensure the delivery of a brass board, 

conduct risk reduction research, and generate high fidelity threat 

emitter environments. 

213

The committee recommends $33.3 million in PE 63270F, an increase of $4.8 million for ATAR/LMSJ. 

Advanced wideband system 

The budget request contained $439.3 million in PE 63845F for 

the advanced wideband system (AWS). 

The committee notes that the transformational communications 

system (TCS) architecture within which AWS use is envisioned is 

still being developed. The committee further notes that underlying 

systems engineering for AWS faces significant challenges and much 

of the AWS technology base is very immature. 

While the committee supports the goal of TCS, the committee believes that a slower program start for AWS will be beneficial to 

allow maturation of TCS architecture and AWS technology. The committee recommends $359.3 million in PE 63845F, a decrease of $80.0 million for AWS. 

Aircraft turbine engine sustainment 

The budget request included no funding in PE 78026F for the 

productivity, reliability availability, maintainability (PRAM) program for aircraft turbine engine sustainment. 

The committee believes that investments in technologies for nondestructive inspection of aircraft engines show the potential of saving millions of dollars. The committee recommends $7.0 million in PE 78026F, an increase of $7.0 million for the PRAM program. 

Air Force information technology research and development 

The budget request contained $62.3 million for PE 28006F to 

support the Air Force Mission Planning Systems and an unspecified amount to support information technology (IT) research and 

development. 

The committee is concerned about excessive and unjustified 

growth in the Air Force’s research, development, testing, and evaluation expenditures for IT programs. While the committee supports 

innovative research into emerging technologies that will support 

combat and business systems modernization, the committee is 

nonetheless concerned that the Mission Planning Systems research 

and development expenditures increased four fold in one year, and 

notes similar increases in other IT programs. 

The committee recommends $39.3 million for PE 28006F, a decrease of $23.0 million. 

Air Force space fence 

The budget request contained $118.2 million in PE 35910F for 

SPACETRACK, but included no funds to upgrade the Air Force 

space fence. 

The committee notes that responsibility for the legacy Navy fence 

developed in the 1950’s has recently been transferred to the Air 

Force. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to continue to fully operate the fence and the alternate space control center through fiscal year 2004. The committee also directs the Secretary of the Air Force to conduct a thorough evaluation of options 

during fiscal year 2004 to upgrade or replace the existing fence in 

the near future in order to better meet the critical space situational 

214

awareness requirements. This evaluation should study options for 

applying different technologies as well as different basing concepts 

and locations. 

The committee supports the requirement for improved space control and recommends $138.2 million in PE 35910F, an increase of 

$20.0 million for Air Force space fence. 

Ballistic missile technology program 

The budget request contained no funds in PE 63311F for the ballistic missile technology program. 

The committee is aware that the ballistic missile technology program supports development of critical technologies related to advanced guidance, range safety instrumentation and common guidance sensors. 

The committee recommends $10.0 million in PE 63311F for the 

ballistic missile technology program. 

Central measurement intelligence office 

The budget request contained $71.7 million in PE 62702F for 

command, control and communications, but included no funds for 

laser intelligence or passive coherent location. 

The committee is aware that the central measurement and signature intelligence (MASINT) office (CMO) supports two initiatives: 

the first at the National Air Intelligence Center (NAIC) to establish 

a laser intelligence effort on current and emerging laser technologies, and the second to accelerate development of passive coherent location (PCL) capability to include: 

(1) Augmentation of the national airspace, 

(2) Provide expansion to deployable integrated air defenses, 

and 

(3) Further evaluate the capabilities that PCL will provide 

the war fighter. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 

62702F to establish a laser intelligence effort on current and 

emerging laser technologies, and to accelerate development of passive coherent location (PCL). 

Civil reserve space service 

The budget request contained $18.6 million in PE 35110F for satellite control network (space), but included no funding for civil reserve space service. 

The committee recommends $21.6 million in PE 35110F, an increase of $3.0 million for civil reserve space service. 

Common aero vehicle 

The budget request contained $12.2 million in PE 64856F for 

Common Aero Vehicle (CAV). 

The committee notes that the CAV program is a joint Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency-Air Force program to develop 

an on demand conventional prompt global strike capability. The 

committee is aware that CAV could appear to be a non-conventional launch and directs the Secretary of Defense to develop and 

provide a concept of operations for CAV that precludes any 

misperception of CAV launch intent to the congressional defense 

215

committees, prior to conducting any developmental launches of 

CAV and no later than March 31, 2004. 

The committee recommends $24.2 million in PE 64856F, an increase of $12.0 million for CAV. 

Distributed common ground system 

The budget request contained a total of $65.0 million in PE 

35208F and other program elements for distributed common 

ground system (DCGS). 

The committee is aware that the Navy, Air Force and Army had 

embarked on a collaborative effort to develop and acquire a joint, 

interoperable DCGS by providing requirements to the Air Force for 

incorporation into its DCGS Block 10.2. The committee believes 

that though service applications and subsystems may vary as a 

consequence of differing missions and employment concepts, a joint 

architectural framework and common data management system is 

necessary to ensure a transparent exchange of information and to 

achieve service interoperability. 

The committee applauds this unified approach, but is concerned 

that the Navy has recently withdrawn from this initiative. The 

committee believes that it is imperative that the services act together in their approach to DCGS, and that separate service standards are inherently wrong. 

Therefore, the committee approves the request, but directs the 

Secretary of Defense to stipulate a single architectural standard for 

the DCGS program that meets the ASD (C3I) requirements and 

maintains a common, open, non-proprietary standard. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report the status of establishing a single DCGS standard to the congressional defense 

and intelligence committees no later than January 31, 2004. 

Distributed mission interoperability toolkit (DMIT) program 

The budget request contained $239,000 in PE 64740F for development of integrated command and control applications, but included no funds for the DMIT program. 

The DMIT is a suite of software tools that enables interoperability among and between air mission command, control, communication, computer and intelligence (C4I) systems and mission simulator models. The committee understands that DMIT program 

leverages best practices from the commercial sector including the 

use of open architectures, existing and emerging web standards, 

and state-of-the-art technologies to provide a more efficient translation of air mission tasks from C4I systems into a format compatible with mission simulator formats; and notes that the Congress 

appropriated an increase of $4.0 million in fiscal year 2003 for this 

purpose. 

The committee recommends $5.2 million in PE 64740F, an increase of $5.0 million for continuation of the DMIT program. 

Enhanced techniques for detection of explosives 

The budget request contained $24.5 million in PE 63287F for 

physical security equipment advanced component development and 

prototyping. 

Detection of explosives is a major concern in today’s post cold 

war environment, both from the standpoint of the war on terrorism 

216

and with respect to the detection of land mines and unexploded 

ordnance on the world’s battlefields. The committee believes that a 

multi-disciplinary approach to research and development in advanced technologies for the detection of explosives, improvised explosive devices, landmines, and unexploded ordnance could result 

in the development of new and novel approaches for using existing 

explosive detection technologies and to the development of new, 

more effective technologies. 

The committee recommends $27.5 million in PE 63287F, an increase of $3.0 million for enhanced techniques for detection of explosives. 

F–15 C/D radar block upgrade 

The budget request contained $112.1 million in PE 27134F for 

development of new capabilities for the F–15 series aircraft, but included no funds for the F–15C/D radar block upgrade program. 

The F–15C/D radar block upgrade program, which began in fiscal 

year 2002, develops the next-generation active electronically 

scanned array (AESA) radar for F–15C/D aircraft. The committee 

understands that the AESA radar will provide improved F–15C/D 

radar performance, including a new capability to detect and engage 

cruise missiles. 

The committee recommends $128.6 million in PE 27134F, an increase of $16.5 million for continuation of pre-production development on the F–15C/D radar block upgrade program. 

F–16 squadrons 

The budget request contained $87.5 million in PE 27133F for development of new capabilities for the F–16 series aircraft, but included no funds for the AN/APG–68(V)9 radar upgrade program or 

for F–16 block 40/42 AN/APX–113 integration. 

The AN/APG–68(V)9 radar upgrade program will provide improved performance and savings compared to the F–16’s existing 

AN/APG–68(V)5 radar. The committee understands that the AN/

APG–68(V)9’s increased reliability features combined with newer, 

more available digital parts will significantly decrease annual operations and support costs. Additionally, the committee understands 

that the AN/APG–68(V)9 will provide the F–16 with high-resolution synthetic aperture radar maps that will allow the employment 

of precision-guided munitions in all-weather conditions, and that 

this upgrade is strongly supported by the Air Force’s Air Combat 

Command. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of 

$10.0 million for the AN/APG–68(V)9 radar upgrade program. 

The AN/APX–113 is an advanced electronic identification system 

used at long ranges to determine whether aircraft are friendly or 

enemy. If the data received from the AN/APX–113 notifies the pilot 

that the aircraft is enemy, then the pilot can engage the enemy aircraft with beyond-visual-range anti-aircraft missiles. The committee notes that most F–16 block 40/42 aircraft belong to the Air 

National Guard (ANG) and participate in homeland defense combat 

air patrol (CAP) missions, and that Congress appropriated $2.0 

million in fiscal year to begin F–16 block 40/42 AN/APX–113 integration to improve the ANG’s capabilities to accomplish the CAP 

mission. The committee understands that an additional $10.0 milVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00240 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.052 A106HR
217

lion will complete F–16 block 40/42 AN/APX–113 integration in fiscal year 2004, and recommends that amount for this purpose. 

In total, the committee recommends $107.5 million in PE 

27133F, an increase of $20.0 million. 

F–16 theater airborne reconnaissance system (TARS) 

The budget request contained $77.8 million in PE 35206F for airborne reconnaissance systems, but included no funds for the TARS 

pre-planned product improvement (P3I) program. 

The two ANG F–16 units equipped with TARS pods provide a responsive under-the-weather reconnaissance capability to support 

intelligence and targeting requirements of military users. The 

TARS P3I program will develop an upgrade to the TARS pods providing a data link system upgrade that will connect with the joint 

force air component commander’s command and control ( JFACC 

C2) structure. The TARS P3I will also develop a synthetic aperture 

radar to enable night and all-weather reconnaissance capability. 

The committee believes that night and all-weather reconnaissance operations and the ability to data link to the JFACC C2 

structure are essential to identify and engage time-critical targets. 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.8 in PE 35206F for 

the TARS P3I. 

Flexible display and integrated communications devices 

The budget request included $33.8 million in project 7184 in PE 

62202F for crew system interface and biodynamics. 

Integration of ground targeting cueing through data link to combat aircraft to reduce the ‘‘target-to-shooter’’ time-line is critical to 

improving close air support, target identification, and designation 

and to reduce ‘‘blue-on-blue’’ casualties. Flexible displays and integrated communications devices are key to realizing this capability. 

The committee authorizes an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

62202F for integration of leading-edge global positioning, communications components, voice messaging, displays, and related technologies to provide flexible display and integrated communications 

devices. 

Force protection and survivability for deployed forces 

The budget request included $838,000 in PE 62102F for development of cost effective technologies for deployed forces. 

The important and growing use of composite materials, especially 

graphite composites in aircraft, motor vehicles, mass transit and 

marine applications creates new and often unrecognized hazards 

for firefighters and the general public. Firefighting research has 

not placed sufficient emphasis on this issue. 

The committee recommends an additional $2.0 million in PE 

62102F for the Composite Fire Safety Initiative Consortium to develop a better understanding of composite combustion processes 

and provide civilian and military firefighters with the technologies 

needed to assure rapid and safe extinguishment of composite fire 

materials. 

218

Fusion SIGINT enhancements for network-centric intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance 

The budget request contained $31.5 million in PE 63789F for 

Command, Control, Communication, and Intelligence (C3I) advanced development but included no funds for fusion signals intelligence (SIGINT) enhancements for network-centric intelligence, 

surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR). 

The committee is aware of the requirement for automated, intelligent sensor data and intelligence information fusion to implement 

network centric ISR.

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

63789F for fusion SIGINT enhancements for network-centric ISR. 

Global Hawk advanced imagery architecture 

The budget request contained $398.6 million in PE 35205F for 

endurance unmanned aerial vehicles, and included $357.6 million 

for Global Hawk, but included no funds for Global Hawk advanced 

imagery architecture. 

The committee is aware that Global Hawk is a significant user 

of communication bandwidth. The committee notes that Global 

Hawk provides both synthetic aperture radar and electro-optical infrared data and that the Global Hawk advanced imagery architecture is to enable effective bandwidth utilization to support multiplatform, collaborative intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations. 

The committee recommends $403.2 million in PE 35205F, an increase of $4.6 million to develop, integrate, test and fly the advanced imagery architecture on Global Hawk. 

Hardening technologies for satellite protection 

The budget request contained $83.2 million in PE 62601F for 

space technologies, but included no funds for hardening technologies for satellite protection (HTSP). 

The committee is aware that disruption or denial of Department 

of Defense (DOD) data over unprotected space systems could severely impact DOD operations. The committee believes that protection parameters need to be defined and low cost satellite hardening 

technology solutions need to be developed and implemented for 

next generation satellites. The committee is aware that the objectives of HTSP are to ensure that all satellites carrying DOD data 

can operate in expected threat environments. 

The committee recommends $87.2 million in PE 62601F, an increase of $4.0 million for HTSP. 

High Accuracy network determination system 

The budget request contained $6.3 million in PE 63444F for the 

Maui space surveillance system, but included no funds for the high 

accuracy network determination system (HANDS). 

The committee is aware that HANDS offers the potential to increase the accuracy of orbit determinations of space objects using 

relatively low-cost optical sensing systems. 

The committee recommends $16.3 million in PE 63444F, an increase of $10.0 million for HANDS. 

219

Hybrid bearings 

The budget request included $10.0 million in PE 63112F for materials transition within the advanced materials for weapons systems program. 

The committee is aware of hybrid metal and composite bearing 

technology that may provide for aerospace applications for significantly increased turbine engine durability, wear resistance, and 

fracture toughness at high speeds and temperatures. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

63112F for hybrid bearings. 

Integrated broadcast service 

The budget request contained $8.5 million in PE 63850F for the 

integrated broadcast service (IBS). 

The committee has been supportive of the IBS program since its 

inception, and notes the significant progress made in the spiral-development of the IBS information management element (IME). The 

Air Force Test and Evaluation Center found the IME to be potentially operationally effective and suitable for network dissemination 

of time-critical threat warnings, supporting the Department of Defense network-centric warfare objective. 

The committee supports regional deployments of the IME’s to 

combatant commands starting in fiscal year 2004 and recommends 

the budget request for IBS. 

Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology (IHPRPT) 

program 

The budget request included $14.3 million in PE 62203F for the 

Air Force for the Integrated High Payoff Rocket Propulsion Technology (IHPRPT) program. While the Navy has previously funded 

the IHPRPT program as part of a coordinated technology program 

within the department, NASA, and industry, no funds were included in the fiscal year 2004 request. 

The committee believes that critical propellant, nozzle, case, and 

thrust vector technologies require continued emphasis to provide 

increased capability to the warfighter and recommends an additional $3.0 million each in PE 62114N and PE 63114N and an additional $4.0 million in PE 62203F for IHPRPT. 

Link 16 weapon data terminal 

The committee notes that precision guided munitions (PGMs) 

have revolutionized the strike capabilities of weapon delivery platforms, and that today’s global positioning satellite and inertial 

navigation system (GPS/INS)-guided weapons, such as the joint 

stand-off weapon (JSOW) and joint direct attack munition (JDAM), 

can very accurately engage fixed targets. However, the committee 

also notes that the JSOW and JDAM do not have the capability to 

be retargeted inflight or to engage mobile targets, and understands 

that the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has recently 

completed a successful test integrating a Link-16 weapon data terminal to a GPS/INS-guided PGM demonstrating that a PGM could 

receive target position updates after launch over the Link-16 network to engage a mobile target. 

The committee believes that the capability to couple the PGM 

with the Link 16 network to engage mobile targets is a transVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00243 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.054 A106HR
220

formational capability, and strongly urges the Department of Defense to continue this development. 

Low emission/efficient hybrid aviation refueling truck propulsion 

The budget request contained $54.0 million in PE 78611F for 

support systems development, but included no funds for low emission/efficient hybrid fuel truck propulsion. 

The committee is aware that existing Air Force aviation refueling 

trucks operate over short distances in a manner that causes high 

fuel use, high emissions and decreased engine life. The committee 

notes that a heavy-duty hybrid drive technology has been developed for aviation refueling trucks. The committee recommends $59.0 million, an increase of $5.0 

million in PE 78611F for the continued refinement in simulation 

and modeling of low emission/efficient hybrid aviation refueling 

truck propulsion. 

Metals affordability 

The budget request included $1.2 million in PE 62102F for the 

metals affordability initiative. 

The committee is aware that a government-industry collaboration provides significant improvements in the manufacturing of 

specialty metals for aerospace applications. 

The committee fully supports the metals affordability initiative and recommends $15.2 million, an increase of $14 million, including $7.0 million each in program elements 63112F and 78011F. An 

additional $4.0 million is authorized in PE 78011S for continued 

development of high quality titanium reduction processes, such as 

the Armstrong process, to produce titanium that will support modern fabrication techniques. 

Nanomaterials 

The budget request included $38.9 million in PE 62102F for materials applied research for structures, propulsion, and subsystems. 

Nanostructured materials are superior to conventional materials 

and allow for inexpensive manufacturing for uses in sensors, 

stealth and microelectronics. The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million in PE 62102F for nanomaterials research. 

National operational signature production and research capability 

The budget request contained $36.6 million in PE 63203F for advanced aerospace sensors, but included no funds for the national 

operational signature production and research capability. 

The committee supports this effort to enhance identification of 

friend, foe, and neutral parties. 

The committee recommends $40.1 million in PE 63203F, an increase of $3.5 million for the national operational signature production and research capability. 

NAVSTAR Global positioning system III 

The budget request contained no funds for NAVSTAR global positioning system (GPS) III in PE 63421F. 

The committee notes that GPS has demonstrated its increased 

importance to modern warfare during the campaign in Iraq. The 

committee is also aware that GPS has also become essential for ciVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00244 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.054 A106HR
221

vilian uses. The committee is informed that a new GPS III will provide significantly better anti-jam capability for the military, improved civil capabilities, and offer reduced lifecycle costs. The committee strongly supports fielding an improved GPS. 

The committee recommends $45.0 million in PE 63421F, an increase of $45.0 million, to accelerate start of GPS III development 

and launch. 

Next generation bomber program 

The budget request contained no funds for a next generation 

bomber program. 

The committee understands that the Air Force future years defense program (FYDP) includes science and technology funding for 

basic and applied bomber research in fiscal year 2006 to identify 

investments required to initiate a next generation bomber development program in the 2012 to 2015 timeframe, and notes that prior 

to 2012, the Air Force plans to upgrade its current bomber force 

to provide improved capabilities. The committee also notes that 

most of the Air Force’s bomber fleet consists of 94 B–52 aircraft 

which are approximately 41 years old, and believes that beginning 

a bomber development program in fiscal year 2012, when the B–

52 fleet is approximately fifty years old, would be too late to assure 

a sufficient bomber force structure to meet future requirements for 

long-range strike aircraft in light of the prospect that future basing 

for shorter range aircraft may not be assured. 

Consequently, the committee recommends $100.0 million in a 

new program element, PE 63XXXF, to begin a next generation 

bomber program, and expects that the Department of the Air Force 

will include funding in its FYDP to develop and procure a next generation bomber well prior to the 2012 to 2015 timeframe. 

Nuclear detonation detection system 

The budget request contained $35.8 million in PE 35913F for the 

nuclear detonation detection (NUDET) system (space) integrated 

correlation and display system (ICADS). 

The committee notes that responsibility for the development of 

the sensor, analysis payload and ground segments integration to 

the NDS payload is funded elsewhere, and that the Air Force contribution is limited to the ICADS ground segment. The committee 

believes that the increase above the original cost estimate is unjustified. 

The committee supports the requirement for development and 

production of the ground terminal, and believes that the development can be completed within the original cost estimate. 

The committee recommends $26.6 million in PE 35913F, a decrease of $9.2 million for Air Force ICADS ground segment development. 

Operationally responsive launch 

The budget request contained $24.4 million in PE 64855F for an 

operationally responsive launch system. 

The committee strongly supports operationally responsive launch 

and its objective of developing an affordable simple, reliable time 

responsive launch system. The committee is aware that the Air 

222

Force mission needs statement for operationally responsive 

spacelift was issued in December 2001. The committee recommends $36.4 million in PE 64855F, an increase of $12.0 million for an operationally responsive launch to expedite development of this important capability to meet the defined 

mission need. 

Precision location and identification (PLAID) technology program 

The budget request contained $74.0 million in PE 64270F for 

electronic warfare (EW) development, but included no funds for the 

PLAID technology program. 

The PLAID technology program will improve aircrew situational 

awareness by providing accurate ground emitter location and unambiguous identification for existing radar warning receivers. The 

committee understands that additional funds are required in fiscal 

year 2004 to mature the PLAID hardware and software to a production-ready state, and that, upon completion of the PLAID technology program, the PLAID upgrade may be installed on more that 

5,190 Air Force aircraft. The committee notes that the Air Force 

Chief of Staff has included the PLAID technology program among 

his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2004. Consequently, the committee recommends $86.6 million in PE 64270F, an increase of $12.6 million for the PLAID technology program. 

Space based radar 

The budget request contained $274.1 million in PE 63858F for 

space based radar. 

The committee is aware that the space based radar (SBR) radar 

system will provide persistent, near real-time high resolution surveillance deep into enemy territory and denied areas critical to the 

military and the intelligence community. The committee is aware 

that situational awareness will be dramatically improved by integrating the SBR output with products from other military sensors 

such as Joint STARS surveillance aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles. 

The committee recommends the budget request. 

DEFENSE-WIDE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, & EVALUATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $17,974.3 million for Defense-wide 

research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). 

The committee recommends $18,174.4 million, an increase of 

$200.1 million to the budget request.

223


Insert graphic folio 257 87068.109
224


Insert graphic folio 258 87068.110
225


Insert graphic folio 259 87068.111
226


Insert graphic folio 260 87068.112
227


Insert graphic folio 261 87068.113
228


Insert graphic folio 262 87068.114
229


Insert graphic folio 263 87068.115
230


Insert graphic folio 264 87068.116
231


Insert graphic folio 265 87068.117
232


Insert graphic folio 266 87068.118
233

Items of Special Interest 

Advanced Micro/Nano-Electromechanical Systems Technology 

The budget request contained $151.0 million in PE 61101E for 

defense research sciences, including $18.7 million for basic research 

in electronic sciences. 

The committee notes the phenomenal progress in microelectronic 

innovation that has characterized the last decade in the exploration 

and demonstration of micro electromechanical machines, electronic 

and optoelectronic devices, circuits and processing concepts. Research areas include new electronic and optoelectronic devices and 

circuit concepts, operation of devices at higher frequency and lower 

power, development of innovative optical and electronic technologies for interconnecting modules in high performance systems, 

electronically controlled micro-instruments that offer the possibility 

of nanometer-scale probing, sensing and manipulation for ultrahigh density information storage ‘‘on-a-chip,’’ for nanometer-scale 

patterning, and for molecular level analysis and synthesis. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

61101E for basic research in advanced micro- and nonelectromechanical systems technology. 

Advanced sensor applications program 

The budget request contained $16.7 million in PE 63714D8Z for 

the advanced sensor applications program (ASAP). The committee 

is concerned that promising projects executed by the Navy’s 

PMA264 program office are appreciably under funded for special 

programs under development. 

Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63714D8Z for ASAP. 

Additional details are contained in the classified annex to this report. 

Advanced solid-state dye laser 

The budget request contained $16.7 million in PE 63714D8Z for 

the advanced sensor applications program. 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.5 million to continue development and demonstration of advanced solid-state dye 

laser technology. 

Advanced target identification capability for AC–130U gunships 

The budget request contained $256.0 million for special operations tactical systems development, but included no funding for 

the advanced target identification capability for AC–130U 

gunships. This enhancement to the gunship radar will enable the 

crew to make accurate and near instantaneous identification of 

friendly and enemy vehicles on the battlefield. To complete the 

project, funding is needed to collect data during flight tests on military ranges, develop the recognition algorithms, and integrate the 

algorithms into the gunship radar system. 

The committee recommends $262.5 million in PE 1160404BB, an 

increase of $6.5 million. 

234

Air to air technology

The budget request included a new program, air to air technology, in PE 63943D8Z. The purposes for which this authorization 

is requested is redundant to the over $68.0 million authorization 

requested for foreign material acquisition and exploitation and foreign comparative testing. 

The committee recommends no funding for this program, a re- duction of $2.0 million to the budget request. 

Anti-radiation drug development and trials program 

The budget request contained $5.0 million in PE 63002D8Z for 

medical advanced technology development. 

The medical advanced technology development program supports 

applied research by the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) for advanced development of biomedical strategies to 

prevent, treat, and assess health consequences from exposure to 

ionizing radiation. The program addresses critical gaps in the ability to effectively prevent, assess, and treat the spectrum of injuries 

induced by ionizing radiation and capitalizes on discoveries in basic 

research and from academia and industry to identify, develop, and 

advance medical countermeasures into and through pre-clinical 

studies toward newly licensed products. Additionally, AFRRI supports accredited defense-wide training programs for medical personnel and provides advice and guidance to the Joint Staff and 

combatant commanders for operational contingencies. Because national laboratories operated by the Department of Energy no longer 

support advanced research relevant to military medical 

radiobiology, AFRRI is currently the only national resource carrying out this mission. 

The committee notes progress in the development of an advanced 

radioprotectant (‘‘anti-radiation’’) drug (5-androstenediol) that 

shows great promise and the initiation in fiscal year 2003 of preclinical safety and toxicity assessment and small and large animal 

trials. Fiscal year 2004 plans include extension of the work to preclinical trials in nonhuman primates and submission of investigational new drug applications to the Food and Drug Administration. The committee recommends $12.1 million in PE 63002D8Z, an 

increase of $7.1 million to continue the program for development 

and trials of radioprotectant drugs by the Armed Forces 

Radiobiology Research Institute. 

The committee also understands that the lack of operations and 

maintenance funding for the AFRRI physical plant (a 108,000 

square foot DOD research facility) and indirect support activities 

critically reduces the amount of the research, development, test 

and evaluation funds available for direct research activities. The 

committee directs the Director of Defense Research and Engineering to address this shortcoming in the execution of the fiscal year 

2004 budget and in future budget requests. 

Asymmetric protocols for biological defense 

The budget request contained $137.3 million in PE 62383E for 

biological warfare defense applied research. 

A military or terrorist scenario in which aerosolized biological 

agents such as anthrax spores or smallpox virus are used would almost certainly result in mass casualties. Weaponized forms of the 

235

agents offer significant challenges to medical treatment that are 

not found in naturally occurring forms. While antibiotics are the 

only approved method for treating anthrax, the recent bioterrorist 

anthrax attack in Washington showed that antibiotics are unfortunately not adequate to provide full treatment against inhalation 

anthrax. The committee also notes that there are a number of biological agents that could, with appropriate development and 

weaponization, be used in biological warfare, or in a terrorist attack and developing specific protection against all possible biological agents presents a significant challenge. As a result, the committee believes there is a need for therapeutics that would provide 

broad spectrum protection against a range of possible biological 

agents and that would also work in concert with other methods of 

treatment. 

The committee notes research in therapeutics that shows good 

results from laboratory testing in mice against pox virus and 

against anthrax and appears to have the potential for providing 

broad spectrum protection. Other tests have involved therapeutics 

that may reinforce the innate immunity of the host. The committee 

believes that the results of the research to date are promising and 

the research should continue. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million in PE 62383E to continue research in asymmetric protocols 

that would provide broad spectrum protection for biological defense. 

Ballistic missile defense 

The committee supports the budget request of $9.1 billion for ballistic missile defense. However, the committee has made some adjustments within the budget request to transfer funds from longerterm, less well defined efforts to increase support for programs 

with nearer-term benefit to the warfighter. 

Technology and advanced concepts 

The budget request contained $240.8 million in PE 63175C for 

ballistic missile defense (BMD) technology and $151.7 million in 

new PE 63879C for Advanced Concepts, Evaluations, and Systems. 

Taken together, the fiscal year 2004 request for crosscutting technology and concepts development represents an increase of $241.4 

million over the comparable fiscal year 2004 request. 

The committee notes that the budget request is significantly 

above the fiscal year 2004 projection in the fiscal year 2003 budget 

request, without detailed justification for the increase. The committee believes that a portion of this increase should be used to 

fund nearer term projects. 

The committee recommends $185.0 million in PE 63175C for 

technology, a decrease of $55.8 million. 

Within funds available for BMD technology in PE 63175C, the 

committee recommends $5.5 million for silicon carbide wide bandgap semiconductor development for advanced power electronics, 

communications and sensor applications, and $2.0 million for ‘‘silicon brain architecture’’ development to condense circuitry for target signature comparison and recognition applications. 

236

Terminal defense segment 

The budget request contained $810.4 million in PE 63881C for 

the ballistic missile defense terminal defense segment; the committee recommends $1,123.7 million.

The committee recommends an increase of $276.3 million as a result of transferring the Medium Extended Air Defense System 

(MEADS) program from the Army to the Missile Defense Agency. 

MEADS is discussed elsewhere in the committee report. 

The committee notes that the theater high altitude area defense 

(THAAD) program is proceeding at a slower pace than other elements of the ballistic missile defense system, and that despite a recent redesign that requires flight testing, tests are still scheduled 

at large intervals. The committee is further aware an opportunity 

exists to compress the testing schedule while adding a flight test 

and reducing program risk. The committee recommends an increase of $37.0 million for THAAD to accelerate testing. 

The budget request for the terminal defense segment contained $64.8 million for the Arrow program. The Arrow anti-tactical ballistic missile defense system has been under development since 

1988 under an agreement between the governments of the United 

States and Israel. The committee has supported this development 

program, and continues to support the evolution of the system to 

counter more challenging threats under the Arrow System Improvement Program. The committee has also supported procurement of three Arrow batteries, funding for the last of which was 

completed in fiscal year 2002. Most recently, Congress has provided 

in fiscal year 2003 funds for co-production of Arrow in the United 

States. All told, more than $2.0 billion has been invested in Arrow, 

arguably most by the United States either through direct appropriations or military assistance grants to the government of Israel. 

The committee has reservations about recent interest shown by 

Israel in the sale of Arrow to third parties. In the more general 

context of international cooperative missile defense programs, the 

committee has concerns regarding how such sales comport with the 

obligations of the United States under international treaties and 

agreements, the possibility of technology transfers that might assist foreign offensive missile programs, and the rights of the United 

States to share in revenue generated through third party sales. 

The committee urges the administration to give serious consideration to policy development in this area prior to approving third 

party sales of missile defense technologies co-developed by the 

United States. 

Midcourse defense segment 

The budget request contained $3,613.3 million in PE 63882C for 

the ballistic missile defense (BMD) midcourse defense segment. 

This PE provides funding for key elements of the President’s program to begin fielding an initial defensive operational capability in 

fiscal year 2004, including the block 2004 ground-based midcourse 

defense test bed and the block 2004 Aegis ballistic missile defense 

element. The committee supports the intent of the Department of 

Defense to make use of the inherent capability of the BMD system 

test bed to provide a limited defense, but urges the Department to 

focus this asset on the developmental and operational testing that 

will lead to effective defenses over the long term. 

237

The committee is aware that a need exists for additional funding 

for Aegis ballistic missile defense radar improvements such as an 

additional receive antenna to enable two-way communications with 

in-flight missiles and to allow for off-board cueing. This capability 

is now being tested using a partial installation of the S-band 

phased array antenna system (SPAAS) on USS Lake Erie, but a 

complete installation is not funded. 

The committee also notes that the sea-based X-band radar (SBX) 

will enter testing with a minimal number of transmit/receive modules. In order to promote more realistic testing, the committee recommends funding for additional transmit/receive modules and software development. The committee recommends $3,643.2 million in PE 63882C, an 

increase of $7.0 million for Aegis to complete the four-panel SPAAS 

array and four-corner distributed controller installation on USS 

Lake Erie, and an increase of $22.9 million for ground based missile defense SBX. 

The Aegis BMD program is upgrading the Aegis SPY–1 radar 

system with a common signal processor to track both air and ballistic missile threats. The committee recommends, from within 

funds available for the midcourse defense segment, $4.8 million for 

development of a common radio frequency scene generation capability to support the common signal processor program. 

System interceptor 

The budget request contained $301.1 million in PE 63886C for 

system interceptor. 

The committee notes that the budget request includes a new 

start program, the ballistic missile defense (BMD) system interceptor, intended to develop a new family of ground-based, seabased and space-based interceptors. The committee notes that testing and development of the first generation of defensive missiles 

has barely begun, and observes that the requested amount is quite 

substantial for a program that has not yet gone through concept 

definition. 

The committee recommends $151.1 million in PE 63886C for concept definition and technology development, a decrease of $150.0 

million. 

Systems core segment 

The budget request contained $484.0 million for ballistic missile 

defense system core activities in PE 63890C. 

The committee notes that funding for the national team is not 

detailed in a way that allows an understanding of what projects 

the national team works on, why its funding requirement has 

grown, or offers ways to measure performance. Therefore, the committee believes that funding for the national team should be held 

to the fiscal year 2003 level. 

The committee recommends $439.0 million in PE 63890C for systems core, a decrease of $45.0 million. 

From within funds available for command and control, battle 

management and communications, the committee recommends $9.5 

million for wide bandwidth technology for development and demonstration of secure, high bandwidth satellite communications in 

support of the Pacific ballistic missile defense test bed. 

238

The committee notes the advantages of canisterized launch systems to ground maneuver forces and recommends, from within 

funds available for producibility and manufacturing technology, 

$5.0 million for domestic industrial base development for the manufacture of modern composite missile canisters. 

Products 

The budget request contained $343.6 million in PE 63889C for 

products. 

The committee notes that proposed funding for the joint national 

integration center and missile defense national team has increased 

significantly without clear justification. The committee believes 

that a portion of the additional funding can be used more effectively for other projects. The committee recommends $312.5 million in PE 63889C, a decrease of $31.1 million. 

Ballistic missile defense testing 

On December 17, 2002, President Bush directed the Secretary of 

Defense to proceed with fielding an initial set of missile defense capabilities. These capabilities included using the testbed for the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) in an operational role, 

should events warrant, including up to 20 ground-based and up to 

20 sea-based defensive missiles. 

The committee understands the Department’s intent to make use 

of the inherent defensive capability of the BMDS testbed. The committee is concerned, however, about the use of test assets in an 

operational role. The committee appreciates the different objectives 

of developmental and operational testing, and notes that other Department programs have recently experienced significant setbacks 

by conducting such testing concurrently. 

The committee strongly urges the Department to ensure that assets used in an operational defense role undergo the full and rigorous testing required by law, prior to being placed in an operational status. 

Ballistic missile defense reporting requirements 

The language in the committee report on H.R. 4546 (H. Rept. 

107–436) urged the Department of Defense to include budgetary 

and developmental baseline reports for the various block components of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS). This language became the basis for Section 221 of the Bob Stump National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, (Public Law 107–

314), requiring performance goals and development baselines for 

each block component of the BMDS and budget justification materials that relate to these goals and baselines. 

The committee believes that the Department has made a goodfaith effort to comply with Section 221. The committee is encouraged by the sharp improvement in the budget justification materials, and believes that the fiscal year 2004 submission contains 

much more information on BMDS performance goals and development baselines than was provided in the previous two budget submissions. While the committee commends the Department for the 

improvement in the justification materials, it notes several shortcomings that should be addressed in future years. 

239

The most serious shortcoming was the lack of system performance goals in the classified ‘‘Systems Capability Statement’’ for several block 2004 BMD elements, notably Ground-Based Midcourse 

(GMD) and Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (Aegis BMD). While 

some specific subcomponent performance goals were provided, the 

overall performance goals for GMD and Aegis BMD were difficult 

to understand. The 2004 block performance goals for the Airborne 

Laser (ABL) in the ‘‘Systems Capability Statement’’ were much 

closer to what the committee is seeking, as were the performance 

goals in the ‘‘BMDS Statement of Goals’’ submitted to the committee with the Missile Defense Agency’s January 27, 2003 briefing 

to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council. The committee urges 

the Missile Defense Agency to use these examples as a model for 

specifying the system performance goals for all other program 

blocks under development. 

In addition, neither the development baselines in the classified 

‘‘Systems Capability Statement’’ nor the budget justification materials adequately summarized the testing objectives for the systems 

under development. 

The committee also notes that the budget proposals and justification materials for activities of the missile defense national team 

(MDNT) contained much less detail than other activities within the 

MDA, and hopes that future budgets will offer a better understanding of how MDNT resources are expended. 

The committee is generally pleased with the compliance with 

Section 221, but urges the Department to pay special attention to 

these areas of concern. 

Blast mitigation and analysis technology 

The budget request contained $60.5 million in PE 63122D8Z for 

the combating terrorism technology support program. 

The committee notes the continuing threat posed to military and 

civilian personnel, buildings, and other infrastructure by the terrorist use of conventional and improvised explosives. Congress provided an additional $3.5 million in fiscal year 2003 for blast mitigation testing, including the development of new materials for protecting buildings and other infrastructure and new testing techniques and technologies for the qualification of new structural designs. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

63122D8Z to continue the program for development and evaluation 

of blast mitigation and analysis technology. 

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

The budget request contained a total of $599.0 million for chemical/biological defense research, development, test, and evaluation, 

including $35.8 million in PE 61384BP for basic research, $106.5 

million in PE 62384BP for applied research, $103.7 million in PE 

63384BP for advanced technology development, $162.1 million in 

PE 63884BP for demonstration/validation, $148.1 million for engineering and manufacturing development, and $39.3 million in PE 

65384BP for RDT&E management support. The budget request 

also contained $137.3 million in PE 62383E for the Defense AdVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00263 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.059 A106HR
240

vanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) biological defense research program. 

The committee notes that the changing chemical and biological 

threat, both to U.S. armed forces on the world’s battlefields and to 

U.S. homeland security, places more emphasis on the need for responsive technology options that could address the threat; the ability to quickly assess, develop, and demonstrate the technology; and 

then, the ability to rapidly insert or deploy the technology in fielded systems. The committee also notes the wealth of new concepts 

and technologies of varying levels of maturity that emerge annually 

from the nation’s science and technology base and the recommendations that the committee receives for exploitation of particular technologies to improve the capabilities of U.S. forces or to address 

homeland security issue issues. The committee recommends the establishment in the chemical biological defense program of two initiatives, one in the applied research category and one in the advanced technology development category, that would provide the 

opportunity for emerging technologies and concepts to compete for 

funding on the basis of technical merit and on the contribution that 

the technology could, if implemented, make to the chemical biological defense capabilities of the armed forces and to homeland defense. During its review of the fiscal year 2004 budget request the 

committee has received proposals for establishment of a number of 

projects that the committee recommends be considered for possible 

funding under the appropriate initiative. 

Chemical biological defense applied research initiative

The committee recommends that the projects and technologies to 

be considered for funding under the applied research initiative include, but are not limited to the following: 

(1) Air contaminant monitoring technology 

(2) Automated liquid phase detectors for toxic compounds 

(3) Biological detection system technology 

(4) Chemical biological regenerative air filters 

(5) Chemical biological protective garment technology 

(6) Engineering pathogen identification and countermeasures 

(7) Multivalent Ebola, Marburg fiolovirus vaccine technology 

(8) Rapid anti-body based biological countermeasures 

(9) Rapid decontamination system for nerve agents 

(10) Rapid vaccine development technology 

The committee recommends $131.5 million in PE 62384BP, an 

increase of $25.0 million for the chemical biological defense applied 

research initiative. 

Chemical biological defense advanced technology development 

initiative 

The committee recommends that the projects and technologies to 

be considered for funding under the advanced technology development initiative include, but not be limited the following: 

(1) Biological defense gene knockout technology 

(2) Decontamination using atmospheric plasmas 

(3) Hand-held biological agent detectors 

(4) High intensity pulsed radiation for defeat of chemical and 

biological agents 

241

(5) Immunochemical biological/chemical threat agent detectors 

(6) Non-toxic, non-corrosive chemical biological decontamination 

(7) Polymer based biological micro-lectromechanical machines 

(8) Transportable collective protection shelters 

(9) Low cost biological particle sensors 

The committee recommends $128.7 million in PE 63384BP, an 

increase of $25.0 million for the chemical biological defense applied 

research initiative. 

Chemical biological electrostatic decontamination system 

The budget request contained $60.5 million in PE 63122D8Z for 

the Combating Terrorism Technology Support program. No funds 

were included to continue the development and demonstration of 

the chemical biological electrostatic decontamination system. 

The committee notes that the electrostatic decontamination system uses a photosensitive, electrostatically charged mist, which 

when sprayed onto a contaminated surface and illuminated with 

ultraviolet light destroys the chemical or biological agents that are 

present. Successful development and demonstration of the system 

could result in a field expedient decontamination capability that 

would be less dependent on water and would not require the deployment of post-decontamination waste disposal equipment. Congress added $6.3 million in fiscal year 2003 that is being used to 

complete laboratory and field tests of the technology. The committee notes the progress made to date in the program and recommends continued development and evaluation of the technology 

for potential transition to a fielded system. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.8 million in PE 

63122D8Z to continue development and evaluation of the electrostatic decontamination system. 

Cobra blue force tracking 

The budget request contained $256.0 million in PE 116404BB for 

special operations advanced technology development, but included 

no funding for Cobra blue force tracking. 

The committee notes that Special Operations Command 

(SOCOM) has acquired several thousand blue force tracking transmitters that enable real-time tracking of friendly forces throughout 

the world. The committee is aware that a second generation prototype mini-blue force tracking receiver is being developed to reduce 

size and weight by half and improve performance. 

The committee supports improved blue force tracking and recommends an increase of $3.5 million for the mini-blue force tracking receiver. 

Connectory for rapid identification of technology sources 

The budget request contained $22.4 million for generic logistics 

research and development demonstrations, but included no funding 

for the connectory of rapid identification of technology sources for 

the Department of Defense. The connectory pilot would provide the 

Department with one stop access to the industrial technology base, 

242

permitting rapid identification of promising sources of new, creative technical solutions. 

The committee recommends $23.4 million in PE 63712S, an increase of $1.0 million. Department of Defense information technology research and development. 

Department of Defense information technology research and development 

The committee is highly concerned about how defense-wide information technology (IT) systems are managed. In particular, two IT 

systems are of the committee’s concern. The Defense Message System is severely behind schedule, has not met user requirements, 

and has just projected an additional amount of $5.0 billion over the 

original cost of $9.0 billion. The other is a command and control 

system that should already be accessible by all of the military services, but is not, and therefore, the Department of Defense is requesting funding to accomplish that objective. In light of these IT 

issues, the committee recommends a reduction of $81.4 million for 

these and other programs. 

Defense science and technology funding 

The budget request contained $10.2 billion for the Department of 

Defense science and technology program, including all defense-wide 

and military service funding for basic research, applied research, 

and advanced development. The request included $1.8 billion for 

the Army, $1.7 billion for the Navy, $2.2 billion for the Air Force, 

and $4.5 billion for Defense Agency science and technology [including $2.9 billion for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA)]. The committee recommends $10.9 billion for the Department of Defense science and technology program, an increase of 

$661.9 million to the budget request. The committee’s recommendation includes $2.0 billion for the Army (an increase of $241.5 million), $1.8 billion for the Navy (an increase of $79.4 million), $2.3 

billion for the Air Force (an increase of $114.4 million), and $4.7 

billion for Defense Agency science and technology, an increase of 

$226.7 million (including $2.9 billion for DARPA, an increase of 

$226.7 million). 

The committee views defense science and technology investment 

as critical to maintaining U.S. military technological superiority in 

the face of growing and changing threats to U.S. national security 

interests around the world. The committee notes that the budget 

request at a level of 2.7 percent of the total DOD budget does not 

meet the goal of 3 percent established by the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review. 

The committee notes that the military departments are responsible for approximately 56 percent of the defense science and technology budget (Army 17 percent, Navy 17 percent, and Air Force 

22 percent) and Defense Agencies account for 44 percent, including 

29 percent in DARPA. Defense agencies focus on science and technology specific to the particular agency or, in the case of DARPA 

on national-level problems, operational dominance, and exploitation 

of high-risk, high-payoff technologies. The military departments’ 

science and technology programs focus on the development and 

transition of more mature technologies into future weapons sysVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00266 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.060 A106HR
243

tems that are key to the ability of the military departments to 

achieve their transformation objectives. 

Advanced concept technology demonstrations and technology 

transition 

The committee notes that the Department continues to explore 

innovative and transformational concepts associated with the need 

to rapidly develop and field new technological capabilities. Advanced concept technology demonstrations are low-to-moderate risk 

capability demonstration and evaluation programs in which the 

material developer and a warfighting sponsor jointly explore applications of the technology and the military utility of a proposed capability prior to commitment to a major acquisition program. The 

committee notes that since the commencement of the program in 

1994, a total of 115 unclassified ACTD’s have been initiated; fortyfive of these were completed as of the end of fiscal year 2002, resulting in 120 distinct products. Of this number, eight entered engineering and manufacturing development; thirty-three 

transitioned to acquisition; forty-five have integrated with current 

operational software systems, such as the Global Command and 

Control System and the Global Combat Support System; and thirty-six hardware-based solutions have previously been or currently 

are operationally deployed. 

The committee also notes and commends the manner in which 

the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Advanced Systems and 

Concepts) in coordination with the military services’ science and 

technology executives have, in addition to the ACTD program, integrated a number of innovative programs for the transition of new 

and innovative technologies across the product and process life 

cycle of defense weapon and materiel systems. 

Devolvement 

As a part of its realignment of the fiscal year 2004 budget, the 

Department of Defense devolved responsibility for fifteen RDT&E 

programs and one procurement program from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to the military departments. Programs totaling 

$543.0 million were transferred to the military services. The University Research Initiative (URI) was split among the services 

(Army $72.0 million, Navy $71.0 million, and Air Force $105.0 million). The Army received science and technology programs totaling 

$115.0 million (URI, Force Health Protection, Defense Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research, Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities, and Explosive Demilitarization 

Technology); the Navy received programs totaling $73.0 million 

(URI and In-House Laboratory Independent Research); and the Air 

Force received programs totaling $355.3 million (URI, High Energy 

Laser Program, and High Performance Computer Modernization). 

In the Department’s view devolvement will improve efficiency because it will expedite the flow of funds and improve program execution. Transferring the programs will also permit the Office of the 

Secretary to achieve internal staff and budget goals. The committee 

notes, however, that the transfer artificially inflates the fiscal year 

2004 science and technology budgets of the military departments 

compared to fiscal year 2003. The committee plans to monitor 

closely the execution of the fiscal year 2003 budget for the devolved 

244

programs by the military departments and the oversight provided 

to the devolved programs by the Director, Defense Research and 

Engineering. 

Navy science and technology program 

The budget request provides $1.7 billion for the Navy’s science and technology program, $316.0 million less than last year’s appropriated level. The amount is 1.5 percent of the total Department 

of the Navy budget and only half of the Defense Department’s goal 

that the science and technology program represents three percent 

of total obligation authority. If funding for the Joint Forces Command experimentation program (which is contained in the Navy’s 

science and technology account) and for the University Research 

Initiative (transferred from the OSD science and technology account in this year’s budget request) is deducted, the Navy’s core 

science and technology program is reduced to $1.48 billion, $460.0 

million less than last year’s appropriated level, 1.3 percent of the 

total Department of the Navy budget, and the lowest in total and 

percentage funding of the military departments. The budget request represents the second straight year of a significant reduction 

in the Navy’s science and technology program. The committee is 

particularly concerned about this trend and its impact on the availability of new technologies that will ensure the superiority of the 

future Navy and Marine Corps, and directs the Secretary of the 

Navy to give particular attention to Department of Defense science 

and technology funding level goals and objectives for the Navy’s 

science and technology program. 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

Although the committee is pleased with the overall progress in 

the defense science and technology program, the committee continues to be disturbed by the continuing growth in the budget of 

the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in comparison to 

the science and technology accounts of the military departments. 

Since the beginning of the decade the DARPA budget has increased 

over 50 percent ($1.0 billion) to a total of $2.9 billion in the fiscal 

year 2004 budget request. The rate of increase far exceeds the proportionate increase in the science and technology accounts of the 

military departments. The committee’s concern is directed not at 

the content of the DARPA program, which is at the core of the 

technological superiority of U.S. armed forces, but at the disproportionate growth in the DARPA budget. The imbalance that growth 

represents in the distribution of science and technology funds between the defense-wide science and technology accounts and those 

of the military departments will undoubtedly affect the ability of 

the military departments to achieve their transformation goals. To 

address these concerns the committee continues to encourage the 

establishment of memoranda of agreement and cooperative programs between DARPA and the military departments in support of 

service transformation goals

Facial recognition access control technology 

The budget request contained $60.5 million in PE 63122D8Z for 

the Combating Terrorism Technology Support program. No funds 

were requested for the development of facial recognition technology. 

245

The committee notes the surveillance and force protection benefits that would result from the ability to identify an individual in 

a crowd, who might be a terrorist, by the ability to automatically 

recognize that individual by comparison of the individual’s facial 

features to data contained in a facial recognition library. The committee notes the progress that has been made in the development 

of facial recognition technology, but also notes that further work is 

required in the areas of image quality and automatic recognition 

performance for the technology to be truly useful. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

63122D8Z to continue the program for development of facial recognition technology. 

Integrated nano- and micro-manufacturing technology 

The budget request contained $151.0 million in PE 61101E for 

Defense Research Sciences. 

The committee notes on-going basic research in novel 

nanotechnologies that, when combined with innovative micromanufacturing materials and processes, could result in the ability to 

produce microsystems and nanosystems for a broad range of military and civilian applications. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

61101E to continue basic research in integrated nano- and micromanufacturing technology. 

Magnetic Quadrupole Resonance Explosives Detection 

The budget request contained $60.5 million in PE 63122D8Z for 

the Combating Terrorism Technology Support program. 

The committee notes the development, demonstration, and employment of scanning explosives detection systems that use nuclear 

quadrupole resonance technology to detect the presence of explosives in luggage and mail with a greatly enhanced detection probability and reduced false alarm rate. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

63122D8Z to accelerate the development and evaluation of magnetic quadrupole resonance technology for screening personnel and 

luggage for the presence of explosives and to extend the applications of the technology to the screening of cargo and vehicles. 

Man Portable Air Defense System (MANPADS) Defense Program 

The budget request included $25.0 million for the man portable 

air defense system defense program in PE 64618D8Z. An authorization request in fiscal year 2005 is projected at more than $500 

million in research and development and procurement. No DOD 

validated scope of work exists for the fiscal year 2004 request and 

the Department was unable to provide any substantive basis for 

the fiscal year 2005 projected request. 

The committee recommends an authorization of $3.0 million for 

fiscal year 2004, a decrease of $22.0 million. 

Medical free electron laser 

The budget request contained $9.5 million in PE 62227D8Z for 

medical free electron laser applied research. 

The committee notes that the medical free electron laser program 

seeks to develop advanced, laser-based applications for military 

246

medicine and related materials research. Because free electron lasers provide unique pulse features and tunable wavelength characteristics that are unavailable in other laser devices, their use 

broadens the experimental options for the development of new 

laser-based medical technologies. The program is a merit-based, 

peer-reviewed, competitively awarded research program, the majority of which is focused on developing advanced procedures for rapid 

diagnosis and treatment of battlefield related medical problems. The committee recommends $19.5 million in PE 62227D8Z for 

medical free electron laser applied research, an increase of $10.0 

million. 

Multi-wavelength surface scanning biologics sensor 

The budget request contained $16.7 million in PE 63714D8Z for 

the advanced sensor applications program. 

The committee notes on-going research in the use of multi-wavelength excitation spectral technology for the detection and identification of biologic agents that are not discernible with conventional 

sensors and understands that successful demonstration of this 

technology could provide a significant improvement in the scanning 

and screening of potentially contaminated locations. Congress 

added $1.0 million in fiscal year 2003 to continue previously funded 

work on the technology and support evaluation of a laboratory test 

bed system with a wide range of simulate and target pathogens 

and environmental backgrounds. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

63714D8Z for development of a prototype multi-wavelength surface 

scanning biologics sensor and evaluate the performance of the prototype under various background conditions. 

National Defense University sponsored research program 

The budget request contained $30.2 million in PE 65104D8Z for 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) technical studies, support, 

and analysis. 

The committee notes that the National Defense University 

(NDU), supported by funding provided by the Director of Defense 

Research and Engineering, has established a pilot research and 

analysis program focused on defense policy issues that have a significant technology component. The objective of this program is to 

examine the links between technology and national security policy 

by supporting research at civilian institutions of higher learning 

and by building relationships between these institutions and NDU. 

In fiscal year 2002, Congress funded a separate, but related pilot 

program for NDU to develop a pilot program ‘‘to find practical ways 

in which the defense information technology community can gain 

a mutual understanding of defense needs and industry capabilities 

and identify opportunities to integrate information technology innovations into the U.S. military strategy. The results of these programs provides national security policy decision makers with analyses necessary to make informed decisions on policy and the implications of technology on national security. The committee notes 

with pleasure the results of the programs to date. 

The committee recommends $32.2 million in PE 65104D8Z, an 

increase of $2.0 million to continue National Defense University 

sponsored research and related programs. The committee encourVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00270 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.062 A106HR
247

ages the Director of Defense Research and Engineering to provide 

sustained funding for these programs as an integral part of the 

OSD technical studies, support, and analysis program. 

Nuclear weapons effects 

The budget request contained $183.2 million in PE 62716BR for 

applied research in weapon of mass destruction defeat technology, 

including $16.6 million for nuclear phenomenology and nuclear 

weapons effects. 

The committee notes that the budget for nuclear weapons effects 

applied research has declined dramatically since the early 1990’s 

and the decline in the budget has been accompanied by a decline 

in the capability for and expertise in analysis of nuclear weapons 

effects. The current program uses a combination of computer analysis, simulation and protection technology to address key issues regarding the survivability of critical U.S. systems in a potential nuclear environment, including missile defense interceptors, satellite 

electronics, and warfighting command, control, communications 

and intelligence (C3I) systems and facilities. The committee believes that the United States’ nuclear weapons effects analysis capability needs to be revitalized to address emerging 21st Century 

threats to U.S. territories and interests, such as the potential for 

terrorist use of radiological dispersion devices (so called ‘‘dirty 

bombs’’) or crude nuclear weapons in an urban environment; the 

potential effect of electromagnetic pulse generated by a nuclear 

weapon on C3I and other electronic systems; and analysis of requirements for defense of critical assets. The committee understands that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency plan has realigned the limited funding available for nuclear weapons effects 

applied research in fiscal year 2003 and in the fiscal year 2004 

budget request and plans to increase funding in the area in the fiscal year 2005 program objective memorandum. The committee recommends $193.2 million in PE 62716BR, an 

increase of $10.0 million for nuclear weapons effects applied research. 

‘‘PackBot’’ tactical mobile robot 

The budget request contained $13.6 million in PE 64709D8Z for 

the joint robotics program, but included no funding for the 

PackBot, Tactical Mobile Robot. The committee is aware that the 

PackBot robot has proven itself in both by use in disaster and by 

Army and Special Forces in combat for a variety of purposes. The 

committee supports further development to refine the PackBot and 

provide additional sensors based on operational experience, and to 

rapidly procure 50 PackBots for Army and SOCOM use. 

The committee recommends $26.1 million in PE 64709D8Z, an 

increase of $12.5 million for ‘‘PackBot.’’ 

Primate biomedical laboratory test and evaluation capability 

The budget request contained $162.1 million in PE 63884BP for 

chemical biological defense, including $68.0 million for medical biological defense and $4.8 million for medical chemical defense. 

The medical biological and medical chemical defense programs 

fund advanced component development and prototyping for vaccines, drugs, and diagnostic medical devices that are directed 

248

against biological warfare agents (including bacteria, viruses, and 

toxins of biological origin) and countermeasures for chemical agents 

(including life support equipment, diagnostic equipment, 

pretreatment and therapeutic drugs, and individual/casualty decontamination compounds). Fielding of vaccines, prophylactics and 

therapeutic drugs requires Food and Drug Administration approval, supported by multiple long term studies of investigational 

new drugs that require testing in animal models of successively 

higher orders (culminating in testing in primates), before testing on 

human subjects can be conducted and the drug approved for use. 

The committee notes that there currently exists a national shortage of primate facilities required to develop realistic animal models 

for biological threat agents, which have the biocontainment level 

required for testing of vaccines, drugs, and therapeutics against the 

biological warfare threat that could be encountered on the battlefield and against the biological agents that could be used in a biological terrorism event. 

In view of the increased priority given to the Department of Defense’s biological defense program and the time required to establish such a facility under conventional military construction procedures, the committee believes that the Department of Defense 

should establish in the public sector a strategically located primate 

laboratory test and evaluation facility that could support medical 

biological countermeasures research and development and other 

medical research activities by the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRID), and also respond to 

other Federal needs. The committee anticipates that a cooperative 

research and development agreement would be established between 

the facility and USAMRID to guide the research activities of the 

primate biomedical laboratory. The committee also believes that 

such a facility could also support other Department of Defense 

medical research missions, in addition to those included in the 

chemical and biological defense program. Accordingly, the committee recommends $177.1 million in PE 

63884BP, an increase of $15.0 million to establish a secure, highcontainment primate biomedical laboratory for support of Department of Defense chemical-biological defense and medical programs. 

Re-defined Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence) role 

The committee is aware that because the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence) has been established to manage and oversee intelligence within the Department of Defense, the role of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Command, Control, Communications and 

Intelligence) (ASD (C3I)) role is being re-defined. 

The committee notes the increasing importance of network centric warfare, and believes that establishing an overarching architecture including space-based, airborne and surface transformational communications is the foundation for future warfare. 

The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense to 

emphasize responsibilities for creating and maintaining the new infrastructure necessary to transform warfare operations when re-defining the role of ASD (C3I). The committee notes the success of 

the recent campaign based on time-critical strike and notes that 

despite recent successes, results of lessons that can be learned 

249

should be included in the transformation communication system architecture. 

Special Operations Advanced Technology Development 

The budget request contained $67.0 million for special operations 

advanced technology development, but included no funding for the 

multi-band multi-mission radio and no funding for the special operations medical diagnostic system. The radio, which will be the primary mission radio for special operations forces tactical units, reduces the communications gear requirement for forward operating 

units by replacing multiple manpack radios. The committee believes that the multi-band multi-mission radio will substantially increase special forces small unit communications capability and 

should receive continued funding. Similarly, the special operations 

forces medical diagnostic system shows great promise in quickly diagnosing medical emergencies for deployed troops. The recommended funding will enable the Special Operations Command to 

further refine the operational requirements for this system. The committee recommends $78.5 million in PE 1160402BB, an 

increase of $10.0 million for the multi-band multi-mission radio 

and an increase of $1.5 million for the medical diagnostic system. 

Support to homeland security 

The budget contained $476.7 million in PE 33140G for the information security systems program (ISSP), but included no funds for 

support to the Department of Homeland Security. 

The committee is aware that according to National Security Policy 42, the National Security Agency (NSA) is the executive agent 

for information assurance services and products to the federal government. The committee recognizes that providing a secure infrastructure outside the federal government was not a great concern 

until the events of September 11, 2001, demonstrated that a secure 

infrastructure between federal and local officials (first respondersincluding law enforcement, medical, rescue) is necessary to provide 

the free exchange of communications to help in preventing future 

terrorist activities. The committee notes that National Security 

Agency requires additional personnel and funding to develop an appropriate secure infrastructure for homeland defense. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence to work with the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide NSA the resources to develop a crypto 

product line to support homeland security. 

Technology development 

The budget request contained $249.2 million in PE 35191D8Z for 

technology development for classified projects. 

The committee believes that funding is in excess of requirements. 

Further details are in the classified annex to this report. 

The committee recommends $226.7 million in PE 35191D8Z for 

technology development, a decrease of $22.5 million for technology 

development. 

Unmanned aerial vehicle acquisition management 

The committee has reviewed the Department of Defense (DOD) 

unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) roadmap and sees significant 

250

progress since the previous version. However, a recent committee 

hearing disclosed that within the office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense (Acquisition and Technology), the Director, Unmanned 

Aerial Vehicles has not been given sufficient authority to ensure 

that the military services comply with the provisions approved 

UAV roadmap. 

The committee believes that having a good UAV roadmap is essential to most effectively fielding complementary, non-redundant, 

fully jointly interoperable UAV capabilities and that the Secretary 

of Defense should ensure that only approved UAV systems are acquired. 

OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Overview 

The budget request contained $286.7 million for Operational Test 

and Evaluation, Defense. 

The committee recommends $286.7 million, no change to the 

budget request.

251


Insert graphic folio 285 87068.119
252

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would establish the amounts authorized to be appropriated for Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation for the 

Department of Defense for fiscal year 2004. 

Section 202—Amount for Defense Science and Technology 

This section would establish the amounts authorized to be appropriated for Defense Science and Technology, including basic research, applied research, and advanced technology development for 

fiscal year 2004. 

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND

LIMITATIONS

Section 211—Collaborative Program for Development of 

Electromagnetic Gun Technology 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

and carry out a collaborative program among the Department of 

the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency for evaluation and demonstration of advanced technologies and concepts for advanced gun systems that 

use electromagnetic propulsion for direct and indirect fire applications. 

For the past 20 years, the Department of Defense (principally the 

Army) has been conducting research and developing technology for 

the use of electromagnetic propulsion in advanced gun systems that 

would capitalize on the significantly higher velocity, longer range, 

greater lethality, and reduced ammunition weight and volume that 

would be achievable with such guns compared to those that use 

conventional explosive charges. Once proven, electromagnetic guns 

(EMG) could provide multi-role, survivable weapon systems capable 

of growing to meet a range of future threats in line-of-sight (direct 

fire) and non-line-of-sight and beyond-line-of-sight (indirect fire) applications. Recently, the Navy has also developed linear electric 

motor (rail gun) technologies for advanced catapult systems for new 

aircraft carriers. 

The committee is aware of Army interest in developing EMG 

technology for the Future Combat System, in the Marine Corps for 

using EMG technology to increase the lethality of its legacy M1A1 

120mm gun tank, and in the Navy for very long-range ship-toshore fire support from an EMG on an all-electric ship. 

The committee notes the results of a recent independent review 

team’s technical assessment on the Army’s EMG program which 

concluded that the major Army investment in electromagnetic 

launchers, projectiles, pulsed power supplies, and other EMG technologies are showing significant and noteworthy progress. Much of 

the enabling technology has reached a technology maturity or readiness level (TRL) of 3 to 4 (A TRL of 6 is the maturity level generally regarded as necessary for initiation of a system development 

program that should result in a successful acquisition program.) 

253

The assessment team concluded that continued work is needed to 

mature EMG technology and to establish the viability of EMG technology for potential military applications, including ground combat 

vehicle main armament, air defense, long-range ship-to-shore fire 

support, and precision air-to-ground standoff weapons. The team 

recommended stable program funding and a continuing research 

and development program that would support initiation of a fullscale advanced technology demonstration in the fiscal year 2006 

time-frame, leading to a Milestone B acquisition decision in fiscal 

year 2011. 

The committee further notes that the justification books submitted with the budget request indicate a Department of the Army 

investment in its EMG program of $127.9 million through fiscal 

year 2009 and a Department of the Navy investment of $ $85.6 

million. The Army’s fiscal year 2004 budget includes $31.0 million 

for EMG technology research and development. No funds were requested for the Navy’s program in fiscal year 2004. Elsewhere in 

this report, the committee has recommended an increase of $7.6 

million for the Navy program and an increase of $2.1 million in the 

Army program. 

In view of the interest of the Army, the Navy, and the Marine 

Corps in the development and application of EMG technology, the 

committee believes that a collaborative program should be established among the military departments and the Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency for the development of common enabling 

technologies and their exploitation to meet service operational requirements. The committee believes that such a program should 

build upon military service and agency strengths with DARPA taking on those high risk/high payoff technologies such as advanced 

projectiles and projectile guidance and control and each military 

department taking the lead in those areas for which they have the 

most experience and/or expertise. The committee also believes that 

industry could and should play a significant role in the program. 

The committee expects that each military department would define 

and execute its own focused maturation and demonstration program, incorporating the products of the most promising common 

technology maturation efforts. 

Section 212—Authority to Select Civilian Employees of Department 

of Defense as Director of Department of Defense Test Resource 

Management Center 

This section would amend section 196(b)(1) of title 10, United 

States Code (section 231 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law 107–314) to provide that, in addition to a commissioned officer of the armed forces 

serving on active duty, the Secretary of Defense may also consider 

for possible selection as Director of the Department of Defense Test 

Resource Center a senior civilian official or employees of the Department of Defense who have substantial experience in the field 

of test and evaluation. The committee believes that limiting the selection of the Director to active duty commissioned officers is unduly restrictive and does not make use of the test and evaluation 

experience that is also available among the Department’s senior civilian officials or employees. 

254

Section 213—Joint Tactical Radio System 

This section would establish an independent joint tactical radio 

system (JTRS) joint program office (JPO) under rotating military 

service leadership. It would also centralize program funding and 

place all JTRS cluster development under JPO control. In addition, 

the JPO would ensure a joint JTRS concept of operations. 

Section 214—Future Combat Systems 

This section would require the budget request for projects within 

the Armored Systems Modernization Program within the Department of the Army to be displayed in separate program elements. 

Further, this section would preclude authorization of appropriations until the Secretary of Defense provides to the congressional 

defense committees more detailed justification for the $1.7 billion 

program. 

Section 215—Army Program to Pursue Technologies Leading to the 

Enhanced Production of Titanium by the United States 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to assess 

promising technologies leading to the enhanced production of titanium by the United States and select on a competitive basis the 

most viable technologies. The Secretary of the Army would be required to serve as the executive agent in this effort. 

The budget request contained $39.5 million for weapons and munitions technologies in PE 62624A for improved weapon and munitions technologies to enable combat superiority for the objective 

force, but no funds were included to enhance U.S. industrial capabilities to produce low cost titanium alloys. 

The titanium extraction mining and process engineering research 

(TEMPER) initiative is intended to enhance U.S. industrial capabilities for the efficient production of inexpensive titanium for systems designed as part of the Army’s Objective Force. 

The committee is aware that light weight materials used to increase survivability and reduce system weight are expensive to 

produce. The committee notes that new production methods have 

become available within industry and recommends that the Secretary of Defense develop an integrated plan to improve related 

technologies in a centralized manner. 

The committee recommends $47.5 million in PE 62624A, an increase of $8.0 million for the Secretary of the Army to lead an effort to assess and select the most viable methods to produce titanium through the TEMPER initiative. 

Section 216—Extension of Reporting Requirement for RAH–66 Comanche Aircraft Program 

This section would extend the requirement for the Secretary of 

the Army to provide a quarterly report through fiscal year 2004 to 

the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and the House of 

Representatives regarding the progress of the restructured RAH–

66 Comanche aircraft program. 

255

Section 217—Future Fleet Architecture Studies 

Although total Navy capability is increasingly a product of sensors and networking technology rather than individual platforms, 

the Navy at its most fundamental level, will continue to be built 

around ships of various kinds and sizes, along with its supporting 

aircraft. For example, the Navy force structure set forth in the 

2001 Quadrennial Defense Review can be defined as one built 

around 12 large-deck aircraft carriers of approximately 100,000 

tons displacement each, 116 major surface combatants displacing 

4,000 to 9,500 tons each, 55 nuclear-powered attack submarines 

and 36 amphibious support ships organized into 12 amphibious 

ready groups with a combined lift capability of 2.5 Marine Expeditionary Brigades. Together with associated mine warfare, combat 

logistics and support ships, this force structure would total about 

310 ships. Additionally, this force structure includes 11 carrier air 

wings, additional surface-combatant-based helicopters, and landbased maritime patrol aircraft. 

This basic combination of ships and aircraft represents the 

Navy’s platform architecture. Given the long lead times needed to 

design and build ships and aircraft, their long operational life cycles, and the relatively low annual rates (relative to the existing inventory) at which new ships and aircraft can be procured, the 

Navy’s overall platform architecture tends to evolve gradually over 

time. 

The committee is concerned that the Navy’s current vision of its 

future platform architecture may be, to a great extent, determined 

by inertia and momentum. As an example, the committee understands that the decision on establishment of the Littoral Combat 

Ship (LCS) program was made prior to an analysis of alternatives 

for the mission. The committee believes that new technologies and 

operational concepts, including network-centric operations, and 

emerging threats, including asymmetric threats, could result in a 

Navy platform architecture that is significantly different than envisioned today. The committee is also concerned that the Navy, while 

considering emerging threats, evolving technologies, and new operational concepts, in determining its future platform architecture, 

may be too tradition-bound and thereby limit the opportunities 

available to leverage technologies and operational concepts. 

While the fiscal year 2004 future years defense plan assumes 

operational concepts and associated hardware that represent departures in some respects from today’s architecture, the committee 

is concerned that in other respects, the Navy’s current planning for 

the future may be excessively bounded by the features of its current platform architecture. The committee is also concerned that, 

as a result, the Navy’s future overall platform architecture may 

turn out in many respects to be too much of a linear descendent 

of today’s architecture. While such a fleet would no doubt be more 

capable than today’s fleet, it may not be the most capable fleet that 

could be produced for a given level of resources, or the most appropriate fleet for addressing tomorrow’s threats. 

Numerous proposals have been put forth in recent years, including sea-based platforms of sizes and kinds that are significantly 

different from those that make up today’s overall fleet platform architecture. These include, to name only a few examples, small surVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00279 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.066 A106HR
256

face combatants and aircraft carriers; UAV/UCAV carriers; high 

speed surface combatants and amphibious ships; ships that combine the features of today’s surface combatants and amphibious 

ships; and mobile sea bases based on oil platform technology. Proposals like these, if pursued, could lead to a wide variety of potential future overall fleet platform architectures. The committee is 

concerned that the Navy has not sufficiently explored the universe 

of possibilities for what this architecture might look like, and thus 

cannot speak to Congress about them in sufficient detail. The committee is also concerned that no one entity, either inside or outside 

the Navy, is necessarily best positioned to know which alternative 

architecture might be the most promising, and that the understanding of the issue would benefit from a variety of informed 

views. 

Accordingly, the committee has recommended a provision (section 

215) directing the Secretary of Defense to commission a collection 

of eight independent studies on future overall fleet platform architectures. Each study would be funded at a cost of up to $200,000, 

and be completed in both classified and unclassified versions, as required. 

Four of the studies would be performed by qualified analytical organizations external to the Navy, such as the RAND Corporation, 

the Institute for Defense Analysis, the Johns Hopkins University 

Applied Physics Laboratory, and the Center for Strategic and 

Budgetary Analysis. One of the studies would be done by an inhouse Navy organization, such as the Ship & Force Architecture 

Concepts program office within the Naval Sea Systems Command. 

And three of the studies would be done by defense firms or teams 

of defense firms, so as to take advantage of the knowledge and creativity in the private sector. 

The study efforts shall be ‘‘fire walled’’ from one another to ensure eight independent analyses. In performing the studies, participants would take into account the National Security Strategy of 

the United States, potential future threats to the United States 

and to U.S. Naval forces, the traditional roles and missions of the 

U.S. Naval forces, alternative roles and missions, and the role of 

evolving technology on future naval forces. Participants, while cognizant of today’s overall fleet platform architecture, would not let 

the current features of the architecture constrain in any way their 

analysis. The goal is to achieve a ‘‘clean sheet’’ vision of potential 

platform architectures for the future—to provide possible answers 

to the question: What would the ideal Navy of the future look like 

in terms of overall fleet platform architecture if we didn’t have to 

bound our thinking by the features of today’s architecture? 

Each of the eight studies would present one or two possible overall platform architectures, which shall be described in terms of the 

numbers, kinds, and sizes of ships involved, numbers and types of 

associated manned and unmanned platforms, and the basic capabilities of these ships and platforms. The studies shall also include 

other top-level information needed to understand the architecture 

in basic form, and the analysis that led to the architecture. 

257

SUBTITLE C—BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

Section 221—Ballistic Missile Defense System 

This section would amend subsection (a) of section 223 of title 10, 

United States Code to allow the President flexibility in designating 

program elements for the Missile Defense Agency. The section 

would make conforming changes, including those to related reporting requirements, and other technical amendments. 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

READINESS OVERVIEW 

The fiscal year 2004 budget request for operation and maintenance of $117.0 billion represents an overall increase across the 

Department of Defense of $1.4 billion (1.3 percent) over spending 

levels authorized and appropriated for fiscal year 2003. Of the 

$117.0 billion request, $3.4 billion is attributable to price increases 

for general and fuel inflation, civilian pay raises, depot maintenance rates, contracts, and working capital fund activities to name 

only a few. In short, these price increases directly relate to maintaining the same level of effort from fiscal year 2003. The committee is concerned that these price increases, some as high as 18 

percent, are eroding the ability of the services to fund their core 

readiness programs. The budget request lists a total of $1.9 billion 

in program reductions from fiscal year 2003. Accordingly, while the 

increase in funding for readiness accounts is $1.4 billion, that increase does not compensate the price growth. In fact, some important readiness programs have had programmatic reductions just to 

fund these pricing increases. In summary, the overall level of funding for operation and maintenance in the budget, existing operational tempo, and the chiefs of the military departments’ unfunded requirements for fiscal year 2004, indicates that the services’ readiness will be adversely affected as they attempt to reconstitute the force following recent contingencies. 

The Department’s budget request is a peacetime budget that 

takes substantial risk in the operation and maintenance arena. 

This risk will become most evident as military forces returning 

from wartime operations are faced with significant challenges in 

Navy shipyard capacity, Army spare parts availability, and Air 

Force and Marine Corps depot funding limitations. In this budget 

important areas including facility sustainment, renovation and 

modernization, depot maintenance programs, and repair parts continue to be funded at levels that will make it difficult to sustain 

readiness in the services in the short and long term. Also, in hearings held this year to review the state of military readiness, testimony was received that strongly suggests that the aging weapons 

systems across the services and the funding necessary to sustain 

these systems has not been fully recognized in recent budget requests. Frequent and lengthy deployments associated with the current operational tempo have exacerbated the impact of under-funding on readiness for over a decade. The likelihood of future continued deployment requirements, coupled with large post-war ship 

and aircraft maintenance workload, portends greater readiness risk 

258

than the Department has acknowledged or accommodated in the 

fiscal year 2004 budget request. 

As an example of this risk, the Department’s budget request for 

the Army places execution of the tank miles goal in jeopardy due 

to under-funding for consumable repair parts by $156 million. Also, 

Army aviation is unable to execute 14.5 hours per crew, per month 

due to grounded aircraft and spare parts shortages. More broadly, 

the Army’s management and funding of spare parts is an example 

of a decade of neglect that has created an urgent requirement to 

replenish these stocks. A more prudent approach toward resolving 

the parts shortages would be a long-term, disciplined approach that 

includes routinely adequate funding, rather than a $1.5 billion, 

two-year remedy. The committee notes the Army’s current effort to 

address the repair parts shortage but cautions that consistent 

funding, rather than precipitous funding changes and poorly implemented policy changes, are more likely to produce the desired return on investment. 

The budget request for the Navy is lower than the Navy’s own required estimate by nearly $1.0 billion. In the first quarter of fiscal year 2003 the Navy exceeded its 54.0 steaming days per quarter 

funding level by nearly 10 days. By the end of the current year 

that average is expected to climb even further due to the midyear 

deployment of 207 of the Navy’s 306 ships. This level of operational 

tempo adds to the maintenance challenges associated with many 

depot availability deferments. The Navy also faces readiness challenges due to the length and frequency of deployments, the modest 

size of the 306 ship fleet relative to global security requirements, 

the age of many of its aircraft, and the disruption of the planned 

maintenance schedule for ships and aircraft. The surge in operations in fiscal year 2003 can be expected to generate a large postsurge ship and aircraft workload. Despite this fact, however, the 

Navy has reduced its shipyard depot maintenance accounts by 

$600.0 million in fiscal 2004 while increasing funding for the Navy 

flying hour program by only $115.0 million over fiscal year 2003 

levels, principally for spare parts rather than flying hours. Clearly, 

the Navy has under-resourced its actual requirements in view of 

current and projected operational tempo. 

Over the last decade, readiness rates for Air Force major combat 

units have dropped from an average of 91 percent to a low of 65 

percent. While readiness rates have since climbed to an average of 

70 percent, the committee heard testimony that increased spare 

parts funding, fleet modernization and process improvements were 

necessary to achieve even this modest improvement. Although the 

achievement of more appropriate readiness rates will take even

higher levels of resources, the Air Force has significantly underfunded depot maintenance accounts, and has identified $516.0 million for its depots as its number one unfunded requirement. 

The Marine Corps’ budget request for fiscal year 2004 would 

fund only 67 percent of depot maintenance requirements. Even a 

critical requirement such as initial issue equipment has been identified by the Marine Corps as a high priority unfunded requirement. 

Adequate resourcing of the Department’s training infrastructure 

continues to lag behind requirements in the fiscal year 2004 budget 

request. While the results of such under-funding may not become 

259

fully apparent for some time, the erosion of infrastructure undermines the quality of training and degrades mission performance 

and readiness. The Department’s $179.9 million investment the 

Joint National Training Center and training transformation may 

provide innovative training opportunities, including more joint 

inter-service training, and address some infrastructure and instrumentation limitations by leveraging training resources. However, 

existing training facilities across the Department are not adequately resourced in this budget request. 

A final area of note continues to be encroachment of training 

areas and ranges of the Department caused by environmental restrictions. While the Department has sought to work within the existing restrictions, there is a steady detriment in the quality and 

realism of many training activities. In some cases, training activities are curtailed, rescheduled or cancelled due to environmental 

issues, with considerable fiscal and readiness impacts. The Department and the services have done much to bring attention to the 

scope of the problem. The committee will continue to examine encroachment concerns and will make further adjustments to provide 

the Department and the services relief, as warranted.

260


Insert graphic folio 293 87068.120
261


Insert graphic folio 294 87068.121
262


Insert graphic folio 295 87068.122
263


Insert graphic folio 296 87068.123
264


Insert graphic folio 297 87068.124
265


Insert graphic folio 298 87068.125
266


Insert graphic folio 299 87068.126
267


Insert graphic folio 300 87068.127
268


Insert graphic folio 301 87068.128
269


Insert graphic folio 302 87068.129
270


Insert graphic folio 303 87068.130
271


Insert graphic folio 304 87068.131
272


Insert graphic folio 305 87068.132
273


Insert graphic folio 306 87068.133
274


Insert graphic folio 307 87068.134
275


Insert graphic folio 308 87068.135
276


Insert graphic folio 309 87068.136
277


Insert graphic folio 310 87068.137
278


Insert graphic folio 311 87068.138
279


Insert graphic folio 312 87068.139
280


Insert graphic folio 313 87068.140
281


Insert graphic folio 314 87068.141
282


Insert graphic folio 315 87068.142
283


Insert graphic folio 316 87068.143
284


Insert graphic folio 317 87068.144
285


Insert graphic folio 318 87068.145
286


Insert graphic folio 319 87068.146
287


Insert graphic folio 320 87068.147
288


Insert graphic folio 321 87068.148
289


Insert graphic folio 322 87068.149
290

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

BUDGET REQUEST ADJUSTMENTS—READINESS

The committee recommends the following adjustments to the fiscal year 2004 amended budget request:

[In millions of dollars] 

Department of the Army Adjustments: 

BA–1 Hydration on the Move (Camelbak) ........................................... 2.0

BA–1 Controlled Humidity Preservation (CHP) Program .................. 4.0

BA–1 Consumable Parts ........................................................................ 90.0

BA–1 Depot Maintenance ...................................................................... 231.3 

BA–3 U.S. Army Engineer School ........................................................ 4.0 

BA–3 Army’s Defense Language Institute ........................................... 2.5 

BA–3 Flight School XXI ......................................................................... 148.0 

BA–4 Military Vehicle Tires ................................................................. 2.0 

BA–4 Army Military Vehicle Batteries ................................................ 2.0 

BA–4 American Red Cross .................................................................... 3.0 

BA–1 Fuel ............................................................................................... (20.5) 

BA–1 Working Capital Fund—Cash .................................................... (50.0) 

BA–1 Contingency Operations, Southwest Asia .................................. (200.4) 

BA–4 Administration ............................................................................. (7.9) 

BA–4 Other Support Services ............................................................... (7.1) 

BA–4 Civilian Personnel Underexecution ............................................ (26.6) 

Army National Guard Cold Weather Clothing (ECWCS) ..................... 2.0 

Army Reserve Cold Weather Clothing (ECWCS) .................................. 2.0 

Department of the Navy Adjustments: 

BA–1 Ship Depot Maintenance ............................................................. 76.0 

BA–1 Flight Operations ......................................................................... 172.5 

BA–1 Fuel ............................................................................................... (122.7) 

BA–1 Contingency operations, Southwest Asia ................................... (76.1) 

BA–3 Training Support ......................................................................... (15.0) 

BA–4 Administration ............................................................................. (10.0) 

BA–4 Planning, Engineering, and Design ........................................... (10.0) 

United States Marine Corps Adjustments: 

BA–1 Hydration on the Move (Camelbak) ........................................... 2.0 

BA–1 Depot Maintenance ...................................................................... 35.9 

BA–1 Initial Issue .................................................................................. 51.0 

BA–1 U.S. Joint Maritime BEQ Facility .............................................. 0.6 

BA–1 Deployable Virtual Training Environment ................................ 2.5 

BA–1 Individual First Aid Kit .............................................................. 6.2 

BA–1 Restrictive Use Easements ......................................................... 5.8 

BA–1 Air Command and Control Sustainment ................................... 1.1 

BA–1 Corrosion Control and Prevention Program .............................. 6.0 

BA–1 USMC Reserve—Depot Level Maintenance .............................. 7.3 

BA–1 USMC Reserve—Initial Issue ..................................................... 13.2 

BA–1 USMC Reserve—Cartridge, 5.56 Ball M855 ............................. 5.0 

Department of the Air Force Adjustments: 

BA–1 Depot Maintenance ...................................................................... 329.7 

BA–1 Flying Hour Spares ..................................................................... 90.0 

BA–1 Base Operations Support ............................................................ (300.0) 

BA–1 Working Capital Fund—Cash .................................................... (26.0) 

BA–1 Fuel ............................................................................................... (225.0) 

BA–1 Supply Management .................................................................... (344.4) 

BA–1 Working Capital Fund—Transportation .................................... (946.3) 

BA–1 Contingency Operations, Southeast Asia .................................. (707.6) 

BA–4 Civilian PCS ................................................................................. (20.8) 

BA–4 Early Outs .................................................................................... (10.0) 

BA–1 Air National Guard Cold Weather Clothing (ECWCS) ............ 2.0 

Defense-wide Activities Adjustments: 

BA–4 Defense Logistics Agency (CTMA) ............................................. 10.0 

BA–1 Fuel ............................................................................................... (40.9) 

BA–1 Contingency Operations, Southwest Asia .................................. (58.1) 

BA–4 Defense Logistics Agency (DPAO) .............................................. (15.7) 

BA–4 Office of Secretary of Defense, Contract of Support Service .... (13.0) 

BA–4 Office of Secretary of Defense, Long-range planning ............... (6.8) 

BA–4 Defense Information Systems Agency ........................................ (10.6) 

291

BA–4 Defense Security Cooperation Agency ....................................... (200.0) 

Transfer Accounts and Miscellaneous: 

Overseas Contingencies ........................................................................... (50.0)

BUDGET REQUEST DISPLAY ISSUES—READINESS

Base Operating Support 

Base operating support is a vital aspect of community support affecting the ability of installations to support resident missions and 

execute quality of life programs affecting service members and 

their families. Each of the services has established installation 

management structures to implement overarching strategies and 

programs designed to achieve service-wide efficiencies. The services 

are encouraged to continue their efforts to find efficiencies in base 

operating support functions through standardization and adoption 

of ‘‘best practices.’’ The committee notes that funding for base operating support in fiscal year 2004 decreases in all but one service. 

The committee urges the Department to ensure that all the services focus their installation management structures on achieving 

additional efficiencies. The committee recommends a decrease of 

$300.0 million to the proposed budget in order to fund other higher 

priority requirements. 

Civilian Career Program Relocations—Air Force 

The committee does not support a 52 percent increase in civilian 

career program relocations. The proposed increase is to fund real 

estate expenses associated with the government’s purchase of 

homes that government employees are not able to sell as a result 

of accepting a position of employment in a different geographical location. The committee notes that this is an optional entitlement 

used in recruiting government employees. The budget material presented states there will be 1,375 projected civilian relocations in FY 

2004. Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $10.0 

million to the proposed budget and recommends funding other 

higher priority programs. 

Civilian Personnel Budget—Army 

The General Accounting Office has projected that the Army has 

overstated the cost for civilian personnel by $26.6 million. The projections are based on the Department’s February 28, 2003 civilian 

personnel staffing report. The committee, therefore, recommends a 

reduction of $26.6 million to the proposed budget. 

Civilian Separation Incentives—Air Force 

The committee is concerned that the Air Force is requesting additional funds for civilian separations. Section 4436 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Public Law 102–

484) authorizes the use of civilian separation incentives. The committee notes the source of the payments shall be paid by an agency 

out of any funds or appropriations available for salaries and expenses of such agency. The committee recommends that the Air

Force fund this program with prudent management of civilian 

under execution. Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction of $20.8 million to the proposed budget. 

292

Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities—Defense 

Logistics Agency 

It is vital for depot level activities to have access to modern and 

advanced manufacturing capabilities. The Commercial Technologies 

for Maintenance Activities program is designed to allow depot level 

activities to participate in manufacturing technology demonstration 

projects with the leading United States manufacturers. The committee recommends the addition of $10.0 million for the Defense 

Logistics Agency to continue this program. 

Consumable Repair Parts—Army 

The committee recommends an increase of $90 million to the proposed budget in order for the Army to fund adequately the Army’s 

projected orders for consumable repair parts. The Army projected 

an increase growth in consumable repair parts when they updated 

the annual average for fiscal year 2004 budget. The Army updates 

this average each year based on the actual demand data from the 

three previous years. However, the Army made a decision to suppress the demand identified and instead used a ten year average 

to project demands for the operating tempo model. The committee 

is concerned that the Army is assuming unnecessary risk. 

The committee notes that the Army has made significant improvements in the execution of ground operational tempo combined 

arms training strategy mile requirements in fiscal year 2001 and 

fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends, at a minimum, that 

the Army continue to use a three-year moving average to project 

consumable repair part demands for its ground operational tempo 

requirements. 

Contingency Operations Funding—Southwest Asia 

The proposed budget includes a funding request for contingency 

operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Southwest Asia. Recent operations in Iraq have obviated the requirement for such funds for 

Southwest Asia. The committee, therefore, recommends a reduction 

in the following accounts.

[In millions of dollars] 

Army Operations ............................................................................................. (200.4) 

Navy Operations .............................................................................................. (76.1) 

Air Force Operations ....................................................................................... (707.6) 

Defense-Wide Operations ................................................................................ (58.1)

Defense Information Systems Agency 

The budget request proposed an additional $10.6 million for the 

Defense Information Systems Agency for increased backbone fiber 

in support of the war effort. This cost, incurred in fiscal year 2003, 

should not be included in the budget request for the upcoming fiscal year. The committee, therefore, recommends a reduction of 

$10.6 million to the Defense Information Systems Agency budget 

request. 

Defense Policy Analysis Office 

In fiscal year 2003, the Defense Logistics Agency received the 

mission of the Defense Policy Analysis Office, which is to ‘‘review, 

293

analyze, and assess DLA support and serve policies, plans, concepts, procedures, and operations to provide the most efficient, costeffective, and responsive support to Department of Defense components and other federal departments and agencies.’’ The mission of 

this office is also to ‘‘address the development of DOD support policies, plans, concepts, procedures, and operations as requested by 

supported organizations.’’ The committee believes that the described functions are inherent functions of management and headquarters and that a unique office is not necessary. The committee 

recommends a reduction of $15.7 million in this program. 

Depot Funding 

The depot accounts of the Army, Navy and Air Force are underresourced in the fiscal year 2004 budget request despite the likelihood that depot workload will increase as equipment returns from 

the recent war with Iraq. At or near the top of each service’s unfunded requirements list are important depot funding items. The 

committee is disappointed that the Department has submitted a 

budget that allows these critical components of readiness to lack 

the requisite resources. The committee, therefore, recommends the 

following increases to the proposed budget.

[In millions of dollars] 

Army Depots .................................................................................................... 231.3 

Navy Depots ..................................................................................................... 76.0 

Air Force Depots .............................................................................................. 329.7 

United States Marine Corps ........................................................................... 35.9 

United States Marine Corps, Reserve ............................................................ 7.3

Army 

The committee notes that the Army continues to have funding 

shortfalls in depot maintenance which directly impacts near-term 

readiness. The committee recommends an additional $231.2 million 

to maintain organic and contractor critical industrial base skills 

necessary to perform depot maintenance. 

Air Force 

The committee notes that the Secretary of the Air Force has at 

the top of the unfunded priority list a requirement for an additional $516.0 million in depot equipment maintenance. The committee does not consider it acceptable to take such a risk with 

depot maintenance. The committee notes that in fiscal year 2003 

the Air Force funded its depot maintenance requirement at 73 percent, but midway through this fiscal year was forced to transfer 

$227 million out of its flying hour program into the depot maintenance program. The committee believes it is more appropriate to 

adequately fund depot maintenance at the beginning of the fiscal 

year. The committee believes that it is appropriate to reduce program growth and program funding for base operating support in 

order to minimize the size of the depot maintenance unfunded requirement. The committee recommends a reduction of $300 million 

to the Air Force base operating support program and recommends 

an increase of $329.7 million to the Air Force depot maintenance 

program. 

The committee expects the additional funding for depot maintenance to fund the most critical shortfalls, such as aircraft and enVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00317 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.070 A106HR
294

gines. The committee notes that without this additional funding 

the Air Force would defer depot maintenance on 42 aircraft and 76 

engines. The committee also notes that the fiscal year 2002 aircraft 

breakage rates were unusual. The committee is concerned that the 

fiscal year 2004 projections are erroneously based on this data. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $90 million for 

flying hour spare parts. 

Navy 

The proposed budget requests a reduction of $600 million in the 

Navy’s ship depot maintenance account. The Chief of Naval Operations, however, asserts that this reduced level of funding will adequately fund ship depot maintenance accounts. Nevertheless, there 

are particular classes of ships that the Chief of Naval Operations 

has identified as critical programs that are not funded in fiscal 

year 2004. 

First, the LHA 1 class of ships requires additional funding to 

support midlife depot maintenance program to ensure that the 

ships can attain their estimated service life of 35 years. The LHA 

plays a vital and unique role. Troops, vehicles, and equipment can 

all land simultaneously on the LHA, as the ship has aviation and 

landing components. The committee recommends an additional $33 

million to fund the LHA midlife depot maintenance program. 

Second, the AOE–1 class of ships, also known as fast combat support ships, have a service life of 35 years. The average age of this 

ship is beyond 35 years. The committee recognizes that these ships, 

which have high operational tempo, will need to be utilized for several more years. Chief of Naval Operations has also identified 

depot maintenance for this class of ships as a critical program not 

funded in fiscal year 2004. The committee recommends an additional $43 million to fund depot maintenance for the AOE–1 class 

of ships. 

In addition the committee notes that the Navy has not adequately funded flight operations to allow the fleet to train to the 

prescribed level of training. Accordingly, the committee expects 

that $90 million will be applied to flight operations. 

Marine Corps 

The proposed budget would only fund 67 percent of the Marine 

Corps’ depot maintenance requirement. The committee does not 

consider this acceptable. The committee recommends an additional 

$35.9 million and 7.3 million to fund the Marine Corps and Marine 

Corps Reserve depot maintenance programs respectively. 

Fuel Costs—Defense Logistics Agency 

In preparing the fiscal year 2004 budget request, the Department 

projected fuel costs that have since trended downwards. The General Accounting Office believes that the projected fuel shortfall due 

to price fluctuation for fiscal years 2003 and 2004 would be $825.6 

million. The committee notes that the fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriation will provide funds that exceed the fuel costs 

now anticipated for both fiscal years. In addition, the committee 

understands the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) set aside $541.7 

million of their accumulated operating result in fiscal year 2004. 

These funds were to pay the difference between the rate DLA will 

295

charge the Department’s customers and the price it costs to purchase the fuel. In light of the supplemental appropriations available to fund fuel in fiscal years 2003 and 2004, along with the excess funds in DLA’s working capital account, the committee recommends the following reductions and directs that the Defense Logistics Agency reimburse the customers listed below by December 

31, 2003.

[In millions of dollars] 

Army Operations ............................................................................................. (20.5) 

Navy Operations .............................................................................................. (122.7) 

Air Force Operations ....................................................................................... (225.0) 

Defense-wide Operations ................................................................................. (40.9)

Initial Issue Equipment—Marine Corps 

The Commandant of the Marine Corps has an unfunded requirement for initial issue equipment. Under this category of equipment 

are load bearing equipment, all purpose environmental clothing 

systems, outer tactical vests, small arms protective inserts, light 

weight helmets, tents, command posts, and camouflage systems. 

The committee recommends an additional $51.0 million for the Marine Corps and $13.2 million Marine Corps Reserve to fund this requirement. 

Office of Secretary of Defense, Contracts and Other Support 

Services 

The budget request proposes an additional $59.6 million in program growth for contracts and other support services. A significant 

portion of this growth, $23.0 million, would fund Joint Public Affairs Task Force and Defense News Network. The committee does 

not believe DOD has adequately explained or justified this request, 

particularly the need to develop a Defense News Network. The 

committee, therefore, recommends a reduction of $13.0 million for 

this program. 

Overseas Contingency Operations Fund 

The Department has budgeted $50.0 million in the Overseas 

Contingency Operation Fund to finance unanticipated costs for contingency operations. The committee expects that these unforeseen 

costs will be requested in either the annual omnibus reprogramming request or supplemental requests in fiscal year 2004. Accordingly, the committee recommends a reduction in this account by 

$50.0 million. 

Supply Management Activity Group—Air Force 

The committee notes that the Air Force supply management activity group is projected to have a positive accumulated operating 

result of $668.7 million in fiscal year 2004. The budget material 

presented no rationale to justify maintaining such profit levels. 

Specifically, page six of the Air Force Working Capital Fund budget 

exhibit reads, ‘‘Our cash on hand at the end of FY 2002 was 

$1,323.3 million, which was considerably higher than our FY 03 PB 

projected ending balance of $810 million.’’ The fiscal year 2004 cash 

requirement, as outlined in the budget material, is between $756–

989 million, which equates to seven to ten days of operating cash. 

296

The committee was informed that the ending cash balance on 

March 31, 2003 was $800 million. The committee is concerned that 

these funds are not being returned to the customer in the form of 

lower rates. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction in 

the proposed budget of $344.4 million and directs the Secretary of 

the Air Force to use the excess accumulated operating results to 

offset this price adjustment. 

Transportation Working Capital Fund-Air Force 

In fiscal year 2002, the transportation working capital fund experienced $680 million of positive operating results from increased 

customer orders from Operation Enduring Freedom. Similarly, significantly higher customer orders have been recorded as a result of 

Operation Iraq Freedom. The committee projects that the combination of these two operations will continue to generate positive operating results. Therefore, the committee recommends a reduction in 

the proposed budget by $1.3 billion and directs the Secretary of the 

Air Force to use the excess accumulated operating results to offset 

this price adjustment. 

Working Capital Fund Cash Management 

The committee notes that the working capital funds serve a vital 

role in providing financial transaction flexibility for critical defense 

customer support activities. When working capital funds produce 

an annual operating result involving a surplus, consideration 

should be given to adjusting customer rates in future years. Working capital funds that do not appropriately return surplus funds to 

the supported departments, commands, and agencies through ratechange mechanisms artificially inflate the cost of support and deprive the supported units of limited resources. The committee, 

therefore, recommends a reduction in the proposed budget, as identified below, and directs that the excess cash balances in those 

working capital funds be returned to the respective service to offset 

this pricing adjustment. In addition, the committee has reduced 

funds where there is cash in excess of the ten-day level.

Army Working Capital Fund (Excess Cash) .................................................. (50.0) 

Air Force Working Capital Fund (Excess Cash) ........................................... (26.0) 

Air Force Working Capital Fund Supply Management ................................ (344.4) 

Air Force Working Capital Fund Transportation ......................................... (946.3)

BUDGET REQUEST—OTHER MATTERS

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction 

The budget request contained $1,530.3 million in Other Defense 

Accounts for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, including $1,199.2 million for operations and maintenance, $251.9 million 

for research, development, test, and evaluation and $79.2 million 

for procurement. The budget request also contained $119.8 million 

in military construction for the chemical agents and munitions destruction program. The committee recommends $251.9 million for Chemical Agents 

and Munitions Destruction research, development, test and evaluation, and $79.2 million for Chemical agents and Munitions Destruction procurement. The committee also recommends $1,249.2 million 

297

for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction operations and 

maintenance, including an increase of $50.0 million for the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program. Elsewhere in this 

report the committee recommends $119.8 million, the budget request, for military construction for the chemical agents and munitions destruction program. 

The committee notes the following activities with respect to the 

chemical demilitarization program: 

(1) To date, more than 8,000 tons of chemical agent, over 25 

percent of the total U.S. stockpile, has been safely destroyed in 

operational demilitarization facilities at Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System and Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, Utah, using the baseline incineration process. 

Stockpile demilitarization operations at the Johnston Atoll facility have been completed and shutdown of that facility is all 

but completed. A major safety review of Tooele operations, 

which was precipitated by the exposure of a maintenance 

worker to a nerve agent last year, has been completed and live 

agent destruction operations at that facility have been resumed. 

(2) Construction of demilitarization faculties at Anniston 

Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, Alabama, and Umatilla 

Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, Oregon, has been completed 

and systematization operations required to test the facilities 

prior to beginning live agent destruction operations are in 

progress. Construction of the facility at Pine Bluff Chemical 

Agent Disposal Facility, Arkansas, is nearing completion. 

(3) Actions are underway to accelerate the disposal of bulk 

mustard agent at Aberdeen Chemical Agent Neutralization Facility, Maryland, and of bulk VX nerve agent at the Newport 

Chemical Agent Neutralization Facility, Indiana. Live agent 

neutralization operations have begun at Aberdeen. 

(4) Decisions have been made regarding the use of alternate 

technologies developed under the Assembled Chemical Weapons Assessment program (chemical neutralization of the agent) 

for the stockpiles stored at Pueblo, Colorado and LexingtonBlue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky. 

(5) The resolution of disagreements between the Army, the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency, and local authorities 

over chemical stockpile emergency preparedness measures in 

Anniston, Alabama, could delay the start of chemical agent destruction operations at that site. 

The fiscal year 2004 budget request supports the following major 

efforts under the chemical demilitarization program:

[In millions of dollars] 

Closure of Johnston Atoll ................................................................................ 77.3 

Ongoing demilitarization operations at Tooele ............................................. 165.7 

Ongoing demilitarization operations at Anniston ......................................... 143.2 

Ongoing demilitarization operations at Umatilla ......................................... 143.7 

Start-up of demilitarization operations at Pine Bluff ................................... 132.9 

Final operations and closure at Aberdeen ..................................................... 117.0 

Complete operations at Newport .................................................................... 144.0 

Continued construction at Pueblo .................................................................. 122.8 

Chemical stockpile emergency preparedness program ................................. 132.6 

Non-stockpile chemical materiel destruction program ................................. 176.0 

Construction ..................................................................................................... 119.8

298

The committee is aware of unfunded requirements of $54.1 million for the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program 

for additional enhancements to the ability of state and local governments to respond to a chemical accident or incident at chemical 

stockpile storage sites in Arkansas, Oregon, and Alabama. To address these requirements the committee has recommended an increase of $50.0 million to the budget request. 

The committee also notes that the program has undergone a 

major management reorganization to consolidate both demilitarization and chemical site storage operations under a single head who 

reports to both the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics) and the Commander, Army Materiel 

Command. The committee believes that the new management 

structure will provide the capability to better integrate the activities of each chemical stockpile storage site and the chemical demilitarization facility located at that site. The new organization will 

also significantly improve coordination of the plans and activities 

of the chemical stockpile disposal program and the assembled 

chemical weapons assessment program. 

The committee notes further that the program is funded in a new 

Appropriation Title ‘‘054 Other Defense Programs’’ that is separate 

from that of the Army or any of the other military departments, 

thereby meeting the guidance in section 1412 of the Department of 

Defense Authorization Act, 1986 (Public Law 99–145). 

Defense and Security Cooperation with Poland, Bulgaria, and 

Romania 

The committee recognizes the diplomatic, political, and military 

support provided by Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania leading up to, 

and during, Operation Iraqi Freedom. Their leadership in supporting efforts to end Saddam Hussein’s threat to international security demonstrates their value as emerging allies and their commitment to preserving international peace. Given their commitment to a democratic, peaceful, and secure world, and their demonstrated willingness to take substantive action to support it, the 

committee believes it is important to expand defense and security 

cooperation with these countries. Therefore, the committee recommends an additional $3.4 million for the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff exercise program to fund, where appropriate, exercise-related minor construction in Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania. 

Expansion of Export Control Database 

The committee recommends an additional $1.4 million to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency in order to strengthen and expand 

the existing federal effort to help foreign governments improve 

their export control performance through an export control database currently used by some 16 countries in Eastern Europe and 

the former Soviet Union. The committee recommends the funds be 

used to continue existing subscriptions of the export control database for foreign countries, supply the database to additional countries, provide education and training for its use, enhance the quality and utility of the database by expanding its coverage of weapons of mass destruction information focusing more on terrorism 

threats, produce a secure intranet version of the database to enVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00322 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.072 A106HR
299

courage countries to share information more readily, and perform 

related research and public education initiatives on export control 

policy. 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ISSUES

Overview 

The committee believes that information technology (IT) is critical to Department of Defense transformation in the 21st century. 

The first sentence of the Department’s recently published Transformation Planning Guidance states, ‘‘the United States is 

transitioning from an industrial-based military to an informationage military.’’ Our combat forces in Iraq used information dominance to devastating advantage over enemy units. The committee 

strongly supports the Department’s efforts to continue to expand 

that advantage and also supports several promising technological 

programs to that end. 

The committee is concerned, however, that the Department has 

not maintained sufficient scrutiny over its IT program as a whole. 

For example, the committee has received testimony that there are 

a multitude of legacy systems in the Department seemingly invulnerable to displacement by the more comprehensive architecture of 

modern systems that the Department is building. However, the Department continues to spend monies for development modernization of these legacy systems while simultaneously investing in future capabilities such as information and communication systems. 

Furthermore, the Department has difficulty explaining to the committee exactly how IT funding is expended each year—or what 

project, for what purpose, and what the rationale is for the expenditure. 

The Department has made a strong case for information dominance, supported by a dynamic, interconnected backbone of networks, computers, satellites, communications, and other information and communications devices. 

Against pressure from legitimate commercial users, the committee has supported maintaining the Department’s bandwidth 

needs, and continues to support the Department’s continued emphasis on information dominance through robust funding. At the 

same time, the committee expects the Department to exercise 

strong oversight of these programs and to strictly scrutinize legacy 

programs and swiftly terminate them if new systems are replacing 

them. Additionally, the committee strongly believes the Department and military department Chief Information Officers should 

have more responsibility and accountability towards programs and 

systems under their jurisdiction and review. 

In this regard, the committee has proposed legislation that will 

increase the level of scrutiny exercised by the Department’s Chief 

Information Officers, and recommends a series of reductions in apparently redundant IT programs and those that have failed to meet 

performance standards. The committee supports real transformation—transformation that not only develops innovative solutions, but also has the discipline to abandon techniques and procedures that have not resulted in cost-effectiveness nor having met 

performance deadlines. 

300

Budget Displays 

Elsewhere in this report, the committee expressed serious concerns with the accuracy and clarity of the Department of Defense’s 

budget displays and documentation. In that regard, the committee 

is particularly dissatisfied with the information technology (IT) 

budget submission display in light of the requirements imposed by 

section 351 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314). 

As technology evolves and matures, complex IT systems have become an ever more important element of Department of Defense 

transformation and expenditures. Therefore, the committee believes 

that both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Congress 

should have a comprehensive budget explanation of IT expenditures. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

supplement future budget submission displays of IT programs with 

a summary spreadsheet for each military service or defense agency 

that lists each IT program, proposed expenditures by appropriation, budget authority and line number, the program element number, whether the program is in developmental modernization or 

current services, whether the program is an IT system or a national security system, and the budget requests from the two previous fiscal years, the present fiscal year, and the next fiscal year. 

General Reductions 

The committee notes that the Army’s budget request contained $31.1 billion for operations and maintenance, including information 

technology (IT) programs and systems; the Navy’s budget request 

contained $33.0 billion; the Air Force’s budget request was for 

$34.4, and defense-wide request contained $16.6 billion. 

While the committee supports transformational initiatives that 

modernize IT systems and programs, the committee has serious 

concerns about the lack of management and proper oversight into 

many of the IT programs and systems at the various military departments and defense-wide. Therefore, the committee recommends 

a total reduction of $568.0 million for all information technology activities in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and defense-wide operations 

and maintenance accounts as noted in the table below:

[In millions of dollars] 

Army ................................................................................................................. 68.0 

Navy .................................................................................................................. 200.0 

Air Force ........................................................................................................... 200.0 

Defense-Wide ................................................................................................... 100.0

Global Information Grid Bandwidth Expansion 

The committee believes that the Department of Defense should 

move to a fully integrated information technology architecture, and 

that the Global Information Grid Bandwidth Expansion (GIG–BE) 

is a critical part of that effort. However, the committee is troubled 

by the manner in which the procurement is presently conducted. 

The committee notes that the Department is requesting $386.1 million to fund this high priority modernization effort in fiscal year 

2004. The committee understands that the Defense Information 

Systems Agency (DISA), which is administering the project, intends 

301

to establish system requirements that are inconsistent with industry standards, may favor antiquated legacy systems, may potentially have a bias for non-domestic providers, and may be suboptimal. To cite two examples, the committee has been informed 

that DISA may establish non-industry standard environmental requirements regarding operations in humid environments, and that 

DISA’s proposed power level requirements are a generation behind 

current technology. The committee is deeply concerned that DISA 

would deliberately set a lower power level requirement that would 

work against the very reason for building the GIG–BE—essentially, 

the ability to handle greater bandwidth. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review the system requirements for the GIG–BE to ensure that the requirements contemplated are open and fair, and reflect current technological and 

industry standards to meet the Department’s future bandwidth 

needs. 

Information Technology Specific Reductions 

The Department of Defense’s budget request for information 

technology (IT) includes both IT and national security systems 

(NSS). The committee supports the Department’s goal of protecting 

the U.S. homeland and critical bases of operations, projecting and 

sustaining power in other theaters, denying our enemies sanctuary, 

leveraging IT, improving and protecting information operations, 

and enhancing space operations. In addition, the committee supports the Department’s initiative to attain these objectives by implementing network-centric activities and programs. However, the 

committee is highly concerned that the Department does not have 

proper oversight and accountability for these systems and programs. Therefore, multiple systems exist that perform the same or 

similar tasks, new systems are not given realistic schedules to 

meet identified requirements, and IT investments are not given 

enough scrutiny to determine if costs justify the project. 

While the committee commends the Department for attempting 

to phase-out its legacy systems and modernize by creating joint-IT 

systems that would serve more than one agency or military department, the committee is concerned about the growth in the operations and maintenance budget with particular programs—specially since the Department is in the midst of planning for new IT 

systems that would perform the same functions with new capabilities. The committee strongly believes that the Department must exercise dynamic leadership and fiscal oversight into all IT programs, 

systems, and policies. Therefore, the committee recommends reductions in the following programs:

[In millions of dollars] 

Army Knowledge Management ...................................................................... 20.0 

Army Guardnet ................................................................................................ 40.0 

Navy Military Manpower/Personnel Systems ............................................... 4.3 

Navy Reserve Integrated Military Personnel Management ......................... 2.3 

Navy Military Personnel Distribution System .............................................. 5.0 

Other Navy Military Manpower/Personnel ................................................... 30.0 

Navy Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI) ............................................................ 160.0 

Air Force Reserve Base Level Communications ............................................ 9.0 

National Imagery and Mapping Agency, Archive and Dissemination Systems ............................................................................................................... 10.0 

National Imagery and Mapping Agency, Production Information Systems 

Support ......................................................................................................... 10.0 

302

Defense Health Programs ............................................................................... 25.0 

Defense Security Service Case Control Management ................................... 4.0

Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic Network (NDFON) 

The budget request contained no funding for the Nationwide 

Dedicated Fiber Optic Network (NDFON) for the national guard. 

While some policy questions regarding the precise role of the national guard for homeland defense and homeland security missions 

remain unresolved, there is no doubt that national guard armories 

throughout the nation must be serviced with a robust communications backbone to allow rapid, coordinated responses to potential 

incidents. 

Since the committee understands that NDFON will fit into the 

architecture of the Global Information Grid, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in operation and maintenance 

for the Army National Guard to complete engineering studies for 

the NDFON program. 

OTHER ISSUES

Budget Justification Exhibit Materials 

The committee notes that the quality of the budget exhibits differ 

widely from one service to another despite the existence of guidelines and regulations that prescribe requirements for the preparation of budget materials. In addition, the committee understands 

that all budget materials are due to the committee within 30 days 

of the budget request. This year, in all but the case of one service, 

three services and the Office of the Secretary of Defense submitted 

budget materials well beyond 60 days after the submission of the 

budget request. It is also important to note that the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense’s Operation and Maintenance Overview was 

the last exhibit delivered to the committee on April 24, 2003. The 

committee directs the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to provide a complete list of all budget exhibits and their 

expected delivery dates to the committee by December 15, 2003. 

With regard to the Department’s operation and maintenance 

overview, the committee notes that parts of this overview are redundant. Specifically, the appropriation highlights should be a 

summary of the key changes of each service instead of a simple 

listing of every change in the budget. The detailed changes are already listed in each of the budget exhibits provided by the services. 

The committee encourages the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller) to use the overview exhibit to convey overarching 

trends that outline program changes for each of the services. 

The committee directs the Office of the Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller) and the service’s assistant secretaries of financial 

management to include in the submitted budget justification material the baseline costs of programs where program change is identified and explained. To assess the merit of program growth, the 

committee must have not only an explanation for the changes but 

the ability to review and evaluate the significance and relativity of 

the highlighted changes. 

The committee notes that the performance criteria and evaluation summaries provided in the budget exhibits often fail at providing measurable performance metrics. In many cases, this part 

303

of the budget exhibit has become a simple accounting report of the 

number of systems currently being used. The committee directs the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the service’s 

assistant secretaries of financial management to review performance criteria in their respective operations and maintenance budget 

exhibits and ensure that measurable metrics are developed for the 

fiscal year 2005 budget. Specifically, the committee requests that 

summary analysis is provided explaining each criterion and how 

the service is performing against that criterion. Furthermore, the 

committee directs the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the service’s assistant secretaries of financial management to provide a report that outlines the current performance criteria and the proposed changes by subactivity group to the committee by September 12, 2003. 

The committee is concerned that the reporting of civilian personnel budgets continues to be either overstated or understated in 

the budget exhibits. Accordingly, the committee directs the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the service’s assistant secretaries of financial management to develop and include in 

the fiscal year 2005 budget exhibits an average salary cost for each 

subactivity group as a component of the personnel summary. 

The committee is troubled by the continued growth in the other 

costs and other contracts’ line items in the service’s summary of 

price and growth exhibit. The committee directs the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the service’s assistant secretaries of financial management to provide a detailed listing of all 

the component costs of these two existing line items to the committee by October 21, 2003. The committee also notes some services 

do not list the foreign currency costs associated with each of the 

subactivity group budget exhibits. The committee directs the Department’s assistant secretaries of financial management to ensure 

that these costs are correctly displayed in the fiscal year 2005 

budget exhibits. 

The committee notes that there is not uniformity among the 

service’s summary of increases and decreases. The committee directs the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the 

service’s assistant secretaries of financial management to ensure 

each specific program change is listed by the required category for 

the summary of increases and decreases in the fiscal year 2005 

budget exhibits. 

Finally, the committee directs the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the service’s assistant secretaries of financial management to ensure that program transfers from one subactivity group to another or transfers from one appropriation to another be listed in the transfer portion of reconciliation of increases 

and decreases section for each subactivity group. Currently, many 

of these transfers are included in program changes and artificially 

influence the reconciliation of program increases or decreases. 

Cash Management 

The Navy Working Capital Fund budget justification material 

shows that the Navy plans to transfer $448 million from the working capital fund to the operation and maintenance account in fiscal 

year 2004. The Navy plans on using this excess cash to finance the 

operation and maintenance requirements. Funding defense acVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00327 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.074 A106HR
304

counts from excess working capital fund cash removes direct congressional oversight and decision-making. Furthermore, the Navy 

does not state what it plans on using the $448 million for in its 

budget. This is not a new issue. This committee raised similar concerns 10 years ago when it discussed this issue in its fiscal year 

1993 committee report. 

The committee also noted that the Army, Navy, and Air Force 

working capital fund budget justification materials provide information on cash management. This information includes beginning 

cash balances, disbursements, collections, transfers, and ending 

cash balances. This information enables the committee to perform 

its oversight responsibilities. However, the DOD-wide working capital fund does not provide any information on cash management 

even though the DOD-wide working capital fund incurs about $25 

billion of expenses each year. The committee directs the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to provide a cash management exhibit in the fiscal year 2005 defense-wide working capital 

fund budget justification material similar to the format provided by 

the Army, Navy, and Air Force. In addition, the committee requests the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the 

service’s assistant secretaries of financial management update their 

respective cash management budget exhibits by November 3, 2003 

to reflect the status as of the end of fiscal year 2003. 

Depot Maintenance Long-Term Strategy 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense has 

taken initial steps to develop a long term public sector depot maintenance strategic plan. This initiative is critical and the committee 

encourages the Secretary of Defense to continue its review. This review should include an evaluation of future workload, to include 

workload projections through fiscal year 2009, and how the Department of Defense shall maintain a core logistics capability to perform the workload. The review should also contain a workforce revitalization plan in light of the size of the retirement-eligible workforce. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit this report no later than November 1, 2004, to the House Committee on 

Armed Services and the Senate Committee on Armed Services. 

The Comptroller General shall evaluate this report and provide 

comments and analysis to the House Committee on Armed Services 

and the Senate Committee on Armed Services no later than 90 

days after the Secretary of Defense submits the report. 

Expansion of Export Control Database 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.4 million to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency for the expansion of an export control database. The funds should be used to strengthen and expand 

the existing federal effort to help foreign governments improve 

their export control performance through an export control database currently used by some 16 countries in Eastern Europe and 

the former Soviet Union. 

Specifically, the increase of funds should be made available to 

continue existing subscriptions of the export control database for 

foreign countries through 2006, supply the database to additional 

305

countries and provide education and training for its use, and perform related research and public education initiatives on export 

control policy. It would also enhance the quality and utility of the 

database by expanding its coverage of weapons of mass destruction 

information, focusing more on terrorism threats, and producing a 

secure intranet version of the database to encourage countries to 

share information more readily. 

Facility Sustainment, Renovation and Modernization 

The Department of Defense (DOD) has established a goal of 

funding facility sustainment at 93 percent of the requirements. 

However, in order to achieve this level of facility sustainment 

resourcing, the services have decremented renovation and modernization programs dramatically. Throughout DOD, existing facilities and infrastructure continue to fail to meet applicable industry 

standards for recapitalization. This practice exacerbates mission 

and quality of life deficiencies in the short-term and creates a more 

extensive backlog of required facility maintenance in the long-term. 

Moreover, the committee has concerns about the Defense Facilities 

Strategic Plan currently being used by DOD. In a recent General 

Accounting Office report on defense infrastructure (February 2003), 

several concerns were highlighted ranging from the lack of consistency in the services’ information on facilities, to the wide latitude 

the services have to assess facility conditions, to the funding controls placed on the resources allocated for facility sustainment, renovation and modernization. Given the importance of this effort, the 

committee directs that the Secretary of Defense provide a report to 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on how DOD intends to address the 

issues outlined in the General Accounting Office report no later 

than the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2004. 

Foreign Currency Accounts 

The committee encourages the Department to use more realistic 

foreign currency rate projections in future budgets as year of execution challenges are known to exist that have had an unfavorable 

impact on service budgets. The committee directs the Office of Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to submit a report by October 1, 

2004, outlining the procedure and process used to establish the annual foreign currency rates. 

Maintaining the Strategic Domestic Beryllium Supply 

The committee is aware that the domestic supply of the strategic 

and critical metal beryllium is in danger of being depleted. Metallic 

beryllium is used extensively in DOD weapons systems, DOE strategic nuclear applications and several critical civilian applications. 

Moreover, the only domestic producer of metal beryllium has closed 

its primary metal production plant because of obsolescence. Therefore, the committee directs that the DOD conduct an in-depth study 

of the beryllium supply issue and make recommendations regarding how future access to beryllium could be assured. The study 

should include recommendations regarding how industry might 

modernize capacities for the primary production of beryllium and 

consider innovative means to partner with industry to solve this 

306

critical issue. Recommendations may include, but not be limited to, 

use of funding under the Defense Production Act, Title III, and judicious use of the National Defense Stockpile. The Department will 

submit a report containing the conclusions and recommendations of 

the study to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services not later than March 1, 2004. 

Ship Intermediate and Depot Maintenance Funding 

The Navy intends to stop distinguishing between intermediate 

and depot maintenance costs in the budget materials. The committee believes it is important to understand the costs associated 

with each type of work and, therefore, directs the Secretary of 

Navy to continue to distinguish the costs associated with intermediate maintenance and depot maintenance for ships and to continue to maintain separate sub-activity groups in the budget justification material. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding 

This section would authorize $114.0 billion in operations and 

maintenance funding for the Armed Forces and other activities of 

the Department of Defense. 

Section 302—Working Capital Funds 

This section would authorize $2.8 billion for working capital 

funds of the Department of Defense. 

Section 303—Other Department of Defense Programs 

This section would authorize $15.3 billion for the Defense Health 

Program, of which $14.9 billion is for operations and maintenance 

funding; $65.8 million is for research, development, test and evaluation funding, and $327.8 million is for procurement. This section would also authorize $1.58 billion for Chemical 

Agents and Munitions Destruction, of which $1.25 billion is for operations and maintenance funding, $251.9 million is for research, 

development, test, and evaluation funding, and $79.2 million is for 

procurement funding. Funding for military construction related to 

this program is authorized in defense-wide military construction. This section would also authorize $817.4 million for the defensewide drug interdiction and counter-drug activities. This section would also authorize $162.4 million for the Defense 

Inspector General. 

SUBTITLE B—ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS

Section 311—Reauthorization and Modification of Title I of Sikes 

Act 

This section would amend section 670f of title 16, United States 

Code, to reauthorize section 108 of the Sikes Act, (Public Law 86–

797), by striking ‘‘fiscal years 1998 through 2003’’ and in each place 

it appears inserting ‘‘fiscal years 2004 through 2008.’’ This section 

307

expresses the Sense of Congress regarding the Department’s practice of outsourcing the functions of natural resource managers on 

its military installations. This section further requires creation of 

a five-year pilot program for invasive species management for military installations on Guam. 

Section 312—Authorization for Defense Participation in Wetland 

Mitigation Banks 

This section would amend Chapter 159 of title 10, United States 

Code, to permit the secretaries of the military departments to participate in wetland mitigation banking programs and consolidated 

user sites (‘‘in-lieu-fee’’ programs) as an alternative to creating a 

wetland for mitigation on federal property for construction projects. 

Section 313—Inclusion of Environmental Response Equipment and 

Services in Navy Definitions of Salvage Facilities and Salvage 

Services 

This section would amend sections 7361 and 7363 of title 10, 

United States Code, to clarify the Secretary of the Navy’s authority 

to provide salvage facilities and to assert claims for salvage services encompassing environmental response equipment and activities. 

Section 314—Clarification of Department of Defense Response to 

Environmental Emergencies

This section would amend sections 402, 404 and 2561(a) of title 

10, United States Code, to clarify the discretionary authority of the 

Secretary of Defense to respond to environmental emergencies by 

providing humanitarian assistance, including the authority to 

transport supplies or provide assistance intended for use to respond 

to or mitigate the effects of an event such as an oil spill that 

threatens serious harm to the environment. 

Section 315—Requirements for Restoration Advisory Boards and 

Exemption from Federal Advisory Committee Act 

This section would amend section 2705(d)(2) of title 10, United 

States Code, to amend the regulations relating to the establishment, characteristics, composition, and funding of Restoration Advisory Boards and to exempt Restoration Advisory Boards from application of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, (5 U.S.C. App.). 

Section 316—Report Regarding Impact of Civilian Community Encroachment and Certain Legal Requirements on Military Installations and Ranges 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to study and 

provide a one-time report to Congress regarding the impact of civilian community encroachment on the readiness requirements and 

normal operations at military installations that are required to 

maintain safety buffer zones or safety arcs as part of their functional mission activities. The report would also include results of 

a study on the impact on activities at military installations and 

operational ranges, if any, due to compliance by the Department 

with State Implementation Plans for air quality under section 110 

308

of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7410), the Solid Waste Disposal Act 

(42 U.S.C. 6901), and the Comprehensive Environmental Restoration, Compensation and Liability Act (42 U.S.C. 9601). 

Section 317—Military Readiness and Conservation of Protected 

Species 

This section would amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(Public Law 93–205) at section 1533 of title 16 United States Code, 

to provide that the Secretary of the Interior, after making a determination that a species is endangered or threatened, would make 

future designations or revise existing designations of critical habitat to the maximum extent necessary. This section would prohibit 

further designations of critical habitat for endangered species in 

areas for which an Integrated Natural Resources Management 

Plan has been prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (Public 

Law 86–797). This section would also require regulatory agencies 

to consider national security concerns in addition to economic impact prior to designating future areas of critical habitat. This section would not annul existing critical habitat designations, but it 

would permit the Secretary of the Interior to exercise discretion to 

revise existing critical habitat designations on military installations. No existing critical habitat can be revised, however, if such 

action would result in the extinction of an endangered or threatened species. 

Section 318—Military Readiness and Marine Mammal Protection 

This section would amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 

1972 (Public Law 92–522) at sections 1362 and 1371 of title 16 

United States Code, by clarifying the definition of ‘‘harassment.’’ 

The new definition would provide greater clarity and notice regarding the application of the Marine Mammal Protection Act to Department of Defense activities, especially military readiness activities. 

The new definition reflects the position of the National Research 

Council (NRC). In a report published in 2000, the NRC stated that 

there was no valid reason for regulating minor changes in behavior 

having no significant impact on the viability of the marine mammal stock. Rather, regulation of marine mammal behavior should 

be focused on minimizing injury and biologically significant disruptions to behavior critical to survival and reproduction. 

The new definition follows the NRC report by requiring that 

Level A harassment, related to injury, involve ‘‘any act that injures 

or has the significant potential to injure’’ a marine mammal. Likewise, for Level B harassment, related to changes in behavior, the 

new definition would cover an action that ‘‘disturbs or is likely to 

disturb’’ a marine mammal by causing disruptions of biologically 

important behaviors related to survival and reproduction ‘‘to a 

point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered.’’ 

This section creates an exemption that would allow the Secretary 

of Defense, after conferring with the Secretary of Commerce, the 

Secretary of the Interior, or both, as appropriate, to exempt the Department of Defense’s military readiness activities from the requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act when necessary 

309

for national defense for up to two years with renewable two-year 

periods of exemption. 

This section cures deficiencies that currently exist when the 

‘small take’ authorization provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act are applied to military readiness and other activities. This 

section eliminates the ‘‘specified geographic regions’’ and ‘‘small 

numbers’’ requirements and would focus impact determinations on 

a scientifically based ‘‘negligible impacts’’ standard. The underlying 

rulemaking process would still analyze the impacts and scope of 

military readiness and other activities. 

The committee believes that the deletion of ‘‘specified geographical regions’’ and ‘‘small numbers’’ requirements from the Marine Mammal Protection Act affect the current regulatory definition 

of ‘‘specified activity,’’ set forth in 50 CFR 216.103, and would require revision to ensure consistency with the Marine Mammal Protection Act as amended. 

This section also amends the requirements of the Marine Mammal Protection Act concerning public notice for the ‘small take’ authorization process. For military readiness activities only, public 

notice will be limited to the Federal Register. In referring to military readiness activities, the committee means those activities as 

defined in section 315(f) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314), see also 

title 16 United States Code 703 note. A requirement for public notice in local papers could compromise national security and thus 

would be eliminated. References in the section to military readiness 

activities ‘‘authorized by the Secretary of Defense’’ do not require 

a specific authorization of each activity by the Secretary of Defense 

and do not prohibit the Secretary of Defense from delegating such 

authority. Finally, none of these changes requires the public disclosure of classified information under any circumstances. 

Section 319—Limitation on Department of Defense Responsibility 

for Civilian Water Consumption Impacts Related to Fort 

Huachuca, Arizona 

This section would amend section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1536) in the case of Fort Huachuca, Arizona. 

Novel application of the Endangered Species Act is having unintended consequences on Fort Huachuca’s readiness and training activities due to efforts of third parties to hold the installation accountable for water usage in the surrounding community over 

which it has no authority and control. This section clarifies that 

the Secretary of the Army cannot be held responsible under the 

Endangered Species Act for water consumption that occurs outside 

of the Fort and is beyond the direct authority and control of the 

Secretary of the Army. 

This section specifies that the Secretary of the Army may voluntarily undertake efforts to mitigate water consumption related to 

Fort Huachuca. 

Section 320—Construction of Wetland Crossings, Camp Shelby 

Combined Arms Maneuver Area, Camp Shelby, Mississippi 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to use 

operation and maintenance funds to construct wetlands crossings 

310

at Camp Shelby, Mississippi. Although current law permits the use 

of up to $750,000 in operation and maintenance funds for military 

construction activities, the cost of providing sufficient crossing sites 

at Camp Shelby to ensure that training is conducted with the spirit 

and intent of environmental laws would exceed this statutory cap. 

SUBTITLE C—WORKPLACE AND DEPOT ISSUES

Section 321—Exclusion of Certain Expenditures from Percentage 

Limitation on Contracting for Performance of Depot-Level Maintenance and Repair Workloads 

Currently, section 2474(f) of title 10, United States Code, excludes work performed by non-federal personnel at Department of 

Defense maintenance and repair depots from the percentage limitations (50/50) on contracting for depot-level maintenance by the private sector. The exclusion applies for the duration of all public-private partnership depot maintenance contracts that are signed before the end of fiscal year 2006. This section would remove the date 

limitation. The committee believes that the date limitation impedes 

the ability of both the public and the private sectors to achieve 

fully the benefits of public-private partnerships. 

Section 322—High-Performing Organization Business Process 

Reengineering Pilot Program 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to implement a pilot program whereby Department of Defense organizations are incentivized to follow a business process re-engineering 

initiative in order to become a high performing organization. Under 

the pilot program, functions within an organization that are part 

of a BPR, shall not undergo a public-private competition during the 

design and implementation phase of the BPR. After a BPR is completed, those functions shall not undergo a public-private competition for a period of five years. 

Business process redesign, or business process re-engineering, 

(BPR) is an organization’s analysis and redesign of existing business processes to achieve improvements in performance measures. 

Business processes may include: developing a new product, repairing aircraft engines, processing and paying a vendor. The committee believes that a BPR is more than downsizing, automating, 

or realigning, rather, it is fundamental reshaping of the way work 

is done by a given organization. Within the Department of Defense, 

therefore, a BPR would require an analysis of core and non-core 

functions. The committee notes that significant obstacles, including 

lack of sustained commitment and leadership, lack of incentive, unrealistic scope and expectations, and resistance to change, may 

hinder or cause to fail numerous attempts at a BPR. The committee is aware that Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division, underwent a successful BPR; and the committee recommends 

that this facility be considered for the pilot program. 

311

Section 323—Delayed Implementation of Office of Revised Management and Budget Circular A–76 by Department of Defense Pending Report 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to report to 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services on the new Office of Management and 

Budget Circular A–76 and then wait for a period of 45 days before 

implementing the Circular. 

Section 324—Naval Aviation Depots Multi-Trades Demonstration 

Project 

This section would require the Secretary of Navy to conduct a 

demonstration project to evaluate the benefits of promoting workers who perform multiple trades. Wage grade journeymen at any 

of the three naval aviation depots can qualify to learn an additional 

trade and be rewarded with a one-grade promotion. The section explains that the worker must use the new trades at least 25 percent 

of the time during the worker’s work week. 

SUBTITLE D—INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Section 331—Performance-based and Results-based Management 

Requirements for Chief Information Officers of Department of 

Defense 

This section would amend section 2223(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, to give the Chief Information Officers (CIO) of the Department of Defense (DOD), military departments, defense agencies, and field activities more responsibility and accountability to 

review their individual agency’s information technology (IT) programs, projects, and systems. The committee expects CIOs 

throughout the Department to have more input and oversight into 

their respective agency’s IT programs and policies, focusing on results and ensuring that IT investments make their agencies more 

innovative, efficient, and responsive. 

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 341—Cataloging and Standardization for Defense Supply 

Management 

This section would amend the current method the Secretary of 

Defense follows in the cataloging and coding, for identification purposes, of supply items. Pursuant to chapter 145 of title 10, United 

States Code, the Secretary of Defense cataloged supply items with 

a national stock number (NSN). An NSN is a Department of Defense unique combination of letters and numbers used to identify 

a supply part. Commercial practices, however, dictate that the Secretary of Defense should adopt commercially accepted universal 

codes for such supply items, rather than dictating a DOD unique 

code. The committee recognizes that this is a change to long existing practice within the Department and therefore recommends a 

thorough transition and training plan be developed and disseminated to all appropriate organizations before making such changes. 

The committee also encourages the Secretary of Defense to work 

closely with industry in the adoption of universal supply codes. 

312

This section would amend section 2451 of title 10, United States 

Code, and repeal sections 2452, 2453, and 2455 of title 10, United 

States Code, in order to provide the Secretary of Defense a considerable level of flexibility in the adoption of commercially available 

and universally accepted codes for supply items. 

Section 342—Space-Available Transportation for Dependents of 

Members Assigned to Overseas Duty Locations for Continuous 

Period in Excess of One Year. 

This provision would authorize the dependents of service members who are assigned overseas for a continuous period in excess 

of one year, to use space-available transportation to travel between 

the overseas duty location and the United States and return, or between the overseas duty location and another overseas location and 

return. 

Section 343—Preservation of Military Weather Reconnaissance 

Mission 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from transferring, discontinuing, or disestablishing the weather reconnaissance mission, currently performed within the Air Force Reserve, 

unless another organization has the ability to perform that mission 

as it is currently performed. 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

Overview 

The committee’s military personnel recommendations build not 

only on the emerging lessons learned from both the global war on 

terrorism and the war with Iraq, known as Operation Iraqi Freedom, but also on long-standing committee concerns about the inadequacy of military manpower for the missions assigned to both the 

active and reserve components. 

The inadequacy of military manpower, especially active component strengths, is highlighted in a number of areas. For example, 

since 1995, the peacetime demands of the national military strategy have exceeded the ability of the active components to such an 

extent that reserve component personnel, in numbers equivalent to 

33,000 full-time active duty personnel, are required to be ordered 

to active duty annually. 

As a further indicator of active duty manpower inadequacy, the 

military services ended fiscal year 2002 with 24,500 personnel in 

excess of the strengths requested by the Department of Defense 

and authorized by Congress. More recently, at the time of the 

budget submission for fiscal year 2004, the services were projecting 

they would end fiscal year 2003 with active component strengths 

that exceeded authorized levels by 28,000, some 2 percent to 7.1 

percent above authorized levels, depending on the service. 

The global war on terrorism has expanded existing manpower requirements and added a host of new ones, especially those related 

to homeland security. To meet those requirements, the services mobilized more than 100,000 reservists, many on short notice for up 

313

to one year, with thousands required to serve for up to two years 

because the active component lacks the qualified manpower. In 

light of the global war on terrorism and changes to the national security strategy, each of the military services undertook efforts to 

quantify total force (active, national guard and reserve) requirements. Each service found significant manpower shortfalls. The 

Army estimated the shortfall to be at least 41,000 and as much as 

123,000. The Air Force estimated a shortfall ranging from 31,000 

to 52,000. The Marine Corps estimated its shortfall to be about 

15,000, and the Navy identified a shortfall of about 4,500. 

Notwithstanding the unequivocal evidence of manpower shortfalls, the Secretary of Defense has promulgated a so-called ‘‘netzero’’ policy. This policy holds that military end strength should not 

increase beyond the fiscal year 2002 authorized levels, and that 

any new military manpower requirements should be met by the 

conversion of military and civilian spaces in lower priority units 

and missions to fill higher priority requirements. 

While the committee supports the Secretary’s effort to require 

the services to re-examine their manpower requirements, the committee notes that any conversion of military spaces will be a costly 

multi-year effort, and that the fiscal year 2004 budget request provides little in the way of additional resources to the services for 

military manpower conversions. Furthermore, the committee understands that the services have identified high priority manning 

requirements that should be met quickly, including increases in 

special operating forces, intelligence, communications, military police, force protection personnel, and other skills important to conducting the global war on terrorism. However, the committee is disturbed to learn that rather than being provided additional resources to cover these high priority manpower requirements, the 

Army and Air Force were directed to fund new special operations 

force requirements from existing manpower and resource levels 

over the course of the six years of the future years’ defense budgets. The committee also is surprised to learn that among the $831.0 

million in unfunded military personnel requirements for fiscal year 

2004 identified by the Chief of Naval Operations, were the costs of 

adding to the active components some 3,800 Naval Coastal Warfare 

unit personnel who are now in the Naval Reserve. 

Given all this, the committee believes that it is imperative to 

now begin addressing known manpower shortfalls. To that end, the 

committee’s recommendation would increase active component end 

strength by 6,240 above the requested levels. 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Military Manpower Reductions 

In light of the committee’s belief that there are unequivocal 

shortfalls in military manpower, the committee is disturbed to see 

the Navy’s proposal in the budget request to begin reducing active 

end strength in fiscal year 2004 in direct contravention of the statutory end strength floors. The committee’s recommendations contained in this title reject the Navy proposal and reaffirm the committee’s long-held belief in the need for a larger military force in 

all the military services. Given this, the committee is highly concerned that within the Department of Defense, consideration may 

314

already be developing for the fiscal year 2005 budget request for 

further substantial reductions to active and reserve component 

military manpower, not only in the Navy, but also in the other 

military services. The basis for such considerations appear to be 

early lessons learned from recent combat operations in Afghanistan 

and Iraq that significant force structure reductions, with concurrent manpower reductions, can be made. 

The committee believes that such conclusions are premature, if 

for no other reason than the certainty that both the ongoing Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and the continuing Operation Iraqi Freedom will require the commitment of tens of thousands of U.S. military personnel—some early estimates suggest 

more than 125,000 for Iraq alone—for the foreseeable future. Beyond that, the committee believes that dynamic, unpredictable 

challenges will present themselves in other regions of the world 

that will require the commitment of U.S. military resources. Thus, 

considering today’s existing military force levels, with no certainty 

about the end of current requirements, and the near certainty of 

a growth in new requirements, the committee is forced to conclude 

that reductions to military manpower would ultimately damage the 

long-term ability of the military forces to meet the full range of 

missions assigned them by the national security strategy. For these 

reasons, the committee strongly urges the Secretary of Defense and 

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to fully consult with the 

committee before undertaking any reductions to manpower levels 

authorized by Congress. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Subtitle A—Active Forces 

Section 401—End Strengths for Active Forces 

This section would authorize the following end strengths for active duty personnel of the armed forces as of September 30, 2004.

Service 

FY 2003

authorized 

and floor 

FY 2004 Change from 

Request 

Committee 

recommenda- tion 

FY 2004 re- quest FY 2003 authorized 

Army ...................................................................... 480,000 480,000 482,375 2,375 2,375 

Navy ....................................................................... 375,700 373,800 375,700 1,900 0 

USMC ..................................................................... 175,000 175,000 175,000 0 0 

Air Force ................................................................ 359,000 359,300 361,268 1,968 2,268 

DOD ....................................................................... 1,389,700 1,388,100 1,394,343 6,243 4,643 

The Army increases reflect the committee’s support for the results of a Total Army Analysis that identified more than 6,000 active Army requirements in special operations, chemical, signal, 

military police and other priority needs. The Navy increase reflects 

the committee’s opposition to the fiscal year 2004 budget request 

that proposed to reduce Navy end strength 1,900 below the statutory floor, as well as the committee’s belief that the Navy should 

begin aggressively addressing known shortfalls in active strength 

related to unfilled requirements for Naval Coastal Warfare units. 

The increased Air Force strength follows from the committee’s support for growth in Air Force special operations forces and in high 

priority Air Force manpower needs in such specialties as airborne 

315

refueling, combat control, airborne systems maintenance, 

loadmaster, flight engineer, security forces, aerial port logistics, intelligence exploitation and analysis, and firefighters. To support 

the increases in active end strengths, the committee recommends 

an additional $291.3 million for the military personnel accounts of 

the military services above the amounts requested in the budget. 

Section 402—Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength 

Minimum Levels 

This section would establish new permanent minimum end 

strengths for active duty personnel of the Army, Navy and Air 

Force as of September 30, 2004. These minimum strengths reflect 

the committee recommendations for active end strength shown in 

section 401.

SUBTITLE B—RESERVE FORCES

Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve 

This section would authorize the following end strengths for selected reserve personnel, including the end strength for reserves on 

active duty in support of the reserves, as of September 30, 2004:

Service FY 2003

authorized 

FY 2004 Change from 

Request 

Committee 

recommendation 

FY 2004 request FY 2003 authorized 

Army National Guard ............................................. 350,000 350,000 350,000 0 0 

Army Reserve ......................................................... 205,000 205,000 205,000 0 0 

Naval Reserve ....................................................... 87,800 85,900 85,900 0 ¥1,900 

Marine Corps Reserve ........................................... 39,558 39,600 39,600 0 42 

Air National Guard ................................................ 106,600 107,000 107,000 0 400 

Air Force Reserve .................................................. 75,600 75,800 75,800 0 200 

DOD Total .............................................................. 864,558 863,300 863,300 0 ¥1,258 

Coast Guard Reserve ............................................ 9,000 10,000 10,000 0 1,000 

Section 412—End Strengths for Reserves on Active Duty in 

Support of the Reserves 

This section would authorize the following end strengths for reserves on active duty in support of the reserves as of September 30, 

2004:

Service FY 2003

authorized 

FY 2004 Change from 

Request 

Committee 

recommendation 

FY 2004 request FY 2003 authorized 

Army National Guard ............................................. 24,562 25,386 25,386 0 824 

Army Reserve ......................................................... 14,070 14,374 14,374 0 304 

Naval Reserve ....................................................... 14,572 14,384 14,384 0 ¥188 

Marine Corps Reserve ........................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0 

Air National Guard ................................................ 11,727 12,140 12,140 0 413 

Air Force Reserve .................................................. 1,498 1,660 1,660 0 162 

DOD Total .............................................................. 68,690 70,205 70,205 0 1515 

The committee recommendation would provide for a 2.2 percent 

growth in the strength of these full-time reservists above the levels 

authorized in fiscal year 2003. 

316

Section 413—End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status) 

This section would authorize the following end strengths for military technicians (dual status) as of September 30, 2004:

Service FY 2003

authorized 

FY 2004 Change from 

Request 

Committee 

recommendation 

FY 2004 request FY 2003 authorized 

Army National Guard ............................................. 24,102 24,589 24,589 0 487 

Army Reserve ......................................................... 6,599 6,699 7,844 1,145 1,245 

Air National Guard ................................................ 22,495 22,806 22,806 0 311 

Air Force Reserve .................................................. 9,911 9,991 9,991 0 80

DOD Total 63,107 64,085 65,230 1,145 2,123 

The committee’s recommendation would provide for a 3.4 percent 

growth in the strength of military technicians above the levels authorized in fiscal year 2003. 

Section 414—Fiscal Year 2004 Limitation on Non-Dual Status 

Technicians 

This section would establish the maximum end strengths for the 

reserve components of the Army and Air Force for non-dual status 

technicians as of September 30, 2004. 

Section 415—Permanent Limitations on Number of Non-Dual 

Status Technicians 

This section would increase to 595 the permanent limit on the 

number of non-dual status military technicians who are allowed to 

be employed by the Army Reserve on or after October 1, 2007. It 

would also establish a separate permanent limit of 90 non-dual status technicians who are allowed to be employed by the Air Force 

Reserve on or after October 1, 2007. The committee recommends 

this increase from the current combined limit of 170 for both the 

Army Reserve and Air Force Reserve as a necessary follow-on to 

previous changes in law in the Floyd D. Spence National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), that 

revised the mandatory separation age for certain non-dual status 

technicians from 55 to 60. 

SUBTITLE C—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 421—Military Personnel 

This section would authorize $98.94 billion to be appropriated for 

military personnel. This authorization of appropriations reflects 

both reductions and increases to the budget request for military 

personnel that are itemized below.

Total Force: Military Personnel Amount (in millions) 

Army: Increase active end strength (2,375) ......................................... 117,967,000 

Army National Guard: Sustain AGR growth ...................................... 27,417,000 

Navy: Increase active end strength (1,900) ......................................... 98,000,000 

Air Force: Increase active end strength (1,968) .................................. 75,300,000 

Army: End of certain SW Asia contingency operations ...................... ¥74,200,000 

Navy: End of certain SW Asia contingency operations ...................... ¥1,200,000 

Naval Reserve: End of certain SW Asia contingency operations ....... ¥800,000 

Marine Corps: End of certain SW Asia contingency operations ........ ¥500,000 

Air Force: End of certain SW Asia contingency operations ............... ¥241,984,000 

317

Total Force: Military Personnel Amount (in millions) 

Offset O&M increase for Army National Guard military technicians ¥16,000,000 

Offset O&M increases in Defense Health Program ............................ ¥1,554,000

Section 422—Armed Forces Retirement Home

This section would authorize $65,279,000 to be appropriated for 

the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home during fiscal 

year 2004. 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

OVERVIEW 

The committee recommendations contained in this title build on 

emerging lessons learned from not only the global war on terrorism, but also the war with Iraq. To that end, the committee recommends important changes to reserve component personnel policy, including a simplified, more flexible system for measuring a reservist’s annual training requirements. The committee also recommends that the process for managing and compensating personnel experiencing extended or frequent deployments be restructured to make it a more useful and cost-effective tool. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Department of Defense Education Partnerships 

The committee continues to believe that the use of web-based 

technology is essential to both the retention and recruitment of 

military personnel for the armed forces. The committee support for 

such web-based technology efforts is reflected in the statement of 

the managers in title V of the conference report for the Bob Stump 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (H. Rept. 

107–772). That report encouraged the Department of Defense to 

foster web-based technology partnerships with high schools and institutions of higher learning. In that context, the committee is especially pleased with the initiative of the United States Recruiting 

Command to work with a national consortium of high schools and 

institutions of higher education to facilitate the enrollment and 

transfer of students with full recognition of credits among two-year 

and four-year institutions of higher education. If implemented, the 

committee believes such a partnership may assist Army recruiting 

and retention, while enhancing higher education opportunities for 

Army personnel. 

Department of Defense Overseas Schools Teacher Recruitment 

Incentives 

The committee is concerned that United States citizens recruited 

from an overseas location to teach in Department of Defense (DOD) 

overseas schools are not provided the same allowances as American 

citizen teachers recruited in the United States. The committee is 

aware, based on the General Accounting Office report entitled, 

‘‘DOD Overseas Schools—Compensation Adequate for Recruiting 

and Retaining Well-Qualified Teachers,’’ as directed by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 

107–107), that differences can arise because allowances are used as 

318

recruitment incentives. The committee also understands that both 

the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State share the authority for prescribing regulations governing allowances for the 

overseas teachers. To ensure that the recruitment incentives do not 

place United States citizens recruited overseas at an undue disadvantage compared to U.S. citizens recruited in the United States, 

the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination 

with the Secretary of State, to review the allowances and recruitment incentive practices and report the findings to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed 

Services no later than April 15, 2004. 

Electronic Voting Demonstration 

The committee remains committed to ensuring that the 2004 

electronic voting demonstration project authorized in section 1604 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 

(Public Law 107–107) is robust, technologically advanced, and statistically significant. The committee strongly believes that electronic voting systems are the best way to overcome the long-standing problems associated with military absentee voting and guarantee military voting rights in the future. The committee urges the 

Secretary of Defense to closely monitor preparation for the demonstration project and to commit the resources that are needed to 

make the project a success. 

Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot 

The committee has noted that military commanders have not effectively emphasized the use of the Federal Write-In Absentee Ballot (FWAB) for military voters who have not received their local 

election ballots in a timely manner. The committee believes that 

military voters have been denied a valuable tool that can provide 

the opportunity to vote while assigned to the most austere locations 

when they otherwise would be denied the right to vote because of 

mail delays or administrative problems. The committee urges the 

Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of the military departments to initiate programs to educate commanders, service voting 

officials, service members, and their family members about the 

availability and appropriate use of the FWAB. For example, the 

committee believes that all deploying units should consider the timing of future elections and ensure that an adequate supply of Federal Write-In Absentee Ballots is available during the deployment. 

Joint Advertising and Market Research 

The committee believes that the Department of Defense has an 

important corporate-level role to play in complementing the recruiting advertising programs of the individual services. In that light, 

the committee commends the Department’s joint advertising and 

market research reinvention effort, believing the program will have 

a direct, positive long-term impact on the ability of the Department 

and the military services to recruit quality personnel. Reflecting its 

belief in the Department’s joint advertising and market research effort, the committee worked to sustain funding for the program in 

the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2003 (Public Law 107–314). The committee notes with dismay, 

319

however, that the Department’s budget request for fiscal year 2004 

contains only minimal funding for the joint advertising and market 

research program, leaving a shortfall of some $41.5 million. Such 

a one-year reduction is not justified, and the committee strongly 

urges the Department to fully fund this important program 

through reprogramming at the earliest opportunity. 

Warrant Officer Appointments for the Army National Guard 

The committee has noted that the Army National Guard has not 

been able to fill all warrant officer vacancies. The committee is concerned that many qualified senior noncommissioned officers within 

the Army National Guard are being overlooked for warrant officer 

appointments. The committee believes that the Army National 

Guard has adequate educational institutions and resources to prepare noncommissioned officers for appointment as warrant officers. 

However, the Army has only one appointment source for warrant 

officers and the capability of the Army National Guard to prepare 

noncommissioned officers for warrant officer appointment is not 

utilized. The committee recommends that the Secretary of the 

Army review the process for appointing warrant officers and consider authorizing the Army National Guard to make warrant officer appointments. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICER MATTERS

Section 501—Standardization of Qualifications for Appointment as 

Service Chief 

This section would require that candidates for selection as the 

Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps be chosen from the flag officers of the Navy or general officers of the Marine Corps. Current law specifies that candidates for 

the position of Chief of Naval Operations be chosen from among active duty officers who, among other qualifications, hold the grade 

of rear admiral (O–8) or above, and that candidates for the position 

of Commandant of the Marine Corps be chosen from among active 

duty officers in the grade of colonel (O–6) or above. The committee 

recommendation would make qualification criteria with respect to 

grade consistent across all four of the military services. 

SUBTITLE B—OTHER OFFICER PERSONNEL POLICY MATTERS

Section 511—Repeal of Prohibition on Transfer Between Line of the 

Navy and Navy Staff Corps Applicable to Regular Navy Officers 

in Grades Above Lieutenant Commander 

This section would repeal the prohibition against regular officers 

in the grade of captain and above from moving between the line of 

the Navy and the Navy staff corps. 

320

Section 512—Retention of Health Professions Officers to Fulfill Active-Duty Service Commitments Following Promotion Nonselection 

This section would authorize the secretary concerned to retain officers serving in health professions until the end of their active 

duty service obligations, notwithstanding the requirement under 

law to discharge them on an earlier date due to nonselection for 

promotion. This section would allow the secretary to decline to retain an officer if retention of the officer is not in the best interests 

of the service. 

Section 513—Increased Flexibility for Voluntary Retirement for 

Military Officers 

The amendment would authorize the Secretary of Defense and 

the secretaries of the military departments greater flexibility in determining the grade in which active duty and reserve officers may 

be retired. Specifically, this section would: 

(1) Make permanent the authority of the Secretary of Defense to 

reduce from three to two the number of years that must be served 

in grades above major, or lieutenant commander in the Navy, and 

below brigadier general, or rear admiral (lower half) in the Navy, 

before retiring in those grades. 

(2) Require officers serving in grades above colonel, or captain in 

the Navy, to serve a minimum of one year time-in-grade before 

being allowed to retire in that grade. 

(3) Replace the requirement for the Secretary of Defense to notify 

Congress that officers have performed satisfactorily in grades above 

major general, or rear admiral (upper half) in the Navy, before 

being allowed to retire in those grades with an authority for the 

secretary of the military department concerned to approve retirement of officers in those grades with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense. 

Subtitle C—Reserve Component Matters 

Section 521—Streamlined Process for Continuation of Officers on 

the Reserve Active-Status List 

This section would remove the requirement for the secretary concerned to conduct a selection board to identify officers eligible for 

continuation on the reserve active-status list after being subject to 

separation or retirement due to nonselection for promotion, selection for early separation, or other reason. 

Section 522—Consideration of Reserve Officers for Position 

Vacancy Promotions in Time of War or National Emergency 

This section would authorize the secretary concerned to consider 

reserve officers ordered to active duty in support of a contingency 

operation for vacancy promotions for a period of up to two years of 

active duty service. 

321

Section 523—Simplification of Determination of Annual Participation for Purposes of Ready Reserve Training Requirements 

This section would restate (in terms of days of duty to be performed) the annual training requirement for all members of the 

ready reserve, which is comprised of members of the selected reserve and individual ready reserve. At present, the typical member 

of the selected reserve is required to perform the equivalent of 38 

training days of duty in the form of 48 periods of inactive duty for 

training (traditionally performed at the rate of four periods over a 

weekend) and 14 days of annual training. Other reservists fulfill 

training and active duty requirements in at least 32 different categories of duty status. This section would provide one measure of 

annual participation—38 days per year. 

Section 524—Authority for Delegation of Required Secretarial Special Finding for Placement of Certain Retired Members in Ready 

Reserve 

This section would allow the secretaries of the military departments to delegate determinations of whether retired members possess a skill so critical that they will be permitted to serve in a reserve component following retirement. However, this section would 

limit the delegation authority to no lower than the level of assistant secretary of the military service, or the level of lieutenant general or vice admiral in an armed force charged with responsibility 

for military personnel policy.

Section 525—Authority To Provide Expenses of Army and Air Staff 

Personnel and National Guard Bureau Personnel Attending National Conventions of Certain Military Associations 

This section would authorize the secretary concerned to fund the 

necessary expenses of regular members assigned to the National 

Guard Bureau or the Army General Staff or the Air Staff to attend 

the national convention of the Enlisted Association of the National 

Guard of the United States in the same manner as funding is provided to support attendance at the national conventions of the National Guard Association of the United States and the Adjutants 

General Association. 

SUBTITLE D—MILITARY EDUCATION AND TRAINING

Section 531—Authority for the Marine Corps University to Award 

the Degree of Master of Operational Studies 

This section would authorize the president of the Marine Corps 

University to confer the degree of master of operational studies 

upon graduates of the Command and Staff College’s School of Advanced Warfighting who fulfill the requirements for that degree. 

Section 532—Expanded Educational Assistance Authority for 

Cadets and Midshipmen Receiving ROTC Scholarships 

This section would authorize the secretary of the military department concerned to provide Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps 

scholarship students financial assistance in the form of room and 

board or other expenses required by the educational institution, so 

322

long as the total amount of assistance does not exceed what the 

student would have otherwise received for tuition, fees, books, and 

laboratory expenses. 

Section 533—Increase in Allocation of Scholarships Under Army 

Reserve ROTC Scholarship Program to Students at Military Junior Colleges 

This section would expand from 10 to 17 the number of cadets 

attending each military junior college on a Reserve Officer Training 

Corps scholarship. Such cadets are required to serve in the reserve 

components upon graduation. 

Section 534—Inclusion of Accrued Interest in Amounts that May be 

Repaid Under Selected Reserve Critical Specialties Education 

Loan Repayment Program 

This section would clarify that the interest accrued on a student 

loan should be included in the loan amount used as the basis for 

calculating the annual payment to reserve members under the selected reserve education loan repayment program. 

Section 535—Authority for Nonscholarship Senior ROTC Sophomores to Voluntarily Contract for and Receive Subsistence Allowance 

This section would authorize the secretary of the military department concerned to enter into a service contract with a Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps student who is not on a scholarship 

for the purpose of making the student eligible to receive a monthly 

subsistence allowance. 

Section 536—Appointments to Military Service Academies from 

Nominations Made by Delegates from Guam, Virgin Islands, and 

American Samoa 

This section would increase from two to three the number of appointments to each of the military service academies that can be 

made as a result of nominations made by the Delegate in Congress 

from Guam and the Delegate in Congress from the Virgin Islands. 

It would also increase from one to two the number of appointments 

to each of the military service academies that can be made as a result of nominations made by the Delegate from American Samoa. 

Section 537—Readmission to Service Academies of Certain Former 

Cadets and Midshipmen 

This section would authorize the secretary of a military department to readmit a former cadet or midshipman to a service academy on the basis of a formal report by an inspector general in the 

Department of Defense, if that report found that while attending 

that service academy, the cadet or midshipman had suffered a reprisal or other injustice that led to the resignation from the service 

academy. 

323

Section 538—Authorization for Naval Postgraduate School to Provide Instruction to Enlisted Members Participating in Certain 

Programs 

This section would permit enlisted members of the armed services to receive instruction at the Naval Postgraduate School in connection with the information security scholarship program. This 

Department of Defense (DOD) program is conducted as part of an 

effort to recruit and retain DOD personnel who have the computer 

and network security skills to meet DOD information assurance requirements. 

Section 539—Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and 

Violence at the Military Service Academies 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

a task force to examine matters related to sexual harassment and 

violence at the United States Military Academy and the United 

States Naval Academy. This section would require that the task 

force report findings and recommendations to the Secretary of Defense, and the secretaries of the Army and Navy, within 12 months 

of the initial meeting of the task force. Within 90 days of receiving 

the task force report, the Secretary of Defense would be required 

to provide the report, together with the Secretary’s evaluation of 

the report, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services. At the same time, the Secretary also would be required to provide to those committees an assessment of the effectiveness of the corrective actions being taken 

at the United States Air Force Academy as a result of various investigations conducted at that academy into matters involving sexual assault and harassment. Based on that report, the committee 

will be in a position to judge whether it should subsequently direct 

additional evaluation and assessment of the Air Force Academy.

SUBTITLE E—ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

Section 541—Enhancements to High-Tempo Personnel Program 

This section would restructure the program to manage service 

members subject to extended or frequent deployments. This section 

would require the deployment of members beyond 400 days out of 

the preceding 730 days to be approved, as a minimum, by a member of the Senior Executive Service or an officer serving in the 

grade of colonel, or in the case of the Navy, captain, when they 

have been selected for promotion and are serving in a billet authorized a general or flag officer. This section would also authorize a 

monthly payment of up to $1,000 to service members for each 

month during which the member is deployed for 191 or more consecutive days or for 401 days out of the preceding 730 days, or a 

reservist serves on active duty for more than 30 days during the 

second or subsequent mobilization for the same contingency operation. 

324

Section 542—Enhanced Retention of Accumulated Leave for HighDeployment Members 

This section would increase the accumulated leave that may be 

retained by a member serving at least 120 consecutive days in an 

area authorized payment of imminent danger pay, or similar assignment, from 90 to 120 days. 

Section 543—Standardization of Time-in-Service Requirements for 

Voluntary Retirement of Members of the Navy and Marine Corps 

with Army and Air Force Requirements 

This section would correct a minor disparity in the method for 

determining eligibility for retirement among the services by authorizing members of the Navy and Marine Corps to retire using the 

same years of service standard as used by the Army and Air Force. 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to determine the effective date of the correction in order to minimize implementation costs. 

Section 544—Standardization of Statutory Authorities for Exemptions from Requirement for Access to Secondary Schools by Military Recruiters 

This section would remove the authority for local educational 

agencies to vote to deny military recruiters access to secondary 

schools and student information and would bring the recruiter access policy established in section 503 of title 10, United States Code 

in line with the policy established in the No Child Left Behind Act 

(Public Law 107–110). 

Section 545—Procedures for Consideration of Applications for 

Award of the Purple Heart Medal to Veterans Held as Prisoners 

of War Before April 25, 1962 

This section would instruct the secretary concerned to consider 

the length of time between captivity and application and the duration of captivity when reviewing cases where individuals are seeking the award of the Purple Heart for periods when they were held 

as prisoners of war before April 25, 1962. This section would also 

require the secretary to provide information on prisoner of war 

camps to assist individuals in assembling applications. 

Section 546—Authority for Reserve and Retired Regular Officers to 

Hold State and Local Elective Office Notwithstanding Call to Active Duty 

This section would remove the restriction barring reservists or 

retirees serving on active duty for more than 270 days from holding 

elective office. 

Section 547—Clarification of Offense Under the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice Relating to Drunken or Reckless Operation of a 

Vehicle, Aircraft or Vessel 

This section would make a technical correction to section 911 of 

title 10 of the United States Code, clarifying that an alcohol concentration level in a person’s blood or breath that was 0.10 grams 

325

or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood (or 210 liters of 

breath) is a punishable offense under the Uniform Code of Military 

Justice. 

Section 548—Public Identification of Casualties No Sooner than 24 

Hours After Notification of Next-of-Kin 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from publicly releasing the name or other personally identifying information 

about military personnel who become casualties until 24 hours 

after official notification of the service member’s next-of-kin has 

taken place. 

SUBTITLE F—BENEFITS

Section 551—Additional Classes of Individuals Eligible to 

Participate in the Federal Long-Term Care Insurance Program 

This section would authorize reservists and federal civilian employees who have not reached the minimum age required to begin 

receiving a retired annuity and certain other civilian employees to 

be eligible for the Federal Long-Term Care Insurance Program. 

Section 552—Authority To Transport Remains of Retirees and Retiree Dependents Who Die in Military Treatment Facilities Outside the United States 

This section would expand the authority of the secretary concerned to transport the remains of armed forces retirees and their 

dependents that die in military health care facilities from departure and destination locations within the United States to include 

locations overseas. 

Section 553—Eligibility for Dependents of Certain Mobilized Reservists Stationed Overseas to Attend Defense Dependents 

Schools Overseas 

This section would expand the eligibility for space-available, tuition-free attendance at Department of Defense Dependents Schools 

(DODDS) overseas to the dependents of mobilized reservists who 

are called to active duty from a continental United States location 

and whose overseas tour is voluntarily or involuntarily extended 

beyond one year. The committee makes this recommendation to address a disparity in an admissions policy that now permits the dependents of reservists called to active duty from an overseas location to enroll in DODDS on a space-available, tuition-free basis, but 

denies such admission to reservists mobilized from the continental 

United States.

It is the committee’s intent to ensure that the dependents of mobilized reservists who become eligible for attendance at DODDS 

overseas under this section be admitted at the earliest feasible 

date. This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to 

prescribe final implementation regulations at the earliest opportunity for the dependents to begin schooling, but in no case later 

than the beginning of the school term closest to the date of enactment. 

326

SUBTITLE G—OTHER MATTERS

Section 561—Extension of Requirement for Exemplary Conduct by 

Commanding Officers and Others in Authority to Include Civilians in Authority in the Department of Defense 

This section would establish exemplary standards for all commanding officers and others in authority in the Department of Defense by broadening the scope of the statutory standards that now 

are individually codified for the Army, the Naval services, and the 

Air Force. The provision would also establish the standard for exemplary conduct for civilian leaders in the Department of Defense 

and the military departments. 

Section 562—Recognition of Military Families 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to implement 

and sustain programs, including appropriate annual ceremonies 

and events, to celebrate the contributions and sacrifices of military 

families in the active and reserve components. The committee believes that it would be appropriate for the Secretary to focus this 

effort annually by designating that ceremonies and events take 

place during a specific month. 

Section 563—Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that Benefit 

Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of 

Defense Civilian Employees 

This section would provide $35.0 million for assistance to local 

educational agencies. The committee makes this recommendation 

in connection with its continuing strong support of the need to help 

local school districts with significant concentrations of military students. 

Section 564—Permanent Authority for Support for Certain 

Chaplain-Led Military Family Support Programs 

This section would authorize the secretary of a military department to provide support services to active duty and reserve members and their immediate family members to facilitate their participation in chaplain-led programs designed to build and maintain 

strong families. 

Section 565—Department of Defense-Department of Veterans 

Affairs Joint Executive Committee 

This section would expand the scope of responsibilities of the Department of Defense—Department of Veterans Affairs (DOD–VA) 

Health Executive Committee beyond health care matters to include 

collaborative efforts between the departments in matters of benefits and other areas as determined by the co-chairs. Reflecting 

these broader responsibilities, this section would rename the committee as the Department of Defense—Department of Veterans Affairs Joint Executive Committee. The committee believes the expanded responsibilities of the committee promote improved cooperation and greater flexibility by the DOD and VA in managing 

personnel and fiscal requirements of the collaborative endeavors of 

both departments. 

327

Section 566—Limitation on Aviation Force Structure Changes in 

the Department of the Navy 

This section would preclude reductions in active and reserve component aviation force structure in the Navy until 90 days after the 

Secretary of the Navy provides the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services two reports. 

One report would clarify the details of the Navy’s aviation force 

structure plan for fiscal years 2004 through 2009. The second report would provide the secretary’s concept of operations for improving the integration and use of Naval Reserve units and personnel 

with active component forces in carrying out operational missions 

across the peacetime and wartime spectrum of naval operations 

during the period of 2004 through 2005. 

Section 567—Impact-Aid Eligibility for Heavily Impacted Local 

Educational Agencies Affected by Privatization of Military Housing 

This section would clarify the eligibility for impact aid to schools 

whose student population was affected during the construction of 

military family housing by public-private partnerships. 

Section 568—Investigation into the 1991 Death of Marine Corps 

Colonel James E. Sabow 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to open a 

new investigation into the January 1991 death of Colonel James E. 

Sabow at the Marine Corps Air Station, El Toro, California, focusing the effort on determining the colonel’s cause of death. The committee believes that previous investigations did not address a range 

of issues that could clarify whether murder, not suicide, caused 

Colonel Sabow’s death. The committee has compiled a list of significant issues and questions that must be addressed as part of this 

new investigation, as well as witnesses that must be interviewed. 

The committee expects the Secretary of Defense, prior to beginning 

the new investigation, to consult with the committee to ensure that 

the new investigation fully and comprehensively addresses these 

matters. 

SUBTITLE H—DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Section 571—Travel and Transportation for Dependents Relocating 

for Reasons of Personal Safety 

This section would allow travel and transportation allowances to 

dependents of uniformed service members who are victims of domestic violence and have agreed upon property division by written 

agreement or court order. 

Section 572—Commencement and Duration of Payment of 

Transitional Compensation 

This section would allow transitional compensation to commence 

upon sentencing, except when a pretrial agreement includes a disapproval or suspension of a sentence. In such cases, transitional 

compensation will commence upon approval of the convening authority. It would also allow eligible individuals to receive transiVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00351 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.085 A106HR
328

tional compensation for 36 months, unless terminated earlier as required by law. 

Section 573—Flexibility in Eligibility for Transitional 

Compensation 

This section would allow transitional compensation to certain dependents of a member or former member of the armed forces due 

to extenuating circumstances, as prescribed under regulations developed by the secretary concerned. 

Section 574—Types of Administrative Separations Triggering 

Coverage 

This section would expand coverage to a service member on active duty for more than 30 days, who is voluntarily or involuntarily 

administratively separated. 

Section 575—On-Going Review Group 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to convene 

a working group within two years from the date of enactment to 

review and assess the progress of the Department of Defense in implementation of the recommendations of the Defense Task Force on 

Domestic Violence. 

Section 576—Resources for Department of Defense Implementation 

Organization 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide 

the necessary resources in order to implement the recommendations of the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence. 

Section 577—Fatality Reviews 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct 

multidisciplinary fatality reviews for each fatality that involves a 

member of the armed forces, a current or former dependent of a 

member, or a current or former intimate partner who has a child 

in common or has shared a common domicile with a member, and 

is suspected or known to have resulted from domestic violence or 

child abuse. 

Section 578—Sense of Congress 

This section would express the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should adopt the strategic plan proposed by the 

Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence. Furthermore, the service 

secretaries should establish and support a Victim Advocate Protocol for victims of domestic violence. 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATION AND OTHER 

PERSONNEL BENEFITS 

OVERVIEW 

The committee continues to support the fully funded and flexible 

compensation programs needed to recruit and retain a quality force 

in a wartime environment. Accordingly, the committee would inVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00352 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.086 A106HR
329

clude a pay raise that combines an across-the-board raise with targeted increases for mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers, 

increases in pay and allowances for the warfighters, and additional 

incentives for mobilized reserve forces. 

The committee remains committed to protecting military exchange and commissary benefits. Accordingly, the committee would 

include a series of provisions to clarify the requirement to operate 

resale activities and protect the level of benefit provided to service 

members and their families. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Survivor Benefit Program 

The committee is deeply concerned that implementation of the 

Survivor Benefit Program (SBP) by the services has created certain 

inequities among eligible beneficiaries. Although Congress has enacted legislation designed to correct such inequities, many similarly 

situated survivors continue to receive disparate treatment under 

SBP. Specifically, the committee is aware that survivors of some 

seriously ill or injured service members who live long enough to be 

disability retired receive a better level of benefit than those where 

the member’s death was instantaneous. The committee desires to 

correct such inequities. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review active duty SBP benefit levels awarded 

to survivors under different circumstances of death, the procedures 

used by the Department of Defense to operate the program, and 

the desired objectives of the program, and to propose legislation to 

ensure equitable treatment for the survivors of all members, regardless of the circumstances of death. The Secretary shall report 

his findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 

March 31, 2004. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Section 601—Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2004 

This section would increase basic pay for members of the armed 

forces by an average of 4.1 percent. This section would provide enhanced increases for mid-grade and senior noncommissioned officers and select warrant officers to enhance retention. 

This raise would continue to fulfill Congress’ commitment to increasing pay for the armed forces and would reduce the pay gap 

between military and private sector pay increases from 6.4 percent 

to 5.5 percent. 

Section 602—Computation of Basic Pay Rate for Commissioned 

Officers with Prior Enlisted or Warrant Officer Service 

This section would correct an inequity by authorizing mobilized 

reserve junior officers with extended prior enlisted or warrant officer service to be paid at the same increased rates of pay that they 

receive when serving in the active reserves. 

330

Section 603—Special Subsistence Allowance Authorities for Members Assigned to High-Cost Duty Location or Under Other 

Unique and Unusual Circumstances

This section would authorize commanders to pay service members a supplemental allowance for subsistence to compensate for 

additional expenses encountered when assigned to high-cost and 

unique duty locations. 

SUBTITLE B—BONUSES AND SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS

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

Pay Authorities for Reserve Forces 

This section would extend the authority for the selected reserve 

reenlistment bonus, the selected reserve enlistment bonus, special 

pay for enlisted members of the selected reserve assigned to certain 

high priority units, the selected reserve affiliation bonus, the ready 

reserve enlistment and reenlistment bonus, and the prior service 

enlistment bonus until December 31, 2004. 

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

Pay Authorities for Certain Health Care Professionals 

This section would extend the authority for the nurse officer candidate accession program, the accession bonus for registered 

nurses, the incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists, the special 

pay for selected reserve health care professionals in critically short 

wartime specialties, and the accession bonus for dental officers 

until December 31, 2004. The provision would also extend the authority for repayment of educational loans for certain health professionals who serve in the selected reserve until January 1, 2005. 

Section 613—One-Year Extension of Special Pay and Bonus 

Authorities for Nuclear Officers 

This section would extend the authority for the special pay for 

nuclear-qualified officers extending the period of active service, nuclear career accession bonus, and the nuclear career annual incentive bonus until December 31, 2004. 

Section 614—One-Year Extension of Other Bonus and Special Pay 

Authorities 

This section would extend the authority for the aviation officer 

retention bonus, the reenlistment bonus for active members, the 

enlistment bonus for active members, the retention bonus for members with critical military skills, and the accession bonus for new 

officers in critical skills until December 31, 2004. 

Section 615—Computation of Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay for 

Demolition Duty and Parachute Jumping by Members of Reserve 

Components Entitled to Compensation Under Section 206 of Title 

37 

This section would authorize reservists to be paid hazardous 

duty pay at the same monthly rates paid to members serving on 

active duty for explosives demolition and parachute jumping duties 

331

when they maintain the same qualification standards as required 

for active duty members. 

Section 616–Availability of Hostile Fire and Imminent Danger Pay 

for Reserve Component Members on Inactive Duty 

This section would authorize reservists to be paid hostile fire and 

imminent danger pay at the same monthly rate paid to members 

serving on active duty when serving in an inactive duty for training status at duty locations authorized the pay. 

Section 617—Expansion of Overseas Tour Extension Incentive 

Program to Officers 

This section would authorize officers to receive the same compensation or rest and recuperative leave benefits as granted to enlisted members who extend their overseas tours of duty at designated locations. 

Section 618—Eligibility of Appointed Warrant Officers for 

Accession Bonus for New Officers in Critical Skills 

This section would authorize individuals appointed in the grade 

of Warrant Officer (W1) to receive the accession bonus for new officers in critical skills. 

Section 619—Incentive Pay for Duty on Ground in Antarctica or on 

Arctic Icepack 

This section would authorize service members performing duty 

on the ground in the Antarctic or on the icepack in the Arctic to 

be paid an additional $5 for each day of that duty. 

Section 620—Special Pay for Service as Member of Weapons of 

Mass Destruction Civil Support Team 

This section would authorize members assigned by orders to duty 

as members of Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support Teams 

to be paid a special pay of $150 per month. 

Section 621—Incentive Bonus for Agreement to Serve in Critically 

Short Military Occupational Specialty 

This section would authorize the secretary concerned to pay an 

incentive bonus of not more than $4,000 to certain enlisted members of the armed forces who agree to serve for not less than two 

years in a critically short military occupational specialty. 

Section 622—Increase in Rate for Imminent Danger Pay and Family Separation Allowance Related to Service in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom 

This section would increase the rate of imminent danger pay from $150 per month to $225 per month and the rate of family separation allowance from $100 per month to $250 per month paid to 

service members performing duty in the combat zones designated 

for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

The increase in these pays would be effective October 1, 2003, and 

would expire on the date the President terminates the operation.

332

SUBTITLE C—TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES

Section 631—Shipment of Privately Owned Motor Vehicle Within 

Continental United States 

This section would authorize the secretary concerned to pay a 

monetary allowance in lieu of transportation to service members 

who elect to arrange for transportation of a privately owned vehicle 

during a permanent change of station move between duty locations 

within the continental United States. The member would be responsible for any transportation costs in excess of the monetary allowance paid in lieu of transportation. 

Section 632—Payment or Reimbursement of Student Baggage Storage Costs for Dependent Children of Members Stationed Overseas 

This section would expand the eligibility for dependent children 

of members stationed overseas to store student baggage to include 

storage at any point during the same fiscal year and not just at the 

time of the dependent student’s annual trip to the member’s overseas duty station. 

Section 633—Reimbursement for Lodging Expenses of Certain Reserve Component and Retired Members During Authorized Leave 

From Temporary Duty Location 

The committee is troubled that mobilized reservists and recalled 

retirees serving on active duty for extended periods away from 

their homes are not authorized to be reimbursed for lodging costs 

during periods of leave when those costs are paid by the member 

on a monthly basis. Accordingly, this section would authorize the 

secretaries of the military departments to reimburse reservists and 

retirees serving on active duty at duty locations away from their 

homes the lesser of the lodging portion of the applicable per diem 

rate or the actual cost of lodging paid by the member for periods 

during which the member is in a leave status. 

SUBTITLE D—RETIRED PAY AND SURVIVORS BENEFITS

Section 641—Funding for Special Compensation Authorities for 

Department of Defense Retirees 

This section would require that payments made to retirees eligible for either the special compensation for the severely disabled or 

the special compensation for the combat disabled would be paid 

from the Military Retirement Trust Fund. These payments are now 

paid from the military services’ personnel accounts. This section 

would also provide that any increase in the Department of Defense’s annual accrual payment to the Military Retirement Trust 

Fund resulting from the payment of the two special compensations, 

or from concurrent receipt, should it be enacted, would be provided 

by a contribution from the United States Treasury. 

333

SUBTITLE E—COMMISSARY AND NONAPPROPRIATED FUND

INSTRUMENTALITY BENEFITS

Section 651—Expanded Commissary Access for Selected Reserve 

Members, Reserve Retirees Under Age 60, and Their Dependents 

This section would authorize members of the selected reserve, reserve retirees qualified to receive retired pay, except that they are 

not age 60, and their dependents to use commissaries to the same 

extent as active duty members and their dependents. 

Section 652—Defense Commissary System and Exchange Stores 

System 

The committee has noted the absence of a basic authority for the 

operation of commissaries and exchange stores and believes that 

such authority should be installed in the law. Accordingly, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to operate separate defense commissary and exchange store systems. 

Section 653—Limitations on Private Operation of Defense 

Commissary Store Functions 

The committee is concerned that current law does not provide 

Congress sufficient oversight of initiatives to privatize commissary 

store functions. Accordingly, this section would clarify that only selected store functions may be considered for privatization and that 

the private operation of a store function may not take effect until 

the Secretary of Defense submits written notice of the proposed 

change to Congress and a period of 90 days of continuous session 

of Congress expires following the date on which the Secretary’s notice is received. 

Section 654—Use of Appropriated Funds to Operate Defense 

Commissary System 

The committee believes that the value of the commissary benefit 

to service members is derived from consistent appropriated funding 

support of commissary operations. Accordingly, this section would 

require the use of appropriated funding to support commissary operating expenses. 

Section 655—Recovery of Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality 

and Commissary Store Investments in Real Property at Military 

Installations Closed or Realigned 

This section would authorize the use, without further appropriation, of funds resulting from the transfer or disposal (during base 

closures or realignments prior to 2005) of real property or facilities 

that had been acquired, constructed or improved with nonappropriated or commissary store funds. The committee makes this 

recommendation believing it to be fully consistent with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 

107–107) governing the disposition of funds resulting from the 

transfer or disposal of nonappropriated or commissary store real 

property or facilities during the upcoming 2005 round of base closures and realignments. 

334

Section 656—Commissary Shelf-Stocking Pilot Program 

The committee believes that the current practice of relying on 

vendors and brokers to provide a significant portion of commissary 

shelf stocking denies commissary managers effective control over 

an important element of cost. Accordingly, this section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to conduct a pilot program to stock 

shelves at three commissary stores using federal civilian employees 

or employees contracted by commissary managers. This section 

would require the Secretary to submit a plan to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services for the conduct of the pilot program not later than six 

months after the enactment of the bill and would authorize the 

Secretary to begin the pilot program 30 days after the plan was received by the committees. 

The committee believes that the success of the pilot program relies on the Secretary of Defense requesting and the Office of Personnel Management approving a targeted civil service demonstration project under chapter 47 of title 5, United States Code. The 

committee does not favor the use of nonappropriated fund employees in commissaries and would not support the use of such employees to stock shelves during operation of the pilot program. 

SUBTITLE F—OTHER MATTERS

Section 661—Repeal of Congressional Notification Requirement for 

Designation of Critical Military Skills for Retention Bonus 

This section would repeal the requirement for the Secretary of 

Defense, and the Secretary of Homeland Defense with respect to 

the Coast Guard when it is not operating as a service in the Navy, 

to provide Congress 90 days advance notice before implementing a 

critical skills retention bonus. 

TITLE VII—HEALTH CARE PROVISIONS 

OVERVIEW 

The committee recognizes the challenges faced by the Department of Defense in providing health care to a full range of beneficiaries at home and overseas, while caring for service members 

engaged in hostile operations. The committee is pleased that the 

Department’s budget request for the Defense Health Program is 

based on appropriate inflation rates resulting in a realistic assessment of its requirements. Nonetheless, with the national phenomenon of escalating health care costs, the committee challenges 

the Department to aggressively explore innovative cost control 

methods. 

In addition, the committee’s recommendations address a number 

of concerns. For example, the committee believes that the Department has not fully demonstrated a commitment to carrying out 

force health protection and surveillance requirements that emerged 

from the lessons learned during the first Gulf War. The committee 

encourages the Department to ensure participation from the highest levels of leadership to ensure that operational commanders can 

track military units and individuals during operations; that perVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00358 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.088 A106HR
335

sonnel and medical systems provide complete documentation of 

health care encounters in medical records and that information systems for integrating every aspect of a service member’s activity in 

theater (to include environmental data) and at home station are 

available. 

Our Nation relies heavily on the reserve components to supplement the capabilities of our active duty forces as evidenced by the 

activation of thousands of reserve component personnel for operations in the Gulf. The committee is pleased with the Department’s 

actions to enroll into TRICARE Prime the family members of reserve component service members who receive active duty orders 

for more than 30 days. Moreover, the committee continues to support and monitor the medical readiness efforts for the reserve components. However, the committee is concerned that many of the reserve component personnel do need significant medical and dental 

care to meet deployment standards once activated. To that end, the 

committee recommends new authority for the Department to provide pre-mobilization medical and dental screening and care to 

members of the Selected Reserve who are assigned to a unit that 

has been alerted or notified for mobilization in support of certain 

operations. 

The committee recognizes the progress the Department has made 

toward selecting and establishing the next generation of TRICARE 

managed care support contracts. Yet, the Department faces the formidable task of awarding the contracts and executing a seamless 

transition to the new contracts that include a modified governance 

structure. The committee is encouraged by the efforts of the Department’s transition team and implementation plan. The committee continues to expect the Department to provide ongoing, outreach programs regarding the full array of TRICARE programs to 

all categories of beneficiaries, beneficiary representative organizations, and health care providers. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Cost Containment in Department of Defense and Department of 

Veterans Affairs Health Care System 

The committee is concerned about the growing cost of health care 

for active and retired military personnel and their families. Given 

this concern, the committee remains interested in exploring cost 

containment measures which may have application in both the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs’ 

health care systems. Therefore, the committee believes that both 

departments should be receptive to the examination and the controlled testing of innovative proposals for cost containment. Such 

innovative proposals could include the use of alternative treatment 

regimes, observation units, increased use of paramedics and other 

protocols that have proven effective at reducing cost while maintaining quality health care. Therefore, the committee directs the 

Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to consider establishing centers of excellence in both 

departments as a means of examining and testing innovative cost 

containment proposals and report to the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services the 

Secretary’s plan for carrying out this directive. 

336

Force Health Protection and Surveillance 

The committee remains strongly committed to the force health 

protection and surveillance of members of the armed forces. While 

the Department of Defense (DOD) and the military services have 

made notable strides since 1991 in improving the force health protection and surveillance system, the emerging results of oversight 

efforts by the General Accounting Office (GAO) indicate that much 

more remains to be done to overcome shortfalls in a system found 

lacking following the first Persian Gulf War. As service members 

return from a second conflict in the Persian Gulf, it is imperative 

that the Department has systems in place to avoid repeating the 

mistakes of the past. 

In 1997, Congress established a number of program requirements. For example, the law requires the Secretary of Defense to 

institute a system of assessing the medical conditions of service 

members, including the use of pre- and post-deployment examinations, to provide for a centralized location of such records, to establish a quality assurance program to evaluate the system, and to 

create a mechanism for the tracking of members in a theatre of operations. 

Ongoing reviews by the GAO indicate that while the services and 

the Department have made efforts to meet the intent of the law, 

especially in the promulgation of policy, the Department is not 

meeting the full requirement of the law and the military services 

are not effectively carrying out many of the Department’s policies. 

For example, the GAO has found that many service members are 

not getting pre- and post-deployment health assessments. Centralized location of health care records remains a significant shortfall, 

and the required quality assurance program has yet to be established. Recent testimony by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Health Affairs indicates that the Department is committed to resolving these issues. Yet, the committee remains concerned that 

the Department’s focus on these issues will fade as the war with 

Iraq draws to a close. 

Therefore, the committee, while awaiting the final report of the 

General Accounting Office, directs the Secretary of Defense to establish a quality control program to begin assessing implementation of the force health protection and surveillance program, and to 

provide a strategic implementation plan, including a timeline for 

full implementation of all policies and programs, to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services by March 31, 2004. 

Military-Civilian Education Programs Related to Sexual Health 

Decision-Making 

The committee is aware of collaborative civil-military partnership 

education programs related to sexual health decision-making that 

demonstrate benefits through the reduction of unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections among military personnel. The committee’s support for such collaborative programs 

was demonstrated in the statement of managers accompanying the 

conference report on H.R. 4546 (H. Rept. 107–772), which directed 

the Secretary of Defense to examine such collaborative programs 

and consider their use by the services. The committee continues to 

337

be aware of on-going innovative, effective partnership education 

programs, particularly in the Army. As a measure of support for 

those efforts, and to further encourage the Secretary of Defense to 

examine civil-military partnership programs related to sexual 

health decision making, the committee recommends an increase in 

the funding for the Army medical department of $150,000. 

Population-Based Medical Research 

The committee is encouraged by the collaboration of the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to increase the capability to conduct population-based medical research 

and disease surveillance on the health of military personnel deployed in overseas conflicts both during and after their active military service. Such a capability was identified as essential after the 

first Gulf War. The committee encourages the Department of Defense to continue adapting existing information systems that leverage Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs capabilities to improve their population-based research. 

Study of Cost and Feasibility of TRICARE Eligibility for Adult 

Disabled Family Members 

The committee is aware of beneficiary concerns that certain family members who are no longer eligible for TRICARE benefits and 

subsequently become incapacitated may have limited options for 

health care coverage. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study of the cost and feasibility of providing 

TRICARE benefits to adult family members or adopted adult family members of active duty and retired military service members 

who became incapacitated after they were no longer eligible for 

TRICARE benefits. The study would include information on the 

number of families affected by current restrictions and the cost and 

feasibility of any recommendations for implementing the proposed 

change to TRICARE eligibility. The Secretary shall submit the report by March 31, 2004 to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services. 

Study of TRICARE Options for Puerto Rico 

The committee is aware that the recent termination of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program Demonstration may have 

had a greater impact on eligible beneficiaries in Puerto Rico compared with other demonstration sites because of the large percentage of participants in the program. The termination of the demonstration may have had a particular impact on military retirees 

under the age of 65 and their dependents, whose primary option is 

now TRICARE Standard. The committee is aware that it may be 

possible to expand TRICARE options for all beneficiaries who reside in Puerto Rico. The committee urges the Department of Defense to conduct a review of the current TRICARE options and access to health care services in Puerto Rico, including an analysis 

of the feasibility of providing TRICARE Prime and TRICARE Extra 

in Puerto Rico, as well as the costs to the federal government and 

the benefit to the military retiree. 

338

TRICARE Provider Participation 

Over the past several years, the committee has heard from multiple sources not only that TRICARE beneficiaries are having increasing difficulty finding civilian health care providers who will 

accept them as patients, but also that civilian health care providers 

increasingly are leaving the TRICARE program or refusing to accept new TRICARE patients. In response, Congress, in the Bob 

Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 

(Public Law 107–314), directed the Comptroller General to review 

the extent of and reasons for provider instability within the 

TRICARE network. Recently, a General Accounting Office (GAO) 

witness, testifying before the committee on GAO’s preliminary findings, made it clear that data does not exist within the Department 

of Defense’s (DOD) health care system, or within the data maintained by the TRICARE managed care support contractors, to objectively measure trends in provider participation or adequacy for 

network needs. Although the final report has yet to be completed, 

GAO’s preliminary findings already raise serious concerns, especially since the Department has consistently reported that 

TRICARE provider networks are meeting contract standards. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Department to review and improve the current methodology used to ensure network adequacy. 

In addition, while the committee supports the Department’s effort 

to provide greater responsibilities to local lead agents, it does not 

absolve the Department from ensuring that the managed care support contractors meet the reporting requirements of the contracts. 

The committee also directs the Department to systematically collect 

and evaluate beneficiary complaints to assist in determining 

whether there are systematic access problems. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 701—Revision of Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible 

Retiree Health Care Fund To Permit More Accurate Actuarial 

Valuations 

This section would give the Secretary of Defense more flexibility 

in calculating the required per-capita normal cost contributions to 

the Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care 

Fund. Current law limits the Secretary of Defense to use only percapita costs for the uniformed services, which include the Coast 

Guard, the U.S. Public Health Service and the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration. Members of these non-DOD uniformed services have a higher per capita cost of health care than 

do DOD military personnel, and the requirement to use a ‘‘uniformed services’’ per-capita cost results in DOD’s actuarial contribution being larger than necessary to fund the future cost of 

health care for Medicare-eligible military beneficiaries. 

Section 702—Transfer of Certain Members from Pharmacy and 

Therapeutics Committee to Uniform Formulary Beneficiary Advisory Panel Under the Pharmacy Benefits Program 

This section would realign the membership of the Pharmacy and 

Therapeutics Committee and the Uniform Beneficiary Advisory 

339

Panel to improve the ability of both to more effectively meet their 

statutory roles. 

Section 703—Permanent Extension of Authority to Enter into Personal Services Contracts for the Performance of Health Care Responsibilities at Locations Other than Military Medical Treatment Facilities 

This section would make permanent the authority for the Secretary of Defense to enter into personal services contracts to carry 

out health care responsibilities at locations other than medical 

treatment facilities, such as military entrance processing stations. 

The existing authority expires December 31, 2003. 

Section 704—Plan for Providing Health Coverage Information to 

Members, Former Members and Dependents Eligible for Certain 

Health Benefits 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to develop 

and submit to Congress by March 31, 2004, a plan to: 

(1) Provide TRICARE Standard beneficiaries information 

concerning the extent of health care coverage under the benefit, the associated costs, sources of information for locating 

TRICARE-authorized providers, and methods to obtain assistance in resolving difficulties encountered with billing, eligibility, locating TRICARE-authorized providers, and collection 

actions; 

(2) Ensure that beneficiaries receive assistance in locating a 

TRICARE-authorized provider; 

(3) Institute a systematic approach to identify the number 

and location of TRICARE Standard eligible beneficiaries; 

(4) Provide information to recruit and retain health care providers within TRICARE Standard; and 

(5) Provide an implementation schedule for the plan to be executed with respect to any contract in the TRICARE program 

entered into after May 31, 2003. 

The committee, based on testimony it has received and ongoing 

work of the General Accounting Office (as directed by the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law 107–

314), believes that an active outreach program by the Department 

of Defense to beneficiaries and health care providers would be helpful to improve access to care and beneficiary satisfaction with 

TRICARE Standard. 

Section 705—Working Group on Military Health Care for Persons 

Reliant on Health Care Facilities at Military Installations to be 

Closed or Realigned 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

a working group to provide input to the Secretary on the provision 

of health care to persons in the United States and overseas who 

rely on military health care facilities on installations that are selected for closure or realignment. The working group, which would 

include independent representatives from each TRICARE region, 

would: 

340

(1) Provide input to the Secretary in developing the selection 

criteria and recommendations for the 2005 round of base closures; 

(2) Assist the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission; and 

(3) Provide a plan to the Secretary for the provision of health 

care to those persons affected by the closure or realignment of 

a military installation. 

Section 706—Acceleration of Implementation of Chiropractic 

Health Care for Members on Active Duty 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to accelerate 

the availability of chiropractic health care services and benefits 

through medical treatment facilities within the Defense Health 

Program (DHP) to members on active duty. The committee authorizes funds to be appropriated for the DHP above the budget request 

in the amount of $6.0 million for this purpose. 

Section 707—Medical and Dental Screening for Members of 

Selected Reserve Units Alerted for Mobilization 

This section would allow the Department of Defense, to provide 

medical and dental screening and care for members of the selected 

reserve who are assigned to a unit that has been alerted or otherwise notified that the unit will be mobilized for an operational mission or a contingency operation, or during a national emergency, or 

in time of war. 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION 

MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES

The committee is aware that the Director, Defense Logistics 

Agency, is considering using a group purchasing organization 

(GPO) to provide electronic access to GPO prices for medical equipment and supplies. These group purchase organizations use the leverage of their members’ combined buying power as a means to 

purchase items at a discounted price. The committee recognizes the 

benefits of a GPO, but also recognizes the continued need for competition and the need to support small and small disadvantaged 

businesses. The committee therefore directs the Director, Defense 

Logistics Agency, to insure that small businesses receive special 

emphasis by retaining visibility of their medical equipment and 

supplies on national and/or regional pricing agreements within the 

electronic catalog/purchasing system. Further, any GPO selected to 

provide service will be required to foster small and small disadvantaged business participation within the portfolio of the organization, and the Defense Logistics Agency shall monitor this participation.

341

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL CONTRACTING

AUTHORITIES, PROCEDURES, AND LIMITATIONS

Section 801—Extension of Authority To Carry Out Certain 

Prototype Projects 

This section would extend authority for the Director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Secretary of a military department, or any other official designated by the Secretary 

of Defense, to carry out prototype projects under section 845 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (P.L. 103–

160) until September 30, 1998. 

Section 802—Elimination of Certain Subcontract Notification 

Requirements 

This section would amend section 2306 of title 10, United States 

Code, by eliminating the requirement that contractors with a cost 

contract notify the agency before awarding a subcontract for a costplus-a-fixed-fee or a fixed price subcontract greater than the simplified acquisition threshold or five percent of the estimated cost of 

the prime contract. The requirement would no longer apply in 

those instances where the Secretary of Defense approves the contractor’s purchasing system. 

Section 803—Elimination of the Requirement to Furnish Written 

Assurances of Technical Data Conformity 

This section would amend section 2320 of title 10, United States 

Code, by eliminating the requirement that contractors that provide 

technical data under a contract furnish written assurances that the 

data is complete, accurate, and satisfies the requirements of the 

contract. This section is not intended to diminish the contractor’s 

obligation to provide technical data that meets contractor requirements or the Secretary of Defense’s ability to enforce contractual 

obligations. 

Section 804—Limitation Period for Task and Delivery Order 

Contracts 

This section would amend section 811 of the Bob Stump National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (P.L. 107–314) in 

order to clarify the committee’s intent to proscribe the period of 

time for which task and delivery order contracts can be awarded. 

Section 805—Additional Authorities Relating to Obtaining Personal 

Services 

This section would amend section 129 of title 10, United States 

Code, to authorize the Secretary of Defense to award personal service contracts without application of section 3109 of title 5, United 

States Code. Personal service contracts can be awarded for experts 

and consultants, as well as for other work that is not considered 

of a consultant or expert nature. In this latter case contracts can 

be awarded for work to be performed outside the United States and 

for work to be performed inside the United States. In those inVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00365 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.092 A106HR
342

stances where work is to be performed inside the United States the 

contract must support special operations, intelligence and counter 

intelligence missions. The committee believes that personal service 

contracts should be awarded only when there are no Department 

of Defense officials available to perform the function. The committee also encourages the Department of Defense Inspector General to audit the use of this authority to ensure its appropriate use 

and application. 

SUBTITLE B—UNITED STATES DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE

PROVISIONS

PART I—CRITICAL ITEMS IDENTIFICATION AND DOMESTIC

PRODUCTION CAPABILITIES IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

Section 811—Assessment of United States Defense Industrial Base 

Capabilities 

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of each military department to establish a program to assess 

the ability of the United States industrial base to produce military 

systems necessary to support national security requirements. 

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense and the 

Secretary of each military service to designate a person with the 

authority and responsibility to maintain an awareness of the degree to which the United States is dependent on foreign sources for 

military products, and pursue initiatives to bolster United States 

industrial base capabilities. 

This section would further require the Secretary of Defense to 

collect data with respect to the procurement of covered military 

systems. The data collected would include information about the 

critical item or items included in that system, whether the items 

in question are from domestic or foreign sources, the identification 

of foreign contractors and the reason for the selection of that contractor, and the location of work to be completed by a U.S. contractor outside the United States. Based on this data collection, the 

Secretary of Defense would submit an assessment of his findings 

to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services. This report would be required every two 

years, with the first report due on November 1, 2004, covering the 

fiscal years 2002 and 2003. This first report would provide critical 

baseline data for understanding the current strengths and 

vulnerabilities of the defense industrial base and for measuring the 

impact of initiatives undertaken through other sections in this subtitle. 

The committee is concerned that the U.S. industrial base is becoming more dependent on foreign sources and that there are fewer 

indigenous capabilities available for the design and fabrication of 

critical components, systems, and materials used in military systems. The committee is aware that the U.S. needs to maintain sovereign capabilities to design, develop, test, integrate, and manufacture military systems in the quality and quantity necessary to support war time requirements. 

343

Section 812—Identification of Critical Items: Military System 

Breakout List 

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to identify all 

items and components of military systems and to identify which of 

these are essential and critical to the U.S. industrial base. Essential items and components would be those essential for the proper 

functioning and performance of a military system or those involving a defense critical technology. Critical items would be those 

items already deemed essential that also pose high barriers to 

entry for the production of the item or component in question. This 

section would also require an annual report, beginning with November 1, 2004, that would compile the lists required under this 

section, including a list of items and components that are manufactured and produced outside the United States. The committee is 

concerned that the U.S. is becoming dependent on foreign sources 

for many essential and critical items and has limited means to assess risks related to this dependency.

The committee is also concerned by a lack of visibility by both 

industry and the Department of Defense of the sources of items or 

components typically provided by subcontractors. Such visibility is 

unavailable using current methods. The lists compiled through this 

section, however, can provide a first step to providing this information by first identifying those items and components that are essential and critical to the U.S. defense industrial base. 

Section 813—Procurement of Certain Critical Items from American 

Sources 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to purchase 

certain critical items only if they are entirely produced in the 

United States. For such critical items, there would have to be limited sources of production capability of the item in the United 

States. The section would provide an exception by which the Secretary could procure such an item from a foreign source if the Secretary determines in writing that the need for the item is of such 

an unusual and compelling urgency that the United States would 

be seriously injured unless the Department of Defense permitted to 

procure the item from sources outside the United States. 

The committee is concerned that the United States military is becoming dependent on critical parts produced in foreign countries. 

Therefore the committee seeks to require the Secretary of Defense 

to bolster those parts of the defense industrial base that have limited production sources but that nonetheless produce critical items. 

The committee sees this effort as a step in the direction of revitalizing our defense industrial base and limiting U.S. dependence on 

foreign sources for critical military items. 

Section 814—Production Capabilities Improvement for Certain 

Critical Items Using Defense Industrial Base Capabilities Fund 

This section would establish within the Department of the Treasury, the Defense Industrial Base Capabilities Fund that would be 

used to develop U.S. capabilities for the production of items, components, or materials that are determined to be critical to the operation and performance of military systems. The fund’s activities 

would focus on items currently available only from foreign contracVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00367 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.092 A106HR
344

tors and those available only from a limited number of United 

States contractors. 

This section would authorize $100.0 million for the fund in fiscal 

year 2004. Prior to the obligation of any monies from the fund, the 

Secretary of Defense must submit to Congress his plans for executing this activity, including the priorities for which the Secretary 

will obligate funds; the criteria for determining to whom funds 

shall be obligated; and the mechanisms through which funds may 

be provided to the recipients. 

The committee believes that it must aggressively seek to build 

the U.S. industrial base for critical items. The fund established in 

this section would provide the resources to revitalize portions of the 

United States industrial base and would provide the Department 

of Defense with a flexible mechanism for more directly assisting 

critical industries that are currently struggling. 

PART II—REQUIREMENTS RELATING TO SPECIFIC ITEMS

Section 821—Domestic Source Limitation for Certain Additional 

Items 

This section would expand the list of items in 10 U.S.C. 2534 

that are currently required to be procured from a source within the 

National Technology and Industrial Base. This section would limit 

the conditions under which the Secretary of Defense could waive 

the domestic source requirements and would conform the waiver 

authority of this section of the U.S. Code with other provisions in 

this subtitle. 

The committee recognizes that there are certain items required 

by the Department of Defense that should be purchased from domestic sources. The committee believes that the waiver authority 

in existing law is overly broad and should be limited to a more narrow set of conditions. 

This section would redefine the term National Technology and 

Industrial Base to include only those contractors engaged in research, development, production, and maintenance activities conducted within the United States. 

Section 822—Requirements Relating To Buying Specialty Metals 

from American Sources 

This section would define the requirements by which the Secretary of Defense could procure commercial items containing specialty metals. Under the terms of this section, the Secretary of Defense would be able to procure a commercial item containing specialty metals from a foreign source if the Secretary determines in 

writing that there is an unusual and compelling urgency to the Department of Defense’s need for the item containing foreign metals 

or if the contractor in question agreed to purchase an equivalent 

amount from a United States source over an 18-month period beginning on the date of contract award. 

The committee is aware of the difficulty of accounting for all of 

the specialty metal within an end item and requires the Secretary 

to establish a method for a prime contractor to account for specialty 

metal contained within an end item at an aggregate level. 

345

The committee is aware of the need to protect and maintain 

United States capabilities to produce critical raw materials such as 

specialty metals resulting in product forms from a melt or smelt 

production process. The committee is aware that specialty metal 

ingots, vary in terms of grade, type, and form, and the measure of 

an equivalent amount may be fungible to interchange one product 

form for another to satisfy an obligation plus ten percent. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to publish a notice in the 

Federal Register on the method that the Department of Defense 

will use to measure an equivalent amount. 

This section would also require the Secretary to notify the Senate 

Committees on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services when the Secretary applies the exception created 

here and wait 15 days before entering into a contract pursuant to 

this section. Finally, this section would provide that the new exception shall apply to any contract entered into before, on, or after the 

date of the enactment of this Act. 

This section would clarify the term clothing by adding associated 

materials and components to the existing requirement. 

Section 823—Elimination of Unreliable Sources of Defense Items 

and Components 

This section would identify foreign countries that restricted the 

provision or sale of military goods and services to the United States 

because of the U.S. policy toward, or military operations in, Iraq 

after September 12, 2002. On this date, President Bush addressed 

the United Nations Security Council and articulated the U.S. approach to dealing with the continued failure of Iraq to disarm itself 

of its weapons of mass destruction and to comply with 12 years of 

Security Council resolutions. This provision would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from procuring any items or components contained in military systems that are manufactured in these countries. This provision would apply to all contracts in effect on the 

date of the enactment of this Act or entered into subsequently. This 

provision would, however, allow the Secretary 24 months to bring 

all contracts into compliance with this section. Finally, this section 

would provide the Secretary with the authority to waive this section if failure to do so would seriously injure the United States. 

The committee notes that many countries stood with the United 

States in requiring the disarmament of Iraq and in acting to liberate the Iraqi people. Several other countries did not and chose to 

express their disagreement with U.S. policy by prohibiting the sale 

of military goods and services to the United States. The committee 

believes that U.S. defense funds should not be used to contract 

with companies from these countries, unless the need for the item 

from that source is of an unusual and compelling need that would 

harm our interests. 

Section 824—Congressional Notification Required Before Exercising Exception to Requirement To Buy Specialty Metals from 

American Sources 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense or the Secretary of the military department concerned to notify Congress and 

to publish in the Federal Register notice of the exception authorVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00369 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.093 A106HR
346

ized within this subtitle and waits for 15 days before awarding the 

contract. 

Section 825—Repeal of Authority for Foreign Procurement of ParaAramid Fibers and Yarns 

This section would repeal section 807 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261), 

which authorized competition for para-aramid fibers and yarns between foreign and domestic sources in order to avoid a domestic 

sole source procurement. 

Section 826—Requirement for Major Defense Acquisition Programs 

to use Machine Tools Entirely Produced within the United States 

This section would require that within four years the defense 

contractors fulfilling procurement contractors for major defense acquisition programs shall use only machine tools produced entirely 

within the United States. 

PART III—GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 831—Definitions 

The committee provides definitions and clarifications for terms 

that are used within this subtitle. 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Commandant of the Coast Guard and the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

The committee recognizes the important contribution the United 

States Coast Guard makes to our national security. In accomplishing its mission, the Coast Guard has extensive interaction 

with the Department of Defense (DOD), the Joint Staff, the Unified 

Commands, and the military services. Coast Guard units are apportioned for use in the Unified Command Plan (UCP) and Coast 

Guard flag officers command Joint Interagency Task Forces East 

and West that include DOD assets. Coast Guard personnel are assigned to the staffs of many of the unified commands and train 

with the four DOD military services at a variety of levels. 

The committee notes the unique dual nature of the Coast Guard 

as a uniformed military service and law enforcement agency. It is 

this unique nature that makes it ideally suited for its role in homeland security and argues for even closer interaction between the 

Coast Guard and the Department of Defense. Currently, the Commandant of the Coast Guard acts as a consultant to the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff when matters affecting the Coast Guard are under 

consideration. The committee strongly believes that closer interaction between the Department of Defense and the Coast Guard is 

vital to our national security. It therefore strongly encourages the 

Joint Chiefs of Staff to even more closely consult and work with the 

Commandant of the Coast Guard on issues relating to the defense 

of our nation, both overseas and at home. 

347

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 901—Change in Title of Secretary of the Navy to Secretary 

of the Navy and Marine Corps 

This section would redesignate the title of the Secretary of the 

Navy to the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps 

Section 902—Redesignation of National Imagery and Mapping 

Agency as National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency 

This section would rename the National Imagery and Mapping 

Agency (NIMA) the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency and 

make conforming changes to existing statute. 

Section 903—Pilot Program for Provision of Space Surveillance 

Network Services to Non-United States Government Entities 

This section would allow United States and foreign, governmental and non-governmental entities to purchase satellite tracking services from assets owned or controlled by the Department of 

Defense. The Department already tracks most earth orbiting objects. The provision would make that tracking information available for a fee, consistent with national security requirements as determined by the Secretary of Defense. Sales to foreign entities 

would also require the approval of the Secretary of State. 

Section 904—Clarification of Responsibility of Military 

Departments to Support Combatant Commands 

This section would clarify the responsibility of the secretaries of 

the military departments. Current law only requires the secretaries 

to provide support to the combatant commands ‘‘to the maximum 

extent practical.’’ This section would remove the phrase ‘‘to the

maximum extent practical’’ in order to clarify that the war-fighting 

function of the combatant commands is the principal responsibility 

of the Department of Defense. 

Section 905—Biennial Review of National Military Strategy by 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

This section would require the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff in conjunction with the Chiefs of the Armed Services and the 

commanders of the unified and specified commands to prepare a 

national military strategy that describes the threats to our national 

military objectives, and assesses the capabilities and adequacy of 

our forces and resources, basing and support necessary to achieve 

those objectives. It also requires an assessment of risk and the 

identification of the assumptions used in developing the assessment. A classified annex may be included, as necessary. 

Section 108 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 404) 

and Section 118 of the National Defense Authorization Act for the 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–65) requires the President to 

prepare and provide Congress with a National Security Strategy 

and for the Secretary of Defense to submit a Quadrennial Defense 

Review to Congress every four years. However, there is no legal requirement for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to provide 

Congress with a national military strategy which would reflect the 

348

collective military judgment to meet the requirements, goals and 

missions set forth in the President’s National Security Strategy 

and the Secretary of Defense’s Quadrennial Defense Review. Nevertheless, two national military strategy reports were issued in 

1995 and 1997, thus establishing a precedent. 

This provision would require submission of an initial report on 

the national military strategy not later than February 15, 2004, 

and every even numbered year thereafter. The provision also would 

request the Secretary of Defense to append his assessment of the 

report before submission to Congress. 

This section would require a risk assessment, which in the years 

in which the National Military Strategy is submitted, would fulfill 

the requirement for an annual risk assessment under 10 U.S.C. 

153(c). In all other years, the annual risk assessment would still 

be required as a stand-alone document. 

The committee notes with concern the failure of the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff to produce the required annual assessment 

for the last two years. The Secretary of Defense submitted a letter 

to the committee on July 19, 2002, indicating that the risk assessment required by the time of the President’s Fiscal Year 2002 

budget request would not be submitted; and the 2003 assessment 

has not been submitted. The committee considers the annual risk 

assessment an important tool for assessing the adequacy of military capabilities to execute the National Security Strategy and the 

intent of the Quadrennial Defense Review, and strongly urges the 

Chairman to comply with this requirement by submitting the 2003 

report as soon as possible. 

Section 906—Authority for Acceptance by Asia-Pacific Center for 

Security Studies of Gifts and Donations from Non-foreign sources 

This section would allow the Asia-Pacific Center for Security 

Studies to accept gifts from domestic sources. The center is currently allowed to accept gifts from foreign sources. This authority 

would allow the center to receive funds, research materials, and 

lecture and faculty services that would enhance the mission of the 

center and defray costs. The Army and Naval War Colleges, the 

Naval Postgraduate Schools, and the Military Academies are already authorized to receive gifts from domestic sources. 

Section 907—Repeal of Rotating Chairmanship of Economic 

Adjustment Committee 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to serve as 

the permanent chairman of the Economic Adjustment Committee. 

Section 908—Pilot Program for Improved Civilian Personnel 

Management 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

a pilot program for Improved Civilian Personnel Management to 

assess the utility of an automated civilian personnel management 

program to provide needed improvements in the Department’s current management performance. The committee is aware of the existence of automated workforce management systems for civilian 

personnel management that have, in other governmental entities, 

demonstrated the capacity to substantially reduce hiring cycle 

349

times, lower labor costs, increase efficiency, improve performance 

management, and provide better management reporting. This section would authorize the Secretary to establish a pilot program at 

one regional civilian personnel center in each of the military departments using an automated civilian personnel management system with the objective of assessing the potential utility of the automated system to provide the desired improvements. 

Section 909—Extension of Certain Authorities Applicable to the 

Pentagon Reservation to Include Designated Pentagon Continuity-of-Government Locations 

This section would expand the current definition of Pentagon 

Reservation to include property at the Raven Rock Mountain Complex, and other parcels of land within a 100 mile radius of the District of Columbia, to the extent such property may be utilized as 

a facility relating to continuity of operations and continuity of government. The committee believes it is appropriate to consider this 

off-site facility an extension of the Pentagon and it is therefore appropriate to apply similar personnel and funding rules. 

Section 910—Defense Acquisition Workforce Reductions 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to institute 

a reduction in the size of the defense acquisition workforce by 

twenty-five percent over a period of five years. 

Section 911—Required Force Structure 

This section would establish force structure floors for the U.S. 

Army, Navy and Air Force at the levels outlined in the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review. U.S. Marine Corps force structure of three 

active divisions and three active air wings is already established in 

section 5063 of title 10 United States Code. The Army would be required to maintain 10 active and eight National Guard divisions or 

their equivalents, one active armored cavalry regiment, one light 

cavalry regiment, 15 National Guard enhanced brigades and other 

such active or reserve component combat, combat support and combat service support formations as are required. The Navy would 

consist of a force of not less than 305 active vessels. This fleet 

would include not less than 12 aircraft carrier battle groups, 12 

amphibious ready groups, 55 attack submarines, 108 active and 8 

reserve surface combatants and other such active and reserve 

forces as are necessary to support the fleet. The Air Force would 

consist of not less than 46 active and 38 National Guard and Reserve fighter squadrons or their equivalents, 96 active combatcoded bomber aircraft, and other such active and reserve component formations as may be necessary to support the force. 

The committee notes that the terrorist attacks on September 11, 

2001, the global war on terrorism, the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the elimination of Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq 

have significantly altered the strategic landscape facing the United 

States. As such, the committee understands that the Department 

of Defense has undertaken a series of studies to understand the 

ramifications of these events and to develop a new force structure 

and global military posture. At the same time, the committee understands the Department’s desire to accelerate the transformation 

350

of the force to meet the challenges of the 21st century, as well as 

to adjust the location and number of military bases both overseas 

and in the United States. Given the fluid nature of the current security environment, the committee feels it would be premature for 

the Department to reduce or radically change the current military 

force structure and its related basing posture until these studies 

are complete and their findings have been examined. Therefore, the 

committee recommends that the force structure outlined in the 

2001 Quadrennial Defense Review be maintained until the Congress can review the findings of the on-going studies in order to determine the proper force structure and global military posture 

needed to meet this new security environment. 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

Overview 

The budget request contained $817.3 million for drug interdiction 

and counter-drug activities, in addition to $159.9 million, for operational tempo which is included within the operating budgets of the 

military services. The budget is organized in fiscal year 2004 to address three broad national priorities: (1) demand reduction; (2) domestic support; and (3) international support. 

The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year 2004 

Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows:

FY04 Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Request .................................... $817,300 

Demand Reduction ................................................................................... 116,000 

Domestic Support ..................................................................................... 172,700 

International Support .............................................................................. 528,600 

Recommended Decreases: 

Intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and tanker support ............ 2,000 

Ground based end game operations (infrastructure) ............................. 3,500 

Airborne Reconnaissance Low (ARL) ...................................................... 2,000 

Maritime patrol aircraft upgrades .......................................................... 2,000 

Hemispheric radar system ....................................................................... 1,000 

Counter-drug Command Management System ...................................... 2,000 

Pacific command operations support ...................................................... 1,200 

Recommended Increases 

Southwest Border Fence .......................................................................... 6,700 

Intelligence analysts and mobile training teams. .................................. 5,000 

Counter-drug airborne intelligence systems .......................................... 2,000 

Recommendation .............................................................................................. 817,300

Items of Special Interest 

Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and tanker support 

The budget request contained $4.6 million for KC –135 tanker 

operations in support of counter-drug Airborne Early Warning and 

Control System (AWACS) missions. Reductions in support activities 

are planned, in light of other worldwide commitments. Accordingly, 

the committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 million for this activity. 

351

Ground based end game operations 

The budget request contained $38.1 million for ground based end 

game operations (GBEGO). This program provides counter-drug 

training to develop or sustain operational capabilities, including 

the Colombian aviation training program. Infrastructure projects 

are also provided for in this activity. The committee notes that the 

prior year budget request for this activity was $29.8 million. The 

committee understands that certain infrastructure projects that 

were initially programmed in this year’s budget request will not be 

started in the upcoming fiscal year. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $3.5 million for this activity. 

Airborne Reconnaissance Low 

The budget request contained $10.6 million for funding of the 

airborne reconnaissance low (ARL) program. This budget request 

for this activity in fiscal year 2003 was $10.9 million. The budget 

request for similar activities in fiscal year 2002 was only $6.3 million. The committee understands, as the result of better cost estimates, that the budget request of $10.6 million can be reduced 

without affecting the operation or the effectiveness of the program, 

and that similar revisions in the fiscal year 2003 budget for this 

activity are also being planned. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 million for this activity. 

Maritime patrol aircraft upgrades 

The budget request contained $7.7 million for maritime patrol 

aircraft (MPA) upgrades to the Navy’s P–3 counter-narcotic operations radar upgrades. 

This program plans to upgrade 10 of the current APS–115 on 

board these aircraft to the APG–66 pulse-doppler radar, however 

the committee understands that due to a technical problem within 

the identification friend or foe (IFF) interrogator, the APG–66 will 

not be ready for installation within the upcoming fiscal year. 

Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 million for 

this activity. 

Hemispheric radar system 

The budget request contained $24.1 million for the hemispheric 

radar system. The committee is aware that three radar sites are 

proposed for closure and that the revised costs estimates for this 

project as well as others, are lower than initially expected. Therefore, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.0 million for this 

activity. 

Counter-Drug Command and Management System 

The budget request contained $18.6 million for voice and date 

communications capabilities to support U.S. counter-drug operations in source and transit zones. The committee understands the 

importance of secure communications to counter-drug activities, 

but notes the redundancy of this system with others in the region 

that link embassies and other key players. The committee therefore 

recommends a decrease of $2.0 million for this activity. 

352

Pacific command operations support 

The budget request contained $2.4 million for services and training support to U.S. and participating nation law enforcement entities in Southeast and Southwest Asia. While the committee supports expanding counter-drug programs in the Pacific Command 

area of responsibility, the committee understands that this is not 

yet a mature program and looks forward to receiving future details. 

For fiscal year 2004, however, the committee recommends a decrease of $1.2 million for this activity. 

Southwest Border Fence 

As part of the San Diego 14–Mile Border Infrastructure System, 

the Southwest Border Fence has served as an invaluable counternarcotics resource for United States Border Patrol agents since the 

project’s inception in 1997. However, the border fence construction 

project is still under construction, and the area remains one of the 

nation’s most heavily utilized drug smuggling corridors. Since 1998, 

the California National Guard and other military personnel have 

been responsible for fence construction and general support of the 

border infrastructure system. Completion of the border fence would 

constitute a cohesive barrier against vehicle and pedestrian narcotics trafficking and allow counter-drug assets to be redeployed in 

other areas. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of 

$6.7 million for this purpose. 

Intelligence analysts and mobile training teams 

At the present time the United States Northern Command 

(USNORTHCOM) conducts over 200 intelligence analysts missions 

each year through Joint Task Force–6 located at Fort Bliss, Texas. 

These intelligence analysts support investigative law enforcement 

centers nationwide and their actions have resulted in law enforcement agencies seizing illicit drugs and cash, as well as making 

thousands of arrests. The mobile training teams help train federal, 

state, and local law enforcement agencies across the country on a 

wide variety of subjects. The committee is concerned that current 

funding levels will reduce the number of intelligence analyst missions that will be performed in fiscal year 2004. The committee believes this result is not acceptable. The committee also believes 

that the expansion of the mobile training teams will assist 

USNORTHCOM in its homeland defense mission. Accordingly, the 

committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million for the intelligence analyst and mobile training team missions to be conducted 

by Joint Task Force–6. 

Counter-drug airborne intelligence systems 

The budget request contained $135.6 million to support operations and maintenance, personnel and procurement for the Defense Intelligence Counter-drug Program (DICP) for airborne and 

analysis support to Department of Defense (DOD) counter-drug operations. 

The committee is well aware of the military role in the National 

Drug Control Strategy in countering transnational narcotic and 

narco-terrorist threats, but is also aware that these efforts are not 

adequately managed throughout the DOD. The committee believes 

that DICP surveillance aircraft, their tactical operations, and supVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00376 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.097 A106HR
353

port personnel issues are often critically overlooked within this program. The committee notes that specifically, the Senior Scout and 

the P–3 Orion collection platforms are not well equipped to perform 

their missions effectively. The P–3 Orion has the endurance for the 

counter-narcotics mission profile, but has none of the collection 

gathering equipment on board to ensure its success. The Senior 

Scout has all of the equipment however no dedicated carrier to perform the mission. Furthermore, Senior Scout has a limited and finite number of trained reserve analysts to deploy during extended 

operations. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million to enable the Secretary of Defense to provide the Senior Scout 

mission with a permanent carrier. Additionally, the committee recommends that $500,000 of this increase be used to support an active/reserve joint component to the Senior Scout support element. 

This unit will be used to provide specialized airborne mission support personnel for extended operations. The committee remains 

concerned with the lack of investment in the Navy’s maritime P–

3 data transfer capabilities. Therefore the committee recommends 

that the Secretary of Defense develop a plan that will allow for the 

basing of tactical data link capabilities on board these aircraft in 

order to allow for improved imagery and data transfer within the 

operational theater, as well as the capability to reach back to locations outside the theater. 

Expanded use of National Guard counter-drug aircraft 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

is considering utilizing 

Air National Guard C–26 aircraft in support of a deployment in 

the United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) area of responsibility which could lead to operational deficiencies within 

their present tasking. 

These C–26 aircraft currently perform aerial detection, intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance in support of federal, 

state and local law enforcement counter-drug activities operating 

within the United States. The aircraft and aircrews are based in 

11 states and are available to carry out their mission on a 24–hour, 

seven days a week basis. 

The committee recognizes the unique capabilities of the C–26 

and its effectiveness in support of the war on drugs in the United 

States. The committee is concerned that the depletion of such air 

assets to SOUTHCOM may have a negative impact upon ongoing 

and future counter-narcotics investigations and operations conducted by federal, state and local law enforcement agencies within 

the United States.

The committee has questions about the suitability of the C–26 to 

successfully meet the performance criteria for the proposed mission 

in SOUTHCOM. The C–26 personnel and aircraft may be placed at 

great risk as a result of tactical and operational threats they will 

face in such a mission. Additionally, the committee believes that 

the possibility of a long-term deployment commitment to 

SOUTHCOM is likely. 

Therefore the committee expects the Secretary of Defense to prepare an assessment that will address the following matters: 

354

(1) The impact of the depletion of such assets performing aerial 

detection, intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance upon the 

federal, state and local law enforcement agencies currently supported by the National Guard C–26 aircraft. 

(2) Suitability of C–26 aircrew and aircraft to perform missions 

outside of the contiguous United States, particularly in the 

SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. 

(3) Adequacy of crew training, equipment and aircraft defensive 

systems to perform the proposed mission. 

(4) Limitations of airframe performance with respect to tactical 

and operational threats faced in proposed area of operations. 

(5) Potential use of alternative platforms to perform the proposed 

SOUTHCOM mission. 

Accordingly, the committee also expects the Secretary of Defense 

to develop a plan to address the issues raised in the assessment 

prior to establishing any deployments of the C–26 aircraft to the 

SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. A copy of the assessment and 

the plan should be submitted to the House Armed Services Committee as soon as feasible. 

GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM

Overview 

The committee believes that the men and women who serve in 

the armed forces have made the world immeasurably safer for 

Americans and all the people of the world through their heroic actions of the last two years. Indeed, the Department of Defense has 

led the way in the global war on terrorism, achieving significant 

victories. While the Department of Homeland Security will have a 

leading role in defending the nation from terrorist activities, the 

committee believes the Department of Defense will continue to be 

the nation’s most important asset in this war. In that regard, the 

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities has held a series of hearings, briefings, trips, and informal 

meetings in order to stimulate thinking and advance promising initiatives, and has heard several compelling ideas. 

In general terms, the subcommittee has found, unsurprisingly, 

that America’s best defense lies in keeping terrorists and their 

weapons far from our shores. Several policy initiatives have been 

suggested to advance that goal. Among them are insuring the Department has the means to thwart terrorists overseas through robust and integrated intelligence gathering and synthesizing activities and providing the forces and weapons necessary to use that intelligence at the right time. The committee supports a broad range 

of these ideas, which are discussed in more detail below. 

Effective use of the National Guard 

The committee believes that the national guard will continue to 

play a key role in the war on terrorism and be mobilized in both 

a federal and state capacity for missions ranging from overseas deployment for combat operations to responding to potential or actual 

terrorist events within the United States. On one hand, the committee has heard testimony urging modification of title 32 United 

States Code to permit the national guard to perform operational 

missions for homeland security under the control of the respective 

355

state governor. Such a change, it is argued, not only facilitates 

state actions in homeland defense, but also avoids the limitations 

of the posse comitatus law prohibiting the use of federal troops for 

law enforcement purposes. On the other hand, the committee has 

heard the concern that allowing the national guard to conduct operational missions under title 32 status would not allow clear command relationships and responsibilities to function, and would not 

facilitate the establishment and accomplishment of consistent requirements among national guard units. The committee believes 

that legislation may be needed to address the situation, and directs 

the Secretary of Defense to examine, in consultation with the 

Chief, National Guard Bureau, the manner in which the national 

guard is called to active duty for homeland defense missions and 

recommend any changes he believes are necessary to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on 

Armed Services of the House of Representatives. 

Integration of Departments of Defense and Homeland Security Activities 

The committee is encouraged by the rapid progress the Department of Homeland Security is making in assuming operational control of its disparate activities. The committee noted earlier and restates the importance of the Department of Defense in the homeland security effort, and encourages the departments to coordinate 

their activities as seamlessly as possible. Inevitably, there will be 

some duplication of effort until the best solutions are agreed upon, 

but the secretaries of these departments should coordinate as much 

as possible such important activities as border defense, use of actionable intelligence, plans for use of the national guard as a first 

responder, and development of vaccines and various other countermeasures that have been suggested to the committee. 

United States Northern Command 

The committee believes that the Northern Command 

(NORTHCOM) is another key component of the war on terrorism. 

In addition to the ongoing work of the command to establish relationships with first responders and the several states, the committee believes the command could play an important role in interdicting the importation of weapons of mass destruction. The command already has that mission for the defense of the nation from 

air attack, by virtue of its close relationship with the North American Aerospace Defense Command. While recognizing the need to 

maintain an effective defense against conventional maritime 

threats, the committee further believes that during the global war 

on terrorism, the threat of a weapon of mass destruction arriving 

unchecked at a U.S. port aboard a foreign vessel is a serious concern and, therefore, supports the development by NORTHCOM of 

a maritime defense strategy that will ensure the defeat of asymmetric terrorist threats at maximum distance from the United 

States coastline. 

United States Special Operations Command 

The Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is clearly a treasured national asset in the war on terrorism and our best asset in 

disrupting the enemy in foreign lands. This highly trained, but relVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00379 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.098 A106HR
356

atively small force, has undertaken and brilliantly executed the difficult missions in both Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The committee fully supports 

the increases in SOCOM’s budget and have recommended increases 

to several SOCOM unfunded requirements. While the committee 

understands that there are relatively few SOCOM operators and 

supports the proposed end strength increases, the committee concurs with SOCOM senior commanders that personnel standards 

must not be compromised in order to achieve a larger force. 

The committee applauds the Secretary of Defense’s decision to 

designate SOCOM as a supported command in some cases. The 

committee notes, however, that section 167 of title 10, United 

States Code, requires that SOCOM missions be carried out under 

the command of the respective combatant commander unless the 

President or Secretary of Defense directs that SOCOM undertakes 

the mission. The committee is concerned that the language of the 

statute may be too restrictive to permit the timely execution of selected missions and directs the Secretary of Defense to review the 

law and report to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate 

and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives by February 1, 2004, whether any changes are necessary. 

STRATEGIC FORCE STRUCTURE

The Treaty between the United States of America and the Union 

of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Reduction and Limitation of 

Strategic Offensive Arms of July 31, 1991 (the START Treaty) currently limits the United States and Russia to 6000 accountable 

strategic warheads. 

As required by section 1041 of the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398), 

the most recent Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) was submitted to 

Congress on January 8, 2002. The NPR describes a future deployed, strategic stockpile of 1700 to 2200 warheads in fiscal year 

2012, with an intermediate objective of 3800 warheads in fiscal 

year 2007. 

The Moscow Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reduction (the Moscow Treaty), signed by President Bush of the United States and 

President Putin of the Russian Federation on May 24, 2002, reaffirms the provisions of the START Treaty, and on ratification will 

commit the United States and Russia to a reduction of deployed, 

strategic stockpiles to 1700 to 2200 warheads by December 31, 

2012. The United States Senate approved the Moscow Treaty on 

March 6, 2003, and its consideration by the Russian Federal Assembly is pending. 

Section 1031 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) required the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Energy to jointly prepare a 

force structure plan for nuclear weapons and delivery systems covering fiscal years 2003 to 2012. The section further required submission of a report on that plan to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2003. The committee has not received this report, and has recently been informed that it could take through the 

end of fiscal year 2003 to complete. 

The committee finds it disturbing and unacceptable that the administration intends to commit to dramatic changes to the strategic 

357

nuclear deterrent of the United States absent a clear path forward. 

The committee admonishes the Departments of Defense and Energy to move forward expeditiously in their planning processes. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—FINANCIAL MATTERS

Section 1001—Transfer Authority 

This section would provide fiscal year 2003 transfer authority to 

the Department of Defense for amounts up to $2.5 billion. 

Section 1002—Authorization of Supplemental Appropriations for 

Fiscal Year 2003 

This section would authorize amounts enacted in the Emergency 

Wartime Supplemental Act, 2002 (Public Law 108–011) for the Department of Defense and for the national security activities of the 

Department of Energy. 

This section would also authorize those defense items appropriated pursuant to any fiscal year 2003 emergency wartime supplemental appropriations legislation enacted during the first session of the 108th Congress. 

Section 1003—Authority To Transfer Procurement Funds for a 

Major Defense Acquisition Program for Continued Development 

Work on that Program 

This section would amend section 2114 of title 10, United States 

Code, to provide the Secretary of Defense additional flexibility to 

correct specific acquisition funding problems that occur during the 

transition phase of an acquisition program from development to 

production. Currently, there is no management flexibility to resolve 

last-minute development problems quickly before a program transitions into production. This section would allow the transfer of $20.0 

million per acquisition program and up to $250.0 million for a single fiscal year from procurement appropriations to research, development, test and evaluation appropriations for the purpose of continuing development efforts. The section shall not apply with respect to funds appropriated for a fiscal year before fiscal year 2004. 

Section 1004—Restoration of Authority to Enter into 12-month 

Leases at any Time During the Fiscal Year 

This section would restore the authority of the Department of 

Defense to enter into 12-month leases at any time during the fiscal 

year. 

Section 1005—Authority for Retention of Additional Amounts 

Realized from Energy Cost Savings 

This section would allow the Department of Defense to obligate 

all funds representing energy cost savings, not just two-thirds of 

such funds, through the end of the fiscal year without additional 

authorization or appropriation. 

358

Section 1006—Repeal of Requirement for Two-Year Budget Cycle 

for the Department of Defense

This section would repeal the requirement for the Department to 

submit a two-year budget every other year. This requirement was 

established in Section 1405 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1986 (Public Law 99–145; section 1105 

of title 10 United States Code). The purpose of implementing a twoyear budget cycle was to increase efficiencies in planning and management of Department funds. The Department has complied with 

submitting a two-year budget every other year, but continues to 

submit a budget request in the intervening year. As a result of real 

world events during the 1990s and the continuing global war on 

terrorism, the Department often significantly revised its budget request in the intervening year. This appreciably changes the programs outlined in the second year of a two-year budget. The committee realizes that if the Department continues to submit a budget every year, any efficiency gained in presenting a two-year budget 

is not realized. Accordingly, the committee recommends that the 

Department submit one-year budgets on an annual basis. 

Section 1007—Authority To Provide Reimbursement for Cellular 

Telephones When Used for Official Government Business 

This section would allow the Department of Defense to reimburse 

individuals with a validated need for an official government cellular telephone using a flat rate or monthly stipend for such individuals’ use of their personal cellular telephone. 

SUBTITLE B—NAVAL VESSELS AND SHIPYARDS

Section 1011—Repeal of Requirement Regarding Preservation of 

Surge Capability for Naval Surface Combatants 

This section would repeal subsection (b) of section 7296 of title 

10, United States Code, and would include associated clerical 

amendments. 

Section 1012—Enhancement of Authority Relating to Use for Experimental Purposes of Vessels Stricken from Naval Vessel Register 

This section would allow a contractor or designated agent to sell 

equipment taken from a stricken vessel on behalf of the Navy and 

would authorize those funds to be returned to the Navy. 

Section 1013—Authorization for Transfer of Vessels Stricken From 

the Naval Vessel Register for Use as Artificial Reefs 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to transfer vessels stricken from the Naval Vessel Register to States or 

other political entities of the United States for use as artificial 

reefs. This section would also authorize the Secretary of the Navy 

to tailor transfer agreements between the Navy and recipient, 

based upon the specific circumstances and characteristics of the 

vessel. Additionally, this section would authorize the Secretary of 

the Navy to provide financial assistance for the transfer and preparation of vessels for reefing. Nothing in this section should be conVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00382 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.099 A106HR
359

strued as amending or repealing any existing environmental rules 

or regulations. 

Section 1014—Pilot Program for Sealift Ship Construction 

This section would establish a pilot program administered by the 

Navy that would provide loan guarantee assistance to construct 

militarily useful sealift ships in the United States. Approval would 

be handled by the Department of Defense, and administered by the 

Department of Transportation. 

SUBTITLE C—REPORTS

Section 1021—Repeal and Modification of Various Reporting 

Requirements Applicable to the Department of Defense 

This section would repeal or modify a number of reporting requirements contained in title 10, United States Code, annual National Defense Authorization Acts, and other statutes. 

Section 1022—Department of Defense Report on the Conduct of 

Operation Iraqi Freedom 

This section would require the Secretary of Department of Defense to provide a report to the Congress on the conduct of Operation Iraqi Freedom. On March 19, 2003, U.S. forces initiated operations in Iraq in order to overthrown the regime of Saddam Hussein. Major combat Operations ceased on April 14, 2003, with U.S. 

forces having defeated Iraqi military forces and removed the regime from power. 

The lessons learned from this operation will have far reaching 

implications for U.S. military strategy, doctrine, equipment procurement and force structure in the years to come. The committee 

believes that Congress must have detailed information and analysis concerning operation Iraqi Freedom in order to apply the lessons learned to future defense funding and policy decisions. Therefore, the committee would require a report to Congress by June 15, 

2004 on the conduct of Operation Iraqi Freedom. A preliminary report would be submitted by January 15, 2004. 

Section 1023—Report on Department of Defense Post-Conflict 

Activities in Iraq 

This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to report 

to Congress, within 90 days of the enactment of this Act, on the 

range of Department of Defense (DOD) civilian and military activities in post-conflict Iraq. The report should include explanations of 

the organizational structure by which the Defense Department has 

managed post-conflict activities in Iraq and the relationship of 

these institutions with other departments and agencies of the U.S. 

government and with intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations. The report should also describe the progress to date of 

U.S. efforts in the humanitarian, infrastructure, civil administration, and governance fields, as well as of the efforts to account for 

Iraq weapons of mass destruction programs and to provide security 

until Iraqi institutions can adequately take over this function. Finally, the report asks for the Secretary’s assessment of DOD resources needed on an ongoing basis, including an estimate of total 

360

expenditures expected, and of the scope of tasks remaining to be 

completed by U.S. government civilian employees in Iraq. 

The committee recognizes that the effort to help rebuild and assist in the development of governing institutions in Iraq is a significant undertaking requiring a variety of resources. Uniquely 

among recent reconstruction efforts, the Department of Defense is 

providing overall direction of the U.S. government’s effort to assist 

in Iraq’s post-conflict transition. The committee therefore seeks to 

understand better how these efforts have been coordinated and how

the Department has incorporated the expertise of other U.S. departments and agencies, as well as those of the intergovernmental 

and nongovernmental organizations. The Secretary’s assessment of 

the progress made to date and of the ongoing force and civilian 

support needs will allow Congress to make more informed decisions 

about future force and policy needs. 

Section 1024—Report on Development of Mechanisms to Better 

Connect Department of Defense Space Capabilities to the War 

Fighter 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report to the congressional defense committees on development of 

Department of Defense space-based capabilities for the war fighter. 

SUBTITLE D—PROCUREMENT OF DEFENSE BIOMEDICAL

COUNTERMEASURES

This subtitle would authorize the Secretary of Defense to develop, procure, and prescribe conditions for use of available biomedical countermeasures to chemical, biological, radiological, or 

nuclear agents that could cause military health emergencies affecting national security. 

Section 1031—Research and Development of Defense Bio-Medical 

Countermeasures 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

and carry out a program to accelerate the research and development of biomedical countermeasures, including therapeutics and 

vaccines, for protecting members of the Armed Forces from attack 

by chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) agents. The 

Secretary would be permitted to enter into interagency agreements 

and other collaborative programs with other Federal agencies and 

must also ensure that the activities of the Department of Defense 

are coordinated, complement, and do no unnecessarily duplicate 

those of the Department of Health and Human Services and of 

Homeland Security. The provision would authorize to the Secretary 

expedited authority for procurement of property and services in 

executing the program. The Secretary would also be authorized to 

acquire laboratories, other research facilities, and equipment that 

he determines are necessary to carry out the program. Streamlined 

personnel authority outside the civil service would be granted for 

hiring up to 30 personnel to carry out research and development 

under the program. 

361

Section 1032—Procurement of Defense Biomedical 

Countermeasures 

This provision would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Sectaries of Health and Human Services and of 

Homeland Defense, to assess emerging threats of the use of CBRN 

agents, identify those agents for which biomedical countermeasures 

are need to protect the health of members of the Armed Forces, 

and those specific qualified countermeasures that should be procured for the DOD stockpile of biomedical countermeasures. Qualified biological countermeasures would include those already approved or licensed for use and those developmental products that 

could reasonably be expected to qualify for such approval within 

five years. The provision would also authorize for procurement of 

such qualified biological countermeasures the use of funds appropriated for the Department of Defense and available within the 

Secretary’s transfer authority. 

Section 1033—Authorization for Use of Medical Products in 

Emergencies 

This provision would define the conditions under which the Secretary of Defense cold declare a state of emergency regarding a 

military emergency involving a heightened risk to the Armed 

Forces of attach by a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear 

agent, and would permit the Secretary of Defense to authorize the 

use on members of the Armed Forces of a drug or device intended 

for use in an actual or potential emergency. Criteria for the authorization would include a joint determination that the agent can 

cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition and it is 

reasonable to expect that the biological countermeasure may be effective or the benefits of using the countermeasure outweigh the 

risks of using the countermeasure, and there is no alternative 

available. The conditions under which the countermeasures could 

be used are identical to those current in effect under section 731(a) 

of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal year 1999 for the use of investigational new drugs. 

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1041—Codification and Revision of Defense 

Counterintelligence Polygraph Program Authority 

This section would remove existing limits on the number of polygraph examinations that the Department of Defense may administer in any fiscal year. Under the current program established in 

section 1121 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Years 1988 and 1989 (P.L. 100–180) and amended in section 

1073(d)(5) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 1998 (P.L. 105–85), no more than 5,000 polygraph examinations may be conducted per fiscal year. Section 1041 would expand 

the categories of individuals who may be required to undergo polygraph examinations. These two categories include persons who are 

applying for positions within the Department and persons who are 

assigned or detailed to the Department. This section would also instruct the Secretary of Defense to institute a process to monitor responsible and effective application of polygraphs within the DepartVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00385 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.101 A106HR
362

ment of Defense. In lieu of the existing reporting requirement, this 

section would require the Secretary to make information on the use 

of polygraphs available to the congressional defense committees. 

Section 1042—Codification and Revision of Limitation on Modification of Major Items of Equipment Scheduled for Retirement or 

Disposal 

This section would revise existing reporting requirements on 

modifications to aircraft, weapons, vessels, and other items of 

equipment scheduled to be retired or disposed of within five years. 

This section would relieve the secretary of a military department 

from reporting on any modification for which the cost is less than 

$1.0 million. 

Section 1043—Additional Definitions for Purposes of Title 10, 

United States Code 

This section would define in section 101 of title 10 United States 

Code, the definitions of the terms ‘‘congressional defense committees’’ and ‘‘base closure law.’’ 

Section 1044—Inclusion of Annual Military Construction 

Authorization Request in Annual Defense Authorization Request 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to transmit 

to Congress the annual military construction authorization request 

as part of the annual defense authorization request, and that this 

request be transmitted within 30 days of the date the President 

transmits to Congress the budget request for that fiscal year. 

Section 1045—Technical and Clerical Amendments 

This section would make a number of technical and clerical 

amendments to existing law of a non-substantive basis. 

Section 1046—Authority to Provide Living Quarters for Certain 

Students in Cooperative and Summer Education Programs of the 

National Security Agency 

This section would amend section 2195 of title 10, United States 

Code, to allow the National Security Agency to provide and pay for 

living quarters for qualifying students who are employed at the National Security Agency under a Student Educational Employment 

Program or a similar cooperative or summer education program. 

Section 1047—Use of Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Funds to 

Support Activities of the Government of Colombia 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to use 

funds available for drug interdiction and counter drug activities to 

provide assistance to the government of Columbia to support not 

only a unified campaign against narcotics trafficking, but to also 

support a unified campaign against activities by organizations designated as terrorist organizations. 

363

Section 1048—Authority for Joint Task Forces To Provide Support 

to Law Enforcement Agencies Conducting Counter-Terrorism Activities 

This section would authorize those joint task forces (JTFs) of the 

Department of Defense that provide support to law enforcement 

agencies conducting counter-drug activities, namely JTFs 4, 5, and 

6, to provide similar support to law enforcement agencies conducting counter-terrorism activities. Any support provided under 

this section must be consistent with all applicable laws and regulations, and the support may only be provided in the geographic area 

of responsibility of the joint task force. The committee notes that 

these JTFs have made critical contributions to the counter-drug 

mission and notes that their focus on drug flows into the United 

States could have great relevance to terrorist movements across 

our borders as well. The committee believes that Northern Command should make use of these capabilities as it develops counterterrorism programs. 

Section 1049—Use of National Driver Register for Personnel 

Security Investigations and Determinations 

This section would authorize access to the National Driver Register by federal agencies for use in personnel security investigations and determinations and for use in personnel investigations 

with regard to federal employment. The National Driver Register 

is a cooperative system managed by the Secretary of Transportation under which the chief driver licensing official in each state 

provides driver licensing records to the Register. Access to the information is currently provided to multiple federal agencies. 

Section 1050—Protection of Operational Files of the National 

Security Agency 

This section would allow the Director of the National Security 

Agency, in coordination with the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, to exempt limited categories of sensitive National 

Security Agency files from the search, review, and disclosure provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, contained in section 552 

of title 5 United States Code. This authority parallels the authority 

currently available to the Central Intelligence Agency, National 

Imagery Mapping Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office. 

Section 1051—Assistance for Study of Feasibility of Biennial International Air Trade Show in the United States and for Initial Implementation 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to select and 

provide assistance to a community in conducting a joint study to 

determine the feasibility of establishing an international air trade 

show in that community. The committee believes that international 

air trade shows are an important component of efforts to demonstrate the effectiveness of United States military equipment to 

other nations and seeks to increase the importance of U.S. based 

air trade shows in the conduct of international aerospace trade. 

This provision would also require that the Secretary make his selection through competitive procedures, while giving preference to 

364

communities that already host an air show, such as Dayton, Ohio, 

and have demonstrated a history of supporting air shows with local 

resources. 

Section 1052—Continuation of Reasonable Access to Military 

Installations for Personal Commercial Solicitation 

The committee has become aware of concerns from private sector 

insurance and financial planning companies that the Department 

of Defense intends to revise the Department’s regulations on commercial solicitation on military installations to limit the access of 

service members to competitive insurance and financial planning 

services and unfairly restrict the ability of private sector companies 

to compete for the business of service members in these important 

areas. Accordingly, this section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to the Congress any amendments or other revisions, along with supporting rationale, relating to access to military 

installations for the purpose of conducting limited personal commercial solicitation. The amendment would further require that 

any changes may not be effective until 90 days have expired beginning on the date the Secretary submits the changes to the Congress. 

Section 1053—Commission on Nuclear Strategy of the United 

States 

This section would establish a Commission on Nuclear Strategy 

of the United States to assess and make recommendations about 

current United States strategy as described by the Nuclear Posture 

Review and other planning documents, as well as possible alternative strategies that could be pursued over the next 20 years. The 

Commission would have broad purview to consider matters of policy, force structure, stockpile stewardship, and estimates of threats 

and force requirements, and would have the authority to hold hearings and take testimony. 

The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the chairmen and 

ranking minority members of the Committees on Armed Services 

of the Senate and House of Representatives, would appoint 12 

members to serve on the Commission, and designate one of the 

commission members as chairman. The Commission would convene 

its first meeting not later than 60 days after the appointment of 

all its members. The Commission would report its findings to the 

Secretary of Defense and the Committees on Armed Services of the 

Senate and House of Representatives not later than 18 months 

after the date of its first meeting, and terminate 60 days after reporting. Not later than one year after the Commission reports, the 

Secretary would submit to Congress a report commenting on the 

Commission’s findings and recommendations, and explaining what 

actions, if any, the Secretary intends to take with respect to each 

of those recommendations. 

The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 

Energy, would contract with a Federally Funded Research and Development Center to provide for the organization, management, 

and support of the Commission. The Commission would receive the 

cooperation of all agencies and departments of the United States 

government. 

365

Section 1054—Extension of Counterproliferation Program Review 

Committee 

This section would amend section 1605(F) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 106–65) 

to extend the charter for the interagency Counter Proliferation Program Review Committee through September 30, 2008. 

TITLE XI—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN 

PERSONNEL 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL

GENERALLY

Section 1101—Modification of the Overtime Pay Cap 

This section would amend section 5542(a)(2) of title 5, United 

States Code, to ensure that Federal employees who are exempt 

from the Fair Labor Standards Act, and are paid above step five 

of grade 12, do not suffer a pay cut when they work overtime. 

Section 1102—Military Leave for Mobilized Federal Civilian 

Employees 

This section would amend sections 6323, 5343(c)(4) and 5545(d) 

of title 5, United States Code, to assist mobilized Federal civilian 

employees, whose military pay is less than their Federal civilian 

salary, transition to military service by allowing them to receive 22 

additional workdays of military leave. 

Section 1103—Common Occupational and Health Standards for 

Differential Payments as a Consequence of Exposure to Asbestos 

This section would amend sections 5343 and 5545 of title 5, 

United States Code, to establish a common standard for payment 

of hazardous duty differential pay for reason of exposure to asbestos for prevailing rate and general schedule federal employees. 

Section 1104—Increase in Annual Student Loan Repayment 

Authority 

This section would amend section 5379(b)(2)(A) of title 5, United 

States Code, to increase the annual amount that an agency can 

repay a highly qualified employee for a student loan from $6,000 

to $10,000 per year without increasing the overall limit of $40,000. 

Section 1105—Authorization for Cabinet Secretaries, Secretaries of 

Military Departments, and Heads of Executive Agencies to be 

Paid on a Biweekly Basis 

This section would amend section 5504 of title 5, United States 

Code, to permit Cabinet Secretaries, Secretaries of the military departments and heads of Executive agencies to be paid on the same 

biweekly basis as most Federal employees rather than on a monthly basis. 

366

Section 1106—Senior Executive Service and Performance 

This section would amend provisions of chapter 53 of title 5, 

United States Code, relating to pay of senior executives. First, this 

section would remove the Senior Executive Service (SES) and the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation/Drug Enforcement Agency (FBI/

DEA) SES from the list of employees eligible for locality pay. Second, the section would provide for a range of rates of basic pay for 

the SES, established according to OPM regulations. Each senior executive’s pay would be set by the employing agency at one of the 

rates of the range on the basis of individual performance, contribution to agency performance, or both, as determined under a rigorous performance management system. The amendment would 

raise the maximum rate for Senior Executive Service positions 

from level IV to level III of the Executive Schedule. The provision 

would also provide for the adjustment of the applicable maximum 

to level II of the Executive Schedule for any agency that is certified 

as having a performance appraisal system that makes meaningful 

distinctions among senior executives, based on their relative performance as that system is both designed and applied. Finally, this 

section would provide a new standard for determining the applicability of one of the post-employment restrictions to those who are 

in the Senior Executive Service or equivalent positions in other pay 

systems. The restriction would apply to those individuals whose 

rate of basic pay exceeds 96 percent of the rate for level II of the 

Executive Schedule. Employees in positions currently described by 

section 207(c)(2)(A)(ii) would continue to be subject to this one-year, 

post-employment restriction upon leaving that senior position at 

any time during the two years following enactment of this Act. 

When that two-year period is complete, any such individual who is 

still an officer or employee in the executive branch in a position 

other than that described in clauses (i), (iii), and (iv) of section 

207(c)(2)(A), will be a senior employee only if he or she meets the 

new salary threshold in clause (ii) of that section. 

Section 1107—Design Elements of Pay-for-Performance Systems in 

Demonstration Projects 

This section would provide specific elements to be incorporated 

into any pay-for-performance system established in a demonstration project under chapter 47, including adherence to merit principles, a fair, credible and transparent employee appraisal system, 

a link between the pay-for-performance system and the agency’s 

strategic plan, adequate training, a means for ensuring employee 

feedback, and effective safeguards. 

Section 1108—Federal Flexible Benefits Plan Administrative Costs

This section would prohibit agencies that provide or plan to provide flexible benefits plans for its employees from imposing any 

fees related to the program on its employees in order to defray the 

administrative costs associated with such option. This section 

would also require a number of reporting requirements associated 

with the benefits plans. 

367

Section 1109—Clarification to Hatch Act; Limitation on Disclosure 

of Certain Records 

This section includes legislation introduced by Chairman Davis 

(H.R. 1509) that would clarify that a federal employee who voluntarily separates from the civil service shall not be subject to the enforcement provisions of the Hatch Act unless he or she re-enters 

the civil service. 

Section 1110—Employee Surveys 

This section would authorize executive agencies to conduct annual surveys of their employees in order to assess: the leadership 

and management practices that contribute to agency performance; 

employee satisfaction with leadership policies and practices, work 

environment and rewards and recognition for professional accomplishment and personal contributions to achieving organization 

mission; opportunity for professional development and growth; and 

opportunity to contribute to achieving organizational mission. OPM 

would issue regulations prescribing survey questions to address 

these issues. Results of such surveys would be available to the public and posted on agency websites, unless the head of an agency determines that doing so would jeopardize or negatively impact national security. 

SUBTITLE B—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE NATIONAL SECURITY

PERSONNEL SYSTEM

Section 1111—Department of Defense National Security Personnel 

System 

This section would amend title 5 of the United States Code by 

adding a new chapter 99 at the end of subpart I of part III. The 

new chapter would contain the following sections. 

Section 9901 would provide definitions of various terms used 

throughout the new chapter. 

Section 9902 would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a civilian human resources management system, based on the 

system created in section 841 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

(Public Law 107–296) for the Department of Homeland Security, to 

enable the Department to fulfill its national security mission. This 

system would be merit-based. It also would protect veterans’ preference and provide for collective bargaining at the national level in 

addition to local collective bargaining. In developing this system, 

the Director of the Office of Personnel and Management would 

serve as a strategic and collaborative partner. Consistent with the 

Secretary’s broad authority to manage military personnel, the Secretary also would exercise broad authority to manage DOD civilian 

personnel, subject to the decision of the President, provided he certifies that such authority would be essential to the national security. This section would further: 

(1) Provide for a collaborative process, based on the model 

established in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, (Public Law 

107–296), for ensuring inclusion of employee representatives in 

the planning, development, and implementation of the human 

resources management system, while allowing the Secretary to 

conduct such collaboration at the national level; 

368

(2) Require the establishment of an appeals process that provides that employees of the Department of Defense are entitled 

to fair treatment in any appeals they bring in decisions relating to their employment, which would include an independent 

review panel; 

(3) Establish a program under which employees would be eligible for early retirement, offered separation pay to separate 

from the service voluntarily, or both, for purposes of reducing 

or restructuring the workforce; 

(4) Require the system developed under this chapter to comply with provisions in current law relating to political activity, 

oath of office, access to criminal history records for national security and other purposes, the Ethics in Government Act, and 

Inspector General Act; 

(5) Allow annuitants who become employed in the Department to retain their annuities; 

(6) Cap DOD Senior Executive Service pay, allowances, differentials, bonuses, awards and other payments at no more 

than the Vice President’s total annual compensation; and 

(7) Authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive those provisions of title 5, United States Code, including chapters 71, 75, 

and 77, not specifically listed in the section as unwaivable. 

Section 9903 would authorize the Department to hire highly 

qualified experts for up to five years, with the possibility of a oneyear extension, and to prescribe the appropriate pay rates. It is 

consistent with the authority now available to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and military departments for hiring scientists and engineers. 

Section 9904 would authorize the Secretary of Defense to hire 

American citizens 55 years of age and older to work for the Department of Defense for up to two years, without a reduction in any annuity, pension, retirement pay, or similar payment, to fill needs 

that are not otherwise met by civilian employees. 

Section 9905 would authorize DOD to align the allowances and 

benefits of certain employees outside the United States with those 

of the Foreign Service and the Central Intelligence Agency. 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER 

NATIONS 

OVERVIEW 

As part of the global war on terrorism, the Department of Defense frequently finds itself working in cooperation with the military forces of other friendly nations. Title XII contains provisions 

that will streamline that cooperation and enhance United States 

national security. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training (ENJJPT) Program 

Over the past decade, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 

(NATO) has evolved and expanded to reflect the changes in the 

world. Four years ago, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary 

369

joined the other 16 member nations to enhance European regional 

security. 

One important mission of NATO is to protect the alliance’s air 

space. In the past 22 years, NATO partners have come together in 

the Euro-North Atlantic Treaty Organization Joint Jet Pilot Training (ENJJPT) program to provide flight training to over 250 student pilots and 120 instructor pilots annually. ENJJPT not only 

produces skilled pilots, but also strengthens the NATO alliance 

through common training, exercises, and routine operations. The 

benefits of such a program, that brings a large number of future 

leaders together from allied nations in a common endeavor that 

builds character and long-term professional bonds, as well as technical skills, is difficult to overstate. 

The leadership of the Department of Defense should work within 

NATO to encourage and facilitate active participation in ENJJPT 

by newer NATO members. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 1201—Expansion of Authority to Provide Administrative 

Support and Services and Travel and Subsistence Expenses for 

Certain Foreign Liaison Officers 

This section would remove a provision of existing law that limits 

the Secretary of Defense’s ability to provide administrative support 

services to those foreign liaison officers from a nation involved in 

a coalition with the United States. The provision would also authorize the Secretary to pay the travel, subsistence, and similar 

personal expenses of a liaison officer from a developing nation in 

coalition with the United States. ‘‘Similar personal expenses’’ constitutes an expansion to the allowable expenses the Secretary may 

pay, but adds the requirement that the foreign liaison officer be 

from a coalition nation, effectively narrowing the class of eligible 

recipients. 

Section 1202—Recognition of Superior Noncombat Achievements or 

Performance by Members of Friendly Foreign Forces and Other 

Foreign Nationals 

This section would authorize the Department of Defense to expend operations and maintenance funds to recognize superior noncombat achievements or performance by members of foreign forces 

and other foreign nationals that significantly enhance or support 

the National Security Strategy of the United States. 

The committee understands that during Operation Enduring 

Freedom, U.S. military personnel were required to contact and gain 

the support of various foreign military and civilian personnel in the 

conduct of their missions. In many circumstances, the local customs 

of the various countries required U.S. military personnel to bestow 

gifts as recognition for the services or support that these foreign 

nationals provided. Failure to adhere to such customs could undermine mission accomplishment. Therefore, the committee believes 

that this authority will materially contribute to the ability of the 

armed forces to accomplish assigned missions. 

370

Section 1203—Expansion of Authority to Waive Charges for Costs 

of Attendance at George C. Marshall Center for Security Studies 

The Secretary of Defense currently has the authority to waive reimbursement of costs for military officers and civilian officials from 

North Atlantic Cooperation Council (a component of NATO) and 

Partnership for Peace (PfP) countries participating in Marshall 

Center programs. The Secretary of Defense cannot currently waive 

reimbursement for poorer countries in the Balkans, however. The 

Department of Defense believes that increased participation by 

Balkan states in Marshall Center programs will serve U.S. security 

goals in the region. This provision would permit the Secretary to 

waive reimbursement costs for participants from states in Europe 

and the former Soviet Union, effectively making Balkan-state participants eligible to have their costs waived. 

Section 1204—Goods and Technologies Critical for Military 

Superiority 

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to establish a 

Goods and Technologies Critical for Military Superiority (GTCMS) 

list—a catalog of goods, materials, weapons systems technologies 

and developing critical technologies, and know-how that either 

could enhance a potential adversary’s military capabilities or are 

critical to the United States maintaining its military superiority 

and qualitative advantage. The GTCMS list should include, but not 

be limited to, advanced conventional weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and traditional and untraditional delivery systems, and 

the means to manufacture them. 

The Committee notes that the Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Policy is best suited to compile the Goods and Technologies Critical for Military Superiority list given the breadth of 

this matter. The list should be comparable to the Commerce Control List and its different Categories, Groups, and Export Control 

Classification Numbers, and should use an updated version of the 

Militarily Critical Technologies List as a starting point. The list 

should be updated on a bimonthly basis, starting in June 2004, and 

be made available to the public on an official Department of Defense website. Classified versions of the list should be sent to the 

Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services, as necessary. 

Section 1205—Report on Iraqi Acquisition of Advanced Weapons 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

study of how Iraq acquired weapons of mass destruction and associated delivery systems, to include unmanned aerial vehicles and 

cruise missiles, and advanced conventional arms in violation of 

multilateral and unilateral sanctions, arms control agreements, 

international weapons inspections and export control measures. 

From 1979, when International Atomic Energy Agency inspections 

in Iraq began, until the fall of the government of Saddam Hussein, 

Iraq obtained the materials, technology, and know-how for weapons 

of mass destruction and advanced conventional armaments both legally and illegally from entities outside of Iraq, including Iraqi citizens operating on foreign soil. The report should explain why nonproliferation processes failed to stop the spread of dangerous and 

371

destabilizing weapons to Iraq, how Iraq circumvented multilateral 

technology control and inspections regimes after the first Gulf War, 

and how Iraq exploited limitations in export control processes 

around the world. The report should also address the illegal transfer of militarily useful goods to Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Section 1206—Authority for Check-Cashing and Currency Exchange Services To Be Provided to Foreign Military Members 

Participating in Certain Activities with United States Forces 

This section would provide authority to foreign military personnel to obtain United States currency in exchanges for their negotiable instruments while on joint training or operations if the foreign nation has guaranteed payment and if the senior United 

States commander approves.

Section 1207—Requirements for Transfer to Foreign Countries of 

Certain Specified Types of Excess Aircraft 

This section would amend section 2581 of title 10, United States 

Code, to expand transfer requirements for excess UH–1 Huey and 

AH–1 Cobra helicopters to include T–2 Buckeye aircraft and the T–

37 Tweet aircraft. 

Section 1208—Limitation on Number of United States Military 

Personnel in Colombia 

This section would restrict funds available to the Department of 

Defense to support or maintain more than 500 U.S. military personnel in Colombia at any time. The provision would provide an exemption from the limitation for any members of the armed forces 

in Colombia for a period not to exceed 30 days to rescue or retrieve 

U.S. military or civilian Government personnel. The provision 

would also exempt military personnel assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Colombia as attache ́s, as part of the security assistance office, or the Marine Corps security contingent, as well as those participating in natural disaster relief efforts, those involved in nonoperational transit through Colombia, or making a port call. The 

provision would also provide the Secretary of Defense the authority 

to waive the military personnel limitation should the Secretary determine that such a waiver is in the national security interests of 

the United States and notify the congressional defense committees 

within 15 days. 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION 

WITH STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request included $450.8 million for cooperative threat 

reduction (CTR) activities in fiscal year 2004, an increase of almost 

9 percent over fiscal year 2003. The amount included $57.6 million 

for the elimination of strategic nuclear delivery systems in Russia; 

$48.0 million for nuclear weapons storage security in Russia; $23.2 

million for strategic nuclear weapons transportation security; $3.9 

million for strategic nuclear delivery systems elimination in 

372

Ukraine; $54.2 million for biological weapons proliferation prevention throughout the former Soviet Union; $200.3 million for chemical weapons destruction in Russia; $39.4 million for weapons of 

mass destruction proliferation prevention programs outside of Russia, but within the former Soviet Union; $11.1 million for defense 

and military contacts; and $13.1 million for administrative costs. 

The Committee recommends the budget request with two exceptions. First, it would increase funding for the elimination of strategic nuclear delivery systems in Russia by $28.8 million to $86.4 

million. Second, it would decrease funding for chemical weapons 

destruction in Russia by $28.8 million, to $171.5 million. 

The committee continues to support the original and overriding 

goal of the CTR program: to reduce the threat to the United States 

posed by the former Soviet Union’s strategic weapons of mass destruction and their associated delivery systems. It notes significant 

progress in reaching that goal. However, it remains concerned that 

progress on eliminating strategic nuclear delivery vehicles has 

slowed. The fiscal year 2004 request for strategic nuclear weapons 

elimination in Russia represents a decrease of almost 18 percent 

from fiscal year 2003 and nearly 57 percent from fiscal year 2002. 

Similarly, the request for $3.9 million for strategic arms elimination in Ukraine represent a 39 percent reduction from fiscal year 

2003 and a 92 percent reduction from fiscal year 2002. The committee recommends reversing these trends as they relate to Russia, 

which continues to possess inordinate numbers of Soviet-era strategic nuclear delivery systems. Therefore, it recommends increased 

funding for these efforts in order to keep them the top priority for 

the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. 

While the committee has long supported the Cooperative Threat 

Reduction program, it has noted several problems that threaten the 

program’s continued utility under the Department of Defense. 

These include a broadening of its mission from definable goals, 

such as the dismantlement of delivery systems, to more amorphous 

and undefined goals, such as eliminating environmental dangers; 

the Department’s continued willingness to absorb costs that are 

more appropriate for taxpayers in the former Soviet Union; the 

continuing difficulty in determining whether programs are making 

measurable progress towards achieving definable goals; the lack of 

necessary transparency and access agreements; the challenge in 

ensuring that CTR funding does not inadvertently free up resources for strategic modernization by states of the former Soviet 

Union; frequent lapses in management that lead to wasteful spending; and, the tendency to pursue nonproliferation activities that are 

not critical to the Department’s primary war-fighting missions or 

expertise and more appropriately belong with other government departments and agencies. Events over the last year have only 

heightened these concerns. 

The facts surrounding the Liquid Propellant Disposition Project 

in Krasnoyarsk, Russia clearly demonstrate this waste and lack of 

cooperation. Russia asked for assistance, and the United States 

spent over $137.2 million to dispose of rocket fuel from old ballistic 

missiles. As a part of this effort, the United States built Russia a 

$106.0 million plant to convert the fuel into commercially-useful 

materials. However, according to the Department of Defense Inspector General, without telling the United States, the Russian 

373

government turned most of the fuel over to its space program for 

commercial launches before the project was completed. The Russian 

government even helped reprocess the fuel inside of former fuelproduction plants in order to make it safer for use in space 

launches. As a result, there is no fuel for the U.S.-funded plant to 

eliminate. Because the facility cannot be used for anything else, its 

value now is reduced to its scrap—valued roughly at $1.2 million. 

Russia’s duplicity, or—at best—negligence, in this episode signals 

a clear difference in views about the utility of some elements of the 

Cooperative Threat Reduction program between Russia and the 

United States and suggests that the two countries may have different goals for parts of the program. In fact, in January 2003, the 

President exercised authority established by the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 to waive certification requirements contained in the Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 

1993 and the FREEDOM Support Act for one year. The certification requirements make the President determine that a state of 

the former Soviet Union is committed to fulfilling six reasonable responsibilities before the U.S. Government may expend CTR funds 

in that country. In 2003, the President determined that Russia is 

not committed to two of the six requirements: 

(1) Foregoing any military modernization program that exceeds 

legitimate defense requirements and foregoing the replacement 

of destroyed weapons of mass destruction; and, 

(2) Complying with all relevant arms control agreements,’’ including the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological 

and Toxin Weapons Convention, to which Moscow is a party.

In the same Presidential Determination, the Administration 

found that ‘‘Russia continues a biological weapons program,’’ and 

that Russia has ‘‘failed to fully declare its chemical weapon stockpiles and chemical weapon-related facilities.’’ These facts show that 

Russia does not share U.S. nonproliferation intentions and goals 

for the CTR program. 

The key element to the success of the Cooperative Threat Reduction programs is cooperation. As indicated by progress in dismantling strategic nuclear delivery systems that threatened the United 

States and that the successor states of the Soviet Union no longer 

wanted, success is possible when all participants share a common 

set of assumptions, interests, and clearly defined goals. When participants do not share the same assumptions, interests, or goals, as 

may be the case in CTR biological and chemical weapons destruction programs, success is impossible and resources committed to 

such efforts are wasted. 

To avoid that outcome, the Committee recommends limitations 

and conditions on a few CTR programs as a means of assessing a 

CTR recipient’s commitment to the goals of the program and its 

willingness to act in a truly cooperative fashion. First, it would 

prioritize those activities where the United States and Russia have 

historically demonstrated success due to shared goals, such as the 

elimination of strategic nuclear delivery vehicles. Second, it would 

limit those programs to which Russia’s commitment is less than 

complete. In general, the Committee adopted principles of accountability, transparency, accessibility, and cooperation when drafting 

these provisions. 

374

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction 

Programs and Funds 

This section would specify the kinds of programs to be funded 

under this title and would make fiscal year 2004 Cooperative 

Threat Reduction program funds available for three years. 

Section 1302—Funding Allocations 

This section would allocate fiscal year 2004 funding for various 

Cooperative Threat Reduction purposes and activities. 

Section 1303—Limitation on Use of Funds until Certain Permits 

Obtained 

The committee notes that multi-million dollar demilitarization 

projects in the Russia Federation have been stalled or cancelled 

due to a failure to obtain in advance all necessary land-use permits. For example, the United States spent $94.6 million toward 

the construction of a solid rocket motor disposition facility near the 

city of Votkinsk, Russia before the Department learned that it 

could not obtain the necessary land-use permits to operate the facility. While the Administration believes Russia was forthcoming 

about problems at Votkinsk, the decision to proceed with construction in the absence of all necessary permits resulted in yet additional waste in the Cooperative Threat Reduction program. This 

section would require the Secretary of Defense to determine what 

permits will be needed and that the Russian government obtain 

and transmit copies of those permits to the Secretary of Defense 

before he obligates more than 35 percent of a project’s total cost. 

This would enable the Department of Defense to spend those funds 

needed to enable it to obtain a permit, while limiting the potential 

for waste in the event that the permits are not forthcoming. 

Section 1304—Limitation on Use of Funds for Biological Research 

in the Former Soviet Union 

This section would limit spending by the Department of Defense’s cooperative biodefense research or bioattack early warning 

and preparedness to those sites to which the Department has sufficient access to (1) determine that no prohibited weapons research 

is being conducted; (2) determine the vulnerability of a site to illicit 

external or internal attempts to obtain dangerous pathogens; and, 

(3) implement security measures needed to prevent the diversion of 

dangerous pathogens from legitimate research. All told, these limitations apply to $32.2 million. Funds requested for the purposes of 

dismantling sites or improving safety and security at a site would 

be unaffected. 

In March 2003, the General Accounting Office released a report 

entitled, ‘‘Weapons of Mass Destruction: Additional Russian Cooperation Needed to Facilitate U.S. Efforts to Improve Security at 

Russian Sites.’’ The General Accounting Office determined that the 

United States lacked sufficient access to Russia’s biological research facilities to secure those sites at which the United States 

and Russia had collaborative programs. It further noted that Russia routinely denied the United States access to those sites receiving funding from U.S. taxpayers, and that negotiations to secure 

375

such access had stalled. As a result, the Department of Defense 

cannot be sure that its funding of Russian biological research facilities will not undermine U.S. security by creating circumstances in 

which U.S. resources support inappropriate activities or sustain activities vulnerable to inappropriate applications. The corrective 

measures contained in this section would help prevent those circumstances from arising and create incentives for Russia to grant 

U.S. access to those biological research facilities pursuing U.S. 

funding. 

Section 1305—Authority and Funds for Nonproliferation and Disarmament 

The Department of Defense (DOD) requested authority to obli- gate and expend up to $50.0 million of Cooperative Threat Reduction program funds, including prior fiscal year funds, outside the 

states of the former Soviet Union if the President determines such 

funds would help the United States resolve critical emerging proliferation threats or would otherwise allow the United States to 

take advantage of opportunities to achieve long-standing nonproliferation goals. While the committee supports nonproliferation 

efforts, there is concern that an expansion of DOD’s Cooperative 

Threat Reduction program beyond the borders of the former Soviet 

Union will distract the Department from its primary, warfighting 

mission. Moreover, the committee notes that nonproliferation efforts have historically been a function of the Department of State, 

and that Congress expanded the authority of the State Department’s Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund beyond the territory of the former Soviet Union. Therefore, rather than expanding 

a DOD program that would duplicate State Department efforts, 

this section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to transfer 

$50.0 million of prior fiscal year Cooperative Threat Reduction 

funds to the Department of State Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund for disarmament and nonproliferation purposes outside of the former Soviet Union. The committee recommends that 

future growth in government-wide nonproliferation efforts occur 

among programs that the Department of State is already authorized to undertake. 

Section 1306—Requirement for On-Site Managers 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to appoint an 

on-site manager to oversee Cooperation Threat Reduction projects 

involving a dismantlement, destruction, or storage facility or construction of a facility in the former Soviet Union whose total U.S. 

costs will exceed $25 million over the life of the project. The committee believes that the presence of a full-time U.S. manager onsite will prevent repeats of wasteful programs such as the 

Krasnoyarsk heptyl plant and Votkinsk solid rocket motor dismantlement facility, while giving the United States greater insight 

into a recipient partner’s degree of cooperation and commitment to 

a CTR project. The section would apply to both existing and future 

facilities, but would not take effect until six months after enactment in order to give the Department of Defense sufficient time to 

identify the needed on-site managers. 

To empower the on-site manager, increase transparency into 

Russia’s contributions to cooperative threat reduction, and enhance 

376

accountability in program execution, this section further lays out 

responsibilities for the on-site manager, who would be directed to 

work with partner governments to identify the steps and activities 

needed to successfully accomplish a nonproliferation goal, establish 

a schedule for completing those steps, and conduct meetings of assurance with participants in order to ensure that the necessary 

steps are completed on schedule. The on-site manager would further be directed to suspend U.S. participation in a project when a 

non-U.S. participant fails to meet its obligations, but the Secretary 

of Defense would retain the ability to direct a project to continue 

in the face of such failure. 

Section 1307—Provisions Relating to Funding for Chemical 

Weapons Destruction Facility in Russia 

This section would extend for a period of one year the President’s 

authority to waive existing certification requirements before obligating funds for the construction of the Shchuch’ye Chemical 

Weapons Deconstruction Facility in Russia. However, the need for 

such authority continues to raise concerns about Russia’s commitment to fully disclosing and dismantling its chemical weapons 

stockpile and infrastructure. Ultimately, Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs undertaken in the absence of such a commitment will fail to improve the security of the American people. 

Therefore, the committee urges the Department of Defense to assess Russia’s commitment to these goals, and, should it determine 

that Russia’s commitment remains lacking, to restructure the program accordingly. 

The committee further notes that the Russian Federation agreed to provide $25.0 million annually for the construction and operation 

of the chemical weapons deconstruction facility at Shchuch’ye, Russia, but that it has frequently failed to meet this goal. The United 

States and the Russian Federation initially planned to share the 

costs of the Shchuch’ye project, with the United States spending 

approximately $750.0 million to build and begin operations at the 

facility, with the Russian Federation spending approximately 

$240.0 million. The fiscal year 2004 budget requests $190.3 million 

for the Shchuch’ye project, with the Russian Federation expected to 

pay $25.0 million, a ratio of roughly 7.6 to 1. The committee believes this is unacceptable, particularly since building the 

Shchuch’ye facility is in the interests of Russia and its European 

neighbors. Therefore, the committee recommends a $28.8 million 

reduction of Shchuch’ye funding in order to bring authorized U.S. 

expenditures in fiscal year 2004 into line with the project’s overall 

three to one funding ratio. 

The committee notes that several countries recently committed to 

provide $10 billion in additional disarmament and nonproliferation 

resources. The committee applauds the President for securing these 

promises from other states with an interest in disarmament and 

nonproliferation, but is concerned by early signs that these countries may not meet their commitments. Accordingly, to create incentives for other states to contribute to nonproliferation and disarmament, the committee proposes a new funding mechanism for 

Shchuch’ye. This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to 

obligate $71.5 million of the $171.5 million authorized for 

Shchuch’ye immediately, and establish the remaining funds as a 

377

two-for-one matching fund. This section would match every dollar 

Russia or another country contributed to Shchuch’ye with two dollars. Such a mechanism would increase the likelihood that other 

countries will step forward to meet their nonproliferation and disarmament promises, and limit the possibility that the American 

taxpayer will be left with paying the entire costs of a program designed to benefit the entire world. 

TITLE XIV—SERVICES ACQUISITION REFORM 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 1401—Short Title 

This section would provide that this title may be cited as the 

‘‘Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003.’’ 

Section 1402—Executive Agency Defined 

This section would use the term ‘‘executive agency’’ as is defined 

in section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement of Policy Act (41 

U.S.C. § 403). 

SUBTITLE A—ACQUISITION WORKFORCE AND TRAINING

Section 1411—Definition of Acquisition 

This section would amend section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 1U.S.C. § 403) by defining the term ‘‘acquisition.’’ The new definition would encompass the entire spectrum of 

acquisition starting with the development of an agency’s requirements through management and measurement of contract performance. 

Section 1412—Acquisition Workforce Training Fund 

This section would amend section 37 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. § 433) to establish within the General Services Administration an acquisition workforce-training fund 

to be managed by the Federal Acquisition Institute (FAI). The fund 

is to be financed by depositing 5 percent of the fees collected by 

various executive agencies under their government-wide contracts. 

This will provide the funding needed by FAI to develop training resources needed to support new acquisition initiatives. The fund can 

only be used for sorely needed acquisition workforce training across 

the civilian government agencies. This provision does not apply to 

the Department of Defense. 

Section 1413—Acquisition Workforce Recruitment Program 

This section would authorize the head of an agency to determine, 

for purposes of sections 3304, 5333, and 5753 of title 5, United 

States Code, that certain federal acquisition positions are in a 

‘‘shortage category’’ in order to recruit and directly hire persons 

with high qualifications. Personnel actions under this section would 

be subject to Office of Personnel Management policies. In addition, 

the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy would be required to submit to Congress a report by September 2007 conVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00401 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.108 A106HR
378

cerning the efficacy of the program and recommending whether the 

authority should be extended. 

Section 1414—Architectural and Engineering Acquisition 

Workforce 

This section would require the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the 

Administrator of General Services, and the Director of the Office of 

Personnel Management, to develop and implement a plan to assure 

that the federal government maintains the necessary capability to 

contract effectively for the performance of architectural and engineering services. This section, however, is not intended to authorize 

the hiring of additional government employees. 

SUBTITLE B—ADAPTATION OF BUSINESS ACQUISITION PRACTICES

PART I—ADAPTATION OF BUSINESS MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Section 1421—Chief Acquisition Officers 

This section would amend section 16 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. § 414) to provide for the appointment of a non-career employee as the chief acquisition officer for 

each executive agency other than the Department of Defense. The 

Department of Defense currently has a comparable position established in title 10, United States Code. The chief acquisition officer 

would have acquisition as the official’s primary duty and advise 

and assist the agency head and other senior officials to ensure that 

the agency mission is achieved through the management of the 

agency’s acquisition activities. The functions of the chief acquisition 

officer would include monitoring the agency’s acquisition activities, 

evaluating them based on applicable performance measurements, 

increasing the use of full and open competition in agency acquisitions, making acquisition decisions consistent with applicable laws, 

and establishing clear lines of authority, accountability, and responsibility for acquisition decision making and developing and 

maintaining an acquisition career management program. The chief 

acquisition officer, as a part of the statutorily required annual strategic planning and performance evaluation process, would assess 

agency requirements for agency personnel knowledge and skills in 

acquisition resources management and, if necessary, develop strategies and plans for hiring, training and professional development. 

Section 1422—Chief Acquisition Officers Council 

This section would establish a chief acquisition officers council to 

monitor and improve the federal acquisition system. Deputy Director for Management (DDM) of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) shall chair the council, and membership shall include the 

Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy (Administrator), the 

Chief Acquisition Officers created under section 16 of the Office of 

Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 414), the Under Secretary of Defense of Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and any 

chair designated federal officer or employee. The Administrator 

shall lead the activities of the council on behalf of the DDM. The 

General Services Administration shall provide administrative and 

379

other support to the council. The council will, among other things, 

develop recommendations for OMB on acquisition policies and requirements, assist the Administrator in the identification, development, and coordination of multi-agency and other innovative acquisition initiatives, promote effective business practices to ensure 

timely delivery of best value products and services to the federal 

government, and work with the Office of Personnel Management to 

assess and address hiring, training, and professional development 

needs related to acquisition. 

Section 1423—Statutory and Regulatory Review 

This section would require the Administrator for Federal Procurement Policy to establish an advisory panel to review acquisition laws and regulations with a view toward ensuring greater use 

of commercial practices and performance-based contracting, as well 

as enhancing the performance of acquisition functions across agency lines, and the use of federal government- wide contracts. The advisory panel shall consist of at least nine experts in acquisition law 

and policy who represent diverse public and private sector experiences. 

PART II—OTHER ACQUISITION IMPROVEMENTS

Section 1426—Extension of Authority to Carry Out Franchise Fund 

Programs 

This section would amend section 403(f) of the Federal Financial 

Management Act of 1994 (P.L. 103–356) to reauthorize the federal 

government’s franchise funds until October 1, 2006. 

Section 1427—Agency Acquisition Protests 

This section would amend Chapter 137 of title 10, United States 

Code, and the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 

1949 (Public Law 81–152) to provide statutory authority for an 

agency-level acquisition protest process. This section would provide 

for a stay of the award or of contract performance during the 20 

working day period in which an agency is to evaluate the protest. 

The stay could be lifted by the head of the agency procuring activity upon a written finding that urgent and compelling circumstances do not permit waiting for the decision. This section 

would provide that filing an agency-level protest would not affect 

the right of an interested party to file a protest with the Comptroller General or in the United States Court of Federal Claims. 

This section would also amend section 3553(d)(4) of title 31, United 

States Code, to provide that an interested party filing a protest on 

the same matter with the Comptroller General within five days of 

the issuance of the agency protest decision would qualify for a stay 

of performance in connection with such protest. 

Section 1428—Improvements in Contracting for Architectural and 

Engineering Services 

This section would amend section 2855(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, to raise from $85,000 to $300,000 the threshold for a 

participation incentive for small business concerns in acquisitions 

for architectural and engineering services. This section would also 

380

require that architectural and engineering services offered under 

multiple-award schedule contracts awarded by the General Services Administration or under federal government-wide task and delivery order contracts be performed under the supervision of a licensed professional engineer and be awarded pursuant to the quality-based selection procedures in chapter 11 of title 40, United 

States Code.

Section 1429—Authorization of Telecommuting for Federal 

Contractors 

This section would require an amendment to the federal acquisition regulations to provide that solicitations for federal contracts 

should not contain any requirement or evaluation criteria that 

would render an offeror ineligible or would reduce the scoring of 

the offeror’s proposal based upon the offeror’s inclusion of a plan 

to allow its employees to telecommute, unless the contracting officer determines in writing that the needs of the agency could not 

be met without the requirement. This section would require the 

General Accounting Office to report to Congress on the implementation one year after the amendment is published. 

SUBTITLE C—CONTRACT INCENTIVES

Section 1431—Incentives for Contract Efficiency 

This section would amend the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (Public Law 93–400) by adding a new section authorizing 

agencies to include in service contracts options to extend the contract by one or more performance periods based on exceptional performance as measured by standards set forth in the contract. The 

contract should be, to the maximum extent practicable, performance-based. 

SUBTITLE D—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS

Section 1441—Preference for Performance-Based Contracting 

This section would amend the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (Public Law 93–400) by authorizing a performance-based 

contractor for the procurement of services or a performance-based 

task order for services to be treated as a contractor for the procurement of a commercial item if each task is defined in measurable, 

mission related terms with specific products or outputs, and the 

contractor provides similar services to the general public. This section would also require the Administrator for Federal Procurement 

Policy to establish a center of excellence for service contracting to 

assist the acquisition community in identifying best practices in 

service contracting. 

Section 1442—Authorization of Additional Commercial Contract 

Types 

This section would amend section 8002(d) of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–355) to provide that 

the federal acquisition regulations include authority for time and 

material contracts or labor hour contracts to be used for the acquiVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00404 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.109 A106HR
381

sition of a commercial service commonly sold to the general public 

through such contracts. 

Section 1443—Clarification of Commercial Services Definition 

This section would amend section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act [41 U.S.C. § 403(12)] by modifying the criteria 

that must be applied to purchase a commercial service pursuant to 

the procedure available for the purchase of a commercial item. 

Under this section a service would be considered a commercial 

service if the service is of a type customarily used by the general 

public and sold in substantial quantities. This change in definition 

is intended to affect the procurement process by which federal 

agencies purchase services. This section is not intended to amend 

government regulations or policy that dictate whether public sector 

functions are commercial in nature. 

Section 1444—Designation of Commercial Business Entities 

This section would amend section 4 of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (Public Law 93–400) to authorize federal agencies to treat the purchase of items produced or services provided by 

a commercial entity as a procurement of a commercial item or commercial service. A commercial entity would be defined as any enterprise whose primary customers are other than the federal government, that is, at least 90 percent of its sales over the past three 

business years must have been to the private sector. This section 

would also require the General Accounting Office to evaluate the 

effectiveness of this authority in increasing the availability of commercial items and services to the federal government at fair and 

reasonable prices. 

SUBTITLE E—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1451—Authority To Enter into Certain ProcurementRelated Transactions and To Carry Out Certain Prototype Projects 

This section would amend title III of the Federal Property and 

Administrative Services Act of 1949 (Property Act) (Public Law 81–

152) to allow the head of a civilian executive agency, if authorized 

by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to 

enter into transactions (other than contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants) to carry out basic, applied, and advanced research and development projects that are otherwise authorized and 

necessary to the responsibilities of the agency that may facilitate 

defense against, or recovery from, terrorism or nuclear, biological, 

chemical, or radiological, attack. This authority would be similar to 

that exercised by the Secretary of Defense under section 2317 of 

title 10, United States Code, with certain exceptions. 

This section would further amend the Property Act to provide 

that the head of an executive agency, designated by the Director 

of OMB to enter into transactions (other than contracts, cooperative agreements, and grants) may, with the approval of the Director of OMB, carry out prototype projects in accordance with the 

same requirements and conditions for prototype projects as are provided under section 845 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103–160). 

382

Section 1452—Authority To Make Inflation Adjustments To 

Simplified Acquisition Threshold 

This section would provide that the Administrator for Federal 

Procurement Policy may adjust the simplified acquisition threshold 

as defined in section 4(11) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (Public Law 93–400) every five years to an amount equal 

to $100 thousand in constant fiscal year 2003 dollars. 

Section 1453—Technical Correction Related to Duplicative 

Amendments 

This section would repeal superceded provisions and provide conforming amendments. 

Section 1454—Prohibition on Use of Quotas

This section would prohibit the Office of Management and Budget from establishing, applying, or enforcing quotes on federal agencies with respect to the number of employees that should be part 

of a public private competition. 

Section 1455—Applicability of Certain Provisions to Sole Source 

Contracts for Goods and Services Treated as Commercial Items 

This section would require that cost accounting standards and 

cost or pricing data requirements would apply to contracts for commercial items or commercial services, in those instances when an 

award is made on a sole source basis and the value of the contract 

$15.0 million or more. 

Section 1456—Public Disclosure of Noncompetitive Contracting for 

the Reconstruction of Infrastructure in Iraq 

This section would require that for contracts for the repair, maintenance, or construction of infrastructure awarded without full and 

open competition the head of the appropriate executive agency 

shall publish either in the Federal Register or the Commerce Business Daily and otherwise make public specific information within 

30 days of the award of the contract. Published information includes the value and scope of the contract, a discussion on how solicited offers were evaluated, and a copy of the justification and approval determination to use procedure other than full and open 

competition. 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of Division B is to provide military construction authorizations and related authority in support of the military departments during fiscal year 2004. As approved by the committee, 

Division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of 

$9,789,530,000 for construction in support of the active forces, reserve components, defense agencies, and the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization security infrastructure fund for fiscal year 2004. 

383

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW 

The Department of Defense requested $5,221,076,000 for military 

construction and $4,030,811,000 for family housing for fiscal year 

2004. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations 

of $5,758,719,000 for military construction and $4,030,811,000 for 

family housing in fiscal year 2004. Including the impact of anticipated rescissions requested by the Department, the committee’s 

recommendations are consistent with a total budget authority level 

of $9,528,324,000 for military construction and family housing in 

fiscal year 2004. 

The military construction total contains $119,815,000 for chemical agents and munitions destruction construction projects. Although this amount matches the Department’s request for chemical 

agents and munitions destruction construction projects, the Department had requested authorization for these funds elsewhere in the 

bill. The committee believes that all of the Department’s construction activities should be authorized in the military construction 

portion of the annual defense authorization bill. As such, the committee recommends the transfer of the authorization for chemical 

agents and munitions destruction construction to Division B—Military Construction Authorizations. 

Even after several years of congressional increases to the Department’s military construction and family housing budgets, the poor 

state of U.S. military installations and facilities remains an issue 

of significant concern. Visits to military installations around the 

United States and overseas confirm that America’s service members continue to live and work in aging and substandard facilities. 

Of further concern are indications that efforts to increase budgets 

for sustainment, modernization, and restoration have had little impact on the ability of the military services to maintain the condition of their facilities. According to the Department, more than 

two-thirds of the services’ facilities are classified at ‘‘C–3’’ or ‘‘C–

4’’ readiness levels, indicating that their ability to conduct their 

missions has been significantly degraded. 

For the second consecutive year, the budget request contained 

only sufficient funding to support new mission beddowns and a few 

quality of life projects. This underfunded approach to military construction and family housing reflects the Department’s intent to 

slow military construction investment until the 2005 base realignment and closure process. This approach severely impacts America’s military personnel who must live and work in the housing and 

facilities available today. 

The Department also submitted a remarkable request pertaining 

to overseas construction projects. Based upon this request, and limited briefings from the Department, the United States military is 

in the midst of the most significant restructuring of overseas basing strategy since the end of World War II. However, the Department has conducted its work largely behind closed doors, and has 

not provided Congress with the details of its work. 

By submitting a budget to Congress that effectively implements 

the initial stages of a major overseas realignment, the Department 

is asking Congress to endorse an undefined plan that will have a 

dramatic impact on the Department’s spending, policies, and operations for the coming decades. Although the committee recVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00407 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.111 A106HR
384

ommends the Department’s request for overseas construction programs, it does so not as an endorsement of the Department’s overseas plans, but as a placeholder marked for further review once the 

committee receives sufficient information to adequately assess and 

understand the details of the Department’s plans. 

A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in Division B 

for fiscal year 2004 follows:

385


Insert graphic folio 412 87068.150
386


Insert graphic folio 413 87068.151
387


Insert graphic folio 414 87068.152
388


Insert graphic folio 415 87068.153
389


Insert graphic folio 416 87068.154
390


Insert graphic folio 417 87068.155
391


Insert graphic folio 418 87068.156
392


Insert graphic folio 419 87068.157
393


Insert graphic folio 420 87068.158
394


Insert graphic folio 421 87068.159
395


Insert graphic folio 422 87068.160
396


Insert graphic folio 423 87068.161
397


Insert graphic folio 424 87068.162
398


Insert graphic folio 425 87068.163
399

TITLE XXI—ARMY 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $1,678,210,000 for Army military 

construction and $1,452,217,000 for family housing for fiscal year 

2004. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations 

of $1,604,480,000 for military construction and $1,452,217,000 for 

family housing for fiscal year 2004. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Planning and Design 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete planning 

and design activities for the following projects: $158,000 for a munitions training facility at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, $500,000 for 

a barracks complex (hospital area) at Fort Carson, Colorado, 

$740,000 for a satellite communications operations center at Fort 

Detrick, Maryland, and $720,000 for an aircraft corrosion control 

facility at Corpus Christi Army Depot, Texas. 

Unspecified Minor Construction 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army execute 

the following projects: $1,050,000 for a general instruction building 

at Anniston Army Depot, Alabama, and $1,500,000 for an explosive 

ordnance disposal operations facility at Fort Irwin, California. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects 

This section contains the list of authorized Army construction 

projects for fiscal year 2004. The authorized amounts are listed on 

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this 

report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2102—Family Housing 

This section would authorize new construction and planning and 

design of family housing units for the Army for fiscal year 2004. 

Section 2103—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 

This section would authorize new improvements to existing units 

of family housing for fiscal year 2004. 

Section 2104—Authorization of Appropriations, Army 

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line 

item contained in the Army’s budget for fiscal year 2004. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Army may 

spend on military construction projects. 

400

Section 2105—Modification of Authority To Carry Out Certain 

Fiscal Year 2002 Projects 

This section would amend the table in section 2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (division 

B of Public Law 107–107) to provide for an increase in the amount 

authorized for construction at Fort Richardson, Alaska. 

TITLE XXII—NAVY 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $1,147,537,000 for Navy military 

construction and $1,036,971,000 for family housing for fiscal year 

2004. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations 

of $1,251,946,000 for military construction and $1,036,971,000 for 

family housing for fiscal year 2004. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Planning and Design 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Navy complete planning 

and design activities for the following project: $970,000 for a full 

scale electric drive test facility at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Shipyard Systems Engineering Station, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

Unspecified Minor Construction 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Navy execute 

the following project: $1,290,000 for aviation maintenance officer 

school modifications at Naval Air Station Whiting Field, Florida. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects 

This section contains the list of authorized Navy construction 

projects for fiscal year 2004. The authorized amounts are listed on 

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this 

report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2202—Family Housing 

This section would authorize new construction and planning and 

design of family housing units for the Navy for fiscal year 2004.

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 

This section would authorize new improvements to existing units 

of family housing for fiscal year 2004. 

401

Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy 

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line 

item contained in the Navy’s budget for fiscal year 2004. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Navy may 

spend on military construction projects. 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $830,671,000 for Air Force military 

construction and $1,491,533,000 for family housing for fiscal year 

2004. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations 

of $986,076,000 for military construction and $1,491,533,000 for 

family housing for fiscal year 2004. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Reserve Associate Program 

The committee commends the Air Force for its commitment to 

meeting mission requirements through its reserve associate program. The committee encourages the Air Force to consider expanding the reserve associate program to include additional facilities 

and platforms. Finally, the committee urges the Air Force to consider, in addition to its active bases, the use of one or more of its 

reserve bases in a reserve associate arrangement. 

Planning and Design 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force complete planning and design activities for the following projects: $1,350,000 for 

an air mobility operations group global reach deployment center at 

Travis Air Force Base, California, $486,000 for a leadership development center at Buckley Air Force Base, Colorado, $1,098,000 for 

a cadet area protective perimeter at the United States Air Force 

Academy, Colorado, $729,000 for a consolidated security forces 

training complex at Schriever Air Force Base, Colorado, $612,000 

for force protection and access control at the west gate of Peterson 

Air Force Base, Colorado, $792,000 for a security forces operation 

facility at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, $603,000 for a child development center at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, $2,520,000 for 

a tanker airlift control center at Scott Air Force Base, Illinois, 

$1,350,000 for fire crash rescue stations at Holloman Air Force 

Base, New Mexico, $990,000 for a consolidated fire and crash rescue station at Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, $580,000 for 

a tri-service research facility at Brooks Air Force Base, Texas, 

$990,000 for a fire crash rescue station at Dyess Air Force Base, 

Texas, $531,000 for an air expeditionary force deployment center at 

Hill Air Force Base, Utah, and $1,200,000 for a mission support 

complex at Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. 

402

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects 

This section contains the list of authorized Air Force construction 

projects for fiscal year 2004. The authorized amounts are listed on 

an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this 

report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2302—Family Housing 

This section would authorize new construction and planning and 

design of family housing units for the Air Force for fiscal year 

2004. 

Section 2303—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 

This section would authorize new improvements to existing units 

of family housing for fiscal year 2004. 

Section 2304—Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force 

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line 

item contained in the Air Force’s budget for fiscal year 2004. This 

section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Air Force 

may spend on military construction projects. 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $655,381,000 for defense agency 

military construction and $49,790,000 for family housing for fiscal 

year 2004. The committee recommends authorization of appropriations of $802,549,000 for military construction and $49,790,000 for 

family housing for fiscal year 2004. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs Health Care Sharing 

The committee continues to believe that significant efficiencies 

are possible if the Department of Defense and the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA) share health care facilities. However, the Department and VA operate only 7 joint ventures, even though the 

2 departments operate approximately 240 hospitals. Such incremental progress is representative of the significant bureaucratic 

challenges facing the health care sharing effort. Nevertheless, the 

committee believes that the Department and VA should take advantage of health care sharing opportunities whenever possible. 

The committee understands that the Colorado University School 

of Medicine has begun relocation to the site of the closed 

Fitzsimons Army Hospital. The Department of Veterans Affairs is 

currently considering replacement of the Denver VA Medical Center, a 50-year-old structure now co-located with the Colorado medical school, as a part of that relocation. The committee understands 

403

that the Department is also considering participation in the VA 

Medical Center’s new facility. As such, the committee believes that 

the Department of Defense should participate in design and construction of this facility, which would provide ambulatory and acute 

care medical services to military personnel attached to Buckley Air 

Force Base. Such an approach would allow the Department to leverage construction, operations, and maintenance costs of a joint 

facility with VA, and eliminate the Department’s need to construct 

an additional medical treatment facility at Buckley Air Force Base. 

In this particular case, a joint facility would further benefit by 

sharing significant assets with the Colorado University School of 

Medicine Facility, resulting in further savings. 

With the expectation that the Department of Defense and the 

Department of Veterans’ Affairs will reach an agreement on sharing design and construction costs at levels representative of their 

medical requirements, the committee recommends authorization of 

$4,000,000 for planning and design of a DOD–VA medical treatment facility at the site of the closed Fitzsimons Army Hospital. 

Planning and Design 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of Defense complete planning 

and design activities for the following projects: $470,000 for a boat 

launch facility at Naval Air Station North Island, California and 

$4,000,000 for a DOD–VA medical treatment facility at Fitzsimons 

Campus, Colorado. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects 

This section contains the list of authorized defense agencies construction projects for fiscal year 2004. The authorized amounts are 

listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2402—Family Housing 

This section would authorize new construction and planning and 

design of family housing units for defense agencies for fiscal year 

2004. 

Section 2403—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 

This section would authorize new improvements to existing units 

of family housing for fiscal year 2004. 

Section 2404—Energy Conservation Projects 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry 

out energy conservation projects. 

Section 2405—Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies 

This section would authorize specific appropriations for each line 

item contained in the defense agencies’ budgets for fiscal year 2004. 

404

This section also provides an overall limit on the amount the defense agencies may spend on military construction projects. 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY 

ORGANIZATION INFRASTRUCTURE 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request contained $169,300,000 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) infrastructure fund (NATO Security Investment Program) for fiscal year 2004. The committee recommends authorization of $169,300,000 for fiscal year 2004. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to make 

contributions to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security 

Investment Program in an amount equal to the sum of the amount 

specifically authorized in section 2502 of this bill and the amount 

of recoupment due to the United States for construction previously 

financed by the United States. 

Section 2502—Authorization of Appropriations, NATO 

This section would authorize appropriations of $169,300,000 as 

the U.S. contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security Investment Program. 

TITLE XXVI—GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES 

FACILITIES 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $369,550,000 for military construction of guard and reserve facilities for fiscal year 2004. The committee recommends authorization for fiscal year 2004 of 

$573,941,000 to be distributed as follows:

Army National Guard ............................................................................ $253,788,000 

Air National Guard ................................................................................ 123,408,000 

Army Reserve ......................................................................................... 89,840,000 

Naval and Marine Corps Reserve ........................................................ 45,762,000 

Air Force Reserve .................................................................................. 61,143,000 

Total ............................................................................................. 573,941,000

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Planning and Design, Air National Guard 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force complete planning and design activities for the following projects: $954,000 for 

an operations and training complex at Savannah International Airport, Georgia, $754,000 for a composite training facility at the 

Greater Peoria Regional Airport, Illinois, $468,000 for a fire station 

405

at Pease International Tradeport, New Hampshire, and $602,000 

for a fire station at Stewart International Airport, New York. 

Planning and Design, Air Reserve 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Air Force complete planning and design activities for the following project: $220,000 for 

visitors’ quarters at Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida. 

Planning and Design, Army National Guard 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete planning 

and design activities for the following projects: $2,500,000 for an 

armed forces reserve center at Moreno Valley, California, 

$1,772,000 for an armed forces reserve center in Lawrence, Indiana, $844,000 for a joint armed forces reserve center at Gary/Chicago Airport, Indiana, $726,000 for an aviation support facility at 

Bangor International Airport, Maine, $7,849,000 for an aviation 

classification and repair activity depot in Springfield, Missouri, 

$651,000 for a Blackhawk support facility in Bismarck, North Dakota, $480,000 for a readiness center in Waynesburg, Pennsylvania, and $767,000 for an armed forces reserve center at Fort 

Jackson, South Carolina. 

Unspecified Minor Construction, Army National Guard 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army execute 

the following projects: $1,498,000 for a one stop personnel center 

at Papago Park Military Reservation, Arizona and $1,114,000 for 

readiness center upgrades at Pontiac Armory, Michigan. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2601—Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and 

Land Acquisition Projects 

This section would authorize appropriations for military construction for the guard and reserve by service component for fiscal 

year 2004. The state list contained in this report is intended to be 

the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

TITLE XXVII—EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2701—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required 

to be Specified by Law 

This section would provide that authorizations for military construction projects, repair of real property, land acquisition, family 

housing projects and facilities, contributions to the North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization infrastructure program, and guard and reserve projects will expire on October 1, 2006 or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal 

406

year 2007, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to 

authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated 

before October 1, 2006 or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2007, whichever 

is later. 

Section 2702—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 

2001 Project 

This section would extend one fiscal year 2001 military construction authorization until October 1, 2004, or the date of enactment 

of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 

2005, whichever is later. The extended authorization applies to the 

following project: $250,000 for new construction of General and 

Flag Officers Quarters at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. 

Section 2703—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 

2000 Projects 

This section would extend certain fiscal year 2000 military construction authorizations until October 1, 2004, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal 

year 2005, whichever is later. The extended authorizations apply to 

the following projects: $13,500,000 for construction of a multi-purpose range at Fort Pickett,Virginia, and $6,000,000 to replace family housing at Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma. 

Section 2704—Effective Date 

This section would provide that titles XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, 

XXV, and XXVI of this bill shall take effect on October 1, 2003, or 

the date of enactment of this act, whichever is later. 

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Housing Privatization Programs 

The committee commends the Department of Defense (DOD) for 

its efforts to privatize military family housing facilities. To date, 

these efforts have resulted in notable improvements in the quality 

of life for military families and an achievable approach to meeting 

the Department’s military housing requirements over the next decade. 

However, the committee is concerned that the military services 

have not consistently taken a comprehensive approach to privatization projects. As a result, the services have missed opportunities to 

include vital community facilities, such as schools, in their privatization contracts. While including such facilities may not be economically feasible in some cases, the committee believes that the 

services should include integral facilities, particularly schools, 

whenever possible and necessary. 

Unfortunately, in at least one case, a military service and the 

Department have not agreed upon a funding source for a school to 

serve a privatized housing site. While the committee prefers to give 

the Department maximum flexibility in handling such matters, legVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00430 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.115 A106HR
407

islation to require a consistent approach to funding military schools 

may become necessary if the Department does not take a comprehensive view of community planning in privatization. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to develop clear guidelines for the military services to use in determining when schools must be included in privatization contracts 

and, in those cases where schools are not included, determine 

whether the Department or the service shall be responsible for 

funding educational facilities. In addition, the committee urges the 

Secretary to ensure that the services and the DOD Education Activity have sufficient resources to meet the school construction 

needs of the United States military. 

Finally, the committee is concerned that the Department did not 

respond to the committee’s direction in the Bob Stump National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–

314) to report on the impact of privatized housing on local school 

systems. The committee again directs the Department to provide 

such a report to Congress and urges the Department to address 

school budgeting issues in its fiscal year 2005 budget request. 

U.S.-Mexico Border Airspace 

The committee is troubled by reports that the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Defense have 

been unable to reach agreement on access to airspace controlled by 

the Department of Defense along certain portions of the U.S.-Mexico border. Given the heightened importance of border patrols to 

homeland security since September 11, 2001, the committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense to work with DHS to develop an access 

plan that meets both DOD’s training and readiness requirements 

and DHS’s requirements to patrol the nation’s borders. 

Base Realignment and Closure 

The committee recognizes that the United States military must 

possess the facilities, land, and air space necessary to support its 

forces in order to maintain national security and remain capable of 

winning future conflicts. In 1991, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the 

Secretary of Defense proposed shaping the military into the ‘‘Base 

Force,’’ a force that included 1.6 million active duty personnel and 

900,000 reserve component personnel, 12 active Army divisions, 12 

aircraft carrier battlegroups, 3 active divisions for the Marine 

Corps, and 15 active fighter wings for the Air Force. Although today’s United States military is somewhat smaller than the Base 

Force, the Base Force represents a level to which the military 

might reasonably be expected to ‘‘surge’’ in a future crisis or significant permanent change in the global security environment. Therefore, the committee recommends a series of provisions to ensure 

that the United States military retains the resources and facilities 

it needs to defend the nation’s interests. The first provision, contained in title 9 of this bill, would establish a military force structure ‘‘floor’’ at the current level. 

The remaining provisions are contained in title 28 of this bill, 

and specific descriptions may be found in the section-by-section 

portion below. These provisions would modify current Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) law to ensure that the 2005 BRAC 

408

round results in a national inventory of installations capable of 

supporting a Base Force-size military that is stationed entirely 

within the United States. The committee believes that such an inventory will ensure that the United States military has the infrastructure necessary to meet future crises, and that dropping below 

this level would jeopardize the military’s ability to adapt to meet 

evolving and future threats to U.S. national security. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND MILITARY

FAMILY HOUSING CHANGES

Section 2801—Increase in Maximum Amount of Authorized Annual 

Emergency Construction 

This section would amend section 2803 of title 10, United States 

Code, to increase from $30,000,000 to $45,000,000 the annual limit 

on the amount a service secretary may obligate for emergency military construction projects not otherwise authorized by law. 

Section 2802—Authority To Lease Military Family Housing Units 

in Italy 

This section would amend section 2828 of title 10, United States 

Code, to increase from 2,000 to 2,800 the number of family housing 

units the Secretary of the Navy may lease in Italy for not more 

than $25,000 per unit per year. 

Section 2803—Changes to Alternative Authority for Acquisition 

and Improvement of Military Housing 

This section would amend section 2880 of title 10, United States 

Code, to provide increased flexibility for the Department of Defense 

to determine the amount of space provided to each person in onbase unaccompanied housing built under the privatization program. 

This section would also amend section 2883 of title 10, United 

States Code, to merge the Department of Defense Family Housing 

Improvement Fund and the Department of Defense Unaccompanied 

Housing Improvement Fund into a single Department of Defense 

Housing Improvement Fund. This single fund will give the Department increased flexibility in managing its housing resources. 

Finally, this section would increase the cap on budget authority 

for contracts and investments to military housing privatization 

projects from $850,000,000 to $900,000,000. 

Section 2804—Additional Material for Annual Report on Housing 

Privatization Program 

This section would require the Department to include additional 

information in its annual report on housing privatization programs. 

The additional information would include a review of privatization 

activities entered into in previous years, privatization activities 

planned in the future, authorities necessary to improve the program, and additional facilities planned as part of each privatization 

project. Finally, the report must include an explanation for each 

409

case in which a privatization effort does not include additional facilities, such as schools, in the contract. 

Section 2805—Authority To Convey Property at Military Installations Closed or to be Closed in Exchange for Military Construction Activities 

This section would expand the Department’s existing authority to 

transfer property at a military installation that has been closed or 

will be closed to persons who construct or provide family housing 

in exchange. The expanded authority would permit the Department 

to transfer property at such installations in exchange for family 

housing, unaccompanied housing, and authorized military construction activities.

Although the Department has had the authority to make landfor-family housing trades for several years, it has rarely taken advantage of the opportunity to do so. The committee believes that 

the Department should utilize land-for-construction trades to leverage maximum return for excess lands at military installations that 

have been closed or realigned by the base closure process. 

As such, this section would require the Department to utilize the 

authority for land-for-construction trades in at least 20 percent of 

base closure disposals of property that has not been identified as 

essential to a redevelopment plan. This section would also require 

each of the services to endeavor to use the authority provided for 

at least $200,000,000 worth of exchanges annually. In meeting the 

requirements of this section, the fair market value of the housing 

or facilities received by the Department must equal or exceed the 

fair market value of the real property conveyed. If not, the Department must receive payments equal to the difference, to be deposited into the Department of Defense Housing Improvement Fund. 

In order to count a land-for-construction trade towards the 20 percent and $200,000,000 per year requirements of this section, at 

least 90 percent of the payment for the land must be in the form 

of new construction. 

Finally, this section would require the Department to provide an 

annual report to Congress on the use of this authority. The committee expects the Department to utilize this exchange authority to 

support construction programs already authorized by Congress, 

and that the Department would request that funds not obligated as 

a result of land for construction trades be reprogrammed to support 

authorized military construction and family housing projects in future years. 

Section 2806—Congressional Notification and Reporting Requirements and Limitations Regarding Use of Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction 

This section would limit the Department’s ability to utilize operation and maintenance funds for certain construction purposes. 

First, the section would prohibit the Department from spending 

more than $5,000,000 of operation and maintenance funds on any 

single construction project. Second, it would prohibit the annual 

use of more than $200,000,000 of operation and maintenance funds 

for such purposes. Third, it would require the Department to notify 

Congress 14 days before obligating more than $1,500,000 of operVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00433 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.116 A106HR
410

ation and maintenance funds for construction purposes. However, 

a service secretary may waive the notice and wait requirement in 

those cases where a delay would jeopardize national security, 

health, or safety. If such a waiver is issued, this section would require the secretary to report to Congress within five days. 

Finally, this section would require the Department to provide a 

quarterly report to Congress on the worldwide use of operation and 

maintenance funds for construction purposes. 

This section reflects the committee’s concern about the Department’s interpretation of authorities provided by the United States 

Code for the use of operation and maintenance funds to build ‘‘temporary’’ military facilities to meet operational requirements. The 

committee believes that the Department’s actions in this regard do 

not reflect congressional intent and, in fact, contradict military construction authorities contained within title 10, United States Code. 

Therefore, this section does not codify the Department’s practices 

of using operation and maintenance spending for construction purposes. Rather, it is intended to allow the Department time to reconsider its use of operation and maintenance funds, while limiting 

the scope of such activities during fiscal year 2004. 

Over the coming year, the committee will closely monitor the Department’s operation and maintenance spending for construction 

purposes, and expects the Department to develop and request a 

military construction legislative proposal and budget that would 

allow for the flexibility required by the Department. Finally, the 

committee encourages the Department to report to Congress quarterly on its worldwide use of operation and maintenance funds for 

construction until enactment of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004. 

Section 2807—Increase in Authorized Maximum Lease Term for 

Family Housing and Other Facilities in Certain Foreign Countries 

This section would increase from 10 to 15 years the maximum 

length of lease that the Department may enter for housing facilities 

in Korea. This section would also increase from 5 to 15 years the 

maximum length of lease that the Department may enter for other 

militarily-related facilities in Korea. 

SUBTITLE B—REAL PROPERTY AND FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION

Section 2811—Real Property Transactions 

This section would amend section 2672 of title 10, United States 

Code, to increase from $500,000 to $1,500,000 the limit on the 

amount a service secretary may obligate to acquire land in the interest of national defense. This section would also amend section 

2672a of title 10, United States Code, to require a service secretary 

who utilizes the section to acquire land to notify Congress within 

10 days of determining that such an acquisition is necessary. Finally, this section would amend section 2662 of title 10, United 

States Code, which requires service secretaries to report to Congress before entering into certain real estate transactions (including acquisition, leases, and transfers of real property), to shorten 

congressional notification requirements and increase spending levels at which reports are required. 

411

SUBTITLE C—LAND CONVEYANCES

Section 2821—Termination of Lease and Conveyance of Army 

Reserve Center, Conway, Arkansas 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, a parcel of real property in Conway, Arkansas to the University of Central Arkansas. This section would 

also authorize the Secretary of the Army to terminate a lease between the Secretary and the University for the property on which 

the facility is located. 

Section 2822—Actions To Quiet Title, Fallin Waters Subdivision, 

Eglin Air Force Base, Florida 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to 

quiet title to tracts of land at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida by conveying, acquiring, or exchanging small parcels of land. This authorization is intended to allow the Secretary to resolve longstanding 

encroachment issues with local communities that resulted from inaccurate surveys. 

Section 2823—Modification of Land Conveyance, Eglin Air Force 

Base, Florida 

Public Law 91–347, directed the Secretary of the Air Force to 

transfer certain real property to the Okaloosa County School Board 

on the condition that the property would be used for public schools 

and that any portion of the property not used as such would be returned to the United States. This section would amend Public Law 

91–347 to authorize the Okaloosa County School Board to lease the 

undeveloped portion of this property to Okaloosa County for other 

public purposes. 

Section 2824—Land Conveyance, Fort Campbell, Kentucky and 

Tennessee 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey 

a parcel of real property to the Department of Transportation of 

the State of Tennessee for consideration. The property is to be used 

to realign and upgrade United States Highway 79 from a two-lane 

highway to a four-lane highway. The costs incurred during conveyance of the property, including administrative costs and acquisition 

of 200 acres of mission-essential replacement property, shall be 

borne by the State. 

Section 2825—Land Conveyance, Army and Air Force Exchange 

Service Property, Dallas, Texas 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to authorize the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) to sell a 

parcel of real property, including improvements, at 1515 Roundtable Drive in Dallas, Texas. The section would require that 

AAFES sell the property at fair market value, and that proceeds 

be retained as AAFES nonappropriated funds. 

412

Section 2826—Land Conveyance, Naval Reserve Center, Orange, 

TX 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey 

a parcel of real property to the City of Orange, Texas for consideration. The 2.5 acre parcel of property, located at the Naval Reserve 

Center, Orange, Texas, may be used for construction of an access 

road, economic development, or other public purposes. 

SUBTITLE D—OTHER MATTERS

Section 2841—Redesignation of Yuma Training Range Complex as 

Bob Stump Training Range Complex 

This section would rename the Yuma Training Range Complex 

the Bob Stump Training Range Complex in honor of the former 

chairman of the House Committee on Armed Services, Congressman Bob Stump. The committee notes that renaming the Yuma 

Training Range Complex in Congressman Stump’s honor is particularly fitting, as the congressman was a cosponsor of legislation in 

1985 that created the Barry M. Goldwater Range as it stands 

today. The Goldwater Range is used, in part, by the Yuma Training 

Range Complex, and is supported by Luke Air Force Base, the most 

significant military installation in the district served by former 

Congressman Stump. 

Section 2842—Modification of Authority To Conduct a Round of 

Realignments and Closures of Military Installations in 2005 

This section would amend current base realignment and closure 

law to define the parameters by which the Secretary of Defense determines military force structure and infrastructure requirements. 

Under current law, the Secretary of Defense must submit a force 

structure plan and description of necessary supporting infrastructure with the fiscal year 2005 defense budget request. This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a force structure plan that assumes, at a minimum, the 1991 Base Force structure plan. In addition, the Secretary’s description of supporting infrastructure must be capable of sustaining the entire planned force 

structure if no U.S. forces were permanently based outside of the 

United States. 

This provision would also amend current law to require the Secretary of Defense to submit, not later than April 1, 2005, a list of 

core military installations considered absolutely essential to national defense, to the base closure commission. This list must contain at least 50 percent of the total number of installations within 

the United States. Following consideration and approval of this list 

by the base closure commission and the President, this list of installations would be eliminated from consideration for closure or realignment. 

Section 2843—Use of Force-Structure Plan for the Armed Forces in 

Preparation of Selection Criteria for Base Closure Round 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, when making closure and realignment recommendations, to use the force 

413

structure plan required by base realignment and closure law, as 

amended by section 2842 of this act. 

Section 2844—Requirement for Unanimous Vote of Defense Base 

Closure and Realignment Commission to Recommend Closure of 

Military Installation not Recommended for Closure by Secretary 

of Defense 

This section would amend section 2914(d) of the Defense Base 

Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 to require a unanimous vote 

of the base closure commission to add an installation to the list of 

bases recommended for closure by the Secretary of Defense. 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request contained $16,679.2 million for the national 

security activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2004 

(excluding a rescission of $75.0 million of balances remaining available for Cerro Grande fire activities). Of this amount, $8,834.6 million is for the programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration, $7,734.1 million is for environmental and other defense activities, and $110.5 million is for energy supply. The committee recommends the budget request of $16,679.2 million, representing an 

increase of $1,103.2 million from the amount authorized for fiscal 

year 2003. The following table summarizes the budget request and 

the committee recommendations.

414


Insert graphic folio 440 87068.164
415


Insert graphic folio 441 87068.165
416


Insert graphic folio 442 87068.166
417


Insert graphic folio 443 87068.167
418


Insert graphic folio 444 87068.168
419


Insert graphic folio 445 87068.169
420


Insert graphic folio 446 87068.170
421


Insert graphic folio 447 87068.171
422


Insert graphic folio 448 87068.172
423


Insert graphic folio 449 87068.173
424


Insert graphic folio 450 87068.174
425


Insert graphic folio 451 87068.175
426


Insert graphic folio 452 87068.176
427

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $8,834.6 million for the National 

Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2004. The committee recommends $8,822.1 million, representing an increase of 

$783.6 million from the amount authorized for fiscal year 2003. 

Adjustments to the Budget Request 

Reductions 

The budget request contained $66.0 million for the Advanced Ra- diography campaign. The committee recommends $61.0 million, a 

decrease of $5.0 million. The committee notes a substantial increase in the request for advanced radiography requirements and 

technology development, including requirements studies for an Advanced Hydrotest Facility. The committee understands that the 

Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrotest facility is critical to high priority 

stockpile life extension efforts, particularly plutonium pit certification. The committee urges the National Nuclear Security Administration to focus on delivering the radiographic tools essential to 

its nearer term production requirements. The budget request contained $466.8 million for the Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield campaign. The committee 

recommends $461.8 million, a decrease of $5.0 million. The committee notes the more than 100 percent growth in the request for 

experimental support technologies for development of National Ignition Facility diagnostics and target fabrication capabilities. The 

committee believes this area has been underemphasized in the 

past, but questions effective executability of the increase. The committee cautions that these funds should be used for their stated 

purpose. 

The budget request for operations of facilities in Readiness in the 

Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) contained $37.0 million for 

‘‘other sites’’, a more than four fold increase over the comparable 

fiscal year 2003 request. The committee does not believe the request has been adequately justified, and recommends $17.0 million, 

a decrease of $20.0 million. 

The budget request contained $50.0 million in RTBF to begin 

construction of a national security sciences building at Los Alamos 

National Laboratory (project 04–D–104). This is a construction new 

start that has not previously been authorized by the committee. 

The committee is aware that this project received an advance appropriation in fiscal year 2003 of $12.0 million, and accordingly recommends $38.0 million for the project, a decrease of $12.0 million. 

The operations and maintenance budget request for Safeguards 

and Security contains $8.0 million to initiate a physical security research and development program, and $2.0 million to initiate a 

similar cybersecurity effort. The committee views Safeguards and 

Security as an important but supporting element to the defense nuclear complex, which already spends billions of dollars annually on 

research and development. The committee further notes that the 

proposed activities would be largely duplicative of the technology 

428

and systems development program, for which the Department of 

Energy has requested $20.9 million within Safeguards and Security 

under other defense activities. The committee recommends no funding for these initiatives. 

The international safeguards budget request within the Non- proliferation and International Security program contained $15.7 

million for International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards 

and nonproliferation policy support, an increase of $5.8 million 

from the comparable fiscal year 2003 request, and 6.0 million for 

nuclear noncompliance verification. The committee believes that 

greater attention is required to specific proliferant states, such as 

North Korea, rather than to strengthening safeguards more globally. Consequently, the committee recommends $10.7 million for 

IAEA safeguards and nonproliferation policy support, a decrease of 

$5.0 million, and $11.0 million for nuclear noncompliance 

verification, an increase of $5.0 million. 

The budget request contained $14.1 million for International Nu- clear Safety and Cooperation. The committee recommends $11.6 

million, a decrease of $2.5 million. The committee notes that this 

program was originally established to address safety deficiencies in 

Soviet-designed nuclear reactors in states of the former Soviet 

Union. This effort is now complete, and the committee believes that 

international cooperation on nuclear safety, specifically in China 

and elsewhere in Asia, is more appropriately addressed by other 

federal departments and international agencies using non-defense 

funding. The budget request contained $30.0 million for Accelerated Mate- rial Disposition (AMD). The committee recommends $5.0 million, a 

reduction of $25.0 million. The committee questions the cost effectiveness of the proposed program and suggests that NNSA rethink 

its approach. Under existing agreements between the United 

States and the Russian Federation, most notably the 1993 Highly 

Enriched Uranium (HEU) Purchase Agreement, the United States 

Enrichment Corporation will purchase low enriched uranium 

(LEU) down-blended from 500 metric tons of Russian weapon 

source HEU for resale as commercial nuclear reactor fuel. Currently, approximately 30 metric tons of HEU is down-blended per 

year, and the process is monitored under the HEU Transparency 

Implementation program at a cost to the taxpayer of $18.0 million 

for fiscal year 2004. The proposed AMD program would increase 

the present blend-down rate by 1 to 11⁄2 metric tons per year, at 

best an increase of five percent, at a cost of $25.0 million per year, 

more than the total cost of the existing program. The committee 

notes that reaching NNSA’s goal of doubling the blend down rate 

to 60 metric tons of HEU per year would cost approximately $600 

million per year by this approach. 

The committee also questions NNSA’s priorities in requesting additional funds under the Reduced Enrichment for Research and 

Test Reactors program to accelerate development of LEU fuel for 

five HEU-fueled research reactors in the United States. The committee considers foreign HEU-fueled research reactors to pose a 

more significant proliferation threat. The committee notes that the 

list of potential nonproliferation efforts worthy of some consideration is practically endless, while resources are not. The committee 

advises NNSA in the strongest terms to develop a strategy for anaVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00452 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.119 A106HR
429

lyzing the full spectrum of proliferation risks, and a process for assessing the cost versus the benefit of programs proposed to mitigate those risks. 

Increases 

The committee remains concerned about the ability of an aging 

defense nuclear complex infrastructure to meet increasing requirements associated with four ongoing stockpile life extension programs. The problem is especially acute in the production plants. 

The committee understands that many years of sustained funding 

will be required to reduce maintenance backlogs and re-capitalize 

the complex. The committee makes a number of recommendations. 

The committee recommends $295.1 million for production support 

within Directed Stockpile Work, an increase of $17 million to replace aging manufacturing process equipment and support systems 

at Y–12. The committee recommends $57.2 million for the Stockpile 

Readiness campaign, an increase of $2.0 million for critical processing, machining, and inspection equipment required for future directed stockpile work at Y–12. The committee recommends a net 

increase of $16.3 million to operations of facilities within RTBF for 

a total of $989.1 million, which includes an additional $7.0 million 

for facilities maintenance and legacy material stewardship at Y–12, 

an additional $14.3 million for plant maintenance at Pantex, and 

an additional $15.0 million for plant projects and capital equipment 

at Pantex. 

The budget request contained $582.1 million for Safeguards and 

Security operations and maintenance. The committee recommends 

$583.8 million, a net increase of $1.7 million. The committee provides additional funds of $11.7 million for security enhancements 

at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, including physical 

security upgrades to facilities for handling and storing special nuclear materials, cyber-security improvements, and security systems 

maintenance and replacement. 

Advanced Weapons Concepts 

The committee notes that the National Nuclear Security Admin- istration (NNSA) has requested $21.0 million to explore advanced 

weapons concepts, including $15.0 million to continue feasibility 

and cost studies for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, and $6.0 

million ($2.0 million per design laboratory) for other concept definition studies. The committee further notes that the budget request 

for these efforts is less than half of one percent of the total request 

of $6.4 billion for Weapons Activities, a small research and development investment by most standards. The committee believes that 

NNSA should consider more significant future investment in these 

activities. 

The committee believes that advanced concepts studies serve a 

number of important purposes. First, the weapons laboratories are 

the repository for certain skills critical to national security, and although NNSA executes a wide range of technically challenging and 

sophisticated weapons related activities, there is still no substitute 

for actually exercising the design process. Second, most weapons 

designers with real test experience have retired or are eligible for 

retirement, and there is a time critical requirement for the next 

generation of scientists and engineers to gain proficiency under the 

430

tutelage of those remaining. Third, nuclear weapons in the hands 

of potential adversaries pose a grave and proliferating threat to the 

security of the United States, and in order to avoid technical surprise, NNSA must understand the ‘‘art of the possible’’. Finally, the 

present Cold War stockpile may not meet future technical requirements for a credible strategic deterrent. 

While mindful of proliferation concerns, the committee does not 

believe that artificial and arbitrary constraints on what weapons 

designers may or may not consider serve the best interests of the 

nation. Accordingly, section 3111 would repeal the statutory prohibition on low yield weapon development under section 3136 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public 

Law 103–160). The committee observes that before any advanced 

concept enters engineering development (phase 3/6.3), and prototype hardware is fabricated, NNSA requires the formal approval of 

the Nuclear Weapons Council and a budget authorization from 

Congress. Regardless of the outcome of legislative action on section 

3111, the committee is unaware of restrictions on design work related to weapons with yields in excess of five kilotons, and accordingly recommends that NNSA proceed with its advanced concepts 

initiative forthwith. 

Coordination of Nonproliferation and Threat Reduction Programs 

The committee notes that a number of federal departments (primarily the Departments of Defense, Energy, and State) fund and 

participate in threat reduction and nonproliferation programs. The 

committee remains concerned about the coordination between these 

programs. The committee understands that many if not most of 

these efforts are based on historical relationships and access agreements. The committee observes that merely de-conflicting activities 

is not equivalent to development of an effective, efficient, integrated program with well defined departmental roles and responsibilities. The committee suggests that the administration designate a lead department, and urges realignment of these efforts 

according to distinct assigned departmental mission areas. 

Management of Stockpile Life Extension Programs 

The committee remains concerned that stockpile life extension 

programs (SLEPs) for the B61, W76, W80, and W87 continue to be 

managed as loosely coordinated ‘‘level-of-effort’’ activities spread 

across the defense nuclear complex. Such an approach is more appropriate to research and development than to a production effort 

with a well defined quantity, schedule, and scope of work. The committee strongly recommends that the SLEPs be ‘‘projectized’’ under 

strong leadership, and with cost, schedule and performance milestones against which progress can be measured. 

The committee report on H.R. 5431, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2003 (H. Rept. 107–681) directs the 

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to prepare Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs) for each SLEP. The committee 

believes that such planning and budgeting by warhead type will 

bring some needed discipline to the refurbishment process, and can 

help form the basis for ‘‘projectizing’’ these efforts. The committee 

notes that NNSA submitted classified SARs with the fiscal year 

431

2004 budget request, but that those reports are of a transitional 

nature. The committee urges NNSA to commit to this approach in 

a timely and prudent manner. 

NNSA Management Structure 

Reform of the Department of Energy’s organizational structure 

for managing the defense nuclear complex was of particular interest to Congress when it passed title XXXII of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65), also 

known as the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) 

Act. Section 3153 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398) required the NNSA Administrator to submit to the Armed Services Committees a plan for assigning roles and responsibilities among headquarters and field elements. The Administrator submitted an interim plan on May 3, 

2001 broadly outlining plans for a reorganization of headquarters 

elements, and provided a plan for reorganization of field elements 

on February 25, 2002. On December 17, 2002, the Acting Administrator announced implementation guidance for the reorganization, 

which is expected to be complete by the end of fiscal year 2004 and 

to eliminate one layer of management. Noting that it has now been 

over three years since NNSA was formally established, the committee remains concerned that the slow pace continues to prejudice 

the process against success, but believes that the intended reorganization could provide for more efficient, effective, and accountable 

management of the complex. The committee encourages NNSA to 

follow through. 

Support for Los Alamos Public Schools 

As in previous years, the budget request includes $8.0 million for 

support of public schools in the vicinity of Los Alamos National 

Laboratory. The Los Alamos school system is the only one that continues to receive annual assistance from the Department of Energy. 

Such annual payments ceased at other previously governmentowned communities years ago, specifically in 1970 in the case of 

Richland, Washington, and in 1985 in the case of Oak Ridge, Tennessee. In a May 2002 report submitted to the congressional defense committees pursuant to section 3136 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107), the 

Secretary of Energy recommended the continuation of annual assistance for another ten years, essentially indefinitely. 

The historical record of efforts to achieve self-sufficiency in the 

Los Alamos public school system and those of surrounding communities includes buy-out proposals, multi-year assistance plans, and 

endowment by the Department of a not-for-profit educational enrichment foundation. The committee recognizes some of the unique 

considerations specific to Los Alamos, but has been, and continues 

to be, disappointed in progress by all parties toward development 

of a viable exit strategy for the Department. While fully appreciating the recruitment value to the laboratory of an excellent 

school system, the committee is also sensitive to the fact that, according to recent census data, Los Alamos County already has the 

fifth highest median household income in the United States. 

432

Test Readiness 

The committee believes the current lead time of nearly three 

years for resumption of underground nuclear tests does not present 

a realistic option should the President determine that such tests 

are necessary. The committee notes the budget request includes 

$24.9 million for test readiness, $7.0 million above the fiscal year 

2003 request, and that the National Nuclear Security Administration intends to move toward an 18 month test readiness posture. 

The committee observes that test readiness is of special interest to 

Congress, and section 3142 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) requires 

the Secretary of Energy to assess and report to Congress on test 

readiness options ranging from 6 to 24 months. Section 3142 required submission of that report with the fiscal year 2004 budget 

request. The report is now overdue, and the committee expects a 

full explanation of the basis for any final decisions regarding options for enhanced test readiness. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Overview 

The budget request contained $7,734.1 million for environmental 

and other defense activities. The committee recommends $7,746.6 

million, representing an increase of $209.1 million from the amount 

authorized for fiscal year 2003. 

Adjustments to the Budget Request 

Reductions 

The budget request contained $15.0 million for the Office of 

Worker and Community Transition. The committee recommends 

$14.0 million, a reduction of $1.0 million. The committee notes that 

the request for programmatic funds drops 46 percent from fiscal 

year 2003, while program direction remains level. The committee 

recommends a proportional decrease to program direction. 

The budget request contained $4.3 million for the Office of Energy Security and Assurance. The committee recommends $3.3 million, a reduction of $1.0 million. Many of the Department of Energy’s energy security and assurance functions move to the new Department of Homeland Security. The committee observes that the 

number of full time equivalent employees is expected to drop from 

22 to 8 in fiscal year 2004, while the request for program direction 

remains the same as that for fiscal year 2003. The committee recommends a proportional decrease. 

Increases 

The budget request contained $1.2 billion for 2006 Accelerated 

Completions within Defense Site Acceleration Completion. The 

committee recommends an increase of $9.5 million to accelerate environmental restoration and waste management activities at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), as well as the transfer of newly generated waste operations responsibility from the Office of Environmental Management to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). The committee understands that the 

433

Department of Energy has developed a Performance Management 

Plan and signed a Letter of Intent with state and federal regulatory agencies to support completion of legacy waste disposal and 

remediation activities at LLNL by 2006. The committee believes 

that assumption by NNSA of responsibility for management of the 

waste stream from ongoing operations at this site will lead to more 

judicious generation of that waste. 

The budget request contained $39.8 million in other defense activities for Department of Energy Intelligence activities. The committee recommends $44.8 million, an increase of $5.0 million, to 

match fiscal year 2003 funding. The committee urges the Department to maintain the current level of effort particularly in the area 

of technical nuclear intelligence related to proliferation of weapons 

of mass destruction. 

Cleanup Acceleration 

The Department of Energy’s environmental management (EM) 

program is responsible for the cleanup of contamination at 114 

sites resulting from more than 50 years of research, development, 

production, and testing of nuclear weapons. In February 2002, the 

Department completed the ‘‘Top-to-Bottom Review’’ of EM programs directed by the Secretary of Energy. The review found that 

the EM program emphasized ‘‘...managing risk rather than actually reducing risk to workers, the public, and the environment’’. 

In the current fiscal year the Department has begun a comprehensive restructuring of the cleanup program. The process includes signing ‘‘Letters of Intent’’ with state and federal regulatory 

authorities, and the development of Performance Management 

Plans for each site to detail strategies, milestones and commitments supporting accelerated cleanup. The Department intends to 

complete revised site project baselines during the current fiscal 

year based on these Performance Management Plans. The Department projects that for three of the most heavily contaminated 

sites—Savannah River Site, Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, and Hanford—cleanup completion can be accelerated by 20, 35, and 35 years, respectively, and expects to complete all work by 2035. 

The committee supports the Department’s aggressive schedule to 

reduce risk to the public and the environment. The committee believes that by moving quickly, where feasible, to reduce the footprint of contaminated sites, substantial cost savings can be realized 

in the long term. 

ENERGY SUPPLY

The budget request contained $110.5 million for Energy Supply. 

In fiscal year 2004, Energy Supply is proposed as a multi-function 

account split between defense (050) and energy (270) functions. 

Landlord responsibilities for the Idaho National Engineering and 

Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) have passed from the Office of 

Environmental Management (EM) to the Office of Nuclear Energy, 

Science, and Technology (NE). The defense funding requested in 

this account supports continuing national security activities at 

INEEL. The committee recommends the budget request. 

434

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS AUTHORIZATIONS

Section 3101—National Nuclear Security Administration 

This section would authorize funds for the National Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2004, including funds for 

weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation programs, 

naval reactor programs, and the Office of the Administrator. 

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Management 

This section would authorize funds for defense environmental 

management activities for fiscal year 2004, including funds for defense site acceleration completion and defense environmental services. 

Section 3103—Other Defense Activities 

This section would authorize funds for other defense activities for 

fiscal year 2004. 

Section 3104—Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal 

This section would authorize funds for defense nuclear waste disposal for fiscal year 2004. 

Section 3105—Energy Supply 

This section would authorize funds for defense energy supply 

programs for fiscal year 2004. 

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND

LIMITATIONS

Section 3111—Modification of Prohibition Relating to Low-Yield 

Nuclear Weapons 

This section would amend section 3136 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103–160). The 

amendment would maintain the prohibition on development of new 

nuclear weapons with yields less than five kilotons, but would 

allow research on such weapons, including concept definition studies, feasibility studies, and detailed engineering design. The 

amendment would allow development for the purpose of assessing 

low- yield nuclear weapons development by other nations that may 

pose a national security risk to the United States. 

Section 3112—Termination of Requirement for Annual Updates of 

Long-Term Plan for Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Life Extension 

Program 

This section would terminate certain annual reporting requirements related to stockpile life extension programs, effective December 31, 2004. The National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA) submitted with the budget request preliminary Selected 

Acquisition Reports (SAR) for its stockpile life extension programs. 

The committee understands that NNSA intends to fully commit to 

the stockpile life extension SARs in fiscal year 2005. Provided that 

435

they show sufficient fidelity, the committee believes that the SARs 

will provide an appropriate and sufficient substitute for the current 

reporting requirement. 

Section 3113—Extension to All DOE Facilities of Authority to 

Prohibit Dissemination of Certain Unclassified Information 

This section would amend section 148 of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954 (Public Law 83–703) to expand the range of situations 

under which the Department of Energy could treat information as 

sensitive unclassified nuclear information, and consequently limit 

its dissemination. 

Section 3114—Department of Energy Project Review Groups Not 

Subject to Federal Advisory Committee Act by Reason of Inclusion of Employees of Department of Energy Management and 

Operating Contractors 

This section would allow an officer or employee of a management 

and operating (M&O) contractor of the Department of Energy, 

when serving on an advisory committee or review group for the Department on matters related to the Department’s M&O contracts, 

to be treated as an officer or employee of the Department for the 

purposes of determining whether the group is an advisory committee within the meaning of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(5 United States Code App.). 

Section 3115—Availability of Funds 

This section would amend the Atomic Energy Defense Act (title 

XXXVI of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314)) by limiting the availability 

for obligation to three years for funds authorized to be appropriated 

to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) for operation and maintenance or for plant projects. The limitation is consistent with the NNSA Act (title XXXII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65)), which 

requires planning, programming and budgeting using funds that 

are available for obligation for a limited number of years. The section would not amend the one year limitation on the availability of 

funds for obligation for an appropriation pursuant to a Department 

of Energy national security authorization for program direction. 

Section 3116—Limitation on Obligation of Funds for Nuclear Test 

Readiness Program 

This section would prohibit the obligation of more than 40 percent of funds available to the Secretary of Energy in fiscal year 

2004 for the nuclear test readiness program until the Secretary 

submits the report on test readiness posture options required by 

subsection 3142(c) of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314). 

Section 3117—Requirement for On-Site Managers 

This section would require the Secretary of Energy to appoint a 

federal employee as an on-site manager before obligation of funds 

for any defense nuclear nonproliferation program that involves disVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00459 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.122 A106HR
436

mantlement, destruction, or storage facilities, or construction of a 

facility, and that is executed in a state of the former Soviet Union, 

if the total contribution by the Department of Energy is expected 

to exceed $25.0 million. The duties of the on-site manager would 

include development, in cooperation with participating countries, of 

a list of steps or activities critical to achieving the project’s disarmament or nonproliferation goals, and a schedule for completing 

those steps or activities. The steps and activities would include acquisition of necessary permits, verification of materials, and provision of resources. The on-site manager would have the authority to 

suspend United States participation in a project if a non-United 

States participant fails to complete a scheduled activity on time. 

The Secretary could direct resumption of United States participation in a suspended project with concurrent notification to Congress. 

SUBTITLE C—CONSOLIDATION OF NATIONAL SECURITY PROVISIONS

Section 3121—Consolidation and Assembly of Recurring and General Provisions on Department of Energy National Security Programs 

The section would assemble together under the Atomic Energy 

Defense Act (title XXXVI of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314)), without 

substantive amendment but with technical and conforming amendments, recurring and general provisions of law on Department of 

Energy national security programs that remain in force. The transfer of a provision of law under this section should not be construed 

as amending, altering, or otherwise modifying the substantive effect of that provision. The provisions of the Atomic Energy Defense 

Act, as amended by this section, would be classified to a new chapter of title 50, United States Code. 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 3201—Authorization 

This section would authorize $19.6 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2004. 

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 3301—Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile 

Funds 

This section would authorize $69.7 million from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operation and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal year 2004. The 

provision would also permit the use of additional funds for extraorVerDate Jan 31 2003 22:31 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00460 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.123 A106HR
437

dinary or emergency conditions 45 days after a notification to Congress. 

Section 3302—Revisions to Objectives for Receipts for Fiscal Year 

2000 Disposals 

This section would authorize increased sales of stockpile materials through the end of fiscal year 2009. 

TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would authorize $16.5 million for fiscal year 2004 for 

the operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum and Oil 

Shale Reserves. 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Authorization of Maritime Security Program 

The committee conducted a series of hearings during the 107th 

Congress to examine the operation of the current Maritime Security program as enacted by the 104th Congress in Public Law 104–

239. Those hearings examined not only the ability of the current 

program to meet the sealift requirements of the Department of Defense (DOD), but also the various changes that had occurred in the 

commercial marketplace since the enactment in 1996. In the 1995 

and 1996 time frame, the makeup of the maritime security fleet 

was one that was largely owned and operated by U.S. citizen companies. Over the span of the next several years, the two largest 

U.S. flag vessel operators were purchased by foreign corporations. 

Indeed, of the 10 maritime security program (MSP) contractors now 

participating in the program, only five still meet the original ‘‘section 2’’ citizenship or documentation/defense contractor requirements for award of a contract under the first priority as set forth 

in the Maritime Security Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–239). None 

of the remaining five ‘‘section 2’’ citizen operators, which collectively hold 33 of the 47 current agreements, were even in existence 

in 1995.

While the transition, at least from a commercial standpoint, appears to have worked reasonably well, concern was expressed by a 

number of witnesses over the reliability of these foreign controlled 

carriers to respond to DOD sealift requirements. These same concerns were not expressed by either the Maritime Administration or 

the United States Transportation Command. However, the committee, in drafting a new maritime security program, has attempted to add mechanisms that will, to the maximum extent possible, improve the likelihood that existing MSP contractors will be 

responsive to DOD requirements, and at the same time grant ‘‘section 2’’ citizen owners and operators priority in the award of new 

contracts. 

438

To meet DOD requirements for a better ‘‘mix’’ of ships in the program, the committee is establishing a new program for the construction of five new, U.S. built product tankers that will be capable of carrying jet fuel during a conflict. The committee notes that 

the Military Sealift Command chartered 26 product tankers for Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Only one 

of these tankers was documented under the U.S. flag, the remaining 25 were foreign flag with foreign crews. While the committee 

recognizes that these five ships will only partially begin to fill the 

expected void in available tankers, the committee intends to consider expanding this program if it produces the desired results in 

a cost effective manner. ‘‘Section 2’’ citizens are given a priority for 

award of financial assistance to construct these vessels as well as 

a priority for the award of an operating agreement. 

The committee has also provided DOD with greater flexibility in 

selecting vessels to meet its changing sealift needs. The committee 

has increased the number of available MSP contracts from 47 to 

60. It is the committee’s intention that these additional contracts 

be used to address DOD shortfalls in vessel type and capacity. In 

addition, the Secretary of Defense can waive age requirements to 

allow a specific vessel, which is otherwise eligible, to obtain an operating agreement. For instance, it is apparent at this point in 

time, that additional roll-on/roll-off vessels and lighter aboard ships 

(LASH) as well as product tankers are required. Under the new 

legislative formulation, the Secretary of Defense is also granted the 

authority to reject a vessel that is not required under the contingency plans. It is contemplated that this authority will most likely 

be used as older vessels are phased out of the program. A vessel 

operator will be given the opportunity to offer an acceptable vessel, 

but if the vessel operator fails to do so, the ‘‘slot’’ reverts to the 

open pool and is available to other eligible companies. Slots that 

are not filled either because a vessel owner or operator fails to offer 

a ship that is acceptable to DOD, or if a current owner or operator 

simply chooses not to participate in the new program, revert to the 

open pool. The committee intends this selection process to be conducted in a reasonably short time frame. These and other provisions are designed to make the new program more responsive to 

DOD requirements and to inject a greater degree of U.S. citizen 

participation in the program. 

Finally, the committee looked closely at funding for the new program as well as the start up date for the new program. To avoid 

disruption of current business relationships, the new program does 

not begin until October 1, 2005. The committee does however provide an earlier effective date only for the purpose of issuing regulations and allowing application process to begin. As noted above, the 

committee increases the number of available contracts which results in additional costs. Additional funding is also required to support the national defense tanker construction program. While many 

in the industry also suggested that the initial MSP payment should 

be greater than the $2.6 million proposed in section 3515 of the 

new act, the committee believes that additional increases should be 

phased in over the next several years and should be increased as 

the administration has additional time to assess its sealift requirements, including the need to address critical and anticipated U.S. 

citizen mariner shortfalls. Thus, the committee authorizes $2.6 milVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00462 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.124 A106HR
439

lion per ship for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 and requires the Department of Transportation, in consultation with the Department 

of Defense to seek additional appropriations in the out-years based 

on the operational requirements noted above. The committee believes this is a more reasonable approach than simply including a 

cost of living formula that may or may not be sufficient to meet the 

operational requirements over the next ten years. 

Obsolete Vessel Disposal 

The budget request contained $11.4 million for the disposal of obsolete vessels from the National Defense Reserve Fleet. The committee recommends $20.0 million, an increase of $8.6 million above 

the budget request. The National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106–398) required the Maritime Administration to dispose of all vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet that are not otherwise assigned to the Ready Reserve 

Fleet or otherwise designated for a specific purpose by September 

30, 2006. Section 3102 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314), established 

a program to assist states in the reefing of obsolete ships. In that 

same section, a pilot program was established to allow for the environmentally safe transfer of obsolete vessels to sites outside the 

United States for disposal. Further, Section 3504 of that same act 

states that the establishment of these programs does not constitute 

a preference for the reefing or export of obsolete vessels over other 

means, such as domestic scrapping. The Maritime Administration 

has three possible routes for disposal of obsolete vessels and the 

committee expects the agency to move aggressively to reach the 

above noted deadlines. 

The committee reiterates its support for this position and recognizes that domestic scrapping may be the most competitive and appropriate course of action. The committee expresses its disappointment that the Maritime Administration has not yet obligated the 

funds appropriated for disposal activities in the last fiscal year, 

and, while several projects both within and outside the United 

States are in the final stages of negotiation, only 14 vessels have 

been scrapped over the last two years. The committee understands 

that approximately $30 million remains available. This is in addition to the $20.0 million that the committee recommends for this 

fiscal year. The committee remains concerned that any further 

delays could result in harm to the marine environment and a potentially more expensive disposal. 

With respect to the domestic disposal of obsolete vessels, the 

committee understands that the Maritime Administration has suspended the use of a private integrator for the management of ship 

scrapping projects in favor of managing these projects directly. The 

committee believes that the use of a domestic, private-sector integrator with experience in management of ship scrapping projects 

for the U.S. government can facilitate the efficient and environmentally sound disposal of these vessels, and in the long term can 

result in cost savings to the Maritime Administration. The committee directs the Maritime Administration, to the maximum extent possible, to outsource to domestic integrators the management 

of ship scrapping projects, including: procurement, project overVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00463 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.124 A106HR
440

sight, environmental and worker safety compliance monitoring, and 

quality control. 

The Congress has provided the Department of Transportation 

with substantial resources to assure these ships are disposed of 

quickly and safely. The committee urges the Maritime Administration to make progress quickly in meeting this objective. If it does 

not do so, the committee will consider taking additional steps to ensure this outcome.

The committee directs the Maritime Administrator to submit a 

report to Congressional Defense Committees by November 1, 2003 

on any specific financial and contractual details of foreign contracts 

for ship scrapping. 

Merchant Mariner Training to Meet Sealift Requirements 

Section 1301 of title XIII of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 

App. U.S.C. 1295) declares that it is the policy of the United States 

that ‘‘merchant marine vessels of the United States should be operated by highly trained and efficient citizens of the United 

States. . .’’ In furtherance of that policy, the Secretary of Transportation is authorized to take the steps necessary to provide for 

the education and training of citizens of the United States who are 

capable of providing for the safe and efficient operation of the merchant marine of the United States at all times and as a naval and 

military auxiliary in time of war or national emergency. Recent 

events in the world required the United States to activate over 50 

government owned U.S. flag ships that were part of the Ready Reserve Force and the Military Sealift Command Fleet. These ships 

were crewed by very capable and well trained merchant mariners 

drawn from the commercial mariner pool. By all accounts, these 

mariners performed exceptionally well and the United States was 

able to activate these ships with virtually no problems. However, 

the committee is concerned that the number of U.S. citizen mariners available for activations of this type will drop dramatically 

over the next few years. The committee is concerned that additional steps may need to be taken to ensure that the United States 

has the well qualified mariners, both licensed and unlicensed it 

needs to crew not only its merchant ships but also the auxiliary 

ships. The committee is also concerned that we present the young 

mariners entering the profession with additional training opportunities prior to licensing. In view of these concerns and the potential 

for serious shortages of trained mariners in the near future, the 

committee directs the Secretary of Transportation to prepare an assessment that will address the following matters: 

(1) The adequacy of current training opportunities available for 

licensed and unlicensed mariners. 

(2) The ability of student mariners to obtain the time at sea to 

qualify for licensing or documentation. 

(3) The number of trained and qualified mariners available to 

serve on reserve vessels in time of war or national emergency. 

(4) An assessment of the number of qualified mariners projected 

to be available over the next five years. 

(5) Any proposals for legislation or administrative steps that the 

Secretary considers necessary to ensure that the United States 

maintains an adequate number of capable and well-trained mariners to meet its future commercial and auxiliary requirements. 

441

This assessment shall be submitted to the Senate Committee on 

Commerce, Science and Transportation and to the House Committee on Armed Services not later than November 1, 2003. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—GENERAL PROVISIONS; MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

AUTHORIZATION

Section 3501—Short Title 

This section would provide that this title may be cited as the 

‘‘Maritime Security Act of 2003’’. 

Section 3502—Definitions 

This section would provide definitions for terms used in the Maritime Security Act of 2003. 

SUBTITLE B—MARITIME SECURITY FLEET

Section 3511—Establishment of Maritime Security Fleet 

This section would establish the types of vessels that are generally eligible to be included in the maritime security fleet. Final 

determination of eligibility is vested in the Secretary of Defense 

based on suitability for use by the United States for national defense or military purposes. This section would also establish specific requirements regarding citizenship of vessel owners and 

charterers. 

Section 3512—Award of Operating Agreements 

This section would establish procedures for applying for an operating agreement under the maritime security program. This section 

would also establish a priority mechanism for the award of operating agreements under the program based on both citizenship criteria and vessel criteria. 

Section 3513—Effectiveness of Operating Agreements 

This section would provide authority for the Secretary of Transportation to enter into operating agreements beginning in fiscal 

year 2006. While the agreements are effective for one year, the 

agreement is renewable subject to the availability of appropriations 

for each subsequent fiscal year through the end of fiscal year 2015. 

Section 3514—Obligations and Rights under Operating Agreements 

This section would provide that vessels operating in this program 

are to be operated only in the foreign commerce of the United 

States and may not otherwise be operated in the coastwise trade. 

Each vessel covered by an operating agreement is to remain documented under chapter 121 of title 46, United States Code, until the 

date the operating agreement would terminate according to its 

terms. 

442

Section 3515—Payments

This section would provide that the each vessel covered by an operating agreement shall be paid $2,600,000 for each of fiscal years 

2006 and 2007, and such amount for each fiscal year thereafter for 

which the agreement is in effect as the Secretary, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, considers to be necessary to meet 

operational requirements. 

Section 3516—National Security Requirements 

This section would require the Secretary of Transportation to establish an Emergency Preparedness Program that is approved by 

the Secretary of Defense. The section also requires that each contractor enter into an emergency preparedness agreement under 

that program. This agreement provides that the respective vessel 

contractor will make available commercial transportation resources 

including services upon the request of the Secretary of Defense 

during time of war, national emergency, or contingency operation 

as that term is defined in section 101 of title 10, United States 

Code. The commercial transportation resources include vessels, or 

capacity in vessels, intermodal systems and equipment, terminal 

facilities, intermodal and management services, and other related 

services. This section would also authorize the contractor to substitute foreign flag replacement vessels if its regular service is disrupted as a result of an activation. 

Section 3517—Regulatory Relief 

This section would provide that a vessel may operate in the foreign commerce of the United States without the restrictions contained in section 901(b)(1) of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 

App. U.S.C. 1241(b)(1)) concerning the building or documentation 

of a vessel. 

Section 3518—Special Rule Regarding Age of Former Participating 

Fleet Vessel 

This section would waive certain age requirements with respect 

to vessels, provided that they will be replaced by otherwise eligible 

vessels within a 30 month period after new operating agreements 

are entered into. 

Section 3519—Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would provide an authorization of appropriations for 

operating agreements in the amount of $156 million for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007, and such sums as may be necessary, 

based on operational requirements, for each fiscal year thereafter 

through fiscal year 2015. 

Section 3520—Amendment to Shipping Act, 1916 

This section would amend section 9 of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 

App. U.S.C. 808) to allow a vessel to be registered under a foreign 

flag provided that the Secretary of Transportation, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, determines that a replacement 

443

vessel is documented under the U.S. flag and is enrolled in an operating agreement under this program. 

Section 3521—Regulations 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Transportation and 

the Secretary of Defense to prescribe permanent and interim rules 

necessary to carry out the Maritime Security Program. 

Section 3522—Repeals and Conforming Amendments 

This section would repeal the existing maritime security program, effective October 1, 2005. 

Section 3523—Effective Dates 

This section would establish dates that specific sections of this 

act would become effective. 

SUBTITLE C—NATIONAL DEFENSE TANK VESSEL CONSTRUCTION

ASSISTANCE

Section 3531—National Defense Tank Vessel Construction Program 

This section would require the Secretary of Transportation to establish a program to provide financial assistance for the construction in the United States of a fleet of five privately owned tank vessels for enrollment in an emergency preparedness agreement. 

Section 3532—Application Procedure 

This section would establish procedures to obtain competitive 

proposals for the construction of new tank vessels to meet the commercial and national security needs of the United States. This section would also require the Secretary to give priority consideration 

to a proposal submitted by a person that is a citizen of the United 

States under section 2 of the Shipping Act, 1916 (46 App. U.S.C. 

802). 

Section 3533—Award of Assistance 

This section would allow the Secretary to enter into a contract 

to provide assistance for the construction of a new tank vessel in 

the United States in an amount up to 75 percent of the actual construction cost of the vessel, but in no case more than $50 million 

per vessel. This section also provides that a vessel constructed 

under this section is not eligible for a certificate of documentation 

with a coastwise endorsement. A vessel constructed under this section must also enter into an emergency preparedness agreement 

under this title. 

Section 3534—Priority for Title XI Assistance 

This section would require the Secretary of Transportation to 

give priority to guarantees and commitments for new product tank 

vessels that are otherwise eligible for a guarantee under this section 1103 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936 (46 App.U.S.C. 1273). 

444

Section 3535—Authorization of Appropriations

This section would authorize appropriations to carry out this subtitle in the amount of $250 million for fiscal years after fiscal year 

2004. 

SUBTITLE D—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Section 3541—Authorization of Appropriations for Maritime 

Administration for Fiscal Year 2004 

This section would authorize a total of $163.9 million for fiscal 

year 2004, and increase of $43.6 million above the budget request 

for the Maritime Administration. Of the funds authorized, $104.4 

million would be for operations and training programs, $35 million 

would be for costs as defined in section 502 of the Federal Credit 

Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 93–344), of loan guarantees authorized by title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, 

(46 App. United States Code 1271 et seq.), $4.5 million would be 

for administrative expenses related to providing these loan guarantees, and $20 million would be for the disposal of obsolete ships in 

the National Defense Reserve Fleet. 

Section 3542—Authority To Convey Vessel USS Hoist (ARS–40) 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to 

convey the vessel USS HOIST to the Last Patrol Museum, located 

in Toledo, Ohio. 

DEPARTMENTAL DATA 

The Department of Defense requested legislation, in accordance 

with the program of the President, as illustrated by the correspondence set out below: 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, Washington, DC, March 3, 2003.

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: The Department of Defense requests that 

the Congress enact the enclosed National Defense Authorization 

Bill for Fiscal Year 2004. 

The purpose of each legislative proposal included in the Bill is 

stated in the accompanying section-by-section analysis. 

In the coming weeks, the Department will propose a few additional legislative initiatives for inclusion in the same Bill. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presentation of this Bill for your consideration and the consideration of the Congress. 

Sincerely, 

WILLIAM J. HAYNES II, General Counsel. 

445

MILITARY TRANSFORMATION AUTHORIZATION REQUEST 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 

Washington, DC, April 10, 2003. 

Hon. J. DENNIS HASTERT, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SPEAKER: The Department of Defense requests that 

the Congress enact the enclosed Bill, ‘‘The Defense Transformation 

for the 21st Century Act.’’ 

Each section of the Bill is accompanied by an explanatory section-by-section analysis. 

The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is no 

objection, from the standpoint of the Administration’s program, to 

the presentation of this Bill for your consideration and the consideration of the Congress. 

Sincerely, 

WILLIAM J. HAYNES II, General Counsel. 

COMMITTEE POSITION 

On May 14, 2003 the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum 

being present, approved H.R. 1588, as amended, by a vote of 58–

2. 

COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, 

Washington, DC, May 15, 2003. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for forwarding a copy of proposed language that would take appropriate action to quiet title 

tracts of land located in the platted subdivision of Falling Waters, 

Okaloosa County, Florida adjacent to Eglin Air Force Base. 

As you know, this land was at one time within the 

Choctawatchee National Forest that was transferred in 1940 from 

the control and jurisdiction of the Forest Service, Department of 

Agriculture, to the control and jurisdiction of the War Department 

for military purposes. However, according to the Act, in the event 

the area transferred within or adjacent to the national forest shall 

cease to be needed for military purposes, it be restored to a national-forest status. 

Aware of the reliance on inaccurate surveys, I have no objection 

to the inclusion of this language to H.R. 1588, the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004’’, so as to resolve any 

and all encroachments upon private property by the United States 

and upon property of the United States by private parties. 

I do so with the understanding that this waiver does not waive 

any future jurisdiction claim over this or similar measures, and reVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00469 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.127 A106HR
446

serve the right to seek appropriate representation in the event the 

measure should go to conference to this section. 

I greatly appreciate your cooperation in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

BOB GOODLATTE, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, 

Washington, DC, May 8, 2003. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: It is my understanding that statutory authority in Title 10, Section 2883 U.S.C. allows the Department of 

Defense to execute Military Housing Privatization Initiatives 

[MHPI] up to a limit of $850 million in budget authority. DOD’s 

legislative proposal for fiscal year 2004 would double that limit to 

$1.7 billion. 

The Congressional Budget office has indicated its intent to treat 

any legislative provision containing an increase in budget authority 

for MHPI as direct spending. Such treatment would give rise to a 

point of order under section 302(f) of the Congressional Budget Act. 

Should legislation increasing MHPI be reported to the House 

during fiscal year 2004, it is my intention to direct CBO to treat 

the MHPI provision as it has in the past, i.e., as if it did not give 

rise to direct spending. This declaration of intent is, however, contingent upon the following understanding: 

• That the increase in budget authority for MHPI in fiscal 

year 2004 be limited to $50 million, an amount sufficient for 

DOD to execute its plan through the end of fiscal year 2004; 

• That increases in budget authority for MHPI in legislation 

reported in years after fiscal year 2004 shall be treated as direct spending. Should the Armed Services Committee intend to 

legislate future increases in budget authority for the program, 

it should include this information in its annual ‘‘Views and Estimates’’ letter to the Budget Committee. This will enable the 

Budget Committee to properly consider the matters prior to 

markup for the Congressional Budget Resolution. 

Let me emphasize that the Budget Committee does not intend to 

hinder DOD’s ongoing military housing program. Rather, I want to 

clarify that for fiscal year 2004, the Committee intends to adopt a 

one-year transition treatment of MHPI in the budget. In future fiscal years that Budget Committee will work with the Armed Services Committee to ensure that the needs of DOD’s military housing 

program are met, and that such obligations are properly reflected 

in the budget. 

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Please 

do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

JIM NUSSLE, Chairman. 

447

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET, Washington, DC, May 16, 2003. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter concerns the jurisdictional interest of the Committee on the Budget in H.R. 1588, the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. H.R. 1588, as ordered reported by the Committee on Armed Services, contains several report-related requirements under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Budget. 

Recognizing your interest in bringing this legislation before the 

House expeditiously, the Committee on the Budget agrees not to 

seek a referral of the bill based on provisions within its jurisdiction. By agreeing not to seek a referral, the Committee on the 

Budget does not waive its jurisdiction over these provisions or any 

other provisions of the bill that may fall within its jurisdiction. In 

addition, the Committee on the Budget reserves its right to seek 

conferees on any provisions within its jurisdiction which are considered in the House-Senate conference. 

Sincerely, 

JIM NUSSLE, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 16, 2003. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: On May 14, 2003, the Committee on 

Armed Services ordered reported H.R. 1588, the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. As you know, section 814 

(relating to certain production capabilities for certain critical 

items), section 907 (relating to the rotating chairmanship of the 

Economic Adjustment Committee), and section 1206 (relating to 

check cashing and exchanges of foreign currency) fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Financial Services pursuant to the 

Committee’s jurisdiction under Rule X of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives. 

While we continue to have some concerns about section 814, because of your willingness to consult with the Committee on Financial Services regarding all of these provisions, and the need to 

move this legislation expeditiously, I will waive consideration of the 

bill by the Financial Services Committee. By agreement to waive 

its consideration of the bill, the Financial Services Committee does 

not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 1588. In addition, the Committee on Financial Services reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within the Financial 

Services Committee’s jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that may be convened on this legislation. I ask your commitment to support any request by the Committee on Financial 

Services for conferees on H.R. 1588 or related legislation. 

448

I request that you include this letter and your response as part 

of your committee’s report on the bill and the Congressional Record 

during consideration of the legislation on the House floor. 

Thank you for your attention to these matters. 

Sincerely, 

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, May 16, 2003. 

Hon. MICHAEL OXLEY, Chairman, Committee on Financial Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of May 16, 2003 

regarding H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2004. 

I agree that the Committee on Financial Services has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, 

and I am most appreciative of your decision not to request such a 

referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I 

agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Financial Services 

is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, as you requested, this exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report on the 

bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC, May 16, 2003. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that on Thursday, May 15, 

2003, the Committee on Armed Services ordered favorably reported 

H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2004. The bill includes a number of provisions that fall within the 

legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations 

pursuant to Rule X of the House of Representatives. 

The specific provisions within our committee’s jurisdiction are: 

(1) Section 1023, Report on Department of Defense Post-Conflict 

Activities in Iraq; (2) Section 1047, Use of Drug Interdiction and 

Counter-Drug Funds to Support Activities of the Government of 

Colombia; (3) Section 1201, Expansion of Authority to Provide Administrative Support and Services and Travel and Subsistence Expenses for Certain Foreign Liaison Officers; (4) Section 1202, Recognition of Superior Noncombat Achievements or Performance by 

Members of Friendly Foreign Forces and Other Foreign Nationals; 

(5) Section 1205, Report on Acquisition by Iraq of Advanced Weapons; (6) Section 1207, Requirements for Transfer to Foreign Countries of Certain Specified Types of Excess Aircraft; (7) Title XIII, 

Cooperative Threat Reduction; and (8) Section 3121, Transfer and 

449

Consolidation of Recurring and General Provisions on Department 

of Energy National Security Programs. 

Pursuant to Chairman Dreier’s announcement that the Committee on Rules will move expeditiously to consider a rule for H.R. 

1588, and your desire to have the bill considered on the House floor 

next week, the Committee on International Relations will not seek 

a sequential referral of the bill as a result of including these provisions, without waiving or ceding now or in the future this committee’s jurisdiction over the provisions in question. I will seek to have 

conferees appointed for these provisions during any House-Senate 

conference committee. 

I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of the report on H.R. 1588 and as part of the record during consideration 

of the bill by the House of Representatives. 

With best wishes, 

Sincerely, 

HENRY J. HYDE, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC, May 15, 2003. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: In recognition of the desire to expedite 

floor consideration of H.R. 1588, the Department of Defense authorization bill, the Committee on the Judiciary hereby waives consideration of the bill with the understanding that proposed section 

1004 (relating to litigation costs for agencies that receive third 

party discovery requests), 1042 (relating to the establishment of 

the Defense Heritage Foundation), 1402 (relating to the sunset for 

section 204 of the USA Patriot Act), and an unnumbered section 

(relating to attorneys fees for cases involving pay differentials because of exposure to asbestos) will not be included in the bill. These 

sections contain matters within the Committee on the Judiciary’s 

Rule X jurisdiction. 

I further understand that proposed sections 1050 (relating to 

court procedures for FOIA requests for NSA operational files) and 

2827 (relating to an exemption from Justice Department screening 

of a land conveyance in Orange, Texas) will be included in the bill. 

These sections also contain matters within the Committee on the 

Judiciary’s Rule X jurisdiction. If these sections are added to the 

bill, I will not seek a sequential referral based on their inclusion. 

The Committee on the Judiciary takes this action with the understanding that the Committee’s jurisdiction over these provisions 

is in no way diminished or altered. I would appreciate your including this letter in your Committee’s report on H.R. 1588 and the 

Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation on the 

House floor. 

Sincerely, 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Chairman. 

450

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, May 16, 2003. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of May 15, 2003 

regarding H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2004. 

I agree that the Committee on the Judiciary has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and 

I am most appreciative of your decision not to request such a referral in the interest of expediting consideration of the bill. I agree 

that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on the Judiciary is not waiving its jurisdiction. 

Further, as you requested, this exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report on the bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, 

Washington, DC, May 16, 2003. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: Thank you for working with me in 

your development of H.R. 1588, the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004,’’ specifically: 

(1) Section 544, ‘‘Standardization of Statutory Authorities for 

Exemptions from Requirement for Access to Secondary Schools 

by Military Recruiters;’’ 

(2) Section 553, ‘‘Eligibility for Dependents of Certain Mobilized Reservists Stationed Overseas to Attend DOD Dependents Schools Overseas;’’ 

(3) Section 567, Impact Aid Eligibility for Heavily Impacted 

Local Educational Agencies Affected by Privatization of Military Housing; 

(4) Section 907, ‘‘Repeal of Rotating Chairman of Economic 

Adjustment Committee;’’ and 

(5) Section 3121, ‘‘Transfer and Consolidation of Recurring 

and General Provisions on Department of Energy National Security Programs.’’ 

As you know, these provisions are within the jurisdiction of the 

Education and the Workforce Committee. While I do not intend to 

seek sequential referral of H.R. 1588, the Committee does hold an 

interest in preserving its future jurisdiction with respect to issues 

raised in the aforementioned provisions and its jurisdictional prerogatives should the provisions of this bill or any Senate amendments thereto be considered in a conference the Senate. We would 

expect to be appointed as conferees on these provisions should a 

conference with the Senate arise. 

451

Again, I thank you for working with me in developing the 

amendments to H.R. 1588 and look forward to working with you 

on these issues in the future. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN BOEHNER, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,

Washington, DC, May 16, 2003. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: On May 14, 2003, the Committee on 

Armed Services ordered reported H.R. 1588, the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. As ordered reported by the 

Committee on Armed Services, this legislation contains a number 

of provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce. These provisions include the following: 

Section 316 Report regarding impact of civilian community encroachment and certain legal requirements on military installations and ranges. 

Section 601 Increase in basic pay for fiscal year 2004. 

Section 3113 Extension of all DOE facilities of authority to prohibit dissemination of certain unclassified information. 

Section 3121 Transfer and consolidation or recurring and general provisions on Department of Energy national security programs. 

Section 3201 Defense Nuclear Safety Board Authorization. 

I understand that one provision within my jurisdiction that is in 

the bill as ordered reported will be deleted in the reported version 

of H.R. 1588. That provision is section 3116, which deals with the 

discretion of the Secretary of Energy concerning certain personnel 

security matters. 

Recognizing your interest in bringing this legislation before the 

House expeditiously, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

agrees not to seek a sequential referral of the bill. By agreeing not 

to seek a sequential referral, the Committee on Energy and Commerce does not waive its jurisdiction over these provisions or any 

other provisions of the bill that may fall within its jurisdiction. In 

addition, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reserves its 

right to seek conferees on any provisions within its jurisdiction 

which are considered in the House-Senate conference, and asks for 

your support in being accorded such conferees. 

I request that you include this letter as part of the report on 

H.R. 1588 and as part of the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the House. 

Sincerely, 

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Chairman. 

452

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC, May 8, 2003. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate your willingness to work with 

me on the 2004 Defense Authorization bill and I value the working 

relationship that we have built in our cooperation on this bill. I am 

pleased that the Government Reform Committee was able to favorably report H.R. 1836, Civil Service and National Security Personnel Improvement Act, and H.R. 1837, the Services Acquisition 

Reform Act of 2003. I look forward to working with you to include 

this legislation in the 2004 Defense Authorization bill. 

You have shared with me a number of additional provisions 

where the committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 

Government Reform have a shared jurisdictional interest. I will not 

seek a sequential referral to the Committee on Government Reform 

on many of these proposed provisions with the understanding that 

I am not waiving the committee’s prerogative to be represented on 

any conference that may occur on the 2004 Defense Authorization 

bill and that you will support the committee’s request to have it’s 

representatives appointed to the conference on the appropriate sections. However, I cannot support a few of the provisions that you 

have shared with me and consequently I cannot commit to not 

seeking a sequential referral on these few provisions. The following 

lists detail the provisions that I am willing to waive the right to 

sequential referral on and those that I am not. 

One of proposals that I am willing to waive a sequential referral 

of is the BioMedical Countermeasures provision. I would like to 

work with you to explore the possibility of expanding these provisions to provide government-wide applicability. 

In addition, I have reviewed the Administration’s proposal to 

eliminate many unnecessary reports, and I support the elimination 

of reports that no longer serve any legitimate purpose. However, 

some of the reports provide invaluable insight and transparency 

into complex acquisition processes. The elimination of these reports 

would impede the Government Reform Committee in carrying out 

its mandated oversight role. I have attached a list of the reports 

that this committee has and continues to find very valuable. 

Committee on Government Reform will waive sequential referral of 

the following provisons: 

(1) Enhanced Authority for Defense Intelligence Components and 

Special Operations Command to obtain needed personnel services 

overseas (amends 10 U.S.C. § 167 and Chapter 21, partial exemption from 5 U.S.C. § 3109). 

(2) Department of Energy Project Review Groups not subject to 

FACA by reason of inclusion of employees of department of energy 

management and operating contractors (Amends 31 U.S.C., exemptions from 5 U.S.C. § 552, Federal Advisory Committee Act). 

(3) Expediting process by which the Secretary of Interior and Agriculture may utilize military aircraft to fight wildfires and for 

other purposes (H.R. 575, the Wildfire Response Act of 2003, exemption from 31 U.S.C. § 1534). 

453

(4) Authority to provide living quarters for certain students in cooperative education programs of the National Security Agency 

(Amends 10 U.S.C. § 2195, exemption from 5 U.S.C. § 5911). 

(5) Authority to Convey Property at Military Installations in Exchange for Military Construction Activities (Amends 10 U.S.C. 

Chapter 169). 

(6) Research and Development of Defense Biomedical Countermeasures, Procurement of Defense Biomedical Countermeasures, 

and Authorization for Use of Medical Products in Emergencies. 

(7) Section 403: Reassignment of Retired Members of the Armed 

Forces to Positions in the Department of Defense (Repeals 5 U.S.C. 

§ 3326). 

(8) Amends reporting requirements under 10 U.S.C. § 2410m regarding retention of amounts collected from contractor during the 

pendency of contract dispute. 

(9) Land Conveyance, Naval Reserve Center, Orange, Texas 

(Amends 10 U.S.C. §§ 2693 and 2696, partial exemption from the 

Federal Property Act and Administrative Services Act of 1949). 

(10) Projects to Accelerate Closure Activities at Defense Nuclear 

Facilities (Amends Section 3143 of Public Law 104–201). 

(11) Authority for Appointment of Certain Scientific, Engineering 

and Technical Personnel by the Secretary of Energy. 

Committee on Government Reform will not waive sequential referral 

of the following provisions: 

(1) Requirement for Restoration Advisory Boards and Exemption 

From Federal Advisory Committee Act (Amends Title 10, Section 

2709, exemption from 5 U.S.C. § 552). 

(2) Protection of operational files of the National Security Agency 

(Amends Title I of the National Security Act of 1947, partial exemption from 5 § 552, the Freedom of Information Act). 

(3) Section 103: Priority Placement of Displaced Civilian Employees (Amends 10 U.S.C. Chapter 81, exemptions from 5 U.S.C.). 

(4) Employee Incentives for Workers at Closure Project Facilities 

(Amends 5 U.S.C. §§ 5754 and 8905). 

I thank you for your attention to these matters. If you have any 

questions please do not hesitate to contact me or Ellen Brown, my 

Legislative Director and Senior Policy Counsel. 

Sincerely, 

TOM DAVIS, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, DC, May 13, 2003. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to follow-up on my letter of 

May 8, 2003 regarding committee jurisdiction of provisions included in H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2004. In that letter, I indicated that I would seek a sequential referral of H.R. 1588 to the Committee on Government Reform if the following provisions were included in the reported bill: 

454

—Protection of operational files of the National Security Agency 

(Amends Title I of the National Security Act of 1947, partial exemption from 5 U.S.C. §552, the Freedom of Information Act). 

—Employee Incentives for Workers At Closure Project Facilities 

(Amends 5 U.S.C. §§ 5754 and 8905). 

Due to the additional information your staff has provided me, I 

am now satisfied that the inclusion of these provisions in H.R. 1588 

is appropriate, and I will not seek a sequential referral of these 

provisions. In addition, I am now satisfied that Section 3121, 

‘‘Transfer and Consolidation of Recurring and General Provisions 

on Department of Energy National Security Programs’’ is not substantive and I will not seek a sequential referral of H.R. 1588 due 

to the transfer of these provisions to a new chapter of title 50 of 

the United States Code. If you have any questions please do not 

hesitate to contact me or Ellen B. Brown, my Legislative Director 

and Senior Policy Counsel. 

Sincerely, 

TOM DAVIS, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, DC, May 13, 2003. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing with regard to H.R. 1588, the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. Last 

week, the Committee on Government Reform ordered reported H.R. 

1836, Civil Service and National Security Personnel Improvement 

Act, and H.R. 1837, the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003. 

I have worked with you to include the provisions of H.R. 1836 and 

H.R. 1837 in this year’s National Defense Authorization Act. 

I appreciate your willingness to work with me on these provisions that are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Government Reform. I will not seek a sequential referral of H.R. 1588 

based on the inclusion of any provision from H.R. 1836 or H.R. 

1837, as ordered reported. Also, I will not seek a sequential referral 

of H.R. 1588 due to technical and clarifying changes to section 102 

of H.R. 1836 relating to the new subsection 5 U.S.C. § 9902(j). 

Should there be any changes beyond these reported bills and other 

agreed upon provisions, I will request that H.R. 1588 is referred sequentially to the Committee on Government Reform for its consideration. 

If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to 

contact me or Ellen B. Brown, my Legislative Director and Senior 

Policy Counsel. 

Sincerely, 

TOM DAVIS, Chairman. 

455

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, Washington, DC, May 2, 2003. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I wish to inform the Committee on Armed 

Services that the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs hereby waives 

any jurisdiction it may have over the provisions of section 1021 of 

Title X of the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal 

Year 2004 regarding the repeal of report requirements for Joint 

Telemedicine and Telepharmacy Demonstration Projects and for 

Educational Assistance for Members of the Select Reserve, has no 

objection to them and does not desire their referral. Copies of these 

provisions are enclosed. 

Sincerely, 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC, May 12, 2002. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I wish to inform the Committee on Armed 

Services that the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs hereby waives referral of a measure which includes language identical to that contained in H.R. 1911, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, 

to enhance cooperation and the sharing of resources between the 

Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense. 

Our Committee plans to report H.R. 1911 with a favorable recommendation, and supports its inclusion in the Fiscal Year 2004 

Defense Authorization bill which the Committee on Armed Services 

plans to report. 

Sincerely, 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, Chairman.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC, May 16, 2003. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Congratulations on your successful 21–

hour markup of H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2004. You should be commended for your leadership 

in marshaling this important legislation through your committee. 

I have reviewed the following provisions that are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources: 

Section 317, Military Readiness and Conservation of Protected 

Species.

456

Section 318, Military Readiness and Marine Mammal Protection. 

Section 319, Limitation on Department of Defense Responsibility 

for Civilian Water Consumption Impacts Related to Fort Huachuca, 

Arizona. 

Section 601, Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2004 (as it relates to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Corps). 

Because of the continued cooperation and consideration you have 

afforded me and my staff in developing these provisions, I will not 

seek a sequential referral of H.R. 1588 based on their inclusion in 

the bill. Of course, this waiver does not prejudice any future jurisdictional claims over these provisions or similar language. I also reserve the right to seek to have conferees named from the Committee on Resources on these provisions, should a conference on 

H.R. 1588 or a similar measure become necessary. 

Once again, it has been a pleasure to work with you, Rusty Johnston and Virginia Johnson of your staff. I look forward to seeing 

H.R. 1588 enacted soon. 

Sincerely, 

RICHARD W. POMBO, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, Washington, DC, May 15, 2003. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that the Armed Services 

Committee has requested that the Committee on Science waive its 

right to a referral on several sections of H.R. 1588, the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. It is also my understanding that the Parliamentarian’s office has confirmed that 

the Science Committee has jurisdiction over several provisions in 

H.R. 1588. 

To expedite the consideration of this bill by the House, the Committee is willing to waive its right to a referral, provided that the 

Science Committee’s right to participate as conferees on those provisions within its jurisdiction is also protected. I would also appreciate if this exchange of letters could be included in the record of 

debate on H.R. 1588 during floor consideration. 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

SHERWOOD BOEHLERT, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, 

Washington, DC, May 16, 2003. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: On May 14, 2003, the Committee on 

Armed Services ordered reported H.R. 1588, the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. The provisions of Section 

457

804 (‘‘Limitation Period on Task and Delivery Order Contracts’’), 

Section 806 (‘‘Evaluation of the Prompt Payment Provisions’’), and 

Section 1428 (‘‘Improvements In Contracting For Architectural and 

Engineering Services’’) refer to small businesses or the Small Business Act and, therefore, fall directly within the jurisdiction of the 

Committee on Small Business pursuant to the Committee’s jurisdiction under Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

Section 812 (‘‘Identification of Critical Items: Military Systems 

Breakout List’’) is closely allied to the ‘‘Breakout Program’’ contained in the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C section 644). Also, since 

small businesses comprise the vast majority of our defense industrial base, Section 811 (‘‘Assessment of United States Defense Industrial Base Capabilities’’) of H.R. 1588 is of great interest to the 

Committee on Small Business as is Section 1452 (‘‘Authority to 

Make Inflation Adjustments to Simplified Acquisition Threshold’’). 

I appreciate your willingness to consult and work with the Committee on Small Business regarding these provisions and other provisions of H.R. 1588 that impact small businesses, this nation’s defense industrial base, and the economy. Because of the need to 

move this legislation expeditiously, I will waive consideration of the 

bill by the Committee on Small Business. By agreeing to waive its 

consideration of the bill, the Committee on Small Business does not 

waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 1588. In addition, the Committee 

on Small Business reserves its authority to seek conferees on any 

provisions of the bill that are within the Committee on Small 

Business’s jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference that 

may be convened on this legislation. I ask your commitment to support any request by the Committee on Small Business for conferees 

on H.R. 1588 or related legislation. 

I request that you include this letter and your response as part 

of your committee’s report on the bill and the Congressional Record 

during consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank 

you for your kind attention to these matters. 

Sincerely, 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC, May 16, 2003. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to you concerning the jurisdictional interest of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee in matters being considered in H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. 

Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 1588 and the 

need for the legislation to move expeditiously. Therefore, while we 

have a valid claim to jurisdiction over a number of provisions of the 

bill, I do not intend to request a sequential referral. This, of course, 

is conditional on our mutual understanding that nothing in this 

legislation or my decision to forego a sequential referral waives, reduces or otherwise affects the jurisdiction of the Transportation 

and Infrastructure Committee, that every effort will be made to inVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00481 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.133 A106HR
458

clude any agreements worked out by staff of our two Committees 

in amendments as the bill is taken to the House Floor, and that 

a copy of this letter and of your response acknowledging our jurisdictional interest will be included in the Committee Report and as 

part of the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill 

by the House. 

The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure also asks 

that you support our request to be conferees on the provisions over 

which we have jurisdiction during any House-Senate conference. 

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. 

Sincerely, 

DON YOUNG, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 16, 2003. 

Hon. Don Young, 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter of May 16, 2003 

regarding H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2004. 

I agree that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

has valid jurisdictional claims to certain provisions in this important legislation, and I am most appreciative of your decision not to 

request such a referral in the interest of expediting consideration 

of the bill. I agree that by foregoing a sequential referral, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, as you requested, this exchange of letters will 

be included in the Committee report on the bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 

FISCAL DATA 

Pursuant to clause 3(d) rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2003 and the following four years. The results of such efforts are reflected in the 

cost estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 

Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 

which is included in this report pursuant to clause 3(c)(3). 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE 

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of 

Representatives, the cost estimate prepared by the Congressional 

Budget Office and submitted pursuant to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is as follows: 

459

MAY 16, 2003. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1588, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. 

The CBO staff contact is Kent Christensen. If you wish further 

details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN, 

Director. 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate 

Summary: H.R. 1588 would authorize appropriations totaling 

$398 billion for fiscal year 2004 for the military functions of the 

Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Energy 

(DOE). It also would authorize an additional $0.7 billion over the 

2005–2008 period for the Maritime Administration. In addition, the 

bill would prescribe personnel strengths for each active-duty and 

selected reserve component of the U.S. armed forces. CBO estimates that appropriation of the authorized amounts would result 

in additional outlays of $394.1 billion over the 2004–2008 period. 

The bill also contains provisions that would both increase and decrease costs of discretionary defense programs over the 2005–2008 

period. CBO estimates that those provisions combined would reduce the requirements for discretionary spending by about $850 

million over those four years, assuming that net appropriations are 

reduced by the estimated amounts. 

The bill contains provisions that would increase direct spending, 

primarily from increasing the amount that DoD can spend to finance special authorities for the construction and renovation of 

military family housing. We estimate that the increase in direct 

spending resulting from provisions of H.R. 1588 would total $420 

million over the 2004–2008 period and $466 million over the 2004–

2013 period. Those totals include estimated net receipts from asset 

sales of $20 million over the 2004–2005 period. 

H.R. 1588 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). However, CBO estimates that any costs to state, local, or tribal governments from the 

mandate would be insignificant and would not, therefore, exceed 

the threshold established in UMRA for such mandates ($59 million 

in 2003, adjusted for inflation). The bill would impose no privatesector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 1588 is shown in Table 1. Most of the costs 

of this legislation fall within budget function 050 (national defense).

460

TABLE 1.—BUDGETARY IMPACT OF H.R. 1588, THE NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2004 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Spending Under Current Law for Defense Programs: 

Budget Authority 1 ................................................... 453,197 0 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 419,249 150,324 45,599 13,941 5,593 2,702 

Proposed Changes: 

Estimated Authorization Levels ............................... 0 398,081 5 411 161 166 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 267,452 89,160 26,747 7,743 3,031 

Spending Under H.R. 1588 for Defense Programs: 

Estimated Authorization Levels 2 ............................ 453,197 398,081 5 411 161 166 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 419,249 417,776 134,759 40,688 13,336 5,733 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING (EXCLUDING ASSET SALES)

Estimated Budget Authority ............................................. 0 171 296 6 7 2 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................ 0 23 99 169 104 45 

ASSET SALES 2

Estimated Budget Authority ............................................. 0 ¥15 ¥5 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................ 0 ¥15 ¥5 0 0 0 

For 2004–2008, the figures under ‘‘Proposed Changes’’ include amounts specifically authorized by the bill plus an inferred authorization in 

2004 for the Coast Guard Reserve based on authorized endstrength levels. The bill also implicitly authorizes programs in 2005–2008; those 

authorizations are not included above (but are shown in Table 3) because funding for those programs would be covered by specific authorizations in future years. 

The 2003 level is the amount appropriated for programs authorized by the bill (including $62,808 million in appropriations in Public Law 

108–11, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003). 

Asset sale receipts are a credit against direct spending. 

Basis of Estimate 

Spending Subject to Appropriation. The bill would specifically authorize appropriations totaling $398.0 billion in 2004 (see Table 2). 

Most of those costs would fall within budget function 050 (national 

defense). Other costs—some occurring beyond 2004—would fall 

within other budget functions; they include: $65 million in 2004 for 

the Armed Forces Retirement Home (function 600—income security); $17 million in 2004 for the Naval Petroleum Reserves (function 270—energy); $5 million annually from 2004 to 2008 for the 

Sikes Act (both function 300—natural resources and environment, 

and function 050—national defense); and a host of authorizations 

for the Maritime Administration (both function 400—transportation, and function 050—national defense). Authorizations for the 

Maritime Administration are discussed later in the estimate, just 

before the section on direct spending. The estimate assumes that 

the amounts authorized for 2004 will be appropriated before the 

start of fiscal year 2004. Outlays are estimated based on historical 

spending patterns. 

For 2003, the bill authorizes the appropriation of the $62.8 billion in supplemental funding for DoD and DOE as provided in Public Law 108–11, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, plus other supplemental appropriations that may 

be necessary before the end of the year. Because the wartime supplemental funding has been enacted into law, Table 1 includes 

those appropriations in the figures for ‘‘Spending Under Current 

Law.’’ Since DoD has recently stated that under current circumstances it does not anticipate needing further supplemental 

funding for 2003, this estimate assumes no such appropriations 

will be enacted for the remainder of this fiscal year. 

461

The bill is silent regarding additional appropriations for 2004 

that DoD indicates will be required to fund ongoing operations relating to Iraq and the global war on terrorism. CBO expects that 

those amounts, which would be additions to appropriations authorized by the bill, will likely be provided in supplemental appropriations enacted during 2004.

Category 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Military Personnel: 

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 98,939 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 94,261 3,958 198 99 0 

Operation and Maintenance: 

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 130,324 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 99,603 24,895 3,779 1,058 331 

Procurement: 

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 76,490 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 22,726 28,966 15,209 4,900 1,899 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation: 

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 62,686 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 33,755 22,909 4,711 759 197 

Military Construction and Family Housing: 

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 9,790 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 2,615 3,545 2,000 823 407 

Atomic Energy Defense Activities: 

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 16,699 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 11,493 4,341 863 2 0 

Other Accounts: 

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 3,033 5 411 161 166 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 2,016 722 362 290 260 

General Transfer Authority: 

Authorization Level ..................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ...................................................................... 875 ¥188 ¥375 ¥188 ¥63

Total: 

Authorization Levels 1 ........................................................ 397,961 5 411 161 166 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................. 267,344 89,148 26,747 7,743 3,031 

After adding the $120 million estimated authorization for the Coast Guard Reserve, the bill would authorize appropriations of slightly less 

than $398.1 billion for 2004. 

These amounts comprise nearly all of the proposed changes for authorizations of appropriations for 2004 shown in Table 1; they do not include the estimated authorization of $120 million for the Coast Guard Reserve, which is shown in Table 3. For 2005–2008 they include various authorizations for the Maritime Administration discussed later in the estimate and shown in Table 4, plus $5 million in annual authorizations for the Sikes Act. 

The bill also contains provisions that would both increase and decrease various costs, mostly for personnel, that would be covered by 

the fiscal year 2004 authorization and by authorizations in future 

years. Table 3 contains estimates of those amounts. In addition to 

the costs covered by the authorizations in the bill for 2004, CBO 

estimates that these combined provisions would reduce estimated 

costs by $850 million over the 2005–2008 period. These amounts do 

not include the costs of sections 541, 617, 618, 908, 1031, 1032, 

1038, or 1111 because CBO cannot estimate the costs at this time. 

Those sections of the bill pertain primarily to military and civilian 

pay and benefits. The provisions identified in Table 3 are described 

below, including information about CBO’s estimates of costs for 

those provisions. 

Multiyear procurement 

In most cases, purchases of weapon systems are authorized annually, and as a result, DoD negotiates a separate contract for each 

annual purchase. In a small number of cases, the law permits 

multiyear procurement; that is, it allows DoD to enter into a conVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00485 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.135 A106HR
462

tract to buy specified annual quantities of a system for up to five 

years. In those cases, DoD can negotiate lower prices because its 

commitment to purchase the weapons gives the contractor an incentive to find more economical ways to manufacture the weapon, 

including cost-saving investments. Annual funding is provided for 

these multiyear contracts, but potential termination costs are covered by an initial appropriation. 

Section 121 would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter 

into a multiyear contract to purchase 234 F/A–18 aircraft beginning in 2005 in the F/A–18E, F/A–18F, and EA–18G configurations. 

Based on information provided by the Navy, CBO assumes that the 

Navy would procure 168 aircraft over the 2005–2008 period. CBO 

estimates that savings from buying these aircraft under a 

multiyear contract would total $818 million, or about $204 million 

a year, over the 2005–2008 period. Funding requirements to purchase these aircraft would total just under $12.9 billion over the 

2005–2008 period (instead of the $13.7 billion that would be needed 

under annual contracts). CBO also estimates that additional savings of $235 million would accrue in 2009 if the Navy completes its 

planned purchase of 42 more aircraft under this multiyear procurement authority. 

Section 122 would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter 

into a multiyear contract to purchase tactical Tomahawk cruise 

missiles starting in fiscal year 2004 and would direct the Secretary 

to purchase no more than 900 missiles a year. Based on information provided by the Navy, CBO assumes that the Navy would buy 

1,784 missiles over the 2004–2008 period. CBO estimates that savings from buying these missiles under a multiyear contract would 

total about $135 million over the 2004–2008 period, or about 

$75,000 a missile. Funding requirements to purchase these missiles 

would total just over $1.6 billion over the 2004–2008 period (instead of the almost $1.8 billion that would be needed under annual 

contracts). Multiyear procurement of tactical Tomahawk missiles 

would raise costs in 2004 because the Navy would need to provide 

for advance purchases of components for missiles it would purchase 

later in the 2004–2008 period.

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED PROVISIONS IN H.R. 

1588 

Category 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT 

F/A–18E/F Aircraft ..................................................................... 0 ¥166 ¥205 ¥211 ¥236 

Tactical Tomahawk Missile ....................................................... 3 ¥40 ¥43 ¥32 ¥23 

Virginia Class Submarines ....................................................... 275 210 ¥64 ¥613 ¥613 

E–2C and TE–2C Aircraft and Engines .................................... ¥62 2 0 2 0

FORCE STRUCTURE 

DoD Military Endstrengths ........................................................ 248 510 527 544 562 

Coast Guard Reserve Endstrength ............................................ 120 0 0 0 0 

Required Force Structure .......................................................... 20 268 269 340 281

COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS (DoD) 

Military Pay Raises ................................................................... 190 269 279 288 298 

Coast Guard Pay Raises ........................................................... 6 8 9 9 9 

Expiring Bonuses and Allowances ............................................ 624 550 327 217 151 

Special Pays for Service in Iraq and Afghanistan ................... 263 112 81 81 57 

Lodging Expenses for Reservists .............................................. 132 13 10 7 5 

463

TABLE 3.—ESTIMATED AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR SELECTED PROVISIONS IN H.R. 

1588—Continued

Category 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 

Undermanned Occupation Bonus .............................................. 8 2 0 0 0 

Other Provisions ........................................................................ 5 6 6 6 6 

CIVILIAN PROGRAMS 

Reduce Acquisition Workforce ................................................... ¥70 ¥479 ¥911 ¥1,367 ¥2,110 

Modification of Overtime Pay Cap ............................................ 107 147 151 156 161 

Senior Executive Service Pay .................................................... 23 31 31 31 31 

Administration of Flexible Spending Accounts ......................... 22 28 33 39 44 

Asbestos Differential Pay .......................................................... ¥290 ¥290 ¥290 ¥290 ¥290 

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM 

Uniformed Services Medicare Eligible Retiree Healthcare Fund 0 14 0 0 0 

OTHER PROVISIONS 

Base Realignment and Closure Property .................................. 68 53 27 27 27 

Expanded Commissary Benefits for Reservists ........................ 4 4 4 4 4 

Assistance for Victims of Domestic Abuse ............................... 3 3 3 3 3 

Chaplain-Led Programs ............................................................ 3 5 6 6 6 

Construct Wetlands Crossings at Camp Shelby ....................... 5 0 0 0 0 

Services Acquisition Reform ..................................................... 6 6 6 6 6 

BILL TOTAL

Estimated Authorization Level 1 ................................................ 1,713 1,266 256 ¥747 ¥1,621 

For every item in this table except the authorization for the Coast Guard Reserve, the 2004 levels are included in Table 2 as amounts specifically authorized to be appropriated in the bill. Amounts shown in this table for 2005 through 2008 are not included in Table 1. These amounts do not include the costs of sections 541, 617, 618, 908, 1031–1033, or 1111 because CBO cannot estimate such costs at 

this time. 

Section 123 would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter 

into a multiyear contract for procurement of Virginia class submarines starting in fiscal year 2004. Based on information provided 

by the Navy, CBO assumes that the Navy would buy seven submarines over the 2004–2008 period. CBO estimates that savings 

from buying these submarines under a multiyear contract would 

total $805 million, or about $115 million a submarine, over the 

2004–2008 period. CBO estimates that funding requirements to 

purchase these submarines, as well as funding the advance purchase of components for future boats, would total about $15.4 billion over the 2004–2008 period (instead of the $16.2 billion that 

would be needed under annual contracts). Multiyear procurement 

of Virginia class submarines would raise costs in 2004 and 2005 because the Navy would need to provide increased funding in each of 

those years for advance purchases of components for the submarines that it would purchase later in the 2004–2008 period. 

Section 124 would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter 

into a four-year multiyear contract to purchase four E–2C aircraft, 

four TE–2C aircraft, and 16 engines for these aircraft, beginning in 

2004. CBO estimates that savings from buying these aircraft and 

engines under a multiyear contract would total almost $60 million, 

or about $15 million a year, over the 2004–2007 period. Funding 

requirements would total just over $950 million over the 2004–

2007 period (instead of the roughly $1 billion that would be needed 

under annual contracts). 

Military endstrength 

The bill would authorize active and reserve endstrength levels 

for 2004 and would increase the minimum endstrength authorizaVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00487 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.136 A106HR
464

tion in permanent law. The authorized endstrengths for activeduty personnel and personnel in the selected reserve would total 

about 1,400,000 and 863,000, respectively. Of those selected reservists, about 70,000 would serve on active duty in support of the reserves. The bill would specifically authorize appropriations of $98.9 

billion for the discretionary costs of military pay and allowances in 

2004. The authorized endstrength represents a net increase of 

3,385 servicemembers that would boost costs for salaries and other 

expenses by $248 million in the first year and about $535 million 

annually in subsequent years, compared to the authorized 

strengths for 2003. 

The bill also would authorize an endstrength of 10,000 

servicemembers in 2004 for the Coast Guard Reserve. This authorization would cost about $120 million and would fall under budget 

function 400 (transportation). 

Required force structure 

Section 911 would require that the Army, Navy, and Air Force 

maintain a certain force structure. It would specifically direct the 

Navy to have not less than 305 vessels in active service. The current Navy fleet consists of about 300 ships, but the Navy plans to 

reduce that amount to 292 ships in 2004 after retiring several surface combatants including Spruance-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers. This provision would require the Navy to 

keep those ships in the fleet for several more years until new ships 

that are under construction arrive to replace them. Based on information from the Navy, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would require the Navy to keep nine destroyers, two cruisers, and two landing ship docks in the fleet over much of the 2004–

2008 period instead of retiring them. CBO estimates that the operations and maintenance costs to keep these ships in the fleet would 

total about $1.1 billion over the 2005–2008 period. There would be 

no costs in 2004 because CBO estimates the operating costs would 

be offset by the savings from forgoing the decommissioning of these 

ships. 

Section 911 also would require the Air Force to maintain 46 

fighter squadrons in its active force. Currently, the Air Force has 

45 active squadrons. It plans to add one squadron of F/A–22 aircraft in 2004 and retire one squadron of A–10 aircraft, sustaining 

a force of 45 squadrons. CBO assumes that the Air Force would retain the A–10 squadron over the 2004–2008 period to meet the 

bill’s requirement to maintain 46 active squadrons. CBO estimates 

that the cost to keep the A–10 squadron in active service would be 

about $100 million over the 2004–2008 period. 

Compensation and Benefits. H.R. 1588 contains several provisions that would affect military compensation and benefits for uniformed personnel. 

Military Pay Raises. Section 601 would raise basic pay for individuals in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force with specific ranks and years of service by 2 percent across-the-board, and 

would authorize additional targeted pay raises for 2004, ranging 

from 1.2 percent to 4.25 percent for 2004. CBO estimates that implementing this provision would cost about $2.1 billion in 2004. Because the pay raises would be above those projected under current 

law, CBO estimates that the incremental costs associated with the 

465

larger pay raise would be about $190 million in 2004 and total $1.3 

billion over the 2004–2008 period. 

This section also would raise basic pay for members of the Coast 

Guard by the same across-the-board and targeted pay rates for a 

total cost of $60 million in 2004. Because these pay raises also 

would be above those projected under current law, CBO estimates 

that the incremental costs associated with the larger pay raises 

would be about $6 million in 2004 and $41 million over the 2004–

2008 period. 

Expiring Bonuses and Allowances. Several sections of H.R. 1588 

would extend DoD’s authority to pay certain bonuses and allowances to current personnel. Under current law, most of these authorities are scheduled to expire in December 2003, or three 

months into fiscal year 2004. The bill would extend these authorities through December 2004. Based on data provided by DoD, CBO 

estimates that the costs of these extensions would be as follows: • Payment of reenlistment bonuses for active-duty personnel would cost $305 million in 2004 and $171 million in 2005; enlistment bonuses for active-duty personnel would cost $113 

million in 2004 and $163 million in 2005; • Various bonuses for the Selected and Ready Reserve would cost $78 million in 2004 and $89 million in 2005; • Special payments for aviators and nuclear-qualified per- sonnel would cost $73 million in 2004 and $78 million in 2005; • Retention bonuses for officers and enlisted members with 

critical skills would cost $14 million in 2004 and $9 million in 

2005; and • Authorities to make special payments and give bonuses to certain health care professionals would cost $41 million in 

2004 and $40 million in 2005. 

Most of these changes would result in additional, smaller costs 

in subsequent years because payments are made in installments. 

Special Payments for Service in Iraq and Afghanistan. Section 

622 would increase certain special payments to servicemembers 

who serve in a combat zone designated for Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom effective October 1, 2003. 

(Public Law 108–11 raised these payments for fiscal year 2003 but 

that authority expires at the end of the fiscal year.) Under current 

law, the rates for imminent danger pay and the family separation 

allowance are set at $150 per month and $100 per month, respectively, for fiscal year 2004 and subsequent years. Section 622 would 

increase those respective rates to $225 per month and $250 per 

month for those servicemembers serving in the designated combat 

zones until the President calls an end to the operations. Based on 

information from DoD about current troop levels in those two areas 

and CBO assumptions about future troop levels, CBO estimates 

that implementing this section would cost $263 million in 2004 and 

$594 million over the 2004–2008 period. Should the President 

change the name of these operations to reflect a change in mission, 

CBO expects that the costs would be less than the estimated 

amounts because the provision would only apply to the operations 

so named.

Lodging Expenses for Reservists. Under current law, a member of 

the Reserve Components who is called to active duty is eligible for 

lodging per diem if he or she is assigned to duty away from home. 

466

The member is not eligible for lodging per diem while on leave, 

however. Section 633 would allow DoD to reimburse a reservist 

called to active duty for lodging expenses incurred while on leave. 

This section also would apply retroactively to reservists who served 

on active duty away from home between September 11, 2001, and 

the date of enactment of the bill. 

Since September 11, 2001, over 300,000 reservists have been 

called to active duty according to DoD. CBO assumes that 90,000 

reservists will be on active duty in 2004 and that the number will 

decline to about 15,000 reservists by 2008, assuming no hostilities 

occur elsewhere in the world. Based on data from DoD, CBO assumes that about 50 percent of these reservists on active duty are 

away from home and receive an average lodging per diem of $55 

a day. With an average tour length of one year and one leave day 

a month, CBO estimates that implementing this section would cost 

$132 million in 2004 and $167 million over the 2004–2008 period. 

Of these amounts, about $100 million would be paid to qualified reservists who were called up before this bill is enacted. 

Undermanned Occupation Bonus. Section 621 would give DoD the authority to offer an incentive bonus of up to $4,000 to encourage certain enlisted members to convert from their current occupational specialty to an occupational specialty where there is a critical shortage of personnel. The new authority would expire on December 31, 2004. According to DoD, the Navy is the only service 

with the immediate intention to offer this bonus. The Navy plans 

to scale the amount of the bonus to the degree that an occupational 

speciality is critically short of personnel. In other words, the Navy 

would offer a smaller bonus to servicemembers who convert to occupational specialties where there is less of a critical shortage in 

personnel. Given the number of occupation conversions experienced 

in previous years, the Navy estimates that about 2,500 enlisted 

servicemembers would receive this bonus in 2004. Assuming the 

average bonus is $3,000, CBO estimates that implementing this 

section would cost $8 million in 2004 and $2 million in 2005. 

Other Provisions. Section 620 would authorize DoD to grant special pay of $150 a month to servicemembers who are assigned to 

duty as members of Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil Support 

Teams. Section 615 would give reservists the same full monthly 

hazardous duty pay for performing demolition duty or parachute 

jumping that active-duty servicemembers receive. Section 534 

would give DoD the authority to pay the interest on student loans 

for reservists with critical skills. Section 535 would allow students 

in the second year of a four-year Senior Reserve Officer Training 

Course to receive a monthly stipend. CBO estimates the cost of 

these increased authorities would total $5 million in 2004 and $29 

million over the 2004–2008 period. 

Section 541 would change the payment amount that 

servicemembers who are deployed away from their home base receive if they are gone more than 400 days out of a two-year period 

and add two additional categories of eligibility for this payment—

deployment over 190 consecutive days and call up to active duty for 

the second time for the same contingency operation. Section 617 

would expand to officers an incentive program which encourages 

enlisted servicemembers to extend the length of their overseas assignments. Section 618 would allow DoD to offer this bonus of up 

467

to $60,000 to newly appointed officers with critical skills. CBO cannot estimate the budgetary impact of implementing these provisions, however, since DoD is unable to provide information about 

how the department would implement these provisions. 

National Security Personnel System 

Section 1111 would create a new human resources management 

system for DoD; would allow DoD to give certain employees outside 

the United States the same pay and benefits as the Foreign Service 

or Central Intelligence Agency; would require DoD, to the maximum extent practicable, adjust rates of compensation for civilian 

employees at the same rate as military personnel; and would allow 

DoD to provide additional pay to attract highly qualified experts. 

All of these authorities could potentially affect federal spending. 

CBO cannot estimate the budgetary impact of implementing 

these provisions since DoD has not indicated how it would supplant—or improve upon—the personnel system currently governing 

the department; how many employees would benefit from receiving 

the same pay and benefits as the Foreign Service or Central Intelligence Agency as the number is classified; whether or how it might 

institute pay parity between its civilian employees and military 

members; or how many people it might hire under the authority to 

provide additional pay to attract highly qualified experts. 

Section 908 would require DoD to conduct a pilot program using 

an automated workforce management system to manage its civilian 

personnel. CBO cannot estimate the budgetary impact of implementing this provision since DoD has not indicated what automated system it would use nor indicated what it might cost to acquire this system. 

Defense acquisition workforce reductions 

Section 910 would direct DoD to reduce the number of defense 

acquisition and support personnel within the department by 5 percent each fiscal year over the 2004–2007 period. These reductions 

would be measured against a baseline workforce defined as the 

number of defense acquisition and support personnel employed by 

the department as of October 1, 2003. Based on data from DoD, 

CBO assumes that the baseline workforce would total about 

131,000 personnel on that date and that about 20 percent of that 

number would be military personnel who would be reassigned to 

other jobs within the department over the 2004–2008 period. Thus, 

under the provision, CBO estimates that about 5,300 civilians 

would need to be cut from the defense acquisition workforce each 

year. Assuming that these reductions would occur evenly throughout the year and that the average cost of a civilian employee within 

DoD would be about $77,000 in 2004, CBO estimates that the savings in salaries and benefits that would accrue from this reduction 

would total about $200 million in 2004 and $5.5 billion over the 

2004–2008 period. If DoD chose to replace these workers with contract personnel, these savings would not be realized. 

Those potential savings would be offset somewhat by the cost of 

severance packages that DoD would offer. Based on historical attrition data provided by DoD for its civilian workforce, CBO assumes 

that about 1 percent of this population would leave the acquisition 

workforce each year for reasons unrelated to the mandated reducVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00491 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.138 A106HR
468

tions and would not be replaced. CBO assumes that the remaining 

5,200 workers that must leave DoD each year would be offered severance packages of about $25,000 each, for a total cost of about 

$130 million each year or $520 million over the 2004–2007 period. 

Thus, CBO estimates that the net savings under this provisions 

would total about $70 million in 2004 and almost $5 billion over 

the 2004–2008 period.

Modification of the overtime pay cap 

Under current law, overtime pay for work in excess of 40 hours 

per week for federal managers, supervisors, and other employees 

exempted under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is limited to 

a set rate of roughly $32 an hour (one and a half times the normal 

rate for a general schedule (GS) grade 10 (GS–10), step 1, employee). Employees who earn salaries above GS–12, step 5, receive 

overtime pay at a rate that is, on an hourly basis, less than their 

regular pay. 

Section 1101 would raise the overtime pay rate to either one and 

one-half times the hourly rate of a GS–10, step 1, or the hourly 

rate of the basic pay of the employee, whichever is greater. Although this change would not affect employees at GS–12, step 5, 

and lower, those above this pay rate would earn their hourly rate 

of pay for overtime work. Based on information from the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) on the number of FLSA-exempted 

employees at each grade and information on overtime worked, CBO 

estimates that implementing the proposal would cost approximately $100 million in 2004 and $0.7 billion over the 2004–2008 

period. About 680,000 federal employees at GS–10 and above are 

exempt from the FLSA, which is about 36.7 percent of the general 

schedule (and related) workforce. For this estimate, CBO assumes 

that this employee group worked 37 percent of all overtime performed by FLSA-exempt employees. We also assume that those 

overtime hours are distributed proportionately across GS–10 

through GS–13 employees, with GS–14 and GS–15 employees 

working one-third of the hours. 

CBO estimated the cost of the proposal by calculating the cost of 

those overtime hours at the set rate under current law and then 

calculating the cost of that same amount of overtime at the set rate 

or the employee’s hourly rate, whichever is greater. 

Senior Executive Service (SES) performance provisions 

Under current law, SES employees are paid at six different pay 

levels. Base pay is capped at Level IV of the Executive Schedule 

($134,000) and the maximum pay with the locality-based comparability adjustment is set at Level III of the Executive Schedule 

($142,500). SES employees receive the same annual across-theboard pay raises and locality-based comparability adjustments that 

GS employees receive. 

Effective January 1, 2004, section 1107 would eliminate the six 

SES pay levels and raise the cap on base pay to $142,500. Locality 

adjustments to SES pay would be eliminated. The proposal would 

affect roughly 7,900 employees. 

The legislation specifies that no SES employee would experience 

a reduction in the rate of basic pay in the first year after this legislation is enacted, and CBO assumes that this would continue to be 

469

true after the first year. Because the salaries of many SES employees are at the current caps (or are expected to reach such caps over 

the next few years), raising the cap on base pay would allow those 

employees to get pay raises. Assuming that executive level salaries 

(and thus the caps) are raised by the full amount authorized under 

current law by the Ethics Reform Act, CBO estimates that the legislation would cost $147 million in authorizations over the 2004–

2008 period. 

Federal Flexible Benefits Plan administrative costs 

Under current law, federal employees will be allowed to enroll in 

a flexible spending account (FSA) program offered through OPM 

beginning in May 2003. An FSA is an employee benefit that allows 

employees to set aside money, on a pre-tax basis, for health care 

and dependent care expenses. The administrative costs to the program will be paid by participating employees based on a formula 

to collect $48 annually for each health care account and 1.5 percent 

of the total dependent care account. 

Section 1108 would prevent any fees from being charged to federal employees for the administrative costs to operate the FSAs. 

Based on information from the federal judiciary’s FSA program and 

the operation of private FSAs, CBO estimates that about 10 percent of federal employees will initially enroll in the plan, and we 

expect participation to grow to about 20 percent of federal employees over the next five years. Under the bill, administrative costs of 

operating the plans would be subject to appropriation of the necessary amounts. Based on the fees OPM plans to charge participants and expected employee participation rates, we estimate that 

implementing this provision of the bill would cost about $160 million over the 2004–2008 period. 

Asbestos differential pay 

Under section 1104, federal wage-grade employees would be subject to the same standards as general schedule employees when determining eligibility for environmental differential pay (EDP), 

based on exposure to asbestos. Under current law, general schedule 

employees are entitled to 8 percent hazard differential pay if they 

are exposed to asbestos that exceeds the permissible exposure limits established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The current EDP standard for wage-grade employees 

entitles them to the same 8 percent of pay, but does not set an objective measure for determining the level of asbestos exposure necessary to qualify for EDP. In several instances where wage-grade 

employees have sought back pay for EDP, arbitrators found in 

favor of the employees when asbestos levels were below those consistent with OSHA standards. Based on information from DoD on 

prior and pending arbitration rulings, CBO expects that implementing section 1104 would reduce the amount of back pay federal 

agencies would be required to pay for EDP based on asbestos exposure. Assuming these cases would be handled administratively, 

CBO estimates establishing OSHA standards for asbestos EDP 

would save $290 million in 2004 and about $1.5 billion over the 

2004–2008 period, assuming appropriations are reduced by the estimated amounts. 

470

Defense Health Program 

Title VII contains a number of provisions that would affect DoD 

health care and benefits. TRICARE For Life (TFL) is a program 

that provides health care benefits to all retirees of the uniformed 

services, their dependents, and survivors who are eligible for Medicare and enroll in Medicare Part B. TFL provides a generous prescription drug benefit and covers all out-of-pocket costs for those 

benefits that are provided by both Medicare and TRICARE. 

Uniformed Services Medicare-Eligible Retiree Healthcare Fund

Under current law, this fund provides the amounts necessary to 

pay for the TFL benefit. The fund is financed through monthly payments from DoD, annual amortization payments by the Treasury, 

and interest earned on the fund’s current balances. The amount 

that DoD must pay into the fund is determined by the Secretary 

of Defense, who must use methods and assumptions approved by 

an independent board of actuaries to calculate the payment amount 

or rate. The payment rate is calculated using a number of factors 

including the probability that servicemembers currently on active 

duty will retire from military service. Under current law, the Secretary of Defense is not allowed to establish separate payment 

rates for each of the uniformed services, even though the overall 

probability of retiring from the Public Health Service (PHS) and 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is 

higher than the probability of retiring from the Army, Navy, Air 

Force, or Coast Guard. 

Section 701 would allow DoD to calculate separate payment rates 

for the different services if the Secretary determines that doing so 

improves the quality of the actuarial estimate. CBO estimates that 

implementing this provision would have no effect on payments to 

the fund in 2004 but would likely increase the payments PHS and 

NOAA make to the fund in 2005. 

CBO estimates that implementing this provision would have no 

effect on payments into the fund in 2004 because the payment 

amounts have already been established and it appears unlikely 

that the independent board of actuaries would approve any change 

in assumptions and methods necessary to revise the amounts for 

that year for the proposed change in law. Although the payment 

amounts for 2005 may be determined before the enactment of this 

bill—the board approved the assumptions and methods on May 2, 

2003, and the Secretary is expected to determine the rates shortly—CBO believes that the board would likely meet to approve the 

assumptions and methods necessary for the Secretary of Defense to 

set new payment rates if they were authorized. CBO expects that 

separate payment rates for NOAA and PHS would be higher than 

the rate currently set for fiscal year 2005 because the recommended rate does not presently incorporate information about 

the higher retirement probabilities for NOAA and PHS. 

Using information from the respective organizations, CBO estimates that there are about 6,000 uniformed officers in the PHS 

and NOAA, with most in PHS. Based on data from DoD’s Office of 

the Actuary, CBO estimates that implementing separate payment 

rates for PHS and NOAA would increase the payments these organizations must make to the fund in 2005 by almost $2,400 an offiVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00494 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.139 A106HR
471

cer or about $14 million, assuming appropriation of the estimated 

amounts. 

CBO estimates there would be no change in the level of payments made by DoD or the Coast Guard because the current method for calculating the payment relies solely on DoD data. 

CBO does not estimate an impact from having separate payment 

rates over the 2006–2008 period. The Secretary currently uses only 

DoD retirement experience to calculate the probability of retiring 

from the uniformed services, primarily because the fund initially 

only covered DoD beneficiaries. As data for the other uniformed 

services becomes available, CBO expects that, absent this provision, DoD would consider that new data when determining the single rate it would charge all of uniformed services for 2006 and subsequent years. Incorporating that data would likely raise the single 

rate charged to all services somewhat. CBO expects that using separate rates for each service as provided for in the bill would increase costs to PHS and NOAA each year, but would lower costs 

to DoD and the Coast Guard by approximately the same amount. 

Thus, total payments into the trust fund would not likely change 

much over the 2006–2008 period. 

Medical and dental screening 

Section 707 would allow DoD to provide medical and dental 

screening to members of the selected reserve who are assigned to 

units that have been alerted for mobilization. Under current law, 

DoD cannot provide this screening until the reservist has been mobilized. CBO does not expect that speeding up these evaluations 

would increase the overall amount of medical and dental screening 

DoD provides to reservists. Because this provision would allow DoD 

to provide some medical and dental screening earlier than it otherwise would, CBO estimates that implementing the authority would 

likely affect the timing of outlays but that the net effect would be 

insignificant. 

Sources of supply 

Several sections of Title VIII would require the Department of 

Defense to procure certain raw materials, parts, and components 

solely from sources within the United States. It also would require 

companies that produce major defense systems to use only U.Smanufactured machinery in the production of those systems. By restricting the sources of supply and imposing a new inventory management burden on defense contractors, CBO expects that implementing these provisions could increase the costs of supplies, parts, 

and overall weapons systems, and could increase the requirement 

for future appropriations. CBO has insufficient data to estimate the 

cost impact but we think it might be large given the number and 

complexity of weapon systems that DoD plans to develop and purchase over the 2004–2008 period. 

Base realignment and closure (BRAC) property 

Section 2805 would authorize DoD to convey to any nonfederal 

entity property at closed military installations or at military installations identified for closure. In exchange for that property, the recipient would be required to construct military facilities or family 

housing at another military installation or provide services associVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00495 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.140 A106HR
472

ated with the construction of these facilities. Section 2805 would 

stipulate that projects received under the barter arrangement must 

be ones already authorized by the Congress and must be equal to 

the fair market value of the property conveyed. The provision also 

would direct each of the military services to use this authority to 

the maximum extent possible to convey at least 20 percent of the 

property that they plan to dispose of each year to obtain up to $200 

million worth of military facilities and family housing projects each 

year. 

Under current law, DoD has the authority to sell this property 

and spend the offsetting collections, without further appropriation, 

on environmental cleanup and caretaker expenses at installations 

that are being closed under previous BRAC authorities. CBO expects that, under section 2805, conveying these properties in exchange for military construction or family housing projects would 

eliminate a portion of the collections that would normally be used 

to offset BRAC cleanup expenses, thus increasing the requirement 

for discretionary appropriations to pay for these expenses.

Over the last 15 years, the Department of Defense has collected and spent about $30 million a year on average from the disposal 

of BRAC property. According to budget documents, the department 

plans to collect and spend $68 million in 2004 and $53 million in 

2005 under these authorities. Assuming that DoD exchanges BRAC 

property as stipulated under section 2805, CBO estimates that implementing this provision would increase requirements for appropriated funds for environmental cleanup and caretaker expenses at 

closed installations by $68 million in 2004 and about $200 million 

over the 2004–2008 period. 

Expanded commissary benefits for reservists 

Section 651 would eliminate restrictions on commissary use by 

members of the ready reserve, retirees of the ready reserve who are 

less than 60 years of age, and their dependents. Currently, members of the ready reserve who meet their yearly training requirements and retirees of the ready reserve who are under the age of 

60 are allowed to shop at a commissary 24 times a year. Members 

of the ready reserve who do not meet their yearly training requirements do not have commissary privileges. 

Section 651 would eliminate these restrictions so that reservists 

in good standing and retirees of the ready reserve who are less 

than 60 years of age would have the same commissary privileges 

as active-duty servicemembers. Based on information from the Defense Commissary Agency, CBO estimates that reservists and reserve retirees who are currently allowed 24 commissary visits a 

year would not significantly alter their commissary usage if this restriction were lifted. Thus, CBO estimates would have no significant impact on the cost of operating defense commissaries if this 

restriction were lifted. 

This section also would allow members in the ready reserve who 

do not meet the yearly training requirements to have commissary 

privileges, but their access would be subject to the policies established by the local base commander (similar to current policies in 

effect for the use of morale, welfare, and recreation facilities). CBO 

estimates about 87,000 reservists in the ready reserves who currently have no commissary privileges would be affected by this proVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00496 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.140 A106HR
473

vision. Because most reservists do not live close to commissaries 

and would not use the benefit, CBO estimates the additional cost 

of operating the commissary system associated with these additional reservists would only be about $40 per person a year, or 

about $4 million each year over the 2004–2008 period. 

Biomedical countermeasures 

Three sections of the bill would address DoD’s ability to protect 

the Armed Forces from biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological threats by making it easier to use current authorities to research, develop, and procure biological countermeasures for these 

threats. Although these provisions could speed up or increase subject to appropriation spending, CBO does not have enough information to estimate the net effect on spending over the 2004–2008 period. 

Section 1031 would increase the simplified acquisition threshold 

for procurement that supports biomedical research and development from $100,000 to $25 million. The section also would authorize DoD to use personal services contracts to employ up to 30 individuals for research and development and appoint up to 30 professional and technical employees without regard to certain sections 

of title 5, United States Code, that govern appointments in the 

competitive service, classification, and General Schedule pay rates. 

Section 1032 would allow DoD to procure biological countermeasures even if they had not yet been approved by the Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA), as long as the Secretary of Defense, in 

consultation with the Secretary of HHS, determines that the countermeasures have the potential to be licensed or approved by the 

FDA within five years. For 2004, section 1032 would authorize 

such sums as are available under DoD’s general transfer authority 

to purchase these qualified countermeasures and for every year 

thereafter it would authorize such sums as may be necessary. Section 1033 would allow DoD to use biomedical countermeasures that 

are not licensed or approved by the FDA in an emergency setting 

if the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of 

HHS, determines that there is no adequate, approved, or alternative countermeasure available. 

Assistance for victims of domestic violence 

Section 572 would increase the length of time that a victim of domestic violence receives assistance from DoD. Under current law, 

the department provides transitional compensation to the spouse 

and any children of a servicemember who must separate from the 

military because of dependent-abuse offenses. The amount of the 

compensation is linked to the dependent and indemnity compensation benefit provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

and is paid for 36 months or the remainder of the unserved portion 

of the servicemember’s military obligation, whichever is shorter. 

According to DoD, families of enlisted servicemembers often receive 

less than 36 months of compensation. Section 572 would allow for 

all recipients of transitional compensation to receive it for the full 

36-month period. Based on information from DoD indicating that 

the majority of recipients receive the benefit for 24 months on average and that the total amount of transitional compensation paid in 

474

fiscal year 2000 was less than $6 million, CBO estimates implementing this section would cost about $2 million per year. 

Section 571 would require DoD to pay to move a spouse and any 

dependent children who have been abused by a servicemember if 

the victim’s safety is at risk. Costs would include travel costs for 

the family and transportation of household goods and a vehicle. 

Based on information about the amount of transitional compensation paid in fiscal year 2000 and the average benefit amount for 

that year, CBO estimates that about 400 spouses receive assistance 

each year for being victims of domestic violence. Using the average 

cost to move a servicemember with dependents (about $2,000 in 

2004), CBO estimates that implementing this section would cost 

about $1 million per year. 

Chaplain-led family support programs 

Section 564 would expand and permanently extend chaplain-led 

programs to assist servicemembers in building and maintaining 

strong families. Under authority provided in Public Law 107–248, 

DoD may use appropriated funds to pay for transportation, food, 

lodging, supplies, fees, and training materials for servicemembers 

and their family members who participate in such programs. The 

authority expires at the end of fiscal year 2003. The bill would 

make these programs permanent and also would include the cost 

of child care as an eligible expense. Based on information from 

DoD, CBO estimates that the Army would expand its program from 

the current level of about $1 million (serving 48 brigades) to about 

$6 million a year by 2006 (serving 144 brigades). The Navy- and 

Air Force-sponsored family support programs pre-date Public Law 

107–248. The Navy currently spends roughly $1 million a year on 

family support programs and the Air Force spends less than 

$500,000 annually. Neither branch has any immediate plans to use 

the new authority provided in the bill, but if they were to do so, 

there would be modest additional costs. 

Wetland crossings at Camp Shelby 

Section 320 would authorize the Army to use operation and 

maintenance funds to construct water crossings for use by armored 

vehicles at Camp Shelby, Mississippi, to protect wetland areas located there. Based on information from the Army National Guard, 

CBO estimates it would cost about $5 million in 2004 to construct 

these crossings. According to the Army National Guard, the construction in 2004 would likely constitute the first phase of a potentially larger project which would require further Congressional authorization. 

Services acquisition reform 

Title XIV contains sections that address service acquisition reform; some of which have cost. Section 1412 would authorize the 

establishment of an Acquisition Workforce Training Fund. Under 

the bill, 5 percent of the fees collected by the General Services Administration (GSA) from other, nondefense agencies that procure 

goods and services through GSA’s governmentwide contracts would 

be deposited in the new fund. GSA generates most of those fees by 

charging other federal agencies approximately 1 percent of the cost 

of purchases made through GSA’s contracts for supply schedule 

475

services and data processing. That fee is designed to recover administrative costs incurred by GSA. In 2002, GSA collected $88 

million in fees from agencies other than the Department of Defense. Thus, CBO estimates that this provision would authorize 

GSA to charge agencies a fee sufficient to establish a $5 million Acquisition Workforce Training Fund each year, as well as continuing 

to cover the administrative costs of GSA’s contracting programs. 

Other provisions in Title XIV would establish a new advisory 

panel to review procurement policies, a Chief Acquisition Officers 

Council, and a center of excellence in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy; would require GSA, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Office of Management and Budget to issue implementing regulations; and would require the General Accounting Office to prepare certain studies on procurement issues. In total, CBO 

estimates that implementing these provisions would cost $1 million 

annually over the 2004–2008 period. 

Funding for special compensation for disabled retirees of the uniformed services 

Under current law, veterans who retire from the military, the 

Coast Guard, PHS, or NOAA cannot receive both full retirement 

annuities and disability compensation from the VA. To receive the 

non-taxable veterans’ compensation benefit, retirees must forgo an 

equal amount of their taxable retirement annuity. Allowing the receipt of both benefits is often referred to as ‘‘concurrent receipt.’’ 

Two programs currently offer special benefits to retirees who are 

affected by the ban on concurrent receipt. 

The first is a program of special compensation for severely disabled retirees of the uniformed services that pays a monthly stipend to certain retirees who are rated by VA as 60 percent or more 

disabled. The second program, scheduled to begin June 1, 2003, 

will pay a monthly benefit to retirees who receive disability compensation from VA for the injury for which they were awarded a 

Purple Heart or have certain combat- or training-related disabilities for which they receive compensation from VA. The benefit will 

equal the amount of retirement annuity forgone as a result of the 

ban on concurrent receipt. CBO estimates these programs will together pay military retirees about $300 million in 2004, and $2.8 

billion over the 2004–2008 period. Such payments for both programs are currently made from DoD’s military personnel accounts. 

Under section 641, payments under these programs would become 

a liability of the Military Retirement Fund. 

The military retirement system is financed in part by an annual 

payment from appropriated funds to the Military Retirement Fund, 

based on an estimate of the system’s accruing liabilities. If these 

special compensation payments were to become a liability of the 

Military Retirement Fund, DoD’s yearly contribution to the fund 

(paid from the military personal accounts) would normally increase 

to reflect the added liability from the expected increase in payments to future retirees. This increase—or accrual payment—

would recognize the additional costs of deferred compensation in 

the years during which servicemembers are working, rather than 

when the benefits are actually paid. Accrual budgeting provides decisionmakers with more complete information about the full costs 

of labor and provides incentives to use labor cost-effectively. 

476

Under section 641, however, the incremental increase in the accrual payment would be paid by the Secretary of the Treasury and, 

therefore, not recognized in DoD’s budget. Using information from 

DoD, CBO estimates that the accrual payment from the Treasury 

would be $100 million in 2004, and total about $930 million over 

the 2004–2008 period. 

Fast ships 

Section 1014 would authorize the appropriation of $40 million to 

the Secretary of the Navy to pay the subsidy costs of guaranteeing 

a loan to construct two high-speed ships in a U.S. shipyard. Under 

the bill the Secretary would be authorized to issue a 25-year guarantee that would cover up to 87.5 percent of the principal of the 

loan. CBO expects that construction and related acquisition costs 

for this project would be around $1 billion. Based on information 

provided by the Maritime Administration (MARAD) and potential 

participants in this project, CBO expects that construction would 

involve a very high subsidy cost because of the expense of the 

project as well the market and financial uncertainties inherent in 

the proposal. As a result, we estimate that the $40 million amounts 

made available under the bill and about $34 million previously appropriated to the Navy for this purpose would be sufficient to guarantee only a portion of the project’s full costs. CBO estimates that 

the subsidy costs for guaranteeing 87.5 percent of the entire project 

would require appropriations of more than $100 million. 

Maritime administration

Title XXXV would authorize appropriations for programs carried 

out within the Department of Transportation by MARAD (see 

Table 4). 

Subtitle B of title XXXV would reauthorize and amend the maritime security program beginning in fiscal year 2006. This program, 

which expires at the end of fiscal year 2005, provides operating 

subsidies to owners or operators of U.S. flag vessels carrying cargo 

between the United States and foreign ports. In exchange, eligible 

vessel owners or operators agree to keep their ships in the U.S. flag 

fleet and make them available to DoD when needed for national security purposes. 

Subtitle C would expand the maritime security program from the 

current 47 ships to 60 ships, including up to five tankers. The annual subsidy payment also would increase from its present $2.1 

million per ship to $2.6 million per ship for each of fiscal years 

2006 and 2007, and to whatever amounts the Secretary of Transportation deems necessary for each ensuing year that a vessel remains in the program. For these payments, the bill would authorize the appropriation of $156 million for each of fiscal years 2006 

and 2007 and whatever sums are necessary for each thereafter 

through 2015 for these programs. 

Subtitle C also would authorize, after fiscal year 2004, the appropriation of $250 million to subsidize the cost of constructing five 

commercial product tankers in a U.S. shipyard. The tankers would 

operate as U.S. flag vessels in the U.S.-foreign trade and would be 

available to DoD for national defense purposes upon request. 

Subtitle D would authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for 

routine MARAD activities, including $104 million for operations 

477

and training, $39 million for loan guarantees and associated administrative expenses under Title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 

1936, and $20 million for disposal of obsolete ships in the national 

defense reserve fleet. (The $39 million for the Title XI program is 

not shown in Table 4 because such costs are already authorized 

under the 1936 act and do not require annual authorization.)

TABLE 4.—SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

IN H.R. 1588 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Current Law Authorization for the Maritime Administration: 

Authorization Levels a, b ........................................... 201 100 100 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 195 120 105 0 0 0 

Proposed Changes 

Maritime Security Program: 

Estimated Authorization Levels ...................... 0 0 0 156 156 161 

Estimated Outlays .......................................... 0 0 0 143 156 160 

Tanker Construction: 

Authorization Level ......................................... 0 0 0 250 0 0 

Estimated Outlays .......................................... 0 0 0 63 63 63 

Regular MARAD Authorization: 

Authorization Level ......................................... 0 124 0 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays .......................................... 0 99 20 5 0 0

Subtotal, Proposed Changes c: 

Estimated Authorization Levels ............. 0 124 0 406 156 161 

Estimated Outlays ................................. 0 99 20 211 219 223 

Authorizations Under H.R. 1588 for the Maritime Administration: 

Authorization Levels a .............................................. 201 224 100 406 156 161 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 195 219 125 211 219 223 

a The level for 2003 is the amount currently appropriated for programs authorized by the bill; that amount is also contained in Table 1. b The levels for 2004 and 2005 are authorizations of appropriations in current law for the Maritime Security Program. These amounts are contained in Tables 1 and 2. 

Direct Spending 

The bill contains provisions that would increase direct spending, 

primarily by increasing the amount that DoD can spend to finance 

special authorities for the construction and renovation of military 

family housing. We estimate that the increase in direct spending 

(excluding asset sales) resulting from provisions of H.R. 1588 would 

total $440 million over the 2004–2008 period and $486 million over 

the 2004–2013 period (see Table 5).

TABLE 5.—ESTIMATED DIRECT SPENDING FROM MILITARY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION AUTHORITIES 

AND OTHER PROVISIONS IN H.R. 1588 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING (EXCLUDING ASSET SALES) 

Military Housing Privatization Initiative: 

Estimated Budget Authority .................................... 0 120 290 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 15 85 151 91 35 

Recovery of Funds from Sale of Nonappropriated Fund 

Facilities: 

Estimated Budget Authority .................................... 0 51 6 6 6 1 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 8 14 18 12 9 

Reduction in Time-in-Grade for Retirement: 

Estimated Budget Authority .................................... 0 * * * 1 1 

478

TABLE 5.—ESTIMATED DIRECT SPENDING FROM MILITARY HOUSING PRIVATIZATION AUTHORITIES 

AND OTHER PROVISIONS IN H.R. 1588—Continued

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 * * * 1 1

Subtotal: 

Estimated Budget Authority ........................... 0 171 296 6 7 2 

Estimated Outlays .......................................... 0 23 99 169 104 45 

ASSET SALES a

National Defense Stockpile: 

Estimated Budget Authority .................................... 0 -15 -5 0 0 0 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 -15 -5 0 0 0 

TOTAL CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Estimated Budget Authority 0 156 291 6 7 2 

Estimated Outlays 0 8 94 169 104 45 

* = less than $500,000. 

a. Asset sale receipts are a credit against direct spending. 

Military Housing Privatization Initiative (MHPI) 

Section 2803 would raise the statutory limit on the amount that 

DoD can invest in projects to build or renovate military family 

housing. DoD is authorized to use direct loans, loan guarantees, 

long-term outleases, rental guarantees, barter, direct government 

investment, and other financial arrangements to encourage privatesector participation in building military housing. Funding for those 

activities comes from the Family Housing Improvement Fund, 

which is financed by appropriations made to the fund, transfers 

from other accounts, receipts from property sales and rents, returns on any capital, and other income from operations or transactions connected with the program. 

Currently the amounts in the fund are available for use by DoD 

to acquire housing using the various techniques mentioned above, 

but the total value of commitments for all contracts and investments undertaken is limited to $1 billion ($850 million for family 

housing and $150 million for unaccompanied housing). Under the 

bill, the limit for family housing would increase to $900 million. 

CBO estimates that enacting section 2803 would increase direct 

spending by $377 million over the 2004–2008 period and by $409 

million over the 2004–2013 period. 

Governmentwide Accounting Principles. Most of DoD’s housing 

projects under the MHPI authority have involved private-sector financing that is backed by various kinds of government commitments. Some of these commitments may have the characteristics of 

a capital lease or lease-purchase, others may be public-private partnerships with substantial government control. According to standard principles of federal accounting, obligations of the Family 

Housing Improvement Fund should reflect the full amount of the 

financial liability incurred when the government makes such a 

commitment. In the case of a capital lease, for example, obligations 

equal to the asset cost should be recorded up front and an amount 

equal to the interest costs should be recorded on an annual basis 

over the life of the lease term. Outlays should be recorded over the 

lease term in an amount equal to the annual lease payments. For 

commitments that take the form of a lease-purchase, obligations 

479

are recorded in the same manner as a capital lease, but outlays 

should be recorded over the period it takes to construct the asset. 

In CBO’s view, most ventures that borrow private funds to construct or refurbish military family housing should be treated as 

governmental and their investments should be recorded up front, 

equivalent to borrowing authority—a form of budget authority. 

Amounts expended by these public-private arrangements should be 

recorded in the budget as outlays at the time they occur. 

To date, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has primarily treated DoD’s use of these authorities as transactions that 

have relatively little estimated cost in terms of the obligations and 

outlays recorded in the federal budget, allowing DoD to obligate the 

government for significantly more than it records in its budget. In 

effect, the Administration’s accounting enables DoD to record the 

costs of the projects incrementally over time rather than up front. 

CBO continues to believe that OMB’s accounting practices for 

MHPI projects are at odds with governmentwide standards. Although the contractual terms vary from project to project, CBO 

considers most MHPI projects to be governmental undertakings, 

the purpose of which is to finance and manage the acquisition, construction, or renovation of a government asset, specifically, family 

housing for military personnel. There are several factors that support treating these arrangements as governmental. For instance, 

most of the housing constructed or renovated under this authority 

is on government property. Many deals include government guarantees against base closure. In some instances, rental payments 

are made to the property manager directly by the government. 

Likewise, in most deals, title to the property vests with the government at the end of the contract. In the case of public-private partnerships, the debt of the entity is implicitly or explicitly backed by 

the federal government. Following standard principles of federal 

accounting, CBO believes the MHPI program should reflect the full 

amount of the financial liability incurred at the time the government makes such commitments. 

For the last few years, CBO has stated that DoD was obligating 

the government for significantly more than it was recording. After 

consultation with the Committees on the Budget in both the House 

and the Senate, CBO has decided to show the full cost of MHPI 

projects up front in our cost estimates for legislation related to 

such projects. Thus, expansion or extension of this authority is 

counted as direct spending in this estimate, since it would allow 

DoD to obligate the government without appropriations for the full 

amount of those obligations in advance. 

Cost of Activities Under Current Law. To date, DoD has signed 

contracts for 18 family housing projects and is proceeding with solicitations for or considering plans for close to 60 other projects 

over the next few years. According to OMB’s accounting method, 

DoD has only recorded obligations of about $300 million—well 

below the current $850 million limit. Given DoD’s plans for future 

projects, it estimates that it could reach the $850 million limit as 

early as the end of 2004. However, CBO estimates that the full 

amount of DoD’s commitments to date exceeds $2 billion. Using the 

current method of accounting for only the initial investment costs 

of these projects, DoD could acquire or modify approximately 

60,000 more units and record only $550 million in obligations. CBO 

480

estimates that the true cost of these additional projects, which 

could be awarded under the current investment cap, would total 

approximately $4.5 billion dollars. Since DoD can pursue these 

projects without additional legislative authority, their costs are not 

counted against this bill. 

Cost of Activities Under the Increased Limitation. Section 2803 

would increase the limit on total investment in family housing 

projects by $50 million to $900 million, allowing DoD to pursue 

MHPI projects after it exhausts the authority in current law. Given 

OMB’s accounting practice of recording only the initial investment, 

CBO assumes that DoD would be allowed to commit the government for much more than the additional $50 million provided. 

Since DoD could enter into these obligations without further appropriations for the full amount of the obligation, CBO estimates that 

the additional $50 million investment authority provided in this 

section would allow DoD to acquire or modify almost 5,500 additional housing units, obligating the government for an additional 

$410 million. Thus, CBO estimates that these obligations would increase outlays by $15 million in 2004 and by $410 million over the 

2004–2013 period. 

Recovery of Funds Due to Sale of Nonappropriated Fund Facilities 

Section 655 would allow DoD to spend (without further appropriation) collections from the sale or lease of commissary or nonappropriated fund assets that have been closed under Base Realignment and Closure. The collections are currently deposited into 

a reserve account established by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1988 and, under current law, cannot be spent 

without further appropriation. Based on information from the Department of Defense, CBO estimates that there will be $51 million 

in the reserve account at the beginning of fiscal year 2004, and 

that the reserve account will gain an additional $19 million in collections through 2008. Based on information from DoD, CBO expects that the funds in the account would be used primarily for facility improvements and construction. Using historical outlay patterns, CBO estimates that, under section 655, outlays from the 

fund would total $8 million in 2004 and $70 million over the 2004–

2013 period. 

Section 3005 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107) authorized expenditures from the 

reserve account for base closures that are schedules to occur after 

2005. Therefore, enacting this section would have no impact on collections from the sale of commissaries or nonappropriated fund facilities in future base closure rounds. 

Reduction of Time-in-Grade for Retirement 

Section 513 would reduce, from three years to one year, the 

length of time senior officers must serve in a grade before being allowed to retire in that grade. Based on information from DoD, CBO 

estimates that reducing the time-in-grade requirement would cause 

about 15 officers in the ranks O–7 to O–10 to retire one grade higher than they normally would otherwise. CBO estimates that enacting this measure would cost less than $500,000 in 2004, $2 million 

over the 2004–2008 period, and $7 million over the 2004–2013 period. 

481

Land Conveyance and Other Property Transactions 

Title XXVIII would authorize a variety of property transactions 

involving both large and small parcels of land. CBO estimates that 

implementing these provisions would not result in significant costs 

to the federal government because they would authorize DoD to receive fair market value for the property to be conveyed, to exchange one piece of property for another, or to convey land that 

under current law is unlikely to be declared excess and sold or is 

likely to be given away. 

Other Provisions. The following provisions would have an insignificant budgetary impact on direct spending: 

Section 545 would instruct DoD to assist former prisoners of war 

in obtaining information to support their applications for the award 

of the Purple Heart. Purple Heart recipients are eligible to have 

their retirement annuities increased by any amount currently withheld to offset their receipt of veterans disability compensation, to 

the extent that disability pay is related to the injury for which they 

received the Purple Heart. Thus, if this measure increased the 

number of Purple Heart recipients, it could potentially increase retirement outlays. However, since this measure does not change the 

criteria for eligibility for the Purple Heart award, CBO assumes 

that at most a few additional Purple Hearts would be awarded if 

it were to be enacted, and that any additional retirement outlays 

would be negligible. 

Section 651 would eliminate restrictions on commissary use by 

members of the ready reserve, retirees of the ready reserve who are 

less than 60 years of age, and their dependents. CBO estimates enactment of this provision would increase commissary sales, which 

are deposited into the commissary revolving fund and used to replenish commissary stock. Commissaries also charge a 5 percent 

surcharge on all sales which is credited to the commissary surcharge account. Funds in the commissary surcharge account are 

used to renovate and construct commissary facilities and can be 

collected and spent without appropriation. CBO estimates the net 

result of the collection and expenditure of these proceeds would be 

insignificant. 

Sections 801 and 1451 would extend and expand authority for 

government agencies to provide services to nongovernmental organizations and enter into nonconventional cooperative agreements 

with private contractors for research into advanced weapons systems and homeland security. These agreements would include the 

authority for the government agencies to collect and spend reimbursements for any services rendered. While outlays would lag behind receipts, CBO does not have enough information to estimate 

the net outlay effects in any specific year. 

Section 903 would allow the Secretary of Defense to carry out a 

three-year pilot program to determine the feasibility of providing 

satellite tracking services with DoD assets to non-U.S. government 

entities. Under such a pilot program, DoD would be allowed to 

charge fees for these services and spend these payments. According 

to the Air Force, the proceeds from selling these services would 

likely be insignificant. CBO estimates that implementing this provision would have no net effect on direct spending because it would 

allow DoD to spend any payments that it collects. 

482

Section 906 would allow the Asia-Pacific Center for Security 

Studies to accept and spend gifts from U.S. sources, similar to the 

authority they have to accept gifts from foreign sources. Based on 

information from DoD, CBO estimates any gifts received under this 

section would be less than $500,000 annually. (Gifts and donations 

are recorded in the budget as revenues.) 

Section 1012 would allow the Navy to spend the proceeds received from selling the materials and equipment stripped from 

naval vessels that are to be used for experimental purposes. Under 

current law, the Navy may only recover their costs from such activities and any receipts in excess of those costs are required to be 

deposited into the general fund of the Treasury. The Navy has not 

deposited any excess funds into the general fund from these activities in recent years. Section 1012 also would allow the Navy to use 

contractors to sell this material and equipment. Based on information from the Navy, CBO estimates that receipts from the expanded authority would likely total less than $500,000 a year. Enacting this provision would have no net effect on direct spending, 

however, because it would allow the Navy to spend any payments 

it collects. 

Section 1046 would allow the National Security Agency (NSA) to 

contract for living quarters for co-op students, and would allow the 

NSA to charge the students for this service and credit the proceeds 

to appropriated accounts. CBO estimates the net result of the collection and expenditure of these proceeds would be insignificant. 

Asset Sales 

Section 3302 would increase by $20 million the targets contained 

in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 

(Public Law 106–65) for sales from the National Defense Stockpile 

through 2009. CBO estimates that there will be sufficient quantities of materials in the stockpile to achieve $15 million in receipts 

in 2004 and the remaining $5 million in receipts in 2005. 

INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT 

Title XI would authorize the Secretary to appoint older Americans into positions in the excepted service, and—notwithstanding 

any other provision of law—protect any other retirement benefits 

they may be receiving from being reduced as a result of that appointment. To the extent that under current law retirement benefits provided by state, local, or tribal governments might be reduced for a beneficiary hired by the Secretary, enacting this provision would prohibit such reductions and thereby impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined in UMRA. However, according to 

the National Association of State Retirement Administrators, few 

if any jurisdictions require such benefit reductions under current 

law. Therefore, CBO estimates that any costs to state, local, or tribal governments from the mandate would be insignificant and would 

not exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($59 million in 

2003, adjusted for inflation). 

Other provisions in H.R. 1588 contain no intergovernmental or 

private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no 

costs on state, local, or tribal governments.

483

PREVIOUS CBO ESTIMATES 

On May 12, 2003, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 

1497, the Sikes Act Reauthorization Act of 2003, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Resources on May 7, 2003. Both 

H.R. 1497 and section 311 of H.R. 1588 would authorize the appropriation of up to $4.5 million a year over the 2004–2008 period for 

DoD and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to develop and implement plans to manage natural resources on certain military lands. 

On May 14, 2003, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 

1837, the Services Acquisition Reform Act of 2003, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Government Reform on May 8, 

2003. Both bills would authorize the establishment of an Acquisition Workforce Training Fund; would establish a new advisory 

panel to review procurement policies, a Chief Acquisition Officers 

Council, and a center of excellence in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy; would require GSA, the Office of Personnel Management, and the Office of Management and Budget to issue implementing regulations; and would require the General Accounting Office to prepare certain studies on procurement issues. The difference in the other estimated costs reflect differences in the legislation. 

On May 15, 2003, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 

1836, the Civil Service and National Security Personnel Improvement Act of 2003, as ordered reported by the House Committee on 

Government Reform on May 8, 2003. Sections 1111, 1101, 1104, 

1107, and 1108 of H.R. 1588 are identical to sections 102, 201, 204, 

209, and 211 of H.R. 1836, as are the cost estimates. 

Estimate Prepared by: Federal Costs: Defense Outlays: Kent 

Christensen. Military Construction: David Newman. Military and 

Civilian Personnel: Michelle Patterson and Sunita D’Monte, and 

Ellen Hayes. Military Training: Sarah T. Jennings. Health Programs: Sam Papenfuss. Multiyear Procurement: David Newman 

and Raymond Hall. Maritime Administration: Deborah Reis. Stockpile Sales: Raymond Hall. Operation and Maintenance: Matthew 

Schmit. Services Acquisition Reform: Matthew Pickford. Impact on 

State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Victoria Heid Hall. Impact 

on the Private Sector: Allison Percy. 

Estimate Approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE 

Pursuant to clause 3(d) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the committee generally concurs with the estimates as contained in the report of the Congressional Budget Office. 

OVERSIGHT FINDINGS 

With respect to clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, this legislation results from hearings 

and other oversight activities conducted by the committee pursuant 

to clause 2(b)(1) of rule X. 

With respect to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not include any new 

484

spending or credit authority, nor does it provide for any increase 

or decrease in tax revenues or expenditures. The bill does, however, 

authorize appropriations. Other fiscal features of this legislation 

are addressed in the estimate prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974. 

With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the committee has not received a report 

from the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight pertaining to the subject matter of H.R. 1588. 

GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

With respect to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, this legislation would address several 

general and outcome-related performance goals and objectives. The 

general goal and objective of this legislation is to improve the quality of life for military personnel and their families, military readiness, the modernization and eventual transformation of the armed 

forces, to enhance the development of ballistic missile defenses, and 

to improve the condition of military housing and facilities. 

With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving the quality 

of life for military personnel and their families, the objective of this 

legislation is to: 

(1) Add 6,240 personnel, enabling the military services to 

begin meeting long-standing manpower shortages, as well as 

new manning requirements; 

(2) Provide every military service member an average pay 

raise of 4.1 percent and up to 6.25 percent for targeted raises 

effective January 1, 2004; and 

(3) Reduce out-of-pocket housing costs for military personnel to less than 3.5 percent during fiscal year 2004. 

With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving military 

readiness, the objective of this legislation is to: 

(1) Increase funding for key readiness accounts by approximately $3.7 billion above the fiscal year 2003 level; and 

(2) Satisfy approximately $1.1 billion of the service chiefs’ 

unfunded readiness requirements. 

With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving the modernization and eventual transformation of the armed forces and enhancing the development of ballistic missile defenses, the objective 

of this legislation is to: 

(1) Increase funding for military procurement accounts by 

$2.25 billion; 

(2) Satisfy approximately $1.5 billion of the unfunded procurement and research and development requirements identified by the service chiefs; and 

(3) Increase funding for military research and development 

accounts by $200.0 million. 

With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving military 

housing and facilities, the objective of this legislation is to: 

(1) Provide $9.8 billion for military construction and military family housing programs; and 

(2) Provide several enhancements to the authority provided by current law to privatize military housing that will 

485

provide the military services more flexibility to procure adequate military family housing. 

With respect to the outcome-related goal of increasing homeland 

and troop defenses against terrorist and ballistic missile attacks, 

the objective of this legislation is to: (1) Increase the President’s request of $9.8 billion for com- bating terrorism by $202 million; and 

(2) Support the approach of the President’s ballistic missile 

defense program and to match the Administration’s funding request of $9.1 billion. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT 

Pursuant to rule XIII, clause 3(d)(1) of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the committee finds the authority for this legislation in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. 

STATEMENT OF FEDERAL MANDATES 

Pursuant to section 423 of Public Law 104–4, this legislation contains no federal mandates with respect to state, local, and tribal 

governments, nor with respect to the private sector. Similarly, the 

bill provides no federal intergovernmental mandates. 

RECORD VOTES 

In accordance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, record and voice votes were taken with 

respect to the committee’s consideration of H.R. 1588. The record 

of these votes is attached to this report. 

The committee ordered H.R. 1588 reported to the House with a 

favorable recommendation by a vote of 58–2, a quorum being 

present.

486


Insert graphic folio 510 87068.177
487


Insert graphic folio 511 87068.178
488


Insert graphic folio 512 87068.179
489


Insert graphic folio 513 87068.180
490


Insert graphic folio 514 87068.181
491


Insert graphic folio 515 87068.182
492


Insert graphic folio 516 87068.183
493


Insert graphic folio 517 87068.184
494


Insert graphic folio 518 87068.185
495


Insert graphic folio 519 87068.186
496


Insert graphic folio 520 87068.187
497


Insert graphic folio 521 87068.188
498


Insert graphic folio 522 87068.189
499


Insert graphic folio 523 87068.190
500


Insert graphic folio 524 87068.191
501


Insert graphic folio 525 87068.192
502


Insert graphic folio 526 87068.193
503


Insert graphic folio 527 87068.194
504


Insert graphic folio 528 87068.195
505


Insert graphic folio 529 87068.196
506


Insert graphic folio 530 87068.197
507


Insert graphic folio 531 87068.198
508


Insert graphic folio 532 87068.199
509


Insert graphic folio 533 87068.200
510


Insert graphic folio 534 87068.201
511


Insert graphic folio 535 87068.202
512


Insert graphic folio 536 87068.203
513


Insert graphic folio 537 87068.204
514

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS 

REPORTED 

The Committee intends to take steps to make available the analysis of changes in existing law made by the bill, as required by 

clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives.

(515)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

We write to express our profound disappointment over the process and partisanship that characterized the mark-up of H.R. 1588, 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004. 

The Armed Services Committee has a well-established record of 

adhering to a structured legislative process that has resulted in deliberate and fulsome consideration of major legislative initiatives. 

The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act 

of 1986 (Public Law 99–433) and the Reserve Officer Personnel 

Management Act (Public Law 103–337) are just two examples of 

laws that resulted from a thoughtful series of committee hearings, 

consideration of views beyond those of the Department of Defense, 

and adequate time to scrutinize major proposals for change. 

The committee also has stood out as one of the few remaining 

bastions of bipartisanship in the House of Representatives. Over 

the years, many contentious issues have come before the committee. From the debates over the Midgetman and MX missiles in 

the 1980s to allied burdensharing and building the B–2 bomber in 

the early 1990s to counterproliferation and peacekeeping activities 

more recently, Armed Services Committee members have invariably been able to work through politically charged issues. Resolving 

these issues has not been easy, but the atmosphere of bipartisanship, mutual respect and cordiality among members has always 

pervaded the committee authorization process. 

The committee’s historical practice has been to achieve compromise on all but the most intractably divisive measures, recognizing that national security is too important for partisanship, and 

that the committee’s independence from the administration of the 

day was both its strength and its constitutional charge. 

Unfortunately, the committee’s consideration of H.R. 1588 has 

placed these traditions in jeopardy. 

This year, the committee brought difficulty upon itself by accepting legislation beyond the traditional scope of a defense authorization, and then not allowing time for it to be properly considered. 

Over the years, the defense authorization bill has often included 

provisions that fall within the legislative jurisdiction of other committees. However, the inclusion in this bill of provisions dramatically changing our civil service laws and rewriting major environmental laws without limited application to the Department of Defense is extraordinary if not unprecedented. Equally troubling is 

that the Armed Services Committee held fewer than five hearings 

on the Department’s ‘‘transformation’’ proposals, and two of those 

were on short notice or on a day when the House was not in session. These legislative proposals were submitted to Congress barely 

a month before the Committee marked up H.R. 1588 and immediately before a two week House recess period. The actual text of 

the language in this bill was available for Members to review just 

516

a few days before mark up. Consideration of such broad, sweeping 

policy changes on short notice, with scant opportunity for review, 

is a dramatic departure from the Committee’s history of careful, deliberate evaluation of significant legislation. This process will not 

produce prudent policy. Our committee has not operated in this 

fashion in the past, and consideration of the Department’s ‘‘transformation’’ proposals warranted more thoughtful review in this instance. There was no committee interest in including this legislation in the authorization bill rather than a separate vehicle, and 

no committee interest in hastening its consideration. We urge the 

committee to return to its history of regular order process as we 

undertake future legislation. 

The deterioration in bipartisanship, a hallmark of the Armed 

Services Committee’s operations for decades, was evidenced in the 

mark up of H.R. 1588. During the 24–hour mark up of this bill, 

there were 29 roll call votes, and almost all of them were straight 

party-line or mostly party-line. Moreover, during consideration of 

the first and most important amendment to the civil service provisions in the bill—the most contentious aspect of this legislation—

the previous question was moved in an effort to curtail debate. 

Both of these occurrences are unprecedented in the modern history 

of this committee, and we hope that they do not portend a sea 

change in the way this committee conducts its business. They are, 

however, symptoms of an underlying deterioration in the committee’s legislative process. 

It is axiomatic that the legislative process is consultative, and 

compromise among the parties is key to crafting sound policy that 

will stand the test of time. The Armed Services Committee’s historical bipartisanship is a testament that consultation and compromise work. The mark up of this bill suggests a pronounced decline in these areas. Symptomatic of this decline was the series of 

three party-line roll call votes to the Service Acquisition Reform 

Act provisions in the bill. These provisions were included in the bill 

without consultation. The subject matter was not so inherently partisan that compromise should have been out of the question. Resolution of policy differences should have been easily attained without defaulting to a partisan outcome. 

The motion for the previous question is equally disturbing. After 

full and substantive debate on myriad amendments throughout 

this mark-up, moving the previous question during the first amendment on the subject of greatest concern to the minority sends a signal of intolerance and unwillingness to respect or even hear opposing views, despite the fact that those views are widely and sincerely held by many members of the Committee. Such action is 

highly uncharacteristic and disappointing. Despite many contentious and partisan battles on issues in the past, not one member 

can recall a single instance in which the previous question has 

been moved during debate on an amendment in this committee. We 

view this development with sadness and regret. 

The universal aim of members who serve on this committee, Republican and Democrat, is to enact policies to provide for our national security. We all endeavor to ensure that the men and women 

who serve in our military and make such great sacrifices for our 

nation have the training, equipment and means to best protect our 

517

country. Attaining our mutual goals should not be a partisan enterprise, certainly not to the extent reflected in this bill and in this 

mark-up. We strongly urge a careful rethinking of the approach the 

committee has taken so far this year. A decline in one of the paragons of bipartisanship and collegiality in the House—the Armed 

Services Committee—will occur if this trend continues. Damage to 

the wisdom of our defense policy will be the unfortunate and inevitable long-term result for the country.

IKE SKELTON. 

JOHN SPRATT. 

GENE TAYLOR. 

LANE EVANS. 

MARTY MEEHAN. 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE. 

SILVESTRE REYES. 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ. 

VIC SNYDER. 

LORETTA SANCHEZ. 

SUSAN A. DAVIS. 

RICK LARSEN. 

JIM COOPER. 

BARON P. HILL. 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER. 

JOHN B. LARSON. 

KENDRICK B. MEEK. 

JIM LANGEVIN. 

TIM RYAN. 

ADAM SMITH. 

ROBERT A. BRADY. 

RODNEY ALEXANDER. 

JIM TURNER. 

STEVE ISRAEL. 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO. 

MIKE MCINTYRE. 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ. 

JIM MARSHALL.

(518)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

We write to express our concerns about the Cooperative Threat 

Reduction (CTR) and nuclear weapons provisions included in H.R. 

1588. While, in both areas, the committee took some positive actions, we believe that on the whole the bill does not sufficiently advance the United States’ nonproliferation policy goals. On the one 

hand, the bill does not provide all that the administration has requested to achieve the national security objectives of the CTR program. On the other, by advancing policies that aim to develop new 

and more usable nuclear weapons, the committee sends a dangerous signal to nations who might seek nuclear weapons and 

weakens U.S. credibility to push for nuclear restraint by others. 

Both of these elements of the bill are troubling on their own; when 

considered together they underline the dangers of these policies. 

Cooperative Threat Reduction Issues 

We are pleased that the committee fully funded the President’s 

budget request for Cooperative Threat Reduction programs. We 

also commend the committee’s decision to approve a one-year extension of waiver authority for certification conditions for the chemical weapons destruction facility at Shchuch’ye, Russia. Waiver authority will allow the construction of this facility—which currently 

stores 5,400 tons of the world’s most dangerous and easily stolen 

weapons—to continue while still keeping pressure on Russia to 

comply all of the conditions imposed. 

Yet while the bill permits the chemical weapons program to move 

forward, it also puts serious constraints on the funds needed to 

construct the Shchuch’ye facility. The chairman’s mark, as presented to the committee, moved $28.8 million from the chemical 

weapons destruction program to the strategic offensive arms elimination program—a program already fully funded in the President’s 

request. Mr. Spratt offered two amendments—one that would restore the administration’s request and one that would put the $28.8 

million in a separate line item that could be used for either the 

chemical or the strategic nuclear programs. The latter approach 

would have given the Secretary of Defense the flexibility to fund 

Shchuch’ye, while still allowing some members of the committee to 

express their preference for funding strategic nuclear programs. 

The bill also contains a complicated and unwieldy cost-sharing system for obligating the money that remains. While we believe that 

Russia and other members of the international community must remain active and committed partners in this effort, the bill’s approach to achieving this outcome is overly complex and likely to 

slow efforts to dismantle these weapons. Both of these amendments 

failed on party line votes. We are deeply disappointed that the [national security benefits] value of the nonproliferation efforts to be 

achieved at Shchuch’ye—which President Bush has ordered to be 

519

accelerated—are not understood or accepted by the majority of this 

committee. 

We are also distressed that the administration’s request to allow 

$50 million in CTR funds to be used outside the former Soviet 

Union to take advantage of near-term nonproliferation opportunities or to advance our long-standing nonproliferation policies was 

stripped from this bill. Instead the bill allows for the transfer of 

such funds to the State Department’s Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund. We believe that the State Department undertakes 

important nonproliferation activities, but it does not have the deep 

expertise in securing and dismantling the weapons and infrastructure of weapons of mass destruction programs. The administration 

specifically asked for the Department of Defense to have this authority and we concur with their assessment. Ms. Tauscher offered 

an amendment that would have restored the requested approach. 

All committee Democrats and a Republican supported the President’s request, but the amendment still failed. 

Beyond these amendments, we have concerns about other provisions that may be well-intentioned, but are constraining in their effect. We are aware of and troubled by the waste incurred by the 

troubles at CTR programs in Votkinsk and Krasnoyarsk. We believe that there must be better program accountability and a renewed commitment by our Russian partners to ensure these problems do not recur. The Defense Department acknowledges this as 

well and has instituted a series of new procedures and policies designed to achieve this goal which they described to the committee 

on in testimony on March 4, 2003. The approach taken by this bill 

including its requirement that the Department identify, for all new 

or ongoing CTR programs, every permit or license that will ever be 

needed for a project, and then obtain such permits, regardless of 

when they would be most appropriately obtained, will hamstring 

numerous CTR programs, ultimately extending the completion time 

for these projects and leaving more weapons at proliferation risk. 

We share the majority’s interest in enhanced accountability, but 

the existing efforts of the Department will achieve this, without 

risking the health of existing programs. 

We hope some of these weaknesses will be reversed in floor consideration of H.R. 1588. Doing so would advance the administration’s and Congress’ goal of preventing the proliferation of some of 

the world’s most dangerous weapons. 

Nuclear Weapon Issues 

We are pleased that the committee accepted the amendment offered by Rep. Spratt to retain the prohibition on developing new 

nuclear weapons with yields below five kilotons. Although the 

amendment permits research of such weapons, it prohibits development engineering (referred to as Phase 6.3 activities by the Department of Energy) and later stages of development. More importantly, the amendment reaffirms that it is the policy of the United 

States not to develop or produce low-yield nuclear weapons. This 

bipartisan action in the House sends an important message: the 

United States is not backsliding towards development of new battlefield nuclear weapons. 

520

Unfortunately, bipartisan agreement on this amendment did not 

extend to three other amendments on nuclear weapons. On nearly 

party-line votes, the majority refused to accept the following 

amendments: 

1. A Tauscher Amendment to put in place a one-year moratorium on the development of new nuclear weapons (although research short of phase 6.3 would have been permitted); 

2. A Tauscher Amendment to transfer funding from two nuclear weapon studies—the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator 

and Advanced Concepts—to conventional alternatives for addressing hard and deeply buried targets; and 

3. A Spratt Amendment to require notification of Congress 

18 months prior to a resumption of underground nuclear testing. 

In rejecting these common-sense amendments, the committee has 

effectively endorsed the Bush Administration’s policy to examine 

new uses for nuclear weapons. We believe this policy is a reversal 

of the positive trend since the end of the Cold War to rely less and 

less on nuclear weapons. If the United States starts seeking new 

nuclear weapons, it signals that nuclear weapons are still desirable 

and legitimate weapons of war. If other existing nuclear nations—

such as Russia, China, India, and Pakistan—follow our lead, the 

odds increase that terrorist groups will obtain these weapons or the 

critical fissile materials used to build them. In addition, our pursuit of new nuclear weapons may weaken international resolve to 

prevent nations such as North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Libya from 

obtaining nuclear weapons (or more weapons in the case of North 

Korea).

521

Instead of developing new nuclear weapons, the United States 

should redouble its efforts to discourage the development and use 

of nuclear weapons and reduce the stores of fissile materials available for theft or unauthorized transfer. We are disappointed that 

the bill as currently drafted heads in the wrong direction, and will 

continue to seek changes to the bill on the House floor and in conference.

IKE SKELTON. 

JOHN SPRATT. 

GENE TAYLOR. 

LANE EVANS

MARTY MEEHAN. 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE. 

SILVESTRE REYES. 

VIC SNYDER. 

LORETTA SANCHEZ. 

ADAM SMITH. 

ROBERT A. BRADY. 

RODNEY ALEXANDER. 

JIM TURNER. 

RICK LARSEN. 

JIM COOPER. 

BARON P. HILL. 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER. 

JOHN B. LARSON. 

KENDRICK B. MEEK. 

JIM LANGEVIN. 

TIM RYAN. 

STEVE ISRAEL. 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO. 

SUSAN A. DAVIS. 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ.

(522)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

As members of the Armed Services Committee we clearly understand the importance of a strong national defense. Our record of 

support is unambiguous. Realistic and rigorous training underpins 

the capabilities of our military services, forms one of the most important components of readiness, and provides for our repeated 

successes. 

We have an obligation to protect this training. We also have an 

obligation to protect the natural environment—air, water, and 

land—upon which all life depends. The protection of our environment has profound consequences on our economic well being and 

our quality of life. 

No one can dispute the importance of military readiness and protecting the environment. However, the current law effectively balances the two. If a case were made that current law was not balanced we would certainly be sympathetic to adjusting the law. 

Nothing points to an imbalance. 

We have heard much rhetoric on the issue, but the truth is the 

Department of Defense’s evidence is fundamentally anecdotal. 

Moreover, that anecdotal evidence stands in sharp contrast to the 

successes in Iraq. Should training have been adversely impacted, 

we would have expected to see evidence of that impact in combat 

operations. None exists. 

We looked for analysis to inform the debate. While metrics exist 

to measure readiness, no one has presented any measure of reduced readiness resulting from the Department’s compliance with 

existing law. In fact, in an April 2003 Report, the General Accounting Office noted ‘‘Despite concerns voiced repeatedly by DOD officials about the effects of encroachment on training, DOD’s readiness reports did not indicate the extent to which encroachment was 

adversely affecting training readiness and costs.’’ 

Supplementing this absence of data suggesting an adverse impact on readiness are the statements of Administration officials. In 

Senate testimony earlier this year, Christine Whitman, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, said, ‘‘I don’t believe that there is a training mission anywhere in the country that 

is being held up or not taking place because of environmental protection regulation.’’ Further, the Deputy Secretary of Defense wrote 

in a March 3 memorandum ‘‘In the vast majority of cases, we have 

demonstrated that we are both able to comply with environmental 

requirements and to conduct necessary military training and testing.’’ 

Finally, if an adverse impact existed or arose, current law provides a number of exemptions that the Administration could exercise. Rather than support a substantial shift in environmental law, 

we call upon the Department to exercise its ability to use the existing exemptions in the rare cases in which those exemptions might 

523

be needed. Apparently Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz agrees. He 

wrote ‘‘In those exceptional cases where we cannot [train] and the 

law permits us to do so, we owe it to our young men and women 

to request an appropriate exemption.’’ 

Instead of addressing those rare cases by supporting existing exemptions or proposing a surgical fix, the majority included farreaching changes in environmental laws, whose application extends 

well beyond the Department of Defense and well beyond any determinable national security requirement. 

The unfortunate and counterproductive result of exempting all 

Federal activity from these important protections will be to further 

exacerbate the threat to endangered species and marine mammals, 

curtail valuable public, State and local consultation, and in all likelihood increase litigation.

SUSAN A. DAVIS. 

LANE EVANS. 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE. 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ. 

LORETTA SANCHEZ. 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER. 

JIM LANGEVIN. 

TIM RYAN. 

JOHN B. LARSON.

(524)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

These additional views express our concerns regarding the proposal for a new Department of Defense National Security Personnel 

System included in H.R. 1588. We recognize the need for some 

changes in the personnel management system at the Department 

of Defense (DoD) that help the department adapt to today’s international security and employment environment. In particular, we 

feel that more flexibility in hiring practices and a fair pay-for-performance system that does a better job of rewarding the best DOD 

civilian employees could be very important steps toward creating a 

more effective Department of Defense. However, we believe that 

the proposal included in H.R. 1588 goes too far, too fast. Rather 

than presenting Congress with a plan to address specific problems 

in the current civilian personnel system, the Department has requested blanket authority to create an entirely new system with 

only the flimsiest safeguards for fundamental employee rights. We 

believe that this ‘‘blank check’’ approach to reform is not the way 

to proceed. 

As recently demonstrated by the performance of our military 

forces in Iraq, the Department of Defense is a highly effective organization that is producing superb military capability. Civilians at 

DOD—numbering more than 700,000—were a critical part of this 

military success. The quality of this performance demonstrates that 

Congress has time to do this right. Simply put, there is no ‘‘crisis’’ 

in the DOD civil service system that requires the ill-considered, 

rushed, and unclear reform effort embodied in H.R. 1588. Our concern is that in trying to go too fast in this critical area of reform, 

the Department risks undermining the morale and effectiveness of 

a patriotic and loyal civilian workforce that is a key part of the outstanding military capabilities our nation enjoys today. 

In addition to our concerns with the overly broad and rushed approach to reform of the civilian personnel system inherent in H.R. 

1588, we are troubled by the lack of explicit protections for fundamental workers’ rights in the legislation. The proposal grants broad 

authority to the current—and every future—Secretary of Defense 

to create and manage a new personnel system that is exempt from 

many current employee protections embodied in Title 5, United 

States Code: the right to true collective bargaining, the right to a 

fair appeals system, premium payment for employees in hazardous 

jobs, adequate overtime and weekend compensation, preferences for 

veterans in hiring and retention, equal pay for equal work, and 

protection from adverse actions due to political affiliation. We believe that an effective approach to reform does not require casually 

tossing aside these critical protections, which are now protected in 

statute, in exchange for the promises and good intentions of the 

current and future leadership of the Department of Defense. We 

fear that if the Department of Defense fails to use this new authorVerDate Jan 31 2003 21:01 May 17, 2003 Jkt 087068 PO 00000 Frm 00548 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\A106HR.151 A106HR
525

ity in a responsible manner, we risk returning the nation’s most 

important government department to a ‘‘spoils’’ system where political loyalty and favoritism are more important than competence 

and merit. 

During floor consideration of H.R. 1588, we hope to present 

amendments that address our concerns regarding the overly broad 

and sweeping provisions that grant the Department of Defense unprecedented authority to establish an entirely new personnel system. Informed and carefully considered reform of the DOD civil 

service system may be needed, but we feel that the approach represented by H.R. 1588 may place America’s current military 

strength at risk by trying to change too much, too fast. We feel that 

Congress owes it to our Department of Defense civilian employees, 

our Armed Forces, and the American people to get these critical reforms right.

JIM COOPER. 

IKE SKELTON. 

JOHN SPRATT. 

GENE TAYLOR. 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ. 

SILVESTRE REYES. 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE. 

SUSAN A. DAVIS. 

ADAM SMITH. 

JAMES LANGEVIN. 

JOHN B. LARSON. 

STEVE ISRAEL. 

ROBERT A. BRADY. 

KENDRICK B. MEEK. 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ. 

RICK LARSEN. 

TIM RYAN. 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER.

(526)

ADDITIONAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF 

REPRESENTATIVE TIM RYAN 

This statement is to clarify any inconsistency found in the 

amendments pertaining to subsection 2533a(c) of the Berry Amendment. My intent is to have consistency throughout 2533a(c), as 

amended, by having the authority found in 2533a(c), as amended, 

rest exclusively with the Secretary of Defense, and not with the 

Secretary of the military department concerned. Hence, the phrase 

‘‘or the Secretary of the military department concerned’’ should be 

stricken throughout 2533a(c) of the Berry Amendment.

TIM RYAN. 

(527)

DISSENTING VIEW OF REPRESENTATIVE LANE EVANS 

The Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization as reported 

out of this committee goes a long way in giving our troops and 

their commanders the tools to transform our military for the 21st 

century. But, I remain very concerned about the latitude given to 

the Secretary of Defense and the enveloping changes to the Department of Defenses’ personnel system. My overwhelming concern in 

handing over so much power to the Pentagon and eliminating vital 

labor protections forced me to vote against the chairman’s mark up. 

Section 1111 of the Fiscal Year 2004 National Defense Authorization as reported waives 12 major federal civil service protections 

for workers in Title 5 of the United States Code. These sweeping 

changes and others more drastic were presented to the committee 

for consideration by the Secretary of Defense less than two weeks 

before we began the mark up process. This gave the members of 

the committee an extremely short period to listen to expert witnesses and deliberate the effect of this wide ranging rollback. While 

the creation of the current civil service rules took years to implement and perfect, this major rollback took only a few hours of hearings, with little actual debate. 

Section 1111 gives the Department of Defense authority to scrap 

local bargaining agreements and replace them with one rigid national system. Denying local agreements does not take into account 

unique workplaces that a national agreement will not incorporate. 

Further, it scraps the long established General Schedule (GS) wage 

system and the grade step increases with a system the Secretary 

of Defense will draw up. Neither the Armed Services Committee 

nor the Government Reform Committee have given any guidance 

or parameters over a wage system that will effect over 700,000 government workers. 

The hallmark of our nation’s civil service system is due process 

and rights of appeal. This legislation waives a Department of Defense employee’s right to appeal a disciplinary discriminatory action to either the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or 

the Merit Systems Protection Board. 

Many of these changes to the civil service in this legislation are 

based upon the ‘‘Homeland Security’’ model that has not even been 

tested, much less implemented. We are about to extend these experimental rollbacks to the 700,000 Department of Defense civilian 

employees. These effected civilian employees performed tremendously during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi 

Freedom, but upon the recent cessation of hostilities, their rights 

and protections will now be rolled back, without justification being 

presented in this committee. 

This legislation as reported out of the committee places an unprecedented amount of trust with the Secretary of Defense that 

would apply to all future Secretaries of Defense in the area of labor 

528

management and civilian protections. This committee should not 

hand off wide-ranging and absolute authority on the enforcement 

of veterans’ preference in hiring, setting wage and pay classifications, and the definition of merit and performance to the Secretary 

of Defense and his or her subordinate bureaucrats. It is within the 

jurisdiction and the assigned role of this committee to define these 

standards. I believe that in the future, more than likely based upon 

a negative and publicized experience with these rollbacks, this committee will revisit the broad latitude in the personnel system handed to the Secretary of Defense. 

I am aware that the Senate Armed Services Committee has not 

included these changes to the personnel system and it is my strong 

desire that the Senate position on this issue prevails.

LANE EVANS.

Æ