" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 108TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

108–491 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON

H.R. 4200 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[Including committee cost estimate] 

MAY 14, 2004.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

93–654 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 108TH CONGRESS

2d Session 

REPORT

2004

108–491 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON

H.R. 4200 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[Including committee cost estimate] 

MAY 14, 2004.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

ONE HUNDRED 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 ........................................................................... 12 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 14 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION .................... 14 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT ................................................................................... 14 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 14 

Aircraft Procurement, Army ............................................................................ 17 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 17 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 20 

Airborne communications ......................................................................... 20 

Blackhawk helicopter de-icing system upgrade ...................................... 20 

Cashworthy crew seats ............................................................................. 20 

Modern signal processing unit ................................................................. 20 

Missile Procurement, Army ............................................................................. 21 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 21 

Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army ............................................. 24 

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

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 28 

Air-droppable, lightweight armored direct fires system ........................ 28 

Armor and vehicle protection kits ............................................................ 28 

Bradley fighting vehicle integrated management ................................... 28 

M1A2 system enhancement package ....................................................... 28 

M777 lightweight 155 millimeter howitzer ............................................. 29 

Ammunition Procurement, Army .................................................................... 29 

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

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

Ammunition production base upgrades ................................................... 33 

Conventional munitions demilitarization ................................................ 33 

Other Procurement, Army ............................................................................... 34 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 34 

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

Common system open architecture .......................................................... 44 

Digital soldier ............................................................................................ 44 

Distributed common ground system ........................................................ 44 

Logistics support vessel ............................................................................ 45 

Physical security systems ......................................................................... 46 

Movement tracking system ....................................................................... 46 

Shortstop electronic protection system .................................................... 46 

Small Tugs ................................................................................................. 47 

Tactical unmanned aerial vehicle ............................................................ 47 

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ............................................................................ 47 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 47 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 52 

AN/USC-42 miniaturized-demand assigned multiple access terminals 52 

F/A-18E/F shared reconnaissance pod ..................................................... 52 

H-1 series modifications ............................................................................ 52 

Joint primary air training system ........................................................... 53 

Metrology and calibration program ......................................................... 53 

P-3 series modifications ............................................................................ 53 

T-45TS and T-48 ........................................................................................ 54 

Page

IV 

Weapons Procurement, Navy ........................................................................... 54 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 54 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 58 

Close-in weapon system block 1B ............................................................ 58 

Evolved sea sparrow missile ..................................................................... 58 

Hellfire II missile ...................................................................................... 58 

Pioneer unmanned aerial vehicle ............................................................. 59 

Tomahawk missile ..................................................................................... 59 

Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps ........................................ 59 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 59 

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy ................................................................ 63 

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

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

Aft ramp range retriever craft ................................................................. 66 

Amphibious assault ship replacement program ...................................... 66 

Other Procurement, Navy ................................................................................ 66 

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

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 75 

Chemical biological defense for aviation and explosive ordnance disposal ........................................................................................................ 75 

Complementary acoustic system improvements ..................................... 75 

CVN replacement propeller program ....................................................... 75 

Envelop protective covers ......................................................................... 76 

Integrated bridge system .......................................................................... 76 

Integrated condition assessment system ................................................. 76 

Man overboard identification program .................................................... 76 

Multi-climate protection clothing system ................................................ 77 

Programmable integrated communications terminal ............................. 77 

Serial number tracking system ................................................................ 77 

Weapons elevator automation .................................................................. 77 

Procurement, Marine Corps ............................................................................. 78 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 78 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 84 

Assault breacher vehicle ........................................................................... 84 

Improved recovery vehicle ........................................................................ 84 

Marines global command and control systems and integrated imagery 

and intelligence analysis system .......................................................... 84 

Nitrile rubber collapsible storage units ................................................... 84 

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ...................................................................... 85 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 85 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 91 

Advanced targeting pod ............................................................................ 91 

B-1B modifications .................................................................................... 91 

C-5 modifications ....................................................................................... 92 

C-17 ............................................................................................................ 92 

C-17 maintenance training system .......................................................... 92 

C-130E engine upgrades ........................................................................... 93 

F-15 modifications ..................................................................................... 93 

F-16 air national guard force structure ................................................... 93 

F-16 modifications ..................................................................................... 94 

KC-767 aerial refueling tanker aircraft .................................................. 94 

Predator unmanned aerial vehicle ........................................................... 96 

Senior scout permanent carrier ................................................................ 96 

T-38 modifications ..................................................................................... 96 

Ammunition Procurement, Air Force .............................................................. 97 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 97 

Missile Procurement, Air Force ....................................................................... 99 

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

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 103 

Advanced extremely high frequency satellite ......................................... 103 

Evolved expendable launch vehicle .......................................................... 103 

Other Procurement, Air Force ......................................................................... 103 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 103 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 110 

Combat training ranges ............................................................................ 110 

Advanced compression of tactical sensor information ............................ 110 

Fixed aircrew standardized seats ............................................................ 110 

Page

V 

General information technology ............................................................... 110 

Point of maintenance and combat ammunition system initiative ......... 111 

Procurement, Defense-Wide ............................................................................. 111 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 111 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 117 

Chemical agents and munitions destruction ........................................... 117 

Chemical and biological defense procurement program ......................... 118 

Countering improvised explosive devices ................................................ 119 

Guard and Reserve equipment ................................................................. 119 

Indexing of class A mishaps ..................................................................... 119 

Joint threat work station, ground signals intelligence kits ................... 120 

Military specifications for radomes .......................................................... 120 

Special Operations Forces binocular goggle system ............................... 120 

Special Operations Forces MH-47 infrared engine exhaust suppressor .................................................................................................... 121 

Use of capability-based acquisition .......................................................... 121 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 122 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 122 

Sections 101-104—Authorization of Appropriations .................................. 122 

Subtitle B—Program Matters .......................................................................... 122 

Section 111—Multiyear procurement authority for the M777 lightweight 155mm howitzer program ............................................................ 122 

Section 112—DDG-51 Modernization Program .......................................... 122 

Section 113—Repeal of Authority for Pilot Program for Flexible Funding of Cruiser Conversions and Overhauls ............................................. 124 

Section 114—Force Protection for Asymmetric Threat Environment ...... 124 

Section 115—Allocation of Equipment Authorized by this Title to be 

Made on Basis of Units Deployed or Preparing to Deploy ..................... 124 

Section 116—KC-767 Tanker Multiyear Procurement .............................. 124 

Section 117—Other Matters Relating to KC-767 Tanker Acquisition 

Program ...................................................................................................... 125 

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

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

Army Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation ....................................... 129 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 129 

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

Advanced amputee treatment research and development ..................... 140 

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

Advanced carbon nano technology ........................................................... 141 

Advanced weapons technology ................................................................. 141 

Aerostat joint project office ....................................................................... 141 

Applied communications and information networking ........................... 142 

Center for rotorcraft innovation ............................................................... 142 

Center for tribology ................................................................................... 143 

Centers of excellence ................................................................................. 143 

Combat vehicle electronics ....................................................................... 143 

Defense language institute/foreign language center .............................. 143 

Digital array radar technology development ........................................... 144 

Electronic flight planning ......................................................................... 144 

Flexible display initiative ......................................................................... 144 

Force XXI battle command brigade and below blue force tracking 

system ..................................................................................................... 145 

Future combat systems ............................................................................. 145 

Geospatial information decision support for single integrated air picture .......................................................................................................... 145 

Human systems integration ..................................................................... 146 

Hydrogen proton exchange membrane .................................................... 146 

Information dominance center ................................................................. 147 

Institute for creative technologies ............................................................ 147 

Integrated communications navigation identification avionics program ........................................................................................................ 147 

Joint and combined communications test tool product suite ................. 148 

JP-8 soldier fuel cell .................................................................................. 148 

LEAN munitions ....................................................................................... 148 

Light unmanned aerial vehicle weaponization ....................................... 148 

Light utility vehicle ................................................................................... 149 

Lightweight structures initiative ............................................................. 149 

Page

VI 

Low cost course correction ........................................................................ 149 

M5 high performance fiber for personnel armor systems ...................... 149 

Medical technology applied research initiative ....................................... 150 

Clinical research programs ................................................................... 150 

Medium tactical truck development ........................................................ 151 

Miniature sensor development for small and tactical unmanned aerial vehicles .............................................................................................. 151 

Modeling and analysis of the response of structures ............................. 151 

Night vision fusion .................................................................................... 151 

Patient monitor with defibrillator ............................................................ 152 

Portable and mobile emergency broadband system ................................ 152 

Shadow tactical unmanned aerial vehicle ............................................... 152 

Smart responsive nanocomposites ........................................................... 152 

Space and missile defense architecture analysis program ..................... 153 

Strategic materials strategic manufacturing initiative .......................... 153 

Titanium alloy powder .............................................................................. 153 

Titanium extraction, mining, and process engineering research .......... 153 

Unmanned systems initiative ................................................................... 153 

Navy Research, Development, Test & Evaluation ......................................... 154 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 154 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 166 

Advanced composite structures program ................................................. 166 

Advanced gun system for DD(X) multi-mission destroyer ..................... 166 

Advanced laser diode arrays .................................................................... 166 

Advanced mine detection program ........................................................... 167 

Advanced processor build integration ...................................................... 167 

Aegis open architecture ............................................................................ 167 

Affordable towed array construction ........................................................ 168 

Affordable weapon system ........................................................................ 168 

Airborne mine neutralization system ...................................................... 169 

Airborne reconnaissance systems ............................................................ 169 

AN/BLQ-10 test and support .................................................................... 170 

Anti-torpedo torpedo ................................................................................. 170 

Automatic radar periscope detection and discrimination ...................... 170 

Aviation ship integration center .............................................................. 171 

Aviation shipboard information technology initiative ............................ 171 

Biomedical research imaging .................................................................... 172 

Center for critical infrastructure protection ........................................... 172 

Claymore marine ....................................................................................... 172 

Common submarine radio room ............................................................... 172 

Composite ceramic unmanned underwater vehicle ................................ 173 

Consolidated undersea situational awareness ........................................ 173 

DD(X) multi-mission destroyer ................................................................. 174 

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

Digital modular radio ................................................................................ 176 

DP-2 thrust vectoring system ................................................................... 176 

Electromagnetic gun program .................................................................. 176 

Embedded national tactical receiver integration with advanced antiradiation guided missile ........................................................................ 177 

Emerging/critical interconnection technology ......................................... 177 

Enterprise resource planning ................................................................... 178 

Enterprise targeting and strike system ................................................... 178 

Evolved sea sparrow missile capability for large decks ......................... 178 

Formable aligned carbon thermosets ....................................................... 179 

Gallium nitride radio-frequency power technology ................................. 179 

Hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier ............................................................ 180 

High temperature superconducting AC synchronous ship propulsion 

motor ....................................................................................................... 180 

Hybrid POSS composites development .................................................... 181 

Integrated personnel protection system .................................................. 181 

Integrated radar optical surveillance and sighting system ................... 181 

Intermediate modulus carbon fiber qualification ................................... 182 

Interrogator for high-speed retro-reflective communications ................ 182 

Joint integrated systems technology ........................................................ 183 

Joint Strike Fighter .................................................................................. 183 

Laser radar data exploitation ................................................................... 183 

Littoral combat ship .................................................................................. 184 

Page

VII 

Littoral support craft-experimental ......................................................... 185 

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

Low-cost terminal imaging seeker ........................................................... 186 

Low-power mega-performance unmanned aerial vehicle processing 

engines .................................................................................................... 186 

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

Nanoscience and nanomaterials ............................................................... 187 

One megawatt molten carbonate fuel cell demonstrator ....................... 187 

Open architecture warfare systems ......................................................... 187 

Open architecture wireless sensors ......................................................... 188 

Organ transplant technology .................................................................... 188 

Project M .................................................................................................... 189 

Rapid deployment fortification wall ......................................................... 189 

Real-time precision targeting radar ......................................................... 189 

Reduced risk ordnance .............................................................................. 190 

Remote ocean surveillance system ........................................................... 190 

Ship system component development ...................................................... 191 

Spectral beam combining fiber lasers ...................................................... 191 

Submarine payloads and sensors program .............................................. 191 

Superconducting direct current homopolar motor .................................. 192 

Tactical E-field buoy development ........................................................... 192 

Task force anti-submarine warfare .......................................................... 192 

Theater undersea warfare initiative ........................................................ 193 

Ultrasonic detection equipment ............................................................... 193 

VH-XX executive helicopter development ............................................... 194 

Virginia class multi-mission modules ...................................................... 194 

Virtual at-sea training initiative .............................................................. 195 

Wide band gap semiconductor power electronics .................................... 195 

Air Force Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation ................................. 195 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 195 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 206 

Advanced vehicle and propulsion center and engineering research 

lab equipment upgrade .......................................................................... 206 

Advanced wideband signals intelligence geo-processor .......................... 206 

B-2 development ........................................................................................ 206 

Blue MAJIC ............................................................................................... 207 

Cobra Ball .................................................................................................. 207 

Combat optical receiver for smart and loitering standoff weapons ....... 207 

Collaborative information technologies ................................................... 208 

Common aero vehicle ................................................................................ 208 

Defensive electro-optical tracker countermeasures technologies ........... 208 

Distributed mission interoperability toolkit ............................................ 208 

Enterprise availability and cost optimization system ............................ 208 

F-15C/D active electronically scanned array radar ................................ 209 

Global Hawk United States Southern Command demonstration ......... 209 

Global positioning system ......................................................................... 210 

High accuracy network determination system ........................................ 210 

Identification of time critical targets ....................................................... 210 

Integrated cooling and power system magnetic bearing technology ..... 211 

Integrated control for autonomous space systems .................................. 211 

Intelligent free space optical satellite communication node .................. 211 

Joint surveillance target attack radar system blue force tracking 

and combat identification ...................................................................... 211 

KC-10 global air traffic management development ................................ 212 

Lightweight modular support jammer ..................................................... 212 

Metals affordability ................................................................................... 212 

Next generation bomber program ............................................................ 213 

Operationally responsive launch .............................................................. 213 

Satellite simulation toolkit ....................................................................... 214 

Satellite tool kit technical integration concept of operations for tactical satellite ........................................................................................... 214 

Space-based infrared system .................................................................... 214 

Space-based radar ..................................................................................... 215 

Space cadre ................................................................................................ 215 

Space situational awareness initiative .................................................... 215 

Streaker small launch vehicle .................................................................. 215 

Transformational satellite communications ............................................ 216 

Page

VIII 

Ultra short pulse laser technology ........................................................... 216 

Upper stage engine technology ................................................................ 216 

Wideband gapfiller system ....................................................................... 216 

Worldwide infrastructure security environment ..................................... 217 

Defense-Wide Research, Development, Test, & Evaluation .......................... 217 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 217 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 228 

Accelerating transition and fielding of advanced technologies for 

emerging critical operational needs ..................................................... 228 

Advanced metal casting technology ......................................................... 229 

Advanced sensor applications program ................................................... 229 

Advanced tactical laser program .............................................................. 229 

Anti-radiation drug and trials program .................................................. 230 

Asymmetric protocols for biological defense ............................................ 230 

Ballistic missile defense ............................................................................ 231 

Advanced concepts ................................................................................. 231 

Boost defense segment .......................................................................... 231 

Core ......................................................................................................... 231 

Midcourse defense segment .................................................................. 232 

Post Ramos Project ................................................................................ 232 

Products .................................................................................................. 232 

Sensors .................................................................................................... 232 

System interceptor ................................................................................. 233 

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

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

Business management modernization program ...................................... 234 

Chemical/biological defense research, development, test and evaluation program ....................................................................................... 235 

Accelerating the research, development, and acquisition of medical 

countermeasures against biological warfare agents ........................ 235 

Chemical/biological defense basic research initiative ......................... 236 

Chemical/biological defense applied research initiative ..................... 237 

Chemical/biological defense advanced technology development initiative .................................................................................................. 237 

Joint biological point detection system ................................................ 237 

Joint service lightweight standoff chemical agent detector ............... 237 

Connectory for rapid identification of technology resources .................. 238 

Counter-terrorism technology support ..................................................... 238 

Defense advanced research projects agency ............................................ 238 

Defense science and technology funding ................................................. 240 

Expanding the role of small businesses in the defense acquisition 

process .................................................................................................... 241 

High-speed/hypersonic reusable demonstration ..................................... 242 

Horizontal fusion ....................................................................................... 242 

Implementation of defense biomedical countermeasures ....................... 243 

Man portable air defense system defense program ................................ 243 

Measures and signatures intelligence consortium .................................. 244 

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

Multi-wavelength surface scanning biologics sensor .............................. 244 

National Defense University technology pilot program ......................... 245 

Nuclear weapons effects applied research ............................................... 245 

Operationally responsive satellite ............................................................ 246 

Smart machine platform initiative .......................................................... 246 

Space and missile defense command simulation center ........................ 246 

Special operations advanced technology development ........................... 247 

Special operations technology development ............................................ 247 

Stimulated isomer energy release ............................................................ 248 

Tasking, processing, exploitation, and dissemination of SYERS-2 

data ......................................................................................................... 248 

Use of research and development funds to procure systems ................. 248 

Walrus ........................................................................................................ 249 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page

IX 

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

Section 211—Future Combat Systems Program Strategy ......................... 252 

Section 212—Collaborative Program for Research and Development of 

Vacuum Electronics Technologies ............................................................ 253 

Section 213—Annual Comptroller General Report on Joint Strike Fighter Program ................................................................................................. 254 

Section 214—Amounts for United States Joint Forces Command to 

be Derived Only from Defense-wide Amounts ........................................ 254 

Section 215—Authority of Director of Defense Research and Engineering to Award Prizes for Advanced Technology Achievements ............... 255 

Section 216—Space Based Radar ................................................................ 255 

Section 217—Mark-54 Torpedo Product Improvement Program .............. 255 

Subtitle C—Ballistic Missile Defense ............................................................. 255 

Section 221—Fielding of Ballistic Missile Defense Capabilities ............... 255 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ................................................ 256 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 256 

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

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

Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities ............................... 291 

Mid-Range Financial Improvement Plan .................................................... 291 

Paralyzed Veterans of America .................................................................... 291 

Spare Engines ............................................................................................... 291 

Working Capital Funds ................................................................................ 292 

Information Technology Issues ........................................................................ 292 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 292 

Information Technology Specific Reductions .............................................. 293 

Enterprise Resource Planning Program—Army National Guard ......... 294 

Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic Network ........................................... 294 

Navy Marine Corps Intranet ....................................................................... 295 

Other Matters ................................................................................................... 295 

Core Logistics Capability ............................................................................. 295 

Fire Emergency and Services Program ....................................................... 296 

Jinapsan Beach Properties in Guam ........................................................... 296 

Moving Household Goods—Families First .................................................. 296 

New Mexico Training Range Initiative ....................................................... 297 

Tents .............................................................................................................. 297 

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

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 297 

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

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

Section 303—Other Department of Defense Programs .............................. 297 

Section 304—Reimbursement of Members of the Armed Forces Who 

Purchased Protective Body Armor during Shortage of Defense Stocks 

of Body Armor ............................................................................................ 297 

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

Section 311—Report Regarding Encroachment Issues Affecting Utah 

Test and Training Range, Utah ............................................................... 298 

Subtitle C—Workplace and Depot Issues ....................................................... 298 

Section 321—Simplification of Annual Reporting Requirements Concerning Funds Expended for Depot Maintenance and Repair Workloads ........................................................................................................... 298 

Section 322—Repeal of Annual Reporting Requirement Concerning 

Management of Depot Employees ............................................................ 298 

Section 323—Public-Private Competition for Work Performed by Civilian Employees of Department of Defense ............................................... 298 

Section 324—Public-Private Competition Pilot Program .......................... 299 

Section 325—Sense of Congress on Equitable Legal Standing for Civilian Employees ............................................................................................ 299 

Section 326—Competitive Sourcing Reporting Requirement .................... 299 

Subtitle D—Information Technology .............................................................. 300 

Section 331—Preparation of Department of Defense Plan for Transition 

to Internet Protocol Version 6 .................................................................. 300 

Section 332—Defense Business Enterprise Architecture, System Accountability, and Conditions for Obligation of Funds for Defense 

Business System Modernization .............................................................. 300 

Page

X 

Section 333—Establishment of Joint Program Office to Improve Interoperability of Battlefield Management Command and Control Systems ............................................................................................................ 301 

Subtitle E—Readiness Reporting Requirements ........................................... 301 

Section 341—Annual Report on Department of Defense Operation and 

Financial Support for Military Museums ................................................ 301 

Section 342—Report on Department of Defense Programs for 

Prepositioning of Material and Equipment ............................................. 302 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 302 

Section 351—Extension of the Arsenal Support Program Initiative ........ 302 

Section 352—Limitation on Preparation or Implementation of MidRange Financial Improvement Plan ........................................................ 302 

Section 353—Procurement of Follow-On Contracts for the Operation 

of Five Champion-Class T-5 Tank Vessels .............................................. 303 

Section 354—Sense of Congress on America’s National World War I 

Museum ...................................................................................................... 303 

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

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 303 

Study of High Demand Low Density Military Units and Personnel ........ 303 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 304 

Subtitle A—Active Forces ................................................................................ 304 

Section 401—End Strengths for Active Forces ........................................... 304 

Section 402—Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength Minimum Levels .............................................................................................. 304 

Section 403—Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized to 

be on Active Duty for Operational Support ............................................. 304 

Section 404—Accounting and Mangement of Reserve Component Personnel Performing Active Duty or Full-Time National Guard Duty 

for Operations Support ............................................................................. 304 

Subtitle B—Reserve Forces ............................................................................. 305 

Section 411—End Strengths for Selected Reserve ..................................... 305 

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

of the Reserves ........................................................................................... 305 

Section 413—End Strengths for Military Technicians (Dual Status) ....... 306 

Section 414—Fiscal Year 2005 Limitation on Number of Non-Dual 

Satus Technicians ..................................................................................... 306 

Subtitle C—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 306 

Section 421—Military Personnel ................................................................. 306 

Section 422—Armed Forces Retirement Home .......................................... 307 

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

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

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 308 

Civilianization or Contracting Out of Military Chaplain Positions .......... 308 

Curricula for Post-conflict Resolution ......................................................... 308 

Federal Voting Assistance Program ............................................................ 308 

Joint Advertising and Market Research ..................................................... 309 

Meeting Department of Defense Requirements for Personnel with Foreign Language and Regional Expertise ................................................... 310 

National Program for Citizen Soldier Support ........................................... 310 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 311 

Subtitle A—General and Flag Officer Matters .............................................. 311 

Section 501—Length of Service for Service Chiefs .................................... 311 

Section 502—Repeal of Requirement that Deputy Chiefs and Assistant 

Chiefs of Naval Operations Be Selected from Officers in the Line 

of the Navy ................................................................................................. 311 

Section 503—Increase in Age Limit for Deferral of Mandatory Retirement for Up to 10 Senior General and Flag Officers ............................. 311 

Section 504—Increased Flexibility for Voluntary Retirement for Military Officers ............................................................................................... 311 

Section 505—Repeal of Requirement that No More than 50 Percent 

of Active Duty General and Flag Officers be in Grades Above Brigadier General and Rear Admiral (Lower Half) ......................................... 312 

Section 506—Revision to Terms for Assistants to the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff for National Guard and Reserve Matters ...... 312 

Section 507—Succession for Position of Chief, National Guard Bureau .. 312 

Section 508—Title of Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau Changed 

to Director of the Joint Staff of the National Guard Bureau ................ 312 

Page

XI 

Section 509—Two-Year Extension of Authority to Waive Requirement 

that Reserve Chiefs and National Guard Directors Have Significant 

Joint Duty Experience .............................................................................. 313 

Section 510—Repeal of Distribution Requirements for Naval Reserve 

Flag Officers .............................................................................................. 313 

Subtitle B—Other Officer Personnel Policy Matters ..................................... 313 

Section 511—Transition of the Active-Duty List Officer Force to All 

Regular Status ........................................................................................... 313 

Section 512—Mandatory Retention on Active duty to Qualify for Retired Pay ..................................................................................................... 313 

Section 513—Distribution in Grade of Marine Corps Reserve Officers 

in an Active Status in Grades Below Brigadier General ....................... 314 

Section 514—Tuition Assistance for Officers .............................................. 314 

Subtitle C—Reserve Component Matters ....................................................... 314 

Section 521—Revision to Statutory Purpose of the Reserve Components ........................................................................................................... 314 

Section 522—Improved Access to Reserve Component Members for Enhanced Training ........................................................................................ 314 

Section 523—Status Under Disability Retirement System for Reserve 

Members Released from Active Duty Due to Inability to Perform 

within 30 Days of Call to Active Duty ..................................................... 315 

Section 524—Federal Civil Service Military Leave for Reserve and National Guard Civilian Technicians ........................................................... 315 

Section 525—Expanded Educational Assistance Authority for Officers 

Commissioned Through ROTC Program at Military Junior College .... 315 

Section 526—Effect of Appointment or Commission as Officer on Eligibility for Selected Reserve Education Loan Repayment Program for 

Enlisted Members ..................................................................................... 315 

Section 527—Number of Starbase Academies in a State .......................... 315 

Section 528—Comptroller General Assessment of Integration of Active 

and Reserve Components of the Navy ..................................................... 315 

Section 529—Operational Activities Conducted by the National Guard 

Under Authority of Title 32 ...................................................................... 316 

Section 530—Army Program for Assignment of Active Component Advisers to Units of the Selected Reserve ................................................... 316 

Subtitle D—Joint Officer Management .......................................................... 316 

Section 531—Strategic Plan to Link Joint Officer Development to Overall Missions and Goals of Department of Defense .................................. 316 

Section 532—Joint Requirements for Promotion to Flag or General 

Officer Grade ............................................................................................. 317 

Section 533—Clarification of Tours of Duty Qualifying as a Joint Duty 

Assignment ................................................................................................ 317 

Section 534—Reserve Joint Special Officer Qualifications ........................ 317 

Subtitle E—Professional Military Education ................................................. 318 

Section 541—Improvement to Professional Military Education in the 

Department of Defense ............................................................................. 318 

Section 542—Ribbons to Recognize Completion of Joint Professional 

Military Education .................................................................................... 319 

Section 543—Increase in Number of Private-Sector Civilians Who May 

Be Enrolled for Instruction at National Defense University ................. 319 

Section 544—Requirement for Completion of Phase I Joint Professional 

Military Education before Promotion to Colonel or Navy Captain ....... 320 

Subtitle F—Other Education and Training Matters ..................................... 320 

Section 551—College First Delayed Enlistment Program ......................... 320 

Section 552—Standardization of Authority to Confer Degrees on Graduates of Community College of the Air Force with Authority for 

Other Schools of Air University ............................................................... 320 

Section 553—Change in Titles of Heads of the Naval Postgraduate 

School ......................................................................................................... 320 

Section 554—Increase from Two Years to Three Years in Period for 

which Educational Leave of Absence May Be Authorized ..................... 320 

Section 555—Correction to Disparate Treatment of Disabilities Sustained During Accession Training ........................................................... 320 

Section 556—Prayer at Military Service Academy Activities ................... 321 

Section 557—Revision to Conditions on Service of Officers as Service 

Academy Superintendents ........................................................................ 321 

Page

XII 

Section 558—Codification of Prohibition on Imposition of Certain 

Charges and Fees at Service Academies ................................................. 321 

Section 559—Qualifications of the Dean of the Faculty of United States 

Air Force Academy .................................................................................... 321 

Subtitle G—Medals and Decorations and Special Promotions and Appointments ..................................................................................................... 322 

Section 561—Separate Military Campaign Medals to Recognize Service 

in Operation Enduring Freedom and Service in Operation Iraqi Freedom ............................................................................................................. 322 

Section 562—Eligibility of All Uniformed Services Personnel for National Defense Service Medal ................................................................... 322 

Section 563—Authority to Appoint Brigadier General Charles E. 

Yeager, United States Air Force (retired), to the Grade of Major 

General on the Retired List ...................................................................... 322 

Section 564—Posthumous Commission of William Mitchell in the Grade 

of Major General in the Army .................................................................. 322 

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

Section 571—Review on How Sexual Offenses Are Covered by Uniformed Code of Military Justice ............................................................... 322 

Section 572—Service Time Not Lost When Confined in Connection 

with Trial if Confinement Excused as Unavoidable ............................... 322 

Section 573—Clarification of Authority of Military Legal Assistance 

Counsel to Provide Military Legal Assistance without Regard to Licensing Requirements ............................................................................... 323 

Subtitle I—Administrative and Management Matters .................................. 323 

Section 581—Three-Year Extension of Limitation on Reductions of Personnel of Agencies Responsible for Review and Correction of Military 

Records ....................................................................................................... 323 

Section 582—Staffing and Funding for Defense Prisoner of War/Missing 

Personnel Office ......................................................................................... 323 

Section 583—Permanent ID Cards for Retiree Dependents Age 70 and 

Older ........................................................................................................... 324 

Section 584—Authority to Provide Civilian Clothing to Members Traveling in Connection with Medical Evacuation ........................................ 324 

Section 585—Authority to Accept Donation of Frequent Flyer Miles, 

Credits, and Tickets to Facilitate Rest and Recuperation Travel of 

Deployed Members of the Armed Forces and Their Families ............... 324 

Section 586—Limitation on Amendment or Cancellation of Department 

of Defense Directive Relating to Reasonable Access to Military Installations for Certain Personal Commercial Solicitation ............................ 324 

Section 587—Annual Identification of Reasons for Discharges from the 

Armed Services During Preceding Fiscal Years ..................................... 324 

Section 588—Authority for Federal Recognition of National Guard 

Commissioned Officers Appointed from Former Coast Guard Personnel ......................................................................................................... 325 

Section 589—Study of Blended Wing Concept for the Air Force .............. 325 

Section 590—Continuation of Impact Aid Assistance on Behalf of Dependents of Certain Members Despite Change in Status of Member ... 325 

Subtitle J—Other Matters ...............................................................................

Section 591—Employment Preferences for Spouses of Certain Department of Defense Civilian Employees Subject to Relocation Agreements .......................................................................................................... 325 

Section 592—Repeal of Requirement to Conduct Electronic Voting Demonstration Project for the Federal Election to be Held in November 

2004 ............................................................................................................ 326 

Section 593—Examination of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces by 

the Defense Task Force Established to Examine Sexual Harassment 

and Violence at the Military Service Academies .................................... 326 

Section 594—Renewal of Pilot Program for Treating GED and Home 

School Diploma Recipients as High School Graduates for Determinations of Eligibility for Enlistment ............................................................ 326 

Section 595—Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that Benefit 

Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of 

Defense Civilian Employees ..................................................................... 327 

Section 596—Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps and Recruiter Access at Institutions of Higher Education ................................................. 327 

Section 597—Reports on Transformation Milestones ................................ 327 

Page

XIII 

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

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

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

Combat-Related Special Compensation ....................................................... 328 

Commissary Funding After Closure of a Store .......................................... 328 

Consolidation of the Military Exchanges .................................................... 328 

Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida, Combined Commissary and Exchange Store .............................................................................................. 329 

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

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

Section 601—Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2005 ......................... 329 

Section 602—Authority to Provide Family Separation Basic Allowance 

for Housing ................................................................................................ 329 

Section 603—Geographic Basis for Basic Allowance for Housing during 

Short Changes of Station for Professional Military Education or 

Training ...................................................................................................... 329 

Section 604—Immediate Lump-Sum Reimbursement for Unusual Nonrecurring Expenses Incurred by Members Serving Outside Continental United States ................................................................................. 330 

Section 605—Income Replacement Payments for Reserves Experiencing 

Extended and Frequent Mobilization for Active Duty Service .............. 330 

Section 606—Authority for Certain Members Deployed in Combat 

Zones to Receive Limited Advances on Their Future Base Pay ............ 330 

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

Section 611—One-Year Extension of Bonus and Special Pay Authorities .............................................................................................................. 330 

Section 612—Reduction in Required Service Commitment to Receive 

Accession Bonus for Registered Nurses ................................................... 331 

Section 613—Increase in Maximum Monthly Rate Authorized for Hardship Duty Pay ............................................................................................ 331 

Section 614—Termination of Assignment Incentive Pay for Members 

Placed on Terminal Leave ........................................................................ 331 

Section 615—Consolidation of Reenlistment and Enlistment Bonus Authorities for Regular and Reserve Components ...................................... 331 

Section 616—Revision of Authority to Provide Foreign Language Proficiency Pay ................................................................................................ 331 

Section 617—Eligibility of Reserve Component Members for Critical 

Skills Retention Bonus and Expansion of Authority to Provide Bonus 332 

Section 618—Eligibility of New Reserve Component Officers for Accession or Affiliation Bonus for Officers in Critical Skills .......................... 332 

Section 619—Eligibility of Reserve Component Members for Incentive 

Bonus for Conversion to Military Occupational Specialty to Ease 

Personnel Shortage ................................................................................... 332 

Section 620—Availability of Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay for Military 

Firefighters ................................................................................................ 332 

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

Section 631—Expansion of Travel and Transportation Allowances to 

Assist Survivors of a Deceased Member to Attend Burial Ceremony 

of the Member ............................................................................................ 332 

Section 632—Transportation of Family Members Incident to the Serious Illness or Injury of Members of the Uniformed Services ................ 332 

Section 633—Reimbursement of Members for Certain Lodging Costs 

Incurred in Connection with Student Dependent Travel ....................... 333 

Subtitle D—Survivors Benefits ....................................................................... 333 

Section 641—Computation of Benefits Under Survivor Benefit Plan 

for Surviving Spouses Over Age 62 ......................................................... 333 

Section 642—Open Enrollment Period for Survivor Benefit Plan Commencing October 1, 2005 ........................................................................... 333 

Section 643—Source of Funds for Survivor Benefit Plan Annuities for 

Department of Defense Beneficiaries Over Age 62 ................................ 333 

Subtitle E—Commissary and Nonappropriated Fund Instrumentality 

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

Section 651—Consolidation and Reorganization of Legislative Provisions Regarding Defense Commissary System and Exchanges and 

other Morale, Welfare, and Recreational Activities ................................ 333 

Section 652—Consistent State Treatment of Department of Defense 

Nonappropriated Fund Health Benefits Program .................................. 334 

Page

XIV 

Section 653—Cooperation and Assistance for Qualified Scouting Organizations Serving Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and 

Civilian Employees Overseas ................................................................... 334 

Subtitle F—Other Matters ............................................................................... 335 

Section 661—Repeal of Requirement that Members Entitled to Basic 

Allowance for Subsistence Pay Subsistence Charges while Hospitalized ............................................................................................................. 335 

Section 662—Clarification of Education Loans Qualifying for Education 

Loan Repayment Program for Reserve Component Health Professions 

Officers ....................................................................................................... 335 

Section 663—Survey and Analysis of Effect of Extended and Frequent 

Mobilization of Reservists for Active Duty Service on Reservist Income ............................................................................................................ 335 

TITLE VII—HEALTHCARE MATTERS ............................................................... 335 

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

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

Collection of Perinatal Information ............................................................. 336 

Coordination of TRICARE and Medicare Benefits and Provider Payments .......................................................................................................... 336 

Department of Defense Chemical and Biological Test Review ................. 337 

Landstuhl Regional Medical Center Alteration .......................................... 337 

Military-Civilian Education Programs Related to Sexual Health Decision-Making ............................................................................................... 338 

Nurse Triage and Health Information Line Services ................................ 338 

Reserve Component Requirement for Medical and Dental Readiness 

Accountability ............................................................................................ 339 

Resource Sharing Agreements ..................................................................... 339 

State-of-the-Art Mobility Equipment .......................................................... 339 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 339 

Subtitle A—Enhanced Health Care Benefits for Reserves ........................... 339 

Section 701—Demonstration Project for TRICARE Coverage for Ready 

Reserve Members ...................................................................................... 339 

Section 702—Comptroller General Report on the Cost and Feasibility 

of Providing Private Health Insurance Stipends for Members of the 

Ready Reserve ........................................................................................... 340 

Section 703—Improvement of Medical Services for Activated Members 

of the Ready Reserve and Their Families ............................................... 340 

Section 704—Modification of Waiver of Certain Deductibles Under 

TRICARE Program .................................................................................... 340 

Section 705—Authority for Payment by United States of Additional 

Amounts Billed by Health Care Providers to Activated Reserve Members ............................................................................................................. 340 

Section 706—Extension of Transitional Health Care Benefits After Separation from Active Duty .......................................................................... 341 

Subtitle B—Other Benefits Improvements ..................................................... 341 

Section 711—Coverage of Certain Young Children Under TRICARE 

Dental Program ......................................................................................... 341 

Section 712—Comptroller General Report on Provision of Health and 

Support Services for Exceptional Family Member Program Enrollees . 341 

Section 713—Exceptional Eligibility for TRICARE Prime Remote .......... 342 

Section 714—Transition to Home Health Care Benefit Under Sub-acute 

Care Program ............................................................................................ 342 

Section 715—Requirement Relating to Prescription Drug Benefits for 

Medicare-Eligible Enrollees Under Defense Health Care Plans ........... 342 

Section 716—Professional Accreditation of Military Dentists ................... 342 

Section 717—Addition of Certain Unremarried Former Spouses to Persons Eligible for Dental Insurance Plan of Retirees of the Uniformed 

Services ...................................................................................................... 342 

Section 718—Waiver of Collection of Payments Due from Certain Persons Unaware of Loss of CHAMPUS Eligibility ..................................... 343 

Subtitle C—Planning, Programming, and Management ............................... 343 

Section 721—Pilot Program for Transformation of Health Care Delivery ............................................................................................................... 343 

Section 722—Study of Provision of Travel Reimbursement to Hospitals 

for Certain Military Disability Retirees .................................................. 343 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION MANAGEMENT, AND 

RELATED MATTERS ...................................................................................... 344 

Page

XV 

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

Subtitle A—Amendments to General Contracting Authorities, Procedures, 

and Limitations ......................................................................................... 344 

Section 801—Rapid Acquisition Authority to Respond to Combat Emergencies ........................................................................................................ 344 

Section 802—Defense Acquisition Workforce Changes .............................. 344 

Section 803—Limitation on Task and Delivery Order Contracts ............. 344 

Section 804—Funding for Contract Cancellation Ceilings for Certain 

Multiyear Procurement Contracts ........................................................... 344 

Section 805—Increased Threshold for Requiring Contractors to Provide 

Specified Employee Information to Cooperative Agreement Holders ... 345 

Section 806—Extension of Authority for Use of Simplified Acquisition 

Procedures .................................................................................................. 345 

Section 807—Authority to Adjust Acquisition-Related Dollar Thresholds 

for Inflation ................................................................................................ 345 

Subtitle B—United States Defense Industrial Base Provisions ................... 345 

Section 811—Defense Reciprocity Trade ..................................................... 345 

Section 812—Amendments to Domestic Source Requirements ................. 346 

Section 813—Three-Year Extension of Restriction on Acquisition of 

Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) Carbon Fiber from Foreign Sources ................ 346 

Section 814—Grant Program for Defense Contractors to Implement 

Strategies to Avoid Outsourcing of Jobs .................................................. 346 

Section 815—Preference for Domestic Freight Forwarding Services ....... 346 

Subtitle C—Other Acquisition Matters .......................................................... 346 

Section 821—Sustainment and Modernization Plans for Existing Systems while Replacement Systems are Under Development .................. 346 

Section 822—Review and Demonstration Project Relating to Contractor 

Employees .................................................................................................. 347 

Section 823—Defense Acquisition Workforce Limitation and Reports ..... 348 

Section 824—Provision of Information to Congress to Enhance Transparency in Contracting ............................................................................. 348 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................ 348 

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

National Defense University ........................................................................ 348 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 348 

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

of the Navy and Marine Corps ................................................................. 348 

Section 902—Transfer of Center for the Study of Chinese Military 

Affairs from National Defense University to United States-China 

Economic and Security Review Commission ........................................... 348 

Section 903—Transfer to the Secretary of the Army of Responsibility 

for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives Program ...................... 349 

Section 904—Modification of Obligated Service Requirements under 

National Security Education Program ..................................................... 350 

Section 905—Change of Membership of Certain Councils ........................ 350 

Section 906—Actions to Prevent the Abuse of Detainees .......................... 350 

Section 907—Responses to Congressional Inquiries .................................. 350 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS ..................................................................... 351 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 351 

Counter-Drug Activities ................................................................................... 351 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 351 

Items of Special Interest .............................................................................. 351 

Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and tanker support ...... 351 

Northern Command counter-narcotics support ...................................... 351 

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

Tethered Aerostat Radar System ............................................................. 352 

Other Activities ................................................................................................. 352 

Airlift Support for Homeland Defense Missions ..................................... 352 

Civil Reserve Air Fleet .............................................................................. 353 

Defense Transformation ........................................................................... 353 

Global War on Terrorism .......................................................................... 353 

Homeland Defense Forces ........................................................................ 354 

Wisconsin Project’s International Export Control Center ...................... 354 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 355 

Subtitle A—Financial Matters ........................................................................ 355 

Section 1001—Transfer Authority ............................................................... 355 

Page

XVI 

Section 1002—Budget Justification Documents for Operation and Maintenance ....................................................................................................... 355 

Section 1003—Retention of Fees from Intellectual Property Licenses ..... 356 

Section 1004—Authority to Waive Claims of the United States when 

Amounts Recoverable are Less than Costs of Collection ....................... 356 

Section 1005—Repeal of Funding Restrictions Concerning Development 

of Medical Countermeasures against Biological Warfare Threats ........ 356 

Section 1006—Report on Budgeting for Exchange Rates for Foreign 

Currency Fluctuations .............................................................................. 357 

Subtitle B—Naval Vessels and Shipyards ...................................................... 357 

Section 1011—Authority for Award of Contracts for Ship Dismantling 

on Net-Cost Basis ...................................................................................... 357 

Section 1012—Independent Study to Assess Cost Effectiveness of the 

Navy Ship Construction Program ............................................................ 357 

Section 1013—Authority to Transfer Specified Former Naval Vessels 

to Certain Foreign Countries ................................................................... 357 

Section 1014—Limitation on Leasing of Foreign-Built Vessels ................ 357 

Subtitle C—Sunken Military Craft ................................................................. 358 

Section 1021-28—Protection of Sunken Military Craft ............................. 358 

Subtitle D—Counter-Drug Activities .............................................................. 358 

Section 1031—Continuation of Authority to Use Dapartment of Defense 

Funds for Unified Counter-Drug and Counter-Terrorism Campaign 

in Colombia ................................................................................................ 358 

Section 1032—Limitation on Number of United States Military Personnel in Colombia .................................................................................... 358 

Subtitle E—Reports .......................................................................................... 359 

Section 1041—Study of Continued Requirement for Two-Crew Manning 

for Ballistic Missile Submarines .............................................................. 359 

Section 1042—Study of Effect on Defense Industrial Base of Elimination of United States Domestic Firearms Manufacturing Base ........ 359 

Section 1043—Study of Extent and Quality of Training Provided to 

Members of the Armed Services to Prepare for Post-Conflict Operations .......................................................................................................... 359 

Subtitle F—Security Matters .......................................................................... 359 

Section 1051—Use of National Driver Register for Personnel Security 

Investigations and Determinations .......................................................... 359 

Section 1052—Standards for Disqualification from Eligibility for Department of Defense Security Clearances ............................................... 359 

Subtitle G—Transportation Matters ............................................................... 360 

Section 1061—Use of Military Aircraft to Transport Mail to and from 

Overseas Locations .................................................................................... 360 

Section 1062—Reorganization and Clarification of Certain Provisions 

Relating to Control and Supervision of Transportation within the 

Department of Defense ............................................................................. 360 

Section 1063—Determination of Whether Private Air Carriers are Controlled by United States Citizens for Purposes of Eligibility for Government Contract for Transportation of Passengers or Supplies .......... 360 

Section 1064—Evaluation of Whether to Prohibit Certain Offers for 

Transportation of Security-Sensitive Cargo ............................................ 360 

Subtitle H—Other Matters .............................................................................. 361 

Section 1071—Two-Year Extension of Authority of the Secretary of 

Defense to Engage in Commercial Activities as Security for Intelligence Collection Activities Abroad ......................................................... 361 

Section 1072—Assistance for Study of Feasibility of Biennial International Air Trade Show in the United States and for Initial Implementation ................................................................................................... 361 

Section 1073—Technical and Clerical Amendments .................................. 361 

Section 1074—Commission on the Long-Term Implementation of the 

New Strategic Posture of the United States ........................................... 361 

Section 1075—Liability Protection for Certain Department of Defense 

Volunteers Working in the Maritime Environment ............................... 361 

Section 1076—Transfer of Historic F3A-1 Brewster Corsair Aircraft ...... 361 

TITLE XI—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL ............... 362 

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

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 362 

Section 1101—Payment of Federal Employee Health Benefit Premiums 

for Mobilized Federal Employees ............................................................. 362 

Page

XVII 

Section 1102—Foreign Language Proficiency Pay ..................................... 362 

Section 1103—Pay Parity for Civilian Intelligence Personnel .................. 362 

Section 1104—Pay Parity for Senior Executives in Nonappropriated 

Fund Instrumentalities ............................................................................. 363 

Section 1105—Prohibition of Unauthorized Wearing or Use of Civilian 

Medals or Decorations ............................................................................... 363 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER NATIONS .............................. 363 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 363 

Subtitle A—Matters Relating to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Global War on 

Terrorism ....................................................................................................... 363 

Section 1201—Documentation of Conditions in Iraq under Former Dictatorial Government as Part of Transition to Post-Dictatorial Government ............................................................................................................ 363 

Section 1202—Support of Military Operations to Combat Terrorism ...... 363 

Section 1203—Commander’s Emergency Response Program .................... 364 

Section 1204—Status of Iraqi Security Forces ........................................... 364 

Section 1205—Guidance and Report Required on Contractors Supporting Deployed Forces in Iraq ............................................................... 364 

Section 1206—Findings and Sense of Congress Concerning Army Specialist Joseph Darby .................................................................................. 364 

Subtitle B—Other Matters .............................................................................. 364 

Section 1211—Assignment of Allied Naval Personnel to Submarine 

Safety Programs ........................................................................................ 364 

Section 1212—Expansion of Entities of the People’s Republic of China 

Subject to Certain Presidential Authorities when Operating in the 

United States ............................................................................................. 365 

Section 1213—Report by President on Global Peace Operations Initiative .............................................................................................................. 365 

Section 1214—Procurement Sanctions against Foreign Persons that 

Transfer Certain Defense Articles and Services to the People’s Republic of China .......................................................................................... 366 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION WITH STATES OF 

THE FORMER SOVIET UNION ........................................................................ 366 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 366 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................................................... 368 

Visa Requirements ........................................................................................ 368 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 368 

Section 1301—Specification of Cooperative Threat Reduction Programs 

and Funds .................................................................................................. 368 

Section 1302—Funding Allocations ............................................................. 368 

Section 1303—Temporary Authority to Waive Limitation on Funding 

for Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility in Russia ........................... 368 

TITLE XIV—EXPORT CONTROLS AND COUNTERPROLIFERATION MATTERS ..................................................................................................................... 368 

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

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 369 

Defense Technology Security Administration ............................................. 369 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency ............................................................... 369 

Nonproliferation Education .......................................................................... 370 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 370 

Subtitle A—Export Controls ............................................................................ 370 

Section 1401—Definitions under Arms Export Control Act ...................... 370 

Section 1402—Exemption from Licensing Requirements for Export of 

Significant Military Equipment ............................................................... 371 

Section 1403—Cooperative Projects with Friendly Foreign Countries ..... 371 

Section 1404—Licensing Requirement for Export of Militarily Critical 

Technologies ............................................................................................... 372 

Section 1405—Control of Exports of United States Weapons Technology 

to the People’s Republic of China ............................................................. 373 

Section 1406—Strengthening International Export Controls ................... 373 

Subtitle B—Counterproliferation Matters ...................................................... 373 

Section 1411—Defense International Counterproliferation Programs ..... 373 

Section 1412—Defense Counterproliferation Fellowship Program ........... 374 

Subtitle C—Initiatives Relating to Countries of the Former Soviet Union . 374 

Section 1421—Silk Road Initiative .............................................................. 374 

Section 1422—Teller-Kurchatov Nonproliferation Fellowships ................ 374 

Page

XVIII 

Section 1423—Collaboration to Reduce the Risks of a Launch of Russian Nuclear Weapons .............................................................................. 374 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION FOR INCREASED COSTS DUE TO OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM ...... 375 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 375 

SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATION ...................................................... 375 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 378 

Procurement .................................................................................................. 378 

Operations and Maintenance ....................................................................... 378 

Military Personnel ........................................................................................ 379 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 380 

Section 1501—Purpose ................................................................................. 380 

Subtitle A—Authorization of Appropriations ................................................. 380 

Section 1511—Army Procurement ............................................................... 380 

Section 1512—Navy and Marine Corps Procurement ................................ 380 

Section 1513—Air Force Procurement ........................................................ 380 

Section 1514—Defense-Wide Activities Procurement ................................ 380 

Section 1515—Operation and Maintenance ................................................ 380 

Section 1516—Defense Health Program ..................................................... 380 

Section 1517—Military Personnel ............................................................... 380 

Section 1518—Treatment as Additional Authorization ............................. 381 

Section 1519—Transfer Authority ............................................................... 381 

Section 1520—Designation of Emergency Authorization .......................... 381 

Subtitle B—Personnel Provisions .................................................................... 381 

Section 1531—Three Year Increase in Active Army Strength Levels ...... 381 

Section 1532—Three Year Increase in Active Marine Corps Strength 

Levels ......................................................................................................... 381 

Section 1533—Extension of Increased Rates for Imminent Danger Pay 

and Family Separation Allowance ........................................................... 382 

Subtitle C—Financial Management Matters ................................................. 382 

Section 1541—Revised Funding Methodology for Military Retiree 

Health Care Benefits ................................................................................ 382 

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

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

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW ...................................................... 382 

TITLE XXI—ARMY ................................................................................................. 400 

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

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

Planning and Design .................................................................................... 400 

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

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 

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

Section 2102—Family Housing .................................................................... 400 

Section 2103—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 400 

Section 2104—Authorization of Appropriations, Army .............................. 400 

Section 2105—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2004 Projects ..................................................................................... 401 

Section 2106—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain Fiscal 

Year 2003 Projects ..................................................................................... 401 

TITLE XXII—NAVY ................................................................................................ 401 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 401 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 401 

Planning and Design .................................................................................... 401 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 401 

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 401 

Section 2202—Family Housing .................................................................... 401 

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 402 

Section 2204—Authorization of Appropriations, Navy .............................. 402 

TITLE XXIII—AIR FORCE .................................................................................... 402 

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

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 402 

Planning and Design .................................................................................... 402 

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

Section 2301—Authorized Air Force Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 402 

Page

XIX 

Section 2302—Family Housing .................................................................... 402 

Section 2303—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units ............. 403 

Section 2304—Authorization of Appropriations, Air Force ....................... 403 

TITLE XXIV—DEFENSE AGENCIES .................................................................. 403 

SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 403 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 403 

Section 2401—Authorized Defense Agencies Construction and Land Acquisition Projects ....................................................................................... 403 

Section 2402—Improvements to Family Housing Units ............................ 403 

Section 2403—Energy Conservation Projects ............................................. 403 

Section 2404—Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies .......... 403 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY 

INVESTMENT PROGRAM ............................................................................. 404 

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

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

Section 2501—Authorized NATO Construction and Land Acquisition 

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

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

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

Planning and Design, Army Reserve .......................................................... 405 

Unspecified Minor Construction, Army National Guard ........................... 405 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 405 

Section 2601—Authorized Guard and Reserve Construction and Land 

Acquisition Projects ................................................................................... 405 

TITLE XXVII—EXPIRATION AND EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATIONS ..... 406 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 406 

Section 2701—Expiration of Authorizations and Amounts Required to 

be Specified by Law ................................................................................... 406 

Section 2702—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2002 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 406 

Section 2703—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 2001 

Projects ....................................................................................................... 406 

Section 2704—Effective Date ....................................................................... 406 

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS ........................................................... 407 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 407 

Base Realignment and Closure .................................................................... 407 

Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs Health Care Facility Sharing ............................................................................................................... 407 

Housing Requirements Analyses ................................................................. 408 

Military Housing Privatization Program .................................................... 408 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 409 

Subtitle A—Military Construction Program and Military Family Housing 

Changes ...................................................................................................... 409 

Section 2801—Increase in Certain Thresholds for Carrying Out Unspecified Minor Military Construction Projects ............................................. 409 

Section 2802—Assessment of Vulnerability of Military Installations to 

Terrorist Attack and Annual Report on Military Construction Requirements Related to Antiterrorism and Force Protection .................. 409 

Section 2803—Changes in Threshold for Congressional Notification Regarding Use of Operation and Maintenance Funds for Facility Repair ............................................................................................................. 409 

Section 2804—Reporting Requirements Regarding Military Family 

Housing Requirements for General Officers and Flag Officers ............. 409 

Section 2805—Congressional Notification of Deviations from Authorized 

Cost Variations for Military Construction Projects and Military Family Housing Projects .................................................................................. 410 

Section 2806—Repeal of Limitation on Use of Alternative Authority 

for Acquisition and Improvement of Military Family Housing ............. 410 

Section 2807—Temporary Authority to Accelerate Design Efforts for 

Military Construction Projects Carried Out Using Design-Build Selection Procedures .......................................................................................... 410 

Page

XX 

Section 2808—Exchange or Sale of Reserve Component Facilities to 

Acquire Replacement Facilities ................................................................ 411 

Section 2809—One-Year Extension of Temporary, Limited Authority 

to Use Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction Projects 

Outside the United States ........................................................................ 411 

Subtitle B—Real Property and Facilities Administration ............................. 411 

Section 2811—Increase in Certain Thresholds for Reporting Real Property Transactions ....................................................................................... 411 

Section 2812—Reorganization of Existing Administrative Provisions Relating to Real Property Transactions ....................................................... 411 

Section 2813—Treatment of Money Rentals from Golf Course at Rock 

Island Arsenal, Illinois .............................................................................. 411 

Section 2814—Number of Contracts Authorized Department-Wide 

Under Demonstration Program on Reduction in Long-Term Facility 

Maintenance Costs .................................................................................... 411 

Section 2815—Repeal of Commission on Review of Overseas Military 

Facility Sturcture of the United States ................................................... 412 

Section 2816—Designation of Airmen Leadership School at Luke Air 

Force Base, Arizona, in Honor of John J. Rhodes, a Former Minority 

Leader of the House of Representatives .................................................. 412 

Section 2817—Elimination of Reversionary Interests Clouding United 

States Title to Property Used as Navy Homeports ................................ 412 

Section 2818—Report on Real Property Disposal at Marine Corps Air 

Station, El Toro, California ...................................................................... 412 

Subtitle C—Base Closure and Realignment ................................................... 412 

Section 2821—Two-Year Postponement of 2005 Base Closure and 

Relignment Round and Submission of Reports Regarding Future Infrastructure Requirements for the Armed Forces .................................. 412 

Section 2822—Establishment of Specific Deadline for Submission of 

Revisions to Force-Structure Plan and Infrastructure Inventory for 

Next Base Closure Round ......................................................................... 413 

Section 2823—Specification of Final Selection Criteria for Next Base 

Closure Round ........................................................................................... 414 

Section 2824—Requirement for Unanimous Vote of Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission to Add to or Otherwise Expand 

Closure and Realignment Recommendations made by Secretary of 

Defense ....................................................................................................... 414 

Section 2825—Adherence to Certain Authorities on Preservation of 

Military Depot Capabilities During Any subsequent Round of Base 

Closures and Realignments ...................................................................... 414 

Subtitle D—Land Conveyances ....................................................................... 415 

Part I—Army Conveyances .............................................................................. 415 

Section 2831—Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Defense Supply 

Center, Columbus, Ohio ............................................................................ 415 

Section 2832—Land Conveyance, Fort Hood, Texas .................................. 415 

Section 2833—Land Conveyance, Army National Guard Facility, Seattle, Washington ...................................................................................... 415 

Part II—Navy Conveyances .............................................................................

Section 2841—Transfer of Jurisdiction, Nebraska Avenue Naval Complex, District of Columbia ......................................................................... 415 

Section 2842—Land Conveyance, Navy Property, Former Fort Sheridan, Illinois ................................................................................................ 416 

Section 2843—Land Exchange, Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, 

Maryland ....................................................................................................

Part III—Air Force Conveyances .................................................................... 416 

Section 2851—Land Exchange, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama ......... 416 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS ................................... 416 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS .............................................................................................................. 416 

OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................... 416 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST ...................................................................... 427 

National Nuclear Security Administration .................................................... 427 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 427 

Adjustments to the Budget Request ............................................................ 427 

Reductions .................................................................................................. 427 

Directed stockpile work ......................................................................... 427 

Page

XXI 

Campaigns .............................................................................................. 427 

International nuclear materials protection and cooperation .............. 427 

Increases .................................................................................................... 428 

Engineering campaign ........................................................................... 428 

Readiness in technical base and facilities ........................................... 428 

Advanced Concepts and Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator ...................... 428 

Advanced Technology Research and Development ..................................... 429 

Los Alamos Public Schools ........................................................................... 429 

Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility ....................................................... 430 

Environmental and Other Defense Activities ................................................ 430 

Overview ........................................................................................................ 430 

Adjustments to the Budget Request ............................................................ 430 

Reductions .................................................................................................. 430 

Waste incidental to reprocessing .......................................................... 430 

Worker and community transition ....................................................... 431 

Office of future liabilities ...................................................................... 431 

Increases .................................................................................................... 432 

2035 defense site accelerated completions ........................................... 432 

Non-closure environmental activities ................................................... 432 

Idaho facilities management-other defense activities ......................... 432 

Technology Deployment and Development ................................................. 433 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program ............ 433 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 433 

Subtitle A—National Security Programs Authorizations .............................. 433 

Section 3101—National Nuclear Security Administration ........................ 433 

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Management ................................ 434 

Section 3103—Other Defense Activities ...................................................... 434 

Section 3104—Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal ........................................ 434 

Subtitle B—Program Authorizations, Restrictions, and Limitations ........... 434 

Section 3111—Extension of Authority for Appointment of Certain Scientific, Engineering and Technical Personnel ......................................... 434 

Section 3112—Requirements for Baseline of Projects under Facilities 

and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program ......................................... 434 

Subtitle C—Other Matters .............................................................................. 434 

Section 3131—Transfers and reprogrammings of National Nuclear Security Administration Funds .................................................................... 434 

Section 3132—National Academy of Sciences study on management 

by Department of Energy of high-level radioactive waste ..................... 435 

Section 3133—Contract to Review Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, New 

Mexico ........................................................................................................ 435 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD ............. 436 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 436 

Section 3201—Authorization ........................................................................ 436 

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE ........................................ 436 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 436 

Section 3301—Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile Funds .... 436 

Section 3302—Revisions of Limitations on Required Disposals of Certain Materials in National Defense Stockpile ......................................... 436 

Section 3303—Authority to Dispose of Certain Materials in National 

Defense Stockpile ...................................................................................... 436 

TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES ........................................... 437 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 437 

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations ......................................... 437 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION ................................................. 437 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS ............................................................................. 437 

Section 3501—Authorization of Appropriations for Maritime Administration for Fiscal Year 2005 ..................................................................... 437 

Section 3502—Extension of Authority to Provide War Risk Insurance 

for Merchant Marine Vessels ................................................................... 437 

Departmental Data .................................................................................................. 437 

Department of Defense Authorization Request ................................................. 438 

Committee Position ................................................................................................. 438 

Communications From Other Committees ............................................................ 438 

Fiscal Data ............................................................................................................... 448 

Congressional Budget Office Estimate ............................................................... 448 

Committee Cost Estimate .................................................................................... 448 

Page

XXII 

Oversight Findings .................................................................................................. 449 

General Performance Goals and Objectives .......................................................... 449 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 450 

Statement of Federal Mandates ............................................................................. 450 

Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 450 

Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported ..................................... 459 

Additional Views ...................................................................................................... 462 

Additional views of Ike Skelton .......................................................................... 462 

Additional views of Solomon P. Ortiz ................................................................. 464 

Additional views of Steve Israel ......................................................................... 465 

Additional views of Kendrick B. Meek ............................................................... 466 

Additional views of Mike D. Rogers ................................................................... 469 

Additional views of Vic Snyder and Mac Thornberry ....................................... 471 

Additional views of Jim Cooper and Tim Ryan of Ohio .................................... 473 

93–654 

108TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 108–491 

NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL 

YEAR 2005 

MAY 14, 2004.—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 VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 4200] 

[Includes committee cost estimate] 

The Committee on Armed Services, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 4200) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for 

military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military personnel strengths for fiscal year 2005, 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. 4200. The title of the bill 

is amended to reflect the amendment to the text of the bill. The 

remainder of the report discusses the bill, as amended. 

PURPOSE 

The bill would—(1) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 

for procurement and for research, development, test and evaluation 

(RDT&E); (2) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for operation and maintenance (O&M) and for working capital funds; (3) 

2 

Authorize for fiscal year 2005: (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 2005 for military construction and family 

housing; (6) Authorize emergency appropriations for increased costs 

due to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom; 

(7) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 for the Department of Energy national security programs; (8) Modify provisions 

related to the National Defense Stockpile; and (9) Authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2005 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 $423.1 billion for 

the national defense budget function for fiscal year 2005. Of this 

amount, the President requested $402.6 billion for the Department 

of Defense, including $9.5 billion for military construction and family housing. The defense budget request for fiscal year 2004 also included $17.2 billion for Department of Energy national security 

programs and the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. 

The committee recommends an overall level of $422.1 billion in 

budget authority. This amount represents an increase of approximately $21.7 billion from the amount authorized for appropriation 

by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 

(Public Law 108–136). 

In addition, the committee recommends $25.0 billion in budget 

authority for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2005, in addition to amounts otherwise authorized by this Act, to provide 

funds for additional costs due to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

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 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

RATIONALE FOR THE COMMITTEE BILL 

H.R. 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2005, comes with our nation at war on multiple fronts. The 

ongoing Iraq mission, Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, 

and the broader Global War on Terrorism demand an appropriate 

level of resources and capabilities that Congress can and should 

provide. Additional security challenges elsewhere require planning 

and perseverance, including a continued commitment to the evolution of the U.S. armed forces. H.R. 4200 attempts to do all this 

given limited resources in the ‘‘Year of the Soldier’’. 

The largest mobilization in decades, Operation Iraqi Freedom 

will remain the focus of our armed forces for some time. The mission to rebuild and rehabilitate Iraq after decades of tyranny, 

though, is not static; the 2004 force rotation plan, completed earlier 

this year, represents the largest troop transfer undertaken by U.S. 

forces since World War II. In the Army alone, elements from eight 

of ten divisions were on the move during the first four months of 

2004—a force of 250,000 soldiers, nearly half of them reservists. 

The challenges associated with the 2004 Operation Iraqi Freedom rotation of forces has confirmed pervasive concerns over endstrength shortfalls that strain armed forces personnel and undermine their ability to perform critical missions. Sustaining troop levels for Operation Iraqi Freedom and the broader Global War on 

Terrorism has in fact already exceeded the Army’s immediate capabilities. As a result, the U.S. Marine Corps deployed 25,000 active 

and reserve component personnel to Iraq for two successive sevenmonth rotations, beginning in March 2004, while the Army was left 

extending the tours of more than 20,000 soldiers there. The Air 

Force and Navy, moreover, have deployed assets to Iraq to substitute for capabilities a stressed Army Total Force cannot provide. 

Even these forces may not relieve the Army’s overall burden. 

Over the last year, the committee has examined a range of issues 

related to the armed forces’ inability to meet military commitments 

and, perhaps, potential emergencies worldwide. The committee, for 

instance, found that the Army cannot meet its stated goal of resetting the force within 120 days of returning from Iraq so that it is 

available for contingencies elsewhere. At the same time, it discovered that service force structure and manning decisions over the 

years have yielded insufficient numbers of high demand and low 

density assets, including special operations forces, intelligence and 

law enforcement units—elements critical to the Global War on Terrorism. 

Recent operations reinforced similar conclusions on the adequacy 

of the reserve component end-strength. Since the end of the 1991 

Gulf War, reliance on the overall reserve component for peacetime 

support has increased twelve-fold. In fact, for the last seven years 

the reserve component has provided annual peacetime support 

equaling roughly 33,000 active duty personnel, in course adopting 

missions previously the exclusive domain of full-time forces. Wartime reliance on reserve component personnel has also increased. 

For example, average mobilization tours for reservists were substantially lengthened, from 156 days during Operations Desert 

Storm and Desert Shield to 319 for Operations Iraqi Freedom, EnVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
13 

during Freedom and Noble Eagle, the continuing homeland security mission. 

These trends suggest the committee cannot expect reserve component relief anytime soon; the Department of Defense itself assumes there will be no substantial reduction in the length of the 

average mobilization tour. By the end of January 2003—immediately prior to mobilizations in support of the war with Iraq and 

just fifteen months after the start of the Global War on Terrorism—more than 56,000 reserve component personnel remained 

on active duty worldwide. In comparison, at the peak of the Iraq 

mobilization, 225,000 reservists found themselves on active duty. 

Presently, the Department of Defense reports that sustaining troop 

levels in Iraq will require the mobilization of at least 100,000 to 

150,000 reservists annually for the next several years. Reserve 

component personnel will ultimately comprise nearly 40 percent of 

all forces committed to Iraq and Kuwait during this rotation. 

The demand for additional manpower to sustain mission requirements and fulfill required capabilities is finally reflected in the actual active component strengths each service needed during the 

past two fiscal years—all services executed actual end-strength levels well above the minimum authorized amount. In general, these 

additional active component personnel were funded as part of 

emergency supplemental appropriations. Finding this approach to 

managing what is clearly an end-strength shortfall self-defeating 

and ultimately unsustainable, the committee recommends the first 

significant increase in military end strength in decades. 

Further, H.R. 4200 directly addresses the numerous and growing 

force protection requirements that have emerged from the threats 

and realities found on the Iraqi battlefield. This legislation provides critical force protection resources, including additional body 

armor, countermeasures for improvised explosive devices, armored 

‘‘Humvees’’ and armor add-on kits for ‘‘thin-skinned’’ vehicles. 

These tangible improvements in force protection accompany equally 

important combat capability enhancements. H.R. 4200 will provide 

the American warfighter with much needed supplies and ammunition to continue a ‘‘hot’’ war against global terrorism and the antidemocratic insurgents in Iraq. 

Today’s adversaries are adaptable; they sabotage Iraq’s developing infrastructure, ambush noncombatants and coalition forces 

alike and have found a powerfully simple capability to neutralize 

American conventional military might through the use of remote 

improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, to terrorize the country and 

inflict a steady number of casualties on coalition forces. U.S. servicemen and women must have every possible advantage to beat 

them soundly and safely. Believing that the armed forces cannot 

allow more unforeseen dangers—a new ‘‘IED problem’’—to surprise 

our troops and threaten their missions, H.R. 4200 makes available 

funds for advanced research and development to counter emerging 

threats to the American Soldier. 

While the American Soldier is at work in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 

terrorist locations worldwide, other potential threats to the United 

States loom. The committee believes that the standoffs on the Korean Peninsula and in the Taiwan Strait can be resolved peacefully 

if all parties act in good faith, but the U.S. must remain capable 

of responding to aggression alongside its regional partners whenVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
14 

ever threats to peace and democracy surface. By supporting initiatives to strengthen our force posture and, thus, that of our allies 

and friends in the region, H.R. 4200 ensures that U.S. forces will 

not fight wars unnecessarily and from a disadvantaged starting 

point. 

Over the long term, the committee understands that the outcome 

of future engagements, including terrorist attacks, may be decided 

during today’s battles against proliferation. H.R. 4200 supports 

current programs designed to stop potential aggressors from obtaining advanced conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction, including their long-range and stealth delivery systems. 

H.R. 4200 also takes additional steps to help the United States 

maintain its technological advantage by strengthening domestic 

and multilateral controls on arms as well as militarily-sensitive 

goods and technologies. Coupled with measures designed to 

strengthen the U.S. industrial base also contained in H.R. 4200, 

smarter export controls will help prevent a situation in which our 

troops and homeland are threatened with American-made or designed technology without sacrificing American economic productivity. 

In summary, this legislation is designed to strike a proper balance. H.R. 4200 provides such balance between the exigencies of 

ensuring full and total support for the needs of our men and 

women presently engaged in the difficult fight against global terrorism, while also advancing the necessary mix of policy and investments to ensure America’s defense capabilities remain overwhelmingly superior to any known and future adversary, adaptable 

to the fast changing nature of the threat, and able to decisively defend our national interests now and in the future. 

HEARINGS 

Committee consideration of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2005 results from hearings that began on February 4, 2004 and that were completed on April 1, 2004. 

The full committee conducted seven sessions. In addition, a total 

of 29 sessions were conducted by 6 different subcommittees on various titles of the bill. 

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

AUTHORIZATION 

TITLE I—PROCUREMENT 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request for fiscal year 2005 contained $76,034.3 million for procurement. This represents a $1,830.8 million increase 

from the amount authorized for fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommends authorization of $76,215.7 million, 

an increase of $190.4 million from the fiscal year 2005 request 

after the transfer of $1,372.0 million and $9.0 million respectfully, 

for chemical agent and munitions destruction, Army, and the Defense Production Act, which have been transferred to other titles. 

15 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2005 procurement program are identified in the table below. Major issues are 

discussed following the table. 

16 

17 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2005 contained $2,658.2 million for Aircraft Procurement, Army. The committee recommends 

authorization of $2,805.9 million, an increase of $147.7 million, for 

fiscal year 2005. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2005 Aircraft 

Procurement, Army program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Army request are discussed following the 

table. 

18 

19 

20 

Items of Special Interest 

Airborne communications 

The budget request contained $9.8 million to procure communication equipment for Army aircraft, but included no funds to upgrade 

the AN/ARS–6 personnel locator system for Army special operations forces (SOF) MH–60 and MH–47 helicopters. 

The committee is aware of the urgent need for modern survival 

radios for Army SOF aircraft to replace older, less capable equipment that these aircraft now carry. Army SOF helicopters routinely 

perform search and rescue operations with all components of the 

U.S. armed forces, as well as with the disparate elements of the 

North Atlantic Treaty Organization member militaries. Growing 

numbers of these military organizations are migrating to modern 

survival systems that are incompatible with the communications 

equipment currently deployed on Army SOF aircraft. 

The committee recommends $15.8 million for Army airborne communications, an increase of $6.0 million for procurement of the AN/ 

ARS–6 version 12. 

Blackhawk helicopter de-icing system upgrade 

The budget request included $6.1 million for UH–60 modifications. 

The committee directs that $2.4 million be made available within 

the funds authorized for Army aircraft procurement for de-icing 

system upgrades for the Blackhawk helicopter. 

Crashworthy crew seats 

The budget request contained $703.5 million for CH–47 Cargo 

Helicopter Mods, of which no funds were requested for the crashworthy crew chief seats. 

The crashes of CH–47s due to hostile fire and non-hostile fire incidents in Operation Iraqi Freedom demonstrate the need for 

crashworthy crew chief seats. The installation of crashworthy seats 

will increase crewmember mission efficiency and effectiveness 

while significantly reducing the risk of death or injury during a 

hard landing or controlled crash. Survivability equipment is an essential part of force protection, which is the committee’s highest 

priority. 

The committee recommends $710.0 million, an increase of $6.5 

million for the procurement of crashworthy crew chief seats for the 

CH–47 aircraft. 

Modern signal processing unit 

The budget request contained $37.2 million for AH–64 Mods, of 

which no funds were requested for the modern signal processing 

unit (MSPU) initial integration and production for the AH–64. 

The MSPU is an embedded digital vibration diagnostic technology already developed by the Army for the AH–64A Apache and 

the AH–64D Longbow to monitor the tail rotor gearbox, the intermediate gearbox, and the auxiliary power unit clutch for incipient 

failures. The MSPU is a direct replacement for the 30 year old analog signal processing unit which is known to experience high failure rates and shown to be unreliable in detecting incipient gearbox 

21 

failures. The improved diagnostics of the MSPU will improve flight 

safety and reduce maintenance test costs. The committee recommends an increase of $7.6 million to begin 

initial integration of the modern signal processing unit into the 

AH–64A and AH–64D production line and to procure the MSPU for 

fielding as spares for both the active Army and National Guard 

Apache and Longbow aircraft. 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2005 contained $1,398.3 million for Missile Procurement, Army. The committee recommends 

authorization of $1,414.3 million, an increase of $16.0 million, for 

fiscal year 2005. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2005 Missile 

Procurement, Army program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Army request are discussed following the 

table. 

22 

23 

24 

WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT VEHICLES, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2005 contained $1,639.7 million for Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $1,739.7 million, an increase 

of $100.0 million, for fiscal year 2005. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2005 Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army program are identified in 

the table below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed 

following the table. 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Items of Special Interest 

Air-droppable, lightweight armored direct fires system 

The committee notes that the operational need for a rapidly 

deployable, air droppable, lightweight armored direct fires system 

has been validated. Additionally, recent combat operations demonstrate the need for such a system. The committee is encouraged 

by the Department of the Army’s decision to evaluate existing and 

developmental platforms in meeting this requirement. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to keep the congressional defense committees informed on the progress of the evaluation effort and provide a report of the Army’s findings at the conclusion of the evaluation program. 

Armor and vehicle protection kits 

The budget request included $1,639.7 million for Weapons and 

Tracked Combat Vehicle procurement. 

The committee notes the importance of expedited delivery of 

armor and vehicle protection kits for the global war on terrorism. Accordingly, the committee directs that $1.0 million be made 

available within funds authorized for Army Weapons and Tracked 

Combat Vehicle procurement for the Rock Island Arsenal for a 

laser cutting machine, titanium welding cell, and wash rack to ensure the on-time delivery of armor kits and vehicle protection kits. 

Bradley fighting vehicle integrated management 

The budget request contained $55.4 million for Bradley Fighting 

Vehicle Series Modifications, of which no funds were requested for 

sustainment and modernization. 

The committee is concerned that no funding exists for a 

sustainment and modernization program for the Bradley Fighting 

Vehicle. Considering the most optimistic assumptions for the fielding of the Future Combat Systems, the current force of the Abrams 

main battle tank and the Bradley Fighting Vehicle will constitute 

the majority of the total force for the next three decades. 

The Abrams Integrated Management Program is the Army’s long 

term management program for the Abrams tank which provides a 

rebuild capability, a modernization program, and sustainment of 

both the government and private industrial bases. No such program exists for the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to develop and 

implement a Bradley Fighting Vehicle Integrated Management program to maintain the Bradley fleet readiness through planned 

overhaul and modernization. 

The committee recommends an increase of $40.0 million for procurement of items to support the initiation of a Bradley Fighting 

Vehicle Integrated Management program. 

M1A2 system enhancement package 

The budget request contained $292.2 million to procure 67 M1A2 

system enhancement package (SEP) tanks. 

The committee understands the budget request fulfills M1A2 

SEP procurement for the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. Consistent with previous actions, the committee continues to recognize 

the advantages of upgrading the Army’s armored brigade combat 

29 

teams with M1A2 SEPs. The committee understands the M1A2 

SEP brings advantages to the warfighter in combat and training 

and reduces logistical burdens. The committee commends the Army 

for accelerating modernization of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment as part of this effort to digitize the heavy counterattack corps. 

Accordingly, the committee strongly recommends the Army continue the holistic M1 Abrams tank reset plan by modernizing with 

M1A2 SEP tanks the 3rd Infantry Division, the first armored unit 

to transform to the Chief of Staff’s modularity construct. 

M777 lightweight 155 millimeter howitzer 

The budget request contained $37.2 million to procure 18 M777 

Lightweight 155mm Howitzer (LW155) artillery systems. However, 

no funds were included for the Army National Guard. 

The M777 LW155 is a joint competitively procured program for 

the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) and U.S. Army that replaces and 

improves upon the currently fielded 25-year old M198 towed howitzer artillery system by utilizing networked fires at almost 50 percent of the weight of the M198. The committee recognizes the 

LW155 would provide enhanced mobility and lethality to the 

USMC, the Army’s XVIII Airborne Corps and Stryker Brigade 

Combat Teams and to the Army National Guard. 

The committee understands the Director of the Army National Guard has identified a $35.0 million fiscal year 2005 unfunded requirement for 18 LW155 systems. The committee recommends 

$72.2 million for the M777 LW155 artillery system, an increase of 

$35.0 million to procure an additional 18 systems and fulfill the 

Army National Guard’s unfunded requirement. 

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2005 contained $1,556.9 million for Ammunition Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $1,729.4 million, an increase of $172.5 

million, for fiscal year 2005. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2005 Ammunition Procurement, Army program are identified in the table 

below. Major changes to the Army request are discussed following 

the table. 

30 

31 

32 

33 

Items of Special Interest 

Ammunition production base upgrades 

The budget request contained $147.9 million for ammunition pro- duction base support, of which $40.7 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. 

The committee 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 understands these upgrades are required, to not only update World War II-era production lines, but 

are also necessary 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 global 

war on terrorism, Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation 

Iraqi Freedom. These increased requirements span from small to 

large caliber conventional ammunition, as well as conventional 

bombs and other explosive materials. The increased ammunition 

use rate, combined with the atrophy and underfunded ammunition 

production industrial 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 concerned and disturbed about these 

trends. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $59.4 million for army ammunition plant (AAP) modernization and transformation to support the munitions industrial base. The increases 

include: 

In millions 

(1) Lake City AAP modernization and 

transformation ............................... $22.4 

(2) Radford AAP modernization and 

transformation ............................... 16.0 

(3) Lone Star AAP LAP technology 

upgrades ......................................... 6.0 

(4) Kansas AAP LAP modern munitions enterprise .............................. 15.0 

The committee recognizes 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 budget requests to complete these upgrades in order to 

ensure that the U.S. ammunition production base can and will support the transformational and future operational munitions requirements of the 21st century. 

Conventional munitions demilitarization 

The budget request contained $95.4 million for conventional munitions demilitarization. 

The committee understands the remote weapon decasing and explosive removal kits project is an ongoing project in its second year 

and comprises two separate systems that are used for conventional 

munitions demilitarization. The committee understands rotary furnace RF9 upgrades are required for a furnace pollution abatement 

system and the committee notes the rotary furnace is used to thermally treat fuzes, primers, igniters, and munitions up to 20mm. 

34 

The committee recommends $97.4 million for conventional munitions demilitarization, an increase of $1.5 million for remote weapon decasing and explosive removal kits and an increase of $500,000 

for rotary furnace RF9 upgrades. 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2005 contained $4,240.9 million for Other Procurement, Army. The committee recommends authorization of $4,313.6 million, an increase of $72.7 million, for fiscal year 2005. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2005 Other 

Procurement, Army program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Army request are discussed following the 

table. 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

Items of Special Interest 

Common system open architecture 

The budget request contained $0.8 million to procure joint tactical area command systems (JTAC), but contained no funds for the 

integration of open architecture commercial off the shelf (COTS) 

technology to sustain currently fielded communications within 

JTACs. 

The committee recognizes there is a need to upgrade the tactical 

communication, navigation, and personnel location equipment for 

the Department of Defense and the Army. The committee understands this program will directly impact affordability and sustainability of currently fielded JTAC systems by integrating current 

commercial products and technology in an open architecture environment. 

The committee recommends $8.8 million for JTACs, an increase 

of $8.0 million to integrate open architecture COTS technology. 

Digital soldier 

The budget request contained $2.9 million for human intelligence 

information management, but contained no funds for the digital 

soldier concept. 

The digital soldier project is a handheld extension for the Army’s 

Information Dominance Center (IDC) at Fort Belvoir, Virginia and 

the Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) for soldiers in the 

field. This highly ruggedized device supports remoted soldiers and 

teams in harsh combat environments. The concept leverages wireless and encrypted internet protocol (IP), voice over IP, text messaging, multi-data receive or transmit, GPS location, tracking, or 

fiber optic gyro for emission control conditions. The device provides 

eyewitness, actionable intelligence and situational reporting via 

networked inputs to and from IDC and DCGS with the ability to 

interface with other tactical radios to get information to those who 

critically need it. 

The committee notes that this project is part of the Army senior 

intelligence officer’s ‘‘every soldier a sensor’’ model for the intelligence transformation focus area of Army transformation. 

Therefore the committee recommends $8.9 million, an increase of 

$6.0 million for the digital soldier concept. 

Distributed common ground system 

The budget request contained a total of $734.5 million for the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Distributed Common Ground System 

(DCGS) program. DCGS is a multi-service and agency program to 

enable existing intelligence processing, exploitation and dissemination systems to operate seamlessly across national and DOD architectures and standards. 

The committee supports the recent decision of the military service acquisition executives to integrate the DCGS backbone, version 

10.2, into each service DCGS architecture. The committee commends the services in coming together to work the challenges of intelligence sharing and views this as an important step towards the 

goal of seamless information sharing. 

However, the committee is concerned that the present DCGS architecture within each of the military services is unique and may 

45 

not be able to properly network and provide critical, timely information to the tactical users in the battlespace. The committee believes the services must have an overarching architecture that is 

well-defined so DCGS may operate across multiple domains to include ships at sea, Army and Marine Corps battalions on the move, 

and fixed sites for the Air Force. 

The committee also believes that the multiple systems that run 

the DCGS were devised by organizational tradition and not to modern standards. The committee is further concerned that while the 

services perform analogous operations on each DCGS system, they 

have not devised a coordinated strategy to merge requirements, 

functionalities, and applications to support a joint environment for 

users. The committee recommends that the Department coordinate 

service-centric requirements; use the best commercial practices to 

implement a systems architecture, maintain cost controls, leverage 

purchasing power, and streamline development for the program. 

In addition, the committee notes that the Defense intelligence 

community (IC) has an interest in the DOD’s Global Information 

Grid. Since DCGS is required to operate in both the IC and DOD 

domains, the committee believes there must be a common approach 

for managing intelligence data over both enterprise networks. 

Therefore, the committee encourages the IC and the Department to 

work together to create and implement a systems architecture that 

will allow users from both communities to access information in a 

timely and accurate manner. 

Further, the committee is concerned that the DCGS is unable to 

receive data from either the E–8C Joint Surveillance Targeting and 

Radar System (J–STARS) or the RC–135 RIVET JOINT signals intelligence system and is unable to directly task the RQ–4 Global 

Hawk high-altitude endurance unmanned aerial vehicle for imagery. The committee is concerned that the DCGS will not be able 

to achieve its goals without this ability. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence to provide a report to the congressional defense committees and intelligence committees detailing the Department’s DCGS integration plan to include tasking and imagery 

downlinks for the E–8C J–STARS, RC–135 RIVET JOINT, and 

RQ–4 Global Hawk systems by March 1, 2005. Furthermore, the 

committee directs the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networking Information and Integration to report to the congressional 

defense committees and intelligence committees by March 1, 2005, 

on the two communities’ plans for future operation of a networkcentric, DCGS across both the IC domain and the larger DOD information technology domain. 

The committee recommends the following for the DCGS military 

service programs: $8.2 million for the Army, a decrease of $1.4 million; $45.2 million for the Navy, a decrease of $8.0 million; and 

$291.7 million for the Air Force, a decrease of $28.5 million. 

Logistics support vessel 

The budget request contained no funding for the logistics support 

vessel (LSV). 

The committee is aware that the LSV fleet is currently used in 

Iraq. It also notes that the Army has major concerns with the LSVs 

46 

sea-keeping qualities. An improved bow has been developed to correct this problem. The committee recommends $3.5 million for LSV service life extension for LSVs 1–6. 

Physical security systems 

The budget request included $68.0 million for physical security 

systems. The budget request included no funding for equipping new 

required truck and delivery inspection stations. The committee recommends $71.0 million, an increase of $3.0 

million for gamma ray inspection machines and associated items 

for equipping truck and inspection stations authorized in title XXI 

of this report. 

Movement tracking system 

The budget request contained $84.0 million to procure palletized 

load systems including trucks and trailers, heavy equipment transporter systems, heavy expanded mobility tactical trucks and other 

related equipment of which $19.0 million was included to procure 

1,067 movement tracking systems (MTS). 

The MTS is a satellite-based communications system providing 

combat support and combat service support units with secure realtime global positioning system vehicle location and tracking and 

two-way text messaging between stationary base locations and vehicles. 

The committee understands the MTS significantly enhances the 

Army’s ability in current operations to strategically position tactical vehicles based on battlefield requirements, monitor and track 

re-supply items, and provides the ground commander with total 

asset visibility. The committee recognizes given the current asymmetric threat matrix there is no forward or rear front to direct 

combat situations and the need for an affordable, interoperable logistics tracking and communications system is essential for accurate situational awareness. The committee also notes the Chief of 

the Army Reserve and the Chief of the National Guard have identified fiscal year 2005 high priority unfunded requirements for MTS. 

The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million for the 

family of heavy tactical vehicles to accelerate the procurement of 

MTS. 

Shortstop electronic protection system 

The budget request contained no funds for the procurement of 

the Shortstop Electronic Protection System (SEPS). 

SEPS is a countermeasure for proximity fuzed indirect fire munitions and other electronic attack measures. SEPS were modified in 

response to the emerging Improvised Explosive Device (IED) 

threats in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). 

The committee understands the IED threat continues to pose the 

greatest risk to deployed military personnel serving in OIF and recognizes the need to continue to address this threat in an aggressive 

manner. The committee feels SEPS is critical to providing better 

force protection against the IED threat in OIF. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $18.6 million to procure 

additional SEPS. 

47 

Small Tugs 

The budget request contained no funds for theater support vessels. 

The committee understands that additional funds are required to 

complete the small tug under construction and for life extension 

upgrades to the existing Army tug fleet. 

The committee recommends $1.0 million to complete the tug 

under construction and for tug fleet life extension upgrades. 

Tactical unmanned aerial vehicle 

The budget request contained $100.5 million for the tactical unmanned aerial vehicle (TUAV), but included no funding for the tactical common data link (TCDL). 

The committee is aware that three major improvements were 

identified during operational testing that should be incorporated 

into the Shadow 200 tactical unmanned aerial vehicle. These improvements are a larger wing to increase payload and endurance, 

electronics system changes to reduce target location error, and use 

of the TCDL. 

The committee supports rapid fielding of mature improved technology to our forces and recommends $116.5 million for TUAV, an 

increase of $16.0 million for Shadow 200 improvements. 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2005 contained $8,767.9 million for Aircraft Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends 

authorization of $8,912.7 million, an increase of $144.8 million, for 

fiscal year 2005. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2005 Aircraft 

Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following the 

table. 

48 

49 

50 

51 

52 

Items of Special Interest 

AN/USC–42 miniaturized-demand assigned multiple access terminals 

The budget request contained $15.1 million for E–2 series modifications, but contained no funds for upgrading the AN/USC–42 

miniaturized-demand assigned multiple access (Mini-DAMA) terminals with improved communications security (COMSEC) and a 

graphical user interface (GUI). 

The committee notes that the AN/USC–42 provides significant 

communications improvement at less than one-tenth the size or 

weight of legacy communications equipment, and understands that 

the AN/USC–42 can be upgraded to accommodate improved 

COMSEC to alleviate demand on existing COMSEC systems. Additionally, the committee understands that an automated GUI upgrade would allow E–2C crews to program satellite communications 

channels more rapidly, and believes that both the COMSEC and 

GUI upgrade are necessary for future E–2C communications suites. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $22.7 million for E–2 series modifications, an increase of $7.6 million for the procurement, 

installation, and testing of the COMSEC and GUI upgrades for the 

E–2C’s AN/USC–42 mini-DAMA systems. The committee also expects that this increase would provide for the integration of this 

equipment into training facilities. 

F/A–18E/F shared reconnaissance pod 

The budget request contained $2,907.5 million for procurement of 

42 F/A–18E and F/A–18F aircraft, but included no funds to procure 

shared reconnaissance pods (SHARPs) or their associated logistics 

support elements. 

The SHARP is a digital reconnaissance pod capable of operating 

day or night, over a wide area, with the ability to use real-time 

data links to either land or sea-based distributed common ground 

systems for information exploitation. The SHARP is carried on the 

F/A–18F and replaces the tactical air reconnaissance pod system 

carried on the F–14 which is scheduled to retire in fiscal year 2006. 

The committee understands that current funding will only provide 

21 pods, leaving the Department of the Navy short of its requirement for 30 SHARPs, and notes that the Chief of Naval Operations 

has included the procurement of additional SHARPs among his unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2005. 

Consequently, the committee recommends $2,931.5 million for 

the F/A–18E/F, an increase of $24.0 million for three SHARPs and 

their associated support elements. 

H–1 series modifications 

The budget request contained $3.5 million for H–1 series modifications, all of which were five AN/AAQ–22 night thermal imaging 

system (NTIS) product improvement program (PIP) upgrades. 

The AN/AAQ–22 NTIS provides the Marine Corps’ UH–1N helicopter fleet with a capability to operate in both day and night conditions, as well as in a smoke, dust or haze environment. The PIP 

upgrade improves the AN/AAQ–22 NTIS by increasing resolution 

by greater than 20 percent, improving system stability and control, 

upgrading target detection and obstacle avoidance capability, and 

53 

adding a laser designator to guide precision munitions. The committee understands that the UH–1Ns equipped with the AN/AAQ– 22 NTIS PIP upgrade have performed superbly in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom in their mission to 

identify targets of opportunity and to provide rapid alerting of 

threats to Allied forces. Additionally, the committee notes that both 

the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps have included the AN/AAQ–22 NTIS PIP upgrade among 

their unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2005. Accordingly, the committee recommends $17.5 million for H–1 series modifications, an increase of $14.0 million for 17 additional 

AN/AAQ–22 NTIS PIP upgrades. 

Joint primary air training system 

The budget request contained $2.5 million for procurement of 

Joint Primary Air Training System (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 student pilots. 

The committee notes that the Department of the Navy does not 

plan to continue JPATS procurement until fiscal year 2007, and 

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. Consequently, the committee recommends $37.5 million for JPATS, an increase of $35.0 million for six T–6A aircraft and associated ground-based training systems. 

Metrology and calibration program 

The budget request contained $16.1 million for aircraft industrial 

facilities, of which $7.7 million was included for the Navy metrology and calibration (METCAL) program. 

The METCAL program provides the Navy with products and 

services to maintain accurate test equipment used for maintenance 

of weapons, aircraft, ships, submarines, and Marine Corps ground 

systems. The committee notes that without calibration equipment, 

test equipment drifts to inaccurate performance levels. This could 

induce errors in weapons systems or result in serviceable components being removed for unnecessary maintenance or unserviceable 

components remaining in a weapons or support system. The committee also notes that during the past 10 years, funding for the 

Navy’s calibration test equipment has been substantially reduced, 

resulting in a corresponding decrease in the availability of calibrated test equipment. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $17.3 million for aircraft 

industrial facilities, an increase of $1.2 million for the METCAL 

program. 

P–3 series modifications 

The budget request contained $135.0 million for P–3 series modifications, but included no funds for procurement of satellite commuVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
54 

nications (SATCOM) or a common information processing system 

(CIPS) upgrades for aircraft that are not equipped with the antisurface warfare improvement program (AIP). 

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 aging. The committee notes however, that of the Navy’s 288-aircraft P–3 inventory, only 71 aircraft 

have been, or are planned to be, modified with the AIP upgrade. 

The committee understands that some of the remaining 217 nonAIP equipped aircraft could be upgraded with SATCOM and CIPS 

allowing those P–3 aircraft to assume lower priority ISR missions 

thereby conserving aircraft life on AIP equipped P–3 aircraft. 

Consequently, the committee recommends $139.0 million, an increase of $4.0 million for procurement of SATCOM and CIPS upgrades for non-AIP equipped P–3 aircraft and expects that this 

amount will provide for procurement of two prototype systems including fleet evaluation. 

T–45TS and T–48 

The budget request contained $52.4 million for one T–48 aircraft 

and $253.6 million for eight T–45C aircraft and its associated 

training system. The T–48 would be a multi-seat replacement for 

the T–39 aircraft used for undergraduate military flight officer 

training. The T–45TS is an integrated training system that combines the T–45 aircraft, simulators, and computer-based training 

for the Navy’s intermediate-level undergraduate pilot training. 

Subsequent to submission of the budget request, the Assistant 

Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition 

informed the committee that procurement of the T–48 is no longer 

required since the Department of the Navy now plans to conduct 

its undergraduate military flight officer training by using the T–

45C, synthetic radar displays, and high-fidelity ground-based training systems. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends no funds for the T–48, 

a decrease of $52.4 million. The committee also recommends $306.0 

million for the T–45TS, a corresponding increase of $52.4 million 

and expects that this increase will procure at least two additional 

T–45C aircraft. 

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2005 contained $2,101.5 million for Weapons Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends 

authorization of $2,253.5 million, an increase of $151.9 million, for 

fiscal year 2005. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2005 Weapons Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following the 

table. 

55 

56 

57 

58 

Items of Special Interest 

Close-in weapon system block 1B 

The budget request contained $86.1 million for 19 close-in weapon system (CIWS) modifications to upgrade the CIWS to the block 

1B configuration. 

The CIWS is a weapon system with a high rate of fire that automatically acquires, tracks and destroys anti-ship missiles that have 

penetrated all other surface ship defenses. The CIWS block 1B configuration is a CIWS upgrade that incorporates a thermal imager 

and automatic acquisition video tracker to provide additional capability to engage small, high-speed maneuvering craft, and low, slow 

aircraft and helicopters. The committee understands that the 

CIWS, upgraded to the block 1B configuration, is the most effective 

surface-ship weapon system used to combat terrorist surface vessels and air threats. The committee further understands that 22 

CIWSs are scheduled for overhaul in fiscal year 2005 without an 

upgrade to the CIWS block 1B configuration. 

Since the committee believes that completing the block 1B upgrade as part of an overhaul is the most cost-effective method to 

maximize CIWS block 1B capability for the surface ship fleet, it 

recommends $120.1 million for CIWS modifications, an increase of 

$34.0 million to upgrade 22 additional CIWSs to the block 1B configuration. 

Evolved sea sparrow missile 

The budget request contained $80.3 million for 71 evolved Sea 

Sparrow missiles (ESSMs). 

The ESSM is an upgraded version of the existing North Atlantic 

Treaty Organization Sea Sparrow missile which provides improved 

surface-ship air defense capabilities against low altitude, high-velocity and maneuvering aircraft and against anti-ship cruise missiles. The ESSM is designed for use in a ‘‘quad pack’’ canister, or 

set of four missiles, in the MK 41 vertical launching system. 

The committee notes that additional ESSMs were included 

among the Chief of Naval Operations’ unfunded priorities for fiscal 

year 2005, and believes that increased procurement of ESSMs 

would significantly improve force protection capabilities in the surface fleet. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $102.3 million for the 

ESSM, an increase of $22.0 million for 24 additional ESSMs and 

for 6 additional ‘‘quad pack’’ canisters. 

Hellfire II missile 

The budget request for the Department of the Navy contained no 

funds for Hellfire II missiles. 

The Hellfire II missile is a laser-guided, anti-armor and anti-ship 

weapon used by the Marine Corps on the AH–1W helicopter and 

by the Navy on the SH–60B helicopter as their primary precisionguided munition. The committee notes that current Hellfire II missile inventories are at 34 percent of requirements, and are projected to fall to 13 percent of the inventory requirement by fiscal 

year 2009 based on forecast expenditures and shelf-life expirations. 

As a result of this projection, the committee notes that both the 

Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine 

59 

Corps have included procurement of Hellfire II missiles among 

their unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2005. 

Consequently, the committee recommends $42.0 million to procure 500 Hellfire II missiles. 

Pioneer unmanned aerial vehicle 

The budget request contained $8.8 million to improve the Pioneer 

unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). 

The committee is aware that the Navy no longer uses Pioneer, 

but has loaned Pioneer to the Marine Corps for use as a tactical 

UAV until the Marine Corps has developed and fielded its objective 

high speed vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) UAV. The committee notes that a Marine Corps VTOL UAV will, at best, not be 

operational until the end of this decade. The committee understands that the cost to improve the Pioneer is approximately the 

same as to produce a new Shadow tactical UAV (TUAV). Therefore, 

the committee believes that it is wiser to equip the Marine Corps 

with new Shadow systems incorporating a standard tactical common data link, target location error reduction features and other 

improvements. The committee notes that this would provide an interim TUAV to the Marine Corps that could, when appropriate, be 

transferred to the Army. 

Therefore, the committee recommends no funding for Pioneer, a 

reduction of $8.8 million. Elsewhere in this report funding is recommended to provide an upgraded Shadow 200 TUAV system to 

the Marine Corps. 

Tomahawk missile 

The budget request contained $256.2 million for 293 tactical 

tomahawk (TACTOM) missiles. 

The TACTOM missile is a long-range, precision-strike cruise missile launched from surface ships or submarines. 

The committee understands that the Department of the Navy’s 

programmed budget for TACTOM missiles would result in an inventory that is significantly below the Navy’s stated Tomahawk required inventory levels, and notes that planned production of 293 

TACTOM missiles is below both the fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 

2004 production rate of 350 missiles per year. Also, the committee 

notes that additional TACTOMs were included among the Chief of 

Naval Operations’ unfunded priorities for fiscal year 2005 to restore inventory levels expended during Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

To sustain TACTOM production at a rate of 350 missiles per 

year for fiscal year 2005 and to improve the TACTOM inventory 

levels, the committee recommends $305.9 million for the Tomahawk missile, an increase of $49.7 million for an additional 57 

TACTOM missiles. 

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, NAVY & MARINE CORPS

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2005 contained $858.6 million 

for Ammunition Procurement, Navy & Marine Corps. The committee recommends authorization of $870.8 million, an increase 

$12.2 million, for fiscal year 2005. 

60 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2005 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. 

61 

62 

63 

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2005 contained $9,962.0 million for Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $10,120.0 million, an increase of $158.0 

million, for fiscal year 2005. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2005 Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy program are identified in the table 

below. Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following 

the table. 

64 

65 

66 

Items of Special Interest 

Aft ramp range retriever craft 

The budget request contained $32.1 million for the procurement 

of service craft, but included no funding for aft ramp range retriever craft (ARC). 

The committee is informed that the Naval Undersea Warfare 

Center Division located in Keyport, Washington, currently has two, 

approximately 40-years old, wooden ARCs that are at the end of 

their useful service life. The committee notes that the Navy has approved an Operational Requirements Document for replacement 

ARCs. 

The committee recommends $40.1 million for the procurement of service craft, an increase of $8.0 million to design and build two 

aluminum ARCs and provide appropriate spare parts. 

Amphibious assault ship replacement program 

The budget request contained no funding for the amphibious assault ship replacement program (LHA (R)). 

The committee understands that the LHA (R) will be based on 

the LHD–1 Class hull combined with the latest propulsion and 

electric plant technology. The committee further notes that, while 

the LHA (R) design is not yet finalized, commonality with LHD– 1 Class will be much greater than 50 percent. The Secretary of the 

Navy is directed to report to the congressional defense committees 

how the additional funding will be used prior to obligation of those 

funds, since no description has been provided with the budget request. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $150.0 million in ship construction Navy for advanced procurement of components common to LHD–9 and LHA (R). 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2005 contained $4,834.3 million for Other Procurement, Navy. The committee recommends authorization of $4,876.7 million, an increase of $42.4 million, for fiscal year 2005. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2005 Other 

Procurement, Navy program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Navy request are discussed following the 

table. 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

Items of Special Interest 

Chemical biological defense for aviation and explosive ordnance disposal 

The budget request included $25.1 million for explosive ordnance 

disposal equipment and $131.9 million for chemical and biological 

defense individual protection equipment. 

The committee notes that the Chief of Naval Operations has 

identified a critical requirement for chemical and biological individual protection equipment and explosive ordnance disposal equipment for which funding was not requested in fiscal year 2005. 

The committee notes increasing Navy requirements for improvement of the mission readiness of explosive ordnance disposal (EOD) 

units for incidents involving improvised explosive devices and 

weapons of mass destruction. The committee notes that commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) robotic and explosive detection systems 

are available that would significantly enhance the ability of EOD 

units to conduct remote reconnaissance and disruption operations 

against a range of military and commercial explosive devices. 

The committee also notes significant shortfalls in chemical and 

biological defense individual protection systems for Navy aircrews. 

The procurement of replacement aircrew chemical biological defense respirators is essential for Navy and Marine aircrews to be 

capable of operating in a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear 

threat environment until the joint service aircrew mask is fielded 

in fiscal year 2009. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.4 million for procurement of COTS robotic and explosive detection systems for EOD 

units. The committee also recommends an increase of $11.0 million 

for procurement of aircrew chemical and biological defense respirators. 

Complementary acoustic system improvements 

The budget request contained $225.0 million for the procurement 

of SSN acoustics, but contained no funding for complementary 

acoustic system improvements. 

The committee understands that it is necessary to coordinate 

complementary acoustic improvements in order that maximum 

overall system performance is realized. The committee also realizes 

that cost savings can be realized by such an approach. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $229.0 million for procurement of SSN acoustics, an increase of $4.0 million for complementary acoustic system improvements. 

CVN replacement propeller program 

The budget request contained no funds for advanced aircraft carrier propellers. 

The committee is aware that the Navy has designed a new Generation III propeller for new and in service aircraft carriers. It further notes that it costs $2.0 million per ship set to refurbish old 

propellers which last for only a few years. The committee believes 

the Generation III propeller offers a more cost-effective alternative. 

The committee recommends $7.0 million to procure two ship sets 

of Generation III propellers for in-service aircraft carriers. 

76 

Envelop protective covers 

The budget request contained $245.5 million for the procurement 

of spares and repair parts, but contained no funding for envelop 

protective covers. 

The committee is aware that envelop protective covers significantly reduce corrosion on Navy surface combatant weapons systems. The committee notes that a 2003 General Accounting Office 

study estimated annual cost of corrosion control for military infrastructure at $20,000 million. The committee further notes that envelop covers, developed under Navy-sponsored research use modern 

technology to draw moisture from beneath the cover, keeping metal 

surfaces dry. The committee understands that Navy test results 

show that envelop covers reduce corrosion by 95 percent, compared 

to current covers. 

The committee recommends $249.9 million for the procurement of spares and repair parts, an increase of $4.4 million to procure 

covers for weapons systems on Navy surface combatants. 

Integrated bridge system 

The budget request contained $57.5 million for the procurement 

of Aegis support equipment, but contained no funding for an integrated bridge system (IBS). 

The committee notes that an integrated bridge system has been 

developed that automates underway planning, reduces bridge manning, and reduces risk of collision and grounding. The committee 

also notes that significant cost savings per ship result from installation of IBS. 

The committee recommends $76.5 million for Aegis support equipment, an increase of $19.0 million for IBS. 

Integrated condition assessment system 

The budget request contained $148.6 million for the procurement of items less than $5.0 million, but included no funding for an integrated condition assessment systems (ICAS). 

The committee is aware that ICAS links the key elements of the 

maintenance decision process, continually monitoring and recording 

critical machinery operating data. The committee notes that ICAS 

facilitates more timely and accurate maintenance with the potential to improve systems reliability while lowering operating costs. The committee recommends an increase of $11.8 million for 

ICAS. 

Man overboard identification program 

The budget request contained $20.7 million in other procurement 

Navy, but included no funding for man overboard identification 

program (MOBI). 

The committee is aware that each year more than 50 service 

members fall overboard from U.S. Navy ships. The MOBI system 

provides an active means by which a Navy ship can immediately 

be alerted to a man-overboard incident and also be provided precision location of the individual in the water, thereby reducing death 

and injury from such incidents. The committee notes that the Navy 

has begun installing MOBI on all Navy ships. 

The committee recommends an increase of $12.4 million in other 

procurement Navy to expedite MOBI installation on all Navy ships. 

77 

Multi-climate protection clothing system 

The budget request contained $19.0 million for the procurement 

of aviation life support equipment, but contained no funding for a 

multi-climate protection clothing system. 

The committee is aware that the Chief of Naval Operations has 

given high priority to procurement of improved clothing for aircrews. The committee notes that a new multi-climate clothing system has been introduced that meets present requirements. 

The committee recommends $27.0 million aviation life support 

equipment, an increase of $8.0 million for the multi-climate clothing protection system. 

Programmable integrated communications terminal 

The budget request contained $14.1 million for shipboard tactical 

communications, but included no funding for a programmable integrated communications terminal (PICT). 

The committee is aware that many of the secure voice terminals 

aboard ship are out-dated and require expensive and time-consuming maintenance. The committee notes that a single commercial technology PICT can be used to replace several legacy terminals for interior and radio communications. 

The committee recommends $16.1 million, an increase of $2.0 

million for procurement and installation of PICTs aboard Marine 

Corps amphibious ships. 

Serial number tracking system 

The budget request contained $11.5 million for the procurement 

of other supply support equipment, but contained no funding for a 

serial number tracking system (SNTS). 

The committee notes that the SNTS provides web-based, ‘‘cradleto-grave’’ total asset visibility of individual components throughout 

the supply, maintenance and transportation processes. This leads 

to increased readiness and reduced maintenance costs. 

The committee recommends $19.5 million for other supply support equipment, an increase of $8.0 million to continue implementation of SNTS in the areas of shipboard automated configuration 

management and calibrated equipment areas. 

Weapons elevator automation 

The budget request contained $148.6 million for the procurement 

of items less than $5.0 million, but included no funding for weapons elevator automation. 

The committee is aware that weapons elevators on aircraft carriers are critical to the success of strike missions. The committee 

is also aware that a successful demonstration of an automated 

weapons elevator has been conducted and that it was also proven 

during recent combat deployments. 

The committee supports this improved capability and recommends an increase of $2.3 million for weapons elevator automation. 

78 

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2005 contained $1,190.1 million for Procurement, Marine Corps. The committee recommends 

authorization of $1,315.1 million, an increase of $125.0 million, for 

fiscal year 2005. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2005 Procurement, Marine Corps program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Marine Corps request are discussed following 

the table. 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

Items of Special Interest 

Assault breacher vehicle 

The budget request contained $4.6 million for the assault breacher vehicle (ABV). 

The ABV is a tracked, armored combat engineer vehicle designed 

to breach mine fields, complex obstacles and provide in-stride 

breaching capability to Marine Corps ground forces operating on 

the battlefield. The committee understands the ABV enters into 

low-rate initial production in fiscal year 2005 and recognizes the 

ABV would provide additional crew protection, vehicle survivability 

and improve the mobility of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force. 

The committee also notes the Commandant of the Marine Corps 

identified a $12.0 million fiscal year 2005 unfunded requirement 

for the ABV. 

The committee recommends $16.6 million for the ABV, an increase of $12.0 million to accelerate ABV fielding by one year and 

fulfill the Commandant of the Marine Corps fiscal year 2005 unfunded requirement. 

Improved recovery vehicle 

The budget request contained no funds for procurement of the 

M88A2 Hercules Improved Recovery Vehicle (IRV). 

The committee understands the M88A2 IRV is a joint Marine 

Corps and Army product improvement program that reuses the 

fielded M88A1 recovery vehicle hull and installs a new upgraded 

engine and provides better suspension to increase towing, hoisting, 

and winching capability. The committee notes the M88A2 IRV also 

provides improved armored crew protection and is the prime recovery vehicle for the M1 Abrams tank and other heavy vehicles. The committee recommends $8.5 million to procure three M88A2 

Hercules Improved Recovery Vehicles and fulfill the Commandant 

of the Marine Corps’s fiscal year 2005 unfunded requirement. 

Marines global command and control systems and integrated imagery and intelligence analysis system 

The budget request included $9.6 million for modification kits for 

intelligence. 

The committee notes the Commandant of the Marine Corps’s 

number one unfunded requirement for fiscal year 2005 is the acceleration of the Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) integrated backbone (DIB). The DCGS DIB integration supports the 

capstone requirements document (CRD) and ongoing multi-service 

collaboration efforts for the Marine Corps. Additional funding 

would provide the Marine Corps with needed licenses, software, 

and servers for intelligence analysis systems necessary to support 

the Marine Corps intelligence infrastructure. 

The committee recommends $14.1 million, an increase of $4.5 

million for Global Command and Control Systems, Integrated Imagery and Intelligence (GCCS–I3) for the Marine Corps. 

Nitrile rubber collapsible storage units 

The budget request contained $5.2 million for tactical fuel systems, but included no funding for nitrile rubber collapsible storage 

tanks. 

85 

The committee understands that the Marine Corps has identified 

an immediate need to procure nitrile rubber collapsible storage 

tanks for its Tactical Fuel System (TFS). The committee notes that 

TFS played a critical role in receiving, storage, transfer and dispensing fuel and bulk liquid in support of Marine Corps operations 

in Iraq. The committee recommends $8.5 million, an increase of $3.3 million for nitrile rubber collapsible storage tanks. 

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2005 contained $13,163.2 million for Aircraft Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $13,649.2 million, an increase of $486.0 

million, for fiscal year 2005. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2005 Aircraft 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the 

table. 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

Items of Special Interest 

Advanced targeting pod 

The budget request contained $309.7 million for other production 

charges, of which $52.3 million was for procurement of advanced 

targeting pods (ATP). 

The ATP will supplement and replace existing targeting pods 

while providing improved infra-red technology, improved laser capability, a laser spot tracker, and enhanced combat identification. 

The committee notes that the budget request would only provide 

forty-four percent of the fiscal year 2005 inventory requirement for 

targeting pods, and understands that current budget plans would 

leave the Department of the Air Force 300 ATPs short of its inventory requirement. Additionally, the committee notes that the Air 

Force Chief of Staff has included accelerated ATP procurement as 

his second highest unfunded priority for fiscal year 2005. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $374.7 million for other 

production charges, an increase of $65.0 million to accelerate the 

procurement of ATPs. 

B–1B modifications 

The budget request contained $8.8 million for B–1B procurement 

modifications, but included no funds for modifications or operations 

and maintenance required to regenerate 17 additional aircraft. 

The committee notes that the Air Force had planned to retire 32 

of its 92–aircraft B–1B aircraft fleet by the end of fiscal year 2004. 

However, in its report on H.R. 1588 (H. Rept. 108–106) the committee noted the B–1B’s long-range capability to deliver conventional precision-guided munitions against strategic and tactical targets during the recent Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation 

Iraqi Freedom, and the B–1B’s crucial contribution to the success 

of both operations. Moreover, the committee continues to believe 

that possible future conflicts could 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 in 

fiscal year 2004, the committee recommended an increase of $20.3 

million for B–1B modifications to begin the regeneration of 23 of 

the 32 aircraft planned for retirement, because, only 23 were available for regeneration at that time. The committee notes that $17.0 

million was appropriated in fiscal year 2004 for this purpose. For 

fiscal year 2005, the committee understands that only 17, rather 

than 23, of the 32 B–1Bs scheduled for retirement can now be reasonably regenerated to an operational condition, and that the Department of the Air Force plans to regenerate 7 of those 17 aircraft. 

The Department, however, has not included the additional $7.5 

million to operate and maintain these aircraft in its fiscal year 

2005 budget request. To address this shortfall, the committee recommends a $7.5 million increase for this purpose elsewhere in this 

report. 

Since the committee continues to believe that all 17 of those aircraft should be regenerated, it recommends $104.6 million for B–

1B procurement modifications, an increase of $95.8 million for the 

necessary upgrades for 10 additional B–1B aircraft. Elsewhere in 

92 

this report, the committee recommends an increase of $149.9 million to operate and maintain these aircraft for fiscal year 2005. 

In making this recommendation, the committee understands that an additional $732.5 million will need to be budgeted in various appropriations for fiscal years 2006 through 2011 to provide for these 

aircraft, and strongly encourages the Department to take this action. 

C–5 modifications 

The budget request contained $99.6 million for C–5 modifications, of which $89.7 million was included for 18 C–5 avionics modernization program (AMP) kits. 

The C–5 AMP replaces unreliable and unsupportable engine 

flight instruments and flight system components. The committee 

understands that increased C–5 AMP funding is critical to sustain 

the operational utility and viability of the Air Force Reserve and 

Air National Guard C–5A fleet. 

Consequently, the committee recommends $120.6 million for C– 5 modifications, an increase of $21.0 million for 6 C–5 additional 

AMP kits. 

C–17 

The C–17 is a strategic cargo aircraft, capable of rapid delivery 

to main operating bases or forward bases in the deployment area. 

The aircraft is also capable of performing tactical airlift and airdrop missions when required. The C–17 is currently procured 

under a multiyear procurement contract that delivers 15 aircraft 

per year with the last deliveries under the existing contract scheduled for fiscal year 2008. The Department of the Air Force currently plans for an inventory of 180 C–17 aircraft. 

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 that currently airlift capacity is approximately 44.7 MTM/D, a 

shortage of 9.8 MTM/D. In testimony before the committee’s Projection Forces Subcommittee on March 17, 2004, the Commander of 

the U.S. Transportation Command noted that a new Mobility Capabilities Study (MCS) is underway and stated that, ‘‘we need to 

make sure that we meet at least the requirements of MRS–05 plus 

whatever MCS lays on the table.’’ This would require an inventory 

of at least 222 C–17s, 42 more than now planned to meet mobility 

requirements. 

Accordingly, the committee strongly urges the Department of the 

Air Force to budget for continued C–17 procurement through a 

multiyear program to procure at least 42 additional C–17 aircraft. 

C–17 maintenance training system 

The budget request contained $2,512.5 million to procure 14 C–

17 aircraft and associated support equipment, of which $45.0 million was included for a C–17 maintenance training system (MTS) 

at Travis Air Force Base, California, but included no funds for an 

MTS at Hickam AFB, Hawaii. 

The C–17 MTS consists of three maintenance training devices designed to qualify personnel, and to sustain proficiency, in the mainVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
93 

tenance of the C–17’s engines, aircraft systems, and avionics. The 

committee understands that eight C–17 aircraft are planned for delivery to Hickam AFB in December 2005, and that without an MTS 

at this location, maintenance personnel would be required to travel 

to McChord AFB, Washington, for this training resulting in increased travel costs and maintenance manpower loss at Hickam 

AFB. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $2,547.5 million for the C– 17, an increase of $35.0 million for an additional MTS. 

C–130E engine upgrades 

The budget request contained $110.4 million for C–130 modifications but included no funds to upgrade the C–130E’s T56–A–7 engines to the T–56–A–15 configuration. 

Due to engine power limitations, the committee understands that 

C–130E aircraft are restricted to less demanding missions. The 

committee also understands that upgrading the C–130E’s T56–A– 7 engines to the T–56–A–15 configuration would provide a 32 percent increase in engine power, reduce time between engine overhaul by 15 percent, and provide the same engine configuration as 

the C–130E/H fleet. 

Consequently, the committee recommends $117.6 million for C– 130 modifications, an increase of $7.2 million to upgrade 20 C– 130E T56–A–7 engines to the T–56–A–15 configuration. 

F–15 modifications 

The budget request contained $181.6 million for F–15 modifications, of which $3.0 million was included for ALQ–135 band 1.5 

countermeasures system support equipment, but included no funds 

for the procurement of ALQ–135 band 1.5 countermeasures system 

modification kits. 

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 understands that over half of the F–15E fleet is now equipped with the 

ALQ–135 band 1.5 countermeasures system, and believes that all 

combat-coded F–15E aircraft should be so equipped until the F/A–

22 and F–35 aircraft enter the Air Force inventory in significant 

numbers. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $198.6 million for F–15 

modifications, an increase of $17.0 million for ALQ–135 band 1.5 

countermeasures system modification kits, and encourages the Department of the Air Force to complete ALQ–135 band 1.5 production and installation on all combat-coded F–15E aircraft as soon as 

possible with a minimum production rate of two shipsets per 

month. 

F–16 Air National Guard Force Structure 

The committee notes that the 177th Fighter Wing (FW) in Atlantic City, New Jersey, is designated as one of 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 Block 25 F–16 aircraft, but the 

94 

committee believes that an increase to 24 PAA would enable the 

177th FW to better meet its essential CAP mission protecting the 

citizens and property located on the East Coast of the United 

States. The committee strongly encourages the Air Force to adopt 

24 PAA at the 177th FW as part of its force structure plan as soon 

as aircraft become available from elsewhere in active or air reserve 

component units, aircraft reassignments resulting from domestic or 

overseas base realignment and closure, or from future acquisition 

of F–16 aircraft. 

F–16 modifications 

The budget request contained $336.3 million for F–16 modifications, but included no funds for the AN/APX–113 Advanced Identification Friend or Foe (AIFF) for F–16 block 25, 30, and 32 aircraft, 

or for the Air National Guard’s (ANG) Theater Airborne Reconnaissance System (TARS) pods. 

The AN/APX–113 AIFF provides F–16 block 25, 30, and 32 aircraft with a capability to identify both U.S. and allied aircraft at 

well beyond visual ranges. The committee notes that the APX–113 

AIFF is included among the ANG’s significant equipment shortages 

in the ‘‘National Guard and Reserve Equipment Report for Fiscal 

Year 2005,’’ and believes that this system is critical for F–16 block 

25, 30, and 32 aircraft that perform a homeland defense combat air 

patrol mission. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase 

of $10.0 million for the AN/APX–113 AIFF for the ANG’s F–16 

block 25, 30, and 32 aircraft. 

The two ANG F–16 units equipped with TARS pods provide a responsive reconnaissance capability to support intelligence and targeting requirements of military users. The committee understands 

that upgraded TARS pods are available that meet Department of 

the Air Force operational requirements for day and night, throughthe-weather reconnaissance and near real-time data link of imagery to support time-critical targeting. The committee also understands that the Air Force component commander of the U.S. Central command has requested that this capability be deployed to the 

Iraq theater. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase 

of $12.0 million to provide one of the two ANG F–16 TARSequipped units with two TARS pods and associated spares and support equipment. 

In total, the committee recommends $358.3 million for F–16 

modifications, an increase of $22.0 million. 

KC–767 aerial refueling tanker aircraft 

The budget request contained no funds for a KC–767 aerial refueling tanker aircraft. The Secretary of the Air Force has designated the KC–767 to be the replacement for the 43-year old KC–

135 aerial refueling tanker aircraft. 

In its report on H.R. 1588 (H. Rpt. 108–106) for fiscal year 2004, 

the committee noted the advancing age of the KC–135 fleet, which 

comprises most of the Air Force’s aerial refueling capability, and 

expressed concern that a substantial portion of the Air Force’s air 

refueling tanker fleet will reach simultaneous maturity, and will 

require substantial investment to operate, maintain, and eventually replace this fleet. To address this concern, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) 

95 

included a provision (section 135) that authorized the Secretary of 

the Air Force to lease not more that 20 tanker aircraft and to procure up to 80 additional tanker aircraft through a ten-year 

multiyear procurement program. 

On December 1, 2003, the Deputy Secretary of Defense requested 

the Department of Defense (DOD) Inspector General (IG) determine if there is any compelling reason why the Secretary of the Air 

Force should not proceed with its tanker lease program. The committee notes the DOD IG concluded that there was no compelling 

reason why the Air Force could not execute the proposal as 

planned, but that the DOD IG was critical of the Air Force’s procurement strategy, acquisition procedures, and adherence to statutory requirements. 

Additionally, the committee notes that the Secretary of Defense 

has directed other reviews of the tanker lease program including 

a Defense Science Board evaluation of the tanker recapitalization 

program, a DOD General Counsel review and update of ethics policy and training for senior DOD officials, and a National Defense 

University study to analyze the decisionmaking process to develop 

lessons learned that would improve the acquisition and procurement processes. Other on-going studies include an analysis of alternatives to meet the Air Force’s aerial refueling requirements and 

a study of the long-term tanker aircraft maintenance and training 

requirements directed by sections 134 and 135 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136). 

As a result of these studies, analyses, and investigations, the committee further notes that the Secretary of Defense has directed the 

Secretary of the Air Force to suspend all further negotiations on 

the tanker lease program. 

While the committee supports the DOD and Congressionally-directed studies and analysis regarding the Air Force’s tanker aircraft, it remains concerned that as the KC–135 aircraft fleet ages, 

the Air Force confronts a risk that the entire KC–135 fleet may be 

grounded pending the resolution of stress, material, or corrosion 

problems. The prospect of grounding the KC–135 fleet puts the Nation’s long range strike and re-supply capabilities at risk when U.S. 

forces are globally deployed in support of the global war on terrorism. Accordingly, the committee believes that the Secretary of 

the Air Force should begin the KC–767 program in fiscal year 2005 

in accordance with section 135 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) and section 116 

and 117 of this act. The committee further understands that projected annual procurement of KC–767 tanker aircraft would result 

in a procurement program likely to span over twenty-five years to 

replace the entire 544-aircraft KC–135 fleet, and further understands that the last of the retiring KC–135 aircraft may be approximately 70 years old when they are removed from the Air 

Force’s tanker aircraft inventory. 

Consequently, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 

million in procurement for the advance procurement of KC–767 

aerial refueling tankers, and an increase of $80.0 million in PE 

64XXXF for KC–767 development. Elsewhere in this report, the 

committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in operations 

and maintenance to sustain the KC–767 system program office and 

for KC–767 training. 

96 

Predator unmanned aerial vehicle 

The budget request contained $146.6 million for Predator unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). 

The committee is aware that Predator B is the next generation 

of the proven Predator UAV. The committee strongly supports additional acquisition of propjet Predator B UAVs. The committee 

also realizes that Predator A has significant capability to support 

operations in Iraq. 

The committee recommends $322.6 million, an increase of $44.0 

million for additional propjet Predator B UAVs and an increase of 

$132.0 million for four Predator A systems. 

Senior scout permanent carrier 

The budget request contained $110.4 million for the C–130 program, but contained no funding for the establishment of a dedicated C–130 unit for the SENIOR SCOUT mission. 

The SENIOR SCOUT mission package and assigned personnel 

are temporarily located at the Air National Guard’s 169th intelligence squadron (169th IS) in Salt Lake City, Utah. The SENIOR 

SCOUT mission package is a self-contained, roll-on/roll-off shelter 

that can be accommodated on any appropriately modified C–130 

aircraft. The Joint Chiefs of Staff has mobilized this mission since 

October 2001 and considers this a high demand, low density asset 

capable of meeting current counternarcotics and global war on terrorism intelligence tasking. 

The Air National Guard (ANG) supports the SENIOR SCOUT 

mission lift requirements. The Idaho ANG at Gowen Field has indicated that it wishes to host the SENIOR SCOUT mission personnel 

and is presently coordinating with the National Guard Bureau 

(NGB) in establishing this permanent affiliation. The committee 

commends both the NGB and their units for their initiative and 

looks forward to the 169th IS–Idaho ANG affiliation to increase 

mission effectiveness and availability to both the counternarcotics 

and the global war of terrorism. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $112.4 million in C–130 

procurement, an increase of $2.0 million for the establishment of 

a dedicated ANG unit for the SENIOR SCOUT mission. 

T–38 modifications 

The budget request contained $153.7 million for T–38 modifications, but included no funds for the T–38 ejection system upgrade 

program (ESUP). 

The T–38 ESUP will replace the T–38’s original ejection seats, 

add an inter-seat sequencing system, and improve escape path 

clearance. The committee understands that the T–38 ESUP will 

also result in improved accommodation for smaller and larger crewmembers not considered when the aircraft was originally fielded in 

the early 1960s, and notes that the Air Force Chief of Staff has included the T–38 ESUP among his unfunded priorities for fiscal 

year 2005. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $173.7 million for T–38 

modifications, an increase of $20.0 million for the T–38 ESUP. 

97 

AMMUNITION PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2005 contained $1,396.5 million for Ammunition Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends the budget request for fiscal year 2005. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2005 Ammunition Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the table 

below. Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the table. 

98 

99 

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2005 contained $4,718.3 million for Missile Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends authorization of $4,638.3 million, a decrease of $80.0 million, for fiscal year 2005. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2005 Missile 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the 

table. 

100 

101 

102 

103 

Items of Special Interest 

Advanced extremely high frequency satellite 

The budget request contained $98.6 million for the advanced extremely high frequency (EHF) program, but contained no funds for 

long lead procurement associated with advanced EHF IV. 

Advanced EHF will replenish the existing EHF system and improve the capability to provide survivable, anti-jam, worldwide, secure communications for strategic and tactical warfighters. The 

current national space architecture plans for three advanced EHF 

satellites with follow-on capability provided by the Transformational Satellite (TSAT) Communications program. The committee is aware of the risk associated with the TSAT schedule and 

its ability to satisfy follow-on requirements which may require an 

additional advanced EHF satellite. 

The committee recommends $133.6 million, an increase of $35.0 

million for long-lead procurement for a fourth advanced EHF satellite. This additional funding may not be obligated until 30 days 

after a formal Air Force decision to procure an additional advanced 

EHF satellite. 

Evolved expendable launch vehicle 

The budget request included $611.0 million to acquire space 

launch services in the evolved expendable launch vehicle (EELV) 

program. 

EELV services are procured two years in advance of an operational requirement to provide the EELV contractors time to prepare for future launches. The fiscal year 2005, EELV budget request included launch services for a spaced-based infrared system 

satellite launch in fiscal year 2007. The committee notes that this 

launch will be delayed at least a year because of technical difficulties in satellite development and therefore funding for this launch 

is not required. Consequently, the committee recommends $511.0 million, a reduction of $100.0 million for the EELV program. 

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2005 contained $13,283.6 million for Other Procurement, Air Force. The committee recommends 

authorization of $13,229.3 million, a decrease of $54.3 million, for 

fiscal year 2005. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2005 Other 

Procurement, Air Force program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the 

table. 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

Items of Special Interest 

Combat training ranges 

The budget request contained $38.1 million for combat training ranges, of which $9.2 million was included for the joint threat emitter (JTE). 

The JTE is an advanced, mobile, rapidly reprogrammable electronic warfare threat simulator that generates all known groundbased electronic warfare threats. The committee understands that 

the Air Force’s Air Combat Command fielding plan for the JTE includes additional JTEs in fiscal year 2006, and believes that this 

schedule should be accelerated. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $43.1 million for combat training ranges, an increase of $5.0 million for the fielding of one 

additional JTE. 

Advanced compression of tactical sensor information 

The budget request included $99.7 million for general information technology, but no funding for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) 

technology that would improve intelligence analysis through the 

use of high-quality automatic target recognition from compressed 

video information. 

The committee is aware of COTS technology like Eagle Scout 

that would dramatically enhance the capability of advanced digital 

data and image compression technology that would automatically 

detect changes and objects within compressed digital video thereby 

improving target recognition and analysis. Therefore the committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million 

for procurement and integration of COTS advanced compression, 

change detection, and target recognition software. 

Fixed aircrew standardized seats 

The budget request contained $13.0 million for personal safety and rescue equipment items under $5.0 million, but included no 

funds for fixed aircrew standardized seats (FASS). 

FASS would provide crewmembers and passengers on C–130, C–

135, C–5, E–3, 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 development will be completed in the early months of 

fiscal year 2005. The committee continues to believe that FASS 

procurement would not only increase safety, but would also reduce 

supply and maintenance costs through the commonality and interchangeability of their parts. 

Therefore, the committee recommends $17.8 million, an increase 

of $4.8 million for personal safety and rescue equipment items 

under $5.0 million for FASS. 

General information technology 

The budget request contained $99.9 million for general information technologies, but included no funds for 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. The SELDI program 

111 

facilitates this mission by providing a maintenance and logistics information management tool that allows more rapid lab data access 

affecting overhaul operations, provides accident investigators with 

immediate access to lab results of failed components, enables component failure trend analysis, and implements a new acoustic signature sensors to ensure the proper chemical composition of materials and equipment. The committee has recommended increases 

for the SELDI program in prior years, and continues to believe its 

implementation would improve operational aircraft readiness, increase flight safety and reduce support costs. Therefore, the committee recommends $107.9 million, an increase of $8.0 million for the SELDI program. 

Point of maintenance and combat ammunition system initiative 

The budget request contained $16.2 million for mechanized material handling equipment, but included no funds for the point of 

maintenance and combat ammunition system initiative (POMX/ 

CAS). 

The POMX/CAS is an automatic data collection program developed by the Air Force Materiel Command’s Automatic Identification Technology Program Office, which streamlines mission critical 

data collection to reduce the burden on flight line personnel. The 

committee has supported the POMX/CAS in prior years. 

Since the committee continues to believe that the POMX/CAS 

would increase the timeliness and accuracy of maintenance data 

collection while reducing the administrative burden on maintenance technicians, it recommends $32.2 million for mechanized material handling equipment, an increase of $16.0 million for the 

POMX/CAS. 

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE

Overview 

The budget request for fiscal year 2005 contained $2,883.3 million for Procurement, Defense-Wide. The committee recommends 

authorization of $2,950.7 million, an increase of $67.4 million, for 

fiscal year 2005. 

The committee recommendations for the fiscal year 2005 Procurement, Defense-Wide program are identified in the table below. 

Major changes to the Air Force request are discussed following the 

table. 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

Items of Special Interest 

Chemical agents and munitions destruction 

The budget request contained $1,372.0 million for chemical agents and munitions destruction, including $1,138.8 million for 

operations and maintenance, $154.2 million for research, development, test and evaluation, and $79.0 million for procurement. The 

budget request also contained $81.9 million in military construction 

for the chemical agents and munitions destruction program. 

The committee notes that to date more than 8,600 tons of lethal 

chemical agents and munitions, over 27 percent of the total U.S. 

stockpile, has been safely destroyed in 4 operational chemical demilitarization facilities. The committee notes, however, that the 

budget request represents a decrease of $166.2 million from the fiscal year 2004 budget request, despite the increased level of activity 

planned for the program in fiscal year 2005: 

(1) Destruction of chemical agents and munitions at six sites: 

Tooele, Utah; Anniston, Alabama; Umatilla, Oregon; Pine 

Bluff, Arkansas; Aberdeen, Maryland; and Newport, Indiana; 

(2) Design, permitting, and construction activities for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternative pilot plants at Pueblo, Colorado, and Blue Grass, Kentucky; 

(3) Sustainment of emergency preparedness activities and capability improvements; and 

(4) Non-stockpile chemical material cleanup and disposal efforts. 

The committee also notes that the fiscal year 2005 budget request reduced the fiscal year 2005 estimate for the chemical demilitarization program for completion, equipping, and systemization of 

the Pueblo Army Depot pilot plant from $151.7 million to $4.9 million. The committee is informed that an analysis of alternatives for 

potential redesign of that plant is underway. The committee directs 

the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees by July 1, 2004 the results of the analysis of alternatives, 

the recommended course of action for proceeding with the construction of the Pueblo facility and destruction of the stockpile, and fiscal year 2005 funding requirements necessary to carry out that 

course of action. 

The committee further notes the ongoing review of proposals for 

disposal at a commercial hazardous waste water disposal facility of 

the hydrolysate that will result from the neutralization of the bulk 

VX agent at Newport. The committee believes that the United 

States must proceed as rapidly as possible in destroying the stockpile to ensure the overall maximum safety of our citizenry and 

meet our international treaty commitments. At the same time we 

must proceed objectively and deliberately in ensuring that the disposal of the hydrolysate in a commercial hazardous waste disposal 

facility would not compromise the public health and safety of the 

citizens or the environment near such a facility. The committee directs that the Army proceed expeditiously in providing for a 

prompt, objective and deliberate independent review of the process 

for destroying the VX nerve agent stockpile at Newport and not 

proceed with that process until such a review is completed, the 

findings are made available for public scrutiny, and all concerned 

understand precisely the risks involved. 

118 

Section 1412(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1986 (Public Law 99–145) requires that funds for carrying 

out the destruction of the U.S. stockpile shall be set forth in the 

budget of the Department of Defense for any fiscal year as a separate account and shall not be included in the budget accounts for 

any military department. In committee hearings on the fiscal year 

2005 budget request, Department of Defense witnesses testified 

that, while the Army was executive agent for the demilitarization 

program, the budget for the program is funded in a defense-wide 

account and any increases to program funding that might be required would come from the defense-wide account and not from the 

Department of the Army’s budget. The committee agrees that this 

interpretation corresponds to the intent of Congress in establishing 

the program. 

Elsewhere in this report the committee recommends a provision 

that would transfer oversight of the Assembled Chemical Weapons 

Alternative program from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics to the Secretary of the Army. 

The committee believes that the establishment of a new management structure, which brings together all elements of the program 

under a single activity, as recommended by the General Accounting 

Office, would ensure more efficient management of the total program, and would also address the equities and concerns of those 

sites using assembled chemical weapons alternatives for destruction of stockpiles. The committee recommends $154.2 million for Chemical Agents 

and Munitions Destruction research, development, test and evaluation, $79.0 million for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction 

procurement, and $1,138.8 million for Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction operations and maintenance. Elsewhere in this 

report the committee recommends $81.9 million for military construction for the chemical agents and munitions destruction program. 

Chemical and biological defense procurement program 

The budget request contained $637.7 million for chemical and biological defense (CBD) procurement, including $104.9 million for 

procurement of installation force protection equipment, $131.9 million for individual protection equipment, $11.3 million for decontamination equipment, $101.1 million for the joint biological defense program, $18.4 million for collective protection equipment, 

and $270.1 million for contamination avoidance equipment. 

The committee recommends the following increases for procurement of CBD individual protection and decontamination equipment: 

In millions 

M40 protective mask (rebuild) ........... $5.0 

M45 protective mask (rebuild) ........... 0.5 

M40 protective mask .......................... 2.0 

M45 protective mask .......................... 3.0 

M12A1 decontamination apparatus 

(rework) .......................................... 3.0 

M49 fixed installation filters ............. 1.0 

M100 sorbent decontamination kit .... 2.0 

M291 skin protection kit .................... 3.0 

M295 equipment decontamination kit 2.0 

119 

The committee also recommends an increase of $19.0 million for 

procurement of retrofit kits for improvement of the currently fielded chemical biological protective shelters and $20.0 million for procurement of M22 automatic chemical agent alarms for the Army 

National Guard. 

Countering improvised explosive devices 

The committee finds that the well-being of the members of the 

Armed Forces deployed in defense of the Nation is of paramount 

importance. Therefore, the Department of Defense should do its utmost to see that deployed military personnel have the best force 

protection equipment the Nation can make available. 

Toward that end, the committee recommends that the Department of Defense and the military departments should, using all 

means at their disposal, increase the ability of currently unarmored 

vehicles that are deployed forward for operations in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom to resist improvised explosive devices, including nontraditional production sources and 

technologies, field-installable kits, and reprogramming of funds. 

Further, the committee urges the Department of Defense to immediately release all funds that have been authorized and appropriated and that have not previously been released, to the military 

departments for the purposes of defeating improvised explosive devices and mitigating their effect on vehicles. 

In order to facilitate future such acquisitions, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by March 1, 2005, discussing the lessons 

learned from the fiscal year 2004 effort to rapidly acquire force protection equipment and possible improvements in the acquisition 

system reflecting these lessons. 

Guard and Reserve equipment 

The committee believes that the Chiefs of the Reserve and National Guard should exercise control of modernization funds provided for Reserve and National Guard programs and directs that 

the Chiefs of the Reserve and National Guard provide a separate 

submission for fiscal year 2006 of a detailed assessment of their 

modernization requirements and priorities to the congressional defense committees. 

Indexing of class A mishaps 

The committee understands that the Department of Defense 

seeks to index certain contract thresholds to inflation, on the 

grounds that over time, unintended consequences result from not 

adjusting values to reflect actual economic conditions. The committee also notes that the value criterion for determining a Class 

A mishap has remained at $1.0 million for many years, while the 

value of parts for, and repair of, military systems have increased 

considerably. 

Therefore, the committee requests the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2005, 

his recommendation as to whether the dollar values used to classify 

military mishaps should be indexed, and if so to recommend a generally accepted index to be used. 

120 

Joint threat work station, ground signals intelligence kits 

The budget request contained $16.9 million for the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) joint threat work station (JTWS), 

ground signals intelligence (SIGINT) kits (GSK). 

The committee notes that the JTWS is presently being integrated 

into the SOCOM mobile force platforms. The GSK is a variant of 

the JTWS that provides threat warning, force protection and 

SIGINT capabilities packaged for ground mobile special operation 

forces (SOF). Its utility in the global war on terrorism operations 

is significant. Additional funding would permit procurement of an 

additional 45 GSKs for use in the field by operational forces. 

The committee recommends $31.4 million, an increase of $14.5 

million for SOF intelligence systems for the procurement of 45 

GSKs. 

Military specifications for radomes 

The committee notes that the military specification for radomes, 

also known as MIL–R–7705B, was written in 1975, and believes 

that this specification is outdated since it does not account for technological advancements that improve signal efficiency, reduce cost, 

and promote easier radome installation. 

The committee understands that, according to MIL–R–7705B, 

radomes are constructed according to four styles. One of these 

styles is a sandwich construction where the wall of the radome is 

constructed of three layers, two skins and a core material, and the 

dielectric constant of the skin materials is higher than the dielectric constant of the core material. The committee believes that 

greater efficiencies could be achieved through the use of interchangeable panels and overlapping flanges where the panels are 

joined so that signal loss could be diminished and installation time 

is reduced, resulting in lower cost. 

Therefore, the committee recommends that the Department of 

Defense consider updating its MIL–R–7705B military specification 

for radomes, by adding language to the sandwich construction section of this military specification to permit panels to be arranged 

in horizontal rows of identical interchangeable panels. The total 

panel arrangement would be such that the vertically joined edges 

would be staggered by locating them at the center of the panels in 

the rows immediately above and below the joint and that the joints 

of the panels would be overlapping sandwich flanges having appropriate dielectric constants and dimensions to produce minimum 

loss at the principal frequency of the system. 

Special Operations Forces binocular goggle system 

The budget request contained $8.2 million for Special Operations 

Forces (SOF) small arms and weapons, but included no funding to 

procure the AN/PVS–15 binocular goggle system for SOF operators. 

The committee understands that this new binocular system will 

substantially improve the ability of SOF operators to conduct night 

operations by providing a wider field of view and better depth perception than the system currently in use. The committee notes that 

this item is on the unfunded priority list of the Commander, Special Operations Command. 

121 

The committee recommends $20.2 million, an increase of $12.0 

million for the procurement of AN/PVS–15 goggles for SOF small 

arms and weapons. 

Special Operations Forces MH–47 infrared engine exhaust suppressor 

The budget request contained $447.3 million for Special Operations Forces (SOF) rotary wing upgrades and sustainment, but included only $2.9 million to procure the MH–47 infrared engine exhaust suppressor. The committee understands that these helicopter 

heat suppressors are a critical force protection requirement for the 

Army SOF MH–47 fleet now operating in a hostile environment, 

and believes that the entire fleet should be protected as soon as 

these suppressors can be manufactured. The committee notes that 

this item is on the unfunded priority list of the Commander, Special Operations Command. The committee recommends $454.3 million, an increase of $7.0 

million for SOF rotary wing upgrades and sustainment for procurement of additional MH–47 infrared engine exhaust suppressors. 

Use of capability-based acquisition 

The committee endorses the Department’s continuing move to capability-based planning and acquisition, a system that develops requirements based on the expected capabilities of potential adversaries rather than any specific employment scenario. 

Capability-based planning can be useful in allowing for unforeseen situations. Ideally, tailoring American forces to exceed other 

nations’ known and projected capabilities should yield an advantage regardless of the situation in which they are employed. 

However, the committee notes a growing difficulty emerging from 

capability-based acquisition. Requiring all new hardware to exceed 

the posited capabilities of all possible enemies in all possible scenarios, while ignoring the likelihood of engagement against a particular adversary, leads ineluctably to more sophisticated and expensive systems. Given a defense budget top-line relatively fixed in 

real terms, that focus on possible future conflicts impinges on the 

Department’s ability to meet requirements for current and known 

threats. The combat systems of the future fight for dollars against 

current logistics and operations and maintenance requirements, 

often to the detriment of both. 

Further, designing systems to meet the most stringent adversary 

capabilities does not always increase the capability to address lesser or unconventional threats. Traditional force structures included 

a ‘‘high-low’’ mix, offering an optimum combination of cost and capability. If all combat aircraft, for example, are tailored to operate 

in the most stressing environment that can be conceived, there can 

by definition be no ‘‘low’’ side. 

The Department asserts that the point of spiral acquisition is to 

be able to increase system capabilities as threats increase. But 

even the basic systems, prior to any spirals, are far more complex 

than will be needed in many post-Cold War conflicts. 

Before capabilities-based acquisition became the standard, the 

Office of Net Assessment provided input to the Defense Planning 

Guidance indicating which threats were likely to be most significant in the future; indeed, that was the reason Net Assessment 

122 

was created in the first place. Force structures and acquisitions 

were designed to be relevant to what was likely to happen during 

the foreseeable future, recognizing that the likelihood of, for example, going to war against longtime allies was at best remote. The 

resulting forces can hardly be called technologically inadequate. 

As the military continues to operate at an unprecedented tempo 

around the globe against largely unsophisticated threats, the committee is concerned that use of capabilities-based acquisition, 

unleavened by common sense input as to the probability of a particular capability threat being used, will increase the pressure 

placed on the budgeting necessary to fight and win the wars in 

which we are currently engaged. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Sections 101–104—Authorization of Appropriations 

These sections would authorize the recommended fiscal year 

2005 funding levels for all procurement accounts. 

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM MATTERS

Section 111—Multiyear Procurement Authority for the M777 

Lightweight 155mm Howitzer Program 

This section would permit the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Army to enter into a joint-service multiyear contract 

for procurement of the Lightweight 155mm Howitzer. 

Section 112—DDG–51 Modernization Program 

This section would direct the Secretary of the Navy to accelerate 

modernization of in-service guided missile destroyers (DDG–51) 

and expansion of the DDG–51 modernization program to include 

additional emphasis to reduce crew size to about 200. 

The budget request contained $3,445.0 million for procurement of 

three guided missile destroyers (DDG–51), but included no funding 

for in-service DDG–51 modernization. 

The committee notes that the Navy is scheduled to commence a 

DDG–51 modernization plan in fiscal year 2005 with new construction and subsequently extend modernization to in-service destroyers. The committee is aware that the foundations for DDG–51 modernization are: increased warfighting capability, leverage of the 

DDG–51 shipbuilding program, reduction of total ship ownership 

costs, and use of open architecture. In addition to those factors, the 

committee believes that reduction in crew size from the present approximately 300 to an objective of 200 personnel should also be 

part of the foundation of an even more aggressive modernization 

program. 

According to the Navy, a DDG–51 class ship costs $25.0 million 

per year to operate, including $13.0 million for the crew. The Navy 

estimate is that its present modernization plan could reduce the 

crew cost per ship by $2.7 million per year. A larger reduction in 

crew size would clearly appear to result in significant savings over 

the estimated 18 years of remaining normal service life, especially 

123 

noting that per capita personnel costs may be expected to increase 

during that period. 

The committee understands that the present DDG–51 retirement 

schedule would retire some ships significantly before their expected 

life. The recent report to Congress, ‘‘DDG–51 Class Guided Missile 

Destroyers Modernization Plan’’ indicates that modernization, beginning with the oldest DDGs first, ‘‘will keep the DDG–51 portion 

of the Aegis equipped fleet an integral part of the Navy’s Sea 

Power 21 Plan through year 2047.’’ The committee believes that acceleration of the in-service DDG– 51 modernization would have the benefit of providing significant 

additional work to sustain the shipbuilding industrial base, which 

would allow deliberate maturation of the next generation destroyer’s (DD (X)) critical technologies prior to initiating production. The 

committee notes the recent testimony of the General Accounting 

Office and Congressional Research Service indicating that the majority of the DD (X) critical technologies are well below the acceptable level for initiating system design and development. 

The committee also notes that efforts are reportedly being made 

to accelerate the Coast Guard Deepwater Cutter program and that 

the Army is preparing to award a contract to construct several high 

speed vessels. Both programs, if coordinated with Navy ship construction, have potential to eliminate significant fluctuation in 

shipyard manning and to help to stabilize the industry. 

The committee understands that to increase shipyard work load, 

one solution would be to simply authorize one or several additional 

existing class new construction ships or to accelerate commencement of acquisition of some other class of ship. However, the committee believes it would be much wiser in the long run not to procure additional ships for which there is no established requirement. 

Likewise, to accelerate development of a class whose critical technologies are not mature has proven to significantly increase costs 

and cause delays that exacerbate industrial base problems. 

In fiscal year 2003, Congress approved and funded, above the 

President’s request, a $300.0 million proposal that included a swap 

of DDG–51 and amphibious transport dock (LPD) shipbuilding 

workload between two shipyards handling the construction of these 

ships. At the time, the Navy indicated that such a workload ‘‘swap’’

was in the best interests of the government, providing workload 

stability and generally protecting a vital industrial base for the 

construction of surface combatants. 

This swap, implemented by Congress as a way of stabilizing the 

workload at these yards, has been undermined by the Navy’s 

changing construction profile. Starting in 2004 and continuing into 

2005, the Navy has reduced the number of DDG–51s and LPDs in 

its shipyard construction plan. Each time this happens, it creates 

instability within the surface combatant shipyards that see workload shares decrease in both the short- and long-term. In both 2004 

and 2005, the Navy’s ship construction plan changed from the proposal presented in 2003, negatively impacting the construction of 

surface combatants and thereby the same shipyards that Congress, 

with approval of the Navy, attempted to stabilize in 2003. 

The committee recommends $3,545.0 million for DDG–51s, an increase of $100.0 million to accelerate in-service DDG–51 modernization. 

124 

Section 113—Repeal of Authority for Pilot Program for Flexible 

Funding of Cruiser Conversions and Overhauls 

This section would repeal Section 126 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136). 

Section 114—Force Protection for Asymmetric Threat Environment 

This section would require that all manned ground systems, warfighter survivability systems, and certain manned airborne systems 

be assessed for adequacy in survivability and suitability against 

asymmetrical threats. Force protection or survivability enhancements would be developed for these existing systems through the 

combination of in-service modifications and tactics, techniques, and 

procedures. Further, developmental military system designs must 

account for survivability and suitability against asymmetrical 

threats. 

The global war on terrorism has revealed a new sophisticated 

enemy. This foe is rapid to adapt, unbounded by civilized rules, and 

successfully using simple mechanisms to fight our advanced technology. Our military forces were developed to survive on the battlefield by detecting and destroying the enemy before he could see and 

engage our forces. Therefore, our existing manned ground and airborne systems were designed to survive in an environment that did 

not include the types of threats that now prevail in the global war 

on terrorism. Our military systems must now adapt to counter the 

close proximity, asymmetrical threat. Along with conventional 

threats, asymmetrical threats must be included as significant factors in the design and development of our war-fighter systems. 

The committee recommends that military departments adapt 

their current war gaming and simulation systems used to test advanced concepts to include asymmetrical threat capability. 

Section 115—Allocation of Equipment Authorized by This Title To 

Be Made on Basis of Units Deployed or Preparing To Deploy 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide 

that, in allocation to operational units of equipment acquired using 

funds authorized to be appropriated by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, priority shall be given to units 

that are deployed to, or preparing to deploy to, Operation Iraqi 

Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom, regardless of the status 

of those units as active, Guard, or reserve component units. 

Section 116—KC–767 Tanker Multiyear Procurement 

This section would clarify and reaffirm that the intent of Congress behind the multiyear aircraft tanker pilot program authority 

established by section 135 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) is to accomplish a 

lease of no more than 20 aircraft and conventional purchase of no 

more than 80 aircraft. The provision would repeal the multiyear 

portion of section 135 of Public Law 108–136 and reestablish it as 

an authorization for the Secretary of the Air Force to enter into a 

multiyear contract for 80 KC–767 tanker aircraft under section 

2306b of title 10, United States Code. The multi-year procurement 

authority provided in this section may not be executed under secVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00148 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
125 

tion 135 Public Law 108–136 or under section 8159 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2002 (Public Law 107–117). 

Section 117—Other Matters Relating to KC–767 Tanker 

Acquisition Program 

This section would express the Sense of Congress that: (1) aerial 

refueling capability is a critical combat force multiplier, (2) the nation must expeditiously proceed with a program to replace the existing aging fleet of aerial refueling tankers, (3) in pursuing such 

a program, the Department of Defense should take full advantage 

of the United States’ commercial aircraft production base, and (4) 

anyone currently or previously associated with this program that 

is found to have engaged in illegal activities should be prosecuted 

to the fullest extent of the law. The provision would also direct the 

Secretary of the Air Force to proceed with one or more new contracts to execute the program authorized by subsection (a) in section 135 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2004 (Public Law 108–136), section 8159 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2002 (Public Law 107–117), and section 

116(a) of this Act. Finally, the provision would require the creation 

of an advisory panel of experts to review and assess the terms of 

the new contract and advise the Department of Defense and Congress on whether it provides the best value for the funds expended. 

The committee is deeply concerned that the ongoing multiple investigations into allegations of wrongdoing associated with this 

program, while necessary and proper, are needlessly delaying the 

pressing requirement to proceed with the acquisition of a replacement aircraft for our aging fleet of KC–135 tankers. The committee 

believes that a ‘‘fresh start’’ approach is warranted on the question 

of the contract proposed for the execution of the so-called 20–80 

plan authorized by section 135 of Public Law 108–136. By negotiating a new contract and submitting the outcome of such negotiations to review by an independent panel of experts, the committee 

believes the Department can proceed with this important program 

without jeopardizing or undermining the various investigations 

presently under way at the direction of the Secretary of Defense. 

In turn, this approach would also help ensure that the Air Force 

can take full advantage of the existing availability of a ‘‘warm’’ domestic commercial aircraft production line ideal for the aerial tanker role. The committee is concerned that the increased costs associated with starting the production line, should production cease in 

the immediate future, would be significant and wholly unnecessary. 

The committee notes that there is no legal or other impediment 

presently precluding the Department from immediately pursuing 

this strategy and strongly urges the Secretary of Defense to pursue 

this approach in advance of the enactment of the fiscal year 2005 

defense authorization bill. 

TITLE II—RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, & 

EVALUATION 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request contained $67,772.3 million for research, development, test, & evaluation (RDT&E). The committee recVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
126 

ommends $68,128.4 million, an increase of $356.1 million to the 

budget request. 

127 

128 

129 

ARMY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, & EVALUATION

OVERVIEW

The budget request contained $9,266.3 million for Army research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). 

The committee recommends $9,478.2 million, an increase of 

$211.9 million to the budget request. 

130 

131 

132 

133 

134 

135 

136 

137 

138 

139 

140 

Items of Special Interest 

Advanced amputee treatment research and development 

The budget request contained $60.9 million in PE 62787A for applied research in medical technology. 

The committee notes that in Afghanistan and Iraq approximately 

60 to 80 percent of all survivable combat injuries are to the extremities with 20 percent resulting in traumatic amputation. In order 

to provide the best care for these patients, the Surgeon General established the Walter Reed Amputee Care Center and the Army 

Amputee Patient Care Program at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC). The program provides state-of-the-art treatment and 

is the center of a multi-site, coordinated complex of facilities involving regional military medical centers, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs, and other military and civilian treatment facilities. The 

goal of the program is to ensure that amputee patients receive the 

kind of care that will allow them to lead lives unconstrained by 

their amputation. 

Highlights of the program include innovative prosthetic technology; computer-assisted design and manufacturing of prosthetic 

devices; laboratory and training facilities, amputee education and 

peer visitation; clinical developments; and collaborative research in 

treatment, prosthetic design, and rehabilitation. 

The committee strongly endorses the Army’s initiative in establishing the Amputee Patient Care Program. The committee notes 

that one element of the program is an infrastructure improvement 

plan for the center, which proposes construction of an advanced 

amputee training center at WRAMC at a cost of $10.9 million and 

is addressed elsewhere in this report. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

62787A for the Army program in clinical and applied collaborative 

research in amputee treatment, prosthetics, and rehabilitation. 

Advanced battery technology initiative 

The budget request contained $41.2 million in PE 62705A for applied research in electronics and electronic devices. 

The committee continues to note continuing requirements for 

small, light-weight, 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 copper 

oxide, lithium carbon monoflouride cells, and proton exchange 

membrane fuel cells. The committee recommends that these technologies be considered for potential funded research and development under the services’ on-going programs on the basis of technical merit, cost effectiveness, and the potential of the particular 

technology to meet service needs. 

The committee requests the Secretary of Defense provide a report 

to the congressional defense committees on the next generation of 

lithium battery technologies for military applications. New lithium 

141 

batteries for advanced portable electronic applications should be 

able to significantly increase energy and power, increase safety, 

lower cost, and/or weigh less. The Secretary should report on all 

phases of research, development and production for new systems 

and recommend actions necessary for commercial production in a 

one-to-three year time frame. 

The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 

62705A for the battery/portable power technology initiative. 

Advanced carbon nano technology 

The budget request contained $131.2 million in PE 61102A for 

defense research sciences, but included no funding for advanced 

carbon nanotechnology. 

The committee is aware that advanced carbon nanotechnology 

has the potential to open the door to the creation of new sensors 

and other devices. 

The committee recommends $137.2 million in PE 61102A for defense research sciences, an increase of $6.0 million for a multi-institution, peer reviewed program for development of advanced carbon nanotechnology. 

Advanced weapons technology 

The budget request contained $16.6 million in PE 62307A for Advanced Weapons Technology. 

The committee understands the need to carry out applied research in support of existing and future missile defense technologies. The committee is specifically aware of the need to conduct 

research on systemic issues common to Terminal High Altitude 

Area Defense, PAC–3/ Medium Extended Air Defense System, 

Ground-based Midcourse Defense and future systems in areas such 

as radar and radio frequency sensors, electronics and micro-fabrication, optical sensors and composite material and structures. 

The committee is also aware of the Army’s need for additional 

funding for solid state technology laser research in support of directed energy weapons. 

The committee recommends $46.6 million in PE 62307A, an increase of $30.0 million. Of the $30.0 million increase, $20.0 million 

shall be for missile defense applied technology research conducted 

by the Army Space and Missile Defense Command. The remaining 

$10.0 million of the increase shall be for solid state laser technology research conducted by the Army Space and Missile Defense 

Command. 

Aerostat joint project office 

The budget request contained $81.5 million for the Aerostat Joint 

Project Office. 

The committee is aware of the importance of Micro Electro Mechanical (MEMS) antenna technology to the radar system for the 

Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor 

System (JLENS). 

The committee recommends $84.5 million, an increase of $3.0 

million for MEMS antenna technology in support of JLENS radar 

development. 

142 

Applied communications and information networking 

The budget request contained $41.8 million in PE 63008A for 

electronic warfare advanced technology, but included no funding for 

applied communications and information networking (ACIN). 

The committee realizes that the goal of ACIN is to revolutionize 

military doctrine and methods by enhancing high-value military 

systems with rapidly advancing commercial information technologies and innovative applications of those technologies. 

The committee supports the application of state-of-the art commercial technology to improve military systems and recommends 

an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63008A for ACIN. 

Center for rotorcraft innovation 

The budget request included $41.7 million in PE 62211A for 

Aviation and Applied Research and Technology. No request was included for a center for rotorcraft innovation. 

The committee is concerned that continued shortcomings in national policy planning for rotorcraft research and production is resulting in the inability of the United States to effectively produce 

competitive world-class rotorcraft products. This is evident by key 

decision-makers within federal, state, and local governments, as 

well as private sector users, selecting foreign products to meet their 

rotorcraft needs. National shortcomings in this regard are further 

evidenced by the closure of unique National Full Scale Aerodynamic Complex rotorcraft wind tunnel resources at the National 

Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) Ames Research 

Center at Moffett Field, California. 

The committee believes there exists a requirement to establish a 

center for rotorcraft innovation to coordinate technology strategies 

and areas of cooperative research efforts and increase public and 

private resources available for rotorcraft research. The committee 

understands that the first step toward creation of a center for 

rotorcraft innovation was recently taken when industry and academic leaders signed an agreement to work together with the federal government to coordinate rotorcraft research. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to establish a 

center for rotorcraft innovation to facilitate the furtherance of the 

recently created partnership between the rotorcraft industry and 

academia to administer collaborative research projects. Members 

shall include major helicopter manufacturing companies, rotorcraft 

academic institutions, and technology firms; the Department of Defense; NASA; and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The 

center shall take advantage of historical and present-day sites of 

helicopter technology development, rotorcraft academic institutions, 

and FAA technology facilities. Further, since NASA has concluded 

it is unable to continue to operate the National Full Scale Aerodynamic Complex, the committee recommends that the Secretary of 

the Army seek the transfer of the Complex to the Department of 

the Army. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 62211A, $10.0 million to retain the availability of the 

wind tunnel facilities at Ames Research Center and $5.0 million for 

the establishment of a center for rotorcraft innovation. 

143 

Center for tribology 

The budget request contained $69.6 million in PE 62601A for 

combat vehicle and automotive technology, but included no funding 

for a center for tribology. 

The committee notes that new coatings and other surface treatments commercially available today could extend the useful life of 

gears and other commercially available parts from 4 to 10 times 

longer than current treatments. The committee is aware that this 

technology holds great promise for increasing the reliability for all 

types of military equipment, extending equipment life, and reducing fuel costs. 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to work with 

the friction, wear and abrasion test equipment manufacturing industry to develop a commercial capability to create and standardize 

new test apparatus and methods to analyze new coatings more 

quickly. 

Centers of excellence 

The budget request contained $77.7 million in PE 61104A for 

university and industry research centers and included $2.5 million 

for a collaborative academic research effort leveraging Army Training and Doctrine (TRADOC) Battle Labs in accordance with the 

Army Science and Technology Master Plan. 

The committee notes the Army initiative to harness university 

research expertise for Army-unique science and technology problems. The committee further notes the Army effort to partner university researchers at Historically Black Colleges and Universities/ 

Minority Insitutions (HBCU/MI) with Army TRADOC Battle Labs 

in an effort to accelerate the transition of research to actual technology demonstration. The committee recognizes the potential benefits in the cognitive research areas of modeling and simulation, 

data fusion, protective materials, maneuver, health, and human 

systems integration. The committee encourages a continuation of 

this initiative. 

The committee recommends $80.7 million in PE 61104A, an increase of $3.0 million for the collaborative effort between HBCU/MI 

centers and TRADOC Battle Labs. 

Combat vehicle electronics 

The budget request contained $16.0 million in PE 23735A for 

combat vehicle improvements, but included no funding to develop 

standardized next generation electronics architectures for current 

combat vehicle programs. 

The committee is aware that current combat vehicles face accelerated component obsolescence issues. 

The committee recommends $21.0 million in PE 23735A, an increase of $5.0 million to develop standardized next generation electronics architectures for current and future combat vehicle programs. 

Defense language institute/foreign language center 

The budget request contained no funds for the Defense Language 

Institute Foreign Learning Center (DLI/FLC) for research and development. 

144 

The committee notes the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2004 Public Law 108–136) recommended that the Secretary of the Army establish a research and development line, specifically focused on the latest technologies and instructional methods in language and language learning that are required by the 

DLI/FLC. The committee is surprised that a budget request was 

not included in the fiscal year 2005 budget request. 

The committee is aware of the increased demands within the Department of Defense for increased student throughput and expanded off-campus and distant learning sites. These current endeavors necessitate innovative approaches in the instruction of foreign languages and the educational processes to administer them. 

The committee applauds the progress of DLI/FLC’s innovative 

practices in meeting this challenge and supports the efforts in seeking new methods in teaching foreign languages and language learning to meet the goals of the Department and the National Security 

Agency. 

Therefore the committee directs the Secretary of the Army to establish a new research and development program in fiscal year 

2005 for the DLI/FLC, entitled, ‘‘Defense Language Institute, Foreign Learning Center’’ and recommends $5.0 million for this purpose. 

Digital array radar technology development 

The budget request contained $32.0 million in PE 63772A for advanced tactical computer science and sensor technology, but included no funds for digital array radar technology development. 

The committee is aware that evolving threats place new demands 

on sensors and notes that in particular the ground forces need reliable, transportable counter-fire radars to protect against mobile 

threats. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 

63772A to develop a transportable, ground-based, digital solid-state 

multi-mission radar. 

Electronic flight planning 

The budget request contained $2.4 million in PE 23752A for the 

aircraft engine component improvement program, but included no 

funding for electronic flight planning. 

The committee believes that electronic flight planning will improve force protection and operational performance knowledge of 

helicopter aircrews in the combat environment. 

The committee recommends $5.9 million in PE 23752A, an increase of $3.5 million for electronic flight planning. 

Flexible display initiative 

The budget request contained $41.2 million in PE 62705A for 

electronics and electronic devices, but included no funding for the 

flexible display initiative. 

The committee is aware that new flexible display technology has 

the potential to provide the military with technology to fabricate 

high definition displays on rugged conformable, flexible substrates. 

The committee notes that the United States Display Consortium 

coordinates these efforts with over 80 companies, using investments from both the public and private industry to accelerate the 

145 

development of technologies and products needed by the Army, 

other military services, and various national security agencies. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $13.5 million in PE 62705A for the flexible display initiative. 

Force XXI battle command brigade and below blue force tracking 

system 

The committee recognizes the Army’s superb efforts to establish 

a truly network-centric (tactical) command, control, and communications (C3) capability through the fielding of the Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) Blue Force Tracking 

system by employing a satellite communications network. The committee notes the accelerated fielding of this enhanced version of 

FBCB2 prior to commencement of Operation Enduring Freedom 

and Operation Iraqi Freedom proved to be an invaluable situational awareness tool for the warfighters and saved lives. 

The committee strongly recommends the Department of Defense 

leverage the Army’s investment into a joint solution providing 

interoperability to all military services. Furthermore, the committee recommends the Army maintain the role of executive agent 

for this joint capability and directs the Secretary of the Army to 

provide a report to the congressional defense committees on its vision for a joint blue force situational awareness capability that 

builds upon the successes of previous operations. 

Future combat systems 

The budget request included $3,198.1 million in PE 64645A and 

PE 64647A for the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program. 

The committee believes that the March 2004 General Accounting 

Office assessment is correct and is particularly concerned that the 

system network, the heart of this transformational concept, is by 

far the most technically challenging aspect of the FCS program. 

The committee believes that the demonstrations required by this 

section should begin early in system development and become increasingly more complex. In order to accomplish the direction of 

this section in regard to demonstrating the capabilities of the network, the committee recommends that the Secretary of the Army 

direct the U.S. Army Communications Electronics Command to test 

emerging network concepts in small scale field exercises at readily 

accessible range facilities. 

Further, the committee believes that to provide for necessary 

congressional oversight the Department of the Army’s budget justification documents should provide separate justification of the 

major elements of the FCS program, as shown in the accompanying 

tables. 

The committee recommends $2,952.8 million in PE 64645A and 

PE 64647A for FCS, a reduction of $245.3 million as detailed in 

section 211 of this report. 

Geospatial information decision support for single integrated air 

picture 

The budget request contained $91.7 million in PE 63327A for air 

and missile defense systems engineering, but included no funding 

for geospatial information decision support for the single integrated 

air picture (GIDS–SIAP). 

146 

The committee notes that there is a need for commanders to 

have a clear, unambiguous geospatial foundation in order to support a common operational picture. The committee is aware that 

GIDS–SIAP will integrate disparate geospatial information systems 

to provide ground and air picture recommendations for the commanders. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 

63327A for GIDS–SIAP. 

Human systems integration 

The budget request included $16.9 million in PE 62716A for human factors engineering, $61.1 million in PE 63236N for 

warfighter sustainment advanced technology, and $71.5 million in 

PE 62202F for human effectiveness applied research. 

The committee recognizes the need to consider human systems 

integration issues early in the development cycle. Too often, manmachine interface issues are not addressed until late in the development cycle after the configuration of a particular weapon or system has been set. What results is a degraded combat system that 

is not able to achieve its maximum performance and, at worst, becomes a liability on the battlefield. 

The committee notes that all the military departments include 

some form of human systems integration in their development and 

acquisition process, but believes that institutionalization and 

standardization of human systems integration methodologies and 

modeling tools across the Department of Defense is desirable. To 

this end, the committee recommends that the Secretary of Defense 

conduct a comprehensive Department-wide review of the implementation of human systems integration in defense acquisition programs. Further, the committee recommends additional resources 

for human factors engineering initiatives in each of the military departments. The committee recommends an increase of $5.5 million in PE 

62716A for development of manpower and personnel integration 

(MANPRINT) tools for modeling and predicting soldier and system 

performance; increases of $3.0 million in PE 63236N and $2.0 million in PE 62233N to develop cognitive and physiological research 

data under the Navy’s system engineering, acquisition and personnel integration (SEAPRINT) program; and an increase of $3.0 

million in PE 62202F for the development of new training algorithms for human performance prediction under the Air Force’s improved performance research integration tool (IMPRINT) program. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a comprehensive review of human systems integration programs within 

the Department and to report the results of that review to the congressional defense committees by December 31, 2004. 

Hydrogen proton exchange membrane 

The budget request contained $69.6 million in PE 62601A for 

combat vehicle and automotive technology, but included no funding 

for the hydrogen proton exchange membrane (PEM) ambient pressure fuel cell medium/heavy duty vehicle demonstration program. 

The committee is aware that the hydrogen PEM fuel cell is to 

demonstrate zero emission, ambient pressure, highly efficient hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles in various operating situations 

147 

and conditions. The committee notes that this development supports the government objective of tripling fuel economy while reducing harmful emissions. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

62601A for the hydrogen proton exchange membrane (PEM) ambient pressure fuel cell medium/heavy duty vehicle demonstration 

program. 

Information dominance center 

The budget request contained no funds for operations and maintenance or research and development for the Army’s information 

dominance center (IDC) at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

The IDC provides multi-disciplinary Information Operations (IO) 

support to the Army’s commands. Through tailored analytical products generated to meet immediate operational needs, the IDC also 

monitors potential trouble spots worldwide, preparing to support 

contingency operations with IO-related products. The committee 

believes the IDC’s use of high-capacity communications links to access selected information from a number of databases maintained 

by a number of other organizations is truly transformational. 

The committee acknowledges that the IDC is one of the Army 

Chief of Staff’s unfunded priorities intelligence objectives. The committee supports the transformation efforts of the IDC and the future plan to incorporate functions of the IDC into the Army’s Distributed Common Ground Systems (DCGS). Therefore, the committee recommends $6.0 million in operations and maintenance, Army for IDC, an increase of $6.0 million, and 

$4.0 million in PE 33028A, an increase of $4.0 million for research 

and technology development at the IDC. 

Institute for creative technologies 

The budget request contained $15.0 million in PE 62308A for ad- vanced concepts and simulation, including $1.6 million for the institute for creative technologies (ICT). 

The committee notes that the technologies developed at the ICT 

are being applied to significantly improve fidelity of computerbased training, which is essential to the Army. 

The committee supports development of improved training devices and recommends $22.0 million in PE 62308A, an increase of 

$7.0 million for the ICT. 

Integrated communications navigation identification avionics program 

The committee is aware that during the execution of the now 

canceled Comanche program, significant progress had been made in 

development of the Integrated Communications Navigation Identification Avionics (ICNIA) system. The Joint Tactical Radio System 

(JTRS) has been selected as the joint standard radio system for all 

services and has also made significant technical progress and is 

scheduled to begin testing in the first quarter of fiscal year 2005. 

After the cancellation of the Comanche program the Army convened an independent assessment panel to compare the relative 

performance of the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) and ICNIA. 

The committee is aware that a second evaluation has been requested as a result of the independent assessment team’s review. 

148 

The committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit the 

results of the independent assessment panel and subsequent evaluations to the congressional defense committees. The committee 

further directs the Secretary, prior to a final decision or selection 

of JTRS or ICNIA as the standard for Army aviation or the obligation of fiscal year 2005 authorized amounts for JTRS, to brief the 

congressional defense committees on the criteria of selection and 

the performance comparison of these two avionics systems. 

Joint and combined communications test tool product suite 

The budget request contained $53.5 million in PE 63305A for 

Army missile defense systems integration, but included no funding 

for the joint and combined communications test tool product suite. 

The committee notes that the joint and combined communications test tool product suite will provide a test tool suite that will 

test interoperability issues within joint and combined forces. The committee recommends $63.5 million in PE 63305A, an increase of $10.0 million for the joint and combined communications 

test tool product suite. 

JP–8 soldier fuel cell 

The budget request contained $41.2 million in PE 62705A for 

electronics and electronic devices, but included no funding for JP– 8 soldier fuel cell. 

The committee is aware that light, compact, high-capacity power 

sources are essential to success on the modern battlefield to power 

a variety of devices. The committee notes that an effort is on-going 

to modify a commercial fuel cell to run on standard, readily available JP–8 fuel. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

62705A for development of the JP–8 soldier fuel cell. 

LEAN munitions 

The budget request contained $67.2 million in PE 78045A for end 

item industrial preparedness activities, but included no funds for 

the second phase of the LEAN Munitions program. 

The committee notes that the Army Armaments Research, Development and Engineering Command (ARDEC) is responsible for 90 

percent of the munitions produced and utilized by the U.S. Army. 

The committee further notes that the Army’s increased operational 

tempo and transformation plans support the need to reduce the 

time and cost for development and production of munitions used by 

our armed forces. The committee believes that the use of a standards-based, model-driven design and manufacturing life cycle support environment would enable the more timely and affordable production and sustainment of current and future munitions systems. 

The committee recommends $70.2 million in PE 70845A, an increase of $3.0 million to continue the LEAN Munitions program. 

Light unmanned aerial vehicle weaponization 

The budget request contained $203.1 million in PE 63005A for 

combat vehicle and automotive technology, but included no funds 

for light unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) weaponization. 

The committee notes that historically, light UAVs have been unable to carry weapons. The committee is aware that a unique, patVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00172 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
149 

ented, electronically-fired, stacked-round technology has been developed that lends itself to the stringent restrictions of lightweight 

UAV weaponization. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63005A for integration of the unique electronically-fired, stackedround capability with a light UAV such as the Defense Advanced 

Research Agency DP–5 UAV. 

Light utility vehicle 

The budget request contained $69.6 million in PE 62601A for 

combat vehicle and automotive technology, but included no funding 

for the light utility vehicle. 

The committee believes that the Army requires a low-cost, light 

utility vehicle (LUV) that would provide soldiers with enhanced 

mobility, lethality and survivability compared to the current high 

mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicle and understands that the 

design and development of a LUV demonstrator could be accelerated due to previous research in LUV technology by the National 

Automotive Center. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 62601A to design, develop, and deliver an operational 

prototype LUV. 

Lightweight structures initiative 

The budget request contained $203.1 million in PE 63005A for 

combat vehicle and automotive technology, but included no funding 

for the Army lightweight structures initiative (ALSI). 

The committee is aware that the objective of the ALSI program 

is to develop, design, demonstrate, validate and implement a methodology for producing lightweight vehicle structure components and 

assemblies for the Army Future Combat Systems. The committee 

notes that the methodology utilized has been proven to substantially reduce costs and weights of structures in the automotive and 

aerospace applications. 

The committee recommends an increase of $9.0 million in PE 

63005A for the ALSI. 

Low cost course correction 

The budget request contained $28.2 million in PE 64601A for infantry support weapons, of which no funds were requested for Low 

Cost Course Correction. 

The committee has been encouraged by the demonstration of Low 

Cost Course Correction (LCCC) technology. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 

64601A to accelerate the development of LCCC for projectiles in 

the 20mm to 100mm range. 

M5 high performance fiber for personnel armor systems 

The budget request contained $21.1 million in PE 62786A for 

warfighter technology, but included no funding for M5 high performance fiber. 

The committee notes that M5 fiber, based on independent evaluation, offers the possibility of a new generation of lighter and 

more effective body and vehicle armor as well as similar improvement in heat resistant clothing. 

150 

The committee recognizes the urgency to provide improved per- sonnel protection and recommends $31.1 million in PE 62786A, an 

increase of $10.0 million to hasten development and evaluation of 

M5 fiber and M5 based armor. 

Medical technology applied research initiative 

The budget request contained $60.9 million in PE 62787A for 

medical technology applied research. 

The committee notes that the primary goal of medical research 

and development in the Department of Defense is to sustain medical technology to effectively protect and improve the survivability 

of U.S. armed forces in a variety of settings including, but not limited to: conventional battlefields, areas of low-intensity conflict, and 

military operations other than war. Operations of U.S. forces in the 

global war on terrorism have placed a premium on the need for a 

range of medical technologies in the areas of infectious diseases, 

combat casualty care, military operational medicine, and health 

hazards for materials, that are the core applied technology for the 

Army’s military technology applied research program. 

The committee recommends the establishment of a medical technology applied research initiative that would provide the opportunity for emerging medical technologies and concepts to compete 

for funding on the basis of peer-reviewed technical merit. The committee recommends that the medical projects and technologies to be 

considered for funding under the initiative, include, but are not 

limited to the following: 

(1) Bio-activity of nanomaterials; 

(2) Bio-defense gene knockout technology; 

(3) Dermal phase meter; 

(4) Elgen gene delivery technology; 

(5) Fibrin bandage from non-mammalian sources; 

(6) Nano-fabricated Bio-artificial kidney; and 

(7) Rapid Bio-pathogen detection technology. The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 

62787A for the medical technology applied research initiative. 

Clinical research programs 

The committee understands that the primary federal agency responsible for conducting research into diseases affecting a broad demographic portion of the population is the Department of Health 

and Human Services. Nonetheless, the Department of Defense 

(DOD), and in particular the Department of the Army, has at the 

direction of Congress conducted and managed research for a number of diseases that particularly affect military members, their family members, and military retirees. In fact, the Army provides special scrutiny to these programs, since they are congressional directed and necessarily involve clinical trials conducted over several 

years. 

While the committee applauds the Department’s efforts to manage these programs, the committee is concerned that there may be 

missed opportunities to conduct research into other vital areas. For 

example, service members, family members, and military retirees 

are certainly affected by such serious and increasingly prevalent 

diseases as lung cancer and diabetes, yet no formal program exists 

for either. 

151 

The committee believes that a comprehensive review of these research programs is necessary so that research can be directed into 

areas that may have been neglected. Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review ongoing clinical research 

efforts within the military departments and report to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2005, whether any research programs should be added to the DOD’s efforts. The committee believes that lung cancer and diabetes are excellent candidates for military sponsored research and urges the Secretary to 

give every consideration to establishing formal programs to fight 

these diseases, as they relate to military service. 

Medium tactical truck development 

The budget request contained $2.9 million in PE 64604A for the 

continued development of medium tactical truck technologies and 

enhancements. 

The family of medium tactical vehicles (FMTV) A2 will be the 

next generation of FMTVs. The committee understands additional 

funds are required to ensure synchronization with the fielding of 

the Army’s Future Combat Systems (FCS) Increment I Unit of Action. The committee also notes these additional funds will enable 

the spiraling of FCS-like technologies into the tactical truck fleet, 

ensuring interoperability and maximizing future force capability. The committee recommends $12.6 million in PE 64604A, an increase of $9.7 million, to further the development of medium tactical truck technologies. 

Miniature sensor development for small and tactical unmanned aerial vehicles 

The budget request contained $22.6 million in PE 62709A for 

night vision technology, but included no funding for miniaturized 

hyperspectral and coherent imaging sensors for small and tactical 

unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). 

The committee notes the urgent need for better sensors for small 

and tactical UAVs and recommends $27.6 million in PE 62709A, an 

increase of $5.0 million for miniaturized hyperspectral and coherent imaging sensors for small and tactical UAVs. 

Modeling and analysis of the response of structures 

The budget request contained $47.2 million in PE 62784A for 

military engineering technology, but included no funding for modeling and analysis of the response of structures (MARS). 

The committee notes that MARS computer simulations will provide accurate vulnerability assessments that can be used to improve warfighter protection, enhance survivability, and facilitate 

rapid repair of structures. 

The committee recommends $52.2 million in PE 62784A, an increase of $5.0 million for MARS. 

Night vision fusion 

The budget request contained $50.1 million in PE 63710A for 

night vision advanced technology, but included no funds to accelerate development of night vision fusion technology. 

The committee recognizes that night vision capability has provided our armed forces a significant advantage over their adverVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00175 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
152 

saries. The committee notes that while older technology has become 

available to others, state-of-the-art in night vision, pixel level digital fusion of light intensification and infrared images offers a very 

significant advantage over previous night vision devices. The committee understands that this technology will provide vital survivability and operational enhancements. 

The committee recommends an increase of $9.5 million in PE 

63710A to accelerate development and fielding of pixel level, digital 

fusion of light intensification and infrared image technology. 

Patient monitor with defibrillator 

The budget request contained $38.4 million in PE 63002A for 

medical advanced technology development. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

63002A for development of advanced technology for a compact, 

lightweight, full-featured patient monitor with defibrillator. 

Portable and mobile emergency broadband system 

The budget request contained $41.8 million in PE 63008A for 

electronic warfare advanced technology, but included no funding for 

the portable and mobile emergency broadband system. 

The committee notes that the portable and mobile emergency 

broadband system, based on emerging commercial technology, will 

allow rapid establishment of emergency communications networks. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63008A to complete critical development of the portable and mobile 

emergency broadband system. 

Shadow tactical unmanned aerial vehicle 

The budget request contained $27.1 million in PE 35204A for tactical unmanned aerial vehicles (TUAV). 

The committee is aware that the three major improvements to 

the Shadow 200 TUAV based on operational evaluation were incorporation of the tactical common data link (TCDL), changes to reduce target location error, and a larger wing to increase both payload and endurance. The committee understands that the only remaining engineering necessary to include all three improvements 

in future Shadow 200 production is software modifications associated with TCDL. 

The committee fully supports expediting completion of these improvements in order to field the most capable Shadow 200 to 

ground forces. Therefore the committee recommends $30.6 million 

in PE 35204A, an increase of $3.5 million to complete required 

Shadow non-recurring engineering for these improvements. 

Smart responsive nanocomposites 

The budget request contained $75.1 million in PE 61103A for 

University Research Initiatives, but included no funding for smart 

responsive nanocomposites (SRN). 

The committee is aware that there is a multitude of design possibilities for nanostructured, nature-simulating materials capable of 

responding to outside stimuli. 

The committee recommends $79.1 million in PE 61103A, an increase of $4.0 million to develop a smart responsive nanostructured 

153 

material, which combines detection of toxins and alarm-release 

with self-cleaning and self-repairing material. 

Space and missile defense architecture analysis program 

The budget request contained $91.7 million in PE 63327A for 

Army air and missile defense systems engineering, but included no 

funding for the Army Space and Missile Defense (ASMD) architecture analysis program. 

The committee places a priority on the development of a transformational capability. The committee recognizes the contributions 

of the ASMD architecture analysis program in providing the essential analytical, modeling, and simulation tools to support advanced 

concepts and architectures of future forces. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 

63327A for the ASMD architecture analysis program. 

Strategic materials strategic manufacturing initiative 

The budget request contained $44.7 million in PE 62624A for 

weapons and munitions technology, but included no funding for the 

strategic materials strategic manufacturing initiative (SM2i). 

The committee notes that titanium is important for weight reduction of weapons systems. The committee is aware that SM2i will 

link the Army’s efforts to establish a reliable low-cost domestic 

source of titanium with advanced domestic manufacturing capabilities. 

The committee supports an increase of $6.0 million in PE 62624A 

for SM2i. 

Titanium alloy powder 

The budget request contained $15.4 million in PE 62105A for 

materials technology, but included no funding for titanium, titanium-alloy powder production. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

62105A to enhance the domestic capacity to produce inexpensive, 

high-quality titanium powder for military use. 

Titanium extraction, mining, and process engineering research 

The budget request contained $44.7 million in PE 62624A for 

weapons and munitions technology, but included no funding for Titanium extraction, mining, and process engineering research (TEMPER). 

The committee is aware that the TEMPER initiative is intended 

to enhance U.S. industrial capability for the efficient production of 

inexpensive titanium for military systems. The committee notes 

that titanium offers weight and performance advantages and that 

the process must be developed to produce titanium at a reasonable 

cost in order to realize those advantages in future military systems. 

The committee recommends an increase of $12.0 million in PE 

62624A for TEMPER. 

Unmanned systems initiative 

The budget request contained $52.0 million in PE 62303A for 

missile technology, but included no funding for the unmanned systems initiative. 

154 

The committee recognizes the unmanned systems initiative will 

support battlefield control of multiple unmanned assets. The committee recommends $62.0 million in PE 62303A, an increase of $10.0 million for the unmanned systems initiative. 

NAVY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $16,346.4 million for Navy research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). 

The committee recommends $16,047.8 million, a decrease of 

$298.6 million to the budget request. 

155 

156 

157 

158 

159 

160 

161 

162 

163 

164 

165 

166 

Items of Special Interest 

Advanced composite structures program 

The budget request contained $81.2 million in PE 63561N, for 

advanced submarine systems development. 

The committee notes that the success of the Navy’s Phase I 

Large Scale Vessel (LSV) advanced composite sail program suggests that the use of composite materials can impart improved performance, significant increases in load carrying capacity and 

stealth characteristics to submarine sails and to surface combatant 

superstructures and hulls. Therefore, the committee recommends 

that the Secretary of the Navy expand the program to include the 

fabrication and test of full-scale composite structures. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 

63561N to continue the program for development and evaluation of 

advanced composite structures for submarine and surface combatant applications. 

Advanced gun system for DD(X) multi-mission destroyer 

The budget request contained $1,431.6 million in PE 64300N for 

DD(X) total ship systems engineering development and demonstration, including $46.5 million for the advanced gun system (AGS), 

$20.3 million of which is for continued development and testing of 

the engineering development model of the long-range land attack 

projectile. 

The committee notes that the acquisition strategy for the DD(X) 

multi-mission destroyer includes the development and testing of 

engineering development models of the major component systems 

of the DD(X), including AGS, to ensure that these systems are 

ready for fielding with the first ship of the DD(X) class. The AGS 

system consists of a major caliber gun, automated ammunition 

handling systems, and the long-range land attack projectile family 

of munitions. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

64300N to continue development, integration, and testing of the 

long-range, land-attack projectile family of munitions with the 

AGS. 

Advanced laser diode arrays 

The budget request contained $80.8 million in PE 63582N for 

combat systems integration advanced development and prototyping. The budget included no funds for continued development of 

advanced laser diode arrays. 

The committee notes that the Navy is developing electrically 

driven high energy lasers for potential use in ship self defense 

against a variety of surface and air threats. High reliability and 

high power continuous wave diode arrays, efficient laser optical 

configurations, and advanced solid-state laser gain materials will 

be among the key technologies needed to reach the power levels required in a solid-state laser weapon system. 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 

63582N to continue the development of advanced laser diode arrays. 

167 

Advanced mine detection program 

The budget request contained $58.2 million in PE 63640M for the 

Marine Corps advanced technology demonstration, but included no 

funding for the advanced mine detection program. 

The committee is aware that the Marine Corps urgently needs a 

backpack advanced mine detection capability with minimal false 

alarm rates. The committee notes that the Office of Naval Research 

has been working to develop an advanced mine detection system 

based on quadrupole resonance technology that has the potential to 

meet Marine Corps requirements. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

63640M to complete development of a quadrupole resonance technology advanced backpack mine detection system. 

Advanced processor build integration 

The budget request contained $75.3 million in PE 64503N for 

system development and demonstration for SSN–688 and Trident 

submarine modernization. 

The committee has strongly supported the use of the acoustic 

rapid commercial-off-the-shelf technology insertion (ARCI) program 

and use of advanced processor software builds (APB) to upgrade 

sonar systems on submarines, surface combatants, and other platforms. Use of the ARCI/APB process has enabled the United States 

Navy to regain the advantage in sonar systems that it lost in the 

1980s. 

The committee notes that the fiscal year 2005 budget request includes sufficient funds for APB integration to provide the fiscal 

year 2004 advanced processor build (APB–04) software update for 

668I and SSGN submarine sonar systems. However, additional 

funding is needed to integrate APB–04 into the 688, SEAWOLF, 

and SSBN class ARCI systems and ensure that thirteen ships, for 

which the update is not presently funded, receive the updates before their planned deployments in fiscal year 2006. The committee recommends an increase of $20.0 million in PE 

64503N for the Navy’s unfunded requirement for integration of 

APB–04 update into the 688, SEAWOLF, and SSBN class ARCI 

systems. 

Aegis open architecture 

The budget request contained $146.5 million in PE 64307N for 

Aegis combat system engineering systems development and demonstration. 

The Aegis combat system engineering program includes the development of upgrades for cruiser and destroyer Aegis combat systems and the integration of new equipment and systems to keep 

pace with the threat and capture advances in technology. The committee notes that experiences aboard Aegis-equipped ships and 

shore sites have shown that the use of currently available commercial-off-the-shelf equipment requires periodic refreshment and additional development effort as new technologies become available and 

computer operating systems, device drivers, and interfaces are updated. To overcome these problems, the Navy is developing an open 

architecture computing environment for Aegis-equipped cruisers 

and destroyers as a part of the Navy’s overall open architecture 

program. The goal of the program is to evolve combat systems into 

168 

a ‘‘system of systems’’ that resides on a common computing environment which will be less complex, more easily upgraded, and 

have lower total ownership costs. The committee recommends $168.3 million in PE 64307N, an increase of $21.8 million to accelerate the development and introduction of an open architecture computing environment for the Aegis 

combat system. 

Affordable towed array construction 

The budget request contained $75.6 million in PE 64503N for submarine system equipment development, including $5.2 million 

to continue the development of affordable towed array technology 

initiatives for the development of fiber optic thin line towed arrays 

technology initiatives. The affordable towed array construction 

(ATAC) program employs fiber optic thinline arrays to provide reliability improvements by reducing system complexity, eliminating 

wet end electronics, enhancing littoral capability and incorporating 

robust array construction methods. 

The committee believes that accelerating the development and 

fielding of fiber optic towed array technology using improved construction methods and processes would provide increased performance, reliability and operational capabilities at reduced costs. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 64503N to accelerate the development and introduction 

into the fleet of fiber optic thinline arrays. 

Affordable weapon system 

The budget request contained $82.0 million in PE 63795N for 

land attack technology advanced component development and prototypes, and included $28.9 million for development and demonstration of the affordable weapon system (AWS). 

The AWS program began as an Office of Naval Research (ONR) 

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 weapons 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 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 

inertial navigation system guidance; a control unit; 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 approximately $60,000. 

Based on the results of the AWS advanced technology demonstration, the Department of Defense and the Navy decided to transition 

the AWS from the technology base to an accelerated advanced comVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
169 

ponent development and prototype program that demonstrates the 

ability to produce the missile at the projected cost; provides up to 

100 missiles and launch and fire control equipment for developmental and operational testing; and supports user evaluation of the 

AWS for potential use by the fleet. Congress provided $28.0 million 

to support the program in fiscal year 2004. The committee notes 

that shortfalls in science and technology funding for the AWS transition and delays in award of the development and production contract have delayed the program and completion of operational test 

and evaluation until the spring of 2005 and resulted in increased 

costs to complete the initial missile production buy. The committee recommends an increase of $23.0 million in PE 

63795N to complete a 100–missile build of the AWS and support 

developmental and operational testing and fleet evaluation of the 

system. 

Airborne mine neutralization system 

The budget request contained $50.5 million in PE 64373N for airborne mine countermeasures system development and demonstration, including $15.6 million for continued development of the Airborne Mine Neutralization System (AMNS) 

The AMNS is an expendable, remotely operated mine neutralization device that is deployed in shallow and deep water from the 

MH–53E and MH–60S mine countermeasures helicopters to explode unburied bottom and anchored sea mines, which are impractical or unsafe to counter using existing minesweeping techniques. 

In an audit of the AMNS program completed in February 2004, 

the Department of Defense Inspector General (DOD IG) concluded 

that the program is well-managed overall. However, the DOD IG 

cited the decision to transition the MH–53E to a Rapid Deployment 

Capability as premature and recommended that the ASN(RDA) rescind approval and require full operational test and evaluation of 

the system to assure that it is operationally effective and capable 

of supporting real-world contingency operations. The DOD IG also 

found that the Navy did not perform an adequate analysis of alternatives to evaluate the cost- and operational- effectiveness of alternative courses of action and that the Program Executive Officer 

(Littoral and Mine Warfare) should not proceed further with the 

development and acquisition of the AMNS unless a comprehensive, 

independent analysis of alternatives justifies proceeding. 

The committee recognizes that operational necessity may require 

the rapid deployment of interim or developmental capabilities in 

times of emergency, but also recognizes and supports the requirement that such systems be operationally capable and effective. The 

committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to report to the congressional defense committees by September 30, 2004, the actions 

that will be taken by the Department of the Navy to respond to the 

DOD IG’s findings. 

Airborne reconnaissance systems 

The budget request contained $10.2 million in PE 35206N for airborne reconnaissance systems, but included no funding for passive 

collision avoidance and reconnaissance (PCAR). 

The committee is aware that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) 

must fly in regions that make them a potential hazard to commerVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00193 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
170 

cial and other manned aircraft. The committee notes that PCAR 

will sense an impending collision and allow the UAV to safely avoid 

approaching aircraft. 

Therefore, to improve safety of UAV operations, the committee recommends $13.2 million in PE 35206N, an increase of $3.0 million for PCAR. 

AN/BLQ–10 test and support 

The budget request contained $75.3 million in PE 64503N for 

system development and demonstration for SSN–688 and Trident 

submarine modernization, including $1.4 million for submarine 

support equipment. 

The submarine support equipment program develops and evaluates improvements in submarine electronic warfare support measures, including implementation of state-of-the-art technologies for 

periscope, mast, and engineering improvements in the AN/BLQ–10 

tactical electronic support system. 

The committee notes proposals for adaptation and evaluation of 

a commercial-off-the-shelf tester for electronic circuit card assemblies that could be used aboard submarines. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

64503N for adaptation and evaluation of a commercial-off-the-shelf 

tester for electronic circuit card assemblies for the AN/BLQ–10 tactical electronic support system. 

Anti-torpedo torpedo 

The budget request contained $46.9 million in PE 63506N for 

surface ship torpedo defense advanced component development and 

prototyping. 

The surface ship torpedo defense program develops the Tripwire 

AN/WSQ–11 torpedo defense system, which includes the Tripwire 

towed sensor and processor to detect a threat torpedo and provide 

launch orders for the associated anti-torpedo torpedo countermeasure. The committee notes that the anti-torpedo torpedo as the 

‘‘offensive’’ response to the Tripwire launch detection is a critical 

part of the surface ship torpedo defense. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 

63506N to accelerate development of the anti-torpedo torpedo as a 

part of the surface ship torpedo defense system. 

Automatic radar periscope detection and discrimination 

The budget request contained $13.4 million in PE 64261N for 

acoustic search sensors system development and demonstration, including $2.9 million to continue development of the automatic 

radar periscope detection and discrimination (ARPDD) project. 

The ARPDD project provides fully automated periscope detection, 

classification and tracking capability to reliably detect periscopes 

and masts of submerged submarines and to discriminate periscopes 

from other targets. The committee notes that the Navy regards this 

capability as essential for effective detection of submarines in congested littoral waters. The current program of record provides for 

a four-year development cycle, followed by developmental and operational testing and a low rate initial production decision in fiscal 

year 2011. The budget request would be used for project planning 

and acquisition program documentation in preparation for awardVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
171 

ing a contract for development of an airborne ARPDD capability. 

The committee notes that acceleration of the program is a priority 

for the Navy. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 64261N to accelerate ARPDD system development and 

demonstration and rapid introduction of the capability into the 

fleet. 

Aviation ship integration center 

The budget request contained $157.5 million in PE 63512N for 

carrier systems advanced technology development and prototyping. 

No funds were included for the Aviation Ship Integration Center. 

The Aviation Ship Integration Center supports the development 

and conceptualization of fully integrated advanced technology designs for future aircraft carriers. The center identifies, tests, and 

integrates transformational design changes and products for aviation capable ships and component systems, and permits the identification and resolution of potential problems early in the development cycle, thereby reducing overall engineering costs and facilitating the introduction of transformational initiatives in the CVN–

21 carrier. 

The committee notes that additional funding is required to expand and complete several key initiatives by the shipbuilder and 

appropriate government sponsors. 

Congress appropriated $9.8 million for the Aviation Ship Integration Center in fiscal year 2004. The Chief of Naval Operations has 

indicated the center is a critical unfunded requirement for fiscal 

year 2005. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

63512N for the Aviation Ship Integration Center. 

Aviation shipboard information technology initiative 

The budget request contained $28.6 million in PE 64512N for 

system development and demonstration for shipboard aviation systems, but included no funds for continuation of the integrated aviation shipboard information technology initiative. 

The aviation shipboard information technology initiative seeks to 

use state-of-the-art information technology and decision support 

systems to automate the current manually intensive process for collecting and distributing the information required to manage aviation operations on board aircraft carriers more efficiently and effectively. The committee notes continued progress in the initiative, 

now renamed the Aviation Data Management and Control Systems 

(ADMACS). The development of a common operating picture for 

carrier aviation operations and the ability through process automation and integration of key operational systems to provide an accurate status of weapons, aircraft, personnel, launch, and recovery 

systems throughout the ship should result in significant workload 

reductions, reduced mission planning and execution time, and an 

increased sortie generation rate. In addition to the operational impact of ADMACS, the committee notes estimates of operations and 

support cost savings of $2.0 million per year per ship and workload 

savings of 45 man-years per year per ship. Congress has provided 

a total of $7.8 million for the program since fiscal year 2002. 

172 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

64512N to continue the development of ADMACS. The committee 

expects the Navy to include funding for any further development 

of ADMACS in the Navy’s core aviation program beginning with 

the fiscal year 2006 budget request. 

Biomedical research imaging 

The budget request contained $16.7 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. The 

program develops new tools and diagnostic procedures that improve 

the efficiency and accuracy of biomedical research in bone marrow 

transplantation and breast and prostate cancer, and the potential 

for new collaboration between previous unconnected medical specialties. The committee believes that these findings have important 

implications for advances in real-time medical diagnosis and treatment and for the application of advanced data fusion technologies 

in other areas. 

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. 

Center for critical infrastructure protection 

The budget request contained $96.3 million for force protection 

applied research, but included no funding for the Center for Critical Infrastructure Protection (CCIP). 

The committee believes that the Department of Defense should 

place a greater emphasis on its acknowledged mission of protecting 

critical defense infrastructure, such as ports, railroads, and pipelines. Sustained force protection of fixed defense-critical national 

assets requires additional research on sustained and integrated 

surveillance and sensing capabilities. The CCIP is an innovative 

program that will explore such technologies on a continuing basis, 

helping to develop the most comprehensive security systems for the 

nation’s critical defense infrastructure. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

62123N for this important research. 

Claymore marine 

The budget request contained $4.5 million in PE 63254N for antisubmarine 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. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 

63254N for the Claymore Marine program. 

Common submarine radio room 

The budget request contained $18.7 million in PE 33140N for information systems security program operational systems development. 

173 

The committee notes that the radio room on many of today’s 

ships uses outdated, and in some cases, obsolete technologies. As 

a result, the systems that support ship communications in the 

radio room are labor intensive, require heavy and costly maintenance, suffer from operator overload and require large numbers of 

highly skilled operators. The Navy developed the Common Submarine Radio Room (CSRR) in the Virginia Class submarine program and now plans to standardize radio rooms across all submarine classes using the CSRR model. CSRR will reduce the cost, 

training, and maintenance of submarine radio rooms and, through 

increased use of automation, will permit the reduction of personnel 

required to stand watch in the radio room. In the future the CSRR 

concept may be extended to the surface fleet. 

The committee recommends $36.4 million in PE 33140N, an increase of $17.7 million for the Navy’s unfunded requirement for the 

CSRR. 

Composite ceramic unmanned underwater vehicle 

The budget request contained $63.7 million in PE 62236N for 

warfighter sustainment advanced technology development, but included no funding for development of a composite ceramic unmanned underwater vehicle. 

The committee notes that the high cost of development and manufacture of advanced underwater vehicles (UUV) and that the long 

design and development lifecycle have significantly limited introduction of innovative UUV capabilities. The committee is aware 

that the composite ceramic unmanned underwater vehicle program 

plans to use advanced ceramic material research for the rapid development of high-performance, low cost, modular UUVs. The committee supports the development of high-performance UUVs, using 

advanced composite technology, ceramic component technology and 

water-soluble tooling, and integration of next- generation sensors, 

guidance and control, propulsion and payloads. The committee expects that this technology could replace steel construction with 

light-weight, high strength, corrosion resistant ceramics and polymers. 

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 

62236N for composite ceramic unmanned underwater vehicle applied research. 

Consolidated undersea situational awareness 

The budget request contained $79.5 million in PE 63235N for 

common picture advanced technology development, but included no 

funds to continue development of the consolidated undersea situational awareness system (CUSAS). 

The committee notes that CUSAS is a decision-support system 

that would provide knowledge superiority to undersea warfare 

(USW) forces through the use of advanced, interactive, decision 

support software. Developed initially under the Defense Advanced 

Research Projects Agency, CUSAS would offer significant improvements in situational awareness for fleet operators through the use 

of high fidelity, two- and three-dimensional presentations, augmented with real-time, intelligent agent-based, tactical recommendations. 

174 

The committee notes the progress in the development of CUSAS. 

The system has demonstrated the capability to interface with, process, and display all sources of sensor and intelligence data onboard 

a U.S. submarine. The core technology has been installed and successfully demonstrated in an operational tactical submarine trainer 

and a follow-on at-sea demonstration is scheduled later in 2004. 

The committee believes that successful development of the CUSAS 

decision support system would provide a capability that would significantly assist submarine commanders to make rapid and informed decisions in critical combat operations. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63235N to continue development of CUSAS. 

DD(X) multi-mission destroyer 

The fiscal year 2005 budget request included $1,450.6 million for the DD(X) multi-mission destroyer, including $1,431.5 million in 

PE 64300N and $19.0 million in PE 63513N, to continue detailed 

design and, using RDT&E funding, to begin construction of the 

first ship of the DD(X) class. Of the amount requested, $221.1 million is for construction. 

DD(X) is a multi-mission surface combatant tailored for land attack in support of the ground campaign and maritime dominance. 

In addition, the DD(X) program will provide a baseline for development of technology and engineering to support a range of future 

surface ships such as the CG(X) future cruiser and the Littoral 

Combat Ship. A Milestone B acquisition decision is scheduled for 

mid-fiscal year 2005. Delivery of the first ship of the class to the 

fleet is currently planned for fiscal year 2011. The Navy wants to 

procure a total of 24 DD(X)s at a unit procurement cost of $1,200 

million to $1,400 million. 

The committee has strongly supported the DD(X) program since 

its inception. DD(X) will be the advanced technology platform for 

transformational technologies including an integrated power system and electric drive; an advanced gun system; a new multi-function radar/volume search radar suite; optimal manning through advanced system automation; stealth through reduced acoustic, magnetic, infrared, and radar cross-section signatures; and enhanced 

survivability through automated damage control and fire protection 

systems. The committee report on H.R. 1588 (H. Rept. 108–106) 

noted that the ship’s operational requirements and key performance parameters, which affect the mission capabilities, design, and 

size of the ship, were under review. Subsequently, the Navy decided to reduce the size of the DD(X) from a full load displace of 

approximately 18,000 tons to 14,000 tons. 

In its report, ‘‘Defense Acquisitions—Assessments of Major 

Weapons Programs,’’ dated March 2004, the General Accounting 

Office (GAO) assessed the DD(X) as entering system development 

with none of its 12 critical technologies fully mature (and thereby 

subject to a higher risk of completing development at the planned 

cost and schedule). The program manager is pursuing risk mitigation by constructing and testing engineering development models 

for the critical technologies; however, the acquisition strategy calls 

for engineering development model construction and testing to be 

done concurrently with system design. The decision to reduce the 

weight of the ship prompted redesign of the advanced gun system 

175 

and hull form engineering development models. Because of schedule slippage, only two engineering development models (the hull 

form and the integrated power system) would be mature by the 

award of the lead ship construction contract, currently planned for 

September 2005. Current testing schedules call for the integrated 

power system, dual band radar suite, total ship computing environment, and peripheral vertical launching system to continue development beyond the lead ship production decision. In the GAO’s 

view, should any of these innovative technologies encounter challenges that cannot be accommodated within the current design 

margins, redesign of other technologies and of the integrated ship 

system may be needed. Redesign would likely result in additional 

costs and schedule delays and affect the planned installation schedule. In addition, because the DD(X) acquisition strategy focuses on 

developing and maturing technologies that could be leveraged 

across multiple ship classes, delay in the maturation of critical 

technologies would increase the risk for other development programs. 

The committee notes that the engineering development models of 

the integrated power system and the advanced gun system are 

scheduled to complete land-based testing by the end of fiscal year 

2005 and the multi-function radar will have completed two-thirds 

of its land-based and at-sea testing by that date. The committee believes that it would be prudent to delay the award of the contract 

for construction of the first ship of the class from fiscal year 2005 

to fiscal year 2006 in order to accommodate any results from the 

testing of these critical systems in the design of the ship prior to 

beginning construction. The committee recommends that the DD(X) 

program be restructured to reduce concurrency and develop technology ‘‘off-ramps’’ for technologies that do not mature. Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $221.1 million in PE 64300N and deferring the initiation of construction of 

the lead ship from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006. 

Deployable joint command and control 

The budget request contained $42.4 million in PE 63237N for research and development of the Deployable Joint Command and 

Control System (DJC2) and $32.5 million for procurement of two 

DJC2 cores (120 seats total) for the European Command. 

The committee supports the concept of establishing a standing 

joint force headquarters within each of the regional combatant commands (RCCs) and of providing standardized joint command and 

control capabilities for the commands. However, the committee 

questions the acquisition strategy to procure, equip, and provide 

technology updates for this program. The committee is concerned 

that the schedule to procure and equip the first set of two cores per 

RCCs is too aggressive and may not accomplish its schedule due to 

lack of technology integration for the information systems and applications that are required for this program. 

While the committee understands that each combatant commander would like four core systems, for a potential of up to 240 

seats per RCC, the committee notes the Department has not devised a capital planning strategy to pay for the second set of two 

cores per RCC. Furthermore, there is no justification to show how 

the Department plans to pay for updating hardware and software 

176 

systems to prevent them from becoming obsolete by fiscal year 

2008. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy, in 

coordination with the commander, Joint Forces Command, to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by March 31, 

2005, detailing a systems architecture, performance metrics, management plan for the development of DJC2, and a capital planning 

investment strategy as to how the Department plans to fund the 

second set of two cores per combatant command. 

Digital modular radio 

The budget request contained $78.6 million in PE 64280N for 

system development and demonstration for the Joint Tactical Radio 

System-Navy (JTRS–Navy). No funds were requested to continue 

system development and demonstration for the digital modular 

radio (DMR). 

DMR is a digital, modular, software programmable, multi-channel, multi-function and multi-band (2 megahertz—2 gigahertz) 

radio system that would provide improved fleet radio communications in the high, very-high, and ultra-high frequency radio bands. 

DMR would replace and be interoperable and backwards compatible with currently deployed Navy radio systems. 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense has mandated that all future tactical radio procurements must be compliant 

with the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS). The committee also 

notes that the contract for a commercial-off-the-shelf, non-development initiative DMR was awarded before the JTRS architecture 

and acquisition strategy was established. The committee recommends an increase of $15.0 million in PE 

64280N to continue development of the DMR and bring the DMR 

operating environment software to full compliance with the JTRS 

common architecture (version 2.2). 

DP–2 thrust vectoring system 

The budget request contained $92.4 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 program and believes that the potential for a successful 

proof-of-concept demonstration 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 test of the 

one-half scale airframe. 

Electromagnetic gun program 

The budget request contained $82.1 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology development. 

In section 211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136), Congress directs the Secretary 

177 

of Defense to establish and carry out a collaborative program 

among the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Defense 

Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Army, the Navy, and 

other appropriate Department of Defense activities, for evaluation 

and demonstration of advanced technologies and concepts for advanced gun 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 systems, 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. 

In the fiscal year 2005 budget request, the committee notes significant shortfalls in Department of the Navy funding for the program. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $9.5 million in PE 63123N for electromagnetic gun technology advanced development. 

Embedded national tactical receiver integration with advanced antiradiation guided missile 

The budget request included $163.4 million in PE 25601N for 

operational systems development for high-speed anti-radiation missile (HARM) improvement, including $53.5 million for the advanced 

anti-radiation guided missile (AARGM). 

The embedded national tactical receiver (ENTR) is a circuit card 

capable of receiving global surveillance information. Integrating the 

ENTR in the AARGM would facilitate the engagement of time sensitive and critical targets by adding the ability for the missile to 

receive threat data from national assets, thereby enlarging the target set and increasing aircrew situational awareness. The capability of such a system to receive near real time intelligence data 

will enhance the suppression of enemy air defense by increasing 

the ability to engage the most current surface-to-air missile threats 

in denied access area. 

The committee recommends $165.4 million in PE 25601N, an increase of $2.0 million to integrate the ENTR in the AARGM. 

Emerging/critical interconnection technology 

The budget request contained $61.1 million in PE 63236N for 

warfighter sustainment advanced technology development but no 

funds were requested for continuation of the electronic interconnection research and development program. 

The committee notes that printed circuit boards are fundamental 

components of military navigation, guidance and control, electronic 

warfare, missile, and surveillance and communications equipment. 

The committee notes that printed circuit boards for military systems have unique design requirements for high performance, high 

reliability, and the ability to operate under extreme environmental 

conditions that 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 high-volume production of low-cost boards and the 

United States has lost much of its printed circuit board manufacturing capability to overseas sources. The committee recognizes the 

need to enhance the U.S. capability for development and production 

178 

of high density, highly reliable printed circuit boards for use in 

U.S. military systems. Congress appropriated $3.5 million in fiscal 

year 2004 for this program. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63236N to continue the program for development of emerging and 

critical printed circuit interconnection technology. The committee 

expects that the electronic interconnection research and development program will be included in the Navy’s core research and development program in the fiscal year 2006 budget request. 

Enterprise resource planning 

The budget request contained $109.5 million in PE 65013N for 

information technology (IT) development, including the Enterprise 

Resource Planning (ERP) program. 

The Navy ERP program is intended to provide a standard set of 

tools to Navy organizations to facilitate business process reengineering and provide interoperable data for acquisition, financial, and logistics operations. The committee understands that this 

new program would converge the four existing ERP pilot programs 

in various Navy commands into one larger ERP. 

The committee believes the Navy should select the most comprehensive ERP pilot for the entire Navy’s use and terminate the 

other three pilots. Accordingly, the committee recommends $26.5 

million in PE 65013N for IT programs, a decrease of $83.0 million 

for the ERP program. 

Enterprise targeting and strike system 

The budget request contained $3.6 million in PE 35208N for the 

development of the Navy’s enterprise targeting and strike system 

(eTSS). This program will employ web-enabled enterprise technologies across existing operational capabilities. By using commercial e-business technologies, eTSS transforms the Navy’s targeting, 

strike and mission-planning systems by integrating combat platforms and their support components into a single hardware dispersed web-enabled enterprise. The committee supports this nonproprietary, open standards solution that is consistent with the Department of the Navy’s other important information technology 

programs. The committee also supports the program’s goal of supporting globally distributed, joint, collaborative, time critical, strike 

operations within the Global Information Grid (GIG) architecture. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $9.6 million in PE 

35208N, an increase of $6.0 million, for the acceleration and deployment of eTSS. 

Evolved sea sparrow missile capability for large decks 

The budget request contained $48.2 million in PE 64755N for 

ship self defense (detect and control) system development and demonstration. 

The committee notes the requirement for large deck amphibious 

ships and aircraft carriers to be capable of countering the anti-ship 

cruise missile (ASCM) threat. 

The committee notes that the Navy has identified the Evolved 

Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) capability for large deck amphibious 

ships as a critical unfunded requirement in the fiscal year 2005 

budget request. Additional funds are required to develop the comVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00202 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
179 

plete SSDS Mk 2 software configuration modification for LHD 1 

class ships; initiate integration of the ESSM into the SSDS Mk 2 

computer program; and procure the Reconfigured NATO Sea Sparrow Missile System (RNSSMS), a Mk 29 missile launching system, 

an AN/SPQ–9B radar system, and a cooperative engagement capability (CEC) system for the LHD 1. 

The committee recommends the following to address the Navy’s 

unfunded requirement for providing the ESSM capability on large 

deck amphibious ships: 

(1) An increase of $15.3 million in PE 64755N for SSDS Mk 

2 system development and demonstration; 

(2) An increase of $8.7 million for one Reconfigured NATO 

Sea Sparrow Missile System (RNSSMS); 

(3) An increase of $6.0 million for one AN/SPQ–9B radar system; and 

(4) An increase of $4.2 million for one cooperative engagement capability system. 

Formable aligned carbon thermosets 

The budget request contained $63.7 million in PE 62236N for 

warfighter sustainment applied research, but included no funds for 

formable aligned carbon thermosets (FACTS). 

The committee continues to support the development and demonstration of FACTS, which employ stretch broken fibers to give 

the composite material plasticity akin to metals. FACTS also significantly eases the formation of composite parts for use in aircraft 

and other construction where weight savings and reduced operation 

and maintenance costs are desired. The use of FACTS is expected 

to increase significantly the percentage of airframes that can be 

fabricated from composites, reduce the cost of the composite structure, permit the use of more efficient designs, and significantly 

lower the weight of the airframes. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

62236N to continue the program for development and demonstration of FACTS product technology. 

Gallium nitride radio-frequency power technology 

The budget request contained $49.2 million in PE 62271N for 

radio frequency systems applied research. 

Gallium nitride (GaN) radio frequency power microelectronics is 

a wide band gap power semiconductor technology that has several 

key advantages over radio frequency component technologies now 

in use, including higher power density, better heat dissipation, and 

increased bandwidth. This new technology could lead to dramatic 

improvements in system performance, such as significant increases 

in the range of radar systems and enabling such systems to more 

effectively identify threat signatures in the presence of terrain 

background clutter. Congress authorized $3.0 million for GaN 

microelectronics and materials development in fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

62271N to continue the program for applied research in GaN wide 

band gap semiconductor materials and power microelectronics. 

180 

Hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier 

The budget request contained $6.9 million in PE 64771N for 

medical system development and demonstration. No funds were 

specifically requested to continue the development of hemoglobinbased oxygen carrier technology. 

The committee notes that there is currently no effective method 

of providing front-line resuscitative treatment (i.e. immediate oxygen-carrying support) for acute blood loss to wounded soldiers on 

the battlefield and civilian trauma victims in an out-of-hospital setting. The single major cause of death in potentially salvageable 

battlefield casualties is hemorrhage and blood loss, and early intervention to treat hemorrhage provides the greatest opportunity for 

reducing mortality and morbidity. Although blood transfusion is 

not practical in far forward or out-of-hospital settings, hemoglobinbased oxygen carriers have the characteristics of stability at room 

temperature that overcome many of the medical and logistical 

problems associated with red blood cell transfusion. 

In fiscal year 2002 Congress initiated a program for evaluation 

of hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers for the treatment of trauma 

casualties. Based on the progress in the program the U.S. Naval 

Medical Research Center is directing a clinical development and 

trials program to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a particular 

hemoglobin-based oxygen carrier. The program is designed to serve 

as the basis for U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval and 

subsequent licensing of the product for military and civilian trauma applications. 

The committee recommends an increase of $13.0 million in PE 

64771N to continue the program for development and clinical trials 

of hemoglobin-based oxygen carriers for treatment of trauma casualties. 

High temperature superconducting AC synchronous ship propulsion 

motor 

The budget request contained $82.1 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology development, including $16.0 

million to continue development of a 36.5 megawatt class, high 

temperature superconducting alternating current (AC) synchronous 

motor. 

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. In fiscal year 2003, the Navy 

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, and would be available to begin Navy 

evaluation in fiscal year 2006. The committee is informed that the 

Navy’s budget request is not sufficient to maintain the program 

schedule. 

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 

63123N to maintain the schedule for development of the AC synchronous high temperature superconducting motor. 

181 

Hybrid POSS composites development 

The budget request contained $96.3 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 is aware that in fiscal year 2004, the Navy has committed 

to conduct a 1/4-scale demonstration of the fire retardancy of hybrid POSS composite resins. The committee believes that it is important that the POSS resin technology be fully demonstrated in 

fiscal year 2005 in order to insure that the resin is qualified as a 

candidate for use in the DD(X) multi-mission destroyer and the Littoral Combat Ship. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

62123N to continue applied research in the design, fabrication, 

testing, and qualification of POSS composites for shipboard use by 

the Navy. 

Integrated personnel protection system 

The budget request contained $98.8 million in PE 62114N for 

power protection applied research. 

The committee notes Navy requirements for improving the protection of Navy ships and personnel from natural or combat hazards ashore and afloat. Although many advances have been made 

in personnel protection equipment for Navy personnel, many situations exist in which current personnel protective equipment is inadequate. The committee is aware of advances in technologies for protection of Navy personnel from fire, chemical, and biological hazards that, when combined with an integrated individual display 

system and interconnected through an ultra-wideband personnel 

communications network, would provide enhanced situational 

awareness and communications capabilities for the monitoring of 

personnel situations and coordination of crew response in critical 

situations. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

62114N for applied research in integrated personnel protection systems. 

Integrated radar optical surveillance and sighting system 

The budget request contained $48.2 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. 

The integrated radar optical surveillance and sighting system 

(IROS3) integrates commercial-off-the-shelf systems in a non-proVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00205 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
182 

prietary, network architecture to provide a digital radar picture, 

electro-optical sensor, non-lethal deterrent, and remote engagement 

by small arms and minor caliber guns. In addition to 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 would also enhance the 

capability for surface warfare, navigation, maritime intercept operations and related naval missions. Congress provided $4.2 million 

in fiscal year 2004 to continue development of the IROS3. The committee recommends an increase of $3.5 million in PE 

64755N for demonstration and evaluation of the IROS3 system. 

Intermediate modulus carbon fiber qualification 

The budget request contained $61.1 million in PE 63236N for 

warfighter sustainment advanced technology development. No 

funds were requested to continue the qualification of commercially 

available intermediate modulus carbon fibers. 

The committee supports efforts to transition new materials and 

processes for use in present and future aircraft and missile systems. The committee is encouraged by the Navy’s efforts to establish a second production source for intermediate modulus carbon 

fiber to ensure more competitive practices. In fiscal year 1997, the 

Navy initiated an effort to develop a protocol for the qualification 

of new materials, second source materials, and new processes for 

use on naval aircraft and missile systems. The Navy has developed 

a certification protocol for the qualification of commercially available intermediate modulus carbon fibers, which are used to 

strengthen aircraft and missile bodies. To date $5.5 million has 

been provided for this qualification program. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63236N to complete the qualification program for commercially 

available intermediate modulus carbon fibers. 

Interrogator for high-speed retro-reflective communications 

The budget request contained $98.8 million in PE 62114N for 

power project applied research, but included no funding for a highspeed retro-reflectometer communications data link. 

The committee notes that the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) 

has been conducting extensive research into the use of modulated 

retro-reflectors, which would eliminate the need for an unmanned 

aerial vehicle (UAV) to carry a laser for downlink communications. 

NRL’s progress to date is promising and includes the development 

of a prototype interrogator with fine steering optics and software, 

laser tracking algorithms, hardware and software, electronics, and 

return signal collection and demodulation to effectively test a shipto-shore communications scenario. A second prototype will be demonstrated in an air-to-ground scenario. 

The committee notes that additional funding in fiscal year 2005 

would permit NRL to develop and demonstrate a miniaturized prototype high-speed data link with an interrogator designed for easy 

transport, setting the stage for demonstrations of further system 

applications. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

62114N to continue development of a laser interrogator for highspeed retro-reflectometer communications data link. 

183 

Joint integrated systems technology 

The budget request contained $573.1 million in PE 33109N for 

Satellite Communications (SATCOM) operational system development. 

The Joint Integrated Satellite Communications (JIST) is a webbased 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 continues to believe 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 follow-on 

satellite communications systems. 

The committee recommends $581.1 million in PE 33109N, an increase of $8.0 million to continue the JIST program for development of a uniform web-based architecture for SATCOM mission 

planning and resource allocation. 

Joint Strike Fighter 

The budget request included $2,264.5 million in the Department 

of the Navy and $2,307.4 million in the Department of the Air 

Force for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. 

In order to maintain competition for the engine for the JSF, Congress has mandated the funding of an alternate engine program 

and the JSF Joint Program Office (JPO) is working with the contractor propulsion teams to provide for completely interchangeable 

engines. 

The committee believes that the earliest possible engine production lot competition is beneficial to the JSF program. The committee directs the JSF JPO plan to compete, at the earliest possible 

date, engine common hardware as well as the turbomachinery, 

while maintaining PW F135 and GE F136 engine interchangeability. 

Laser radar data exploitation 

The budget request contained $92.4 million in PE 63114N for 

power projection advanced technology development. 

The committee notes that laser radar (LADAR) seekers provide 

high-quality, high-resolution, three-dimensional imagery of the target area that is used by the seeker for autonomous target recognition (ATR) and location. The committee also notes the development 

of LADAR imagery viewing software for engineering analysis of the 

ATR algorithms and believes that such technology can be exploited 

for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance purposes. The imagery, if down-linked or otherwise made available to the user, could 

be used to support three-dimensional target area visualization, aim 

point analysis, mission planning, and attack plan rehearsal. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

63114N for the continued development of software tools for laser 

radar imagery analysis and the development of concepts of operations and procedures for exploiting LADAR imagery for mission 

planning, mapping, and three-dimensional target area visualization. 

184 

Littoral combat ship 

The budget request contains $352.1 million in PE 63581N for the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS), including $244.4 million for LCS development and $107.7 million for construction, using RDT&E funds 

for the first ship of the LCS class. 

The LCS is a planned new Navy surface combatant for fighting 

in heavily contested littoral waters that would be the smallest 

member of the DD(X) family of next-generation surface combatants 

and has been identified in budget reviews as a key component of 

Navy transformation. A fast, agile, and stealthy surface combatant, 

LCS missions include mine countermeasures, littoral anti-submarine warfare, and countering fast attack craft (i.e. ‘‘swarm 

boats’’) in heavily contested littoral waters. Secondary missions include intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance; homeland defense/maritime intercept; special operations forces support; and logistics support for movement of personnel and supplies. 

LCS would be the first Navy ship to separate capability from hull 

form. Modular mission payloads and open-system architecture are 

intended to be used to configure the LCS for particular missions. 

LCS would be much smaller and faster than the Navy’s current 

major surface combatants (2,000–3,000 ton displacement and a 

maximum speed of 40 to 50 knots) and would have a reduced crew 

size of 15 to 50 core members. Three contractor teams are competing for the LCS prime contract and two will be selected later 

this year for the next phase of the competition. The Navy wants 

to procure 56 LCSs at an estimated unit cost of $150.0 to $220.0 

million for the ship alone and $250.0 million, including a representative mission payload package. The total acquisition cost for the 

program could exceed $14,000 million. Congress provided $166.0 

million for LCS in fiscal year 2004. The Chief of Naval Operations 

has identified an unfunded requirement of $74.7 million for LCS 

mission module development in fiscal year 2005. 

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 accompanying the conference report on H.R. 4546 (H. 

Rept. 107–772), the conferees raised a number of issues with respect to the development of LCS. The Secretary of the Navy’s report on those issues 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 Navy’s 

March 2004 report on LCS requirements, concepts of operations, 

acquisition strategy, and systems that would be replaced by LCS 

was also a relatively brief summary document that provided little 

new information about the LCS program. Congress has directed the 

General Accounting Office to report by March 1, 2005, on the LCS 

program’s analytical justification, concept of operations, technical 

maturity, and potential costs. 

The committee continues to have concerns about the lack of a 

rigorous analysis of alternative concepts for performance of the 

LCS mission, the justification for the force structure sought by the 

Navy, and whether the program’s acquisition strategy is necessary 

to meet an urgent operational need. In view of continued unfunded 

requirements for mission module development and experimentation 

185 

and what the committee believes is the need for more thorough 

evaluation program, the committee is concerned about the Navy’s 

ability to resolve these issues before committing to the design for 

the LCS and beginning construction of the first ship. Finally, the 

committee is concerned about whether the program schedule provides sufficient time and capabilities for experimentation and evaluation of the operational concepts for LCS before committing to 

major serial production of the ship. Consequently, the committee recommends $244.4 million in PE 63581N for the LCS, a decrease of $107.7 million for LCS construction. The committee also recommends that the construction of the 

first Flight 0 LCS be delayed until fiscal year 2006. 

Littoral support craft-experimental 

The budget request contained $82.1 million in PE 63123N for force protection advanced technology development, including $10.2 

million to continue development and demonstration of the Littoral 

Surface Craft-Experimental (LSC–X). 

The LSC–X or ‘‘X–Craft’’ is a science and technology platform designed for experimentation with lifting bodies, drag reduction and 

mission modularity. A high-speed, all-aluminum catamaran, the 

LSC–X displaces 1,400 tons at full load. Performance requirements 

are speeds of 50 knots at a combat load of about 1,200 tons and 

40 knots in sea state four, and a range of 4,000 nautical miles 

without replenishment. The LSC–X will be capable of landing two 

helicopters up to the size of the SH–60R, transporting and operating autonomous vehicles, and carrying several reconfigurable 

mission modules in standard twenty-foot-equivalent unit boxes. 

The operating crew will be minimal and the vessel will be built to 

commercial American Bureau of Shipping standards. As expressed 

in the committee report on H.R. 4546 (H. Rept. 107–436), the committee continues to believe that an experimental vessel such as the 

LSC–X would be an effective experimental test bed for many of the 

technologies that might be chosen for use on the Littoral Combat 

Ship (LCS). The committee encourages the Secretary of the Navy 

to carry out such an experimentation program as a part of the 

process for developing the operational and design requirements for 

the LCS. 

The committee recommends an increase of $25.8 million in PE 

63123N to complete construction of the LSC–X, high-speed performance testing at-sea, and mission module demonstrations. 

Low acoustic signature motor/propulsor 

The budget request contained $64.1 million in PE 62747N for undersea warfare advanced technology development. 

The committee notes that the low acoustic signature motor 

propulsor for electrically powered undersea vehicles (LAMPREY) 

will demonstrate an integrated motor-propulsor and power converter with extremely low acoustic signature for undersea vehicles. 

When integrated with an already developed, high power lithiumpropulsion 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 

186 

Virginia class submarines. Congress provided $2.1 million in fiscal 

year 2003 and $1.8 million in fiscal year 2004 for the LAMPREY 

program. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.0 million in PE 

62747N to complete on-range testing of the LAMPREY test vehicle 

to verify acoustic performance of the propulsion system and maximum speed, range, and maneuvering characteristics. 

Low-cost terminal imaging seeker 

The budget request contained $92.4 million in PE 63114N for 

power projection advanced technology development. 

The committee notes that the Naval Air Warfare Center, Weapons Division, China Lake is demonstrating a low-cost precision 

guidance upgrade kit for a low-cost terminal imaging seeker 

(LCTIS) that is an out-growth of the low-cost guided imaging rocket (LOGIR) project. The committee believes that the technology 

which would be demonstrated in the LCTIS could have application 

to the advanced precision kill weapon system, the joint common 

missile, and the small diameter bomb and would be a risk reduction alternative for all three of these programs. The committee 

notes that the plan for use of additional fiscal year 2005 funding 

for the LCTIS project would include development and test of seeker 

guidance and control alternatives and seeker signal processing algorithms. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

63114N for LCTIS advanced technology development and demonstration. 

Low-power mega-performance unmanned aerial vehicle processing 

engines 

The budget request contained $92.4 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 continues to support the development of improved 

signal processing capability for unmanned aerial vehicles for precision targeting and other missions. The committee notes that the 

massively parallel processing technology being developed under the 

low-power mega-performance unmanned aerial vehicle processing 

engines program should provide significantly enhanced on-board 

sensor processing capabilities that will address the difficult computational challenge of on-board sensor processing capabilities for 

unmanned aerial vehicles and will greatly enhance sensor performance and surveillance capabilities. Congress appropriated $1.5 million for the program in fiscal year 2004. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.0 million in PE 

63114N to accelerate advanced technology development of lowpower mega-performance unmanned aerial vehicle processing engines. 

Marine mammal research program 

The budget request contained $63.7 million in PE 62236N for 

warfighter sustainment applied research, but included no funds for 

continuation of the marine mammal research program. 

187 

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 these areas. The marine mammal 

research program investigates the effects of noise on dolphin hearing and dolphin biosonar capabilities, conducts joint visual and 

acoustic surveys of the behavior of humpback whales, and supports 

research in bioacoustical oceanography. The committee recommends an increase of $2.2 million in PE 

62236N to continue the program for research in marine mammal 

behavior, the effects of sound on marine mammals, and bioacoustical oceanography. 

Nanoscience and nanomaterials 

The budget request contained $375.8 million in PE 61153N for defense research sciences, including $65.8 million for basic research 

in advanced naval materials sciences. 

The committee notes continuing progress in research in 

nanoscience and nanomaterials. The committee is also aware that 

the application of these new concepts and technologies in improved 

materials, novel structures, and integrated multifunctional composite materials and structures that address high priority Navy 

science and technology needs and future Navy capabilities. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

61153N for basic research in nanoscience and nanomaterials. 

One megawatt molten carbonate fuel cell demonstrator 

The budget request contained $1.5 million in PE 63724N for advanced component development and prototyping for the Navy energy program. No funds were requested for the development and 

demonstration of a one megawatt molten carbonate fuel cell. 

The committee notes that reliable, grid-independent and environmentally ‘‘clean’’ power plants would provide many advantages for 

Department of Defense use. The ability of such power plants to 

generate electricity independent from the local electrical utilities 

would enhance base security by satisfying the critical military need 

of providing uninterruptible electrical service. 

The committee recommends $7.5 million in PE 63724N, an increase of $6.0 million for the development and demonstration of a 

one megawatt molten carbonate fuel cell. 

Open architecture warfare systems 

The budget request contained $48.2 million in PE 64755N for 

ship self defense (detect and control) system development and demonstration. 

The committee notes that open architecture warfare systems support the Navy’s top priority of modernizing warfighting capabilities 

to meet the concepts described in Sea Power 21 and that open architecture is the technology enabler that supports the Navy’s 

FORCEnet and joint interoperability. Established in a commercially based computing environment, open architecture provides the 

common internet protocol technology base that will be critical to 

the seamless interchange of information among elements of the 

Navy’s battle management command and control systems and the 

operational and planning capabilities required to make networkcentric warfare effective. 

188 

The Navy has identified a requirement for $21.8 million in fiscal 

year 2005 to fully fund the implementation of open architecture 

and establish a single functional information architecture for Navy 

surface forces. The committee notes that providing these funds in 

fiscal year 2005 would complete the engineering effort to modernize 

and report the software for Ship Self Defense System Mark 2 

(SSDS MK 2) combat system applications and comply with the required technical and functional system design standards that are 

the necessary precursors for implementing the single integrated 

operational picture. 

The committee recommends an increase of $21.8 million in PE 

64755N for the Navy’s unfunded requirement for open architecture 

systems development. 

Open architecture wireless sensors 

The budget request contained $9.3 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 $3.0 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 transplant technology 

The budget request contained $16.7 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 

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. The committee notes the continuing progress in the 

clinical trials 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 $4.0 million in PE 

63729N to continue the organ transfer technology clinical trials 

program. 

189 

Project M 

The budget request contained $82.1 million in PE 63123N for 

force protection advanced technology development. No funds were 

included for continuation of Project M. 

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. The committee is aware that at-sea tests of the 

technology are scheduled for the summer of 2004. 

The committee also notes the application of Project M technology 

to reduce the magnetic signature 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. 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 report on H.R. 1588 (H. Rept. 108–106) directed 

the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander, Special Operations 

Command, to report to the congressional defense committees on 

plans for transition of Project M shock reduction technology to potential operational use, and the Secretary to report Department of 

the Navy plans for further development, evaluation, and exploitation of Project M technology for magnetic signature reduction. 

The committee expects the results of the shock-mitigation at-sea 

trials to be included in the report. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63123N to continue the development and demonstration of Project 

M technology. 

Rapid deployment fortification wall 

The budget request contained $58.2 million in PE 63640M for 

Marine Corps advanced technology demonstration. No funds were 

requested to continue the development and evaluation of the rapid 

deployment fortification wall. 

In the fiscal year 2004 budget the committee initiated a program 

for development and evaluation of a rapid deployment fortification 

wall (RDFW) which would provide a significantly faster means for 

force protection than the use of sand bags. The RDFW has been selected for force protection evaluation at Lackland Air Force Base, 

Texas. The committee is informed that additional funding for the 

evaluation would permit its evaluation as a vehicular barrier and 

a more comprehensive evaluation of the speed of installation, labor 

savings, construction, and structural integrity, and innovative uses 

of the RDFW. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 

63640M to continue evaluation of the RDFW. 

Real-time precision targeting radar 

The budget request contained $44.0 million in PE 63271N for 

radio frequency systems advanced technology development. No 

funds were requested for the AN/APY–6 radar. 

190 

The committee notes the Navy’s operational requirement for reducing the targeting cycle for engaging time-critical mobile targets 

and enhancing the ability to detect, locate and strike these targets 

in all weather conditions. The committee also notes as a part of the 

future naval capabilities program that the Office of Naval Research 

is developing the AN/APY–6 multi-mode, high-resolution surveillance radar as a real-time precision targeting radar for all-weather 

surveillance, detection and location of such targets. The objective of 

the program is to provide the warfighter with a lightweight, lowcost, high-resolution radar, with synthetic aperture radar and 

ground moving target indicator capability for use in both manned 

and unmanned platforms for reconnaissance, surveillance, and targeting. The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

63271N for continuation of the development and demonstration of 

the AN/APY–6 real-time precision targeting radar. 

Reduced risk ordnance 

The budget request contained $10.8 million in PE 63216N for 

aviation survivability advanced component development and prototyping, including $1.2 million for aircrew and ordnance safety. 

The committee notes that current submunitions in naval weapon 

systems use fuzes that have reliabilities in the range of 90 to 94 

percent. As a result, a significant number of deployed submunitions 

fail to detonate and become unexploded ordnance that pose a safety 

hazard to warfighters who might encounter the unexploded submunitions on the battlefield, to technicians who must clear the battlefield, and to civilians who might come upon them accidentally. 

The committee notes that in the past, highly reliable fuzes have 

been too expensive for use in submunitions. However, new technologies are being developed for all-electronic fuzes that would 

have a much higher reliability (approximately 99 percent) and 

could be produced at a cost that would make such fuzes affordable 

for use in submunitions. 

The committee recommends $13.8 million in PE 63216N, an increase of $3.0 million for development and demonstration of highly 

reliable, all-electronic fuzes for use in submunitions. 

Remote ocean surveillance system 

The budget request contained $44.0 million in PE 63271N for 

radio frequency systems advanced technology development. 

The committee notes continued progress in the development of 

high contrast, high resolution multi-spectral sensors and image 

processing technology that indicates 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 to provide real-time capabilities for mine detection and avoidance, force 

protection, and identification and dissemination of information on 

the surface and sub-surface threat to ports and harbors. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

63271N to continue the proof-of-concept development and demonstration of multi-spectral sensor and image processing technology 

for a remote ocean surveillance system. 

191 

Ship system component development 

The budget request contained $19.0 million in PE 63513N for 

ship system component advanced technology development and 

prototyping. 

The committee notes that with the integration of advanced power 

systems into future combat ships there is a need to address the 

manufacturing methods and process technology that will improve 

the manufacturability and affordability of advanced solid state 

power electronics systems early in the development cycle. This effort should begin with the manufacturing methods and processes 

for high density advanced motors, solid-state switches, distribution 

systems, and other power electronics systems that will be used in 

the DD(X) multi-mission destroyer. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

63513N for development and demonstration of improvements in 

manufacturing methods and process technology for high power 

switches and conversion equipment that will be used in the DD(X) 

program. 

Spectral beam combining fiber lasers 

The budget request contained $44.0 million in PE 63271N for 

radio frequency systems advanced technology development. 

The committee notes that high power lasers based on fiber laser 

technology might be capable of providing U.S. armed forces the 

same operational advantages as solid-state lasers, but could offer 

potential breakthroughs in reduced size, weight, complexity, and 

cooling requirements. The committee is informed that recently 

demonstrated technology for spectral beam combining fiber lasers, 

in which the outputs of a number of low power fiber optic lasers 

are combined into a single, high quality laser beam, could permit 

the construction of high power lasers from an array of lower power 

fiber laser elements at a significantly lower cost than conventional 

high power lasers. 

The committee recommends an increase of $1.5 million in PE 

63271N for advanced development and evaluation of the technology 

for spectral beam combining fiber lasers. 

Submarine payloads and sensors program 

The budget request contained $81.2 million in PE 63561N, for 

advanced submarine systems development. 

The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research 

Project Agency/Navy submarine payloads and sensors program resulted in the development of a number of innovative, but realistic 

payload, sensor, and platform concepts that would enable a revolutionary expansion of capabilities and allow the submarine (Virginia 

Class and SSGN) to play a more decisive role in joint force operations, especially in the ability to exert greater influence over 

events on shore. 

The committee recommends and increase of $10.0 million in PE 

63561N to continue the program for continued development and 

demonstration of advanced submarine payloads and sensor capabilities. 

192 

Superconducting direct current homopolar motor 

The budget request contained $82.1 million in PE 63123N for force protection advanced technology development, including $42.7 

million for advanced development of surface ship and submarine 

hull, mechanical, and electrical systems, of which $5.0 million 

would continue the development and demonstration of an advanced 

main propulsion 36.5 megawatt prototype superconducting direct 

current (DC) homopolar motor. 

The development of component technologies for the all-electric 

warship is one of the major goals of the Navy’s science and technology program. The committee also notes that low temperature 

superconducting DC homopolar motor technology has the potential 

technical advantages of being smaller, lighter, and quieter than alternating current (AC) electric motors, and, if realized, would make 

the superconducting DC homopolar motor a potentially more suitable alternative for use in submarines or in other ship applications 

where these attributes are desired. 

The committee recommends an increase of $9.2 million in PE 

63123N to continue the program for development of a 26.5 megawatt prototype superconducting DC homopolar motor for ship main 

propulsion. 

Tactical E-field buoy development 

The budget request contained $4.5 million in PE 63254N for advanced component development and prototypes for anti-submarine 

warfare systems, including the continued development and evaluation of nonlinear dynamics and stochastic resonance (NDSR) for 

acoustic, magnetic, and other anti-submarine warfare sensor and 

signal processing applications. 

The committee notes the continuing progress in the application 

of nonlinear dynamics science and technology to non-acoustic shallow water anti-submarine warfare and the potential for greatly improving anti-submarine warfare systems performance as a result of 

significantly increased electromagnetic detection ranges, enhanced 

sonar target discrimination, and improved signal processing. One 

result of this program has been the establishment of the effectiveness of E-field sensors using state-of-the-art sensor technology coupled with nonlinear signal processing. The committee believes that 

an air-launched tactical E-field buoy patterned after the Air Deployed Active Receiver sonobuoy has great potential for real-time 

target detection and classification. The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63254N to continue the program for accelerated component and 

prototype design, development, and laboratory and at-sea testing of 

a tactical E-field buoy for littoral anti-submarine warfare. 

Task force anti-submarine warfare 

The budget request contained $17.6 million in PE 63553N for 

surface anti-submarine warfare (ASW). 

Task Force Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) was established in 

2003 at the direction of the Chief of Naval Operations to examine 

fleet shortcomings in anti-submarine warfare operational capabilities and recommend improvements in technology, operational concepts, and training techniques. The program focuses on fundamentally changing the way ASW is conducted, to render enemy subVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00216 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
193 

marines impotent against United States and coalition forces. According to the Navy, changing the calculus of antisubmarine warfare will require developing off-board and distributed systems, 

minimizing force-on-force engagements, reducing the time required 

to conduct an ASW engagement, and supporting rapid maneuver of 

ASW forces. 

The committee notes that the Navy plans a multi-level trials program for development of active-passive distributed sensor systems 

and promising technologies proposed by industry. Two at-sea experiments are planned that would employ active-passive distributed sensor systems to test hardware concepts, evaluate candidate 

software algorithms, and collect the data required for further software development. The plan also includes advanced development of 

a minimum of two promising industry-proposed technologies. The 

program has been established as one of the Chief of Naval Operations highest priority unfunded requirements. The committee recommends an increase of $16.6 million in PE 

63553N for Task Force ASW multi-level trials for technical and 

operational evaluation of developmental ASW systems and concepts 

of operation. 

Theater undersea warfare initiative 

The budget request contained $60.1 million in PE 62235N for 

common picture applied research. No funds were requested to continue the theater undersea warfare initiative. 

The committee notes that Congress has added a total of $14.5 

million in fiscal years 2003 and 2004 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. The program utilizes the High Performance Computing Center in Maui, Hawaii, to support networkcentric undersea warfare (USW) and as a repository for tactical environmental data services; the oceanographic and atmospheric master library, and sensor and platform data bases. The committee 

notes that over the long term the Office of Naval Research intends 

to use the program to provide enhanced USW capabilities to the 

fleet and to transfer the technology developed in the program to 

USW support activities. 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 

62235N to continue the theater undersea warfare initiative. 

Ultrasonic detection equipment 

The budget request contained $19.0 million in PE 63513N for 

shipboard system component advanced technology development and 

prototyping. 

The committee notes the recently completed shipboard demonstration of a commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) ultrasonic tester 

aboard the USS Gunston Hall that evaluated the effectiveness and 

the practicality of inexpensive ultrasonic testers to assess the material condition of specific shipboard components and equipment. 

Areas examined during the demonstration included watertight door 

integrity, fluid systems leakage, valve leak-by identification, compartment integrity inspections, gear-train and bearing inspections, 

faulty electrical component identification, and rotating machinery 

194 

integrity. The results of the demonstration indicated that the use 

of relatively inexpensive, COTS ultrasonic testers as a diagnostic 

tool to assist sailors in conducting periodic maintenance is practical 

and cost-effective, and supports the implementation of conditionbased maintenance in the surface fleet. Based on the results of the 

test, the committee recommends the adoption of such testers for 

use in the fleet. 

The committee recommends an increase of $2.5 million in PE 

63513N for fielding and evaluation of COTS ultrasonic testers for 

use by the fleet. 

VH–XX executive helicopter development 

The budget request contained $777.4 million for the VH–XX executive development program, a program that is developing a replacement for the VH–3D helicopter. 

The committee notes that the Department of the Navy has delayed the decision to enter the system design and development 

(SDD) phase of the VH–XX program from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal 

year 2005, and understands that the VH–XX program SDD phase 

would select one helicopter manufacturer to develop and produce 

the VH–XX helicopter. The committee further understands that 

this decision resulted principally from the awareness of the complexities in equipping helicopter commercial variants with the communication systems required to perform the VH–XX mission. While 

the committee commends the Department for taking the additional 

time necessary to further refine requirements and to conduct design and integration planning, it notes that the budget planned for 

both fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 assumed that the VH– XX SDD program would begin in the third quarter of fiscal year 

2004. Since the committee believes that the VH–XX SDD program 

will not begin until at least the second quarter of fiscal year 2005, 

it also believes that $26.0 million in fiscal year 2004 appropriations 

can be applied to fiscal year 2005 requirements and that $194.0 requested for fiscal year 2005 exceeds requirements. 

Consequently, the committee recommends $557.4 million for the 

VH–XX executive helicopter development program, a decrease of 

$220.0 million. 

Virginia class multi-mission modules 

The budget request contained $143.2 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 continues to lend 

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 an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

64558N to continue the program for evaluation of modular payload 

concepts and multi-mission modules for Virginia class submarine 

variants that would increase payload capacity and mission capability. 

195 

Virtual at-sea training initiative 

The budget request contained $61.1 million in PE 63236N for 

warfighter sustainment advanced technology development. 

In view of recent reductions in the number of available naval 

live-fire training ranges, the committee recognizes the benefit of 

the Department of the Navy’s program to develop a technological 

solution to maintain fleet readiness in the area of live fire targeting 

and ordnance delivery. The Office of Naval Research’s Virtual-atSea-Training (VAST) initiative is an encouraging technology solution for solving the problem of maintaining readiness despite the 

reduction in live fire training ranges. The committee, therefore, 

supports the Navy’s continued development of VAST by the Office 

of Naval Research for transition into a Department of Defense acquisition program. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

63236N for continued development of the VAST initiative. 

Wide band gap semiconductor power electronics 

The budget request contained $46.3 million in PE 62712E and 

$3.5 million in PE 62271N for applied research in wide band gap 

semiconductor electronics and wide band gap semiconductor electronic devices. Section 212 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107) requires 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 notes the progress in the development of silicon 

carbide and other wide band gap materials in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency program and in the Navy program and the potential for transition of the materials technology 

to applications in advanced power and high frequency semiconductor devices. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

62271N for wide band gap semiconductor power electronics applied 

research. 

AIR FORCE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $21,114.7 million for Air Force research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). 

The committee recommends $21,528.0 million, an increase of 

$413.3 million to the budget request. 

196 

197 

198 

199 

200 

201 

202 

203 

204 

205 

206 

Items of Special Interest 

Advanced vehicle and propulsion center and engineering research 

lab equipment upgrade 

The budget request contained $92.7 million in PE 62203F for 

aerospace propulsion, but contained no funds for the advanced vehicle and propulsion center and engineering research lab oratory 

equipment upgrade. 

The committee recognizes the value added to Air Force Space 

Command projects through the Air Force Research Laboratory’s effort to merge modeling and simulation capabilities with advanced 

technologies involving the advanced vehicle and propulsion center. 

Additionally, the committee notes the need to upgrade propulsion 

laboratory equipment to support the exploration of emerging technologies. 

The committee recommends increases of $8.5 million in PE 

62203F for the advanced vehicle and propulsion center and $1.0 

million for the engineering research lab equipment upgrade. 

Advanced wideband signals intelligence geo-processor 

The budget request contained $13.3 million in PE 35207F, but 

contained no funding for the advanced wideband processor and 

high frequency geo-processor (AWP/HGP). 

The committee notes that our asymmetrical adversaries are more 

commonly using widely available high-technology communications 

for command and control networks. Airborne collectors are experiencing an increasing challenge in collecting these types of low probability of intercept (LPI)/ low probability or detection (LPD) signals 

in a dense co-channel environment with rapid geolocation capability. The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) has developed a 

promising technology that enables signals intelligence collection 

suites to collect against these signals and provide real-time geo-coordinates of these signals. Flight testing is being conducted and follow-on field testing needs to be accomplished with subsequent integration of this capability into an operational intelligence collector 

such as the RC–135. 

Therefore the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million 

in PE 35207F for the AWP/HGP project for the RC–135 aircraft. 

B–2 development 

The budget request contained $245.0 million in PE 64240F for 

B–2 system development, but included no funds to develop the extremely high frequency (EHF) satellite communications (SATCOM) 

system, or for a global strike capabilities initiative (GSCI). The B–

2 is the Department of Defense’s most advanced long-range strike 

aircraft, capable of global force projection in a highly defended target environment. 

The EHF SATCOM system is being developed to provide high 

bandwidth communications for both nuclear and conventional B–2 

missions. The committee notes that the Congress appropriated 

$12.6 million in fiscal year 2004 for this system, understands that 

$24.0 million is required in fiscal year 2005 to complete EHF 

SATCOM development. Therefore, the committee recommends an 

increase of $24.0 million for the EHF SATCOM system. 

207 

The GSCI would incrementally upgrade B–2 aircraft with capabilities that address warfighting gaps identified by the Air Force 

and Joint Force Commanders. For fiscal year 2005, the committee 

understands that the most urgent capabilities required through the 

GSCI would include: defensive management system processor upgrades; integrated avionics block development to address deficiencies in the standby flight instruments; Link 16 information exchange between B–2 and other aircraft, and flight management 

control processor software; and global air traffic management system upgrades. Additionally, the committee understands that the 

GSCI for fiscal year 2005 would begin development of small diameter bomb (SDB) integration on the B–2, and expects that this effort 

would eventually provide the B–2 with a capability to deliver 160 

to 240 SDBs. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase 

of $74.0 million for the GSCI, and expects that $13.0 million would 

upgrade the defensive management system, $51.0 million would develop an integrated avionics block upgrade, and $10.0 million 

would provide for SDB design concepts and program planning necessary to implement an SDB development and integration program. 

In total, the committee recommends $343.0 million for B–2 system development, an increase of $98.0 million. 

Blue MAJIC 

The budget request contained $35.4 million in PE 64855F for 

operationally responsive launch, but included no funding for Blue 

MAJIC. 

The committee understands the importance of blue force tracking 

in the effort to reduce fratricide and increase force protection. The 

committee recognizes Blue MAJIC would provide the field commander a significant tool to improve blue force tracking. The committee also realizes that Blue MAJIC will pursue a strategy that 

furthers the employment of responsive launch and integrates current technology into operations. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

64855F for Blue MAJIC. 

Cobra Ball 

The budget request contained $13.3 million in PE 35207F for the 

manned reconnaissance system, but contained no funds for Cobra 

Ball. 

The committee notes Cobra Ball’s ability to exploit unused spectral data content and its increased sensitivity and accuracy in the 

medium wave infrared spectrum and believes it necessary to accelerate this effort. 

The committee recommends an increase of $7.5 million in PE 

35207F for Cobra Ball. 

Combat optical receiver for smart and loitering standoff weapons 

The budget request included $78.8 million in PE 62204F for aerospace sensors. 

The committee directs that $2.0 million be made available within 

funds authorized for PE 62204F for the combat optical receiver for 

smart and loitering standoff weapons. 

208 

Collaborative information technologies 

The budget request included $5.3 million in PE 62702F, project 

4917, for collaborative information technologies to develop emerging technologies for the next generation of distributed, collaborative 

command and control systems. 

The committee recommends an additional $4.5 million in PE 

62702F, project 4917, to develop an initial operational capability 

for application of collaborative information technologies to joint and 

Air Force capability planning, technology assessment, and enterprise management activities. 

Common aero vehicle 

The budget request contained $21.6 million in PE 64856F for the 

Common Aero Vehicle (CAV). 

The committee is aware that additional funding is required to 

complete CAV analysis; ensure validation of system components 

and operational capabilities; fund launch vehicle procurement; and 

provides flight test planning and range safety support. 

The committee recommends $33.6 million in PE 64856F, an increase of $12.0 million for CAV. 

Defensive electro-optical tracker countermeasures technologies 

The budget request included $12.4 million in PE 63270F to develop and demonstrate advanced warning and countermeasures 

technologies to negate electro-optical, infrared, and laser threats to 

aerospace platforms. 

The committee recommends an additional $6.0 million in PE 

63270F to increase the technology readiness levels to accelerate 

transition of this capability to system development and demonstration. 

Distributed mission interoperability toolkit 

The budget request contained $300,000 in PE 64740F for integrated command and control applications, which includes the Distributed Mission Interoperability Toolkit (DMIT) program. 

The committee notes that the DMIT is a suite of tools that enable an enterprise architecture for on-demand, trusted, interoperability among mission-oriented command, control, communications, 

computers, and intelligence (C4I) systems based on lessons learned 

from Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

The committee notes that this program leverages best practices 

from the commercial sector to positively impact the Department of 

Defense’s C4I programs through the use of open architectures, existing and emerging web standards, and state-of-the-art technologies. The committee believes DMIT will enable rapid and 

adaptive integration between legacy and new information systems. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $6.3 million in PE 

64740F, an increase of $6.0 million. 

Enterprise availability and cost optimization system 

The budget request contained $15.7 million in PE 65011F for development of products and services to improve the performance of 

aging aircraft systems but included no funds for the enterprise 

availability and cost optimization system (EACOS). 

209 

The committee understands that the program offices supporting 

aging aircraft systems are each generating their own criteria and 

processes for identifying enhancements and measuring success. The 

committee further understands that, as a result of this situation, 

common problems are being addressed and resolved multiple times 

in dissimilar manners, and believes that the EACOS, can standardize this process and result in the identification of common solutions. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 65011F. 

F–15C/D active electronically scanned array radar 

The budget request contained $115.2 million in PE 27134F for F– 15 development programs, but included no funds for the F–15C/D 

active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. 

The F–15C/D AESA radar, also known as the APG–63(V) 3 

radar, would replace the current APG–63(V) 1 radar, and provide 

a five hundred percent improvement in reliability while reducing 

the APG–63(V)1’s mobility requirements by eight hundred percent. 

The committee understands that the F–15C/D AESA radar would 

also provide significant operational improvements and notes that 

the Air Force Chief of Staff has included the F–15C/D AESA as his 

highest unfunded priority for fiscal year 2005. Consequently, the committee recommends $132.4 million in PE 27134F, an increase of $17.2 million for F–15C/D AESA radar. 

Global Hawk United States Southern Command demonstration 

The budget request contained $336.2 million in PE 35220F for 

the Air Force Global Hawk high altitude endurance, unmanned 

aerial vehicle (HAE/UAV) program. 

The committee notes that section 221 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act of 2001 (Public Law 106–398) directed the Secretary of Defense to require and coordinate a concept demonstration of the Global Hawk HAE/UAV. The purpose of the demonstration was to demonstrate the capability of the Global Hawk to operate in an airborne surveillance mode, using available, non-developmental technology in a counter-drug surveillance scenario designed 

to replicate actual conditions typically encountered in the performance of the counter-drug surveillance mission of the U.S. Southern 

Command. 

The committee believes the Department has not met the requirements of this congressionally directed action. 

The committee has received the Air Force January 28, 2004, 

memorandum that states the directive will be met by utilizing the 

HAE/UAVs existing ground target moving indicator (GMTI) with 

surface search modes. The committee notes that the specific intent 

of section 221, is to provide an airborne air surveillance alternative 

for U.S. Southern Command through a concept demonstration performed under actual conditions of counter-drug airborne surveillance missions. Additionally, the committee notes that the authorized funds were to also pursue the initiation of concurrent development of an improved surveillance radar, such as an airborne moving target indicator (AMTI) capability, for this purpose. 

The committee has determined that the Air Force’s present plan 

does not meet the mandated objective contained in section 221. The 

210 

committee suspects the Air Force used the $18.0 million set aside 

in 2001 for the counter-drug demonstration to meet other requirements of the Global Hawk development program. The committee 

concludes that $18.0 million of Global Hawk requirements, as presented in the 2005 budget request, have been met through the use 

of the funds set aside for the counter-drug demonstration, and 

therefore has reduced funds for Global Hawk requirements accordingly. 

The committee directs, once again, the Secretary of Defense to 

conduct a long endurance air-to-air radar surveillance mission concept demonstration of the Global Hawk HAE/UAV that meets the 

congressional intent of section 221 of Public Law 106–945. 

The committee recommends $318.2 million in PE 35220F, a reduction of $18.0 million based on the failure of the Department to 

conduct a demonstration of the Global Hawk UAV for the Southern 

Command’s airborne surveillance concept demonstration for the 

drug-interdiction mission. 

Global positioning system 

The budget request contained $148.3 million in PE 35165F for the global positioning system, including $40.6 million for the global 

positioning system block III (GPS III). 

Lessons learned from recent operations have confirmed the value 

of precision guided munitions in warfare. The committee understands this success relies greatly on the support provided by GPS. 

Development of GPS III would enhance accuracy, availability and 

anti-jam capability, while reducing system life-cycle costs. The committee strongly supports this development effort, but is concerned 

that the first launch, scheduled for fiscal year 2012, is unnecessarily delayed. The committee recommends acceleration of block III 

satellites consistent with program priorities. 

The committee recommends the budget request. 

High accuracy network determination system 

The budget request contained $6.3 million in PE 63444F for the 

Maui space surveillance system, but included no money for the 

High Accuracy Network Determination System (HANDS). 

The committee recognizes that HANDS would reduce the potential for collisions of space assets by reducing errors in the current 

space-object maintenance catalog. 

The committee recommends $16.3 million in PE 63444F, an increase of $10.0 million for HANDS. 

Identification of time critical targets 

The budget request included $28.5 million in PE 63789F for 

Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence (C3I), including $5.4 million to develop and demonstrate advanced data and information fusion capabilities for identification of time critical targets (targets under trees). 

The committee supports the need for enhanced fusion of intelligence data. Increased funding in fiscal year 2005 would permit 

the demonstration of fusion technologies for continuous tracking of 

time critical targets and track continuity to provide more accurate 

common operational pictures through the use of the Distributed 

Common Ground System. 

211 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63789F for data fusion technologies enabling identification of time critical targets. 

Integrated cooling and power system magnetic bearing technology 

The budget request included $92.7 million in PE 62203F for 

Aerospace Propulsion Systems, including $2.2 million to continue 

development of advanced bearing concepts for turbine engine applications. 

Advanced avionics, electronic warfare systems, and radars in 

new and upgraded tactical aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles 

provide significantly increased capability, but demand advanced solutions to meet power and cooling requirements. One enabling technology to meet these requirements is a magnetic bearing turbo-generator. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 62203F for integrated cooling and power system magnetic bearing technology. 

Integrated control for autonomous space systems 

The budget request contained $88.9 million in PE 62601F for 

space technology, but contained no funds for integrated control for 

autonomous space systems (ICASS). 

The committee notes that ICASS is intended to provide advanced 

satellite control and measurement technologies. The committee realizes ICASS has the potential to greatly expand the Department 

of Defense capability to deploy and control super-compact structures. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

62601F for the development of ICASS. 

Intelligent free space optical satellite communication node 

The budget request contained $60.1 million in PE 63401F for advanced spacecraft technology, but contained no funds for the intelligent free space optical satellite communication node. 

The committee is concerned about the development risk of the 

transformational communications architecture and notes that any 

laser-based satellite communication system will also require a 

radio-frequency (RF) capability. The committee believes additional 

risk-mitigation development is warranted for RF and laser-capable 

routers and low-cost adaptive switching. 

The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

63401F to develop an intelligent free space optical communications 

node. 

Joint surveillance target attack radar system blue force tracking 

and combat identification 

The procurement budget request contained $45.3 million for various E–8C joint surveillance target attack radar system (JSTARS) 

modifications, but included no funds for the blue force tracking and 

combat identification (CID) upgrade. Additionally, the research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) budget request contained 

$89.2 for JSTARS development, but also included no funds to develop the JSTARS blue force CID. 

212 

The committee understands that, as a result of Operation Iraqi 

Freedom, the Department of the Air Force has identified critical 

needs to prosecute mobile targets; provide a common operating picture of friendly and enemy forces to warfighting decision makers; 

and accurately distinguish between friendly and enemy forces. The 

committee also understands that the JSTARS blue force tracking 

and CID upgrades would network friendly forces in real time with 

the JSTARS E–8C aircraft in all weather conditions to address 

these critical needs. 

Consequently, the committee recommends $55.3 million for E–8C 

procurement modifications, an increase of $10.0 million for the 

JSTARS blue force tracking and CID upgrade; and $100.2 million 

in PE 27581F, an increase of $11.0 million to develop the JSTARS 

blue force combat tracking and CID components. 

KC–10 global air traffic management development 

The budget request contained $18.5 million in PE 41219F for the 

KC–10 global air traffic management (GATM) development program. 

The KC–10 GATM program is an engineering and manufacturing 

development (EMD) program that would improve the navigation 

and communication systems used on KC–10 aircraft. Subsequent to 

submission of the budget request, the Department of the Air Force 

canceled the GATM development program due to cost increases. As 

a result of this decision, the Department informed the committee 

that it would prefer to transfer these funds into the procurement 

appropriation to acquire, among other systems, two flight training 

devices for $7.8 million and a high-frequency data link for $1.2 million. While the committee supports the procurement of flight training devices and communication systems, it believes that existing 

flight training devices are adequate to meet requirements and that 

the high-frequency data link can be deferred until fiscal year 2006. Consequently, the committee recommends $9.4 million in PE 41219F, a decrease of $9.1 million, for the KC–10 GATM development program. 

Lightweight modular support jammer 

The budget request included $28.3 million in PE 63270F for electronic combat technology, including $12.4 million for electro-optical, 

infrared warning and countermeasures technology. 

Countering the threat posed by infrared missiles remains a high 

priority for the military services. The lightweight modular support 

jammer (LMSJ) provides a scalable, open architecture, digital receiver and jammer capability for multiple electronic warfare programs and platforms. Additional funding would permit the integration of LMSJ with the Advanced Threat Alert and Response receiver and accelerated testing of the end-to-end system concept. 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 

63270F for LMSJ. 

Metals affordability 

The budget request included $34.3 million in PE 63112F for advanced materials for weapon systems. 

The committee supports the continued government-industry collaboration provided through the Metals Affordability Initiative, proVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00236 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
213 

viding significant improvements in the manufacturing of specialty 

metals for aerospace applications for the private and government 

sectors of the aerospace industry. 

The committee recommends an additional $14.0 million in PE 

63112F for the Metals Affordability Initiative. 

Next generation bomber program 

The budget request contained no funds in PE 64015F for the 

next generation bomber program. 

In the committee report on H.R. 1588 (H. Rept. 108–106) for fiscal year 2004, the committee noted both the increasing age of the 

Department of the Air Force’s B–52 bomber fleet and existing plans 

to begin a next generation bomber program between the years of 

2012 to 2015. The committee concluded that Air Force deferral of 

a next generation bomber program to 2012 to 2015 would be too 

late to assure a sufficient bomber force structure to meet future requirements for long-range strike in light of the prospect that future 

basing for shorter range aircraft may not be assured. Consequently, 

the committee recommended an increase of $100.0 million for this 

purpose and notes that $45.0 million was appropriated. However, 

the committee is dismayed that budget justification documents accompanying the fiscal year 2005 budget request reveal that these 

funds would be used to develop, mature and study integration of 

next generation style technologies with the existing bomber fleet, 

rather than beginning a next generation bomber program that 

would develop, and eventually procure, new bomber aircraft to 

meet future long range strike requirements. 

For fiscal year 2005, the committee notes that, despite its expectation that the Department of the Air Force would begin a program 

to develop and procure a next generation bomber beginning in fiscal year 2004, the Department does not include any funds for this 

purpose until fiscal year 2008, with additional funding planned for 

fiscal year 2009. While the committee recognizes that the Department of the Air Force has accelerated its next generation bomber 

plan from the 2012 to 2015 timeframe to fiscal year 2008, the committee remains steadfast in its prior year view that development of 

a next generation bomber aircraft needs to be initiated, since most 

of the Air Force’s bomber fleet consists of 94 B–52 aircraft which 

are now approximately 42 years old. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $100.0 million in PE 

64015F for the next generation bomber program, and strongly 

urges the Department of the Air Force to budget for a next generation bomber program each year in its Future Years Defense Program. 

Operationally responsive launch 

The budget request contained $35.4 million in PE 64855F for 

operationally responsive launch. 

The committee strongly supports an operationally responsive 

launch capability and its objective of developing an affordable, reliable, time responsive launch system, including Scorpius. The committee believes integration of operationally responsive launches 

would greatly increase the speed of delivering critical space capabilities to the warfighter. 

214 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 

64855F for development of an operationally responsive launch capability, including Scorpius. 

Satellite simulation toolkit 

The budget request contained $60.1 million in PE 63401F for advanced spacecraft technology, but contained no funds for integrated 

control for a satellite simulation toolkit (SST). 

SST provides value to the acquisition and development of space 

systems via coherent systems engineering and virtual prototyping. 

The committee is aware of the need to complete development and 

integration of new and legacy models for the full implementation 

of SST based effects. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

63401F for SST. 

Satellite tool kit technical integration concept of operations for tactical satellite 

The budget request contained $88.9 million in PE 62601F for 

space technology, but contained no funds for satellite tool kit technical integration. 

The committee notes that satellite tool kit technical integration 

would provide tactical data to the warfighter indicating when a satellite overflight will occur to allow single pass tasking and 

downlink of time-sensitive surveillance information. This program 

would benefit in-theater warfighters by enabling immediate access 

to tactical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance assets to 

enable the collection and delivery of timely surveillance information to enable battlefield superiority. Additionally, these assets provide surge capability to augment existing national assets or help 

reconstitute space capabilities lost due to enemy action. 

The committee recommends an increase of $4.0 million in PE 

62601F for satellite tool kit technical integration. 

Space-based infrared system 

The budget request included $508.4 million in PE 64441F for development of the space-based infrared system (SBIRS). 

When finally deployed, SBIRS will provide improved early-warning capabilities and technical intelligence. The committee notes 

that the SBIRS program has had persistent cost, schedule and 

technical problems over the last three years of its development. Unexpected technical difficulties on the first SBIRS payload resulted 

in cost overruns and schedule delays. These problems and further 

technical difficulties have in turn resulted in a delay of at least one 

year for the first launch of a SBIRS satellite into geostationary 

orbit. 

The committee notes that the Commander of United States Strategic Command testified to the Strategic Forces Subcommittee in 

February, 2004 that continuation of the SBIRS program is absolutely essential to his command. The committee remains supportive 

of the SBIRS program because of the critical nature of its mission. 

The committee notes the recent technical issues with the geosynchronous sensors and concurs with the recovery plan as presented by the Undersecretary of the Air Force. 

215 

The committee recommends an increase of $35.0 million in PE 

64441F to address the SBIRS budget shortfall, overcome development difficulties and minimize the schedule delay. 

Space-based radar 

The budget request contained $327.7 million in PE 63858F for 

space-based radar (SBR). 

The committee recognizes the benefits SBR will provide through 

a persistent, near real-time, high resolution surveillance capability 

deep into enemy territory and denied areas, benefiting both military and intelligence communities. The committee believes the 

country cannot afford separate SBR systems to address the needs 

of these two communities and, as such, it is imperative to develop 

this system with full support and involvement of the Department 

of Defense and the Intelligence Community (IC). The committee 

strongly urges the Department and the IC to work in a joint manner toward the development of a SBR capability. 

The committee notes unfavorable schedule and cost performance 

of several space system acquisition programs. As a result of this 

trend, the committee recommends a legislative provision (sec. 216) 

affecting the progression to Milestone B for SBR. 

The committee recommends the budget request. 

Space cadre 

The committee is committed to the development of highly skilled 

and knowledgeable professionals to address the acquisition, policy, 

and technology aspects of space necessary to ensure United States 

preeminence in tomorrow’s space environment. The committee is 

aware of the ongoing effort by the Department of Defense to institute the space human capital resources strategy as described in the 

February 2004 report to the congressional defense committees titled, ‘‘Space Human Capital Resources Strategy.’’ The committee notes that this three-phased strategy will initiate 

the development of a professional space cadre. The committee supports this effort and encourages the Secretary of Defense to continue this effort. The committee recommends that the Department 

include in its strategy a thorough review of education, training, 

and the development of a robust, joint space curriculum. 

Space situational awareness initiative 

The budget request contained $161.8 million in PE 35910F for 

Spacetrack, but included no funds for the space situational awareness initiative. 

The committee notes the importance of this upgrade for the future of the counter space mission. Moreover, the committee understands the effort will require nearly eight years to achieve a full 

operational capability and believes it is prudent to initiate this effort immediately. 

The committee recommends $170.8 million in PE 35910F, an increase of $9.0 million for the space situational awareness initiative. 

Streaker small launch vehicle 

The budget request contained $60.1 million in PE 63401F for advanced spacecraft technology, but included no funds for the 

Streaker small launch vehicle (SLV). 

216 

The committee is aware that the Department of Defense desires 

to develop this capability to affordably launch small satellites to 

low earth orbits for a variety of purposes. The committee notes that 

the Streaker SLV has the potential to provide affordable responsive 

launch for small satellites. 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million in PE 

63401F for the Streaker SLV. 

Transformational satellite communications 

The budget request contained $774.8 million in PE 63845F for 

the transformational communications satellite (TSAT) system. 

The General Accounting Office expressed concerns in report 

GAO–04–71R about the immaturity of the TSAT technology and 

the significant engineering challenges facing a laser-based satellite 

communications system. The committee remains concerned that 

the TSAT system is still being driven by an aggressive schedule 

that does not adequately take into account the immaturity of several key enabling technologies and challenging integration issues. 

While the committee supports the goal of TSAT and recognizes 

the modest steps the Air Force has taken to address the concerns 

raised in the committee report on H.R. 1588 (H. Rept. 108–106) 

last year, the committee believes a slower, more realistic schedule 

for this program is warranted. The committee recommends $674.8 million in PE 63845F, a decrease of $100.0 million for the TSAT program. 

Ultra short pulse laser technology 

The budget request contained $36.5 million in PE 62605F for directed energy technology, but included no funding for ultra short 

pulse laser technology. 

The committee is aware that ultra short pulse laser technology 

has the potential to be a breakthrough in size, weight and effectiveness for many applications. The committee recommends $46.5 million in PE 62605F, an increase of $10.0 million for ultra short pulse laser. 

Upper stage engine technology 

The budget request contained $51.1 million in PE 63500F for 

multi-disciplinary space technology, but contained no funds for 

upper stage engine technology. 

Upper stage engine technology supports the Air Force’s goal to 

improve liquid oxygen/hydrogen simulation and forecasting tools. 

The committee recognizes this goal will reduce the risk associated 

with new technology transition into upper stage engines for reusable and expendable launch vehicles. 

The committee recommends $58.1 million in PE 63500F, an increase of $7.0 million for upper stage engine technology. 

Wideband gapfiller system 

The budget request included $73.5 million in PE 63854F and 

$40.3 million in Missile Procurement, Air Force, for the wideband 

gapfiller satellite (WGS) communications system. 

WGS will provide a significant increase in communications bandwidth for warfighters. The committee notes the Air Force’s plan to 

acquire and launch three satellites over the course of fiscal years 

217 

2005 and 2007. The committee also notes plans during fiscal year 

2005 to negotiate a contract to acquire two additional satellites 

that would be launched starting in fiscal year 2009. This plan could 

leave a three-year production gap between the third and fourth satellites, a gap that could increase program risk and cost resulting 

from parts obsolescence, personnel fluctuations, and the potential 

need to re-qualify subcontractors. The committee also notes that 

the Department of Defense supplements its satellite communications network by leasing commercial satellite communications capacity at a cost of about $300.0 million per year. The committee believes that deferring additional military satellite communications 

acquisition may not be cost effective. 

The committee believes that the Air Force decision to proceed 

with WGS acquisition is correct, but the acquisition strategy that 

results in this production gap is not well considered. The committee recommends $88.5 million in PE 63854F, an increase of $15.0 million for additional WGS spare parts. 

Worldwide infrastructure security environment 

The budget request contained $79.6 million in PE 33140F for information security systems programs, but included no funding for 

the worldwide infrastructure security environment (WISE). 

The committee supports this initiative to provide protection and 

response to attacks that exploit our reliance on computers. This 

program will manage the complex interactions between physical access, network access, authentication, monitoring, and environmental controls to provide defense against sophisticated hackers. 

This program also addresses the cyber threat of the year 2010 and 

beyond with a unique approach to protect information on the Global Information Grid through transaction authentication. Accordingly, the committee recommends $87.6 million in PE 33140F, an increase of $8.0 million for WISE. 

DEFENSE-WIDE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $20,739.8 million for Defense-wide 

research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E). 

The committee recommends $20,769.3 million, an increase of 

$29.4 million to the budget request. 

218 

219 

220 

221 

222 

223 

224 

225 

226 

227 

228 

Items of Special Interest 

Accelerating transition and fielding of advanced technologies for 

emerging critical operational needs 

The pace at which new technology moves from the laboratory to 

a fielded system has been an area of continuing concern to the Department of Defense and to Congress. Scaling technology up in size 

and integrating it with other technologies can present problems, 

not identified in the laboratory, that delay a program and/or greatly increase program costs. More emphasis and an increased share 

of the science and technology program have been directed toward 

the use of technology demonstrations and joint experiments to solve 

these problems before beginning an acquisition program and speeding the transition of new technology to operational capabilities the 

user faster and at less cost. 

The transition of technology from discovery and demonstration to 

development and fielding is also difficult because the Department’s 

planning and budgeting process frequently creates a funding gap. 

Revolutionary technologies that ‘‘change minds’’ and ways of doing 

things often occur faster than the present defense budget and the 

appropriations process can respond. Additionally, it is difficult to 

reallocate fiscal funding for a revolutionary technology within current year funding. The institutional process within the Department 

lacks the flexibility at all levels: service laboratory; research; development and engineering center; systems command; military departments, and the defense secretariat—to capitalize on new discoveries in academia or institute, service or national laboratory, large 

industry or small business, and to rapidly develop, demonstrate, 

and transition the new technology to the military user. There are 

a number of initiatives underway to address this problem: the Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration program, the Army’s 

Rapid Fielding Initiative, the congressionally sponsored Technology 

Transition Initiative and the Defense Challenge program. Section 

806 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) requires the Secretary of Defense to prescribe rapid acquisition and deployment procedures. 

Section 1443 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) provides special emergency procurement authority for use in support of contingency operations or 

in response to a nuclear, biological, chemical, or radiological attack. 

During the committee hearing on the Defense science and technology budget request for fiscal year 2005, the Director, Defense 

and Engineering testified about the establishment of the quick reaction special projects program, which he characterized as a flexible continuum of technology transition projects that moves products 

from the Department to the warfighter quickly. 

Many of these initiatives are at an early stage and changes to 

acquisition and budgeting systems to provide the Department with 

greater flexibility to take advantage of rapidly developing technology are slow to be institutionalized. The committee is encouraged by many of the improvements in the rapid fielding of technology to support the war on terrorism, but also recognizes that 

there is much to be done. The committee directs the Secretary of 

Defense to report to the congressional defense committees by December 31, 2004, any additional recommendations for measures to 

229 

accelerate the more rapid transition and fielding of advanced technologies to meet emerging critical needs. 

Advanced metal casting technology 

The budget request contained $27.5 million in PE 78011S, for 

manufacturing technology research and development, including 

$2.3 million for procurement readiness optimization—advanced 

casting technology. 

The committee notes the success of collaborative problem solving 

environments that have been prototyped in several of the military 

services’ engineering support activities, each of which has been custom designed to reflect the needs of the weapons systems and processes used by the military services. The committee also notes the 

development of casting technology for cost reduction, including advances in steel casting, development of a foundry tooling database, 

use of casting software visualization tools to reduce trial and error, 

improvements in melting and molding processes, use of cheaper 

tooling materials for short run production, and other technologies 

for reducing production time. The committee considers these interrelated programs to be of great value to the Department of Defense 

and to the national industrial base as well. 

The committee strongly encourages the Secretary of Defense and 

the secretaries of the military departments to allocate additional 

resources in future budgets for development of further improvements in collaborative problem solving and casting manufacturing 

technologies. 

Advanced sensor applications program 

The budget request contained $17.6 million in PE 63714D8Z for 

the advanced sensor applications program. The committee is concerned that promising projects executed by the Navy’s PMA 264 

program office are appreciably underfunded for special programs 

under development. Therefore, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 63714D8Z for the advanced sensor applications program. 

Additional details are contained in the classified annex to this report. 

Advanced tactical laser program 

The committee supports the efforts across the Department’s 

science and technology community to develop tactically useful directed energy weapons. The committee believes that the attributes 

of such weapons, such as stealth, precision, and minimal collateral 

damage, make high powered laser tactical weapons ideal in the 

fight against terrorism. The committee is concerned, however, that 

the research effort is not directed as precisely as the weapons 

themselves. For example, the committee understands that chemical 

laser systems are the most highly developed high powered lasers, 

but that several efforts are underway to develop more tactically 

feasible solid state high powered laser systems. Given the large 

size of chemical laser systems, the committee believes that the Special Operations Command’s (SOCOM) Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration (ACTD) for the development of a chemical 

laser system for an AC–130 gunship may not lead to a militarily 

useful system before solid state systems mature. 

230 

Accordingly, the committee will continue to carefully monitor the 

SOCOM ACTD, and directs the Secretary of Defense to report to 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services should the military utility assessment for 

the advanced tactical laser be delayed beyond fiscal year 2007. 

Anti-radiation drug and trials program 

The budget request contained $2.1 million in PE 63002D8Z for medical advanced technology development, including $120,000 for 

development of the 5-adrostendiol (5–AED) advanced 

radioprotectant (‘‘anti-radiation’’) drug. 

The committee notes progress in the development of 5–AED, the 

Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute leading candidate 

for a whole body radioprotectant drug compound: pre-clinical safety 

and toxicity assessments, small and large animal trials, and extension of the work to pre-clinical trials in a large animal model have 

been initiated. 

The committee recommends $7.1 million in PE 63002D8Z, an increase of $5.0 million to support final efficacy and human toxicity 

trials of the 5–AED radioprotectant drug. 

Asymmetric protocols for biological defense 

The budget request contained $147.5 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 

agents offer significant challenges to medical treatments that are 

not found in naturally occurring forms. While antibiotics are the 

only approved method for treating anthrax, the 2003 bioterrorist 

anthrax attack in Washington, D.C., 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. 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 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, but also believes that the research 

protocols and results to date should undergo an independent peer 

review. The committee directs the Director of Defense Research 

and Engineering to conduct such a review and report the results 

of the review to the congressional defense committees by December 

31, 2004. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

62383E to continue research in asymmetric protocols that would 

provide broad spectrum protection for biological defense. 

231 

Ballistic missile defense 

The budget request contained $9,200.0 million for ballistic missile defense. 

The committee notes that the budget request reflects an increase 

of $1,500.0 million over the fiscal year 2004 budget request and 

recommends a reallocation of the fiscal year 2005 request to focus 

on near term missile defense capability development and testing. 

The committee recommends $9,023.0 million, a reduction of 

$177.0 million. 

Advanced concepts 

The budget request contained $256.2 million in PE 63879C for 

Advanced Concepts, Evaluations and Systems, an increase of 

$106.0 million from the fiscal year 2005 projection in the fiscal year 

2004 budget request. 

The committee has reservations that such an increase is justified 

or that it can be effectively executed. The committee encourages 

the Department of Defense to focus their advanced concepts work 

on earlier block applications. 

The committee recommends $206.2 million in PE 63879C, a decrease of $50.0 million. 

Boost defense segment 

The budget request contained $492.6 million in PE 63883C for 

boost defense. The committee notes with approval the Department 

of Defense restructuring of the Airborne Laser (ABL) program in 

late 2003. The committee also recognizes that the future of the 

ABL program depends upon successful completion of the ground 

laser test and the flight test of the beam-control fire control system. These milestones must be completed in order for the committee to further support the program after fiscal year 2005. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by February 1, 2005, 

on the status of these two major component tests as well as a recommendation for the future of the program. 

The committee recommends the budget request for boost defense. 

Core 

The budget request contained $479.8 million in PE 63890C for 

system core activities. 

The committee notes that funding for the systems engineering 

and integration effort has increased significantly from fiscal year 

2004. The committee recommends $449.8 million, a decrease of 

$30.0 million. The committee encourages the Director of the Missile 

Defense Agency (MDA) to focus the national team on the near term 

block 2004 and 2006 efforts. 

The committee also understands that development of wide bandwidth technology is critical for the MDA to transmit test data over 

extensive distances in support of the test and evaluation program. 

The committee is encouraged by the recent success of a feasibility 

demonstration of seamless collaboration utilizing mobile satellite 

communications from the Reagan Test Site to the Joint National 

Integration Center. 

232 

Within the funds available, the committee recommends $4.0 million for the development of wide bandwidth technology in support 

of the MDA test program. 

Midcourse defense segment 

The budget request contained $4,384.8 million in PE 63882C for 

the ballistic missile defense (BMD) midcourse defense segment. 

The Navy has previously funded research and development efforts for an S-band radar prototype. Development of a Solid State 

S-Band Radar will support future Aegis BMD system capability. 

The committee recommends $4,414.8 million in PE 63882C, an 

increase of $30.0 million for the development of a Solid State SBand Radar to support Aegis BMD system radar capability. 

Post Ramos Project 

The committee notes that the Department of Defense announced 

its intention to terminate the Russian-American Observation Satellite (RAMOS) program earlier this year. The committee also understands that the Department desires to explore other opportunities for missile defense cooperative programs with the Russian Federation that build upon the experience gained in the RAMOS program. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

63884C to explore future opportunities for missile defense cooperation with the Russian Federation. 

Products 

The budget request contained $418.6 million in PE 63889C for 

products. 

The committee notes that the request represents a $113.0 million 

increase from a fiscal year 2005 projection in the 2004 budget request. The committee also notes that the funding for Command and 

Control, Battle Management and Communications (C2BMC) has 

increased significantly from fiscal year 2004 with C2BMC efforts 

spread across blocks 2004, 2006 and 2008, even though block 2004 

has not undergone full operational testing. While the committee 

supports in principle the concept of spiral development, it also 

notes that development of C2BMC software is complex and that 

successful spirals are grounded in successful testing of an initial 

baseline. 

The committee recommends $358.6 million in PE 63889C, a decrease of $60.0 million and urges the Department of Defense to 

focus C2BMC efforts on near term block requirements. 

Sensors 

The budget request contained $592.0 million in PE 63884C for 

sensors. 

The committee notes that funding in PE 63884C for block 2006 

ballistic missile defense radars has increased by $156.0 million 

from the fiscal year 2004 budget request. 

The committee is concerned with the projected costs of the Forward Deployable Radar (FDR) since the FDR program uses radar 

technology already developed for the Terminal High Altitude Area 

Defense system. 

233 

The committee recommends $536.0 million in PE 63884C, a decrease of $56.0 million for sensors. 

System interceptor 

The budget request contained $511.3 million in PE 63886C for 

system interceptor. The committee notes that the request reflects 

a $360.2 million increase from the fiscal year 2004 authorization. 

The committee supports pursuing the land-based Kinetic Energy 

Interceptor (KEI) in block 2010 as an alternative to the Airborne 

Laser for boost phase defense. However, the committee also notes 

that the request contains funds for block 2012 even though the 

block 2010 effort just started in 2004. The block 2012 program includes options for a sea-based KEI. The block 2012 sea-based element is designed to integrate the block 2010 land-based KEI element into operational sea-based platforms. 

The committee notes that block 2010 will serve as the foundation 

for the block 2012 program and that progress must first be 

achieved in the land-based KEI program prior to beginning work 

in earnest on future sea-based programs. The committee also notes 

that designation of a platform for the sea-based interceptor is dependent upon future decisions on future Navy force structure and 

ship design. At this stage of the KEI program, the committee views 

funding for a sea-based platform option as premature. The committee recommends $436.3 million, a decrease of $75.0 

million for system interceptor. The committee authorizes no funding for sea-based options in block 2012 until 30 days after the Department of Defense has submitted a report to the congressional 

defense committees that contains a Navy-approved plan for future 

force structure and existing ship and/or future ship design requirements to support operational deployment of the sea-based interceptors envisioned for block 2012. 

The committee understands that the boost phase defense element 

is the least mature of the elements within the layered defense. 

Given the importance of intercepting a ballistic missile in the boost 

phase, the committee believes that the Department should be open 

to considering additional options for boost phase defense. The committee notes the speed with which United States and coalition 

forces have established air superiority in recent military operations. The committee is further encouraged by the successful operational demonstration of long duration unmanned aerial vehicles 

(UAVs) such as Global Hawk and the employment of the Predator 

UAV to remotely engage ground targets. 

The committee observes that the Air Force has conducted some 

preliminary studies into the feasibility of using the advanced medium range air-to-air missile launched from tactical aircraft to 

intercept missiles in boost phase ascent. The committee believes 

that tactical aircraft or UAVs may offer an alternate launch platform for air intercept missiles for boost phase defense. 

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 

63886C for assessments and demonstrations related to the use of 

tactical aircraft or UAVs as platforms from which to interdict 

threat ballistic missiles in their boost phase using ‘‘hit-to-kill’’ technologies. The committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to 

provide all required test equipment and logistical support including 

aircraft and range support to facilitate this demonstration. 

234 

Technology 

The budget request contained $204.3 million in PE 63175C for 

ballistic missile defense technology. 

The committee is aware of the requirement for missile defense 

command and control elements to transmit large amounts of data 

to interceptors. The committee recognizes that high density optical 

networks can provide this capability for defense satellite systems. The committee recommends $208.3 million in PE 63175C, an increase of $4.0 million for research into massively parallel optical 

interconnects. 

Terminal defense segment 

The budget request contained $937.7 million in PE 63881C for 

the ballistic missile defense terminal defense segment. 

The committee notes that the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program was negatively impacted by the boost 

motor propellant explosion in 2003. As a result of the explosion, a 

number of block 2004 program activities were deferred. The committee is particularly concerned with the deferral of risk reduction 

activities and schedule delays. The committee recommends $984.7 million in PE 63881C, an increase of $47.0 million to reduce program risks and to prevent 

schedule delays in the THAAD program. 

Business management modernization program 

The budget request contained $94.8 million in PE 65016D8Z for 

research, development, testing and evaluation for the business 

management modernization program (BMMP), a Department-wide 

initiative to transform business processes while standardizing and 

integrating information systems using common, network centric 

processes and portfolio management. 

The committee supports such business transformation initiatives 

that would enable interoperability among financial, accounting, 

human resources, logistics, acquisition, information technology infrastructure, and strategic planning and budgeting systems. In addition, the committee believes the business enterprise architecture, 

once implemented and controlled, will be a good start towards 

achieving this goal. However, the committee has serious concerns 

that the final cost of this program will amount to almost $1.0 billion by fiscal year 2009. Additionally, the committee is also concerned that the enterprise architecture is still incomplete at the 

present time. Furthermore, the Department has yet to devise a 

strategy to monitor the progress of this program or measure the 

program’s development. It remains unclear whether this program 

will meet the Department’s 2007 deadline for providing a clean financial audit opinion. 

The committee notes that the Department’s inability to control 

its business information technology investments has serious implications, including the continuous spending of billions of dollars on 

service-specific or non-interoperable system solutions that do not 

address longstanding business problems. 

Additionally, the committee has serious concerns that this program lacks adequate accountability and management oversight to 

manage the Department’s business system investments of roughly 

$5.0 billion in the fiscal year 2005 budget request. The committee 

235 

believes it is critical that the Department gain more effective control and accountability over its business systems funding and insists on a clear direction and an overarching architecture before 

funding at the level suggested in the budget request is approved. Accordingly, the committee recommends $45.8 million for PE 

65016D8Z for business management modernization, a decrease of 

$49.0 million. 

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

The budget request contained a total of $559.9 million for chemical/biological defense research, development, test, and evaluation, 

including $36.8 million in PE 61384BP for basic research, $104.4 

million in PE 62384BP for applied research, $117.3 million in PE 

63384BP for advanced technology development, $104.2 million in 

PE 63884BP for advanced component development and prototypes, 

$152.4 million in PE 64384BP for system development and demonstration, $42.7 million in PE 65384BP for RDT&E management 

support, and $2.2 million in PE 67384BP for operational systems 

development. The budget request also contained $147.5 million in 

PE 62383E for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 

(DARPA) biological warfare 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 continues to note the wealth of 

new concepts and technologies of varying levels of maturity that 

emerge annually from the nation’s science and technology base. 

The committee recommends the continuation of two chemical and 

biological defense research and development initiatives established 

in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 

(Public Law 108–136), one in the applied research category and one 

in the advanced technology development category, and the establishment of a third initiative in chemical and biological defense 

basic research, 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 

make to the chemical and biological defense capabilities of the 

armed forces and to homeland defense. During its review of the fiscal year 2005 budget request the committee received proposals for 

establishment of a number of projects that the committee recommends be considered for possible funding under the appropriate 

initiative. 

Accelerating the research, development, and acquisition of 

medical countermeasures against biological warfare 

agents 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 

(Public Law 107–107), Congress directed the Secretary of Defense 

to accelerate the Department’s efforts to develop medical countermeasures (licensed by the Food and Drug Administration) against 

biological warfare agents. In addition, Congress directed the SecVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00259 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
236 

retary to contract with the Institute of Medicine and the National 

Research Council (IOM/NRC) for a study of the review and approval process for new medical countermeasures in order to identify new approaches to accelerate that process and to identify methods for ensuring that new countermeasures would be safe and effective. 

IOM/NRC report ‘‘Giving Full Measure to Countermeasures—Addressing Problems in the DOD Program to Develop Medical Countermeasures against Biological Warfare Agents–2004,’’ raises a 

number of issues concerning the current efforts of the Department 

of Defense chemical and biological defense program to produce 

medical biodefense countermeasures. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to review and 

evaluate the IOM/NRC report and to report the results of that review to the congressional defense committees by December 31, 

2004. The Secretary’s report shall contain an analysis of the recommendations made in the IOM/NRC report and the actions 

planned by the Department with respect to each of the recommendations. 

Elsewhere in this report the committee has directed the Secretary of Defense to report to the congressional defense committees 

on the actions taken to implement the authorities granted in Title 

XVI of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 

(Public Law 108–186). The Act provides the authority for the Secretary to establish an enhanced biomedical countermeasures program within the Department to protect members of the Armed 

Forces from attack with chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) agents. The committee has also recommended a provision (section 1005) that would remove funding restrictions on the 

development of medical countermeasures against biological warfare 

threats and enable the Department to respond more effectively to 

the increased threat that could be posed by rapid advances in biotechnology. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to provide to the 

congressional defense committees, with the submission of the fiscal 

year 2006 defense budget request, the Department’s strategic plan 

detailing its response to recommendations contained in the IOM/ 

NRC report: the implementation of the additional authorities 

granted in Title XVI for accelerated research, development; the procurement of advanced biomedical countermeasures; and the repeal 

of funding restrictions on the development of countermeasures 

against biological warfare threats. This plan should provide the 

basis for the development by the Secretary of Defense of a strategic 

plan for the rapid development of biomedical countermeasures for 

protection of members of the Armed Forces against current and future biological agent threats. 

Chemical/biological defense basic research initiative 

The committee recommends that the technologies to be considered for funding under the basic research initiative include, but are 

not limited to the following: 

(1) Engineered pathogen identification and countermeasures 

(‘‘Bug to Drug’’); 

(2) Fluorescence activated sensing technology; and 

(3) Multi-purpose biodefense immunoarray. 

237 

The committee recommends $51.8 million in PE 61384BP, an increase of $15.0 million for the chemical/biological defense basic research 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) Adaptive infrared imaging spectroradiometer-wide areadetector; 

(2) Air containment monitoring technology; 

(3) Automated system for liquid phase detectors of toxic compounds; 

(4) Genomic-based bioterrorism agent detection and countermeasures; 

(5) Heat shock protein vaccine creation process; 

(6) LHA–SAW biosensor prototype development; 

(7) Low cost chemical-biological protective shelters; 

(8) Membrane research for next generation chemical-biological protective suits; 

(9) Mustard gas antidote (STIMAL); 

(10) Rapid anti-body based biological countermeasures; and 

(11) Rapid decontamination system for nerve agents. The committee recommends an increase of $25.0 million in PE 

62384BP 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) Hand-held biological agent detection system; 

(2) Immuno biological/chemical threat agent detector; 

(3) Non-invasive vectored vaccine development; and 

(4) Recombinant protein vaccines. 

The committee recommends $152.3 million in PE 63384BP, an 

increase of $35.0 million for the chemical/biological defense advanced technology development initiative. 

Joint biological point detection system 

The budget request contained $152.4 million in PE 64384BP for 

chemical and biological defense system development and demonstration, including $8.6 million for joint biological point detection 

system (JBPDS) system development and demonstration. 

The committee recommends an increase of $5.0 million in PE 

64384BP for continued product improvement and enhancement of 

the JBPDS. 

Joint service lightweight standoff chemical agent detector 

The budget request contained $152.4 million in PE 64384BP for 

chemical and biological defense system development and demonstration, including $20.1 million for joint service lightweight 

standoff chemical agent detector (JSLSCAD) system development 

and demonstration. 

238 

The committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in PE 

64384BP to continue development and evaluation of the JSLSCAD. 

Connectory for rapid identification of technology resources 

The budget request contained $27.5 million in PE 63712S for generic logistics research and development technology 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 instant access 

to the industrial technology base, permitting rapid identification of 

promising sources of new, creative technical solutions for current 

combat and anti-terrorism problems. The committee recommends an increase of $2.0 million in PE 

63712S for connectory for rapid indentification of technology resources. 

Counter-terrorism technology support 

The combating terrorism technology support program develops 

technology and prototype equipment that address needs and requirements with direct operational application in the national effort to combat terrorism. The program addresses defense, interagency, and international requirements for combating terrorism 

technology. Projects support antiterrorism, counter terrorism, intelligence and terrorism consequence management activities to: conduct tactical operations; protect military forces, civilian personnel, 

installations, infrastructure elements and the general population 

from terrorist attack; detect, neutralize, and mitigate the effect of 

conventional and unconventional devices; conduct surveillance and 

tracking of terrorists; conduct threat and incident assessments; and 

process and disseminate information. 

The committee notes and highly commends the contributions 

made by the Technical Support Working Group (TSWG) in the development, demonstration, and fielding of advanced technologies 

for the fight against terrorism. The committee encourages the 

TSWG to coordinate with counterpart activities within the government of the United Kingdom and the government of Israel to take 

advantage of the experience of their activities in the development 

and fielding of advanced technologies for force protection and for 

combating terrorism. 

In title XV of this report, the committee has recommended an increase of $75.0 million for combating terrorism technology support. 

In addition, the committee directs that, of the funds provided in 

title II of this report for the Defense Advanced Research Projects 

Agency, up to $25.0 million may be made available for the establishment of cooperative programs with the government of the 

United Kingdom and the government of Israel for the development 

of advanced technologies and prototype equipment for combating 

terrorism. The committee further directs the Secretary of Defense 

to give priority consideration to the experience of the government 

of Israel and the government of the United Kingdom in establishing such programs. 

Defense advanced research projects agency 

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has 

been a leader and innovator in basic scientific research and defense 

239 

science and technology for decades. The committee has supported 

ever-increasing funding for DARPA as the only agency not tied to 

a military service mission and the demands of a service budget to 

produce quick results. The committee encourages DARPA to continue to examine the ‘‘far side,’’ and investigate concepts that may 

never come to fruition. 

Nevertheless, DARPA remains a Defense Agency and must be 

closely attuned to real defense requirements. Furthermore, the pursuit of the more futuristic technologies on the ‘‘far side’’ must be 

tempered by the hard fact that we are a nation at war. Our commanders and troops in Iraq have immediate needs for innovative 

technical solutions across a variety of disciplines. The committee 

commends DARPA on its quick reaction support and fielding of advanced innovative technologies to meet emerging critical operational needs of our forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom and elsewhere in support of the global war on terrorism. 

The committee believes, however, that DARPA should redirect 

some of its more futuristic efforts to the solution of today’s combat 

problems. Those immediate needs involving detection, sensing, protection, surveillance and a host of other issues may well be 

‘‘DARPA hard’’ problems that the Agency should be examining, 

rather than some of the more futuristic efforts in the DARPA program. 

The committee recognizes that DARPA receives input from the 

military departments, Joint Staff, combatant commanders, and 

other defense agencies, as the agency leadership builds a program 

to address national-level problems, operational dominance, and exploitation of high-risk, high-payoff technologies. The committee 

commends the director of DARPA for his outreach program and 

operational liaison initiatives. The committee believes, however, 

that increased emphasis needs to be placed on liaison with the 

combatant commanders and directs the director of DARPA to establish continuing contact with engaged combatant commanders to 

determine how DARPA may assist in solving today’s real world 

combat problems, while at the same time continuing promising research into long term creative technologies. In support of these liaison initiatives, the committee strongly recommends that additional 

military billets be assigned to DARPA and that military officers assigned to DARPA be given joint service credit at the completion of 

their tour of duty with the agency. 

Although the committee is pleased with the overall progress in 

the defense science and technology program, the committee believes that increased priority must be given to the nearer-term requirements of the combatant commanders and U.S. armed forces in 

the field. Consequently, the committee makes a series of recommendations for general reductions in DARPA programs: 

[In millions of dollars] 

62301E—Computing systems and 

communications technology ..... (20.0) 

62702E—Tactical technology ........ (10.0) 

62712E—Materials and electronics 

technology ................................ (10.0) 

63285E—Advanced aerospace systems .......................................... (20.0) 

63739E—Advanced electronics 

technology ................................ (5.0) 

240 

63760E—Command, control and 

communications systems ......... (20.0) 

63762E—Sensor and guidance 

technology ................................ (25.0) 

63765E—Classified DARPA programs ........................................ (25.0) 

63766E—Network-centric warfare 

technology ................................ (15.0) 

These recommendations are made without prejudice to the particular account identified. 

Defense science and technology funding 

The budget request contained $10.6 billion for the Department of 

Defense (DOD) science and technology program, including all defense-wide and military service funding for basic research, applied 

research, and advanced technology development. The request included $1.8 billion for the Army, $1.7 billion for the Navy, $1.9 billion for the Air Force, and $5.1 billion for Defense Agency science 

and technology, including $3.1 billion for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). The committee recommends 

$11.1 billion for the Department of Defense science and technology 

program, an increase of $874.0 million to the budget request. The 

committee’s recommendation includes $2.1 billion for the Army, an increase of $304.8 million; $1.8 billion for the Navy, an increase of 

$ 201.7 million; $2.0 billion for the Air Force, an increase of $114.0 

million; and $5.2 billion for Defense agency science and technology, 

an increase of $64.5 million (including $2.9 billion for DARPA, a 

decrease of $204.0 million). Elsewhere in this report the committee 

has recommended a provision (section 214) that would transfer 

funding for the joint experimentation program from the Navy to a 

Defense-wide account. 

The committee regards 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. Adjusted for inflation, the fiscal year 2005 request represents an increase of about $200.0 million, but shows a decline from the fiscal year 2004 appropriation 

of $12.2 billion. The committee notes that the budget request at a 

level of 2.6 percent of the total DOD budget, does not meet the goal 

of 3 percent established by the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review. 

However, the committee received testimony from DOD witnesses 

during the committee hearing on the defense science and technology program that confirmed that the goal for science and technology funding remains 3 percent of the total DOD budget. 

The committee notes that the military departments are responsible for approximately 51 percent of the defense science and technology budget (Army 17 percent, Navy 16 percent, and Air Force 

18 percent) and Defense Agencies account for 49 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 systems that are key to the ability of the individual military departments to achieve their transformation objectives. 

241 

The past year has provided numerous examples of successful 

technology development and deployment. The men and women of 

the U.S. armed forces are better equipped, trained, and protected 

because of revolutionary breakthroughs emerging from the technology base. The committee commends the Department for the response of the Defense science and technology base to the emerging 

critical operational needs in support of the global war on terrorism 

and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Elsewhere in this report the committee has recommended increased funding to further accelerate 

the transition of advanced technologies. 

Despite the positive aspects of the Department’s science and 

technology program, the committee is concerned about long-term 

projections for reductions in DOD science and technology as a percentage of total obligation authority and in short-term trends in the 

science and technology accounts of some of the military departments and defense agencies. The committee cannot emphasize too 

strongly the need for the Department to maintain a strong and 

robustly funded science and technology program that will provide 

the advanced technologies needed to assure technical dominance of 

our armed forces on any current or future battlefield. 

Expanding the role of small businesses in the defense acquisition 

process 

The committee subscribes to the view that small businesses are 

the nation’s engine of technology innovation. The Department of 

Defense (DOD) spends significant sums annually on Phase I and 

Phase II Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) technology development. In many cases, however, successful results of the department’s investment have not been transitioned into the mainstream of system acquisition programs. 

The committee believes that our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and 

marines deserve to have the best tools possible as they wage the 

global war on terrorism. The committee notes the recent Navy-Marine Corps quick-response SBIR solicitation seeking immediate innovative technology approaches for protecting Marines from improvised explosive devices, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars, rockets, 

and missiles during combat. Broader participation by the nation’s 

small business community is needed now to meet emergent DOD 

requirements in support of the global war on terrorism, as well as 

to improve the capability and lower the cost of weapon systems 

through application of advanced technologies developed by small 

businesses. 

The committee strongly endorses the President’s Executive Order 

13329, Encouraging Innovation in Manufacturing, directing that 

SBIR awards involving manufacturing and manufacturing technology be given priority. This is an essential step in broadening the 

defense industrial base and creating new manufacturing capacity 

in the United States. In recent years Congress has clarified SBIR 

Phase III contracting authority and data rights provisions in an attempt to clear the way for the military services to transition promising Phase I and Phase II SBIR technology development efforts to 

the mainstream of defense acquisition. The committee is encouraged by the small cadre of DOD program managers who have effectively transitioned SBIR technology into their programs through 

award of Phase III contracts. The committee believes that strong 

242 

leadership from the Office of the Secretary of Defense is necessary 

in order to ensure that all the benefits from the Department’s significant annual SBIR technology development investment are realized. 

The committee recognizes that an essential element of acquisition reform is the continuing evolution of the acquisition culture in 

the Department by program managers who possess the insight and 

commitment to take advantage of small innovative businesses 

through Phase III transition of SBIR technology. The committee directs that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) encourage DOD acquisition 

program managers and prime contractors to make significantly 

more SBIR Phase III contract awards than has been done in the 

past. The committee further directs the USD (AT&L) to provide a 

report to the congressional defense committees, by March 31, 2005, 

to (1) provide information on DOD SBIR Phase III awards during 

the past three years; (2) describe what action the Office of the Secretary of Defense has taken to encourage DOD acquisition program 

managers to award SBIR Phase III contracts at a higher rate and 

to make award of SBIR Phase III contracts a priority within the 

Defense Acquisition system; and (3) identify specific Phase III transitions that have been conducted or are planned in fiscal year 2005. 

High-speed/hypersonic reusable demonstration 

The budget request contained $339.2 million in PE 62702E for tactical technology applied research, including $15.0 million for the 

high-speed/hypersonic reusable demonstration. 

The committee supports the objectives of the high-speed/ 

hypersonic reusable demonstration. However, because there are 

higher priority, near-term requirements associated with the global 

war on terrorism, the committee believes that the DARPA highspeed, hypersonic reusable demonstration should be deferred. The committee recommends a decrease of $15.0 million in PE 

62702E, and no funding for the high-speed/hypersonic reusable 

demonstration. 

Horizontal fusion 

The budget request contained $214.2 million in PE 35199D8Z for 

Net Centricity, which includes the horizontal fusion program, and 

$23.3 million for Washington Headquarters Services major equipment, which includes $10.5 million for horizontal fusion. The committee is aware that horizontal fusion reflects a significant shift in 

the Department of Defense’s (DOD) approach to intelligence data. 

Currently intelligence analysts process and analyze data before delivering it to the field for use. The Department realized the more 

efficient way to provide timely intelligence to the warfighter is to 

post data quickly, allowing analysts in the field to do unit specific 

analysis. This philosophical shift necessitates significant changes in 

the systems that hold the information and form the basis of the 

DOD network. 

However, the committee is concerned that the scale of the Department’s undertaking is unprecedented, even compared to the 

commercial sector’s use of metadata, which tags data with descriptive information and lists it in a central registry, to manage its applications. The committee is concerned that the scope of this proVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00266 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
243 

gram to exploit data on this level without a systems architecture 

to define data and terms to ensure that the information is consistent for all users could compromise intelligence and cause technological failures. The committee believes the Department must set 

the rules, standards, protocols, and other parameters to determine 

who or what entity is ultimately responsible for the data, before 

the funding at the level proposed in the budget request can be productively expended. Accordingly, the committee recommends $144.2 million in PE 35199D8Z for continued research, a reduction of $70.0 million, and 

$18.9 million for Washington Headquarters Services major equipment procurement, a reduction of $4.4 million for horizontal fusion. 

Implementation of defense biomedical countermeasures 

Title XVI of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2004 

(Public Law 108–186) provides authority for the Secretary of Defense to establish an enhanced biomedical countermeasures program within the Department of Defense to protect members of the 

Armed Forces from attack with chemical, biological, radiological, or 

nuclear (CBRN) agents. This title of Public Law 108–136 parallels 

H.R. 2122, the Project Bioshield Act of 2003, which was developed 

in response to the Bioshield initiative announced by the President 

in his State of the Union address to the Congress on January 20, 

2004; passed in the House of Representatives; and introduced in 

the Senate. Title XVI addresses research and development, procurement, and emergency use of biomedical countermeasures. 

Section 1601 requires the Secretary of Defense to establish a program to accelerate research and development of biological countermeasures to CBRN threats and provides authorities to speed research. 

Section 1602 authorizes the Secretary of Defense to enter into an 

interagency agreement with the Secretaries of Homeland Security 

and Health and Human Services to provide for acquisition by the 

Secretary of Defense for use by the Armed Forces of biomedical 

countermeasures procured for the Strategic National Stockpile by 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Section 1602 also authorizes the Secretary of Defense to transfer those funds to the Secretary of Health and Human Services that are necessary to carry 

out such agreements and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to expend any such transferred funds to procure such countermeasures for use by the Armed Forces, or to replenish the stockpile. 

Section 1603 establishes conditions under which the Secretary of 

Health and Human Services may authorize emergency use by the 

general public of certain drugs, devices, or biological products based 

on a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency involving a heightened risk to United States military forces of attack with specified CBRN agents. Section 1603 

would also authorize the President to waive the right of service 

members to refuse the administration of such a biomedical countermeasure. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the 

congressional defense committees by December 31, 2004, on the actions taken to implement the authorities granted in title XVI of the 

Act. 

244 

Man portable air defense system defense program 

The budget request included $14.1 million in PE 64618D8Z for 

systems development and demonstration (SDD) for a network-centric, portable, ground-based, counter-man portable air defense system (MANPADS). 

SDD programs require validated requirements and technologies 

that have been demonstrated in at least a laboratory or test range 

environment. There are no validated requirements for this program, nor have any technologies been demonstrated. Further, the 

committee understands the concept for this program was considered by the Department of Homeland Security for its on-going program to protect civilian aircraft from the MANPADS threat and 

was rejected. Consequently, this program would be unique to the 

military services. Finally, the committee believes the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense (OSD) should not be managing programs that 

are inherently within the purview of the military services. 

If OSD, in its oversight role, believes that there is sufficient 

merit in the concept engendered in this request, it should mandate 

incorporation of the concept within one of the several counterMANPADS programs resident within the military services and defense agencies as part of their research and development programs. 

The committee recommends no funds in PE 64618D8Z for fiscal 

year 2005, a decrease of $14.1 million. 

Measures and signatures intelligence consortium 

The budget request contained no funds in PE 35884L for intelligence planning and review for the Measures and Signatures Intelligence (MASINT) Consortium. 

The MASINT Consortium, led by the Defense Intelligence Agency, began in fiscal year 2003 by congressional directive to coordinate basic and applied science research as it relates to the Intelligence Community (IC) and the Department of Defense. The committee believes this is an IC requirement that encourages the advancement of basic and applied systems research within the 

MASINT discipline. Amplifying information on this issue may be 

found in the classified annex to this report. 

The committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million in PE 

35884L for the MASINT Consortium. 

Medical free electron laser 

The budget request contained $9.7 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 

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 $19.7 million in PE 62227D8Z, an 

increase of $10.0 million to continue the merit-based, peer-reVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00268 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
245 

viewed, competitively awarded program in medical free electron 

laser applied research. 

Multi-wavelength surface scanning biologics sensor 

The budget request contained $17.6 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. The committee understands that successful demonstration 

of this technology for two dimensional fluorescence that spectrally 

resolve the target in both excitation and emission dimensions could 

provide the capability to detect and identify biological agents and 

a significant improvement in the scanning and screening of potentially contaminated locations. Congress appropriated $2.0 million 

in fiscal year 2004 to continue previously funded work on the technology and support evaluation of a laboratory test bed system with 

a wide range of simulated and target bacteria and pathogens and 

environmental backgrounds. The committee understands that the 

success of these efforts has motivated further testing of the laboratory test bed prototype to support the design and development of 

a second generation or ‘‘beta’’ system with significantly expanded 

capabilities. The committee recommends an increase of $3.0 million in PE 

63714D8Z to continue the program for development and demonstration of two-dimensional fluorescence spectral sensing instruments for the real-time detection and identification of pathogens. 

National Defense University technology pilot program 

The budget request contained $30.6 million in PE 65104D8Z for 

the Office of the Secretary of Defense 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 significant technology elements. The committee further notes that the objective of this program is to determine how the United States can 

maintain its competitive edge against other military adversaries at 

a time when commercial information technology (IT) is readily 

available on the global market. The committee is interested to 

learn the results of NDU’s proposed pilot programs for fiscal year 

2005 which include the use of IT for stabilization efforts and reconstruction operations in Iraq, and homeland security. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends $31.6 million for PE 

65104D8Z, an increase of $1.0 million for the NDU technology pilot 

program. 

Nuclear weapons effects applied research 

The budget request contained $249.8 million in PE 62716BR for 

applied research in weapons of mass destruction defeat technology, 

including $67.8 million for applied research in weapons effects 

technology. 

The committee continues to note that the budget for nuclear 

weapons effects applied research has declined dramatically since 

246 

the early 1990s 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 U.S. nuclear weapons effects analysis capability needs to be revitalized to address emerging 21st 

Century threats, such as the potential for terrorist use of radiological dispersion devices (‘‘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; the potential use of small nuclear weapons for defeat of 

chemical or biological agents, or for defeat of hard and buried targets; and analysis of requirements for defense of critical assets. The committee recommends $259.8 million in PE 62716BR, an 

increase of $10.0 million for nuclear weapons effects applied research. 

Operationally responsive satellite 

The budget request contained $19.6 million in PE 65799D8Z for 

Force Transformation Directorate, but contained no funds for operationally responsive satellites. 

With the advent of operationally responsive launches, the committee believes research and development should begin on the use 

of satellites that would fit this new family of launch vehicles and 

address near-term warfighter requirements. These new satellites 

should provide critical capabilities from space in an affordable, reliable, and timely manner. This new perspective on satellite acquisition represents a truly transformational strategy and, as such, 

should be managed by the Secretary of Defense’s new Office of 

Force Transformation. 

The committee recommends $44.6 million in PE 65799D8Z, an 

increase of $25.0 million for the development of operationally responsive satellites. 

Smart machine platform initiative 

The budget request contained $11.0 million in PE 78011S for Industrial Preparedness, of which no funds were requested for the 

Smart Machine Platform Initiative. 

The committee has been encouraged by the efforts of the machine 

tool industry to develop breakthrough technology for defense manufacturing applications by which the next generation of machine 

technology will provide the capability to monitor and modify a work 

plan during the production process. This smart machine technology 

would substantially reduce both the cost and time to develop defense products. 

The committee recommends $23.2 million for PE 78011S, an increase of $12.2 million for the Smart Machine Platform Initiative. 

Space and missile defense command simulation center 

The budget request contained $186.7 million for the high performance computing modernization program, which includes the 

247 

Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) Simulation 

Center. The center is a mission critical computer facility established to provide supercomputer computational assets with high 

performance network and storage support for the development, 

testing, and integration of strategic defense technologies and simulations including computational physics and chemistry, weapons 

design, and force modeling for SMDC, the Missile Defense Agency 

(MDA), and the military services. The committee understands that 

the SMDC needs to upgrade its information technology systems to 

meet computational demands for simulation, testing, and evaluation of advanced interceptors and sensors. The committee believes 

the technology upgrades are important to the work the SMDC is 

presently conducting. Accordingly, the committee recommends $192.7 million in PE 63755D8Z, an increase of $6.0 million for the SMDC. 

Special operations advanced technology development 

The budget request contained $48.8 million in PE 116402BB for 

special operations advanced technology development, but contained 

no funding for development of long term battery-free power 

sources, the advanced target identification capability for AC–130U 

gunships, the ANGELFIRE active protection system, and the surveillance augmentation vehicle-insertable on request (SAVIOR) system. 

The committee is aware of the need for power sources that may 

be used to supply power to remote monitoring and surveillance sensors for long periods of duration. Furthermore, the committee understands that promising technology exists that may meet that 

military requirement by converting ambient light to power. 

The advanced target identification system is a significant enhancement to the gunship radar and 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 fully integrate identification software with a family of 

ground and airborne systems. 

ANGELFIRE is a promising integrated sensor and countermeasure package with the potential to provide increased protection 

to lightly protected military aircraft and vehicles in hostile environments. Such systems are urgently needed in today’s increasingly lethal operating environments. 

The SAVIOR system also promises to increase force protection 

for troops operating in cluttered, urban environments. SAVIOR is 

a mobile, intelligent sensor suite that can alert ground forces to the 

presence of a threat with its intensive surveillance network. 

The committee recommends $64.8 million for PE 1160402BB special operations advanced technology development, increases of $4.0 

million to develop battery free power sources for sensors, $3.0 million for the advanced identification capability for AC–130 gunships, 

$6.0 million to develop the ANGELFIRE active protection system, 

and $3.0 million for development of the SAVIOR system. 

Special operations technology development 

The budget request contained $13.1 million in PE 116401BB for 

special operations technology development, but included no funding 

for shoulder fired smart round (SPIKE) urban warfare system deVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00271 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
248 

velopment. The SPIKE missile fills a critical need for a low-cost, 

light-weight fire and forget missile for ground troops to use against 

lightly armored and other material targets and has possible maritime application as well. The committee recommends $16.1 million in PE 116401BB, an 

increase of $3.0 million for SPIKE missile development. 

Stimulated isomer energy release 

The budget request contained $339.2 million in PE 62702E for tactical technology applied research, including $4.0 million for 

stimulated isomer energy release. 

The committee is aware that the Defense Advanced Research 

Project Agency (DARPA) is funding research to investigate the feasibility of stimulating the release of energy stored in nuclear isomers. The committee understands that the DARPA-sponsored research is investigating two of the most difficult technical challenges 

in this program and that the research is being conducted in the national laboratories, the Department of Energy, the military service 

laboratories, and other facilities. Given the significant policy issues 

associated with any eventual use of an isomer weapon and given 

the inability of distinguished scientists to replicate the reported 

successful triggering experiment of 1998, the committee believes 

that the Department of Defense should not be engaged in this research. The proper agency to investigate the feasibility of this technology is the National Nuclear Security Administration and its national laboratory complex. The committee questions the utility of 

this research in any circumstances and is particularly skeptical of 

research into nuclear isomer production before triggering is shown 

to be possible. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

terminate this program, and recommends no funding for the stimulated isomer energy release in PE 62702E, a reduction of $4.0 million. 

Tasking, processing, exploitation, and dissemination of SYERS–2 

data 

The budget request contained no funding in PE 35102BQ for defense imagery and mapping. 

The committee is concerned that multi-spectral data from the 

SYERS–2 sensor is not being exploited by the National Geospatial 

Intelligence Agency (NGA). 

The committee recommends $3.0 million in PE 35102BQ, an increase of $3.0 million to permit the NGA to fully process, exploit, 

and disseminate SYERS–2 data. 

Use of research and development funds to procure systems 

The committee has observed the increasing use of funds designated for research and development (R&D) purposes to acquire 

operational platforms. The fiscal 2005 budget proposal would take 

the practice to unprecedented levels, with three DD(X) and two 

LCS ships, three E–2C aircraft, and eleven VH-XX helicopters proposed for acquisition with R&D funds. 

The use of R&D funds for prototypes and truly developmental 

items is both proper and prudent. This practice also makes sense 

when, following the completion of testing, a test asset still has useVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00272 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
249 

ful capability to bring to the operational fleet. However, it is difficult to believe that nearly half of the VH-XX fleet, for example, 

qualifies as prototypes or dedicated test assets. The fact that the 

platforms may occasionally be used for some testing purposes does 

not, in the committee’s view, qualify them as research craft. Indeed, the committee would be surprised were the department actually proposing to regularly carry the President on prototype aircraft. 

While the committee recognizes the increased flexibility of R&D 

funds in acquiring platforms, there is concern that placing acquisition programs in the R&D budget, particularly at their early, least 

stable stage, threatens other programs, particularly in science and 

technology. The R&D budget is a very small pool from which to 

fund acquisitions of large items like ships, and as procurements are 

must-pay bills, typical procurement cost-growth would put the rest 

of the R&D budget at risk. 

The committee’s action with regard to particular programs funded in R&D should therefore be seen not only as a reflection of the 

merits of those items, but also as an expression of concern over the 

rapidly expanding portion of the R&D budget being used for purposes other than R&D. 

Walrus 

The budget request contained $339.2 million in PE 62702E for 

tactical technology applied research, including $10.0 million for the 

Walrus program, and $361.0 million in PE 63285E for advanced 

aerospace systems advanced technology development, including 

$10.0 million for the Walrus program. 

The committee notes that the Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency (DARPA) Walrus program would combine technologies for high-strength and low structural weight airframes, 

high efficiency propulsion systems; and heavy-lift cargo transport 

investigated in earlier DARPA programs. The Walrus program 

would develop and evaluate a very large ‘‘hybrid’’ airlift vehicle 

concept that is designed to fly through a combination of aerodynamics and gas buoyancy. The first phase of the program would 

include system studies and development of a notional objective vehicle and would be followed by a competitive second phase that 

would lead to the development, design, build, and initial flight test 

of an advanced technology demonstration air vehicle with air lift 

capability comparable to a C–130 aircraft. As envisioned, an objective vehicle would be capable of lifting over 500 tons across intercontinental distances. 

The committee acknowledges the Department of Defense’s objective of being able to deploy quickly to overseas theaters from the 

continental United States. Nevertheless, the committee is also 

aware of previous programs in the late 1980s and early 1990s that 

envisioned very large, long-endurance airship concepts for intertheater lift, which after some initial enthusiasm were not pursued 

because of the large costs associated with the development and production of such systems. The committee has also received no estimates of the potential development and production costs for the 

Walrus concept. Because there are higher priority, near-term requirements associated with the global war on terrorism, the comVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00273 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
250 

mittee believes that the work on the DARPA Walrus program 

should be deferred. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends no funding for the Wal- rus program, a reduction of $10.0 million in PE 62702E and a reduction of $10.0 million in PE 63285E. 

OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Overview 

The budget request contained $305.1 million for Operational Test 

and Evaluation, Defense. 

The committee recommends $305.1 million, no change to the 

budget request. 

251 

252 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 201—Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would establish research, development, test and 

evaluation authorization levels for the Department of Defense for 

fiscal year 2005. 

Section 202—Amount for Defense Science and Technology 

This section would establish defense science and technology authorization levels for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 

2005. 

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, AND

LIMITATIONS

Section 211—Future Combat Systems Program Strategy 

This section would limit authorization of appropriations for Future Combat Systems (FCS) in fiscal year 2005 to $2.2 billion until 

the following is submitted to Congress prior to the Milestone B update: 

(1) An independent program cost estimate; 

(2) A report on the maturity levels of critical technologies; 

(3) A report on the status of the network and command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and 

reconnaissance components; and 

(4) The key performance parameters. 

This section would also require the Secretary of the Army to certify that the following requirements are applied to the Future Combat Systems program: 

(1) At the design readiness review, 90 percent of engineering 

drawings will be releasable to manufacturing; 

(2) Before production facilitization and long lead items are 

contracted for, the performance of the information network is 

demonstrated to be acceptable, including the contributions of 

complementary programs such as the Joint Tactical Radio System and the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical; 

(3) Before the initial production decision, prototypes of each 

system demonstrate their collective ability to meet system of 

system requirements when integrated with the network. 

FCS is a revolutionary system of systems that the Army is developing to equip its future forces. FCS consists of an information network that links a suite of 18 new smaller and lighter manned and 

unmanned ground vehicles, air vehicles, sensors, and munitions. 

The success of FCS depends on the ability of the network to collect, 

process, and deliver vast amounts of information such as imagery 

and communications and the performance of the individual systems 

themselves. 

The committee supports the Army’s transformation goals and the 

desired capabilities that the FCS program promises. However, the 

committee is greatly concerned about the Army’s ability to deliver 

these capabilities within cost and schedule estimates. The Army 

has never managed any program of the size and complexity of FCS: 

253 

18 systems, 32 critical technology areas, 34 million lines of code, 

129 trade studies, and 157 other necessary systems outside of the 

FCS program structure. 

In its March 2004 report, the General Accounting Office indicated the FCS program has many of the same risk markers that 

have led to problems on other programs. These include: 

(1) An extremely challenging and unforgiving requirement to 

outperform the current heavy force at a fraction of the weight 

and logistics footprint; 

(2) Reliance on numerous advanced yet immature technologies to meet the requirement; and; 

(3) A schedule that proceeds to production in an unprecedented 51⁄2 years. 

The committee is aware of the fiscal realities that make it difficult to fund simultaneously the development of transformational 

future military systems and the maintenance and sustainment of 

current military systems. FCS will field 15, brigade like, Units of 

Action by 2025. This will constitute about one-third of the active 

component of the Army. The Army does not have a plan and has 

not budgeted funds to sustain the current force through 2025. The 

committee believes that the current force must be provided with a 

sufficient sustainment and modernization budget such that this 

force remains capable, reliable, interoperable, and relevant until 

FCS can assume the majority of the responsibility for the Army’s 

mission. 

Section 212—Collaborative Program for Research and Development 

of Vacuum Electronics Technologies 

This provision would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a program for research and development in advanced vacuum 

electronics technology to meet Department of Defense (DOD) requirements for radio frequency electromagnetic systems. The program would be carried out collaboratively by the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, the Secretary of the Navy, the 

Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Army, and other 

appropriate elements of the Department of Defense. The provision 

would also increase the fiscal year 2005 budget request for vacuum 

technology research and development by a total of $15.0 million, an 

increase of $10.0 million in PE 62771N for vacuum electronics applied research and an increase of $5.0 million in PE 63771N for 

vacuum electronics advanced technology development. 

The committee has long recognized the unique needs of the Department of Defense for high power vacuum electronics for radar 

and other electromagnetic systems, and has advocated increased 

funding for research and development in advanced vacuum electronics technology. The committee reports on H.R. 1402 (H. Rept. 

106–162) and on H.R. 4546 (H. Rept. 107–436) noted the committee’s support for a robust vacuum electronics research and development program in the Department of Defense and other federal 

agencies. The committee has reviewed the results of the Secretary 

of the Navy’s report to Congress on the DOD vacuum electronics 

program and the Department’s April 2001 Technology Area Review 

and Assessment (TARA) on creating a balanced tri-service investment strategy for RF vacuum electronics and solid-state power 

electronics technologies. In the committee report on H.R. 4546, the 

254 

committee endorsed the TARA views on the criticality of support 

for both vacuum electronics and solid-state power electronics technologies. The committee notes the TARA review’s recommendations 

for increased funding in the tri-service vacuum electronics program 

and for establishment of a combined tri-service initiative to rapidly 

advance wide band gap semiconductor device technology to enable 

advanced military radar and other systems requiring power electronics in the mid-to-long term. 

Section 212 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107) required the Secretary of Defense 

to establish a collaborative program for development of advanced 

radar systems, which has focused on developing the technology for 

high frequency and high power wide band gap semiconductors recommended in the TARA review. Section 212 of this Act would implement the TARA recommendation for the tri-service vacuum electronics program. 

The committee expects the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics), acting through the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, to ensure a balanced investment 

strategy for vacuum electronics and solid state power technologies 

that will meet DOD requirements for current and future systems 

that use radio frequency power electronics. 

Section 213—Annual Comptroller General Report on Joint Strike 

Fighter Program 

This section would establish an annual review of the Joint Strike 

Fighter system development and demonstration (SDD) program by 

the Comptroller General to be submitted to Congress by March 15, 

of each year. The report would include the extent to which such 

SDD program is meeting established performance, cost, and schedule goals; the plan for such SDD for the next fiscal year; and a conclusion whether such SDD program is likely to be completed at a 

cost not in excess of the most recent Selected Acquisition Report. 

The final report required by this section would be submitted on 

March 15, 2009. 

Section 214—Amounts for United States Joint Forces Command to 

be Derived Only from Defense-wide Amounts 

This section would transfer funding for the joint warfare experimentation program and related Joint Forces Command programs 

from Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy to a Defense-wide account. 

In 1998, the Secretary of Defense chartered the combatant commander, U.S. Joint Forces Command, as the executive agent for 

conducting joint warfighting concept development and experimentation within the Department of Defense. The committee believes 

that, as the Department’s executive agent for joint warfighting concept development and experimentation, the command’s budget for 

joint warfare experimentation and related programs should be 

independent of, and separate from the budgets of the military departments. The committee also notes that the precedent that has 

been established by the Department in maintaining the budgets for 

the Joint Staff and defense agencies separate from the budgets of 

the military departments. The committee also observes that mainVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00278 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
255 

taining the budget for the joint warfare experimentation and transformation programs as a part of budget request for the Navy’s 

science and technology program tends to create a false impression 

of funding levels for the latter. 

The committee directs the transfer of funding for the Joint 

Forces Command joint experimentation, joint warfare experiments 

and joint warfare transformation programs from Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Navy to Research, Development, 

Test, and Evaluation, Defense-wide, as follows: 

(1) $167.7 million for Joint Experimentation from Navy PE 

32727N to Defense-wide PE 63xx1; (2) $26,000 for Joint Warfare Experiments from Navy PE 

63757N to Defense-wide PE 63xx2, and; (3) $22.5 million for Joint Warfare Transformation Programs 

from Navy PE 64787N to Defense-wide PE 63xx3. 

Section 215—Authority of Director of Defense Research and Engineering to Award Prizes for Advanced Technology Achievements 

This section would amend the process by which the Secretary of 

Defense carries out a program to award cash prizes in recognition 

of outstanding achievements in basic, advanced, and applied research, technology development, and prototype development that 

have the potential for application to the performance of the military missions of the Department of Defense. The amendment would 

provide that the program would be carried out by the Secretary of 

Defense, acting through the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, rather than through the Director, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. 

Section 216—Space Based Radar 

This section would prohibit the Space Based Radar program from 

proceeding to Department of Defense acquisition milestone B. The 

program may not proceed until 30 days after meeting the requirement to notify the congressional defense committees and the intelligence committees of the completion of an independent cost estimate, a technology maturity and readiness assessment, and the 

system design concept. 

Section 217—Mark–54 Torpedo Product Improvement Program 

This section would provide $2.0 million of funds authorized in 

Navy, Research and Development for the Mark–54 Product Improvement Program. 

SUBTITLE C—BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

Section 221—Fielding of Ballistic Missile Defense Capabilities 

This section would allow the Department of Defense to use research, development, test and evaluation funding to develop and 

field ballistic missile defense capabilities with funds appropriated 

in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. 

The committee is concerned with the Department’s plans to transition program elements of the ballistic missile defense program 

from the Missile Defense Agency to the military services. The committee notes that section 223(a) of the National Defense AuthorizaVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00279 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
256 

tion Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) requires the 

Secretary of Defense to submit with the annual budget request the 

potential date of availability of individual ballistic missile defense 

program elements for fielding, and the estimated date for the 

transfer of individual ballistic missile defense system elements 

from the Director of the Missile Defense Agency to the secretary of 

a military department. The committee expects that the fielding and 

acquisition strategy provided by the Department will assist the 

committee in considering future requests by the Department to use 

research, development, test and evaluation funds for the development and fielding of ballistic missile capabilities. 

TITLE III—OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request contained $140.6 billion for operation and 

maintenance funds throughout the Department of Defense (DOD). 

The committee reviewed this request to evaluate whether readiness 

accounts are properly funded and managed for a peacetime environment. The committee conducted a focused review on joint training, logistics transformation, prepositioned assets, as well as the 

overall readiness of military units. 

The committee believes the Secretary of Defense and DOD leadership recognize the importance of joint training and are taking appropriate action to implement the Joint National Training Capabilities program. DOD leadership also appears committed to improving logistics and providing total asset visibility of supplies and 

personnel to the combatant commanders. The committee will continue in its oversight role to evaluate whether various training exercises and logistics systems migrate toward a joint environment or 

whether military-unique training and stove-piped logistics systems 

continue to be the norm. The committee believes any program identified as joint, total, or global will face some level of resistance. The 

burden will be on the Secretary of Defense and the secretaries of 

the military departments to adopt and endorse programs that benefit the Department as a whole, rather than merely benefiting a 

particular service or agency. 

The committee also believes the Secretary of Defense and the 

secretaries of the military departments have a unique opportunity 

to replenish their prepositioned materials and equipment in a manner most beneficial to global security. Many lessons were learned 

as to the value of prepositioned equipment and how to manage 

such assets. The committee hopes DOD leadership takes advantage 

of these lessons and adjusts its prepositioning program accordingly. 

Finally, the committee notes the challenge of evaluating a peacetime budget when the nation is at war. The budget request contained no additional funds to support the operating tempo for units 

deployed for Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 

Freedom. Title XV of this bill accordingly addresses this issue and 

the need for additional operational and maintenance funds. 

257 

258 

259 

260 

261 

262 

263 

264 

265 

266 

267 

268 

269 

270 

271 

272 

273 

274 

275 

276 

277 

278 

279 

280 

281 

282 

283 

284 

285 

286 

287 

288 

289 

290 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

BUDGET REQUEST ADJUSTMENTS—READINESS

The committee recommends the following adjustments to the fiscal year 2005 budget request: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Department of the Army Adjustments: 

BA–1 Hydration on the Move +3.0 

BA–1 Military Skills Engagement Training Simulator (Laser Shot Software) +1.0 

BA–1 Vehicle Batteries ........ +2.5 

BA–1 Tactical Exploitation 

System ................................ (4.0) 

BA–1 Contractor Logistic 

Support—unjustified 

growth ................................ (10.0) 

BA–1 Combat Training Centers—unjustified growth ..... (10.0) 

BA–3 Satellite Communications for Learning Project 

(SCOLA) .............................. +3.0 

BA–3 Training Support—unjustified growth .................. (15.0) 

BA–4 Administration—unjustified growth .................. (19.5) 

Unobligated Balances ............ (52.3) 

Civilian Pay Overstatement .. (82.0) 

Army Reserve—Family Assistance Centers .................. +5.6 

Army National Guard—Hydration on the Move ........... +1.0 

Army National Guard—Family Support Programs ......... +30.0 

Army National Guard—Unobligated Balances ................. (14.5) 

Department of the Navy Adjustments: 

BA–1 Stainless Steel Sanitary Spaces ......................... +4.0 

BA–1 NULKA Electronic 

Decoy Cartridge .................. +2.0 

BA–1 Technical Publications (25.0) 

BA–1 Fleet Response Plan 

Efficiencies ......................... (15.0) 

BA–1 Combatant Commanders Program-unjustified growth ......................... (40.0) 

BA–4 Small Ship Registry ... +1.5 

Unobligated Balances ............ (97.7) 

Civilian Pay Overstatement .. (12.0) 

United States Marine Corps Adjustments: 

BA–1 Hydration on the Move +1.0 

BA–1 Vehicle Batteries ........ +2.5 

BA–1 Tent Lighting System +2.0 

Department of the Air Force Adjustments: 

BA–1 B–1A Lancer Bombers +157.4 

BA–1 Hydration on the Move +2.0 

BA–1 Joint Crew Protection 

Mask ................................... +1.4 

BA–1 KC–767 Tankers ........... +3.5 

BA–1 Combat Air Systems 

Activities ............................ (9.0) 

BA–1 Foreign Nat’l Indirect 

Hires—unjustified growth ... (10.5) 

291 

BA–1 NORTHCOM—unjustified growth ......................... (26.2) 

BA–1 Combatant Commander Intel Capabilities ... (4.0) 

BA–4 Personnel Programs .... (9.5) 

BA–4 Base Support-unjustified growth ......................... (30.4) 

Civilian Separation Incentives .................................... (40.8) 

Unobligated Balances ............ (49.4) 

Civilian Pay Overstatement .. (29.5) 

Depot Maintenance Realignment to ANG ...................... (78.8) 

Air National Guard Depot 

Maintenance Realignment .. +78.8 

Air National Guard Unobligated Balances .................... (33.7) 

Defense-wide Activities Adjustments: 

Joint Chiefs of Staff—unjustified growth ......................... (38.9) 

Commercial Technologies for 

Maintenance Activities ...... +15.0 

Rapid Frequency Identification Technology .................. +4.0 

Hydration on the Move .......... +1.0 

Defense Technology Security 

Administration ................... +1.0 

Defense Threat Reduction 

Agency ................................ +8.7 

Washington Headquarters 

Services—BRAC Commission ..................................... (10.0) 

Office of Secretary of Defense—FEHB ....................... +10.0 

Office of Secretary of Defense—Persistent Stratospheric Vehicles .................. +4.2 

Office of Secretary of Defense—Research Technology 

Protection .......................... +4.8 

Office of Secretary of Defense—Counterintelligence 

Law Enforcement Watch 

Center ................................. +4.0 

Office of Secretary of Defense—Paralyzed Veterans 

Association ......................... +1.0 

Office of Secretary of Defense—unjustified growth ... (95.8) 

Defense Security Service ....... (50.0) 

Unobligated Balances ............ (59.5) 

Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities 

The committee continues to support the Commercial Technologies for Maintenance Activities (CTMA) program. The Department of Defense (DOD) created the CTMA program in 1998 as the 

only program designed to bring the most modern and advanced 

manufacturing processes used by commercial industries to the 

DOD maintenance depots and organic maintenance activities. It is 

the committee’s understanding that depot commanders support the 

economic efficiencies this program can provide. 

Therefore, the committee recommends the addition of $15.0 million for the Defense Logistics Agency to continue the CTMA program. The committee believes the addition of these funds will allow 

depot-level activities to continue the successful participation in 

292 

manufacturing technology demonstration projects in collaboration 

with more than 150 of the leading U.S. manufacturers. 

Mid-Range Financial Improvement Plan 

The budget request contained $51.0 million for the Department 

of Defense, Office of Inspector General, to implement the MidRange Improvement Plan. The committee understands the goal of 

this plan is for the Department of Defense to obtain clean and 

auditable financial statements in fiscal year 2007. To date, the 

committee has not received any information estimating the cost of 

this plan in future fiscal years. As addressed elsewhere in this report, the committee cannot support the plan until additional information is provided, and thus recommends a decrease of $51.0 million to the Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General. 

Paralyzed Veterans of America 

The committee supports programs sponsored by the Paralyzed 

Veterans of America (PVA) designated for servicemen and women 

returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 

Freedom. Programs such as the PVA Outdoor Sports Heritage 

Fund encourage and assist soldiers to get out of the hospitals and 

engage in outdoor activities. Accordingly, the committee recommends $1.0 million for the Secretary of Defense to provide to the 

PVA Outdoor Sports Heritage Fund to continue this worthwhile effort. 

Spare Engines 

The budget request contained no funds to purchase Navy spare 

aviation engines. Instead, the Secretary of the Navy intends to purchase these engines with obligation authority within the Department of Defense working capital fund. In the past, engines were 

purchased with appropriated aviation procurement funds. The committee believes it is inappropriate to fund spare aviation engines 

within the working capital fund. The proposed mechanism would 

delay using appropriated funds to purchase these engines. The 

committee notes that section 8041 of the Department of Defense 

Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108–87) states, ‘‘[T]he fiscal 

year 2005 budget request shall be . . . submitted to the Congress 

on the basis that any equipment which was classified as an end 

item and funded in the procurement appropriation account in this 

act shall be budgeted for the proposed fiscal year 2005 procurement 

appropriation and not in the . . . Department of Defense Working 

Capital Funds.’’ Therefore, the committee recommends a transfer of 

$59.0 million from the defense working capital fund to the Department of the Navy’s aviation procurement account. 

Working Capital Funds 

Working capital funds serve a vital role in providing financial 

transaction flexibility for working capital fund activities and its 

customers. When working capital activities achieve a surplus in the 

annual operating result, consideration should be given to adjusting 

customer rates. Working capital activities that do not adjust rates 

are not appropriately returning surplus funds to customers. In adVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00316 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
293 

dition, the committee is aware that many working capital fund activities have cash in excess of the Department of Defense rules. 

The committee, therefore, recommends the following reductions. 

[In millions of dollars] 

Air Force Working Capital Fund, 

Supply Management ................. (150.0) 

Air Force Working Capital Fund, 

Transportation ......................... (917.2) 

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ISSUES

Overview 

The committee strongly believes information technology (IT) is a 

critical enabler for the Department of Defense (DOD) to meet and 

defeat both conventional and asymmetric threats in 21st Century 

warfare. The committee supports the Department’s goal to have 

joint, network-centric, distributed forces to provide rapid reaction 

for any situation. However, the Department is far from achieving 

that objective. 

While the Department has implemented and expanded the Global Information Grid’s (GIG) potential capabilities, which will be an 

enormous enhancement in supporting our military forces, the committee remains concerned that warfighters may not be able to utilize these capabilities if individual service architectures, investments, and service specific systems limit interoperability. The crux 

of the issue is DOD execution, enforcement and evolution of its systems architecture to allow warfighters to capitalize on IT investments that use command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, reconnaissance, surveillance systems (C4ISR) which are 

enabled through the GIG. 

The committee supports the Department’s design and implementation of an enterprise architecture to build and support a fully 

functioning network that every serviceman or woman can access 

and exploit. Such a network is intended to resolve the interoperability issues that currently plague the military services. 

The committee is concerned that the Department has not maintained adequate oversight and scrutiny over its business systems 

investments to ensure funds are spent on joint solutions that would 

provide the best value. While the Department is presently taking 

several actions to improve the situation, the committee is concerned that it has not put into place the organizational structure 

and process controls to properly align business systems investments with the business enterprise architecture. Therefore, the 

various military services and defense agencies have continued to 

make their own investment decisions, each following different criteria by designing and procuring its own business IT systems. This 

lack of an institutionalized investment strategy has contributed to 

the Department’s current complex, error-prone, non-integrated IT 

systems environment. 

The committee proposes legislation that would increase the level 

of scrutiny and responsibility exercised by the business domain 

owners, and recommends a series of reductions in apparently redundant or legacy IT programs and those that lack proper justification to explain growth from last year’s budget request. 

294 

Information Technology Specific Reductions 

The Department of the Defense budget request for information 

technology (IT) includes both IT and national security systems 

(NSS). While the committee supports network centric operations 

and warfare initiatives that support military missions, as well as 

operational and organizational changes that have the net effect of 

supporting our warfighters, the committee remains concerned 

about the Department’s lack of control and management oversight 

of the development and investments in business IT systems. The 

committee is also concerned that the Department has created joint 

IT systems whose program offices lack authority to devise, implement, and enforce systems architectures; control expenditures; or 

execute programs according to schedule and performance standards. The committee believes the Department needs to better manage and oversee many of the IT and NSS systems to prevent the 

proliferation of service-centric systems that do not interoperate 

with one another. Therefore, the committee recommends adjustments in the following programs: 

[In millions of dollars] 

Department of the Army Adjustments: 

Training Instrumentation for 

Air and Missile defense 

(AMD Units ......................... +5.0 

Army National Guard Enterprise Resource Planning 

(ERP) Program ................... +3.5 

Army National Guard Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic 

Network (NDFON) .............. +6.0 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Information Management and 

Director of Information 

Management (DCSIM/ 

DOIM) Staff Operations ...... (2.2) 

Installation Management Activity .................................. (10.0) 

Network Enterprise Technology Command (EAC Support) .................................... (9.0) 

Visual Information Support .. (13.0) 

MEPCOM Management Information Reporting System .. (10.0) 

Recruiting Information Support System ........................ (4.0) 

Army Human Resources Command Core Automation 

Support ............................... (20.0) 

Army Knowledge Enterprise 

Architecture ....................... (4.0) 

Army Personnel Electronic 

Records Management System ..................................... (7.0) 

Defense Civilian Personnel 

Data System-Sustainment (2.2) 

Information Technology 

Agency ................................ (12.4) 

Logistics Modernization Program ................................... (2.7) 

Logistic Post Production 

Software Support ................ (3.5) 

Management Headquarters 

Information Management ... (13.0) 

295 

Personnel Transformation ..... (13.0) 

Department of the Navy Adjustments: 

Navy Air Logistics Data 

Analysis .............................. (15.0) 

Navy Converged Enterprise 

Resource Planning (ERP) 

Program .............................. (15.5) 

Navy/USMC Base Level Communications ........................ (27.0) 

Other Navy Military Personnel and Readiness 

(Training and Recruiting) .. (12.0) 

Other Navy Military Personnel and Readiness 

(Admin and Servicewide Activities) ............................... (16.0) 

Department of the Air Force Adjustments: 

Air Force Base Level Communications Infrastructure, 

Air Combat Command ........ (8.0) 

Air Force Base Level Communications Infrastructure, 

Pacific ................................ (9.0) 

Air Force Base Level Communications Infrastructure, 

Europe ................................ (10.0) 

Air Force Engineering and Installations, Air Combat 

Command ............................ (5.6) 

Air Force Engineering and Installations, Space Command ................................... (4.0) 

Air Force Engineering and Installations, Air Mobility 

Command ............................ (6.3) 

Air Force Engineering and Installations, Pacific ............. (5.0) 

Air Force Engineering and Installations, Europe ............. (10.0) 

Air Force Combat Information Transport System ....... (6.4) 

Air Force Military Personnel 

Data System ....................... (2.4) 

Air Force Pentagon Communications Agency ................ (20.0) 

Defense-wide Activities Adjustments: 

Chief Information Officer 

Programs, OSD ................... (12.0) 

Comptroller Business Management Modernization 

Program .............................. (25.4) 

Health Program ..................... (50.0) 

Horizontal Fusion .................. (3.4) 

Enterprise Resource Planning Program—Army National Guard 

The budget contained no funding for the Army National Guard 

enterprise resource planning program (ERP) which would identify 

the business processes in the Army National Guard and compare 

them to the Army ERP programs. 

The committee believes this may be a valuable study and could 

benefit the Army National Guard to determine how it may leverage 

existing Army and other Department of Defense’s initiatives, to include the Business Management Modernization Program (BMMP). 

Such ERP would also allow the Army National Guard to do collaboVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00319 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
296 

rative planning between national headquarters and the various 

state guard bureaus. Accordingly, the committee recommends $3.5 million for the 

Army National Guard enterprise resource planning program, and 

directs the Chief, Army National Guard to use the BMMP and the 

defense business enterprise architecture as the baseline and standards for this program’s development and integration. 

Nationwide Dedicated Fiber Optic Network 

The budget request contained no funding for the Nationwide 

Dedicated Fiber Optic Network (NDFON) for the Army National 

Guard. 

This program will provide a dedicated high-speed, high-bandwidth fiber optic network backbone to service National Guard communications operations. NDFON will be a secure, reliable, and survivable network capable of supporting current and projected communications requirements. The committee notes that this program 

has the capability to provide the National Guard armories with a 

robust communications backbone to provide rapid, coordinated response to potential incidents. The committee understands that 

NDFON will comply with the Global Information Grid’s architecture to maximize communications, networking, and collaboration 

between the armories and the Department of Defense. Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $8.0 million in operation and maintenance for the Army National Guard to 

complete engineering studies for the NDFON program. 

Navy Marine Corps Intranet 

The budget request contained $1.6 billion for the Navy Marine 

Corps Intranet (NMCI). The committee notes that over 300,000 

users are now supported by this program. The program is providing 

support and connectivity to hundreds of deployed troops in the 

Iraqi war zone. 

The committee notes that the focus of NMCI has changed from 

deploying systems to achieving efficient steady-state operations, as 

shown by the Department of the Navy and its contractor conducting negotiations to improve the execution of the $7.0 billion 

NMCI contract for all users. The contract presently supports a 

larger number of legacy systems for longer periods of time than envisioned when first awarded. The committee is aware the Navy 

may have underestimated the number of software applications in 

its inventory, initially estimating that it had only 5,000 applications, when the real number may be as high as 67,000. Additionally, the committee notes that the Navy has not practiced due diligence to identify and turn off these legacy applications and their 

associated computer networks. The committee is concerned because 

to date, only two legacy networks whose functionality is intended 

to migrate to the NMCI have been terminated. The committee understands the Navy operates other information technology systems 

that were never intended to operate in the NMCI environment. 

Accordingly, the committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to 

complete the migration or terminate all legacy networks and applications whose functionality is intended to migrate to the NMCI environment by September 30, 2005. If this transition is not completed by such date, the Secretary of the Navy will provide a report 

297 

as to how the Department of the Navy plans to fund these legacy 

systems beyond September 30, 2005. The committee believes the 

contractor should not be held responsible to support those legacy 

networks and applications the Secretary of Navy does not migrate 

to the NMCI environment by this date. 

OTHER MATTERS

Core Logistics Capability 

Under section 2464 of title 10, United States Code, the Department of Defense must maintain a core logistics capability. The committee understands that until recently, the Department of the 

Navy considered the maintenance and repair of subsystems to aviation mission essential weapon systems as a core logistics capability 

and thus performed at a public depot. The committee is concerned 

that the practice referred to above has been cancelled, yet a new 

policy is not in place. Thus, the committee directs the Secretary of 

Navy to continue with the older practice used to identify core logistics capability, until the Secretary notifies the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee of the 

new policy. 

Fire Emergency and Services Program 

The Department of Defense, Inspector General, cited in its report, ‘‘DoD Fire and Emergency Services Program,’’ D–2003–121, 

that staffing and apparatus shortfalls could adversely impact firefighter safety and installation missions. The committee is concerned that fire houses, personnel, and other fire suppression resources at military bases may be below minimal safety standards. 

The committee believes it is imperative that military base commanders operate fire departments at or above National Fire Protection Association standards as they apply to staffing, equipment and 

other readiness capabilities, and fulfill all of the Inspector General’s recommendations. 

Jinapsan Beach Properties in Guam 

The committee is concerned with a long-standing, unresolved 

issue regarding public access to Jinapsan Beach, Guam. This area 

of land is privately owned and accessible only through Department 

of Air Force or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service owned land. In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Air Force 

closed the public road through Andersen Air Base to Jinapsan 

Beach. The Department then initiated an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) to evaluate three alternative access routes. The 

EIS is still not complete. The Department and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service are in disagreement over the timing and circumstances of the EIS. The committee urges the parties to resolve 

this dispute and encourages the Secretary of the Air Force to employ the services of an outside organization conversant with these 

issues in order to expedite completion of the EIS and determine a 

permanent alternative route of access to privately-owned properties 

at Jinapsan Beach. 

298 

Moving Household Goods—Families First 

The Department of Defense spends more than $1,700.0 million 

annually on moving military families. The committee believes that 

the Department has long experienced problems with moving household goods. In November 2002, the Secretary of Defense submitted 

to various congressional committees three initiatives to improve the 

moving household goods program, which would add an additional 

13 percent over current program costs. The Comptroller General reviewed this report and concluded that all three initiatives offer solutions to several long standing problems and should be implemented (U.S. General Accounting Office, ‘‘Monitoring Costs and 

Benefits Needed While Implementing a New Program for Moving 

Household Goods,’’ April 2003). The Comptroller General raised a 

concern, however, on whether the three initiatives could be implemented within the proposed 13 percent cost increase. The committee, therefore, directs the Secretary to reevaluate its cost estimate, to quantify the risk or likelihood of achieving its goals within 

13 percent cost projection, and to develop the range of possible cost 

increases associated with the risk, by December 1, 2004. The committee also directs the Comptroller General to review and report to 

the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services, by February 2, 2005, whether the Secretary has adequately performed the committee’s directed task. 

New Mexico Training Range Initiative 

The Committee is pleased with the Department of Air Force’s 

progress towards the establishment of the New Mexico Training 

Range Initiative (NMTRI), including Melrose Range, Sumner Air 

Traffic Control Assigned Airspace and the Pecos and Taiban Military Operations Areas. It is the committee’s understanding that the 

Air Force is projected to complete an environmental impact statement (EIS) by September 2005. The Committee encourages the Air 

Force and all other parties involved to continue to pursue September 2005 as the final deadline for the completed EIS with regards to the NMTRI at Melrose Range. 

Tents 

There are 36 major types of tents used in the military services. 

The Director, Defense Logistics Agency, is responsible for purchasing these tents, primarily from small businesses. There is, 

however, no regular or consistent requirement for additional or 

new tents. Thus, the small businesses that make up a significant 

portion of this industrial base have difficulty meeting surge requirements. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services by February 1, 2005, on what actions the Secretary can take to promote a more consistent requirement for tents or to assist the small business industrial base in 

meeting surge requirements. 

299 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 301—Operation and Maintenance Funding 

This section would authorize $119.8 billion in operation and 

maintenance funding for the military departments and defensewide activities. 

Section 302—Working Capital Funds 

This section would authorize $2.8 billion for working capital 

funds of the Department of Defense and the National Defense Sealift Fund. 

Section 303—Other Department of Defense Programs 

This section would authorize $20.2 billion for other Department 

of Defense Programs for (1) the Defense Health Program; (2) Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction; (3) Drug Interdiction and 

Counter-Drug Activities, Defense-Wide; and (4) the Defense Inspector General. 

Section 304—Reimbursement of Members of the Armed Forces Who 

Purchased Protective Body Armor during Shortage of Defense 

Stocks of Body Armor 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to reimburse soldiers who purchased protective body armor for use while 

deployed in connection with Operation Noble Eagle, Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation Iraqi Freedom, if the soldier did not 

receive the protective body armor before engaging in such operations where such body armor might be necessary. Reimbursement 

would be available to soldiers who purchased the body armor between September 1, 2001, and December 31, 2003. 

SUBTITLE B—ENVIRONMENTAL PROVISIONS

Section 311—Report Regarding Encroachment Issues Affecting 

Utah Test and Training Range, Utah 

This section would require the Secretary of the Air Force to provide a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services, within one year of enactment 

of this Act, on the current and anticipated encroachments on the 

use and utility of the special use airspace of the Utah Test and 

Training Range (UTTR), including encroachments initiated by 

other executive agencies. The report would include recommendations the Secretary considers appropriate, including legislation that 

would address encroachment-related concerns. 

300 

SUBTITLE C—WORKPLACE AND DEPOT ISSUES

Section 321—Simplification of Annual Reporting Requirements 

Concerning Funds Expended for Depot Maintenance and Repair 

Workloads 

This section would amend section 2466(d) of title 10, United 

States Code, to require the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a report on the percentage of funds expended or expected to 

be expended for depot maintenance and repair workloads in the 

public and private sectors. This report would cover prior, current, 

and budget years in which data is more reliable. The Comptroller 

General recommended such a change in its September 15, 2003, 

audit report, ‘‘Depot Maintenance: DOD’s 50–50 Reporting Should 

be Streamlined,’’ (GAO–03–1023). 

Section 322—Repeal of Annual Reporting Requirement Concerning 

Management of Depot Employees 

This section would repeal section 2472(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, which currently requires the Secretary of Defense to 

report annually to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 

the House Committee on Armed Services the number of Department of Defense employees employed and expected to be employed 

during that fiscal year to perform depot level maintenance and repair of materiel. The committee agrees to repeal this annual report 

and understands that the Secretary shall readily provide such data 

upon request. 

Section 323—Public-Private Competition for Work Performed by 

Civilian Employees of Department of Defense 

This section would amend section 2461(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, to ensure the Secretary of Defense formally compares 

the cost of civilian employee performance with the costs of contractor performance before converting a function performed by 10 

or more civilians. This section would also require the Secretary to 

conduct a formal comparison before modifying, reorganizing, dividing, or changing any function within the Department of Defense. 

Finally, this section would authorize the Secretary to waive the requirement of a formal comparison when there is a written determination that national security interests are so compelling as to 

preclude a comparison. The waiver would be required to be published within the Federal Register. 

Section 324—Public-Private Competition Pilot Program 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

two-year pilot program under which 10 percent of all functions that 

are considered new are competed pursuant to Office of Management and Budget Circular A–76 (A–76). In those instances where 

the winning party is a small business or a contractor whose employees are represented by a private labor union, the Department 

of Defense shall not receive credit towards compliance with the 10 

percent requirement. This section would also require the Secretary 

to conduct A–76 competitions to determine whether work currently 

performed by a contractor should be performed by government emVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00324 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
301 

ployees. The Secretary shall conduct such studies so that the number of contractor employee studies are approximately 10 percent of 

the number of government employees studied. The Secretary does 

have authority to waive these requirements when national security 

interests are so compelling as to preclude compliance. This waiver 

would be required to be published in the Federal Register. This section would also require the Department of Defense, Inspector General, to report to Congress on the result of the pilot program. 

Section 325—Sense of Congress on Equitable Legal Standing for 

Civilian Employees 

This section would express the sense of Congress that Department of Defense civilian employees should receive legal standing to 

challenge a public-private competition before the General Accounting Office or the United States Court of Federal Claims. 

Section 326—Competitive Sourcing Reporting Requirement 

This section would require the Department of Defense, Inspector 

General, to submit a report to Congress addressing whether the 

Department of Defense employs a sufficient workforce to conduct 

public-private competitions and whether the Secretary of Defense 

has implemented a tracking system to asses the cost and quality 

of service contractors. The system shall be made available to the 

public and updated quarterly. The tracking system shall include 

the cost to conduct a study under Office and Management and 

Budget Circular A–76; the cost of employee performance before the 

study began; the cost of the most efficient organization; the anticipated cost of contractor performance; the cost for the performance 

of the function by the contractor; a description of the quality control process used to monitor contract performance with an assessment whether contractor achieved, exceeded, or failed to achieve 

the quality control standards. 

SUBTITLE D—INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

Section 331—Preparation of Department of Defense Plan for 

Transition to Internet Protocol Version 6 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to prepare 

a transition plan to evaluate how the Department of Defense’s 

(DOD) information technology (IT) systems may be impacted by the 

Department’s decision to transition from the current protocols to 

Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6). The committee is well aware 

that this decision affects every piece of network equipment that is 

used by DOD’s Global Information Grid (GIG). While the committee is not a proponent of any particular protocol, the committee 

seeks to ensure that IPv6 will provide, at a minimum, the same capabilities that are available today. Therefore, the committee has 

raised concerns about the possible implications of the Department’s 

decision to move to this protocol, including quality of service issues 

and the use of best commercial practices to adopt this protocol. 

This section would also direct the Secretary to use the Naval Research Lab, in conjunction with the United States Strategic Command, to conduct and manage the tests required in this section. 

302 

Section 332—Defense Business Enterprise Architecture, System 

Accountability, and Conditions for Obligation of Funds for Defense Business System Modernization 

This section would repeal section 1004 of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 

107–314), that requires the development and implementation of a 

defense business enterprise architecture, and requires obligations 

over $1.0 million for defense business system modernization initiatives to be certified as consistent with that enterprise architecture. 

This section would, instead, establish accountability for defense 

business systems by assigning defense domains, or designated Department of Defense (DOD) officials, the authority and responsibility for their business systems, including the establishment of domain-specific investment review processes. In addition, this section 

would improve transparency in defense business systems investments by requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual 

budget that identifies such systems, the funds devoted to them, and 

the officials responsible for such systems. This section would also 

charge the domain owners for implementing and evolving their portion of the single DOD business enterprise architecture. The committee is concerned that the Department continues to invest billions of dollars in systems that fail to provide integrated business 

systems, timely and reliable information, and other important financial and business information for the daily operations. The committee believes the explicit assignment of management for the business enterprise architecture and definitive domain accountability, 

authority, and control is necessary to effectively achieve integrated 

business operations and systems to support the warfighter. 

Section 333—Establishment of Joint Program Office to Improve 

Interoperability of Battlefield Management Command and Control Systems 

This section would establish a joint program office to manage the 

Department of Defense’s myriad of battlefield management command and control systems to provide a common operational picture 

of the battlefield for all users. The committee understands that the 

Department has struggled for many years to develop and field command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems that interoperate effectively across all of the military services. A primary reason for 

this struggle is that the military services and other defense agencies plan and acquire systems to meet their own operational requirements, and not necessarily joint warfighting concepts. 

The committee notes that the Department recently drafted a 

Joint Battle Management Command and Control Roadmap that is 

intended to lead to a more integrated, interoperable set of command and control and battlespace awareness capabilities for joint 

force commanders to use in military operations. The committee understands that initially the United States Joint Forces Command 

(JFCOM) was given oversight and directive authority for the Family of Interoperable Operational Pictures (FIOP), which will eventually integrate air, ground, maritime, and possibly space into one 

common operational picture. 

303 

Unfortunately, JFCOM estimates that it will take up to two 

years to develop a joint architecture, by which time, several hundred million dollars will have been spent on the single integrated 

air picture program, while the other supporting systems that the 

FIOP is intended to integrate will also be in various stages of development under the funding and direction of the military services. 

Furthermore, while JFCOM has authority to direct the FIOP development efforts, the actual program implementation will be done 

by the military services under separate program offices. The committee is deeply troubled by the lack of joint responsibility over 

program implementation that may jeopardize the possibility of 

achieving standardization and integration among these systems, 

and is concerned that funding for the various programs is the responsibility of the military services. 

SUBTITLE E—READINESS REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

Section 341—Annual Report on Department of Defense Operation 

and Financial Support for Military Museums 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to include in 

the annual budget justification materials a complete inventory of 

military museums operated with funds appropriated to the Department of Defense (DOD) or the military services. For each museum, 

this section would require the Secretary to provide: 

(1) A description of the museum facility; 

(2) Funds requested to operate, maintain, and repair the museum facility; 

(3) The number of DOD civilian personnel and uniformed 

service members employed or assigned to the museum; 

(4) A list of non-museum functions performed at the facility; 

(5) Justification for continued DOD funding; and 

(6) Funds received from organizations other than the Department to operate, maintain, and repair the museum. 

The committee recognizes that museums provide and preserve 

important records, perspectives, and relics of military history. Due 

to the large number of museums supported with appropriated 

funds, however, the committee believes it is important for Congress 

to have greater visibility over the cost and mission of these museums. The committee notes that the Army, Army Reserve, and Army 

National Guard operate 122 museums; and the Army has requested $25.0 million to operate its museums in fiscal year 2005. 

Section 342—Report on Department of Defense Programs for 

Prepositioning of Material and Equipment 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to evaluate 

and report to the congressional defense committees by October 1, 

2005, the Department of Defense’s strategic objectives for the military department’s preposition programs. In recent operations, the 

United States dictated the time of the engagement and the tempo 

of operations, which allowed proper planning and measured decisions on how to deliver combat equipment, combat support and 

sustainment equipment. The committee believes if the timing of a 

future engagement is not within the control of U.S. forces, the 

304 

value of an effective prepositioned strategy could be the difference 

in dictating the initial stages of a conflict. 

Presently, a majority of the prepositioned stocks are in use. The 

committee does not believe that restocking the existing preposition 

configuration will meet the Secretary’s stated goal of deploying to 

a distant theatre in ten days, defeating an enemy within thirty 

days, and being ready for an additional conflict within another thirty days. The current strategy also fails to incorporate concepts of 

joint doctrine. The Department has a unique opportunity to reassess and reconfigure these programs in the context of the new deployment goals. 

SUBTITLE F—OTHER MATTERS

Section 351—Extension of the Arsenal Support Program Initiative 

This section would amend Section 343 of the Floyd D. Spence 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public 

Law 106–398) to authorize the Secretary of the Army to extend the 

Arsenal Support Initiative Program through fiscal year 2008. This 

section would also require the Secretary to report to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services by March 1, 2007, the benefits of the program, the extent 

to which the program met its goals, and whether the program 

should be made permanent. 

Section 352—Limitation on Preparation or Implementation of MidRange Financial Improvement Plan 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from obligating operation and maintenance funds to implement the MidRange Financial Improvement Plan until the Secretary provides information to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services an explanation of how the operation and maintenance funds are to be utilized in fiscal year 

2005 and the estimated cost for this plan in future fiscal years. 

Section 353—Procurement of Follow-On Contracts for the 

Operation of Five Champion-Class T–5 Tank Vessels 

This section would require the Secretary of Navy to limit the 

next competition for the operation and maintenance of the five 

champion class T–5 fuel tankers to a United States corporation, 

partnership, or association, as defined in section 2 of the Shipping 

Act, 1916 (42 App. U.S.C. 802). The committee strongly supports 

the Secretary of the Navy’s intent to receive the best value using 

negotiated competitions. 

Section 354—Sense of Congress on America’s National World War 

I Museum 

This section would express the sense of Congress that the Liberty 

Memorial Museum in Kansas City, Missouri, is recognized as 

‘‘America’s National World War I Museum.’’

305 

TITLE IV—MILITARY PERSONNEL 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Study of High Demand Low Density Military Units and Personnel 

Both the active and reserve components are undergoing various 

transformation initiatives in order to provide lighter, more lethal 

forces to meet the national security challenges of the 21st century. 

The global war on terrorism has compelled the services to begin efforts to divest structure and forces from the Cold War era and to 

develop and establish forces that are more responsive to current requirements. In this new environment, the armed forces have found 

certain units and personnel are experiencing extraordinary levels of 

deployment and utilization. These so called high demand-low density units and personnel include, for example, military police, civil 

affairs, intelligence, psychological operations, and linguists. The 

committee directs the Comptroller General to determine the extent 

of the reliance on these active and reserve component high demand 

low density units and personnel to meet new national security requirements, and to identify the effectiveness of the efforts by the 

armed forces to reduce or eliminate reliance on high-demand-low 

density units and specialties. Furthermore, the Comptroller General will assess whether additional units and resources beyond current levels are necessary to meet current and future demands. The 

Comptroller General should report the findings and recommendations of the assessment to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 

2005. 

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, 2005. 

Service 

FY 2004 authorized and 

floor 

FY 2005 Change from 

Request 

Committee 

recommendation 

FY 2005 request FY 2004 authorized 

Army ...................................................................... 482,400 482,400 482,400 0 0 

Navy ....................................................................... 373,800 365,900 365,900 0 ¥7,900 

USMC ..................................................................... 175,000 175,000 175,000 0 0 

Air Force ................................................................ 359,300 359,700 359,700 0 400 

DOD .......................................................... 1,390,500 1,383,000 1,383,000 0 ¥7,500 

In addition to the fiscal year 2005 end strengths authorized by 

this section for the Army and the Marine Corps, sections 1531 and 

1532 increase Army and Marine Corps end strengths by 10,000 and 

3,000 respectively. 

306 

Section 402—Revision in Permanent Active Duty End Strength 

Minimum Levels 

This section would establish new minimum active duty end 

strengths for the Navy and the Air Force as of September 30, 2005. 

These changes in minimum strengths reflect the committee recommendations shown in section 401. 

Section 403—Maximum Number of Reserve Personnel Authorized 

To Be on Active Duty for Operational Support 

This section would authorize, as required by section 115(b) of 

title 10, United States Code, the maximum number of reserve component personnel who may be on active duty or full-time national 

guard duty during fiscal year 2005 to provide operational support. 

The personnel authorized here do not count against the end 

strengths authorized by sections 401 or 412. 

Service 

FY 2005 committee recommendation 

Army National Guard ................................................................................................................................................ 10,300 

Army Reserve ............................................................................................................................................................ 5,000 

Naval Reserve ........................................................................................................................................................... 6,200 

Marine Corps Reserve .............................................................................................................................................. 2,500 

Air National Guard ................................................................................................................................................... 10,100 

Air Force Reserve ...................................................................................................................................................... 3,600 

DOD Total .................................................................................................................................................... 37,700 

Section 404—Accounting and Management of Reserve Component 

Personnel Performing Active Duty or Full-Time National Guard 

Duty for Operational Support 

This section would establish the requirement for an annual congressional authorization of the maximum number of reserve component personnel to be on active duty or full-time national guard duty 

providing operational support. The committee makes this recommendation to provide a new, comprehensive approach for managing and accounting for reserve component members on active 

duty in support of operational missions. The section would eliminate the current 180-day strength accounting metric that requires 

all reservists on active duty beyond that limit to count against active component end strengths. In its place, the section would authorize reserve component members who are voluntarily on active 

duty to serve for up to three years, or a cumulative three years 

over a four-year period, before counting against active end 

strengths. The section would also exempt reserve component personnel authorized by this section from certain officer and enlisted 

grade limits. The committee believes that such flexibility will encourage the use of volunteers both during normal peacetime operations, as well as during times of national emergency. The section 

would also require the Secretary of Defense to evaluate programs 

whose reserve component personnel are exempt from counting 

against any statutory manpower authorizations and report to the 

Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services by June 1, 2005, the Secretary’s recommendations 

307 

for including these personnel within such statutory manpower authorizations. 

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, 2005: 

Service FY 2004 authorized 

FY 2005 Change from 

Request 

Committee 

recommendation 

FY 2005 request FY 2004 authorized 

Army National Guard ............................................. 350,000 350,000 350,000 0 0 

Army Reserve ......................................................... 205,000 205,000 205,000 0 0 

Naval Reserve ....................................................... 85,900 83,400 83,400 0 ¥2,500 

Marine Corps Reserve ........................................... 39,600 39,600 39,600 0 0 

Air National Guard ................................................ 107,030 106,800 106,800 0 ¥230 

Air Force Reserve .................................................. 75,800 76,100 76,100 0 300 

DOD Total .............................................................. 863,330 860,900 860,900 0 ¥2,430 

Coast Guard Reserve ............................................ 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 

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, 

2005: 

Service FY 2004 authorized 

FY 2005 Change from 

Request 

Committee 

recommendation 

FY 2005 request FY 2004 authorized 

Army National Guard ............................................. 25,599 26,476 26,476 0 877 

Army Reserve ......................................................... 14,374 14,970 14,970 0 596 

Naval Reserve ....................................................... 14,384 14,152 14,152 0 ¥232 

Marine Corps Reserve ........................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 0 0 

Air National Guard ................................................ 12,191 12,225 12,225 0 34 

Air Force Reserve .................................................. 1,660 1,900 1,900 0 240 

DOD Total ................................................. 70,469 71,984 71,984 0 1,515 

The committee’s recommendation would provide for a 2.1 percent 

growth in the strength of these full-time reservists above the levels 

authorized in fiscal year 2004. 

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, 2005: 

Service FY 2004 authorized (floor) 

FY 2005 Change from 

Request 

Committee 

recommendation (floor) 

FY 2005 request FY 2004 authorized 

Army National Guard ............................................. 24,589 25,076 25,076 0 487 

Army Reserve ......................................................... 6,949 7,299 7,299 0 350 

Air National Guard ................................................ 22,806 22,956 22,956 0 150 

308 

Service FY 2004 authorized (floor) 

FY 2005 Change from 

Request 

Committee 

recommendation (floor) 

FY 2005 request FY 2004 authorized 

Air Force Reserve .................................................. 9,991 9,954 9,954 0 ¥37 

DOD Total ................................................. 64,335 65,285 65,285 0 950 

The committee’s recommendation would provide for a 1.5 percent 

growth in the strength of military technicians above the levels authorized in fiscal year 2004. 

Section 414—Fiscal Year 2005 Limitation on Number of 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, 2005. 

SUBTITLE C—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 421—Military Personnel 

This section would authorize $1,046.5 million 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. 

Military personnel Amount (in dollars) 

617: Reform Critical Skills Retention Bonuses ............................................................................................... 5,000,000 

615: Reform Enlistment and Reenlistment Bonuses ....................................................................................... 15,000,000 

616: Revised Foreign Language Proficiency Pay ............................................................................................. 2,000,000 

619: Authorize Lateral Skills Training Bonus for Reserves ............................................................................. 3,000,000 

618: Authorize Officer Accession Bonus for Reserves ..................................................................................... 5,000,000 

605: Reserve Income Replacement Plan ......................................................................................................... 60,000,000 

620: Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay Military Firefighters ................................................................................ 9,630,000 

631: Expansion of Travel for Survivors to Attend Burials ............................................................................... 2,000,000 

632: Enhanced Family Member Travel to Visit Wounded ................................................................................ 3,000,000 

551: College First Delayed Enlistment Program .............................................................................................. 5,000,000 

526: Continue Loan Repayments Following Commissioning ........................................................................... 1,000,000 

525: Educational Assistance for Officers Commissioned from Military Junior Colleges ................................ 1,500,000 

GAO estimate FY 2005 Active Component unexpended funds ........................................................................ ¥230,000,000 

GAO Army Guard Underexecution due to Mobilization ..................................................................................... ¥20,000,000 

GAO Naval Reserve Underexecution due to Mobilization ................................................................................. ¥15,000,000 

Army Rotational Travel ..................................................................................................................................... ¥1,500,000 

Air Force General Officer Personal Money Allowance ...................................................................................... ¥9,630,000 

Section 422—Armed Forces Retirement Home 

This section would authorize $61,195.00 million to be appropriated for the operation of the Armed Forces Retirement Home 

during fiscal year 2005. 

TITLE V—MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY 

OVERVIEW 

The committee recommends changes in this title to address not 

only matters of long-term military personnel policy reform, but also 

present near-term policy and process solutions to issues highlighted 

as a result of the global war on terrorism. For example, that war 

309 

has required the mobilization of hundreds of thousands of reserve 

component members using an inefficient Cold War-era system that 

imposed undue stress on reserve component personnel and their 

families. The committee’s recommendations would take substantial 

steps toward reforming that mobilization process. The committee is 

also recommending a series of reforms in the management of general and flag officers to permit these highly qualified officers increased opportunity for service in critical positions. To better recognize the service by military personnel in Afghanistan and Iraq, the 

committee would recommend the establishment of separate service 

medals. To facilitate recruiting and participation in the Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps, the committee recommends several 

measures to improve access to college and university campuses. 

The committee recommendations also include reforms for both 

joint officer management and joint professional military education. 

The committee’s Report of the Panel on Military Education of the 

One Hundredth Congress, dated April 21, 1989, laid the foundation 

for joint officer development. That report, commonly known as the 

Skelton Report after the panel chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton, was the 

product of extensive study, and provided the analytical and philosophical foundation upon which to base both joint officer management policies and joint professional military education requirements. Since that time, the results of that study have enabled the 

Department of Defense to progress from operations in which the effort was to simply deconflict the services in the execution of their 

separate missions to the point today where recent combat experience demonstrates that the services have generally achieved integration in the execution of joint operations. 

Much of what the Skelton Report identified as requirements for 

joint officer management and joint professional military education 

clearly remains relevant today. However, the committee also understands that as the nature of warfare evolves so that future operations become more complex and joint at lower levels than before, 

the framework for developing persons skilled in joint matters must 

also evolve. Thus, while the committee’s recommendations contained in this title are first steps in the construction of that evolving framework, much more analysis is required before any additional changes are enacted. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Civilianization or Contracting Out of Military Chaplain Positions 

The committee is disturbed to learn that the military services are 

considering replacing military chaplains with civilian or contractor 

personnel. The committee believes that the implementation of such 

conversions would significantly undermine the ability of the military services to provide not only for the religious needs of uniformed personnel, but also for their families at home and overseas. 

The work of military chaplains is multifaceted. Regardless of the 

uniform they wear, chaplains share a common bond with their fellow soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and coast guardsman in the 

field. Regardless of their religion, they are brothers in arms. Military chaplains provide more than spiritual guidance. They are 

counselors and confidants to those who have witnessed first hand 

the horrors of war. Beyond this, military chaplains provide credible 

310 

support and guidance to the families enduring the stress of deployments, and they comfort those who mourn the loss of loved ones. 

For these reasons, the committee does not believe that civilian or 

contract chaplains could adequately or effectively replace military 

chaplains. Therefore, the committee urges each of the secretaries of 

the military services to abstain from implementing any recommendations to civilianize or contract out military chaplain positions. 

Curricula for Post-conflict Resolution 

The committee recognizes the important work that Department 

of Defense educational institutions have done in promoting interagency training for post-conflict operations. The committee recommends that curricula for joint training of military and civilian 

personnel continue to be developed and that the Department explore the utility of establishing a center for post-conflict reconstruction operations to pursue the following mission: (1) train key interagency personnel in assessment, strategy development, planning 

and coordination for post- conflict reconstruction; (2) develop and 

certify a cadre of post-conflict reconstruction experts who could be 

called to participate in future operations at both the headquarters 

and field levels; (3) provide pre-deployment training to interagency 

personnel tapped for specific operations; (4) develop a cadre of rapidly deployable training packages for use in the field; and, (5) conduct after-action reviews of real-world operations to capture lessons 

learned, best practices and tools and designing mechanisms to feed 

them back into training and education programs. 

Federal Voting Assistance Program 

The committee is very concerned that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) is not fully committed to securing the right to vote for the 

men and women in uniform serving our nation around the globe. 

Following the many absentee voting problems experienced by military members during the national election in 2000, Congress included a provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107) that expanded and improved the policies and procedures supporting the DOD-administered Federal Voting Assistance Program (FVAP) and DOD mail 

systems that carry voting materials between state and local voting 

officials and the service members. 

Reports from the United States General Accounting Office 

(GAO)(GAO–04–484) and the Inspector General of the Department 

of Defense (DOD IG)(D–2004–065, March 31, 2005) clearly demonstrate that the Department is not allocating the resources and 

management attention necessary to make the mail systems and the 

FVAP operate effectively. The GAO found that many of the problems from the Persian Gulf War of 1991 were repeated during Operation Iraqi Freedom because the United States Central Command’s plan for postal service contained flawed assumptions, was 

not adequately resourced, and was not fully implemented. The 

DOD IG found that of the voting assistance programs at 10 installations visited, 3 were partially effective and 7 were ineffective. Additionally, 58 percent of the respondents to a questionnaire did not 

know who their unit voting officer was. 

311 

The committee believes that immediate command emphasis is required at all levels to ensure that mail systems are improved and 

the FVAP is fully implemented in time to protect the voting rights 

of service members during the national election in November 2004. 

Accordingly, the Secretary of Defense shall submit report’s to the 

Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services on August 1, 2004 and October 1, 2004 on his actions to ensure that DOD mail systems and the FVAP are operating effectively in support of absentee voting for service members 

and his perspective regarding the status of military voting on that 

date. 

In addition to improving the military postal system for the purposes of supporting military absentee voters, the committee sees 

another, equally important, purpose in supporting the morale of 

our deployed troops and their families. Mail destined for deployed 

members of the armed forces that is delayed for long periods of 

time, or not delivered at all, negatively affects the morale of our 

deployed forces and their families at home. The Department of Defense should improve the military mail systems so that they comply 

with the Department’s own wartime standards for 1st class mail 

delivery. 

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 and advertising programs of the individual services. In that 

light, the committee believes that the Department’s joint advertising and market research reinvention effort can have a direct, 

positive long-term impact on the ability of the Department and the 

military services to recruit quality personnel. The committee believes that such a capability is especially critical at a time when 

the recruiting efforts of the military services could soon be challenged by a range of factors. For that reason, the committee recommends an increase of $10.0 million to the budget request for the 

Department’s joint advertising and market research effort. 

Meeting Department of Defense Requirements for Personnel with 

Foreign Language and Regional Expertise 

The committee notes that recent operational requirements with 

Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, as well 

as the global war on terrorism, place more emphasis on the need 

for foreign language and regional expertise among military personnel. The committee is concerned that the education and training 

provided to officers both before commissioning and throughout 

their careers may not adequately prepare military leaders with the 

skills needed for these and similar future operations. The committee is also interested in the degree to which officers with regional expertise and language ability are promoted and utilized 

within the force. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

conduct a study of these matters, including current practices for 

education and training in language and regional studies, numbers 

who are so trained, types of languages and areas studied, and comparative promotion rates. The study should also provide recommendations for the enhancement of language and regional studVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00335 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
312 

ies within the officer population. The committee directs the Secretary to submit this report by March 31, 2005 to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services. 

The committee is also aware of the Department’s efforts to transform its overall capability in foreign language and regional expertise. However, given the variety of required languages and extensive number of locations where DOD military and civilian personnel are operating and may operate, as well as the importance 

of these language and regional capabilities to overall defense strategy, this transformation will require a robust and sustained effort. 

The committee therefore directs the Secretary to establish a Defense Language Office within the Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness to ensure a strategic focus on 

meeting present and future requirements for language and regional 

expertise among military personnel and civilian employees of the 

Department. This office should establish and oversee policy regarding the development, management, and utilization of civilian employees as well as members of the armed forces; monitor the promotion, accession and retention of individuals with these critical 

skills; explore innovative concepts to expand capabilities; and establish policies to identify, track, and maximize the use to meet requirements for language and regional expertise. 

National Program for Citizen Soldier Support 

The committee believes that the increasing reliance on the National Guard and reserves that has occurred during the global war 

on terrorism requires the Secretary of Defense to take extraordinary measures to ensure that there is an effective support structure for reserve component personnel, their families and employers. 

The committee commends the Secretary for the broad efforts already underway to provide such support. The committee believes 

that the effectiveness of these support efforts could be enhanced 

and refined by incorporating the capabilities of university and community based organizations. The committee understands that the 

North Carolina based National Program for Citizen-Soldier Support 

is developing a comprehensive program that could prove useful to 

the Department of Defense in extending the reach and effectiveness 

of existing military-sponsored support agencies. The committee directs the Secretary to closely examine the National Program for 

Citizen-Soldier Support and others like it to determine how they 

might be integrated into the Department’s ongoing efforts. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—GENERAL AND FLAG OFFICER MATTERS

Section 501—Length of Service for Service Chiefs 

This section would authorize the President to extend the term of 

an officer serving as the Chief of Staff of the Army, the Chief of 

Naval Operations, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, or the Commandant of the Marine Corps for a period of up to two-years beyond the initial four-year appointment. In time of war or national 

emergency, the President would be able to extend the term of office 

for such additional periods as the President determines necessary. 

313 

However, the section would limit the total period of an officer’s 

term as a service chief to eight years under any circumstance. 

Under current law, the chief of a military service is appointed for 

a four-year term and may only be reappointed during wartime or 

national emergency for up to four additional years. 

Section 502—Repeal of Requirement that Deputy Chiefs and Assistant Chiefs of Naval Operations Be Selected from Officers in 

the Line of the Navy 

This section would require that candidates for selection as deputy chiefs and assistant chiefs of naval operations be chosen from 

the officers of the Navy on active duty. Current law specifies that 

candidates for deputy chiefs and assistant chiefs of naval operations be chosen only from among officers in the line of the Navy 

on active duty. 

Section 503—Increase in Age Limit for Deferral of Mandatory 

Retirement for Up to 10 Senior General and Flag Officers 

This section would increase from 64 to 66 the mandatory retirement age for senior general and flag officers whom the President 

had previously retained on active duty beyond the statutory limits 

on either time in grade or age. Under current law, not more than 

ten deferments of the mandatory retirement of three- and four-star 

general and flag officers may be in effect at any one time. 

Section 504—Increased Flexibility for Voluntary Retirement for 

Military Officers 

This section 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, the section would: 

(1) Require officers serving in grades above colonel, or captain in the Navy, to serve a minimum of one year time-ingrade before being allowed to retire in that grade; 

(2) 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. 

Section 505—Repeal of Requirement that No More than 50 Percent 

of Active Duty General and Flag Officers be in Grades Above 

Brigadier General and Rear Admiral (Lower Half) 

This section would repeal the limitation that no more than 50 

percent of general and flag officers in a military service on active 

duty can be in grades above one-star, that is above brigadier general and rear admiral (lower half). There is no explicit statutory 

limitation on the numbers of two-star general and flag officers on 

active duty, and this section would not change either the total 

numbers of general or flag officers allowed on active duty or the 

statutory limits on the numbers of general and flag officers serving 

314 

on active duty in three- and four-star grades. Therefore, the effect 

of the proposed repeal would be to permit each of the military services some additional flexibility in managing the distribution of oneand two-star general and flag officers. 

Section 506—Revision to Terms for Assistants to the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff for National Guard and Reserve Matters 

The section would authorize the assistants to the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff for national guard and reserve matters to 

serve an initial term of four years. Under current law, the initial 

term is two years. 

Section 507—Succession for Position of Chief, National Guard 

Bureau 

This section would establish a chain of succession when there is 

a vacancy in the office of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau, 

or in the event that the chief is unable to perform the duties of the 

office. In such cases, the most senior ranking officer of the Army 

National Guard or of the Air National Guard on duty with the National Guard Bureau would serve as acting chief. 

Section 508—Title of Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau 

Changed to Director of the Joint Staff of the National Guard Bureau 

This section would change the title of the Vice Chief of the National Guard Bureau to better reflect the duties of the position now 

that the staff of the National Guard Bureau has been reorganized 

as a joint organization. 

Section 509—Two-Year Extension of Authority to Waive Requirement that Reserve Chiefs and National Guard Directors Have 

Significant Joint Duty Experience 

This section would extend for two years, until December 31, 

2006, the authority of the Secretary of Defense to waive the requirement that the chiefs of the reserves and the directors of the 

Army and Air National Guard must have significant joint duty experience to be eligible for appointment. 

The requirement for officers to have significant joint duty experience as a condition of service in these most senior of reserve component general and flag officer positions was established in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 

106–65). In recognition of the challenge that reserve component officers face in getting joint duty experience, the public law provided 

the Secretary temporary three-year authority to waive the requirement. That waiver authority was extended in 2000, with the expectation that the Department and the military services would make 

a concerted effort to develop a system for ensuring reserve officers 

obtained the requisite joint experience. The committee, therefore, 

was disappointed when the budget request for fiscal year 2005 

sought to make permanent the Secretary’s waiver authority. 

The committee believes that a concerted effort must be made to 

develop a system to provide significant joint duty experience to 

those officers who will be candidates for the senior military leaderVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00338 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
315 

ship positions of the reserve components. For that reason, this section would also require that the Secretary develop a plan to ensure 

that officers selected after December 31, 2006, to be the chiefs of 

the reserves and the directors of the Army and Air National Guard, 

have significant joint duty experience. 

Section 510—Repeal of Distribution Requirements for Naval 

Reserve Flag Officers 

This section would repeal the prescribed distribution of the 48 

flag officers authorized for the Naval Reserve, thereby permitting 

greater flexibility for the Department of the Navy to adapt its reserve flag officer inventory to meet current requirements. Current 

law mandates the allocation of these flag officers among the line, 

Medical Department Staff Corps, Chaplain Corps and Judge Advocate General’s Corps. 

SUBTITLE B—OTHER OFFICER PERSONNEL POLICY MATTERS

Section 511—Transition of the Active-Duty List Officer Force to All 

Regular Status 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to commission all new officer accessions as regular officers and transition all 

officers on the active-duty list to regular status. 

Section 512—Mandatory Retention on Active duty to Qualify for 

Retired Pay 

This section would clarify that section 12686 of title 10, United 

States Code, does not require that reservists serving on active duty 

with over 18 years of reserve service be retained on active duty for 

the purpose of qualifying the member for reserve retirement. 

Section 513—Distribution in Grade of Marine Corps Reserve 

Officers in an Active Status in Grades Below Brigadier General 

This section would correct a technical discrepancy in the grade 

table for the Marine Corps Reserve that has inappropriately limited the number of officers authorized in each grade below brigadier general. 

Section 514—Tuition Assistance for Officers 

This section would authorize the secretaries of the military departments to waive for reserve component officers the two-year active duty service obligation required as a condition for receipt of 

tuition assistance while on active duty. This section would also repeal the limit on the amount of tuition assistance that the Secretary of the Army was authorized to pay officers of the selected 

reserve who are pursuing a baccalaureate degree. At present, the 

Secretary is limited to paying for such officers not more than 75 

percent of the charges of an educational institution. 

316 

SUBTITLE C—RESERVE COMPONENT MATTERS

Section 521—Revision to Statutory Purpose of the Reserve 

Components 

This section would clarify that the purpose of the reserve components is to provide trained units and qualified persons not just as 

the result of involuntary mobilizations but whenever more units 

and persons are needed than are in the active components. The revision recommended by this section more accurately reflects recent 

and future employment of the reserve components. 

Section 522—Improved Access to Reserve Component Members for 

Enhanced Training 

This section would authorize units and members of the reserve 

components to be involuntarily mobilized for the purposes of training. Current law prohibits mobilizations for training, reflecting a 

Cold War construct that assumed, in the face of predictable 

threats, that there would be an extended period available for training reserve units and individuals prior to deployment. The global 

war on terrorism has pointed out the need to repeal the prohibition 

in order to increase the readiness of the reserve component units, 

shorten time between mobilization and deployment and provide for 

a more orderly, predictable and effective mobilization process that 

reduces stress on individuals, families and employers. To that end, 

the section would authorize units and individuals to be ordered to 

active duty to conduct required training. However, the section 

would require that the time spent in such training be counted 

against the mobilization time limits that are established in law. 

Section 523—Status Under Disability Retirement System for Reserve Members Released from Active Duty Due to Inability to 

Perform within 30 Days of Call to Active Duty 

This section would clarify that mobilized reserve members may 

be separated when they are identified within 30 days as being unable to serve the full period for which they were mobilized due to 

preexisting medical conditions that were not aggravated while on 

active duty. Such member would be considered as serving under an 

order to active duty for a period of 30 days or less. 

Section 524—Federal Civil Service Military Leave for Reserve and 

National Guard Civilian Technicians 

This section would eliminate the restriction on the use of military leave specified in section 6323 of title 5, United States Code, 

during a war or national emergency declared by the President and 

would authorize reserve component members who are federal employees to participate in a leave status in operations outside the 

United States. 

Section 525—Expanded Educational Assistance Authority for Officers Commissioned Through ROTC Program at Military Junior 

College 

This section would allow commissioned officers who graduate 

from a military junior college to receive additional financial assistVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00340 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
317 

ance to complete their baccalaureate degree requirements. Individuals who participate in this program would be attached to a Senior 

Reserve Officers’ Training Corps unit in order to ensure that they 

maintain their military training, bearing and education as they 

complete their post-secondary education. 

Section 526—Effect of Appointment or Commission as Officer on 

Eligibility for Selected Reserve Education Loan Repayment Program for Enlisted Members 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to continue 

to repay educational loans for enlisted members in a reserve component after they are commissioned as officers if the members continue to serve the period specified in the original loan repayment 

agreement. 

Section 527—Number of Starbase Academies in a State 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, based on 

criteria he would prescribe, to permit a state to have more than 

two Starbase academies. 

Section 528—Comptroller General Assessment of Integration of 

Active and Reserve Components of the Navy 

This section would require the Comptroller General to review the 

Navy’s implementation plans for the integration of the service’s active and reserve components. The Comptroller General shall submit a report of the results of that assessment to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and House Committee on Armed Services by March 31, 2005. 

Section 529—Operational Activities Conducted by the National 

Guard Under Authority of Title 32 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to provide 

funds to the governor of a state to employ national guard units and 

personnel to conduct operational activities that the Secretary determines to be in the national interest. This section would also establish a process by which the governor of a state may request funding 

from the Secretary for the operational activities of that state’s national guard. The committee makes these recommendations in 

order to provide the Secretary with clear authority to more effectively incorporate national guard units and personnel into the planning and implementation of homeland security and other operational missions. 

Section 530—Army Program for Assignment of Active Component 

Advisers to Units of the Selected Reserve 

This section would reduce from 5,000 to 3,500 the minimum 

number of Army active component advisers that are required to be 

assigned to support the training and readiness of selected reserve 

units of the Army. The committee understands that the Chief of 

Staff of the Army requested this reduction in order to provide active component officers and non- commissioned officers as cadre for 

the new brigade units of action that the Army is creating. The committee supports that initiative. However, the committee is conVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00341 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
318 

cerned that such a reduction of active component support could 

have both short- and long-term negative effects on the training and 

readiness of combat and key support elements of the Army reserve 

components. The committee is also concerned that the Army has 

neither fully assessed those effects, nor developed a plan to address 

them. For that reason, this section would prohibit the Secretary of 

the Army from making any reductions in the numbers of active 

component advisors until the Secretary reports to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services, by March 31, 2005, on the impact of the reduction and his 

plan to remediate any negative impact on training and readiness. 

SUBTITLE D—JOINT OFFICER MANAGEMENT

Section 531—Strategic Plan to Link Joint Officer Development to 

Overall Missions and Goals of Department Of Defense 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, with the advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to develop a strategic plan linking future requirements for military personnel 

trained and educated in joint matters to the resources required to 

develop those persons, in terms of manpower, formal education and 

practical experience and other requirements. Additionally, the strategic plan would identify the method or methods the Secretary will 

use to fulfill those requirements. 

Over the past several years, the committee has received multiple 

proposals from the Department of Defense to change significant aspects of joint officer management and joint military professional 

education enacted as a result of the Report of the Panel on Military 

Education from the One Hundredth Congress. The committee 

has consistently rejected these proposals because they were not offered in a coherent, comprehensive context—a context that presented the Department’s overall vision for joint management and 

education. The strategic plan required by this section would provide the framework within which to consider what, if any, future 

changes to joint officer management and joint professional military 

education, are required. 

The strategic plan would consist of two phases. Phase I would 

focus on what has been traditionally referred to as ‘‘joint officers.’’

This section would require the Secretary to submit phase I of the 

strategic plan to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services by January 1, 2006. However, 

the committee believes that the requirement for persons trained 

and educated in joint matters is not confined to just the active component officer ranks. Therefore, phase II would address the roles 

that reserve component officers, non-commissioned officers, and civilians play in future joint matters, identify the resources required 

to develop them, and clarify the methods used by the Department 

as they integrate and manage persons trained and educated in 

joint matters. The section would require the Secretary to submit a 

report of his proposal for phase II to the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by 

January 15, 2007. 

319 

Section 532—Joint Requirements for Promotion to Flag or General 

Officer Grade 

This section would extend from September 30, 2007, to September 30, 2008, the date after which an officer must be selected 

for the joint specialty before promotion to the grade of brigadier 

general or rear admiral (lower half). The committee is aware of the 

difficulties some services may have in meeting this requirement 

but believes with close management each service will be able to 

comply with the extended implementation date. Furthermore, the 

committee believes that secretaries of the military departments 

must be more proactive in properly managing officers early in their 

careers to ensure that they receive the opportunities for joint professional military education at points that align them properly for 

consideration for promotion, without the use of waivers, to grades 

that have a joint education or service requirement. 

This section would also eliminate the requirement that an officer 

serve in a joint assignment at least 180 days prior to the convening 

of a promotion board for appointment to the grade of brigadier general or rear admiral (lower half). 

Section 533—Clarification of Tours of Duty Qualifying as a Joint 

Duty Assignment 

This section would modify the definition regarding the term ‘‘tour 

of duty’’ to allow officers to continue accumulating joint credit if 

they serve consecutive joint duty assignments, even if those assignments are not within the same organization. 

Section 534—Reserve Joint Special Officer Qualifications 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to award 

the joint specialty officer designation to reserve officers who have 

met the prescribed requirements for such designation. The section 

would also require that reserve officers be included in Department 

of Defense management policies, procedures and practices for joint 

specialty officers. 

This section would exclude reserve officers who have or have 

been nominated for the joint specialty from being counted for 

against the joint officer promotion policy objectives. 

SUBTITLE E—PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION

Section 541—Improvement to Professional Military Education in 

the Department of Defense 

This section would establish a chapter in title 10, United States 

Code, that combines new and existing sections of law related to 

professional military education. This new title contains eight sections, sections 2151 through 2158. Section 2151 would define the 

terms ‘‘joint professional military education,’’ ‘‘intermediate level 

service schools,’’ and ‘‘senior level service schools’’. Section 2152, 

2153 and 2154 would modify slightly and codify the Statement of 

Congressional Policy related to professional military education contained in section 1123 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 (P.L. 101–189; 103 Stat. 1556). The 

committee believes these provisions have a permanence and conVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00343 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
320 

tinuing importance that warrant codification. Section 2155 would 

require that the secretaries of the military departments use a written examination as a portion of the evaluation criteria in selecting 

officers for full-time attendance at intermediate level service colleges. This section would also provide that an officer selected by his 

service to attend an intermediate level service college would be eligible for attendance at all intermediate level service colleges. It is 

not the committee’s intent to standardize school selection criteria 

across the services but to encourage the introduction of intellectual 

rigor in that selection process. Selection criteria based solely on a 

junior officer’s record of duty performance at the tactical level in 

a single service environment or simply as a random result of the 

service assignment process is not a sufficient basis to identify those 

officers who have the best potential to grasp the complex intellectual concepts of joint matters and to ultimately excel in a joint 

operational environment. Additionally, the committee believes that 

one of the fundamental pillars of joint professional military education is an officer’s personal continuing education program when 

not assigned to a formal school environment. The committee believes that a written entrance examination requirement for matriculation at the intermediate level service schools would provide a 

focus for such a continuing education program so that officers will 

prepare themselves for further formal education, well in advance of 

the actual school selection process. Section 2156 would require that 

after September 30, 2009, an officer must have completed joint professional military education phase I before attending phase II. This 

section would also prescribe phase II curriculum. Additionally, it 

would prescribe student and faculty ratios when phase II is taught 

at a senior level service school. It is the committee’s intent to preserve the unique character of each of the senior level service 

schools while providing a mix of services represented in the student 

bodies and faculty that enables the cross-service acculturation that 

is such a key component of joint officer education. The committee 

understands that current Department of Defense policy sets the ratios of military department representation in the student bodies 

and faculty at the Joint Forces Staff College and the Colleges of the 

National Defense University at approximately 30 percent for each 

military department. The committee believes this ratio is appropriate at those institutions and should not change. Section 2157 

would require that the length of the principal course of instruction 

at each intermediate and senior level service school be not less 

than 10 months, and provide the Secretary of Defense with a waiver for that requirement. The section would also require that the 

length of the principal course of instruction at the Joint Force Staff 

College, which is now required to be 12 weeks, can not be less than 

10 weeks. Section 2158 would require that the Secretary include in 

his annual report to Congress the number of officers who have received joint professional military education phase II, but who were 

not selected for promotion. This section would also require the Secretary to report the number of officer students and faculty assigned 

from each service to a joint professional military educational institution. Finally, this would make conforming adjustments in the existing law. 

321 

Section 542—Ribbons to Recognize Completion of Joint Professional 

Military Education 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to award 

a military decoration to persons who have successfully completed 

joint professional military education phase I and to subsequently 

award a device to affix to that ribbon when a person has successfully completed joint professional military education phase II. 

These awards would be retroactive for any person who has completed either phase I or phase II since the sequenced approach to 

joint professional military education was enacted in 1989. 

The committee considers joint professional military education to 

be a vital contributing aspect to the excellence the Department of 

Defense has historically demonstrated. This education becomes 

even more important as the nature of modern warfare becomes 

more complex. The committee believes that an officer becomes fully 

competent in joint matters when joint professional military education is appropriately combined with practical joint operational experience. Officers who complete certain routine operational assignments are awarded service ribbons to signify successful completion 

of that assignment. With the establishment of this decoration, the 

status of completion of joint professional military education would 

be elevated to a level on par with those operational assignments. 

Section 543—Increase in Number of Private-Sector Civilians Who 

May Be Enrolled for Instruction at National Defense University 

This section would increase the maximum number of eligible private sector employees who work in organizations relevant to national security to receive instruction at the National Defense University from 10 to 20. 

Section 544—Requirement for Completion of Phase I Joint Professional Military Education before Promotion to Colonel or Navy 

Captain 

This section would require, with certain exceptions, that after 

September 30, 2007, officers on the active duty list complete joint 

professional military education phase I or phase II prior to being 

appointed to the grade of colonel or Navy captain. 

SUBTITLE F—OTHER EDUCATION AND TRAINING MATTERS

Section 551—College First Delayed Enlistment Program 

This section would permanently authorize the College First demonstration project originally authorized for the Army in section 573 

of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 

(Public Law 106–65) and would extend the authority to implement 

the program to all the secretaries of the military departments. 

Under the College First program, entry on active duty for new recruits would be delayed for up to 30 months to allow the recruits 

the opportunity to pursue higher education, vocational, or technical 

training courses. During the delayed entry period, the recruits 

would be paid a subsistence allowance and the secretaries would 

have the option to pay an additional stipend that may not exceed 

$225. 

322 

Section 552—Standardization of Authority to Confer Degrees on 

Graduates of Community College of the Air Force with Authority 

for Other Schools of Air University 

This section would shift the authority for conferring associate degrees on graduates of the Community College of the Air Force from 

the commander of the Air Education and Training Command to the 

commander of Air University. Such a shift would ensure that only 

the commander of Air University is responsible for conferring all 

degrees, thus addressing a concern that arose during the accreditation of Air University programs. 

Section 553—Change in Titles of Heads of the Naval Postgraduate 

School 

This section would change the title of the head of the Naval Postgraduate School from Superintendent of the Naval Postgraduate 

School to President of the Naval Postgraduate School. The section 

would also establish a new civilian position of Provost and Academic Dean, and revise the procedures to fill the position. 

Section 554—Increase from Two Years to Three Years in Period for 

which Educational Leave of Absence May Be Authorized 

This section would expand the authority for service members to 

take educational leave from two years to three years. 

Section 555—Correction to Disparate Treatment of Disabilities 

Sustained During Accession Training 

This section would provide the capability to effectively respond to 

injury and illness sustained during accession training by authorizing military academy cadets and midshipmen to be disability retired and Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps cadets and midshipmen to receive medical and dental care appropriate for the 

treatment of the injury, illness, or disease incurred until the disability cannot be materially improved. 

Section 556—Prayer at Military Service Academy Activities 

This section would authorize the superintendent of a service 

academy to establish a policy with respect to the offering of a voluntary, nondenominational prayer at an authorized activity of the 

academy. 

Section 557—Revision to Conditions on Service of Officers as 

Service Academy Superintendents 

This section would repeal the requirement that the superintendents of the military service academies retire upon completion of 

their assignments. The committee makes this recommendation to 

permit the secretaries of the military departments flexibility with 

regard to future utilization of talented senior officers. However, the 

committee is concerned that tenure of officers assigned as superintendents be of sufficient length to permit those officers to make 

significant contributions in the oversight and management of these 

premier educational institutions. Therefore, this section would require that an officer serve at least a three-year tour as superVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00346 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
323 

intendent, and that if the officer is reassigned before that period, 

then the secretary of the military department concerned would be 

required to notify the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 

the House Committee on Armed Services of the reasons for the curtailed assignment. 

Section 558—Codification of Prohibition on Imposition of Certain 

Charges and Fees at Service Academies 

This section would add to title 10 of the United States Code, a 

provision of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1995 (Public Law 103–337). That provision prohibited the imposition of charges for tuition, room or board at the United States Military Academy, the United States Naval Academy, the United 

States Air Force Academy, the United States Coast Guard Academy, and the United States Merchant Marine Academy. 

Section 559—Qualifications of the Dean of the Faculty of United 

States Air Force Academy 

This section would require that a person selected to be the dean 

of faculty at the Air Force Academy, who is not an officer on active 

duty, must be either a retired or former officer of the armed forces. 

Furthermore, the section would prohibit the appointment or assignment of a person to be the dean of faculty unless that person held 

the highest academic degree in that person’s academic field. 

SUBTITLE G—MEDALS AND DECORATIONS AND SPECIAL PROMOTIONS

AND APPOINTMENTS

Section 561—Separate Military Campaign Medals to Recognize 

Service in Operation Enduring Freedom and Service in Operation Iraqi Freedom 

This section would require the President to establish separate 

campaign medals to recognize the service of members during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Section 562—Eligibility of All Uniformed Services Personnel for 

National Defense Service Medal 

This section would require the President to authorize the award 

of the National Defense Service Medal to members of the uniformed services. 

Section 563—Authority to Appoint Brigadier General Charles E. 

Yeager, United States Air Force (retired), to the Grade of Major 

General on the Retired List 

This section would authorize the President to appoint, by and 

with the advice and consent of the Senate, Brigadier General 

Charles E. Yeager to the grade of major general on the retired list 

of the Air Force. 

Section 564—Posthumous Commission of William Mitchell in the 

Grade of Major General in the Army 

This section would authorize the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to issue a posthumous commission 

324 

as major general, United States Army, in the name of the late William Mitchell, formerly a colonel, United States Army, who resigned his commission on February 1, 1925. 

SUBTITLE H—MILITARY JUSTICE MATTERS

Section 571—Review on How Sexual Offenses Are Covered by 

Uniformed Code of Military Justice 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a 

proposal for changes regarding sexual offenses in the Uniformed 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and the rationale for the changes 

to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 1, 2005. Recent congressional 

and Department of Defense focus on the problem of sexual assault 

in the military services suggest that it is necessary to examine how 

sexual offenses are treated in the UCMJ, primarily Article 120. 

Congress strongly encourages the Department to closely align the 

statutory language of sexual assault law under the UCMJ with federal law under sections 2241 through 2247 of title 18, United 

States Code. 

Section 572—Service Time Not Lost When Confined in Connection 

with Trial if Confinement Excused as Unavoidable 

This section would require the military departments to waive lost 

time when a service member is acquitted or released without trial, 

or has his conviction set-aside on legal grounds (as distinguished 

from clemency) or reversed based upon appeal. Existing law does 

not give the military departments any discretion to consider a service member’s confinement if the member is acquitted or if there is 

another resolution of the case favorable to the member qualifying 

for service credit. Existing law requires service members to make 

up time lost for any period of confinement by civilian or military 

authorities. 

Section 573—Clarification of Authority of Military Legal Assistance 

Counsel to Provide Military Legal Assistance without Regard to 

Licensing Requirements 

This section would clarify section 1044 of title 10, United States 

Code, so that licensed Department of Defense military legal assistance officers would have the authority to practice law in connection 

with their official duties independent of state regulations for those 

states where they are unlicensed. 

SUBTITLE I—ADMINISTRATIVE AND MANAGEMENT MATTERS

Section 581—Three-Year Extension of Limitation on Reductions of 

Personnel of Agencies Responsible for Review and Correction of 

Military Records 

This section would extend through September 30, 2008, the prohibition precluding the secretaries of the military departments 

from reducing the number of military and civilian personnel assigned to duty within the boards until 90 days after the secretary 

of the military department concerned submits a report that describes the proposed reduction, provides the rationale for the reducVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00348 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
325 

tion, and specifies the number of personnel that will be assigned 

to the board after the reduction is complete. 

Section 582—Staffing and Funding for Defense Prisoner of War/ 

Missing Personnel Office 

This section would establish specific permanent minimum levels 

of military and civil personnel assigned to the Defense Prisoner of 

War Missing Personnel Office (DPMO). It would also require, 

should the actual assigned strength drop below the minimum levels, that the Secretary of Defense report publicly to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services his plan to restore the manning levels to at least the required minimums. The committee believes such action is necessary 

because the DPMO, which performs a critical range of missions for 

the nation and the missing personnel of past and future wars, has 

not had the full support of the Department of Defense with regard 

to the adequacy of DPMO manning or funding. For example, the 

September 2001 committee report on H.R. 2586 (H. Rept. 107–194), 

noting that DPMO manning had been reduced by 40 percent since 

its creation, directed the Secretary to increase DPMO resources in 

the fiscal year 2003 budget request. When the Secretary did not 

heed that direction and the committee learned that the Department was considering a further personnel reduction of 15 percent, 

committee action in the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization 

Act of Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) led to the enactment 

of a prohibition any reduction of DPMO funding and personnel 

below the levels requested in the 2003 budget. Notwithstanding 

this statutory prohibition, the department’s fiscal year 2005 budget 

request for DPMO proposed a 59 percent reduction in military 

spaces (from 46 to 19) and the repeal of the minimum funding requirement. The committee urges the Secretary to end any further 

efforts to reduce manning and resources in DPMO and to commit 

the department to ensuring that the DPMO is fully able to carry 

out the entire range of missions assigned to it. 

Section 583—Permanent ID Cards for Retiree Dependents Age 70 

and Older 

This section would require the service secretaries concerned to 

issue permanent identification cards to dependents of military retirees and survivors of military retirees eligible for benefits for periods after the dependent or survivor attains age 70. 

Section 584—Authority to Provide Civilian Clothing to Members 

Traveling in Connection with Medical Evacuation 

This section would authorize the secretaries of the military departments to furnish members who have been medically evacuated 

civilian clothing at a cost not exceed $250 or to reimburse the 

member for the purchase of civilian clothing in an amount not to 

exceed $250. 

326 

Section 585—Authority to Accept Donation of Frequent Flyer 

Miles, Credits, and Tickets to Facilitate Rest and Recuperation 

Travel of Deployed Members of the Armed Forces and Their 

Families 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to accept 

the donation of frequent flyer miles, credits, and tickets for the 

purpose of facilitating the travel of members of the armed forces 

who are deployed away from their permanent duty station and are 

granted, during such deployment, rest and recuperation leave and 

certain other forms of leave and the travel of family members to 

be reunited with such a member. 

Section 586—Limitation on Amendment or Cancellation of Department of Defense Directive Relating to Reasonable Access to Military Installations for Certain Personal Commercial Solicitation 

This section would prohibit the Secretary of Defense from canceling or amending Department of Defense (DOD) directive 1344.7, 

Personal Commercial Solicitation on DOD Installations, for a period of one year after the United States General Accounting Office 

reports to Congress on the findings of an ongoing review of the financial allotment system and the treatment of insurance agents by 

military finance offices and local managers and commanders on 

DOD installations. 

Section 587—Annual Identification of Reasons for Discharges from 

the Armed Services During Preceding Fiscal Years 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to report annually to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services detailed information regarding of 

the numbers of persons discharged from each of the military services in the preceding fiscal year. Information required to be included in the report would include the numbers and types of discharges, as well as the identification of the occupational specialties 

and reenlistment eligibility of discharged service members. 

Section 588—Authority for Federal Recognition of National Guard 

Commissioned Officers Appointed from Former Coast Guard Personnel 

This section would make current and former officers and enlisted 

members of the Coast Guard, as well graduates of the United 

States Coast Guard Academy, eligible for federal recognition after 

becoming commissioned officers of the national guard. 

Section 589—Study of Blended Wing Concept for the Air Force 

This section would required the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report on matters related to that service’s current implementation of and future plans for blended wings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services by March 1, 2005. Blended wings are operational units 

whose membership is comprised of personnel from more than one 

component—active, national guard, or reserve. The report would 

also require the Secretary to provide the criteria used to determine 

what units become blended units. 

327 

Section 590—Continuation of Impact Aid Assistance on Behalf of 

Dependents of Certain Members Despite Change in Status of 

Member 

This section would temporarily adjust the process for computing 

the amount of funding provided by Department of Education to certain local educational agencies heavily impacted by dependents of 

military personnel. The adjustment, limited to school year 2004–

2005, would require that certain children continue be counted as a 

child enrolled in school when computing the average daily attendance, which is a key component of the amount of aid the school 

might receive. Such children include those who attend the school 

but who no longer live on a military base because both parents are 

deployed, or are children who temporarily reside in military base 

housing following the death on active duty of a military parent. 

SUBTITLE J—OTHER MATTERS

Section 591—Employment Preferences for Spouses of Certain Department of Defense Civilian Employees Subject to Relocation 

Agreements 

This section would expand the employment preference for 

spouses of Department of Defense (DOD) civilian employees who 

have been assigned under a mandatory mobility agreement or similar mandatory mobility program. The employment preference 

would include DOD appropriated and nonappropriated fund civilian 

positions. This authority would place spouses of civilian employees 

in an equivalent position to spouses of military members who already receive employment preferences. 

Section 592—Repeal of Requirement to Conduct Electronic Voting 

Demonstration Project for the Federal Election to be Held in November 2004 

This section would repeal the requirement in section 1604 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public 

Law 107–107) for the Secretary of Defense to conduct a demonstration project to permit absentee uniformed service voters to cast 

their ballots through an electronic voting system. The committee 

regrets that the Deputy Secretary of Defense believed he had no 

option but to terminate the electronic voting demonstration project, 

but the committee understands that the decision was necessary to 

avoid any risk that the demonstration project would threaten the 

integrity of the election process. 

Section 593—Examination of Sexual Assault in the Armed Forces 

by the Defense Task Force Established to Examine Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to expand 

the mission of the Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence 

at the Military Service Academies that was established in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 

108–136). Under the name of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Assault in the Military Services, the task force would examine matters related to sexual assault in the military. This section would reVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00351 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
328 

quire that the task force report findings and recommendations to 

the Secretary of Defense, and the secretaries of the military departments 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 his 

evaluation of the report, to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services. At the same 

time, the Secretary of Defense would also be required to provide to 

those committees an assessment of the effectiveness of the corrective actions being taken by the Department of Defense and military 

services as a result of various investigations and reviews into matters involving sexual assault. 

Section 594—Renewal of Pilot Program for Treating GED and 

Home School Diploma Recipients as High School Graduates for 

Determinations of Eligibility for Enlistment 

This section would reestablish the pilot program originally authorized by section 571 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261). The 

program would permit participants in a National Guard Youth 

Challenge Program who receive a general education development 

certificate and those who complete their high school requirements 

through a home schooling program to enlist in the armed forces as 

if they had received a high school diploma. 

Section 595—Assistance to Local Educational Agencies that Benefit 

Dependents of Members of the Armed Forces and Department of 

Defense Civilian Employees 

This section would provide $50.0 million for assistance to local 

educational agencies. The committee makes this recommendation 

in connection with it continuing strong support of the need to help 

local school districts with significant concentrations of military students. 

Section 596—Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps and Recruiter 

Access at Institutions of Higher Education 

This section would require that military recruiters be given access to campuses and students at institutions of higher education 

that is at least equal in quality and scope to the access provided 

to any other employer. The section would also require the Secretary 

of Defense to obtain an annual verification from colleges and universities who already support the Reserve Officer Training Corps 

(ROTC) program that they will continue to do so in the upcoming 

academic year. The section would also add two additional defenserelated funding sources, the Central Intelligence Agency and the 

National Nuclear Security Administration of the Department of Energy, and would restore the funds of the Department of Transportation to the list of covered funds that potentially could be terminated if an institution is determined to prevent recruiter access or 

maintains anti-ROTC policies. 

329 

Section 597—Reports on Transformation Milestones 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide a 

number of reports to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 

the House Committee on Armed Services on different aspects of 

transformational efforts underway in the Department. One report 

would provide information on the efforts to convert military to civilian positions, and a series of annual reports in fiscal years 2005 

through 2007 would provide information on the conversion of military positions to other higher priority military positions. The section would also require the Secretary of Defense to examine the 

feasibility of implementing: (1) a system to embed within the military on a temporary basis persons with civilian skills that are of 

high value to the military, and (2) a personnel system that expands 

the capability of the armed forces to rapidly access, from other than 

the reserve components, civilian volunteers with skills needed by 

the armed forces. Finally, the section would also require the Secretary of the Army to report annually on the status of efforts to 

transform the Army from a division-oriented system to a brigade 

oriented one. 

TITLE VI—COMPENSATIONS AND OTHER 

PERSONNEL BENEFITS 

OVERVIEW 

The committee continues to support the strong and flexible compensation and benefit programs needed to recruit and retain a 

quality force in a wartime environment. Accordingly, the committee 

recommends authorization of an enhanced across-the-board pay 

raise of 3.5 percent, restructured compensation programs for reserve forces to ensure equity with active duty members, and continued emphasis on pay and allowances for the warfighters. 

The committee remains committed to protecting military exchange and commissary benefits. Accordingly, the committee would 

include a series of provisions to define and expand the commissary 

benefit and protect military communities from unnecessary store 

closures. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Combat-Related Special Compensation 

The committee continues to receive complaints from combat-disabled retirees and the organizations representing them that the 

processing time for Combat-Related Special Compensation applications is excessive. The committee is aware that the expanded criteria enacted in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) are now generating thousands of 

additional applicants that will increase demands on the processing 

systems. 

The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to examine 

the processing systems used by the military departments and consider methods for expediting the time required to review applications. The committee suggests that the Secretary consider consolidating the organizations currently evaluating applications into a 

330 

more efficient central processing organization with increased personnel and fiscal resources. 

Commissary Funding After Closure of a Store 

The committee remains committed to preserving the commissary 

benefit for military members and their families and improving 

services whenever possible. Accordingly, the committee urges the 

Secretary of Defense to ensure that funding made available as a result of the closure of a commissary, whether closed as a result of 

a base realignment or closure action or other cause, be reallocated 

to the Defense Commissary Agency to support improved commissary operations at other locations. 

Consolidation of the Military Exchanges 

The committee remains concerned that the ongoing effort to 

evaluate the utility of consolidating the military exchanges is illadvised and, if not managed carefully, will cause an erosion of the 

exchange benefit. The committee considers the military exchanges 

an important quality of life benefit that is pivotal to the welfare of 

military communities around the world. The committee understands that the cost of consolidation will likely exceed $300.0 million and that prior consolidation studies have concluded that such 

costs present too great a risk to the dividend paid by the exchanges 

to morale, welfare and recreation programs. 

Accordingly, the committee insists that any proposal to consolidate military exchanges include a strong business case that resolves all concerns about the fiscal implications of consolidation. 

The committee intends to reject any proposal that does not include 

a strong business case. 

The committee is also concerned about reports that the perspectives of all the stakeholders are not being fully considered during 

the evaluation process. The committee would view the failure of the 

Unified Exchange Task Force to consider the views and concerns 

of all participants as a major flaw that will taint any proposal. 

Homestead Air Reserve Base, Florida, Combined Commissary and 

Exchange Store 

The committee is concerned that the Secretary of Defense continues to consider the closure of the combined commissary and exchange store at Homestead Air Reserve Base (ARB), Florida. The 

committee believes that closing the store would be a significant loss 

to the service members, retirees, and their families that reside in 

the Homestead ARB military community and throughout southern 

Florida. The committee is aware that there are force structure 

changes being considered for Homestead ARB that would significantly change the patron population that would use the store. The 

committee strongly encourages the Secretary to delay the decision 

to close the store until such time as any potential increase in the 

military population at Homestead ARB can be confirmed and measured. Assuming that current force projections are fulfilled, the committee also recommends that the Secretary consider opening a full 

service commissary at Homestead ARB as soon as the active duty 

population at the base increases beyond the minimum standard required under Department of Defense policy. 

331 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—PAY AND ALLOWANCES

Section 601—Increase in Basic Pay for Fiscal Year 2005 

This section would increase basic pay for members of the armed 

forces by 3.5 percent. 

This raise would continue to fulfill Congress’ commitment to enhanced pay raises for the armed forces and would reduce the pay 

gap between military and private sector pay increases from 5.5 percent to 5.1 percent. 

Section 602—Authority to Provide Family Separation Basic 

Allowance for Housing 

The section would authorize the service secretary concerned the 

discretion to decline to pay family separation housing allowances 

when the member’s circumstances do not justify such payments. 

Section 603—Geographic Basis for Basic Allowance for Housing 

during Short Changes of Station for Professional Military Education or Training 

This section would authorize service members who attend professional military education or training lasting 12 months or less to 

elect to leave their families at their previous duty station and receive basic allowance for housing based on the area where their dependents reside. 

Section 604—–Immediate Lump-Sum Reimbursement for Unusual 

Nonrecurring Expenses Incurred by Members Serving Outside 

Continental United States 

This section would authorize the service secretary concerned to 

pay service members serving outside the continental United States 

for certain unusual nonrecurring expenses. 

Section 605—Income Replacement Payments for Reserves Experiencing Extended and Frequent Mobilization for Active Duty 

Service 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to pay involuntarily mobilized reserve members on a monthly basis the amount 

necessary to replace the income differential between their regular 

military compensation (RMC) plus any special or incentive pays 

and allowances paid to the member on a monthly basis and the average monthly income received by the member during the twelve 

months preceding the month during which the member was mobilized. This section would define the income differential as the 

amount by which the member’s average monthly income prior to 

mobilization exceeds the member’s RMC plus any special or incentive pays and allowances paid to the member on a monthly basis. 

Reserve members with private sector income that exceeds their active duty income would be eligible for the income replacement payment for any full month following the date that the member completes 12 continuous months of service on active duty or 18 months 

on active duty during the previous 60 months, or for any month 

332 

during a mobilization that occurs within 6 months of the member’s 

last active duty tour. Payments would be limited to a minimum of 

$50 each month and a maximum of $3,000 each month. 

Section 606—Authority for Certain Members Deployed in Combat 

Zones to Receive Limited Advances on Their Future Base Pay 

This section would authorize the secretary concerned to pay service members assigned to locations where they would receive imminent danger pay for 12 or more months up to 3 months of basic 

pay in advance upon the request of the member. 

SUBTITLE B—BONUSES AND SPECIAL AND INCENTIVE PAYS

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

Authorities 

This section would extend the authority for the following bonus 

and special pay authorities to December 31, 2005: 

(1) Nurse officer candidate accession program; 

(2) Aviation officer retention bonus; 

(3) Accession bonus for registered nurses; 

(4) Incentive special pay for nurse anesthetists; 

(5) Accession bonus for dental officers; 

(6) Accession bonus for pharmacy officers; 

(7) Reenlistment bonus for active and reserve members; 

(8) Enlistment bonus for active and reserve members; 

(9) Special pay for nuclear-qualified officers extending the 

period of active service; 

(10) Nuclear career accession bonus; 

(11) Nuclear career annual incentive bonus; 

(12) Retention bonus for members with critical skills or other 

criteria; and 

(13) Accession or affiliation bonus for new officers in critical 

skills. 

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, 2006. 

Section 612—Reduction in Required Service Commitment to 

Receive Accession Bonus for Registered Nurses 

This section would reduce the service commitment required for 

the nurse accession bonus from four to three years of service. 

Section 613—Increase in Maximum Monthly Rate Authorized for 

Hardship Duty Pay 

This section would increase the maximum amount of hardship 

duty pay payable from $300 to $750 per month. The committee believes this increase provides the Secretary of Defense needed flexibility to ensure that service members receive appropriate compensation regardless of where they are required to serve during the 

global war on terrorism. 

333 

Section 614—Termination of Assignment Incentive Pay for 

Members Placed on Terminal Leave 

This section would require termination of assignment incentive 

pay when the member is placed on terminal leave and will not be 

returning to the assignment location. 

Section 615—Consolidation of Reenlistment and Enlistment Bonus 

Authorities for Regular and Reserve Components 

This section would allow reserve component members to be paid 

enlistment and reenlistment bonuses using the same authority 

used to pay active duty members. The provision would also extend 

eligibility for the reenlistment bonus through 17 years of service 

and grant the flexibility to use the reenlistment bonus during war 

and national emergency to address unit specific retention problems 

without regard to critical skill eligibility requirements. The committee intends that this authority be used to pay a bonus to former 

members of the armed forces to reenlist for service in a reserve 

component. 

Section 616—Revision of Authority to Provide Foreign Language 

Proficiency Pay 

This section would authorize the service secretary concerned to 

pay an annual bonus of up to $12,000 to members of the uniformed 

services who maintain proficiency in a foreign language. 

Section 617—Eligibility of Reserve Component Members for Critical Skills Retention Bonus and Expansion of Authority to Provide Bonus 

This section would allow reserve component members to be paid 

retention bonuses using the same authority used to pay active duty 

members. The provision would also clarify that enlisted personnel 

on indefinite enlistments are eligible to receive bonuses and that 

bonuses may be paid based on criteria other than service in a critical skill as determined by the Secretary of Defense. The committee 

intends that this authority be used to pay bonuses, if required, to 

service members who agree to serve in an active status in any category of the ready reserve, affiliate with reserve component units, 

accept assignments to high priority reserve units, and continue to 

serve in critically short wartime health specialties. 

Section 618—Eligibility of New Reserve Component Officers for 

Accession or Affiliation Bonus for Officers in Critical Skills 

This section would allow reserve component officers to be paid an 

accession or affiliation bonus using the same authority used to pay 

active duty officers. 

Section 619–Eligibility of Reserve Component Members for Incentive Bonus for Conversion to Military Occupational Specialty to 

Ease Personnel Shortage 

This section would allow reserve component members to be paid 

bonuses for converting to critical occupational specialties using the 

same authority used to pay active duty members. 

334 

Section 620—Availability of Hazardous Duty Incentive Pay for 

Military Firefighters 

This section would establish a new hazardous duty incentive pay 

of $150 per month for members of the uniformed services who regularly perform duty as a member of a firefighting crew. 

SUBTITLE C—TRAVEL AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCES

Section 631—Expansion of Travel and Transportation Allowances 

to Assist Survivors of a Deceased Member to Attend Burial Ceremony of the Member 

This section would clarify that family members are authorized to 

travel at government expense to the burial site of a member who 

dies while on active duty or inactive duty and that the member’s 

parents are always eligible to travel at government expense to attend the burial ceremony. 

Section 632—Transportation of Family Members Incident to the 

Serious Illness or Injury of Members of the Uniformed Services 

This section would expand the number and categories of family 

members and other people that would be entitled to transportation 

at government expense and would authorize such persons to receive a per diem or be reimbursed for travel expenses. 

Section 633—Reimbursement of Members for Certain Lodging 

Costs Incurred in Connection with Student Dependent Travel 

This section would authorize the service secretary concerned to 

reimburse a service member for lodging costs incurred by a dependent child traveling between the child’s school and the member’s 

overseas duty station when the lodging expenses are incurred for 

reasons beyond the control of the dependent child. 

SUBTITLE D—SURVIVORS BENEFITS

Section 641—Computation of Benefits Under Survivor Benefit Plan 

for Surviving Spouses Over Age 62 

This section would eliminate the social security offset under the 

Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) and increase the annuities paid to survivors of military retirees who are 62 or older from 35 percent of 

retired pay to the percentages indicated for the following fiscal 

years: 

(1) For months after September 2005 and before April 2006, 

40 percent; 

(2) For months after March 2006 and before April 2007, 45 

percent; 

(3) For months after March 2007 and before April 2008, 50 

percent; and 

(4) For months after March 2008, 55 percent. 

This section would also make corresponding adjustments to the 

SBP supplemental annuity program and would require SBP annuities to be recalculated during October 2005, April 2006, April 

2007, and April 2008 to ensure that beneficiaries receive the appropriate amount of annuity. 

335 

Section 642—Open Enrollment Period for Survivor Benefit Plan 

Commencing October 1, 2005 

This section would authorize an open season for retired members 

to participate in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) or increase the 

level of their participation if they were previously participating 

below the maximum allowed level. The open season would begin 

October 1, 2005 and continue for two years. 

Section 643—Source of Funds for Survivor Benefit Plan Annuities 

for Department of Defense Beneficiaries Over Age 62 

This section would clarify that the payments into the Department of Defense Military Retirement Fund in support of the 

changes made in section 642 would be calculated by the Secretary 

of Defense and paid by the Secretary of the Treasury. 

SUBTITLE E—COMMISSARY AND NONAPPROPRIATED FUND

INSTRUMENTALITY BENEFITS

Section 651—Consolidation and Reorganization of Legislative Provisions Regarding Defense Commissary System and Exchanges 

and other Morale, Welfare, and Recreational Activities 

This section would consolidate a wide range of sections from title 

10, United States Code and other laws concerning commissaries, 

exchanges, and other morale, welfare, and recreation activities. The 

provision would also: 

(1) Define the commissary benefit and require the Secretary 

of Defense to operate a commissary system; 

(2) Specify the criteria for establishment of commissaries, determination of the size of commissaries, and the closure of commissaries, to include direction to consider the welfare of reserve patrons in the same manner as active duty patrons are 

considered when assessing the need to close a commissary; 

(3) Require the Secretary to submit to Congress written notice of the reasons supporting the closure of a commissary, to 

include the impact of the proposed closure on the quality of life 

of the patrons and the welfare of the military community, and 

wait 90 days before taking action to close the store; 

(4) Clarify the categories of the merchandize that shall be 

sold in commissaries, to include the addition of telephone 

cards, greeting cards, and film and one-time use cameras and 

a list of general merchandise items that shall continue to be 

sold in commissaries on a limited basis unless space or other 

considerations prevent the sale of the items; 

(5) Establish a moratorium on studies to compare the cost effectiveness of commissary operations employing federal civilian 

employees and such operations employing private sector employees through December 31, 2009; and 

(6) Specify that the priority in selecting Commissary Operating Board members should be given to people with skills and 

experience useful to the operating of commissaries and that the 

board chairman shall be a career military officer or career 

member of the Senior Executive Service. 

336 

Section 652—Consistent State Treatment of Department of Defense 

Nonappropriated Fund Health Benefits Program 

This section would clarify that the Department of Defense Nonappropriated Fund Health Benefit Program is a federal health benefit program not subject to state, local, and territorial or other laws 

taxes, and health plan mandates. The provision would provide the 

same status to this single, uniform program that had existed previously for the separate programs that had been operated by the 

military departments prior to consolidation. 

Section 653—Cooperation and Assistance for Qualified Scouting 

Organizations Serving Dependents of Members of the Armed 

Forces and Civilian Employees Overseas 

This section would require that professional staff supporting both 

the Boy Scouts of America and the Girl Scouts of the United States 

of America in overseas areas be made nonappropriated fund employees of the United States and would clarify that appropriated 

funds may be used to pay the costs of the employees. The committee believes that this action is required to confirm the status of 

scouting professionals in overseas areas and resolve any uncertainty regarding their treatment and access to support services in 

foreign countries. 

SUBTITLE F—OTHER MATTERS

Section 661—Repeal of Requirement that Members Entitled to 

Basic Allowance for Subsistence Pay Subsistence Charges while 

Hospitalized 

This section would repeal the requirement for officers and certain 

enlisted members to pay subsistence charges when they are hospitalized. 

Section 662—Clarification of Education Loans Qualifying for Education Loan Repayment Program for Reserve Component Health 

Professions Officers 

This section would clarify that college loans involving both a 

basic professional qualifying degree and graduate education would 

qualify for repayment under section 16302 of title 10, United States 

Code. 

Section 663—Survey and Analysis of Effect of Extended and Frequent Mobilization of Reservists for Active Duty Service on Reservist Income 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

detailed study of the loss of income by mobilized reservists who 

have served on active duty in support of a contingency operation 

following September 11, 2001. The provision would require the Secretary to survey a minimum of 50 percent of such reservists, collect 

demographic data on the surveyed members, identify members in 

critical skills, identify members who believe that replacing lost income would affect their retention decision, identify members who 

experience reduced income levels while on active duty, determine 

the amount of lost income in each case, and analyze the data. The 

337 

provision would require the Secretary to report his findings and 

recommendations to address the problem of reduced income for mobilized reservists to Congress and the Comptroller General by January 31, 2006. The provision would require the Comptroller General to review the report of the Secretary and report his findings 

to Congress by March 31, 2006. 

The committee believes that accurate information regarding the 

loss of income by mobilized reservists is an important prerequisite 

to establishing a lasting solution to the problem. The committee is 

particularly interested in the data as it relates to military occupational specialty because that analysis is expected to reveal important insight regarding high demand skills that would benefit from 

specific financial incentives and force balancing initiatives. 

TITLE VII—HEALTHCARE MATTERS 

OVERVIEW 

The committee continues to be concerned about growing stress on 

the Defense Health Program which partly results from the strain 

faced by the civilian health care systems in the nation. In the face 

of the growing cost of health care in general, the military health 

system must provide for medical readiness and force health protection for our men and women in uniform and ensure health care 

services to all other beneficiaries. As the nation fights the global 

war on terrorism, the Department of Defense will transition from 

complex existing TRICARE contracts to challenging new and very 

different TRICARE contracts. No other healthcare system has ever 

faced a similar experience. In light of the many challenges faced by 

the military health system, the committee continues to believe that 

the Defense Health Program must be fully funded. 

The committee remains strongly committed to ensuring that the 

force health protection and the medical readiness of our service 

members have the highest priority. Accordingly, the committee recommends legislation to ensure the deployability of active and reserve component service members and their protection from health 

threats during military operations. In addition, several provisions 

would assist family members of activated reservists to transition in 

and out of the military health system. 

Finally, the committee is steadfast in its view that the transition 

to the new TRICARE contracts must not disrupt beneficiary health 

care, and that it optimizes military treatment facilities while preserving access to high quality health care. The committee is 

pleased by the TRICARE transformation efforts and spirit of cooperation by the various military and private sector health care entities. However, the committee remains concerned that some of the 

contracts carved out from the major managed care support contracts, such as those for patient appointment services, nurse triage 

and health information line, and resource sharing, may leave the 

transition process at risk for disruption of health care delivery and 

increased beneficiary dissatisfaction. The committee expects to be 

kept informed by the Department of Defense and the military services on the ongoing efforts to develop and implement the carved out 

contracts. 

338 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Collection of Perinatal Information 

The committee strongly supports the goal of the TRICARE Family-Centered Care program, which the Department of Defense established in August 2003, to improve and enhance family-friendly 

care in the military health system. One aspect of the Family-Centered Care program was the importance of providing high quality 

perinatal care to pregnant service members and dependents. In 

order to ensure high quality care the committee supports the use 

of the National Perinatal Information Center that specializes in the 

collection of obstetric and neonatal data necessary to determine 

quality measures. The committee urges the Department to continue 

its efforts to measure quality perinatal care so that pregnant service members and dependents continue to receive high quality 

perinatal care in the military health care system. 

Coordination of TRICARE and Medicare Benefits and Provider 

Payments 

Recent changes to the Medicare program enacted by Congress 

may have created administrative and benefit disparities between 

Medicare and TRICARE for Medicare-eligible military beneficiaries. Such disparities cause complex problems for beneficiaries 

and may result in complications and inconsistencies that may deter 

health care providers from participation and acceptance of military 

beneficiaries. They also pose added costs to TRICARE contractors 

as a result of having to administer multiple sets of adjudication 

rules and respond to increased complaints and appeals from providers and beneficiaries. The committee believes that elimination of 

such disparities wherever possible is important to promoting provider participation and improving access to a consistent benefit for 

TRICARE beneficiaries. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

study to identify disparities between benefits and administration 

methodologies within the Medicare and TRICARE programs. The 

study should also include an assessment of the impact of such disparities on program effectiveness, provider participation, and beneficiary understanding; a summary of actions taken to reduce those 

disparities; identification of the rationale for any differences that 

the Secretary deems necessary; and recommendations for legislative or other action needed to reduce such disparities. The committee directs the Secretary to submit a report by March 31, 2005, 

to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services. 

Department of Defense Chemical and Biological Test Review 

The Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2003 (Public Law 107–314) required the Comptroller General 

to evaluate the efforts of the Secretary of Defense to disclose to the 

Department of Veterans Affairs all Department of Defense (DOD) 

records and information on Project 112. Such disclosure was to facilitate the provision of benefits by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to members of the armed forces who participated in that 

339 

project. The Comptroller General’s review of DOD efforts recommends that the Department: 

(1) Determine the feasibility of addressing unresolved issues 

associated with Project 112, and the appropriateness of and responsibility for reporting new information; 

(2) Finalize and implement a plan for identifying DOD 

projects and tests conducted outside Project 112; 

(3) Designate a single point of contact for providing information related to tests and potential exposures in and outside 

Project 112. 

The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to implement 

these recommendations and submit a report on the status of the 

implementation by March 1, 2005, to the Senate Committee on 

Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services. 

Landstuhl Regional Medical Center Alteration 

The committee notes that Landstuhl Regional Medical Center 

(LRMC) serves as the primary medical treatment center for casualties of United States operations within Europe, Southwest Asia and 

the Middle East. With the increased need to accommodate casualties from the global war on terrorism, LRMC requires climate control in certain patient facilities. The committee recommends $10.0 

million for the purpose of providing an air conditioning system in 

patient care areas at LRMC. 

Military-Civilian Education Programs Related to Sexual Health 

Decision-Making 

The committee is aware of collaborative military-civilian education programs related to sexual health decision-making that demonstrates 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 programs and consider their 

use by the services. A military-civilian demonstration project was 

set up in Colorado Springs, Colorado, as a collaborative effort to encourage sexual integrity and reduce sexually transmitted infections 

and unplanned pregnancies in the military. As a continued measure of support for those efforts and to further encourage the Secretary to examine the progress of the military-civilian demonstration project, the committee recommends $0.2 million for the purposes of continuing the demonstration project and to encourage 

program expansion of sexual integrity training to other military installations. 

Nurse Triage and Health Information Line Services 

The committee is deeply committed to ensuring a smooth transition from the current TRICARE contracts to the new TRICARE 

contracts. In particular, the committee is concerned that there are 

no transition plans for nurse triage and health care information 

line services that were eliminated from the new TRICARE contracts. The committee believes that the elimination of this service 

from the regional contracts may have a significant impact on beneVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00363 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
340 

ficiary access to quality health care services. While the elimination 

of the nurse triage and health information line from the managed 

care support contracts may be prudent, the committee questions 

whether a return to an ad hoc, localized approach to providing 

triage and delivering health information will degrade uniformity 

and beneficiary satisfaction, and reduce the economies of scale and 

efficiencies across the military health system. The committee therefore directs the Secretary of Defense to provide the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services with a comprehensive plan for ensuring a smooth transition for nurse triage and health information line services by December 31, 2004. The plan shall include a detailed explanation of 

the Department of Defense proposal to fulfill nurse triage and 

health information line services, specifically addressing: (1) the elements of the plan; (2) the timeline and current status for implementation; (3) an assessment of the military services’ abilities to 

perform the services; (4) any gaps in fulfilling these services; (5) 

how the Department will ensure uniformity within and across regions; and (6) the estimated cost of providing these services, taking 

into consideration not only the direct cost of providing the service, 

but also the cost in terms of health outcomes, provision of needed 

care, avoidance of unnecessary care, and redirection of care to a 

more appropriate level. 

Reserve Component Requirement for Medical and Dental 

Readiness Accountability 

The committee continues to be concerned about the medical and 

dental readiness of the reserve component. The number of reserve 

component soldiers activated for deployment with disqualifying 

medical and dental conditions highlights the greater need for medical personnel and operational commanders to strictly monitor the 

individual medical readiness of these personnel. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to ensure the military departments 

have systematic processes for providing appropriate health examinations and assessments and a means for capturing health information. The Department of Defense and the military services 

should consider the recommendations of the Armed Forces Epidemiological Board in its report of September 17, 2003, and consider 

modeling their programs after the Air Force Preventive Health Assessment and Individual Medical Readiness Program. Equally important, the Department should incentivize commanders and hold 

them accountable for enforcing and monitoring medical and dental 

requirements to ensure the medical readiness. 

Resource Sharing Agreements 

The committee is highly concerned about potential disruptions to 

providing quality patient care during the transition from the current TRICARE contracts to the new TRICARE contracts, especially 

as the carved out resource sharing programs evolve to new contractual agreements. The committee encourages the Secretary of Defense to take into account the use of all existing authorities to 

guarantee a smooth transition and to ensure that the new contracts: (1) are as cost effective as the current agreements, (2) provide for similar flexibility in staffing, and (3) provide uninterrupted 

341 

care for beneficiaries during the transition from existing to new 

contracts. 

State-of-the-Art Mobility Equipment 

The committee is strongly committed to ensuring that those who 

are injured or become ill serving the nation receive the finest rehabilitation efforts to maximize independence and accessibility. To 

that end, the committee supports efforts to provide service members, especially those individuals with orthopedic and neurologic 

disorders, with the finest mobility equipment. This equipment 

would allow users to walk on all surfaces and would be all-terrain 

in nature, providing maximum mobility. Equipment should (1) minimize any additional damage to the body as found in many instances with standard equipment, (2) be lightweight, and (3) require minimal energy expenditure. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—ENHANCED HEALTH CARE BENEFITS FOR RESERVES

Section 701—Demonstration Project for TRICARE Coverage for 

Ready Reserve Members 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

three-year demonstration project to provide TRICARE coverage for 

Ready Reserve members not on active duty who are ineligible for 

employer-sponsored health benefits. The purpose of the demonstration would be to determine whether such coverage enhances medical readiness, recruiting, and retention of reserve component members. The Secretary would be required to report by April 1, 2007 

on the results of the demonstration project to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services. The section would require the Comptroller General to provide both periodic and final independent evaluations and reports of 

the demonstration project to the same committees. 

Section 702—Comptroller General Report on the Cost and Feasibility of Providing Private Health Insurance Stipends for Members of the Ready Reserve 

This section would require the Comptroller General to conduct a 

study of the cost and feasibility of providing a stipend to offset the 

cost of private health insurance to members of the reserves and 

their dependents, and to maintain continuity of health care for dependents when members are mobilized. The purpose of the study 

would be to examine recommendations for benefit amount; cost to 

the Department; potential effects on medical readiness, recruitment, and retention; participation rates; continuity of care; administrative and management considerations; and implications for employers. 

Section 703—Improvement of Medical Services for Activated 

Members of the Ready Reserve and Their Families 

This section would make permanent the now temporary eligibility of dependents of reserve component members to obtain 

TRICARE health care benefits up to 90 days before the date on 

342 

which the member’s period of active duty is to begin. The section 

would allow the Secretary of Defense to provide health care benefits to service members up to 90 days before the date on which the 

period of active duty is to begin. The current temporary authority 

for this health care benefit expires on December 31, 2004. 

Section 704—Modification of Waiver of Certain Deductibles Under 

TRICARE Program 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to waive 

deductible payments required by certain TRICARE programs for 

dependents of certain reserve component members who are called 

or ordered to active duty for a period of more than 30 days. This 

section would mitigate the financial hardship on activated reservists by allowing the TRICARE deductibles to be waived in cases 

where mobilized reservists had already paid deductibles for their 

civilian health care coverage. 

Section 705—Authority for Payment by United States of Additional 

Amounts Billed by Health Care Providers to Activated Reserve 

Members 

This section would protect a dependent of a member of a reserve 

component who is ordered to active duty for a period of more than 

30 days in support of a contingency operation from paying a health 

care provider any amount above the TRICARE maximum allowable 

cost, known as balance billing. In such cases, the Secretary of Defense would have authority to pay the balance billing amount. 

Section 706—Extension of Transitional Health Care Benefits After 

Separation from Active Duty 

This section would make permanent the authority to provide 

Transition Assistance Medical Program (TAMP) benefits to service 

members and their dependents for up to 180 days following separation from active duty. Under current law, the authority to provide 

the 180-day TAMP benefits expires on December 31, 2004. The section also would require that the TAMP eligibility would cease prior 

to the 180–day limit if the beneficiaries acquire employer-provided 

health insurance. The section would limit the outlays associated 

with the TAMP benefits provided after January 1, 2005 to not more 

than $170.0 million. 

SUBTITLE B—OTHER BENEFITS IMPROVEMENTS

Section 711—Coverage of Certain Young Children Under TRICARE 

Dental Program 

This section would permit certain dependents of service members 

who die while serving on active duty or who die as a member of 

the Ready Reserve to enroll in the TRICARE Dental Program regardless of the dependent’s dental plan enrollment status on the 

date of the service member’s death. Many dependents, due to their 

young age, are not enrolled in the TRICARE Dental Plan. In cases 

where the service member dies, the child’s nonparticipation due to 

their young age disadvantages them from future eligibility. This 

section would authorize these dependents to participate in the denVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00366 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
343 

tal plan in the same manner as other dependents of service members who die while on active duty. 

Section 712—Comptroller General Report on Provision of Health 

and Support Services for Exceptional Family Member Program 

Enrollees 

This section would require the Comptroller General to evaluate 

the effect of the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) on 

health and support services in select civilian communities near 

military communities with a high concentration of EFMP enrollees 

that use federal, state and local health and support services. The 

study mandated under this section would pay special attention to: 

(1) Identifying communities that have high concentrations of 

EFMP enrollees that use local health and support services; 

(2) Evaluating the needs, if any, that are not met by federal, 

state and local health and support service for EFMP enrollees; 

(3) Determining the burden, if any, placed on federal, state 

and local health and support services that provide care to 

EFMP enrollees; 

(4) Evaluating TRICARE’s ability to meet the needs of 

EFMP enrollees; 

(5) Examining the reason for any limitations of TRICARE, 

the EFMP, and state and local health and support services in 

providing assistance to military families with EFMP members; 

and 

(6) Providing recommendations for more effectively meeting 

the needs of EFMP enrollees. 

The study would examine no less than four major communities 

where EFMP enrollees live and in which several major military installations exist, including installations from multiple military 

services. The Comptroller General shall submit his report of findings and recommendations to the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services by March 

31, 2005. 

Section 713—Exceptional Eligibility for TRICARE Prime Remote 

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive all restrictions with regard to TRICARE Prime Remote medical care coverage for active duty family members that reside at a remote location without regard to their sponsor’s current or past assignment. 

Such a waiver would occur if the Secretary determines that there 

are extenuating circumstances such that waiving the restrictions is 

consistent with the intent of the law. 

Section 714—Transition to Home Health Care Benefit Under Subacute Care Program 

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to extend previous benefits for part-time or intermittent home health care after 

the transition to new managed care support contracts that result 

in a change in benefits. 

344 

Section 715—Requirement Relating to Prescription Drug Benefits 

for Medicare-Eligible Enrollees Under Defense Health Care Plans 

This section would prohibit the prescription drug cost-sharing requirements for Medicare-eligible beneficiaries from being in excess 

of the cost-sharing requirements applicable to non-Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. 

Section 716—Professional Accreditation of Military Dentists 

This section would allow the secretaries of the military departments to authorize the treatment of no more than 2,000 children, 

under the age of 13 per year at certain military facilities offering 

residency programs in oral and maxillofacial surgery and 

orthodontics. This authority would maintain the viability of military dental training programs by allowing treatment of a pediatric 

population, as required by the American Dental Association for the 

accreditation of such programs. 

Section 717—Addition of Certain Unremarried Former Spouses to 

Persons Eligible for Dental Insurance Plan of Retirees of the 

Uniformed Services 

This section would permit certain unremarried former spouses of 

a member or former member to participate in the TRICARE Retiree Dental Program if they do not have dental coverage under an 

employer-sponsored health plan. 

Section 718—Waiver of Collection of Payments Due from Certain 

Persons Unaware of Loss of CHAMPUS Eligibility 

This section would allow the Secretary of Defense to waive the 

collection of certain payments for health care services provided during a period of ineligibility between July 1, 1999 and December 31, 

2004 for beneficiaries under age 65 entitled to Medicare on the 

basis of disability or end stage renal disease. The waiver would 

apply to those beneficiaries who were unaware of their loss of eligibility to receive health benefits at the time they were received. The 

amendment would also require the Department of Defense to report quarterly to Congress regarding DOD efforts to identify the 

eligibility status of individuals for such benefits and the actions 

taken when individuals are determined to be ineligible. 

SUBTITLE C—PLANNING, PROGRAMMING, AND MANAGEMENT

Section 721—Pilot Program for Transformation of Health Care 

Delivery 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

three-year pilot program to test a model for future health care delivery systems at one or more military installations where the military population is expected to expand. The model to be tested 

would focus on coordinating and leveraging the use of existing 

health care resources, to include federal, state, local, and contractor 

assets to meet increased health care requirements. Historically, the 

approach to providing military health care to military beneficiaries 

has centered on building a military treatment facility on the installation. With increasing requirements to repair or replace aging 

345 

military treatment facilities it may be more feasible and cost effective to leverage non- military health care resources. The Secretary 

would be required to submit an interim report by July 1, 2005 on 

the implementation plan for the pilot program and a final report 

by July 1, 2007 on the results of the pilot program to the Senate 

Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services. 

Section 722—Study of Provision of Travel Reimbursement to 

Hospitals for Certain Military Disability Retirees 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

study of the feasibility and desirability of providing disability retirees travel and transportation benefits to receive medical treatment 

at military hospitals for two years after their retirement. The provision would direct the Secretary to report the results of the study 

to the congressional defense subcommittees by March 1, 2005. 

TITLE VIII—ACQUISITION POLICY, ACQUISITION 

MANAGEMENT, AND RELATED MATTERS 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL CONTRACTING

AUTHORITIES, PROCEDURES, AND LIMITATIONS

Section 801—Rapid Acquisition Authority to Respond to Combat 

Emergencies 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to establish a streamlined acquisition process for use when combat fatalities have occurred, the combatant commander has an urgent need 

of equipment, and delay would cause a continuation of combat fatalities. This process is to be used as a ‘‘quick start’’ bridge to the 

normal acquisition process. 

The committee finds that the current Department of Defense acquisition system cannot respond in a timely manner to the combatant commander’s urgent need of combat equipment. A rapid response to emergency combat situations would minimize combat fatalities when reacting to changes in the opponent’s battlefield tactics. 

Section 802—Defense Acquisition Workforce Changes 

This section would amend various sections in chapter 87 of title 

10, United States Code. First, it would align the provisions in chapter 87 of title 10, United States Code, relating to defense acquisition workforce with similar provisions contained in chapter 99 of 

title 5, United States Code. Second, it would authorize the Secretary of Defense to designate critical acquisition positions. Third, 

it would require the Secretary and scholarship participants to enter 

written agreements that identify obligations and consequences for 

breach of contract. 

346 

Section 803—Limitation on Task and Delivery Order Contracts 

This section would amend section 2304a of title 10, United States 

Code, to clarify that the Secretary of Defense has authority to enter 

into task and delivery contracts for a base period of up to five 

years, and that the contract may include additional options for a 

period of time as is deemed appropriate. 

Section 804—Funding for Contract Cancellation Ceilings for 

Certain Multiyear Procurement Contracts 

This section would amend section 2306b(g) and section 2306c(d) 

of title 10, United States Code, to require the head of the agency 

concerned to provide written notification, to the congressional defense committees, in those instances when cancellation costs that 

are above $100 million are not fully funded. The written notification would include a financial risk assessment for not fully funding 

the cancellation ceiling. 

Section 805—Increased Threshold for Requiring Contractors to Provide Specified Employee Information to Cooperative Agreement 

Holders 

This section would amend section 2416(d) of title 10, United 

States Code, by raising the $0.5 million reporting requirement to 

$1.0 million. Currently, the Secretary of Defense is required to provide some basic contractor information to certain organizations on 

contracts that have a value of $0.5 million or more. 

Section 806—Extension of Authority for Use of Simplified 

Acquisition Procedures 

This section would amend section 4202(e) of the Clinger-Cohen 

Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–106) by extending until October 1, 

2009, the time frame in which the secretary of an executive agency 

may use simplified procedures to purchase commercial items that 

have a value of $5.0 million or less. 

Section 807—Authority to Adjust Acquisition-Related Dollar 

Thresholds for Inflation 

This section would authorize the Federal Acquisition Regulatory 

Council to amend the dollar threshold of procurement statutes in 

accordance with inflationary rates in order to maintain the constant dollar value of the threshold. In those instances where a procurement statute applies to a single agency, the secretary of that 

agency has authority to amend the dollar threshold. This section 

would require any proposed change to be coordinated with the Director of Office of Management and Budget and to be published in 

the Federal Register for public comment. This section would not 

authorize adjustments to the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276(a)), 

the Service Contract Act of 1965 (41 U.S.C. 351 et. seq), or title III 

of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (19 U.S.C. 2511 et seq). 

347 

SUBTITLE B—UNITED STATES DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL BASE

PROVISIONS

Section 811—Defense Trade Reciprocity 

This section would establish a defense trade policy based upon 

the principle of fair trade and reciprocity. Further, this section 

would require the Secretary of Defense to ensure that the offset 

regulations or policies of a foreign country are reduced to the same 

level as the domestic content requirements of the United States before the Secretary acquires defense products from a foreign firm operating in that country. 

Offsets are defined as compensation required as a condition of 

purchase in government-. to-government or commercial sales of defense products or services. Therefore, in order to sell defense products to many of our foreign security partners, the majority of the 

manufacturing jobs and technology must be transferred to the purchasing country. In many cases, the value of the offset compensation of U.S. manufacturing jobs or technology exceeds the value of 

the product sold. The U.S. has no offset requirements for its foreign 

trading partners. 

The committee is concerned that the cost of offsets in foreign export defense sales is the loss of U.S. subcontractor jobs and the loss 

of U.S. technology paid for by the U.S. taxpayer. 

Section 812—Amendments to Domestic Source Requirements 

This section would amend section 2533a of title 10, United States 

Code, also known as the Berry Amendment, to require the Secretary of Defense to notify Congress and the public when the Secretary exercises a waiver. 

This section would also amend section 2533a to clarify the covered item described as clothing. 

Section 813—Three-Year Extension of Restriction on Acquisition of 

Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) Carbon Fiber from Foreign Sources 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to delay for 

three years, phasing out of the restriction of acquisition of 

Polyacrylonitrile (PAN) carbon fiber from foreign sources. 

The committee is aware of the January 2001 report that recommended phasing out of restriction on the acquisition of PAN carbon fiber form foreign sources. 

The committee finds that the aerospace market conditions have 

significantly declined since September 11, 2001, and the rationale 

for phasing out of the restriction is no longer valid. 

Section 814—Grant Program for Defense Contractors to Implement 

Strategies to Avoid Outsourcing of Jobs 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to award 

grants to qualified defense contractors in order to assist the contractor in avoiding the outsourcing of jobs. Grant funds would be 

used to implement strategies that would enable defense contractors 

to retain domestic employees. Examples of such strategies include 

retraining employees or plant upgrades. This provision would limit 

the grant to fifty percent of the cost of the strategy and require 

348 

that the proposed strategy would retain at least ten domestic jobs 

dedicated to the performance of a defense contract. 

Section 815—Preference for Domestic Freight Forwarding Services 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to grant preferences to freight forwarder companies owned and controlled by 

U.S. citizens that offer fair and reasonable rates in the award of 

transportation service contracts for transportation services to, from, 

or within Iraq or Afghanistan. 

SUBTITLE C—OTHER ACQUISITION MATTERS

Section 821—Sustainment and Modernization Plans for Existing 

Systems while Replacement Systems are Under Development 

This section would require the Department of Defense to plan 

and budget for the sustainment and modernization of current military systems until such time that the replacement system under 

development is fielded and assumes responsibility for the mission. 

The committee is aware of the fiscal realities that make it difficult to fund simultaneously the development of transformational 

future military systems and the maintenance and sustainment of 

current military systems. In general, the military services map out 

program strategies for sustainment and modernization. However, 

significant gaps exist. In 2003, the General Accounting Office reported that 15 of the 25 systems reviewed had insufficient funding 

requested by the Department of Defense or projected in the Future 

Years Defense Program to execute the military services’ program 

strategies to sustain or replace their equipment. 

It is the responsibility of the Department of Defense to develop 

military systems that provide the armed forces with superiority 

over potential adversaries. However, funding for transformational 

future systems that are decades from field operational capability 

must not preclude the funding required to sustain and modernize 

the current force. 

The committee is concerned that escalating cost growth in development programs and accelerating transformation is funded by 

underinvestment in the current force which may undermine the 

readiness and capabilities of the forces that we must rely upon for 

the foreseeable future. 

Section 822—Review and Demonstration Project Relating to 

Contractor Employees 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a 

review of Department of Defense policies, procedures, and practices 

relating to employees of defense contractors and their subcontractors. Specifically, it would require the Secretary to review DOD 

policies, procedures, and practices of ensuring compliance with Executive Order 12989, as amended by Executive Order 13286, which 

prohibits the secretaries of executive agencies from contracting 

with employers who hire or recruit unauthorized aliens. The committee is aware of numerous instances in which the Department 

contracted with vendors who employed unauthorized aliens for 

work on military installations. The review should identify problems 

with existing security policies, procedures, and practices, as well as 

349 

develop and implement reforms to strengthen, upgrade, and improve the overall DOD contracting process. This section would require the Secretary to conduct the review within 180 days of enactment of this Act. 

This section would also require the Secretary to conduct a demonstration program for the procurement of military construction, 

renovation, maintenance or repair service on military installations, 

under which significant weight would be given to bidding contractors offering effective, reliable staffing plans that ensure all employees are properly authorized to be employed in the United 

States and properly qualified to perform the services required 

under the contract. The Secretary shall report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed 

Services by October 1, 2005, the benefits of the demonstration program and the extent to which lessons learned from the program 

should be incorporated throughout DOD procurements. 

Section 823—Defense Acquisition Workforce Limitation and 

Reports 

This section would require the Department of Defense to reduce 

the defense acquisition workforce personnel by five percent on or 

before October 1, 2005. This provision would also require the General Accounting Office and Defense Acquisition University to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services on the current status of the 

Defense Acquisition Workforce by March 1, 2005. 

Section 824—Provision of Information to Congress to Enhance 

Transparency in Contracting 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to provide information on contract or task or delivery orders to the chairman or 

ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee or the 

House Armed Services Committee, within 14 days of the request. 

TITLE IX—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

National Defense University 

The committee commends the National Defense University 

(NDU) for its work in scenario modeling and simulation methodologies. The committee encourages the NDU to continue its work by 

employing advanced technologies that will increase the effectiveness, realism and creativity of these scenarios. The committee 

notes that the immersive technologies being developed by the Department of Defense are similar to some advanced technologies 

that the entertainment industry employs and encourages contact 

between the Department and entertainment industry technologists 

as a means of fully exploiting such technologies to the benefit of 

the armed forces. 

350 

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. This provision would formally recognize the responsibility of the Office of the 

Secretary of the Navy over both the Navy and Marine Corps. 

Section 902—Transfer of Center for the Study of Chinese Military 

Affairs from National Defense University to United States-China 

Economic and Security Review Commission 

This section would transfer the Center for the Study of Chinese 

Military Affairs at the National Defense University, established in 

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65), to the United States-China Economic and Security 

Review Commission, established in the Floyd D. Spence National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106– 398). 

Section 903—Transfer to the Secretary of the Army of Responsibility for Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives Program 

This section would transfer oversight of the Assembled Chemical 

Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) program (formerly the Assembled 

Chemical Weapons Assessment program) from the Under Secretary 

of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to the Secretary of the Army not later than January 1, 2005. Additionally, 

this section would provide for management of the program as a 

part of the Department of the Army organization for management 

of the chemical weapons demilitarization program as specified in 

section 1521(e) of title 50, United States Code. Finally, this section 

would require the Army to fully implement the alternative technologies previously selected for the destruction of lethal chemical 

munitions at Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado, and Blue Grass 

Army Depot, Kentucky. 

Section 142 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261) provides that 

the Program Manager, ACWA shall manage the development and 

testing (including demonstration and pilot-scale testing) of technologies for the destruction of lethal chemical munitions that are 

potential or demonstrated alternatives to the baseline program, 

which uses incineration for destruction of the stockpile of lethal 

chemical agents and munitions. This provision would further require that the program manager shall act independently of the Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization (PMCD) and shall report to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology. 

Numerous General Accounting Office (GAO) reports and testimony to Congress state that effective management of the chemical 

demilitarization program has been hindered by its complex management structure. GAO specifically cites the division of program 

responsibility between the PMCD, who reports to the Secretary of 

the Army as executive agent for the program and is responsible for 

destruction of all elements of the chemical weapons stockpile exVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00374 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
351 

cept that stored at the Blue Grass Army Depot and the Pueblo 

Chemical Army Depot; and the Project Manager(PM), ACWA, who 

reports directly to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics and has responsibility only for destruction of those parts of the stockpile stored at Blue Grass and Pueblo. 

In 2003 the Secretary of the Army, with the concurrence of the 

Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) 

(USD (AT&L)), established the Chemical Material Agency, which is 

responsible for management of the chemical weapons destruction 

program and operation of the chemical weapons destruction plant 

facilities and stockpile storage sites. With the concurrence of the 

USD (AT&L), the Secretary of the Army assigned the PM, ACWA, 

as the Director of the Chemical Materiel Agency. The committee 

believes that the establishment of the new management structure, 

which brings together all elements of the chemical weapons demilitarization program under a single activity, will eliminate many of 

the management complexities cited by the GAO, contribute to the 

elimination of duplicative management overhead and support, and 

ensure more efficient management of the total program, while at 

the same time addressing the equities and concerns of those sites 

using assembled chemical weapons alternatives for destruction of 

the stockpile 

Section 904—Modification of Obligated Service Requirements under 

National Security Education Program 

This section would modify the service requirements to ensure 

that recipients of scholarships and fellowships obtain employment 

in a federal national security position that utilizes the unique language and region expertise acquired by the recipient. This section 

would also set 12 months as the minimum length of federal service 

for all recipients. This section would also require the recipient to 

gain employment in an approved position within three years of 

completion of the scholarship, or within two years in the case of a 

recipient of a fellowship. 

Section 905—Change of Membership of Certain Councils 

This section would make the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy a statutory member of the Nuclear Weapons Council and implement the corresponding technical changes in law. Current law (10 

U.S.C. 179) establishes the Nuclear Weapons Council to, among 

other things, coordinate programming and budget matters pertaining to nuclear weapons programs between the Department of 

Defense and Department of Energy and to provide broad guidance 

on nuclear research and development priorities. By statute, the 

council comprises the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology, and Logistics; the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff; and the Undersecretary of Energy for Nuclear Security. As 

a result of the congressionally-. mandated Nuclear Posture Review, 

which set out a new course in strategic policy, the Undersecretary 

of Defense for Policy has come to play an increasing role in coordinating nuclear weapons policy and making recommendations to the 

President. 

352 

Section 906—Actions to Prevent the Abuse of Detainees 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to prescribe 

policies regarding procedures for the Armed Forces, other elements 

of the Department of Defense, and Department of Defense contractor personnel in order to prevent the abuse of prisoners held by 

the United States as part of the Global War on Terrorism. The Secretary would be required to issue such policies within 120 days of 

the enactment of this Act, provide those policies to Congress immediately, and report to Congress on their implementation one year 

after their issuance. 

Section 907—Responses to Congressional Inquiries 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, or any other 

official of the Department of Defense, to respond to written requests for information made by the respective Chairmen of the 

Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

Armed Services in writing within 21 days of the transmission of 

such a request. 

TITLE X—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

Overview 

The budget request contained $852.7 million for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities, in addition to $160.2 million, for operational tempo which is included within the operating budgets of the 

military services. The budget is organized in fiscal year 2005 to address three broad national priorities: (1) demand reduction; (2) domestic support; and (3) international support, intelligence and technology. 

The committee recommends an authorization for fiscal year 2005 

Department of Defense counter-drug activities as follows: 

FY05 Drug Interdiction and 

Counter-Drug Request .............. $852,697 

Demand Reduction ................ 122.209 

Domestic Support .................. 207,998 

International Support, Intelligence and Technology ...... 522,590 

Recommended Decreases: ............

Intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and tanker 

support ............................... 2,000 

Tethered Aerostat Radar System ..................................... 5,000 

Recommended Increases: .............

Southwest Border Fence ........ 5,000 

Northern Command CounterNarcotics Support ............... 2,000 

Recommendation ......................... 852,697 

Items of Special Interest 

Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and tanker support 

The budget request contained $2.7 million for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance and tanker support. The budget reVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00376 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
353 

quest for this activity in fiscal year 2004 was 0.4 million. Reductions in support activities are planned in light of other worldwide 

commitments and performance of depot-level maintenance on related assets. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends a decrease of $2.0 million for this activity. 

Northern Command counter-narcotics support 

The budget request contained $9.1 million to support the United 

States Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) counter-narcotics 

missions, including those which are performed through Joint Task 

Force-6 located at Fort Bliss, Texas. 

The committee is concerned that the current funding levels will 

diminish the ability to provide additional mobile training teams. 

The mobile training teams help train federal, state, and local law 

enforcement agencies across the country on a wide variety of subjects related to narcotics interdiction. Without the proper funding, 

the committee is concerned that law enforcement agencies will not 

be able to develop the critical skills necessary for effective counternarcotics law enforcement, and in assisting in war against terrorism in the homeland. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an increase of $2 million 

for additional mobile training teams along with the attendant 

headquarters’ support for this enhanced mission. 

The committee recognizes that, in order to utilize these funds, 

Joint Task Force-6 will need to be able to utilize authority provided 

by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136). Section 1022 of that bill provided 

authority to joint task forces of the Department of Defense that 

provide support to law enforcement agencies conducting counterdrug activities to also provide support to those agencies conducting 

counter-. terrorism activities. The committee understands that the 

Department of Defense has not yet issued policy guidance that 

would allow combatant commands and military services to use this 

authority. The committee urges the Department to issue such guidance immediately to permit intended missions to go forward. 

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 $5.0 million for this purpose. 

354 

Tethered Aerostat Radar System 

The budget request contained $32.3 million for the operation of 

the Tethered Aerostat Radar System at multiple locations in the 

United States. Of the $32.3 million requested, $6.7 million was included for the procurement of additional spare parts. The committee recommends a decrease of $5.0 million dollars in 

the procurement component of this request. The committee notes 

that the Congress has not received the detailed analysis it has requested to justify the continued increases in this program. 

OTHER ACTIVITIES

Airlift Support for Homeland Defense Missions 

The committee is concerned that the Department of Defense 

(DOD) has not adequately considered the need for airlift support to 

speed uniquely capable DOD assets to wherever needed to perform 

urgent homeland defense missions. The Department has developed 

considerable expertise across a range of disparate skills that may 

be needed in a homeland defense mission, but this expertise is 

scattered in various locations across the country. The committee is 

aware of a proposal to provide such support through the use of C– 130 equipped Air National Guard units and believes that the proposal has merit. The committee directs the Secretary of Defense to 

report by March 31, 2005, to the Senate Committee on Armed 

Services and the House Committee on Armed Services, his views 

on whether the Commander, Northern Command should have dedicated Air National Guard C–130 units at his disposal for the purpose of responding to attacks or incidents involving weapons of 

mass destruction. 

Civil Reserve Air Fleet 

The committee understands that the Secretary of Defense requires that commercial air lines participating in the civil reserve 

air fleet receive at least 60 percent of its air transportation revenues from sources other than the Department of Defense. The committee is concerned that the Secretary is not enforcing this requirement. The committee, therefore, directs the Secretary to enforce 

this requirement, and directs the Secretary to report to the Senate 

Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services Committee when this business practice is not followed, with an explanation as to why it was not followed. 

Defense Transformation 

The committee supports the efforts of the Department of Defense 

to transform the armed forces into capabilities based, networked 

joint forces that are rapidly deployable and more lethal than today’s highly capable military. Despite the Department’s success in 

recent combat operations, the committee recognizes that the Department’s transformation goals are long term, evolving objectives 

that will be very difficult to achieve without a joint strategy to 

guide it. 

The committee is encouraged that the Army has embarked on an 

aggressive transformation program that encompasses all aspects of 

the Army, including personnel policies, unit structure, doctrine, 

355 

and equipment. While the committee has concerns about the development strategy for the Future Combat System, addressed elsewhere in this report, the committee believes the Army’s plan to create more combat power by fielding at least 45 active maneuver brigades is the correct approach. 

Similarly, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force have 

embraced transformation as an objective, and have proposed several specific concepts as transformational. The committee is concerned that each military service has embarked on its own transformational campaign, without an enforceable, integrated joint 

forces roadmap to ensure the services’ plans are mutually supportive and overlap only when necessary. For that reason, the committee questions the services’ plans to sustain excessive headquarters structure despite the services’ increasing requests for information technology funding purportedly designed to flatten combat organizations. 

Accordingly, the committee believes that the Joint Forces Command should continue to evolve as the principal coordinator of 

service transformation efforts. 

Global War on Terrorism 

The committee applauds and supports the valiant efforts of the 

men and women of America’s armed forces who are prosecuting the 

global war on terrorism in increasingly hostile areas overseas. The 

committee believes that the war should be fought on the enemy’s 

home ground, and does not believe that a more passive strategy of 

disengagement would be a prudent policy for the safety of the 

United States and its citizens. In that regard, the committee supports a number of initiatives intended to enhance the ability of the 

armed forces to respond to the demands of the global war on terror. 

These initiatives range from measures intended to speed the development and fielding of force protection measures urgently needed 

by our forces in Iraq, to measures that will enhance the Special Operations Command’s ability to work in a variety of settings. The 

committee understands the prominent roles played by other agencies in this fight, particularly the Departments of State and Homeland Security, but the committee continues to believe that the Department of Defense has performed and will continue to perform 

the most critical missions in the global war on terror. 

Homeland Defense Forces 

In hearings over the past two years, the committee has reviewed 

the Department of Defense’s plans for use of the National Guard 

in homeland defense missions and encouraged the Department to 

include the Department of Homeland Security in this review. Since 

the National Guard is a strategic national force that is frequently 

deployed, the committee is concerned that homeland defense and 

homeland security plans, which are dependent on National Guard 

units, must consider the need for contingency assets. 

The committee is pleased to note the testimony of the Director, 

National Guard Bureau, describing his efforts to ensure that National Guard assets are continuously available for homeland defense missions. The committee is also heartened by the concept of 

the National Guard chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear 

356 

(CBRNE) enhanced response force packages, which would augment 

existing civil support teams in each of the 12 Federal Emergency 

Management Agency regions. 

The committee is interested to learn whether the ongoing force 

rebalancing measures will yield sufficient available assets, given 

recent overseas deployments, and whether the Department should 

consider augmenting the capabilities of state defense forces authorized by title 32, United States Code, with available training opportunities and surplus equipment. 

In that regard, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense, 

in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the 

Director, National Guard Bureau, to report any measures necessary to enhance the capabilities of the National Guard to perform 

homeland defense and homeland security missions. This report 

should address any unmet requirements related to CBRNE enhanced response teams and any necessary measures to augment 

the capabilities of state defense forces, and be provided to the Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services 

Committee by December 31, 2004. 

Wisconsin Project’s International Export Control Center 

The committee notes that Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms 

Control began a public-. private initiative to improve export controls in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. This initiative was supported by the Department of Defense, the Department 

of State, and the Customs Service. The committee further notes 

that the Wisconsin Project is the leading source of unclassified information on world entities suspected of building weapons of mass 

destruction or have links to terrorism. The Wisconsin Project’s 

database lists the activities of more than 3,700 suspected individuals and organizations. 

Recognizing the importance of tracking and updating information 

related to entities which are attempting to build weapons of mass 

destruction, the committee believes the Wisconsin Project should 

expand its efforts to help foreign governments improve their export 

control mechanisms. 

Accordingly, the committee recommends an additional $1.3 million to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency for the expansion of 

the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control’s International Export Control Center. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—FINANCIAL MATTERS

Section 1001—Transfer Authority 

This section would provide fiscal year 2005 transfer authority to 

the Department of Defense for amounts up to $3.0 billion. This 

would include $500 million of specific transfer authority between 

the services’ active component and reserve component accounts. 

357 

Section 1002—Budget Justification Documents for Operation and 

Maintenance 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to include in 

congressional justification materials for the operation and maintenance budget request the baseline costs for programs in which 

there is an identified program increase or decrease. The Secretary 

of Defense (Comptroller) failed to identify these baseline costs, despite the direction to do so in the committee report on the H.R. 

1588 (H. Rept. 108–106). 

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to include in the operation and maintenance justification documents the 

amount of funds requested for personal service contracts and the 

number of personal service contractors expected to be compensated 

at an annual rate in excess of the annual rate of pay for the Vice 

President. 

This section would also require the Secretary of the Navy to distinguish the cost of ship depot-level maintenance and repair and 

ship intermediate maintenance when presenting justification material to support the budget request for operation and maintenance 

funds. Specifically, the Secretary would be required to present to 

Congress separate sub-activity groups for ship depot operations and 

ship intermediate operations. The Secretary failed to maintain separate sub-activity groups when presenting the justification of estimates for fiscal year 2005 despite the direction to do so in the committee report on H.R. 1588 (H. Rept. 108–106). 

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to include, in the justification materials for the operations and maintenance budget request, the average civilian salary cost by sub-activity group as a component of the personnel summary. The Secretary 

of Defense Comptroller) failed to identify such costs, despite the direction to do so in the committee report on H.R. 1588 (H. Rept. 

108–106). 

This section would also require the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the 

House Committee on Armed Services by January 1, 2006, that 

catalogues the elements of ‘‘other costs’’ and ‘‘other contracts’’, 

which are currently used in justification materials for the budget 

request. Although the committee directed in the committee report 

on H.R. 1588 (H. Rept. 108–106) to provide this report by October 

21, 2003, the Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) failed to do so. 

Section 1003—Retention of Fees from Intellectual Property 

Licenses 

The section would allow the Department of Defense to establish 

programs to license trademarks and insignias, and to retain associated fees. Fees received from the trademark licenses would be used 

to cover the costs incurred in securing trademark registrations. 

Any funds in excess of such costs would be available for military 

personnel recruiting and retention activities, as well as morale, 

welfare, and recreation activities. 

358 

Section 1004—Authority to Waive Claims of the United States 

when Amounts Recoverable are Less than Costs of Collection 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense or his designee to waive indebtedness when the cost of processing the transaction exceeds the amounts recoverable. The maximum amount 

that may be waived under this statue would be the micro-purchase 

threshold, currently $2,500. 

Section 1005—Repeal of Funding Restrictions Concerning Development of Medical Countermeasures against Biological Warfare 

Threats 

This section would repeal section 2370a of title 10, United States 

Code, which requires that, of the funds allocated for the medical 

component of the biological defense research program within the 

Department of Defense, no more than 80 percent may be obligated 

or expended for product development or research, development, 

test, and evaluation of medical countermeasures against near-term 

validated biowarfare threat agents. Additionally, no more than 20 

percent may be obligated or expended for product development or 

research, development, test, and evaluation, of medical countermeasures against mid-term or far-term validated biowarfare 

agents. 

The current law defines biological warfare threats primarily in 

intelligence terms. The committee believes that this is overly restrictive because intelligence on biological warfare threats is inherently limited due to the ease with which biological warfare programs can be concealed and dangerous pathogens and toxins can 

be acquired. The situation is further exacerbated by the rapid advancements in bio-technology that are widely available throughout 

the world. Additionally, the current law categorizes biological warfare agents by the time period in which they may become threats: 

near-, mid-, and far-term. For the same reasons that make it difficult to define biological warfare agents in terms of available intelligence, the committee believes that it is difficult to project the 

time periods during which such agents might become threats. 

In responding to such threats, the committee believes that more 

flexibility is needed in the medical components of the biological defense research program. 

Section 1006—Report on Budgeting for Exchange Rates for Foreign 

Currency Fluctuations 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit a 

report to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House 

Committee on Armed Services by December 1, 2004, on the foreign 

currency exchange rate projection used in the annual Department 

of Defense budget. 

SUBTITLE B—NAVAL VESSELS AND SHIPYARDS

Section 1011—Authority for Award of Contracts for Ship 

Dismantling on Net-Cost Basis 

This section would allow the Secretary of the Navy to accept bids 

for domestic warship dismantling contracts based on the estimated 

359 

cost of performance as well as the estimated value of scrap and reusable equipment. This section would also allow contractors to retain proceeds from the sale of such scrap and reusable equipment. 

With the price of steel at very high levels, this provision is intended to allow for greater efficiencies in the disposal of obsolete 

former naval vessels. Nothing in the provision alters any environmental requirements pertaining to disposals. 

Section 1012—Independent Study to Assess Cost Effectiveness of 

the Navy Ship Construction Program 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

an entity independent of the Department of Defense to conduct a 

study of the cost-effectiveness of the ship construction program of 

the Navy. The study would look at near-term improvements to 

make shipbuilding more efficient, and long-term improvement to 

make the United States shipbuilding industry commercially competitive in the global market. This provision would require the Secretary to submit the report to the congressional defense committees 

by June 1, 2005. 

Section 1013—Authority to Transfer Specified Former Naval 

Vessels to Certain Foreign Countries 

This section would authorize the transfer of three obsolete former 

naval vessels to Chile, Portugal, and to the Taipei Economic and 

Cultural Representative Office in the United States. 

Section 1014—Limitation on Leasing of Foreign-Built Vessels 

This section would prohibit the secretary of a military department from entering into a contract for a lease or charter of a vessel 

for a term of more than 12 months (including all options to renew 

or extend the contract) if the hull, or superstructure of the vessel 

is constructed in a foreign shipyard. The President may waive this 

prohibition if he determines it is in the national security interests 

of the United States. 

SUBTITLE C—SUNKEN MILITARY CRAFT

Sections 1021–28—Protection of Sunken Military Craft 

This section would protect sunken United States military vessels, 

aircraft, and spacecraft, as well as the remains and personal effects 

of their crews, from salvage, recovery, or other disturbance without 

proper authorization from the secretary of the military department 

concerned. 

Thousands of U.S. and foreign sunken military craft now lie 

within and beyond U.S. internal waters, the U.S. territorial sea, 

and the U.S. contiguous zone. Because of recent advances in 

science and technology, many of these sunken state craft have become accessible to scientists, researchers, salvors, treasure-hunters, 

and others. The unauthorized disturbance or recovery of these 

sunken state craft and any remains of their crews and passengers 

is a growing concern both within the United States and internationally. In addition to deserving respect as gravesites, theses 

sunken craft may contain objects of a sensitive, archaeological, or 

historical nature. They often also contain unexploded ordnance or 

360 

other substances, including fuel oil and other hazardous liquids, 

which could pose a danger to human health and the marine environment if disturbed. This section would clarify the circumstances 

under which sunken military craft, entitled to sovereign immunity 

when they sank, remain the property of the flag state until officially abandoned. This section would also encourage and authorize 

the negotiation of international agreements with other nations to 

protect sunken military state craft and, through reciprocal treatment, to protect sunken U.S. warships. 

Finally, this section would allow the secretary of the military department concerned to issue and enforce permits for activities directed at sunken U.S. military craft, including contract salvage. It 

would not invalidate any permitting system currently in place nor 

would it affect any prior lawful transfer or express abandonment 

of title to any sunken military craft. 

SUBTITLE D—COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES

Section 1031—Continuation of Authority to Use Department of Defense Funds for Unified Counter-Drug and Counter-Terrorism 

Campaign in 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 Colombia 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. 

Section 1032—Limitation on Number of United States Military 

Personnel in Colombia 

This section would limit the number of United States military 

personnel in the Republic of Colombia to 500 at any given time. 

The Secretary of Defense is authorized to exclude certain military 

personnel from the limitation, including those personnel engaged in 

rescue efforts, members of the armed forces assigned to the U.S. 

Embassy in Colombia, members of the armed forces participating 

in relief efforts, non-operational transient military personnel, and 

members of the armed forces making a port call from a military 

vessel in Colombia. 

SUBTITLE E—REPORTS

Section 1041—Study of Continued Requirement for Two-Crew 

Manning for Ballistic Missile Submarines 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to 

the congressional defense committees a report on the current status of the requirement for two-man crewing of fleet ballistic missile 

submarines. 

Section 1042—Study of Effect on Defense Industrial Base of Elimination of United States Domestic Firearms Manufacturing Base 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to submit to 

the congressional defense committees, within 60 days of enactment, 

a report detailing the impact on military readiness and the defense 

361 

industrial infrastructure of the elimination of the United States domestic firearms manufacturing base as a result of ongoing civil litigation. 

Section 1043—Study of Extent and Quality of Training Provided to 

Members of the Armed Services to Prepare for Post-Conflict Operations 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to identify 

and assess the training that members of the armed forces assigned 

to support contingency operations receive in post-conflict operations. The Secretary would further be required to submit a report 

on his findings to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and 

the House Committee on Armed Services no later than March 15, 

2005. 

SUBTITLE F—SECURITY MATTERS

Section 1051—Use of National Driver Register for Personnel 

Security Investigations and Determinations 

This section would authorize federal agencies to access the National Driver Register for use in personnel security investigations 

with regard to federal employment. The Secretary of Transportation and the chief driver licensing official in each state, who provides driver licensing records to the National Driver Register, cooperatively manage the system. Access to the information is currently 

provided to multiple federal agencies. 

Section 1052—Standards for Disqualification from Eligibility for 

Department of Defense Security Clearances 

This section would amend section 986 of title 10, United States 

Code, to allow decisions on granting meritorious waivers related to 

the granting of a security clearance to be delegated by the Secretary of Defense or the secretary of a military department to appropriate subordinates. This change is intended to improve the operation of the current program and decrease the time required to 

adjudicate security clearance eligibility without creating any additional risk to national security. 

SUBTITLE G—TRANSPORTATION MATTERS

Section 1061—Use of Military Aircraft to Transport Mail to and 

from Overseas Locations 

This section would provide the Secretary of Defense authority to 

use military aircraft to transport mail and parcels to, from, and between overseas locations. This authority, however, would be limited 

to the following circumstances: 

(1) There is excess space on a scheduled military flight; 

(2) There is no overall cost increase to the Department of Defense or the United States Postal Service; 

(3) The United States Transportation Command would pay 

the cost of transporting mail from United States Postal Service, to customs clearance facilities, and military debarkation locations at rates not to exceed Department of Transportation 

rates for commercial airlines; 

362 

(4) There is no degradation of mail service; and 

(5) There is no diversion of such military aircraft during contingencies or other events. 

Section 1062—Reorganization and Clarification of Certain Provisions Relating to Control and Supervision of Transportation 

within the Department of Defense 

This section would amend sections 4744 through 4747 of title 10, 

United States Code, by moving these sections from chapter 47 to 

chapter 26. This section would also repeal sections 9741, 9743, and 

9746 of title 10, United States Code. These changes reflect the Secretary of Defense’s role in transportation versus the individual role 

of the service secretaries. 

Section 1063—Determination of Whether Private Air Carriers are 

Controlled by United States Citizens for Purposes of Eligibility 

for Government Contract for Transportation of Passengers or 

Supplies 

This section would amend section 2710 of the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003 (Public Law 108–11), 

to clarify that the Secretary of Transportation is responsible for 

certifying whether an air carrier is effectively controlled by citizens 

of the United States. 

Section 1064—Evaluation of Whether to Prohibit Certain Offers for 

Transportation of Security-Sensitive Cargo 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to evaluate 

whether, and under what circumstances, it would be appropriate to 

limit competition for domestic freight transportation of securitysensitive cargo to motor carriers that are not part of a group of 

motor carriers under common financial or administrative control. 

The Secretary would be required to submit the evaluation to the 

Senate Armed Services Committee and the House Armed Services 

Committee by January 1, 2005. 

SUBTITLE H—OTHER MATTERS DEFENSE TO ENGAGE IN COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES AS SECURITY FOR INTELLIGENCE COLLECTION ACTIVITIES ABROAD

This section would provide for a two year extension of the authority of the Secretary of Defense to engage in commercial activities as security for intelligence collection activities. 

Section 1072—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. 

363 

This provision would also require that the Secretary make his selection through competitive procedures, while giving preference to 

communities that already host an air show and have demonstrated 

a history of supporting air shows with local resources. 

Section 1073—Technical and Clerical Amendments 

This section would make a number of technical and clerical 

amendments to existing law of a non-substantive basis. 

Section 1074—Commission on the Long-Term Implementation of 

the New Strategic Posture of the United States 

This section would establish a new commission to review the 

long-term implementation of the Nuclear Posture Review. 

Section 1075—Liability Protection for Certain Department of 

Defense Volunteers Working in the Maritime Environment 

This section would remedy an inadvertent oversight in existing 

law by extending to volunteers working in the maritime training 

environment the same status and legal protections presently available to volunteers working on land-based assignments. 

Section 1076—Transfer of Historic F3A–1 Brewster Corsair 

Aircraft 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to transfer ownership of a historic F3A–1 Brewster Corsair aircraft to a 

private citizen. The aircraft would be transferred in its current 

unflyable, ‘‘as is’’ condition, and at no cost to the United States. 

TITLE XI—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN 

PERSONNEL 

OVERVIEW 

In the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 

(Public Law 108–136), Congress enacted the Department of Defense National Security Personnel System (NSPS), as chapter 99 of 

title 5, United States Code. In doing so, Congress created a more 

flexible and rewarding personnel system for the Department. The 

Secretary of Defense tasked the Secretary of the Navy with responsibility for designing and implementing a human resources management system in accordance with NSPS. The committee strongly 

supports the Secretary of the Navy’s outreach to unions, executive 

agencies, and Congress, as he fulfills this task. The Secretary of 

the Navy has, thus far, promoted a thorough and thoughtful plan, 

with continued communication and collaboration with the employees and their representatives to ensure a responsible human resources management system. 

In light of the Department’s current effort to implement NSPS, 

the committee recommends only minor changes to civilian personnel policy. These changes, however, exemplify the committee’s 

continued respect for the civilian workforce and the need to reward 

properly individual accomplishments. 

364 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 1101—Payment of Federal Employee Health Benefit 

Premiums for Mobilized Federal Employees 

This section would provide a federal government employee, who 

is a member of a reserve component ordered to active duty in support of a contingency and placed on leave without pay, to continue 

to receive coverage under the Federal Employee Health Benefit 

Program for 24 months. This section would also authorize the executive agency authority to pay both the employee’s share and the 

agency’s share of the premiums for continued coverage up to 24 

months. 

Section 1102—Foreign Language Proficiency Pay 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to offer 

special pay to a Department of Defense employee who is certified 

to be proficient in a language deemed necessary for national security interests and whose duties require such language proficiency. 

This section would repeal the requirement that the individual be 

assigned duties during a contingency operation in section 1596a of 

title 10, United States Code. 

Section 1103—Pay Parity for Civilian Intelligence Personnel 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to use a 

performance appraisal system for personnel in the defense intelligence senior executive service to ensure pay parity for all personnel in the defense senior executive service. 

Section 1104—Pay Parity for Senior Executives in Nonappropriated 

Fund Instrumentalities 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to adjust 

the pay cap for Department of Defense nonappropriated fund executives to ensure that the compensation paid to such employees 

remains consistent with the Senior Executive Service employees. 

Section 1105—–Prohibition of Unauthorized Wearing or Use of 

Civilian Medals or Decorations 

This section would prohibit any person from merchandising or 

wearing a Department of Defense civilian medal or decoration 

without the written permission of the Secretary of Defense. This 

section would also authorize the Attorney General to initiate a civil 

proceeding in a United States district court to enjoin the prohibited 

practice. 

365 

TITLE XII—MATTERS RELATING TO OTHER 

NATIONS 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—MATTERS RELATING TO IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN, AND

GLOBAL WAR ON TERRORISM

Section 1201—Documentation of Conditions in Iraq under Former 

Dictatorial Government as Part of Transition to Post-Dictatorial 

Government 

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to expedite, 

where practical, the review of documents seized from the Iraqi government and Ba’ath Socialist Party of Iraq relating to the functioning, crimes, and atrocities of those entities against the Iraqi 

people during the regime of Saddam Hussein. The Secretary would 

be further directed to transfer those documents, as appropriate, to 

Iraqi entities in Iraq dedicated to documenting the crimes and nature of the Hussein regime, to serve as a reminder of the dangers 

of tolerating dictatorship in Iraq. Analysts have found that such efforts in other post-dictatorial countries can contribute to the reconstruction and reconciliation process. The committee believes Iraqi 

democracy would benefit from a similar effort. 

Section 1202—Support of Military Operations to Combat Terrorism 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense, during fiscal year 2005, to expend up to $25.0 million in operation and maintenance funds authorized by Title XV of this Act to provide support 

to foreign forces, irregular forces, or individuals who actively support United States special operations forces engaged in military operations against terrorists. The section would not authorize U.S. 

special operations forces to engage in covert actions, as defined by 

the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 413b(e)). Thus, the intent is to provide additional resources to special operations forces 

engaged in clandestine operations, during which they often operate 

without the support of larger military units, but not to allow U.S. 

special operations forces to engage in activities traditionally performed by the intelligence community under title 50, United States 

Code. This section would require quarterly reports on how this authority is used. 

Section 1203—Commander’s Emergency Response Program 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to use up 

to $300.0 million in operations and maintenance funding available 

to the Secretary from funds made available by Title XV of the Act 

for the Commander’s Emergency Response Program, under which 

commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan receive funds for use in small 

humanitarian and reconstruction projects in the areas in which 

they are deployed. The section requires quarterly reports on the 

source and use of funds under this section. 

366 

Section 1204—Status of Iraqi Security Forces 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, not later 

than 120 days after the enactment of this Act, to submit to Congress a strategic plan setting forth the manner and timeline under 

which the United States will achieve the goal of establishing viable 

and professional Iraqi security forces. The Secretary would further 

be required to submit updates on progress implementing the strategic plan every 90 days thereafter. 

Section 1205—Guidance and Report Required on Contractors 

Supporting Deployed Forces in Iraq 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense, within 90 

days of the date of the enactment of this Act, to issue guidance on 

the management of contractors that support deployed military 

forces and to direct the secretaries of the military departments to 

develop procedures to implement that guidance. The Secretary of 

Defense would further be required to report to Congress within 30 

days of issuing the aforementioned guidance on how it addressed 

certain issues and to establish and implement a process for collecting information on contractors providing certain security services in Iraq. 

Section 1206—Findings and Sense of Congress Concerning Army 

Specialist Joseph Darby 

This section would make a series of findings regarding the importance of Specialist Joseph Darby’s actions in reporting abuses at 

the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and expresses the sense of Congress 

that Specialist Darby should be commended for his actions. 

SUBTITLE B—OTHER MATTERS

Section 1211—Assignment of Allied Naval Personnel to Submarine 

Safety Programs 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to assign 

military personnel from NATO countries and other countries, including Australia, Sweden, South Korea, and Japan, to United 

States commands for the purpose of working on the standardization, development, and interoperability of submarine safety and 

rescue systems and procedures. The Department of Defense requested authority to assign foreign naval personnel to the International Submarine Escape and Rescue Liaison Office within Allied 

Submarine Command. 

Section 1212—Expansion of Entities of the People’s Republic of 

China Subject to Certain Presidential Authorities when Operating in the United States 

This section would expand the definition of a ‘‘Communist Chinese military company’’ as defined in the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 

105–261), to include Chinese firms owned or operated by a ministry 

of the People’s Republic of China or an entity affiliated with the defense industrial base of the People’s Republic of China, such as the 

China State Shipbuilding Corporation or the China Overseas ShipVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00390 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
367 

ping Corporation. Existing law only applies the definition to entities owned or operated by the People’s Liberation Army, thereby 

excluding a class of firms engaged in Chinese military modernization. 

Section 1213—Report by President on Global Peace Operations 

Initiative 

This section would require the President to report to Congress on 

the Global Peace Operations Initiative, a new program announced 

by the administration after the submission of the budget request. 

On April 29, 2004, administration officials briefed committee 

staff on the Global Peace Operations Initiative. In general, the initiative is a joint venture between the Department of Defense and 

the Department of State to train and equip roughly 75,000 foreign 

military personnel in peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations over five years. The administration further proposed legislative authority for the Department of Defense to spend up to $100 

million in operations and maintenance funding on training foreign 

military forces, either by transferring those funds to the Department of State or conducting the training itself. Over the next five 

years, the administration estimated that the total cost of the initiative would be $606 million and that the Department of Defense 

would be responsible for roughly eighty percent of the total. However, the administration did not request those funds for the Department of Defense in the fiscal year 2005 budget request and 

that they are not currently programmed in the five-year defense 

plan. 

In general, the committee supports the goals of the Global Peace 

Operations Initiative. However, it is concerned about the process by 

which the administration seeks to fund the program and move it 

forward. Historically, the Department of State has trained and 

equipped foreign military forces for the United States under title 

22 of the U.S. Code, which restricts the kinds of training that can 

be provided and the countries to which it can be provided in order 

to ensure that such activities are consistent with U.S. human 

rights practices and foreign policy. In this case, however, the administration proposed exempting the Global Peace Operations Initiative from those legal constraints and requested authority to use 

Department of Defense funding intended to pay for the operations 

and maintenance of U.S. forces. As a result, any use of the authority could mean depriving U.S. forces of the resources that the administration had requested, and which Congress had authorized 

and appropriated, for their operations and maintenance. Therefore, 

the committee recommends against granting the authority requested. Instead, it recommends a provision that would seek additional information on the Global Peace Operations Initiative. 

Section 1214—Procurement Sanctions against Foreign Persons that 

Transfer Certain Defense Articles and Services to the People’s 

Republic of China 

This section would make it the policy of the United States to prevent destabilizing arms transfers to the People’s Republic of China 

by denying Department of Defense procurement contracts to foreign companies that sell China items similar to those found on the 

368 

U.S. Munitions List. The section would also require the Secretary 

of Defense to publish a list of such companies in the Federal Register. 

TITLE XIII—COOPERATIVE THREAT REDUCTION 

WITH STATES OF THE FORMER SOVIET UNION 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request included $409.2 million for Cooperative 

Threat Reduction (CTR) programs with the states of the former Soviet Union for fiscal year 2005. This is $41.6 million less than requested for fiscal year 2004 and $39.4 million less than was appropriated for fiscal year 2004. The funding request breaks out as follows: $58.5 million for strategic offensive arms elimination in Russia; $48.7 million for nuclear weapons storage security in Russia; 

$26.2 million for nuclear weapons transportation security in Russia; $158.4 million for chemical weapons destruction in Russia; 

$55.0 million for biological weapons proliferation prevention in the 

states of the former Soviet Union; $40.0 million for weapons of 

mass destruction proliferation prevention in the states of the 

former Soviet Union; $8.0 million for defense and military contacts; 

and, $14.3 million for activities designated as Other Assessments/ 

Administrative Support. Programmatic funding levels are generally 

consistent with those requested in fiscal year 2004 with one notable exception. The request for chemical weapons destruction in 

Russia is $41.9 million less than requested and appropriated for 

fiscal year 2004. According to the Department of Defense, the decrease in funding reflects the state of construction at the Russian 

chemical weapons dismantlement facility in Shchuch’ye. 

The committee continues to support the goals of the Cooperative 

Threat Reduction program and recommends funding at the levels 

requested. In particular, it notes the positive steps being taken to 

improve oversight of the program within the Department, such as 

beginning the process of identifying and deploying on-site managers to improve project oversight within states of the former Soviet Union and increased reporting as required in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136). 

The Department took the additional step of making officials within 

the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (OUSD/AT&L) responsible for oversight of Cooperative Threat Reduction programs. As a result, OUSD/AT&L established cost, schedule, and performance baselines, a milestone 

decision authority process, and a phased approach to project implementation that have long been lacking in CTR programs, and to 

which most acquisition programs are routinely subjected. Together, 

these efforts address many of the shortcomings that the committee 

identified and worked to address during the 1990s. 

The committee further applauds the steps that Cooperative 

Threat Reduction partners have taken to increase their commitment of resources to the goals of the program. In particular, the 

committee notes increases in Russian funding for chemical weapons destruction from 2001 to 2002 and the President’s December 6, 

2003, certification that Russia would spend at least $33.0 million 

on the Shchuch’ye project in 2003. Additionally, during 2003, RusVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00392 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
369 

sia took proactive steps to improve chemical weapons destruction 

by concluding in March 2003 a legally binding agreement to destroy all nerve agents at a single site, which it reaffirmed in a September 2003 amendment to the agreement. Together, these steps 

mark significant progress in meeting the conditions upon which 

Congress made continued assistance for the Shchuch’ye facility dependent. They also validate the committee’s approach to funding 

CTR programs, in which the United States commitment is carefully 

matched to significant, concrete, and concurrent demonstrations of 

commitment by the respective CTR partner. 

Despite the improvements discussed above, some Russian behavior continues to suggest that the Russian government does not 

place as high a priority on the goals of the Cooperative Threat Reduction program as the United States. First, Russia continues to 

modernize its strategic nuclear forces, suggesting it views modernizing its strategic arsenal as more important than securing and dismantling excess weapons of mass destruction inherited from the 

Soviet Union. At the end of 2003, for example, it deployed several 

new Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). In contrast, the United States has not deployed a new ICBM in almost 

two decades. Second, questions remain about the completeness and 

accuracy of Russia’s declarations regarding the size of the chemical 

weapons stockpile in Russia. While U.S. and Russian negotiators 

continue to discuss the problem, Russian officials have consistently 

rejected U.S. proposals intended to increase visibility into Russian 

chemical weapons stockpiles. Third, Russia has not developed a 

comprehensive and credible plan for destroying its stockpile of 

nerve agents. Such a plan is necessary to ensure that the value of 

U.S. expenditures on the Shchuch’ye chemical weapons dismantlement facility is fully realized. 

As a result of these last two factors, the President cannot certify 

that Russia is in compliance with the preconditions for continuing 

U.S. CTR assistance in section 1305 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–65) as 

amended. Consequently, the President has again requested authority to waive those conditions. 

ITEM OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Visa Requirements 

The committee is aware of concerns that efforts to tighten visa 

requirements after September 11, 2001 may have had the unintended consequence of hampering the effectiveness of the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy nonproliferation 

programs by imposing delays in collaborative programs and complicating the international cooperation and coordination required. 

Therefore, the committee directs that the Secretary of Defense and 

the Secretary of Energy submit a report no later than six months 

after the enactment of this Act, identifying the causes of any new 

delays and assessing the costs and benefits of various means by 

which those delays might be remedied. 

370 

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 authorize them at the level of the budget request. It would also make fiscal year 2005 Cooperative Threat Reduction 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 at the levels 

requested by the President. 

Section 1303—Temporary Authority to Waive Limitation on 

Funding for Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility in Russia 

This section would extend for one year the President’s authority 

to waive preconditions established in section 1305 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106–

65) for continuing certain Cooperative Threat Reduction programs. 

The President’s current authority expires at the end of fiscal year 

2004. The committee notes that Russia has made progress in meeting several of the aforementioned conditions and believes that the 

existence of those conditions serves as an incentive for further 

progress. 

TITLE XIV—EXPORT CONTROLS AND 

COUNTERPROLIFERATION MATTERS 

OVERVIEW 

The committee agrees with the President that the nexus of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism is a critical threat facing the 

United States in the 21st century. The committee also agrees with 

the President’s call on February 11, 2004 to strengthen export controls, both domestic and international, as a means of ensuring that 

terrorist groups and their state supporters are not able to acquire 

capabilities to design, develop, or employ weapons of mass destruction. In particular, it notes that proliferation networks have grown 

increasingly sophisticated at exploiting legitimate international 

trade to spread such capabilities. The network of Pakistani weapons scientist A.Q. Khan, for example, has been widely implicated 

in spreading nuclear technology to a number of countries of concern. At the same time, the committee notes the growing role of 

international consortia in producing advanced military capabilities. 

In general, certain exceptions in existing export control regimes 

were designed to govern state-to-state transactions, but are now 

being employed to facilitate international transactions among nonstate actors. The committee is concerned that these two trends are 

beginning to intersect and that proliferation networks will begin to 

exploit loopholes in existing export control regimes to acquire dangerous capabilities. Therefore, the committee, in close cooperation 

with the Committee on International Relations, developed a series 

371 

of provisions intended to rationalize and harmonize export controls 

with the new international security environment. 

Recognizing the importance of a multilateral approach, the committee also recommends provisions intended to assist other countries in improving their capacity to prevent proliferation networks 

from acquiring sensitive technology through illicit activities disguised as legitimate defense trade. These include domestic 

counterproliferation fellowships for foreign military and defense 

ministry personnel in order to improve their understanding and application of counterproliferation tools and an expansion of the Secretary of Defense’s authority to provide assistance to existing programs by the U.S. Customs Bureau and Federal Bureau of Investigations to train foreign customs and law enforcement officials in 

the skills needed to stem the spread of weapons of mass destruction. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Defense Technology Security Administration 

The budget request included $20.5 million for the Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA), which seeks to safeguard 

the United States and its allies by controlling and monitoring 

international technology transfers and preventing inappropriate 

technology transfers. The committee recommends $21.5 million in 

order to bolster the Administration’s ability to prevent U.S. high 

technology from falling into the hands of potential adversaries. 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

The budget request included $325.5 million for the Defense 

Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) which seeks to reduce the threat 

of future weapons of mass destruction being employed against the 

United States and its allies. The committee supports the work of 

DTRA and recommends an increase of 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 

data base currently used by some 18 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 around the globe, provide education and training 

for its use worldwide, enhance the quality and utility of the database by expanding its coverage of weapons of mass destruction information, and perform related research and public education initiatives on export control policy. 

Nonproliferation Education 

The committee notes that the next Nuclear Nonproliferation 

Treaty (NPT) review conference will be held in 2005, and will come 

at a time of heightened concern over the threat of proliferation of 

weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The committee welcomes the 

important steps taken by the Administration to enhance current 

U.S. counter and non-proliferation efforts, including the four proposals offered by the President on February 11, 2004: 

372 

(1) Expansion of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to 

go beyond shipments and transfers, to increase collaboration 

between intelligence, law enforcement, and military agencies to 

target and shut down weapons traffickers, WMD suppliers, 

their labs, and buyers; 

(2) Strengthened laws and international controls governing 

proliferation, including a new Security Council resolution requiring all states to criminalize proliferation, enact strict export controls, and secure all sensitive materials within their 

borders; 

(3) Expansion of U.S. Nunn-Lugar efforts, where the President noted great success since 1991 but also added, ‘‘We have 

more work to do there;’’ and 

(4) Elimination of a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty loophole that has been exploited by nations such as North Korea 

and Iran, which have been allowed to produce nuclear material 

that can be used to build bombs under the cover of civilian nuclear programs. 

The committee believes that increased attention to proliferation 

concerns provides an opportunity to stimulate and encourage new 

entrants into nonproliferation and international security careers, 

and a chance to increase public understanding of the national and 

international security ramifications of the NPT and other efforts to 

stem WMD proliferation. The committee commends efforts by universities and other non-government organizations to broaden 

awareness of these critical issues, and believes that efforts to encourage the study of nonproliferation and international security 

issues are a welcome addition to postsecondary educational curricula. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—EXPORT CONTROLS

Section 1401—Definitions under Arms Export Control Act 

This section would clarify the definitions of ‘‘license,’’ ‘‘agent,’’ and ‘‘exporting agent’’ as they are applied under the Arms Export 

Control Act (Public Law 90–629). Currently, such terms are not defined. The definition of ‘‘license’’ would require it to be in written 

form. While current regulations require licenses to be in writing, 

the Department of State recently unilaterally issued a ‘‘verbal’’ license to approve the export of military guidance and sensor chips 

to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), at a time when such items 

are normally prohibited for sale to the PRC. The chips were embedded in a commercial aircraft sale, but can be used in missile guidance systems. The Department of State’s explanation for this significant departure from normal practice—that weather conditions 

in Washington, DC precluded the timely issuance of a written license—is not acceptable given the sensitivity of the technology involved. 

The definition of ‘‘agent’’ would ensure that persons covered by 

the definition are in fact empowered by their governments to act 

as emissaries of those governments in some capacity. Restrictions 

on the transfer of exported goods generally limit such transfers 

among those governments or their agents. However, several EuroVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00396 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
373 

pean states have begun to re-interpret ‘‘agents’’ to mean representatives of a commercial firm within their borders. This looser definition effectively creates a loophole in which exports to certain countries could be approved with the expectation that the only individuals who have access to those exports are government officials, but 

in which access is considerably broader. The committee believes 

this change is necessary to ensure that advanced technology entrusted to foreign governments continues to be controlled with the 

care that has historically been afforded to it. 

The definition of ‘‘exporting agent’’ means the freight forwarder 

or consignee as designated on a license application and authorized 

to act on behalf of the license applicant. 

Section 1402—Exemption from Licensing Requirements for Export 

of Significant Military Equipment 

This section would prohibit the President from creating regulatory exemptions for significant military equipment that would 

otherwise require an export license. Section 47 of the Arms Export 

Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2794) defines ‘‘significant military equipment’’ as articles for which special export controls are warranted 

and are identified on the United States Munitions List. As a practical matter, this limitation would result in little change from current practice. However, the Department of State recently proposed 

exempting a class of significant military equipment from the requirement to obtain a license, raising concerns about setting precedents for the license-free export of major combat systems. This section would inoculate the U.S. Government from pressures to export 

those systems without first giving such exports the added scrutiny 

and safeguards inherent in the licensing process. 

Section 1403—Cooperative Projects with Friendly Foreign 

Countries 

This section would create a process by which Congress has an opportunity to reject a cooperative project proposal it currently receives under the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2767). Similar 

procedures already exist for commercial and military exports undertaken under the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776). This 

section would also ensure that commercial exports embedded in an 

international cooperative project will require a license under Section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act governing commercial arms 

exports. Historically, cooperative projects with friendly foreign 

countries were conducted as government-to-government activities. 

However, in recent years, such projects have increasingly included 

corporate entities and accorded them growing authority in making 

project decisions, outside of the normal licensing process. As the 

United States makes increasing use of such projects in the research, development, and acquisition process, the committee is concerned that controls on the exports of sensitive military technologies are being inadvertently loosened in order streamline the 

project’s execution. It is concerned that this process may take place 

without regard to the need to ensure sensitive military capabilities 

do not fall into the hands of potential adversaries or terrorist 

groups. By aligning the Congressional review process on cooperative projects with the review process on commercial arms exports 

374 

and requiring a license for commercial entities embedded in a cooperative project, this section would ensure that security interests 

continue to predominate in such projects. 

Section 1404—Licensing Requirement for Export of Militarily 

Critical Technologies 

This section would require the President to require exporters of 

militarily critical technologies to obtain an export license for the 

export or re-export of any item on the Militarily Critical Technologies List published by the Department of Defense (DOD). The 

Export Administration Act of 1979 established process for licensing 

import or export of dual-use technologies. It also required the Department of Defense to prepare a Militarily Critical Technologies 

List (MCTL). The Departments of Defense and Commerce are expected to integrate the MCTL into the list of dual-use goods and 

technologies that require a license to export under the Export Administration Act. 

However, in recent years, concerns have been raised that MCTL 

goods were not being appropriately controlled. Section 1211 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public 

Law 108–136) requires DOD to prepare a report on technologies 

needed to ensure U.S. military superiority and identify whether 

those items were controlled under any export control regime. That 

report was delivered on March 5, 2004 and identified several technologies that are not controlled under the Export Administration 

Regulations or the Arms Export Control Act, including, among others,: (1) Amorphous Silicon Focal Plane Arrays used in Night Vision Devices; (2) UAV kits to convert civil aircraft; (3) Precision Approach Radars containing electronically scanned arrays (useful in 

EW); (4) Surveillance Direction Finders; (5) GPS receivers with interference protection; and, (6) High-Precision, Multi-Axis Job 

Grinders, a machine tool used to make missile guidance components. These systems fall into categories identified on the MCTL, 

confirming that such technologies are not adequately controlled. 

This section would continue to allow exports of such militarily critical technologies, but would ensure that the exports remain consistent with national security. 

Section 1405—Control of Exports of United States Weapons 

Technology to the People’s Republic of China 

This section would prohibit the export of certain technologies to 

individuals or countries engaged in the sale of such items to the 

security services of the People’s Republic of China unless certain 

conditions are met. Such conditions would require that a license 

was approved for that export, the Secretary of Defense concurs in 

the export, and the foreign person or country agrees in writing not 

to transfer title, possession of, or otherwise provide access to that 

item without prior, written, consent by the President. 

The committee is concerned by reports that military trade 

embargos imposed on the People’s Republic of China after the 

Tiananmen Square massacre might be weakened or discontinued. 

The committee is also concerned that the weakening of such restrictions would send the wrong message about the importance of 

respecting human rights, undermine international controls inVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00398 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
375 

tended to prevent the proliferation of sensitive dual-use and military technology, and exacerbate a serious military imbalance in 

Asia. 

Section 1406—Strengthening International Export Controls 

This section would make it the policy of the United States to 

seek continued negotiations to strengthen the international export 

control system for arms and militarily-sensitive goods and technologies to countries of concern. It requires a Presidential report on 

progress made in strengthening international controls 180 days 

after enactment and every six months thereafter. 

SUBTITLE B—COUNTERPROLIFERATION MATTERS

Section 1411—Defense International Counterproliferation 

Programs 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to expand 

existing programs to train foreign border and law enforcement officials in preventing the illicit transfer of weapons of mass destruction in the states of the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and 

the Baltic states, by granting the Secretary authority to conduct 

those programs in any other country in which the Secretary determines a significant threat exists. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1995 (Public Law 103–337) established a 

joint program between the Department of Defense and the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation to conduct training of law enforcement officials in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe to deter, 

interdict, and counter any organized crime involvement in the illegal acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104–201) 

established a joint program between the Department of Defense 

and the United States Customs Service to assist customs and border guard entities in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe 

to prevent the unauthorized transfer and transportation of weapons of mass destruction and related material. 

Section 1412—Defense Counterproliferation Fellowship Program 

This section would direct the Secretary of Defense to establish a 

fellowship program to train and educate foreign defense policymakers and military officers in identifying and using 

counterproliferation tools to combat the spread of weapons of mass 

destruction. It would further direct the Secretary to establish a domestic fellowship program for the purposes of improving the Department of Defense’s ability to exploit non-government expertise 

in combating the spread of weapons of mass destruction. The President has identified the nexus among terrorists, weapons of mass 

destruction, and rogue states as a critical threat to United States 

national security. Nonproliferation and counterproliferation tools, 

such as export controls and the Proliferation Security Initiative, 

can play a vital role in containing that threat worldwide. 

376 

SUBTITLE C—INITIATIVES RELATING TO COUNTRIES OF THE FORMER

SOVIET UNION

Section 1421—Silk Road Initiative 

This section would make it the policy of the United States to establish and promote programs to prevent the proliferation from 

former Soviet scientists, engineers, and technicians of the expertise 

useful to the development of weapons of mass destruction. It further authorizes the Secretary of Energy to carry out a program 

known as the Silk Road Initiative to promote employment in the 

former Soviet republics in the Caucasus and Central Asia. It encourages the Secretary to begin a pilot program in the Republic of 

Georgia and authorizes the Secretary to spend up to $10.0 million 

on the program from within funds available for nonproliferation 

and international security in fiscal year 2005. 

Section 1422—Teller-Kurchatov Nonproliferation Fellowships 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Energy to conduct 

a fellowship program in which an American scientist serves as a 

fellow at the Kurchatov Institute in Russia and a Russian scientist 

to serve as a fellow in the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. It authorizes the Secretary to spend up to $10.0 million on the 

program from within funds available for nonproliferation and international security in fiscal year 2005. 

Section 1423—Collaboration to Reduce the Risks of a Launch of 

Russian Nuclear Weapons 

This section finds that certain limitations of the Russian nuclear 

command and control system raise concerns about the prospects for 

an accidental or unauthorized launch of Russian strategic ballistic 

missiles. It directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to 

Congress no later than November 1, 2005 on steps that might be 

taken to reduce that danger, including an assessment of the risks 

and opportunities associated with taking those steps. 

TITLE XV—AUTHORIZATION FOR INCREASED 

COSTS DUE TO OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM 

AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM 

OVERVIEW 

The committee recommends authorization of $25 billion in funds 

to be appropriated for fiscal year 2005 to support the defense activities principally associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom and the global war on terrorism. These 

funds are designated for emergency contingency operations related 

to the global war on terrorism pursuant to H. Con. Res. 393, establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government 

for fiscal year 2005 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels 

for fiscal year 2004 and 2006 though 2009, as passed by the House 

of Representatives on March 25, 2004. 

The increase in insurgent and terrorist action during the period 

preceding the return of sovereignty to the Iraqi government has increased the cost of operations. The committee believes that it is esVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00400 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
377 

sential to recognize the change in operational level and ensure full 

funding is available to support U.S. troops and their needs. 

SUMMARY TABLE OF AUTHORIZATION 

The following table provides a summary of the committee’s authorization of funds for this purpose by appropriations account. 

378 

379 

380 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Procurement 

It is the highest priority of the committee that our troops be supported with the equipment necessary to successfully accomplish 

their missions in Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring 

Freedom and the global war on terrorism. The committee recommends authorization for procurement to support force protection, the rapid fielding initiative for basic infantry combat equipment, combat losses of essential equipment, the Army’s modularity 

initiative, and essential combat related unfunded requirements of 

our armed forces. 

The committee’s recommendations for procurement in this title 

include full support of the force protection needs of our units. Included in the force protection recommendation is full funding for 

the Up Armor High Mobilility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle 

(HMMWV); bolt-on ballistic armor for HMMWVs and trucks; and 

Interceptor Body Armor (IBA), including funding for add-on protection for the shoulder and side body areas. Intelligence, surveillance 

and reconnaissance (ISR) are important elements of force protection and are critical to interdict, disrupt, and defeat the insurgent 

and terrorist threat. Therefore, this title also includes authorization to procure unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) that are currently 

in production to provide these UAV assets to the units in theater 

in sufficient quantity to meet both their operational and ISR requirements. 

The committee fully supports the Army’s efforts to transform the 

structure of its divisions into smaller organizations to create additional combat relevant units. This reorganization known as 

‘‘modularity’’ will contribute to the reduction of stress on our troops 

due to the high operational tempo of operations in southwest Asia. 

This title authorizes an aggressive down payment for the equipment costs of both modularity and the rapid fielding initiative as 

displayed in the Army unfunded requirements list so that every infantry soldier has the equipment necessary to perform their mission. 

This title also provides authorization for the combat related, unfunded equipment requirements of the Marine Corp and Army as 

submitted by the service chiefs in February and March 2004 and 

to replace combat losses in aviation and other equipment. 

Operations and Maintenance 

The military departments and defense agencies need operations 

and maintenance (O&M) funds to pay for food, fuel, spare parts, 

maintenance, transportation, camp, post, and base expenses that 

have risen dramatically as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom 

(OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). Much of these expenses are captured in the O&M funding for operating tempo. This 

cost is significant. Without additional funding at the start of fiscal 

year 2005, the military departments will be forced to use third and 

fourth quarter O&M funds in the initial months of fiscal year 2005 

to pay for OIF and OEF costs. This presents significant accounting 

and budgetary hurdles and alters the ability to plan properly for 

the entire year. The committee, therefore, believes that O&M warVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00404 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
381 

related costs should be funded prior to the start of the fiscal year. 

In addition, the committee is funding critical equipment for the 

Iraq and Afghanistan theater that will improve our troops’ welfare 

and combat effectiveness. The committee believes that these items 

should be funded immediately. 

Military Personnel 

The committee long has advocated for increases in active component manpower to sustain the full range of capabilities required of 

and missions assigned to the Armed Forces. Thus the committee 

recommended in the National Defense Authorization Acts for Fiscal 

Years 2003 and 2004 increases of 10,350 and 6,240 respectively in 

active component manpower above the budget requests. 

More recently, the Army Chief of Staff announced a plan for a 

temporary increase of 30,000 in the Army’s active component end 

strength, not only to improve its ability to meet the full range of 

its worldwide missions, but also to increase its current active combat capability from 33 brigades to 43–48 brigades. To support the 

Army’s need, the committee recommends in this title a cumulative 

active component increase of 30,000 (to an end strength of 

512,400), in increments of 10,000 each in fiscal years 2005 through 

2007. The committee would also temporarily adjust the minimum 

end strength floors to reflect the increases in authorized end 

strength. 

To ensure the Marine Corps can continue to provide and sustain 

the force levels required of it by the national security strategy, the 

committee recommends in this title a cumulative active component 

Marine Corps increase of 9,000 (to and end strength of 184,000), 

in increments of 3,000 each in fiscal years 2005 through 2007. The 

committee would also adjust the minimum end strength floors to 

reflect the increases in authorized end strength. The committee recommends an additional $1,179 million for military personnel, operations and maintenance to fund the additional 

Army and Marine Corps active component manpower in fiscal year 

2005. To fund increased Army and Marine Corps manpower in fiscal years 2006 and beyond, the committee recommends that starting in fiscal year 2006 the Secretary of the Treasury would assume 

the requirement for the annual payment to the Department of Defense Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund that is now 

made by the Secretary of Defense. The committee expects that the 

Secretary of Defense will use the resulting funding flexibility to 

fully fund the costs of the Army transformation efforts and Marine 

Corps end strength growth in fiscal year 2006 and beyond. 

To address the concerns of the Secretary of Defense and the 

Chief of Staff of the Army that end strength increases should not 

be made permanent, the committee’s recommendation provides for 

only temporary end strength growth through the end of fiscal year 

2007—the point at which Army leadership has indicated it will be 

in a better position to assess future manning levels. Furthermore, 

this committee recommendation would require that if the Secretary 

of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of the Army, or the 

Secretary of the Navy, believes changes should be made to the 

strength levels authorized by this title, then those changes must be 

provided to the committee prior to the submission of the budget request for any fiscal year. 

382 

Finally, to provide for the active component and reserve component military manpower deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan for the 

first quarter of fiscal year 2005, the committee would authorize 

$4.4 billion. In addition, the committee would also authorize $141 

million to extend the authority of the Department of Defense to 

continue paying higher levels of family separation allowance and 

imminent danger pay. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 1501—Purpose 

This section would establish this title as an authorization of appropriations for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2005, in 

addition to amounts otherwise authorized in this Act, to provide 

funds for additional costs due to Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

SUBTITLE A—AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Section 1511—Army Procurement 

This section would authorize an additional $2,439.2 million for 

fiscal year 2005 Army procurement. 

Section 1512—Navy and Marine Corps Procurement 

This section would authorize an additional $136.6 million for fiscal year 2005 Navy and Marine Corps procurement. 

Section 1513—Air Force Procurement 

This section would authorize an additional $99.0 million for fiscal 

year 2005 Air Force procurement. 

Section 1514—Defense-Wide Activities Procurement 

This section would authorize an additional $720.0 million for fiscal year 2005 Defense-Wide Activities procurement. 

Section 1515—Operation and Maintenance 

This section would authorize an additional $16,225.2 million for 

fiscal year 2005 operation and maintenance programs. 

Section 1516—Defense Health Program 

This section would authorize $75.0 million to be appropriated to 

the Defense Health Program (DHP) for operations and maintenance for fiscal year 2005. 

Section 1517—Military Personnel 

This section would authorize $5,305.0 million to be appropriated 

to the Department of Defense for military personnel for fiscal year 

2005. 

383 

Section 1518—Treatment as Additional Authorization 

This section would authorize an additional $25 billion for emergency contingency operations related to the global war on terrorism 

to the amounts otherwise authorized in this Act. 

Section 1519—Transfer Authority 

This section would provide fiscal year 2005 transfer authority of 

$2.5 billion to the Department of Defense for the authorizations 

contained in this title. 

Section 1520—Designation of Emergency Authorization 

This section would authorize $25 billion for fiscal year 2005 to 

support emergency contingency operations related to the global war 

on terrorism. 

SUBTITLE B—PERSONNEL PROVISIONS

Section 1531—Three Year Increase in Active Army Strength Levels 

This section would increase the active Army end strength authorized for fiscal year 2005 by 10,000 above the authorization contained in section 401. This section would also authorize active 

Army end strengths for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 of 502,400 and 

512,400 respectively. This section would establish temporary new 

minimum active duty end strengths for the Army as of September 

30, 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively. These changes in minimum 

strengths reflect the committee’s recommendations for Army end 

strength provided by this section. The section would also direct 

that if the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary 

of the Army, determines that adjustments are necessary to the 

minimum end strength levels, then the Secretary of Defense shall 

submit a report of his recommendations and rationale for change 

to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on Armed Services prior to the submission of the budget request for the fiscal year in which the change would be effective. 

Section 1532—Three Year Increase in Active Marine Corps 

Strength Levels 

This section would increase the United States Marine Corps active end strength authorized for fiscal year 2005 by 3,000 above the 

authorization contained in section 401. This section would also authorize U.S. Marine Corps active end strengths for fiscal years 

2006 and 2007 of 181,000 and 184,000 respectively. This section 

would establish temporary new minimum active duty end strengths 

for the Marine Corps as of September 30, 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively. These changes in minimum strengths reflect the committee’s recommendations for Marine Corps active end strength 

provided by this section. The section would also direct that if the 

Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the 

Navy, determines that adjustments are necessary to the minimum 

end strength levels, then the Secretary of Defense shall submit a 

report of his recommendations and rationale for change to the Senate Committee on Armed Services and the House Committee on 

384 

Armed Services prior to the submission of the budget request for 

the fiscal year in which the change would be effective. 

Section 1533—Extension of Increased Rates for Imminent Danger 

Pay and Family Separation Allowance 

This section would make permanent the increase in the rate of 

imminent danger pay from $150 per month to $225 per month and 

the increase in the rate of family separation allowance from $100 

per month to $250 per month. 

Subtitle C—Financial Management Matters 

Section 1541—Revised Funding Methodology for Military Retiree 

Health Care Benefits 

This section would revise the process for funding the annual payments that are required to be paid into the Department of Defense 

Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund. Beginning in fiscal 

year 2006, the Secretary of the Treasury would make the annual 

payments from the general fund of the Treasury. Under current 

law the Secretary of Defense, as well as the secretaries of the other 

departments whose beneficiaries participate in the TRICARE for 

Life program, make these annual payments. 

DIVISION B—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION 

AUTHORIZATIONS 

PURPOSE 

Division B provides military construction and related authorities 

in support of the military departments during fiscal year 2005. As 

recommended by the committee, Division B would authorize appropriations in the amount of $9,930,475,000 for construction in support of the active forces, reserve components, defense agencies, and 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization security infrastructure 

fund for fiscal year 2005. 

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW 

The Department of Defense (DOD) requested $5,308,879,000 for 

military construction and $4,171,596,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2005. The committee recommends authorization of 

$5,778,709,000 for military construction and $4,151,766,000 for 

family housing in fiscal year 2005. The committee’s recommendations are consistent with a total budget authority level of 

$9,930,475,000 for military construction and family housing in fiscal year 2005. 

The committee’s recommendation to increase the budget request 

for military construction and family housing reflects continued concern about the state of DOD infrastructure. Every Congress for the 

past decade has acted on similar concerns by adding funds to military construction and family housing budgets. This historic trend 

is a clear indication that the annual budget requests for DOD infrastructure and facilities are routinely inadequate. 

Of additional concern is the fact that the fiscal year 2005 budget 

request for military construction and family housing includes less 

385 

funding than the fiscal year 2004 program, as enacted. Furthermore, the fiscal year 2005 request for these programs is nearly 

$1,400,000,000 smaller than was forecast in the fiscal year 2004 

budget. Finally, the forecasted total for military construction over 

the fiscal year 2005 Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) is 

$6,000,000,000 less than the amounts forecasted in the fiscal year 

2004 FYDP. 

Unless these forecasted increases become reality, the Department 

will not be able to meet its current facilities needs, nor will it be 

able to meet the substantial facilities requirements associated with 

Army transformation, increased Army force structure, and the 

Global Posture Review. Considering the importance of facilities and 

infrastructure to military readiness, quality of life, retention, and 

operational capabilities, the committee urges the Department to 

ensure that future military construction and family housing budget 

requests are properly resourced. 

With regard to maintenance, repair, and sustainment of facilities, the committee applauds the Department for implementing a 

legitimate model for determining sustainment budgets. However, 

the Department does not have an effective model for base operations, repair, and modernization budgets. As a result, these accounts continue to be funded at levels that do not support ‘‘must 

pay’’ bills for utilities and critical base services. While operations, 

maintenance, and repair budgets are primarily funded in title III 

of this Act, funding shortfalls in these areas directly affect the condition, usability, and lifespan of military facilities and family housing projects funded in Division B. Therefore, the committee urges 

the Department to fully fund facilities-related budgets, including 

military construction, family housing, base operations, 

sustainment, restoration, and maintenance programs. 

Finally, the Department continues to develop the Global Posture 

Review, a comprehensive review and restructuring of the Department’s overseas basing strategy. While the Department has provided Congress glimpses of parts of the review, it has not yet finalized its overseas basing decisions, nor has it provided Congress 

with a complete picture of its plans. 

While this would be troubling in any year, the committee is particularly concerned that the review, which is expected to return significant numbers of overseas-based military personnel to the 

United States, will not be finalized until the base closure process 

is well under way. As a result, Congress will not have the opportunity to review and validate the Department’s overseas basing decisions before they are implemented through the base closure process. Furthermore, the Department is in the midst of several additional evolving efforts that are likely to have significant effects on 

the infrastructure requirements of the military services, including 

force transformation and changes in endstrength related to the active and reserve personnel mix of the services. Therefore, the committee has included provisions in Division B to ensure that the Department presents Congress with a complete plan of future infrastructure requirements before proceeding with the base closure 

process. 

A tabular summary of the authorizations provided in Division B 

for fiscal year 2005 follows: 

386 

387 

388 

389 

390 

391 

392 

393 

394 

395 

396 

397 

398 

399 

400 

401 

402 

TITLE XXI—ARMY 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $1,771,285,000 for Army military 

construction and $1,565,006,000 for family housing for fiscal year 

2005. The committee recommends authorization of $1,866,209,000 

for military construction and $1,562,606,000 for family housing for 

fiscal year 2005. 

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: $750,000 for an aircraft maintenance hangar at Cairns Army Air Field, Fort Rucker, 

Alabama; $561,000 for a runway extension at Amedee Army Airfield, Sierra Army Depot, California; $2,250,000 for a receptee barracks expansion at Fort Benning, Georgia; $310,000 for a law enforcement complex at Fort Gordon, Georgia; $365,000 for a consolidated shipping center at Bluegrass Depot, Kentucky; $278,000 for 

a child development center at Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania; $486,000 

for a military operations on unbanized terrain collective training 

facility at Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia; and $500,000 for access roads at 

Fort Belvoir, Virginia. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2101—Authorized Army Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects 

This section contains the list of authorized Army construction 

projects for fiscal year 2005. 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 2005. 

Section 2103—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 

This section would authorize new improvements to existing units 

of family housing for fiscal year 2005. 

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 2005. This section also provides an overall limit on the amount the Army may 

spend on military construction projects. 

403 

Section 2105—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain 

Fiscal Year 2004 Projects 

This section would amend the table in section 2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (division 

B of Public Law 108–136) to increase the amounts authorized for 

construction at Fort Stewart, Georgia, and Fort Drum, New York. 

Section 2106—Modification of Authority to Carry Out Certain 

Fiscal Year 2003 Project 

This section would amend the table in section 2101 of the Military Construction Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (division 

B of Public Law 107–314) to increase the amount authorized for 

construction at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. 

TITLE XXII—NAVY 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $1,060,455,000 for Navy military 

construction and $843,611,000 for family housing for fiscal year 

2005. The committee recommends authorization of $1,077,862,000 

for military construction and $835,411,000 for family housing for 

fiscal year 2005. 

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 projects: $250,000 for an advanced sensors integration facility at Naval Air Weapons Station 

China Lake, California; $268,000 for physical gate security enhancements at Marine Corps Air Station Miramar, California; 

$150,000 for phase two of an aircraft parking apron at Naval Air 

Station Jacksonville, Florida; $150,000 for a consolidated operations support facility at Naval Air Station Jacksonville, Florida; 

and $1,032,000 for improvements to machine shops at Norfolk 

Naval Shipyard Detachment, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 2201—Authorized Navy Construction and Land Acquisition 

Projects 

This section contains the list of authorized Navy construction 

projects for fiscal year 2005. 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 2005. 

404 

Section 2203—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 

This section would authorize new improvements to existing units 

of family housing for fiscal year 2005. 

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 2005. 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 $663,964,000 for Air Force military 

construction and $1,710,855,000 for family housing for fiscal year 

2005. The committee recommends authorization of $792,054,000 for 

military construction and $1,701,625,000 for family housing for fiscal year 2005. 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

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: $880,000 for a 

security forces operational facility at Patrick Air Force Base, Florida; $8,000,000 for a consolidated Central Command facility at 

MacDill Air Force Base, Florida; $1,340,000 for a logistics readiness center at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho; $1,332,000 

for a consolidated mobility processing center at McConnell Air 

Force Base, Kansas; $890,000 for alteration of a fuel cell dock at 

Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota; $497,000 for runway repair 

at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska; $837,000 for a fire and crash 

rescue station at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada; and $670,000 for 

a mission support complex at Fairchild Air Force Base, Washington. 

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 2005. 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 

2005. 

405 

Section 2303—Improvements to Military Family Housing Units 

This section would authorize new improvements to existing units 

of family housing for fiscal year 2005. 

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 2005. 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 $699,437,000 for defense agency 

military construction and $49,624,000 for family housing for fiscal 

year 2005. The budget request also included $81,886,000 for chemical demilitarization construction projects in a separate title. The 

committee recommends including chemical demilitarization construction in Title XXIV. Therefore, the committee recommends authorization of $790,823,000 for military construction and 

$49,624,000 for family housing for defense agencies for fiscal year 

2005. 

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 2005. The authorized amounts are 

listed on an installation-by-installation basis. The state list contained in this report is intended to be the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

Section 2402—Improvements to Family Housing Units 

This section would authorize improvements to existing units of 

family housing for fiscal year 2005. 

Section 2403—Energy Conservation Projects 

This section would authorize the Secretary of Defense to carry 

out energy conservation projects. 

Section 2404—Authorization of Appropriations, Defense Agencies 

This section would authorize specific amounts for each line item 

contained in the defense agencies’ budgets for fiscal year 2005. This 

section also provides an overall limit on the amount the defense 

agencies may spend on military construction projects. 

406 

TITLE XXV—NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION SECURITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM 

SUMMARY 

The budget request contained $165,800,000 for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) infrastructure fund (NATO Security Investment Program) for fiscal year 2005. The committee recommends authorization of $165,800,000 for fiscal year 2005. 

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 $165,800,000 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 $619,936,000 for military construction of guard and reserve facilities for fiscal year 2005. The committee recommends authorization for fiscal year 2005 of 

$839,845,000 to be distributed as follows: 

Army National Guard ........ $393,225,000 

Air National Guard ........... 184,620,000 

Army Reserve .................... 116,955,000 

Naval and Marine Corps 

Reserve ........................... 30,955,000 

Air Force Reserve .............. 114,090,000 

Total ......................... 839,845,000 

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: $772,000 for a 

composite operations and training facility at Montgomery, Alabama; $509,000 for a space warning system squadron support facility at Greeley Air National Guard Station, Colorado; $300,000 for 

the relocation of the base entrance at Capital Municipal Airport, Illinois; $650,000 for a fire and crash rescue station at Rosecrans 

Memorial Airport, Missouri; $990,000 for a pararescue complex at 

407 

Francis S. Gabreski Airport, New York; and $501,000 for a fire and 

crash rescue 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: $954,000 for 

phase one of a joint services lodging facility at Youngstown Air Reserve Station, Ohio. 

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: $789,000 for a joint 

armed forces reserve center at Daytona Beach, Florida; $844,000 

for a armed forces reserve center at Gary, Indiana; $614,000 for a 

national guard and reserve center building at Lincoln Airbase, Nebraska; $485,000 for a readiness center at Hermitage, Pennsylvania; $1,999,000 for phase two of a readiness center addition and 

alteration at Nashville, Tennessee; $935,000 for a joint armed 

forces reserve center at Smyrna, Tennessee; $530,000 for a readiness center at Winchester, Virginia; and $2,014,000 for a readiness 

center at Fort Lewis, Washington. 

Planning and Design, Army Reserve 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

planning and design, the Secretary of the Army complete planning 

and design activities for the following project: $843,000 for a reserve center at Garden Grove, California. 

Unspecified Minor Construction, Army National Guard 

The committee recommends that, within authorized amounts for 

unspecified minor construction, the Secretary of the Army execute 

the following project: $2,700,000 for a wastewater treatment facility at Camp Shelby, Mississippi. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISION 

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 2005. The state list contained in this report is intended to be 

the binding list of the specific projects authorized at each location. 

408 

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, 2007, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal 

year 2008, whichever is later. This expiration would not apply to 

authorizations for which appropriated funds have been obligated 

before October 1, 2007, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 2008, whichever 

is later. 

Section 2702—Extension of Authorizations of Certain Fiscal Year 

2002 Projects 

This section would extend fiscal year 2002 military construction 

authorizations until October 1, 2005, or the date of enactment of 

an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal year 

2006, whichever is later. The extended authorization applies to the 

following projects: $23,000,000 for construction of a power plant 

cooling tower at Fort Wainwright, Alaska; $1,500,000 for Parker 

Ranch land acquisition at Pohakuloa Training Area, Hawaii; 

$11,400,000 for construction of family housing at Buckley Air Force 

Base, Colorado; and $7,300,000 to replace family housing at 

Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana. 

Section 2703—Extension and Renewal of Authorizations of Certain 

Fiscal Year 2001 Projects 

This section would extend certain fiscal year 2001 military construction authorizations until October 1, 2005, or the date of enactment of an act authorizing funds for military construction for fiscal 

year 2006, whichever is later. The extended authorizations apply to 

the following projects: $250,000 for construction of family housing 

at Fort Jackson, South Carolina; $7,400,000 for Defense Finance 

and Accounting Service building renovation at Kleber Kaserne, 

Germany; and $843,000 for an elementary school classroom addition at Osan Air Base, Korea. 

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, 2004, or 

the date of enactment of this Act, whichever is later. 

409 

TITLE XXVIII—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

Base Realignment and Closure 

By May 16, 2005, the Secretary of Defense must present recommendations for base closures and realignments to Congress and 

the base closure commission. With this deadline approximately one 

year away, the committee is increasingly concerned by the significant number of uncertainties and ongoing turbulent events that 

will dramatically affect the Department’s infrastructure requirements both during and after the base closure process. 

For example, the demands of the global war on terrorism continue to change, the manpower and infrastructure requirements related to the effort to rebuild Iraq continue to evolve, the Department has not yet completed a global review of its overseas military 

installations, each of the military services is in the midst of force 

transformation, end strength requirements of the services continue 

to be unsettled issues, and the infrastructure and force requirements for the Department to meet homeland security missions 

have not yet been determined. 

Therefore, the committee includes a provision to require the Department to report to Congress on a number of unresolved infrastructure-related issues. Pending submission of these reports, the 

provision would suspend the base closure process until 2007. 

The committee notes that a two-year postponement of the base 

closure and realignment round would have several benefits. First, 

postponement would allow the Department to stabilize force and 

funding requirements related to Iraq, Afghanistan, the war against 

terrorism, and homeland security before making base closure and 

realignment recommendations. Second, postponement would allow 

DOD to understand the impact of, and in some cases resolve, significant infrastructure-related issues such as global basing and 

transformation before making irreversible base closure decisions. 

Finally, base closure actions historically result in significant upfront costs with net savings not occurring for several years after 

closure activities. Delay of the base closure round until 2007 would 

provide relief to significant budgetary pressures on the Department 

during the next five years. 

The committee also includes a provision to amend and codify the 

criteria used by the Department to make base closure and realignment recommendations. The committee’s recommended changes address many of the comments that the Department received during 

the public comment period on the selection criteria. 

Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs Health Care Facility 

Sharing 

The committee continues to support efforts by the Department of 

Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to design, 

construct, maintain, and operate health care facilities in a joint 

manner, and encourages the Department and VA to take advantage of opportunities to share health care facilities whenever possible. The committee report (H. Rept. 108–106) accompanying the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, advocated 

410 

DOD participation in and contribution to the VA’s plans to build 

a new hospital at the site of the closed Fitzsimons Army Hospital 

in Colorado. The committee reiterates its support for a joint DOD–

VA hospital at the Fitzsimons Hospital site, and encourages the 

Department of Defense to contribute funds, at a level representative of its medical requirements, to design and construct such a facility. 

Housing Requirements Analyses 

The committee is aware that recent changes to methodology used 

in Housing Requirements Analyses have resulted in significant decreases to on-base housing requirements at many military installations, including McChord Air Force Base, Washington and Travis 

Air Force Base, California. Military Housing Privatization Initiative authorities do not prohibit privatized housing maintenance or 

construction in excess of the minimum requirement. As such, the 

committee encourages the services to inform housing privatization 

bidders of this point, particularly for those installations that have 

experienced significant decreases in on-base housing requirements 

as a result of the new housing methodology. In the specific case of 

McChord Air Force Base, the committee encourages the Secretary 

of the Air Force to explore joint efforts with the Army and the national guard to ensure that the privatized housing initiative at 

McChord is responsive to the needs of all active-duty military personnel in the region. 

Military Housing Privatization Program 

The committee continues to support the Department of Defense’s 

efforts to privatize military family and unaccompanied housing. By 

the end of fiscal year 2004, the Department anticipates having 

used the privatization program to leverage private investments to 

provide quality housing to more than 90,000 military families. The 

success of this program to date validates the committee’s recommendation to eliminate the $850.0 million statutory ceiling on 

government investment in privatization projects (section 2806), effective October 1, 2005. 

Furthermore, the committee believes that the housing privatization model may be a viable means of providing housing to military 

personnel at enduring overseas installations. As such, the committee urges the Department to consider the feasibility of expanding housing privatization authorities to permit overseas military 

family housing privatization. 

Finally, the committee notes that some local taxation authorities 

have chosen to levy real property taxes upon privatized housing 

projects. By taxing these properties, local authorities divert resources from reinvestment into military family housing facilities 

and cause significant reductions in the level of educational impact 

aid provided to communities with military dependents. Of particular concern are those cases where local taxation authorities 

have chosen to tax privatized family housing even though the local 

government is not providing municipal services such as trash collection and fire and police protection. The committee reminds local 

and state taxation authorities that taxation of privatized military 

family housing facilities has a direct effect on the quality of life of 

411 

military personnel stationed in their communities, and urges such 

authorities to repeal and refrain from real property taxation of 

such projects. 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

SUBTITLE A—MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM AND MILITARY

FAMILY HOUSING CHANGES

Section 2801—Increase in Certain Thresholds for Carrying Out 

Unspecified Minor Military Construction Projects 

This section would amend section 2805(b) of title 10, United 

States Code, to increase from $750,000 to $1,000,000 the threshold 

at which service secretaries must approve the use of operation and 

maintenance funds for unspecified minor construction projects. 

This section would also amend section 2805(c) to establish a single 

limit of $1,500,000 at which operation and maintenance funds may 

be used for unspecified minor construction projects. 

Section 2802—Assessment of Vulnerability of Military Installations 

to Terrorist Attack and Annual Report on Military Construction 

Requirements Related to Antiterrorism and Force Protection 

This section would require the Secretary of Defense to establish 

guidance for the military services on appropriate levels of 

antiterrorism and force protection requirements for facilities construction and perimeter defenses (including gate and fence line construction). This section would also require the Secretary to certify 

that all major Department installations have been assessed for 

vulnerabilities to terrorist attack since September 11, 2001. Finally, this section would require the Department of Defense to provide an annual list of unfunded antiterrorism and force-protection 

military construction requirements. 

Section 2803—Change in Threshold for Congressional Notification 

Regarding Use of Operation and Maintenance Funds for Facility 

Repair 

This section would amend section 2811(d) of title 10, United 

States Code, to lower the threshold at which congressional notification is required for facility repairs using operation and maintenance funds from $10,000,000 to $7,500,000. 

Section 2804—Reporting Requirements Regarding Military Family 

Housing Requirements for General Officers and Flag Officers 

This section would require the Department of Defense to conduct 

an analysis of general and flag officer housing requirements in the 

national capital region by March 30, 2005. This analysis must be 

based upon available housing in the local housing market as well 

as requirements for key and essential personnel to be housed in secure locations. 

The military services maintain more than 170 general and flag 

officer quarters in the national capital region. Although the committee recognizes the value of military family housing to quality of 

life, it is difficult to justify the high costs of building, operating, 

and maintaining a sizeable inventory of large general and flag offiVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00435 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
412 

cer quarters in the region. Therefore, this section would ensure 

that the Department determines whether the current number of 

such homes is appropriate. 

This section would also require the Department to report to Congress, by March 30, 2005, on its inventory of general and flag officer housing, including annual expenditures of each house for operations, utilities, and maintenance and repair over the past five 

years. The committee notes with concern the large expenditures on 

maintenance, repair, operations, and utilities on general and flag 

officers quarters reported in the fiscal year 2005 budget justification documents. This section is intended to provide the Congress 

with an historical perspective of the number and costs associated 

with general and flag officer quarters. 

Finally, this section would require the Department to provide as 

part of its annual budget justification documents, by March 30 of 

each year, a detailed list of each general and flag officer quarters 

for which operations, utilities, and maintenance and repair costs, 

in sum, are anticipated to exceed $20,000 in the coming year. Currently, annual appropriations laws require congressional notification prior to the expenditure of more than $35,000 for maintenance 

and repair for any single general or flag officer quarters. This section would enhance congressional oversight of total costs associated 

with general and flag officer housing. 

Section 2805—Congressional Notification of Deviations from Authorized Cost Variations for Military Construction Projects and 

Military Family Housing Projects 

This section would amend section 2853(c)(3) of title 10, United 

States Code, to shorten the notice and wait period for significant 

project cost increases or scope decreases from 21 days to 14 days, 

if notification is provided in an electronic format to Congress. 

Section 2806—Repeal of Limitation on Use of Alternative Authority 

for Acquisition and Improvement of Military Family Housing 

This section would amend section 2883 of title 10, United States 

Code, to repeal the limitation on budget authority for contracts and 

investments in military housing privatization projects, effective October 1, 2005. 

Section 2807—Temporary Authority to Accelerate Design Efforts 

for Military Construction Projects Carried Out Using DesignBuild Selection Procedures 

This section would establish a demonstration program to allow 

the Department of Defense to enter into a design-build construction 

contract using design funds made available under sections 2807 

and 18233 of title 10, United States Code, prior to the authorization of the project. Contracts entered into under this demonstration 

program must be selected using existing design-build contract procedures. In addition, the federal government’s liability for termination for convenience of any such contract may not exceed the 

project’s design cost. This section would permit the Department to 

enter into 36 contracts through September 30, 2008, and would require a report to Congress on the value of the program by March 

1, 2007. 

413 

Section 2808—Exchange or Sale of Reserve Component Facilities to 

Acquire Replacement Facilities 

This section would amend section 18233 of title 10, United States 

Code, to provide the Secretary of Defense the authority to receive 

facilities, cash, or a combination of facilities and cash for existing 

reserve component facilities. Existing law only permits the Secretary to exchange reserve facilities for replacement facilities. 

Section 2809—One-Year Extension of Temporary, Limited Authority to Use Operation and Maintenance Funds for Construction 

Projects Outside the United States 

This section would extend for one year the authority provided by 

section 2808 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) to permit the Secretary of Defense 

to utilize operation and maintenance funds to construct facilities 

necessary for temporary operational requirements related to a declaration of war, national emergency, or contingency. 

SUBTITLE B—REAL PROPERTY AND FACILITIES ADMINISTRATION

Section 2811—Increase in Certain Thresholds for Reporting Real 

Property Transactions 

This section would amend section 2662 of title 10, United States 

Code, to increase from $750,000 to $1,500,000 the thresholds at 

which the military services must report to Congress real property 

transactions. This section would also make adjustments to annual 

reporting requirements for minor real property transactions. 

Section 2812—Reorganization of Existing Administrative 

Provisions Relating to Real Property Transactions 

This section would consolidate and reorganize sections of chapter 

159 of title 10, United States Code. 

Section 2813—Treatment of Money Rentals from Golf Course at 

Rock Island Arsenal, Illinois 

This section would amend section 2667 of title 10, United States 

Code, to allow 50 percent of lease receipts from the Rock Island Arsenal Golf Club, a community club that leases and operates the arsenal’s golf course for the general public and local military personnel, to be placed into the Rock Island Arsenal morale, welfare, 

and recreation fund. 

Section 2814—Number of Contracts Authorized Department-Wide 

Under Demonstration Program on Reduction in Long-Term Facility Maintenance Costs 

This section would amend section 2814 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107) to adjust the number of contracts permitted under the building commissioning program. The existing program allows each military department to enter into 12 contracts for the construction and short-term 

maintenance of a facility. This section would adjust the limit to 

allow a total of 36 contracts for the Department of Defense. 

414 

Section 2815—Repeal of Commission on Review of Overseas 

Military Facility Structure of the United States 

This section would repeal section 128 of the Military Construction Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108–132), which established the Commission on the Review of Overseas Military Facility 

Structure of the United States. 

Section 2816—Designation of Airmen Leadership School at Luke 

Air Force Base, Arizona, in Honor of John J. Rhodes, a Former 

Minority Leader of the House of Representatives 

This section would designate the Airmen Leadership School at 

Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, the John J. Rhodes Airmen Leadership School in honor of the former minority leader of the House of 

Representatives, Congressman John J. Rhodes. Congressman 

Rhodes served in the United States Army Air Corps, served in the 

Arizona National Guard as a staff judge advocate, and represented 

the congressional district containing Luke Air Force Base for the 

majority of his service in the House of Representatives. 

Section 2817—Elimination of Reversionary Interests Clouding 

United States Title to Property Used as Navy Homeports 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to enter 

into agreements with holders of reversionary interests at Navy 

homeports to secure permanent title to the properties for the Navy. 

In exchange, the Navy may provide in-kind consideration including 

forfeiture of existing agreements that require payment to the Navy 

for real property improvements. The committee believes that such 

an exchange is in the interest of all parties, and would ensure that 

disposal of property at these homeports, should they be closed, realigned, or otherwise declared excess to Navy needs, is conducted 

in a manner that does not place local communities and developers 

at a disadvantage to locations which do not have reversionary 

agreements in place. 

Section 2818—Report on Real Property Disposal at Marine Corps 

Air Station, El Toro, California 

This section would require the Secretary of the Navy, within 180 

days of enactment, to report to Congress on the effort to dispose 

of real property at Marine Corps Air Station El Toro, California, 

anticipated future uses of the property, and requests received from 

other federal agencies for property at the air station. 

SUBTITLE C—BASE CLOSURE AND REALIGNMENT

Section 2821—Two-Year Postponement of 2005 Base Closure and 

Realignment Round and Submission of Reports Regarding Future Infrastructure Requirements for the Armed Forces 

This section would amend current base realignment and closure 

law to postpone the 2005 base closure and realignment round until 

2007, pending receipt of several reports on significant infrastructure issues. 

First, this section would require the Department of Defense to 

study and report to Congress on the following issues: the DepartVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00438 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
415 

ment’s Integrated Global Basing Strategy, including basing locations, rotational plans and policies, and overseas and domestic infrastructure requirements associated with that strategy; a study of 

the infrastructure requirements associated with force transformation efforts; a report on infrastructure requirements related 

to changes to the active and reserve personnel mixtures of the services; a study of the infrastructure requirements resulting from the 

Secretary of Defense’s ‘‘10–30–30’’ objective; a reassessment of excess infrastructure capacity that is based upon infrastructure, facility, and space requirements of current, future, and surged military 

forces; and a definition of, and infrastructure requirements associated with, ‘‘surge requirements’’ as determined by the Secretary as 

required by section 2822 of the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136). These reports must be 

submitted between January 1, 2006, and March 15, 2006, or the 

authority to conduct an additional round of base closures would be 

terminated. 

In order to permit sufficient time for congressional review of 

these documents and to allow the Department to incorporate the 

findings of these reports into base closure and realignment recommendations, this section would suspend the base realignment 

and closure process until 2007. 

Finally, this section would require resubmission of a force structure plan based on an assessment of probable threats to national 

security during the 20 year period beginning with fiscal year 2007, 

including anticipated endstrength and force units necessary to 

meet those threats. It would also require the Secretary of Defense 

to certify the need for an additional round of base closures as part 

of the fiscal year 2007 budget justification materials. 

The committee notes that a two-year postponement of the base 

closure and realignment round would have several benefits. First, 

postponement would allow the Department to stabilize force and 

funding requirements related to Iraq, Afghanistan, the war against 

terrorism, and homeland security before making base closure and 

realignment recommendations. Second, postponement would allow 

DOD to understand the impact of, and in some cases resolve, significant infrastructure-related issues such as global basing and 

transformation before making irreversible base closure decisions. 

Finally, base closure actions historically result in significant upfront costs with net savings not occurring for several years after 

closure activities. Delay of the base closure round until 2007 would 

provide relief to significant budgetary pressures on the Department 

during the next five years. 

Section 2822—Establishment of Specific Deadline for Submission of 

Revisions to Force-Structure Plan and Infrastructure Inventory 

for Next Base Closure Round 

This section would amend section 2912(a)(4) of the Defense Base 

Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101–510, as amended) to establish March 15 of the base 

closure round year as the final deadline for revision of the force 

structure plan or infrastructure inventory. The Secretary of Defense published an initial force structure plan and infrastructure 

inventory, as required by base closure law, in March 2004. This 

force structure plan and infrastructure inventory, along with selecVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00439 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
416 

tion criteria, will be used by the Secretary to make base closure 

and realignment recommendations. While section 2912(a)(4) of the 

Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 permits the 

Secretary to revise the plan and inventory by submitting such a revision to Congress as part of the budget justification documents for 

fiscal year 2006, existing law does not include a specific deadline 

for submission. This section would establish March 15, of the base 

closure round year as the deadline, thereby ensuring that any revision to the force structure plan and infrastructure inventory is 

made with sufficient time to permit congressional review and Department of Defense implementation. 

Section 2823—Specification of Final Selection Criteria for Next 

Base Closure Round 

This section would amend and codify the criteria that will be 

used by the Secretary of Defense in making recommendations for 

the closure or realignment of military installations inside the 

United States during the next base closure round. 

The Secretary published draft selection criteria in the Federal 

Register on December 23, 2003. Following a public comment period, 

during which the Secretary received comments relating to approximately 200 areas of concern, the final selection criteria were published on February 12, 2004. Despite the number of public comments and criticisms, the final published selection criteria were 

identical to the initial proposal. This section would modify the selection criteria to incorporate many of the comments and concerns 

received by the Department of Defense during the comment period 

and would codify the amended criteria into base closure law. 

Section 2824—Requirement for Unanimous Vote of Defense Base 

Closure and Realignment Commission to Add to or Otherwise 

Expand Closure and Realignment Recommendations made by 

Secretary of Defense 

This section would amend section 2914(d) of the Defense Base 

Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101–510, as amended) to require a unanimous vote of the 

base closure commission to recommend closure, realignment, or expanded realignment of an installation not recommended for closure 

or realignment by the Secretary of Defense. 

Section 2825—Adherence to Certain Authorities on Preservation of 

Military Depot Capabilities During Any Subsequent Round of 

Base Closures and Realignments 

This section would amend the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title XXIX of Public Law 101–510, as 

amended) to require that base closure and realignment actions 

comply with provisions of title 10, United States Code, that address 

government-owned, government-operated depot-level maintenance, 

repair, and logistics capabilities within the Department of Defense. 

In addition, this section would prohibit any base closure or realignment action from including a waiver to sections 2464 or section 

2466 of title 10, United States code, relating to the preservation of 

government-owned, government-operated depot facilities and the 

annual percentage of military department funding for depot level 

417 

maintenance and repair activities that may be expended on private 

sector depot activities. 

SUBTITLE D—LAND CONVEYANCES

PART I—ARMY CONVEYANCES

Section 2831—Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Defense 

Supply Center, Columbus, Ohio 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to transfer, without consideration, administrative jurisdiction over approximately 20 acres of real property to the Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs to be used for the location of a veterans’ outpatient clinic. 

Section 2832—Land Conveyance, Fort Hood, Texas 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey 

approximately 662 acres at Fort Hood, Texas, to the Texas A&M 

University system of the state of Texas for the purpose of establishing Texas A&M University, Central Texas. In exchange, the 

Army shall receive fair market value in cash or in-kind consideration for the property. Finally, conveyance of the property is contingent upon the Secretary of the Army’s determination that use of 

the land as a university will not adversely impact operations at 

Fort Hood’s Robert Gray Army Airfield. 

Section 2833—Land Conveyance, Army National Guard Facility, 

Seattle, Washington 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Army to convey, without consideration, approximately 10 acres of real property, 

including a portion of a national guard facility, to the state of 

Washington to support relocation of a guard unit. 

PART II—NAVY CONVEYANCES

Section 2841—Transfer of Jurisdiction, Nebraska Avenue Naval 

Complex, District of Columbia 

This section would transfer jurisdiction of the Nebraska Avenue 

Naval Complex in Washington, D.C., from the Navy to the Administrator of General Services for the purpose of accommodating the 

Department of Homeland Security. The initial costs incurred by the 

Navy as a result of the transfer, including move-out costs and firstyear lease costs, shall be paid for by the Department of Homeland 

Security, subject to appropriations. 

The section would also express the sense of Congress that longterm relocation costs incurred by the Navy, to include final relocation costs and permanent construction, shall be paid for from federal sources outside of the Department of Defense. In addition, the 

provision would require the President, after consultation with the 

chairmen and ranking members of the committees on Armed Services and Appropriations, to certify within three years of the transfer whether the Navy’s costs related to its departure from the complex have been fully compensated. If the Navy’s costs have not been 

fully compensated, the property shall revert to the jurisdiction of 

418 

the Navy, which must then dispose of the property by competitive 

sale. 

Section 2842—Land Conveyance, Navy Property, Former Fort 

Sheridan, Illinois 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey, 

without consideration, a parcel of environmentally sensitive property to a nonprofit land conservation organization for the purpose 

of ensuring permanent protection of the lands. 

Section 2843—Land Exchange, Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, 

Maryland 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Navy to convey 

approximately five acres of real property at Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Maryland, to the state of Maryland. In exchange, the 

Navy shall receive approximately 1.5 acres of property of an equal 

value to the conveyance. 

PART III—AIR FORCE CONVEYANCES

Section 2851—Land Exchange, Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 

This section would authorize the Secretary of the Air Force to 

convey the Maxwell Heights Housing site at Maxwell Air Force 

Base, Alabama, to the city of Montgomery, Alabama. In exchange, 

the Air Force shall receive approximately 35 acres of land contiguous to Maxwell Air Force Base. 

DIVISION C—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECURITY AUTHORIZATIONS AND 

OTHER AUTHORIZATIONS 

TITLE XXXI—DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

NATIONAL SECURITY PROGRAMS 

OVERVIEW 

The budget request contained $16,797.6 million for the national 

security activities of the Department of Energy for fiscal year 2005. 

Of this amount, $9,048.7 million is for the programs of the National Nuclear Security Administration, and $7,748.9 million is for 

environmental and other defense activities. The committee recommends $16,700.6 million, a decrease of $97.0 million. 

419 

420 

421 

422 

423 

424 

425 

426 

427 

428 

429 

ITEMS OF SPECIAL INTEREST 

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Overview 

The budget request contained $9,048.7 million for the National 

Nuclear Security Administration for fiscal year 2005. The committee recommends $9,047.7 million, a decrease of $1.0 million. 

Adjustments to the Budget Request 

Reductions 

Directed stockpile work 

The budget request contained $1,406.4 million for directed stockpile work. 

The committee notes that the nuclear weapon stockpile requirements that guide the stockpile life extension programs are under 

review by the Department of Defense as part of a periodic assessment of the Nuclear Posture Review. The committee also notes that 

it is difficult for the committee to support increases in funding for 

individual warhead life extension programs until this assessment 

is completed and forwarded to the congressional defense committees. 

The committee recommends $1,367.4 million, a decrease of $39.0 

million. 

Campaigns 

The budget request contained $301.0 million for the science campaign. 

The committee notes with concern that the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) reported mixed results in meeting 

the fiscal year 2003 science campaign performance targets contained in the NNSA Future-Year Nuclear Security Program. 

The committee recommends $281.5 million, a decrease of $19.5 

million. This funding level represents an increase of $18.0 million 

over the fiscal year 2004 appropriation. 

The budget request contained $741.3 million for the Advanced 

Simulation and Computing (ASC) campaign. The committee notes 

that the ASC campaign has experienced cost growth and schedule 

slippage. The committee also notes that the campaign is apparently 

procuring a considerably larger set of computers than originally envisioned. 

The committee recommends $721.3 million, a decrease of $20.0 

million. This funding represents funding at the fiscal year 2004 

level. 

International nuclear materials protection and cooperation 

The budget request contained $43.0 million within the International Nuclear Materials Protection and Cooperation program for 

security enhancements at the MinAtom Weapons complex. 

The committee understands that the National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA) has had limited success in completing security upgrades at these sites due to MinAtom not granting access. 

While the committee supports the goals of this program, it does not 

430 

support authorizing funds for projects where NNSA does not have 

the access required to accomplish program objectives. The committee recommends $32.5 million, a decrease of $10.5 

million. The recommended funding is equivalent to the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2004. The committee directs the Administrator of the NNSA to submit a report with the fiscal year 2006 

budget request on the status of NNSA access, as of the end of fiscal 

year 2004, to those MinAtom sites where Congress has authorized 

and appropriated funds for security upgrades. 

Increases 

Engineering campaign 

The budget request contained $48.7 million in the engineering 

campaign for construction of the Microsystems and Engineering 

Sciences Application (MESA) complex at Sandia National Laboratories (project 01–D–108). 

The committee notes that when complete, MESA will be a significant facility for modernizing the electrical, optical, and mechanical 

components of the nuclear stockpile using computationally enabled 

micro-technologies. Accelerated construction of the MESA complex 

will ensure timely availability of critical tools for stockpile stewardship. 

The committee recommends $68.7 million, an increase of $20.0 

million for further acceleration of MESA construction. The NNSA 

Administrator is directed to submit a revised MESA construction 

baseline with the fiscal year 2006 budget request that reflects congressional funding increases through the end of fiscal year 2005. 

Readiness in technical base and facilities 

The budget request contained $1,474.5 million for Readiness in 

Technical Base and Facilities. 

The committee has been encouraged by the progress made in the 

reduction of deferred maintenance backlogs in the defense nuclear 

complex. 

The committee recommends an increase of $50.0 million for replacement of aging equipment, correction of deferred maintenance, 

and disposition of legacy materials consistent with the National 

Nuclear Security Administration approved 10 year comprehensive 

site plan as follows: $5.0 million at the Kansas City Plant, $8.0 

million at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, $19.0 million 

at Pantex and $18.0 million at the Y–12 plant. 

The committee is aware that accelerated construction and delivery of the Z Petawatt laser will add significant radiographic diagnostic capabilities to the stockpile stewardship campaign. The committee recommends an increase of $13.0 million for the Z Petawatt 

laser. 

The committee is aware that adding a second operations shift to 

the Z facility will meet the increased demand for experiments conducted on the Z machine. The committee recommends an increase 

of $5.0 million to fund a second shift operation at the Z facility. 

Advanced Concepts and Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator 

The committee supports the budget request of $9.0 million for 

Advanced Concepts and $27.6 million for completion of the 6.2/2A 

431 

Air Force-led study on the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator 

(RNEP). The committee strongly reaffirms the importance of these 

two initiatives and authorizes the full amount of the request. 

The committee notes that the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has stated in testimony before the committee that the RNEP study was being conducted at 

the request of the Department of Defense. The committee also 

takes note that a recent Defense Science Board Task Force study 

on Future Strategic Strike Forces specifically recommended that 

research be initiated on nuclear weapons that produce much lower 

collateral damage than those weapons in the existing nuclear 

stockpile. The committee also reminds the NNSA that any efforts 

beyond a study could only be pursued if the President approves and 

funds are authorized and appropriated by Congress. 

Advanced Technology Research and Development 

The committee notes that the budget requests funds for advanced 

technology research and development in several activities within 

the National Nuclear Security Administration. The committee encourages the Administrator to review individual advanced technology research and development programs to ensure they are coordinated with, and do not duplicate, other similar research and 

development efforts. 

Los Alamos Public Schools 

The committee report on H.R. 1588 (H. Rept. 108–106) stated the 

concern that little progress has been made in developing an exit 

strategy for the Department of Energy to discontinue funding for 

the Los Alamos Public Schools system. The fiscal year 2005 budget 

request contained no funding for the Los Alamos Public Schools, 

ending a practice whereby for many years this school district was 

the only one receiving assistance from the Department. 

The Department, in its February 2004 report, ‘‘Support for Public 

Education in the Vicinity of Los Alamos National Laboratory, New 

Mexico,’’ concluded that the Los Alamos Public School District must 

receive stable financial support if the Los Alamos Public School 

District is to maintain the standard of educational excellence that 

the Los Alamos National Laboratory staff demands. According to 

the report, this support to the public schools is required in order 

for the laboratory to attract and retain the talented and highly 

educated individuals required to execute its national security mission. One option the report recommended for supplementing the resources of the Los Alamos Public Schools was to allow the management and operating contractor for Los Alamos National Laboratory 

to support the Los Alamos Public Schools within the confines of the 

existing operating contract. 

The committee understands the need to attract and retain highly 

talented personnel for the national laboratory complex. Therefore, 

the committee directs the Department, from within those funds authorized for Department activities at Los Alamos National Laboratory, to provide $8.0 million per year out of site contractor overhead, to support the Los Alamos Public School District. 

432 

Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility 

The committee notes the National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) recent announcement of a delay until the summer of 

2005 for starting construction of the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication 

Facility (MOX) in the Russian Federation due to delays in resolving a government-to-government liability agreement. Recent discussions with the NNSA indicate that the 2005 commencement date 

may also be in jeopardy. The committee notes that the projected 

start of construction has slipped four years since the project began 

in fiscal year 2000. 

While the committee fully supports the MOX program objective 

of conversion of weapons grade plutonium into fuel for commercial 

reactors, it is concerned with these delays and does not want to 

further add to the existing uncommitted balances in the NNSA 

nonproliferation accounts. The committee directs the Administrator 

of the NNSA to notify the congressional defense committees within 

30 days of any decision that construction of the MOX facility will 

not begin by the end of fiscal year 2005. 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

Overview 

The budget request contained $7,748.9 million for environmental 

and other defense activities. The committee recommends $7,652.9 

million, a decrease of $96.0 million. 

Adjustments to the Budget Request 

Reductions 

Waste incidental to reprocessing 

The budget request contained $350.0 million for a High Level 

Waste Proposal program within the Defense Site Acceleration Completion account to address a contingency for ‘‘Waste Incidental to 

Reprocessing.’’ The budget materials state that these funds will 

only be requested to the extent that legal uncertainty concerning 

certain reprocessing wastes is satisfactorily resolved through pending litigation or by new legislation. This uncertainty was raised by 

a 2003 federal district court ruling that the Department of Energy’s 

reclassification of waste streams generated by reprocessing of spent 

nuclear fuel violated the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (Natural Resources Defense Council v. Spencer Abraham, District Court of 

Idaho, 2003). 

The committee understands that this request concerns matters 

that are both pending the outcome of litigation and the subject of 

negotiations with individual states. The committee has not received 

formal transmittal of a legislative proposal. However, the committee notes that the Department is actively working with the 

states to achieve consensus on a legislative proposal that would 

clarify the law and allow cleanup activities to proceed. The committee also notes it does not appear that the federal court decision 

requires a cessation of all current waste cleanup activities and that 

the budget request contains $3,368.0 million for Defense Site Acceleration Completion for sites in Idaho, South Carolina, and Washington. 

433 

The committee notes that some of the activities proposed to be 

funded in the High Level Waste Proposal may either be precluded 

by or imprudent to conduct under the federal district court ruling. 

The committee urges the Department to proceed with those cleanup activities that are not prevented by the federal district court 

ruling or are not otherwise deemed inappropriate due to the legal 

uncertainty resulting from the court ruling. The committee directs 

the Secretary of Energy to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by January 1, 2005 stating which of those activities listed under the High Level Waste Proposal can proceed consistent with the current legal determination and those that cannot, 

clearly stating the rationale for each such determination. The committee also urges the Department to submit a legislative proposal 

at the earliest opportunity to clarify the law on Waste Incidental 

to Reprocessing in order to facilitate long-term cleanup plans 

across all defense sites. 

The committee recognizes the significant costs and schedule impacts for future defense site acceleration cleanup plans in the event 

the district court ruling stands and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act 

is not amended. The committee includes a legislative provision calling for a National Academy of Sciences study of the Department’s 

plans to manage and treat prior to final disposal the high-level radioactive waste at the Savannah River Site, South Carolina, the 

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho and the Hanford 

Reservation, Washington. 

The committee recommends $250.0 million, a decrease of $100.0 

million. Should funds in excess of the amount authorized be required for site cleanup activities under the High Level Waste Proposal in fiscal year 2005, the Department of Energy is directed to 

submit a request for reprogramming of funds to the congressional 

defense committees. 

Worker and community transition 

The budget request contained $2.5 million for worker and community transition within the Office of Legacy Management. 

The committee notes that the budget request states that the 

need for worker transition assistance has considerably diminished 

in recent years and that there is no estimated need for community 

transition assistance during fiscal year 2005. 

The committee recommends no funds for worker and community 

transition and recommends the Department of Energy terminate 

the program. 

Office of future liabilities 

The budget contained $5.0 million for the Office of Future Liabilities. The committee notes that the Office of Future Liabilities was 

just recently established by the Department of Energy to fund and 

manage environmental liabilities not assigned to the Office of Environmental Management or other organizations within the Department. The committee also notes that the Department had previously established a new Office of Legacy Management in 2003. 

While the committee is encouraged that the Office of Environmental Management is taking a long term view of future management issues, it appears premature to establish an Office of Future 

434 

Liabilities when the current Defense Site Acceleration Completion 

activities are scheduled to continue through fiscal year 2035. 

The committee recommends no funds for the Office of Future Liabilities and encourages the Department to perform those functions 

within the Office of Environmental Management or Office of Legacy Management. 

Increases 

2035 defense site accelerated completions 

The budget request contains no funds for the Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response Training and Education (HAMMER) center. 

The committee is aware that the HAMMER center provides valuable training for emergency response personnel. The committee is 

also aware that the Department of Energy is reviewing whether 

the HAMMER center should be operated by the Office of Environmental Management or by the Office of Energy Security and Assurance. 

The committee recommends an increase of $6.0 million for operation of the HAMMER center. The committee also urges the Secretary to make a determination as to what office within the Department should have long-term responsibility for operation of the 

HAMMER center. 

Non-closure environmental activities 

The budget request contained $187.9 million for non-closure environmental activities. 

The committee is aware of a need to fund newly generated waste 

requirements and ground water cleanup activities at Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory. 

The committee recommends $191.9 million, an increase of $4.0 

million for newly generated waste requirements and ground water 

cleanup activities at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

(Project HQ–SW–0013Y). 

Idaho facilities management-other defense activities 

The budget request contained $20.9 million for Idaho Facilities 

Management-Other Defense Activities. 

The committee is aware that spent nuclear fuel, a portion of 

which is the responsibility of the Department of Energy through 

contracts by the Department and its predecessor federal agencies, 

is in long-term storage in aluminum canisters at the Lynchburg 

Technology Center operated by BWX Technologies in Lynchburg, 

Virginia. The committee also notes that both the Department and 

BWX Technologies have indicated that inspections, and possibly repackaging, of the stored spent nuclear fuel are required to ensure 

proper long-term storage. The committee recommends $22.4 million, an increase of $1.5 

million, for the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology 

to inspect and repackage, as appropriate, its spent nuclear fuel 

stored in outside storage wells at the Lynchburg Technology Center 

in Lynchburg, Virginia. After the spent nuclear fuel is inspected 

and appropriate repackaging is completed, it is to be replaced in refurbished storage wells. The specific spent nuclear fuel covered by 

435 

this requirement is that spent nuclear fuel described in the storage 

contract (DE–AC02–02NE23429) between the Department, as administered by the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology, and BWX Technologies. The committee intends for this 

work to start in fiscal year 2005 and conclude no later than the end 

of fiscal year 2007. 

Technology Deployment and Development 

The committee notes that several high-level waste separation 

technologies under development could potentially reduce costs and 

shorten schedules for high-level waste remediation. The committee 

encourages the Department, within funds authorized under Defense Site Acceleration Completion for technology deployment and 

development, to fund technology demonstrations that provide alternative solutions for high-level waste separation. 

Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

The committee is concerned with the lack of progress the Department of Energy has made in processing the backlog of defense nuclear worker claims under Subtitle D of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act. The committee notes that recent Department statistics reflect that 2,257 cases have been completed out of the 23,996 applications received for health-related 

claims under the Act. However, the committee also notes that only 

a handful of workers determined to have valid health-related 

claims have actually received any compensation. The committee 

also understands that a recent GAO report notes that the lack of 

a ‘‘willing payer’’ of workers’’ compensation benefits for some workers means that some workers with valid defense nuclear complex 

health claims may receive no compensation. 

While the Department has made some progress in processing the 

claims, the committee notes that further improvements to processing are required to ensure that claims can be processed with 

proper physician advice in a manner that is both speedy and medically sound. The committee notes that the Department has requested increased funding and has requested legislative remedies 

that may improve the efficiency of the physician review panels. 

The committee remains concerned that these and possibly other 

improvements are needed to achieve timely physician review panel 

determinations and urges the Department to work with the committee to identify any additional actions required to expedite processing and payment of claims. The committee also urges the Department to continue to work with federal agencies and other organizations to propose solutions for the ‘‘willing payer’’ problems. 

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 2005, including funds for 

weapons activities, defense nuclear nonproliferation programs, 

naval reactor programs, and the Office of the Administrator. 

436 

Section 3102—Defense Environmental Management 

This section would authorize funds for defense environmental 

management activities for fiscal year 2005, 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 2005. 

Section 3104—Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal 

This section would authorize funds for defense nuclear waste disposal for fiscal year 2005. 

SUBTITLE B—PROGRAM AUTHORIZATIONS, RESTRICTIONS, AND

LIMITATIONS

Section 3111—Extension of Authority for Appointment of Certain 

Scientific, Engineering and Technical Personnel 

This section would amend section 4601 of the Atomic Energy Defense Act (50 USC 2701) to extend authority for appointment of 

certain scientific, engineering, and technical personnel. 

Section 3112—Requirements for Baseline of Projects under 

Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program 

This section would amend section 3114 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108–136) to 

give the NNSA Administrator greater flexibility in adding projects 

or updating priorities to projects within the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program. 

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Section 3131—Transfers and reprogrammings of National Nuclear 

Security Administration funds 

Title XXXII of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2000 (50 USC 2401), otherwise known as the ‘‘NNSA Act’’) established the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). In 

passing the Act, Congress created the NNSA as a semi-autonomous 

agency within the Department of Energy. The mission of the NNSA 

is to enhance national security through the military application of 

nuclear energy, reduce global danger from weapons of mass destruction, and promote international nuclear safety. The cornerstone of this Act is a significant level of autonomy for the NNSA. 

Among the various functions assigned in the Act, the NNSA Administrator has authority over, and is responsible for, all programs 

and activities of the NNSA including budget formulation, guidance 

and execution, and other financial matters (50 USC 2402). The 

NNSA Act also provides for separate treatment of the NNSA budget request within the President’s budget request (50 USC 2451) 

and for the Administrator to establish procedures for planning, programming, budgeting, and financial activities (50 USC 2452). 

437 

The committee is concerned that execution of the NNSA budget 

process may not reflect the degree of autonomy intended in the 

NNSA Act. In order to carry out the above budget functions as intended by Congress, this provision directs the Administrator for 

Nuclear Security specifically to submit notifications and requests 

for reprogramming directly to the congressional defense committees, with the only role of the Department of Energy being for the 

Chief Financial Officer to certify whether funds covered by the notice or request are available. This provision is necessary to ensure 

responsive oversight and to safeguard the autonomy of the Administration. 

The committee remains concerned that there may be additional 

areas of the budget process in which the autonomy intended by 

Congress is not being exercised. The committee encourages the Administrator to review the budget and programming process to ensure NNSA is in complete compliance with the letter and spirit of 

the NNSA Act. 

Section 3132—National Academy of Sciences study on management 

by Department of Energy of high-level radioactive waste 

This section would require the Secretary of Energy to enter into 

an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to complete 

a study of the Department’s ‘‘residual’’ waste streams management 

plans. These streams are from the Department’s high-level waste 

tanks, which are not planned for disposal into a high-level waste 

repository. 

This study should provide an explicit assessment of the waste 

streams that are planned for disposal in place in the tanks or that 

result from the processing of retrieved tank wastes at the Hanford 

Reservation in Washington, the Idaho National Engineering and 

Environmental Laboratory in Idaho, and the Savannah River Site 

in South Carolina. The examination should address the full range 

of ‘‘residual wastes’’ including, among others, the high-level waste 

tank remainders that the Department considers incidental to reprocessing, the streams from tank waste processing, such as 

saltstone at the Savannah River Site, and tank waste the Department plans to immobilize and ship for disposal to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 

The National Academy of Sciences should deliver an interim report on the waste planned for disposal in place in the tanks to the 

committee and the Secretary six months after entering into the 

agreement to undertake this study. A final report addressing the 

remainder of the task objectives should be issued twelve months 

after funding is received. Within funds allocated for defense environmental management the Department authorizes up to 

$1,500,000 for the study. 

Section 3133—Contract to Review Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, New 

Mexico 

The current five-year Congressional authorization for Independent Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Oversight expires at the end 

of fiscal year 2004. This section would direct the Secretary of Energy to enter into a new contract for independent reviews of the deVerDate May 04 2004 03:04 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00461 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
438 

sign, construction and operations of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 

in New Mexico. 

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES 

SAFETY BOARD 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 3201—Authorization 

This section would authorize $21.3 million for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board for fiscal year 2005, an increase of 

$1.0 million to fund cost-of-living pay increases for permanent staff 

and to hire outside consultants as needed for technical oversight of 

new Department of Energy projects. 

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE STOCKPILE 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 3301—Authorized Uses of National Defense Stockpile 

Funds 

This section would authorize $59.7 million from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund for the operation and maintenance of the National Defense Stockpile for fiscal year 2005. The 

provision would also permit the use of additional funds for extraordinary or emergency conditions 45 days after Congress receives notification. 

Section 3302—Revision of Limitations on Required Disposals of 

Certain Materials in National Defense Stockpile 

This section would amend section 3306 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (Public Law 107–107) by 

authorizing the Secretary of Defense to dispose of 100,000 short 

tons of high carbon manganese ferro of the highest grade during 

fiscal year 2005, rather than 50,000 short tons as currently authorized. 

Section 3303—Authority to Dispose of Certain Materials in 

National Defense Stockpile 

This section would amend section 3303 of the Strom Thurmond 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public 

Law 105–261) to authorize the Secretary of Defense to dispose of 

materials in the National Defense Stockpile so as to result in 

$785.0 million in receipts by the end of fiscal year 2005, and $870.0 

million in receipts by the end of fiscal year 2009. 

439 

TITLE XXXIV—NAVAL PETROLEUM RESERVES 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISION 

Section 3401—Authorization of Appropriations 

This section would authorize $20.0 million for fiscal year 2005 for 

the operation and maintenance of the Naval Petroleum and Oil 

Shale Reserves. 

TITLE XXXV—MARITIME ADMINISTRATION 

LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS 

Section 3501—Authorization of Appropriations for Maritime 

Administration for Fiscal Year 2005 

This section would authorize a total of $149.1 million for fiscal 

year 2005, an increase of $13.4 million above the budget request 

for the Maritime Administration. Of the funds authorized, $109.3 

would be for operations and training programs, $4.8 million would 

be for administrative expenses related to providing loan guarantees 

authorized by title XI of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, (46 App. United States Code 1271 et seq.), and $35 million 

would be for the disposal of obsolete ships in the National Defense 

Reserve Fleet. Within the funds provided for the disposal of obsolete vessels, the committee includes $2 million to begin the decommissioning, removal, and disposal of the nuclear reactor and hazardous materials aboard the Nuclear Ship Savannah, which is located at the James River facility in Virginia. 

Section 3502—Extension of Authority to Provide War Risk 

Insurance for Merchant Marine Vessels 

This section would extend for five years the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to provide war risk insurance and reinsurance relating to merchant marine vessels. This section would also 

modify the existing provision to reflect the current Department of 

the Treasury practice of investing in public debt securities of the 

United States, with maturities and interest rates suitable to the 

needs of the fund. 

DEPARTMENTAL DATA 

The Department of Defense requested legislation, in accordance 

with the program of the President, as illustrated by the correspondence set out below: 

440 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION REQUEST 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, 

Washington, DC, March 11, 2004. 

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 2005. 

The purpose of each proposal 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 presenting of these legislative proposals for your consideration 

and the consideration of the Congress. 

Sincerely, 

WILLIAM J. HAYNES II, 

General Counsel. 

COMMITTEE POSITION 

On May 12, 2004 the Committee on Armed Services, a quorum 

being present, approved H.R. 4200, as amended, by a vote of 60–

0. 

COMMUNICATIONS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, 

Washington, DC, May 14, 2004. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: Thank you for working with me in 

your development of H.R. 4200, the ‘‘National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005,’’ specifically: 

(1) Section 590. Continuation of impact aid assistance on behalf 

of dependents of certain members despite change in state of member. 

(2) Section 595. Assistance to local educational agencies that benefit dependents of members of the Armed Forces and Department 

of Defense civilian employees. 

(3) Section 596. Senior Reserve Officer Training Corps and recruiter access at institutions of higher education. 

(4) Section 904. Modification of obligated service requirements 

under National Security Education Program. 

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. 4200, the Committee does hold an 

441 

interest in preserving its future jurisdiction with respect to issues 

raised in the aforementioned provisions and its jurisdictional prerogatives should the provisions of this bill or any Senate amendments thereto be considered in a conference with the Senate. We 

would expect to be appointed as conferees on these provisions 

should a conference with the Senate arise. 

Again, I thank you for working with me in developing the 

amendments to H.R. 4200 and look forward to working with you 

on these issues in the future. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN BOEHNER, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 14, 2004. 

Hon. JOHN BOEHNER, 

Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. 

I agree that the Committee on Education and the Workforce 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 Education and the Workforce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, 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 ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC, May 14, 2004. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: On May 12, 2004, the Committee on 

Armed Services ordered reported H.R. 4200, the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. 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 596. Reserve Senior Officer Training Corps and recruiter 

access at institutions of higher education. 

Section 601. Increase in basic pay for fiscal year 2005. 

Section 3111. Extension of authority for appointment of certain 

scientific, engineering, and technical personnel. 

Section 3112. Requirements for baseline of projects under Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program. 

442 

Section 3131. Transfers and reprogrammings of National Nuclear 

Security Administration funds. 

Section 3132. National Academy of Sciences study on management by Department of Energy of high-level radioactive waste. 

Section 3133. Contract to review Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, 

New Mexico. 

Section 3201. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board authorization. 

Recognizing your interest in bringing this legislation before the 

House expeditiously, the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

agrees not to seek a sequential referral of the bill. 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. 4200 and as part of the Congressional Record during consideration of this bill by the House. 

Sincerely, 

JOE BARTON, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 14, 2004. 

Hon. JOE BARTON, 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. 

I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce 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 Energy and Commerce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, 

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 GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, DC, May 14, 2004. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN: On May 12, 2004, the Committee on Armed 

Services ordered reported H.R. 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. As you know, the H.R. 4200, as 

443 

reported, contains a number of provisions within the jurisdiction of 

the Committee on Government Reform under Rule X of the Rules 

of the House of Representatives. These provisions implicate the 

committee’s jurisdiction on a number of subject including: the disposition of Federal property, the Freedom of Information Act, the 

Federal civil service, and procurement. 

Because of your willingness to consult with this Committee, and 

because of your desire to move this legislation expeditiously, I will 

waive consideration of the bill by the Committee on Government 

Reform. By agreeing to waive its consideration of the bill, the Committee does not waive its jurisdiction over H.R. 4200. In addition, 

the Committee reserves its authority to seek conferees on any provisions of the bill that are within its jurisdiction during any HouseSenate conference that may be convened on this legislation. I ask 

your commitment to support any request for conferees by the Committee on H.R. 4200 or similar legislation. 

I request that you include this letter and your response in the 

Committee Report and in the Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation on the House floor. Thank you for your 

attention to these matters. 

Sincerely, 

TOM DAVIS, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 14, 2004. 

Hon. TOM DAVIS, 

Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. 

I agree that the Committee on Government Reform 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 Government Reform is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, 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 11, 2004. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I write with respect to the export control 

provisions of this year’s proposed National Defense Authorization 

Act (NDAA), H.R. 4200, which your Committee is preparing to 

mark up and report in the near future. I request that you include 

444 

in H.R. 4200 those provisions in Title XIV, Subtitle A, relating to 

export controls. These provisions would strengthen military export 

controls in areas in which the Department of Defense plays a major 

role, often alongside U.S. private firms regulated under section 38 

of the Arms Export Control Act. Other provisions would reinforce 

the role and responsibility of Congress to provide appropriate oversight in these areas. 

These provisions complement and reinforce the policy that the 

Committee on International Relations has long followed in these 

areas and are fully consistent with provisions in H.R. 1950 (the 

State Department Authorization Act), which the House passed last 

year during the first session of the 108th Congress. In particular, 

I am very sympathetic to purposes which the NDAA export control 

provisions would advance concerning: (1) the need to strengthen 

(not relax) military export controls in the context of the global war 

on terror, and (2) to set high (not reduced) standards internationally for other governments to follow multilaterally, as well as in the 

administration of their national systems, regarding the control of 

weapons technology and military systems and equipment. Similarly, at a time when our European allies are seeking increasingly 

greater access to the United States defense procurement market 

and to our weapons technology in order to help meet their defense 

commitments to NATO, while simultaneously pursuing a process to 

expand weapons technology transfers to the People’s Republic of 

China, it behooves our Government to ensure that fundamental 

principles of U.S. law and policy are upheld. This includes, above 

all, the right of the United States to consent to the re-export or retransfer of U.S. weapons technology by a foreign government or 

person to any third party or person, including the government of 

another country, before such a re-export or retransfer may take 

place. 

For the foregoing reasons, I strongly support adoption by your 

Committee of these provisions in the proposed NDAA. 

With best wishes, I am 

Sincerely, 

HENRY J. HYDE, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC, May 14, 2004. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that on Wednesday, May 12, 

2004, the Committee on Armed Services ordered favorably reported 

H.R. 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2005. The bill includes a number of provisions that fall within the 

legislative jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations 

pursuant to Rule X(k) of the House of Representatives. 

With respect to Section 1202, Assistance to Military or Security 

Forces of Iraq and Afghanistan, I will request from the Speaker a 

referral of H.R. 4200, should this provision not be removed from 

the bill before it is filed. 

445 

Additional provisions within our Committee’s jurisdiction are: (1) 

Section 811, Defense Trade Reciprocity; (2) Section 1013, Authority 

to Transfer Specified Former Naval Vessels to Certain Foreign 

Countries; (3) Section 1027, Encouragement of Agreements with 

Foreign Countries; (4) Section 1031, Continuation of Authority to 

Use Department of Defense Funds for Unified Counter-Drug and 

Counter-Terrorism Campaign in Colombia; (5) Section 1204, Status 

of Iraqi Security Forces; (6) Section 1211, Assignment of Allied 

Naval Personnel to Submarine Safety Programs; (7) Section 1212, 

Expansion of Entities of the People’s Republic of China Subject to 

Certain Presidential Authorities When Operating in the United 

States; (8) Section 1213, Report by the President on Global Peace 

Operations Initiative; (9) Section 1214, Procurement Sanctions 

Against Foreign Persons that Transfer Certain Defense Articles 

and Services to the People’s Republic of China; (10) Title XIII, Cooperative Threat Reduction with the States of the Former Soviet 

Union; and (11) Title XIV, Export Controls and Counter-Proliferation Matters. 

Pursuant to Chairman Dreier’s announcement that the Committee on Rules will move expeditiously to consider a rule for H.R. 

4200 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. 

In that regard, I am particularly concerned about certain provisions in Title XIV, Subtitle B and C, regarding counter-proliferation matters and initiatives related to the former Soviet Union. I 

look forward to working with you regarding my concerns about 

these provisions as H.R. 4200 moves forward in the legislative 

process. 

I would appreciate your including this letter as a part of the report on H.R. 4200 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 13, 2004. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN HUNTER: In recognition of the desire to expedite 

floor consideration of H.R. 4200, the Department of Defense authorization bill, the Committee on the Judiciary hereby waives consideration of the bill. This waiver is made with the understanding 

that proposed sections that have been reviewed by the Committee 

on the Judiciary relating to the bankruptcy treatment of certain 

military bonuses and pay incentives, compensating employees who 

were exposed to radiation in certain government programs, and the 

446 

title to sunken military ships (to the extent such provision contained matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary) 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 that have been reviewed by the Committee on the Judiciary relating to the misuse 

of civilian medals, Federal Tort Claims Act coverage for volunteers 

performing volunteer duties at sea and for committee members of 

the Employee Support for the Guard and Reserve, waivers of DOJ 

prison reviews for several land conveyances, state tax preemption 

for the Non-Appropriated Fund Health Benefits Programs, trademark licensing of military slogans and the like, military legal assistance, a public-private employee exchange program, and allowing assignment of contract claims to sureties will be included in the 

bill. If these sections are added to the bill, I will not seek a sequential referral based on 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. 4200 and the 

Congressional Record during consideration of the legislation on the 

House floor. 

Sincerely, 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 

Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 14, 2004. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. 

I agree that the Committee on Energy and Commerce 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 Energy and Commerce is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, 

this exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report 

on the bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 

447 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC, May 14, 2004. 

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. 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. 

Our Committee recognizes the importance of H.R. 4200 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 include 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 14, 2004. 

Hon. DON YOUNG, 

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. 

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, this exchange of letters will be included in the 

Committee report on the bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 

448 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, Washington, DC, May 11, 2004. 

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 has over the provisions of section 2831 of H.R. 

4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, 

regarding ‘‘Transfer of Administrative Jurisdiction, Defense Supply 

Center, Columbus, Ohio.’’ Our Committee does not desire referral 

of these provisions, a copy of which is enclosed. 

Sincerely, 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 14, 2004. 

Hon. CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

Chairman, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. 

I agree that the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 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 

Veterans’ Affairs is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report on the 

bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, 

Washington, DC, May XX, 2004. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am writing to confirm our mutual understanding with respect to consideration of H.R. 4200, the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. Certain provisions 

of this important legislation are within the jurisdiction of the 

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). I support the legislation and share your desire to have it considered expeditiously by the House; hence, I do not intend to seek referral of 

this legislation to the HPSCI. 

However, I do so only with the understanding that this procedural route should not be construed to prejudice this Committee’s 

449 

valid jurisdictional interests and prerogatives on these provisions 

or any other similar legislation. Likewise, this should not be considered as precedent for consideration of matters of jurisdictional 

interest to the HPSCI in the future. Furthermore, should these 

provisions or similar provisions be included in any Senate amendments and considered in a conference with the Senate, I would request that the Speaker appoint Members of the HPSCI as conferees 

on those provisions. Finally, I would ask that you include a copy 

of our exchange of letters on this matter in your report to accompany the bill. I thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

PORTER GOSS, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, 

Washington, DC, May 14, 2004. 

Hon. PORTER GOSS, 

Chairman, Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. 

I agree that the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 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 Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is not waiving its jurisdiction. Further, this exchange of letters will be included in the Committee report on the bill. 

With best wishes. 

Sincerely, 

DUNCAN HUNTER, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, 

Washington, DC, May 11, 2004. 

Hon. DUNCAN HUNTER, 

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: It has come to my attention that a new 

section has been added to the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2005, incorporating the text of H.R. 3966, the ‘‘ROTC and 

Military Recruiter Equal Access to Campus Act of 2004.’’ As noted 

in my previous letter dated, March 19, 2004, provisions of H.R. 

3966 directly impact the programs and operations of the Department of Homeland Security by limiting its ability to distribute 

funds to institutions of higher education by grant or contract. Although I believe that these provisions fall within the jurisdiction of 

the Select Committee under H. Res. 5, I will not seek a sequential 

referral given the importance of expediting passage of this bill, 

which I co-sponsored and strongly support. 

The Select Committee on Homeland Security takes this action 

with the understanding that its jurisdiction over the provision as 

450 

included in the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 is 

in no way diminished or altered. I would appreciate your including 

this letter in the Committee Report on the bill. Thank you for your 

consideration. 

Sincerely, 

CHRISTOPHER COX, Chairman. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, Washington, DC, May 14, 2004. 

Hon. CHRISTOPHER COX, Chairman, Select Committee on Homeland Security, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your letter regarding H.R. 

4200, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. 

I agree that the Select Committee on Homeland Security 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 Select 

Committee on Homeland Security is not waiving its jurisdiction. 

Further, 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) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives, the committee attempted to ascertain annual outlays resulting from the bill during fiscal year 2005 and each of the 

following five fiscal years. The results of such efforts are reflected 

in the committee cost estimate, which is included in this report 

pursuant to clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 

Representatives. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE ESTIMATE 

Under clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the House of Representatives 

and 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the committee 

has requested but not received a cost estimate for this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office. 

COMMITTEE COST ESTIMATE 

Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out this 

bill. 

H.R. 4200 would authorize appropriations of $418.5 billion for 

fiscal year 2005 for the activities of the Department of Defense 

(DOD) and the national security programs of the Department of 

Energy (DOE). The budget authority implication of the authorization of appropriations in H.R. 4200 is $422.1 billion. It would also 

451 

authorize an additional $25 billion emergency appropriation for fiscal year 2005 to support Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring 

Freedom. 

The committee estimates that enacting H.R. 4200 would not increase mandatory budget authority for fiscal year 2004 or the following five years. In terms of discretionary and mandatory budget 

authority, H.R. 4200 is within the allocation provided by H. Con. 

Res. 393, as passed by the House on March 25, 2004, which establishes the Congressional budget for the United States Government 

for fiscal year 2005 and sets forth appropriate budgetary levels for 

fiscal years 2004 and 2005 through 2009. 

The committee has been in close and constant consultation with 

the Congressional Budget Office and has provided copies of H.R. 

4200 as ordered reported on May 12, 2004, to develop an estimate 

and comparison as required under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974. The committee expects to receive this letter 

prior to the consideration of H.R. 4200 by the House of Representatives. 

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 and are reflected in the body of this report. 

With respect to clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974, this legislation does not include any new 

spending or credit authority, nor does it provide for any increase 

or decrease in tax revenues or expenditures. The bill does, however, 

authorize appropriations. Other fiscal features of this legislation 

are addressed in the estimate prepared by the committee under 

clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

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 10,000 Army personnel and 3,000 Marine Corps personnel each year in fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007, enabling 

the military services to begin meeting long-standing manpower 

shortages, as well as new manning requirements; 

(2) Provide every military service member an across-theboard pay raise of 3.5 percent effective January 1, 2005; and 

452 

(3) Eliminate out-of-pocket housing costs for military personnel. 

With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving force protection for our troops, the objective of this legislation is to: 

(1) Provide over $2.0 billion for force protection initiatives, 

including armor for vehicles, new munitions and surveillance 

programs; and 

(2) Establish a streamlined acquisition process in order to respond in a timely manner to urgent requests for combat equipment by commanders in the battlefield. 

With respect to the outcome-related goal of successfully prosecuting continuing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, the objective of this legislation is to: 

(1) Provide an additional $25.0 billion in emergency contingency operations supplemental funding to be appropriated for 

fiscal year 2005 to support the war on terrorism’s operational 

costs, personnel expenses and the procurement of new equipment; and 

(2) Support the Army’s efforts to transform the structure of 

its divisions into smaller organizations and create additional 

combat relevant units. This reorganization known as 

‘‘modularity’’ will contribute to the reduction of stress on our 

troops due to the high operational tempo of operations in 

Southwest Asia. 

With respect to the outcome-related goal of improving military 

housing and facilities, the objective of this legislation is to: 

(1) Provide $9.9 billion for military construction and military 

family housing programs; and 

(2) Eliminate the statutory ceiling for the military housing 

privatization program, allowing the Department of Defense to 

leverage private sector investments and business interests to 

build and revitalize family housing at domestic military bases. 

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. 4200. The record 

of these votes is attached to this report. 

The committee ordered H.R. 4200 reported to the House with a 

favorable recommendation by a vote of 60–0, a quorum being 

present. 

453 

454 

455 

456 

457 

458 

459 

460 

461 

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. 

(462) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF IKE SKELTON 

The 2005 defense authorization is a good bill that makes advances on a variety of issues. I am pleased that the committee 

worked largely in accordance with its nonpartisan traditions, and 

that important initiatives from each side were considered seriously 

and often adopted. A few of the bill’s provisions are worthy of special mention. 

When the surviving spouse of a military retiree, usually a widow, 

becomes eligible for Social Security at the age of 62, her spousal 

survivor benefits drop from 55 percent of her spouse’s retired pay 

to 35 percent. Democrats have consistently called for legislation to 

eliminate this ‘‘Widow’s Tax’’ in the Survivors Benefit Program 

(SBP), and urged the committee to address this issue. I therefore 

applaud the inclusion of legislation in this bill to eliminate the SBP 

offset over a five-year period, beginning on October 1, 2005. I will 

continue to work to ensure that this legislative victory is preserved 

in conference with the Senate. 

I remain concerned by events in Iraq. June 30 is quickly approaching, and much remains unsettled about the transition of sovereignty to the Iraqis and the role of U.S. Armed Forces after the 

transition. The recent revelations of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib 

compound these difficulties, and point to a clear need for better 

congressional oversight over both the goals and conduct of U.S.- 

Iraqi policies. 

Several amendments to strengthen congressional oversight were 

adopted, including two that I offered. One is a progress report on 

Iraqi Security Forces, and the other is to require the Department 

of Defense to respond more expeditiously to congressional requests. 

Rep. Abercrombie successfully offered an amendment to better account for and manage civilian contractors in Iraq. The unsettling 

news of the alleged involvement of contractors in the prison abuses 

and the grisly beheading of an American businessman highlight 

the need for a better awareness of the number and role of contractors in Iraq. We need to ensure that their roles are appropriate and 

that their safety can be reasonably secured. 

Despite the adoption of these and other related amendments, I 

am not satisfied that Congress has the access to information to conduct proper oversight, nor am I confident that the civilian and military leadership at the Pentagon has access to all the information 

they need to make critical policy decisions. Rep. Meek introduced 

and withdrew an amendment regarding how critical information is 

relayed in the military chain of command. I look forward to working with him and others during consideration of the bill on the 

floor to ensure that both the Legislative and Executive branches of 

our government are fully informed of important events in Iraq and 

can provide more vigorous oversight and leadership. 

463 

While Democrats also support the inclusion of a $25 billion authorization of an emergency supplemental for ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, I am disappointed that the committee did not accept an amendment offered by Reps. Jim Cooper 

and Tim Ryan to authorize $67 billion. The Cooper-Ryan Amendment represents a more realistic, good-faith estimate of the likely 

cost, and would better ensure that Iraq and Afghanistan operations 

are not ‘‘cash-flowed’’ from regular Department of Defense appropriations. ‘‘Cash-flowing’’ involves using regular operations and 

maintenance and military personnel appropriations for contingency 

operations, and this practice invariably leads to disruptions in 

readiness levels, training, base operations, equipment maintenance, 

and other important peace-time military activities. The $25 billion 

supplemental will serve as a useful ‘‘bridge’’ to a future supplemental, but the Cooper-Ryan amendment was a more responsible 

approach both militarily and fiscally. A positive aspect of the $25 billion supplemental was that it also 

included much needed end-strength increases for the Army and 

Marine Corps. The stress on our ground forces has been tremendous. I know of soldiers who have returned home from one year of 

operations in Afghanistan, only to be told three months later that 

they will be deployed to Iraq for a year. The supplemental authorizes the end-strength increases (10,000 annually for three years) 

that the Secretary of Defense indicated was needed by the Army 

to conduct their transformational activities while still meeting their 

operational requirements. It also provides a necessary increase for 

the Marine Corps (3,000 annually for three years) to meet their 

mission requirements. 

Finally, this Committee in 1989 laid the foundation for joint officer development and joint professional military education as it exists today. Recent combat experience demonstrates that the services have generally achieved a remarkable integration in executing 

joint operations. However, as the nature of warfare evolves, future 

operations will become more complex and joint at lower levels than 

before, and the framework for developing persons skilled in joint 

matters must also evolve. Our committee is again improving military education by raising joint military education requirements 

with a corresponding increase in joint military education opportunities. This is the first step in developing joint officers ready to face 

the challenge of 21st century warfare. 

America is a nation at war. The fiscal 2005 defense authorization 

recognizes that exigency and provides those who protect America 

the tools they need to do the job. I look forward to improving the 

bill even further as the legislative process proceeds. 

IKE SKELTON. 

(464) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SOLOMON P. ORTIZ 

The United States must take care to use a policy of impartial diplomacy in our future relations with both the Republic of China 

(Taiwan) and the People’s Republic of China, at all levels of our 

diplomatic relationship. The Pacific Rim is an area of enormous 

economic trade with the United States. The One-China policy is a 

fundamental fixture of our international policy, and we must reinforce that at all levels of our government. 

As a Member of Congress who has traveled extensively in that 

area on military and trade missions, I have come to love the people 

of both China and Taiwan. They are so similar, yet so unique. People of both nations are peace-loving, yet anxious about their national character. 

Taiwan is currently finding their way through the emotional 

aftermath of a divisive 2004 presidential election, which has only 

worked to further strain their relationship with the People’s Republic of China. This is a difficult moment for the U.S. as tensions 

simmer between our friends on the Pacific Rim. The United States 

has much at stake when it comes to a peaceful relationship between Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China. 

As one of the few Americans who has traveled to North Korea 

and talked to officials there, I want to note that we have multiple, 

dangerous, strategic military concerns in this region. We must 

focus our attention on diplomacy and the One-China policy. We 

must not step off that path. China helped to set up our meeting 

with North Korea, and continue to be an important intermediary 

between North Korea and us. 

The United States, as a country, has long recognized the OneChina policy. It is our long-term guiding principle, and we must 

tread carefully along the path of diplomacy as Taiwan and China 

confront and deal with their differences. 

We must not implement policy that will fuel the fires of 

dissention that simmer between these two nations. Our obligation 

to the American people, and to peace in that region of the world, 

is to aid in the process of finding diplomatic solutions for our strategic interests through the One-China policy. 

We continue to hope China and Taiwan will be able to get together to work out the differences between them. The U.S. needs 

to give them the time and space to do that. The world has a great 

stake in their coming together. 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ. 

(465) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF STEVE ISRAEL 

The FY 2005 defense authorization is important because it recognizes that the greatest investment we can make is in our troops, 

by developing the sometimes intangible qualities of leadership, 

education, judgment, initiative and historic knowledge. I am 

pleased that the authorization bill understands the centrality of 

foreign language and cultural expertise to the success of military 

operations in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 

Freedom, as well as the Global War on Terrorism. 

I commend the Committee and the Department of Defense for including legislative language in the bill that establishes a Defense 

Language Office within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to ensure a strategic focus on 

meeting present and future requirements for language and regional 

expertise. Other language directing the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study on how the military educates and trains our soldiers 

in language and culture will prove invaluable. The technological 

revolution that has made possible our recent successes must be accompanied by a similar progression in the way we wage war. 

We must continue to build on the accomplishments of Representative Skelton and others on this committee who were instrumental 

in raising the standard of joint officer development and education 

that has been so critical to the success of our military. Faced with 

new challenges, we must recommit ourselves to creating the educational and training framework that will give our military the language and cultural expertise they need to succeed. 

I also want to recognize the contribution of Major General Robert 

Scales. As a leading voice for re-shaping our military to deal with 

the challenges of the 21st Century, his testimony before the full 

committee was helpful in focusing the Committee’s attention on 

this issue. With more than 30 years of experience in the military 

and former commandant of the Army War College, he would be a 

valuable resource for the Department of Defense when it begins its 

assessment of military education and training. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues and the defense 

community to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the 

skill necessary to navigate the cultural and geopolitical complexities to conflict in the 21st century. 

STEVE ISRAEL. 

(466) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF KENDRICK B. MEEK 

There are many things about which to be proud in the 2005 defense authorization bill. I am very pleased that this bill will provide additional funds over the original Pentagon request to provide 

for the current necessities of our fighting men and women in Iraq 

and Afghanistan. From equipping our troops with signal-jamming 

equipment to replacement of damaged air and ground vehicles to 

the over $700 million in added funds to completely up-armor our 

fleet of HMMWVs, the bill intends to outfit our troops in a manner 

befitting the heroes of a country with the greatest resources in the 

world. 

However, merely supplying our troops with the means and methods to fight an asymmetrical war gives them only two-thirds of 

what they, and we, need for ultimate success in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am concerned that information necessary for proper strategic planning is not being utilized in high-level, decision-making 

processes. While this information appears to be available at the operations level, the most critical elements of it do not always rise 

to the policy level. 

The United States finds itself in a quagmire resulting from detainee abuses at Abu Ghraib that not only complicates the stabilization of Iraq and the Middle East in general, but that brings 

into question the moral integrity of a country that has always 

fought hard, even within its own borders, for human rights. Unfortunately, had the Pentagon acted sooner, there is reason to believe 

this situation could have been at least contained, if not avoided altogether. 

In late August of 2003 and again in mid-October, Allied Forces 

Commander, Lt. General Ricardo Sanchez, commissioned two separate evaluation and assessment investigations of the detention and 

interrogation situation in Iraq. Both reports contained admonishments that policies were lacking, training subpar, and oversight 

non-existent. Among the similarities in the two reports: 

That there were no authorities or procedures in place to affect 

a unified strategy to detain and interrogate internees in Iraq; 

That there was a lack of active control of the internees within 

the detention environment, and flawed use-of-force procedures; 

That the general prison population was inappropriately comingled with EPWs; 

That the soldier to detainee ratio was critically deficient; 

That there was indication the MPs were actively, though indirectly engaged in interrogation actions despite Army Regulations to the contrary. 

Any one of these items is worthy of command level discussion 

and subsequent briefing to the Pentagon. Taken together, they constituted a warning shot over the bow. In fact, in the Article 15–6 

Investigation performed by MG Taguba, the IO specifically states, 

467 

‘‘Unfortunately, many of the systemic problems that surfaced during MG Ryder’s team’s assessment are the very same issues that 

are the subject of this investigation.’’ [Taguba Report, page 12, pg 

2]. However, current Army regulations do not require the transmittal of such information up the chain of command beyond the 

commissioning authority [AR 15–6, ss 3–18, 3–19]. 

Currently, only Air Force HQ is aggressive in finding sensitive 

information and forwarding it up the chain of command, having 

done so since 1998. An office was set up within HQ whose sole purpose is to learn of sensitive information items and flag them. As 

part of the Air Force’s formal rules, personnel who learn of explosive matters- including those ‘‘with potential community reaction or 

press coverage’’—must inform the office for briefing to the Secretary of the Air Force. The Navy also has a limited version of the 

Air Force’s program, though it is less ambitious. 

Secretary Rumsfeld said last week that it would be difficult for 

him to reach down through the myriad of legal cases climbing 

through the military justice system and find those that are potentially explosive in nature. I would counter that with the right guidance he would not have to reach down, but could expect that information to be pushed up, even before it reaches the criminal investigation stage. 

Military leadership has always required critical elements of information to make sound, timely, and informed decisions on the 

battlefield. Determining the information needed to make these decisions is crucial to a commander’s ability to act decisively in the 

course of battle. That same depth and speed of information is necessary for the Pentagon to direct policy and decision-making in the 

course of stabilization efforts afterwards. 

The amendment that I offered during committee intends to move 

mission-critical information from the commissioning authority up 

to the highest-levels in short order when that information portends 

events or situations detrimental to our strategic plan. The language merely required that the Secretary give guidance to all Department of Defense personnel with authority to commission assessments, evaluations or investigations on what types of information would be necessary to pass up the chain of command. This 

guidance would specifically target those items of such potentially 

volatile nature as to give even the layman a reason to raise a red 

flag. 

Were it that MG Miller’s assessment had been even a topic of 

discussion around the water cooler at the Pentagon, we might have 

been able to avoid the events at Abu Ghraib. Had more intense 

conversation happened after MG Ryder’s investigation, we would 

have at least had the opportunity to contain the situation, develop 

a strategy for correcting the problem, and alert the world in a far 

less internationally embarrassing fashion. Instead of the issue 

being a part of Pentagon discussions in the summer and fall of 

2003, it was left to a courageous specialist to try to put a stop to 

the vile episodes at Abu Ghraib in 2004, some five months after official reports highlighted conditions for a serious problem. 

It is not enough to arm our soldiers with the means and methods 

of war fighting. We must arm them with strategic planning. Proper 

planning is the offspring of proper information gathering and procVerDate May 04 2004 03:41 May 16, 2004 Jkt 093654 PO 00000 Frm 00491 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR491.XXX HR491
468 

essing at the decision-making level. It is ironic that there are suggestions that we seek more information on seeking more information before we act. I hope that before the defense authorization bill 

leaves the House of Representatives we are able to improve an excellent bill even more by addressing this pertinent and timely 

issue. 

KENDRICK B. MEEK. 

(469) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE MIKE D. ROGERS 

As the Committee moves forward with H.R. 4200, the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, I want to share my 

concern over the Department of Defense’s use of the Leadership in 

Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating 

System. The Air Force, Army, and Navy each utilize the LEED 

standard in some respects in its building projects. Although sustainable building design can be a valuable goal, the Department’s 

use of the LEED standard is troubling. 

First, the LEED rating system clearly discriminates against the 

use of renewable wood products. Through several of its specific 

credits for steel and concrete, certain wood products are put at a 

significant disadvantage. It does not recognize that wood is among 

the most environmentally benign of all building materials, because, 

among other things, it is a renewable resource that sequesters 

huge amounts of carbon. 

Second, LEED discriminates against wood products manufactured in the United States. The LEED rating system provides a 

specific credit only for forest products that have been certified by 

the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), a standard initially developed by international environmental groups to combat tropical deforestation. It is predominately recognized in Europe. FSC-certified 

products manufactured from wood grown in the U.S. are not readily available. However, products from other credible third party certification programs are readily available. No credits are given for 

wood products produced by companies independently third-party 

certified to the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) Program 

standard or the American Tree Farm System—the two largest 

sustainable forest management systems in the U.S. 

Third, LEED has not been developed through a consensus process open to all interested parties. The process used by the U.S. 

Green Building Council to create and operate LEED does not meet 

any generally accepted definition of a voluntary consensus standard. For example, the USGBC fails to satisfy the measures of the 

voluntary consensus standards development process set out by the 

American National Standards Institute (ANSI). 

And fourth, a recent National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) study, while recognizing that the LEED standard 

does have beneficial elements, concluded that it does not properly 

rate products based on environmental criteria. In the study, NIST 

was especially critical of LEED’s arbitrary thresholds, its emphasis 

on cost rather than environmental impact measures, the lack of appropriate baselines and measures of improvement, and the program’s inability to compare buildings in different locations on equal 

terms. 

470 

To address this issue, I urge the committee to accept in conference the following report language from Title XXVIII of the Senate version of the bill, S. 2400: 

Use of sustainable design standards by the Department of 

Defense 

Congress encourages the Department of Defense to utilize sustainable building design and construction methods 

to maximize the efficient use of renewable, recycled, and 

environmentally sound materials. However, concerns have 

been expressed that certain rating systems adopted by the 

Department to assess the standards of sustainable design 

and construction of facilities may unfairly discriminate 

against domestic producers of wood construction products. 

Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary of Defense 

to submit a report to the committee by June 1, 2005 which 

describes: 

(1) the standards used by each military department 

to assess the use of sustainable design and construction methods, including credits provided for products 

made from renewable materials, as well as recycled 

materials; 

(2) the extent to which such standards comply with 

the requirements of Section 6002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, section 6962 of title 42, 

United States Code, Executive Order 13101, Office of 

Management and Budget Circular A–119, and other 

applicable requirements of law and regulation; and 

(3) the extent to which the standards adopted by 

each military department unfairly discriminate 

against the use of products and materials manufactured in the United States. 

The committee expects the Secretary to take appropriate 

action to address any noncompliance with applicable requirements of law or regulation and any unfair discrimination against any U.S. manufactured materials identified 

during the course of this review. 

MIKE D. ROGERS. 

(471) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES VIC SNYDER 

AND MAC THORNBERRY 

We find ourselves in disagreement with the actions of the Committee regarding the delay contained in the bill of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. The Chairman of the Readiness Subcommittee included in his mark language that essentially 

delayed the BRAC process for two years by demanding that a series of reports be submitted late in 2005 and that the process then 

hold for 18 months until the committee had a chance to consider 

the amendments. 

During the full committee markup process, an amendment was 

offered to cancel the entire BRAC process, to which a second degree 

amendment was offered reinstating the two year delay. This 

amendment was passed, although a number of members spoke 

against both amendments. 

Arguments were made that the process should be delayed, and 

several reports be submitted, because there is a war currently 

going on. During debate on the amendments, the argument was advanced that the process should be cancelled because the Department of Defense has not yet been able to nominate directly to Congress any individual base that should be closed, and that, should 

the Department do this, Congress is perfectly capable of voting to 

close or realign individual bases. In my opinion, both of these arguments represent seriously wrong approaches. 

We were pleased to see the committee reject the second argument. The BRAC process was created to ensure that politics and 

the self-interest of an individual district or member are removed 

from the process of base closure. To have the Department of Defense begin nominating bases and Congress voting to close individual bases would immediately cause even more tension in Congress and accusations of partisan bias in the system. This would 

result in gridlock and an utter failure to take needed action. 

The former argument, that the process should be delayed due to 

the current issues in Iraq, is similarly flawed. There will never be 

a time during which sufficient peace and stability reign for us to 

carry out the BRAC process. Many people regard the 1990s as a 

time of relative peace, forgetting that during this window of stability the U.S. military carried out actions in Panama, Iraq, Bosnia, 

Kosovo, and Somalia, to say nothing of scores of other minor military engagements. Simply put, we almost always have been, and 

probably always will be, bemoaning the disorder that seems to constantly reign supreme. In addition, the BRAC process is as much 

about realignment as it is closure, and the realignment is needed 

to assist the Department of Defense in carrying out the very 

changes in the military that are designed to allow us to better address the current chaos. 

472 

There is a valid argument that the reports requested by the 

Committee in the provision contained in the bill should be submitted. We agree that the Committee should be better informed 

about the Global Posture Review, under which DoD is adjusting 

our overseas basing, and its diplomatic and military effects. Similarly, it would be beneficial to know more about the effects of 

homeland security missions and military transformation on basing. 

Nothing stops the Committee from demanding these reports now, 

and we believe that it would be entirely appropriate to do so. If we 

did so, presumably DoD could be ordered to produce the information by the spring of 2005 at the latest, which would give the Committee, and Congress as a whole, 6 months to consider the reports, 

digest the information, and hold hearings. Nothing is stopping us 

from carrying out this needed oversight but our own timidity, but 

the reports do not require delaying a much needed process by two 

years. 

In conclusion, while the Committee has asked for much needed 

information, it has also delayed a needed process. It is my hope 

that the whole House, or at least the whole Congress acting 

through the conference committee, will reject the delay contained 

in the House bill and proceed with the process currently in law. 

Hoping for a respite in the current global environment is not only 

unrealistic, but does the military itself no favors. 

VIC SNYDER. 

MAC THORNBERRY. 

(473) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVES JIM COOPER 

AND TIM RYAN 

We commend Chairman Hunter for including a detailed authorization for $25 billion in this year’s National Defense Authorization 

Act, but we are gravely concerned that this down payment on the 

cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2005 fails to tell the 

whole truth to the American people. 

During committee consideration of the authorization bill, we offered an amendment authorizing a full-year supplemental appropriation of $67 billion. This larger figure reflects a realistic, detailed analysis of the likely total cost of the wars in Afghanistan 

and Iraq in 2005. This amendment included funding for all of the 

commendable items in the Chairman’s bill, including funding for 

critical force protection equipment, deferred vehicle maintenance, 

new counter-terrorism technology, replacement vehicles for those 

destroyed in combat operations, and additional combat troops for 

the Army and Marine Corps. However, it also provided sufficient 

funds for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for all of fiscal 

year 2005, not just the few months of funding that the Chairman’s 

bill authorized. 

We offered this amendment because we believe the House bill 

should reflect the true costs of these wars. Piecemeal funding of 

these critical military efforts sends the wrong signal to our adversaries, the American people, and U.S. troops in the field. Our adversaries are watching our actions closely, and a robust full-year 

authorization would have sent the signal that despite the significant challenges we face in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States 

is committed to victory. To Americans here at home, a full-year authorization would demonstrate that Congress takes seriously its 

duty to be honest with the American people, and that when it 

comes to providing funding for our troops in the field, politics 

should truly take a backseat. Finally, our troops in the field look 

to Congress to provide them what they need to accomplish the missions they are assigned. Authorization of a full-year supplemental 

would leave no doubt that Congress supports them and is willing 

to provide whatever is needed to win. 

We were disappointed that no Republican members of our committee chose to support our amendment. We believe the American 

people will continue to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 

where critical U.S. interests are at stake, but only if we are honest 

about the cost. 

JIM COOPER. 

TIM RYAN. 

Æ