" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 107TH CONGRESS

1st Session

REPORT

107–298

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

BILL, 2002 AND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, 2002

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

[TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 3338]

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

NOVEMBER 19, 2001.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House

on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002 AND SUPPLEMENTAL

APPROPRIATIONS, 2002

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1

76–197

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 107TH CONGRESS

1st Session

REPORT

2001

107–298

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

BILL, 2002 AND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, 2002

R E P O R T

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

[TO ACCOMPANY H.R. 3338]

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

NOVEMBER 19, 2001.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House

on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

(III)

C O N T E N T S

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002

Page

Bill Totals ................................................................................................................. 1

Committee Budget Review Process ........................................................................ 4

Rationale for Committee Bill .................................................................................. 4

Committee Recommendations by Major Category ................................................ 9

Active Military Personnel ................................................................................ 9

Guard and Reserve Personnel ......................................................................... 9

Operation and Maintenance ............................................................................ 10

Procurement ...................................................................................................... 10

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation ............................................... 11

Forces to be Supported ............................................................................................ 11

Department of the Army .................................................................................. 11

Department of the Navy .................................................................................. 11

Department of the Air Force ........................................................................... 12

TITLE I. MILITARY PERSONNEL ................................................................... 15

Programs and Activities Funded by Military Personnel Appropriations ..... 15

Summary of Military Personnel Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2002 ... 15

Adjustments to Military Personnel Account .................................................. 17

End Strength Adjustments ....................................................................... 17

Program Growth ........................................................................................ 17

General Accounting Office Reductions .................................................... 17

Guard and Reserve Forces ........................................................................ 18

Full-time Support Strengths .................................................................... 18

Military Personnel, Army ................................................................................ 19

Military Personnel, Navy ................................................................................. 21

Military Personnel, Marine Corps ................................................................... 23

Military Personnel, Air Force .......................................................................... 25

Reserve Personnel, Army ................................................................................. 27

Reserve Personnel, Navy ................................................................................. 29

Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps ................................................................... 31

Reserve Personnel, Air Force .......................................................................... 33

Realignment of Funds ............................................................................... 35

National Guard Personnel, Army .................................................................... 35

National Guard Personnel, Air Force ............................................................. 37

Ballistic Missile Range Safety Technology Program .............................. 39

TITLE II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE .............................................. 41

Operation and Maintenance Overview ........................................................... 43

Civilian Pay ............................................................................................... 43

Junior ROTC .............................................................................................. 44

Government Purchase Card ..................................................................... 44

Headquarters Staff .................................................................................... 45

Advisory and Assistance Services and Contract Workforce ................... 45

Headquarters and Administrative Expenses .......................................... 46

International Military Headquarters and Support of Other Nations ... 46

A–76 Studies .............................................................................................. 46

Operation and Maintenance Budget Execution Data ............................. 47

Operation and Maintenance Reprogrammings ....................................... 47

0–1 Reprogramming Approval Requirement ........................................... 48

Operation and Maintenance, Army ................................................................. 49

Electronic Maintenance System ............................................................... 52

Camera Assisted Monitoring System—CAMS ........................................ 52

Mobile Kitchen Trailers Depot Maintenance .......................................... 53

Communications Electronics .................................................................... 53

Salute Our Services Pilot Program .......................................................... 53

Page

IV

TITLE II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

Operation and Maintenance, Army—Continued

Mobility Enhancement Study ................................................................... 52

OPTEMPO Training Resource Metrics .................................................... 52

Aberdeen Proving Ground A–76 Competition ......................................... 54

Training Facilities ..................................................................................... 55

Transportation Infrastructure Analysis Center ...................................... 55

Camouflage Nets ....................................................................................... 55

Army Corrosion Prevention and Control Program ................................. 55

Controlled Humidity Preservation Program ........................................... 55

Military Police School/MCTFT Joint Training ........................................ 56

Recruiting and Advertising ...................................................................... 56

Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) ....................................... 56

Biocontainment Research Facility ........................................................... 56

Classified Programs .................................................................................. 57

Operation and Maintenance, Navy ................................................................. 57

NUWC Torpedo Depot Apprentice Program ........................................... 60

Naval Postgraduate School—CDTEMS ................................................... 60

Navy Learning Network Program CNET ................................................ 60

Manual Reverse Osmosis Desalinators ................................................... 61

Innovative Safety Management Pilot ...................................................... 61

Naval Facilities Engineering Command .................................................. 61

Ship Depot Maintenance ........................................................................... 61

Computer Program Training .................................................................... 61

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps ................................................... 62

Marine Corps Air-Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms ............. 64

Waste Water Treatment Study ................................................................ 64

Joint Service NBC Defense Equipment Assessment and Consolidation

Program .................................................................................................. 64

Depot Maintenance—Radars .................................................................... 64

Twentynine Palms MAGTF MOUT Training Facility ............................ 64

Training and Support Facilities ............................................................... 65

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force .......................................................... 65

Active Duty Military Personnel Underexecution .................................... 68

CKU–5 Rocket Catapult PPI .................................................................... 68

Classified Programs .................................................................................. 68

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide ................................................... 69

Defense-Wide Energy Sustainability Audits ........................................... 71

DLAMP ....................................................................................................... 72

Defense Logistics Agency .......................................................................... 72

Legacy ........................................................................................................ 72

Personnel Recovery Study ........................................................................ 72

Personnel and Family Support Programs ............................................... 72

Defense Acquisition University Distance Learning ................................ 73

Defense Threat Reduction Agency ........................................................... 73

Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve .................................................. 73

Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve ................................................... 75

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve ..................................... 77

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve ............................................ 79

Air Force Reserve Airlift Force Management ......................................... 81

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard ..................................... 81

Rural Access to Broadband Technology ................................................... 83

WMD/Counter-Drug Demonstration ........................................................ 83

Information Technology Management Training ..................................... 83

Joint Training and Experimentation Project .......................................... 83

Early Responders Distance Learning Center .......................................... 83

Consequence Management Training ........................................................ 84

Fort Billy F. Roberts, Alabama ................................................................ 84

Missouri National Guard .......................................................................... 84

Camp McCain, Mississippi ....................................................................... 84

Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard ......................................... 84

Rosecrans Memorial Airport ..................................................................... 86

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund ......................................... 86

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces .................................. 86

Environmental Restoration, Army .................................................................. 86

Environmental Restoration, Navy ................................................................... 87

Environmental Restoration, Air Force ............................................................ 87

Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide .................................................... 87

Page

V

TITLE II. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE—Continued

Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites .......................... 87

Round Pond Marsh .................................................................................... 87

Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid .......................................... 87

Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction ......................................................... 88

Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense ......................................................... 88

Support for International Sporting Competitions, Defense .......................... 88

TITLE III. PROCUREMENT .............................................................................. 89

Estimates and Appropriations Summary ....................................................... 89

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

Classified Annex ........................................................................................ 91

Army Transformation ............................................................................... 91

Army Acquisition Program Reforms ........................................................ 92

DOD Investments in Air Superiority ....................................................... 93

Aircraft Procurement, Army ............................................................................ 94

Missile Procurement, Army ............................................................................. 97

Patriot Advanced Capability—3 (PAC–3) ................................................ 97

Procurement of Weapons and Tracked Combat Vehicles, Army .................. 99

Wolverine Program Management ............................................................ 101

Medical Evacuation Capability for Heavy Forces ................................... 101

Procurement of Ammunition, Army ................................................................ 102

Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant ........................................................ 104

Other Procurement, Army ............................................................................... 104

Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles ........................................................ 109

Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle .......................................................... 109

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ............................................................................ 109

V–22 ............................................................................................................ 111

MH–60R Helicopter ................................................................................... 111

Weapons Procurement, Navy ........................................................................... 113

Trident II D–5 Missile .............................................................................. 113

Torpedo Industrial Base ........................................................................... 113

Navy Area Ballistic Missile Defense Program ........................................ 114

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps ................................. 116

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy ................................................................ 118

Shipbuilding Program Management ........................................................ 118

SSGN Tactical Trident .............................................................................. 119

DDG–51 Destroyer .................................................................................... 120

LPD–17 Acquisition Strategy ................................................................... 120

Other Procurement, Navy ................................................................................ 122

Procurement, Marine Corps ............................................................................. 128

Innovative Stand-Off Door Breaching Munitions ............................... 128

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force ...................................................................... 132

F–22 ............................................................................................................ 133

C–17 Multiyear Procurement Contract ................................................... 134

C–40 Aeromedivac Aircraft ....................................................................... 134

Global Hawk High Altitude Endurance (HAE) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) ............................................................................................. 135

C–17 Modifications .................................................................................... 135

C–5 Modifications ...................................................................................... 136

All Terrain Loader ..................................................................................... 136

Combat Search and Rescue ...................................................................... 136

Missile Procurement, Air Force ....................................................................... 139

GPS Advance Procurement ....................................................................... 139

SBIRS High ............................................................................................... 140

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force ......................................................... 142

Other Procurement, Air Force ......................................................................... 144

Space Based IR Sensor Program .............................................................. 144

Procurement, Defense-Wide ............................................................................. 148

Transfers to Title IX ................................................................................. 148

Advanced Seal Delivery System ............................................................... 149

National Guard and Reserve Equipment ....................................................... 152

UH–60 Blackhawk Helicopters ................................................................ 152

Bradley Fighting Vehicle ODS ................................................................. 152

Reserve Component Automation System ................................................ 152

C–130J Aircraft ......................................................................................... 153

Defense Production Act Purchases .................................................................. 155

Information Technology ................................................................................... 155

Financial Management Modernization Program .................................... 156

Page

VI

TITLE III. PROCUREMENT—Continued

Information Technology—Continued

Critical Infrastructure Protection ............................................................ 157

Defense Joint Accounting System ............................................................ 157

SPAWAR Information Technology Center .............................................. 157

Defense Travel Service .............................................................................. 157

Navy Marine Corps Intranet .................................................................... 157

TITLE IV. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION .... 161

Estimates and Appropriation Summary ......................................................... 161

Special Interest Items ............................................................................... 163

Information Assurance Testing ................................................................ 163

Department of Energy Research .............................................................. 163

Classified Annex ........................................................................................ 163

Aviation Requirement for Joint Tactical Terminal (JTT) ...................... 163

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army .................................... 164

Army Venture Capital Science and Technology Demonstration ........... 170

Next Generation GPS/INS Navigation for Munitions ............................ 171

Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) ........................................ 172

Hepatitis C Project .................................................................................... 172

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy ..................................... 177

DD–21 Land Attack Destroyer ................................................................. 183

Rapid Retargeting ..................................................................................... 184

Combat Control System MK2 ................................................................... 185

Land Attack Technology ........................................................................... 185

Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle .......................................................... 186

Surveillance and Reconnaissance Support .............................................. 186

Distributed Common Ground System Joint Service Imagery Processing System—Navy (JSIPS–N) ......................................................... 186

Nursing Telehealth Applications ..................................................................... 187

Bone Marrow Registry .............................................................................. 187

Telemedicine .............................................................................................. 188

Joint Directed Attack Munition ............................................................... 188

Lower Cost Precision Weapon Guidance Systems .................................. 188

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force .............................. 193

Using ‘‘Code Names’’ for Unclassified Activities ..................................... 193

Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle ............................................................... 197

Warfighter Rapid Acquisition Process ..................................................... 198

Space Based Radar EMD .......................................................................... 198

Next Generation Tanker ........................................................................... 198

Next Generation ISR Radar Sensor Development .................................. 198

Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS) ........................................ 199

Information Hiding, Steganography and Digital Watermarking .......... 199

Lower Cost Precision Weapon Guidance Systems .................................. 199

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide ...................... 205

Transfers to Title IX ................................................................................. 209

Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrations ..................................... 209

Advanced Lithography Demonstration .................................................... 209

Commercial Joint Mapping Toolkit ......................................................... 209

Center for the Commercial Deployment of Transportation Technologies ................................................................................................... 210

Laser Plasma Point Source X-Ray Lithography ..................................... 210

National Environmental Education and Training Center ..................... 210

Ultra Light Weight Portable Power Source ............................................ 210

Center for Nanosciences Innovation ........................................................ 210

Spin Electronics Program ......................................................................... 210

Next Generation Supercomputer Capability ........................................... 211

Strategy for Acquisition of Commercial Imagery ................................... 211

Unexploded Ordnance Detection and Cleanup ....................................... 211

Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense .................................................... 216

Radio Frequency Vulnerability Analysis ................................................. 216

TITLE V. REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS ................................ 219

Defense Working Capital Funds ..................................................................... 219

National Defense Sealift Fund ........................................................................ 219

Ready Reserve Force ................................................................................. 219

TITLE VI. OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS ............... 221

Defense Health Program .................................................................................. 221

Special Interest Items and Reprogramming ........................................... 221

Military Medical Treatment Facility Optimization ................................ 223

Page

VII

TITLE VI. OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS—Continued

Defense Health Program—Continued

Assessment of DoD and VA Health Care Systems ................................. 223

Nursing Pay Authority .............................................................................. 223

Pre-Discharge One Exam Initiative ......................................................... 224

MacDill Air Force Base Transition .......................................................... 224

Credentialing ............................................................................................. 224

Health Care Centers of Excellence .......................................................... 224

North Chicago Veterans Administration Medical Center and Naval

Hospital .................................................................................................. 225

Cervical Cancer Research Program ......................................................... 225

Ovarian Cancer ......................................................................................... 225

International Medical Program Global Satellite System ....................... 226

DOD Mental Health Programs ................................................................. 226

Government Computer Based Patient Records ...................................... 226

Single National Pharmacy Manager ........................................................ 226

Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Army ..................................... 227

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense ............................. 229

DoD Non-Traditional Activities Assessment ........................................... 229

Tethered Aerostat Radar Systems ........................................................... 229

Office of the Inspector General ........................................................................ 230

TITLE VII. RELATED AGENCIES .................................................................... 231

National Foreign Intelligence Program .......................................................... 231

Introduction ............................................................................................... 231

Classified Annex ........................................................................................ 231

Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System Fund ........ 231

Intelligence Community Management Account ............................................. 232

Payment to Kaho’olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Fund ............................................................................. 232

National Security Education Trust Fund ....................................................... 232

TITLE VIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS ............................................................. 235

Definition of Program, Project and Activity ................................................... 235

Pentagon Reservation Emergency Response Enhancements ........................ 236

Wage Credits ..................................................................................................... 236

TITLE IX. COUNTER-TERRORISM AND DEFENSE AGAINST WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ..................................................................... 237

Chemical and Biological Defense Programs ............................................ 241

Special Interest Items ............................................................................... 242

Counter-Terrorism and Operational Response Transfer Fund ..................... 242

Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction ......................................................... 244

Ballistic Missile Defense ........................................................................... 245

Procurement, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization ................................... 245

Proposed Transfer of Navy Area, MEADS and PAC–3 .......................... 246

Patriot Advanced Capability—3 (PAC–3) ................................................ 246

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Ballistic Missile Defense

Organization .................................................................................................. 246

Ground Based Midcourse Defense Segment ........................................... 248

Theater High Altitude Area Defense ....................................................... 248

Navy Theater Wide ................................................................................... 249

Arrow .......................................................................................................... 249

Navy Area .................................................................................................. 249

Space Based Laser .................................................................................... 249

SBIRS Low ................................................................................................. 249

Program Structure and System Acquisition ........................................... 250

Special Interest Projects ........................................................................... 251

Reprogrammings ....................................................................................... 251

BMDO Budget Justification Material ...................................................... 252

Defense Against Chemical and Biological Weapons, Defense-Wide ............. 252

Organization and Management of the Chemical and Biological Defense Program ........................................................................................ 253

Chemical/Biological Warfare Defense Study ........................................... 254

DARPA Biological Warfare Defense Program ......................................... 254

Defense Threat Reduction Agency .................................................................. 254

Unconventional Nuclear Warfare Defense .............................................. 255

Radiation Hardened Electronics .............................................................. 256

Arms Control Technology ......................................................................... 257

Nuclear Test Monitoring ........................................................................... 257

Page

VIII

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ......... 259

Changes in the Application of Existing Law .................................................. 259

Appropriations Language ......................................................................... 259

General Provisions .................................................................................... 261

Appropriations Not Authorized by Law .......................................................... 267

Transfer of Funds ............................................................................................. 269

Rescissions ........................................................................................................ 269

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives ............................ 270

Compliance With Clause 3 of Rule XIII (Ramseyer Rule) ............................ 270

Constitutional Authority .................................................................................. 270

Comparison with the Budget Resolution ........................................................ 271

Five-Year Outlay Projections ........................................................................... 271

Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments ................................. 271

DIVISION B—FISCAL YEAR 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS

Chapter 1 (Agricultural Subcommittee) ................................................................. 285

Chapter 2 (Commerce-Justice-State Subcommittee) ............................................ 288

Chapter 3 (Defense Subcommittee) ........................................................................ 293

Chapter 4 (District of Columbia Subcommittee) ................................................... 307

Chapter 5 (Energy and Water Development Subcommittee) ............................... 307

Chapter 6 (Interior Subcommittee) ........................................................................ 309

Chapter 7 (Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee) ................................................ 310

Chapter 8 (Legislative Branch Subcommittee) ..................................................... 315

Chapter 9 (Military Construction Subcommittee) ................................................. 317

Chapter 10 (Transportation Subcommittee) .......................................................... 318

Chapter 11 (Treasury-Postal Service Subcommittee) ........................................... 323

Chapter 12 (VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Subcommittee) .............................. 325

Chapter 13 (General Provision) .............................................................................. 328

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107–298

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002

AND SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS, 2002

NOVEMBER 19, 2001.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. LEWIS of California, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 3338]

The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in

explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the

Department of Defense, and for other purposes, for the fiscal year

ending September 30, 2002.

DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS

BILL, 2002

BILL TOTALS

Appropriations for most military functions of the Department of

Defense are provided for in the accompanying bill for the fiscal

year 2002. This bill does not provide appropriations for military

construction, military family housing, civil defense, or nuclear warheads, for which requirements are considered in connection with

other appropriations bills.

The President’s fiscal year 2002 budget request for activities

funded in the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill totals

$319,397,116,000 in new budget (obligational) authority. The

amounts recommended by the Committee in the accompanying bill

total $317,474,089,000 in new budget authority. This is

$1,923,027,000 below the budget estimate and $18,958,935,000

2

1Fiscal year 2001 funding includes funding provided in several supplemental appropriations

Acts, including P.L. 106–544, P.L. 107–20, and amounts made available, as of October 22, 2001,

from P.L. 107–38.

above the sums made available for the Department of Defense for

fiscal year 2001.1

3

F6012

4

COMMITTEE BUDGET REVIEW PROCESS

During its review of the fiscal year 2002 budget, the Subcommittee on Defense held a total of 16 hearings during the period

of March 2001 to July 2001. Testimony received by the Subcommittee totaled 1,434 pages of transcript. Approximately a third

of the hearings were held in open session. Executive (closed) sessions were held only when the security classification of the material to be discussed presented no alternative.

RATIONALE FOR COMMITTEE BILL

The Committee’s action on the fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations bill comes at a critical time in the Nation’s history.

The United States has been subjected to a vicious, unprovoked

assault, without comparison in the collective memory of Americans

and the world.

The U.S. military is now engaged in combat operations overseas,

while carrying out missions at home that were unthinkable just

months ago.

All arms of the Federal government are engaged in protecting

the American people, at home and abroad.

And as the Nation mourns, and struggles to defend freedom

across the world, it also turns to the task of rebuilding.

The Committee cannot adequately express the deep sense of sorrow and the enduring commitment to humanity, to freedom, and to

justice which have been evidenced across the United States since

the morning of September 11th, 2001. But, through the decisions

rendered on this legislation—which provides the vast majority of

the appropriations for the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community—the Committee can provide those who protect

and defend America with the tools needed to successfully prosecute

the war on terrorism as well as defend America’s interests at home

and around the world. It is with this motivating principle that the

Committee has worked its will on this legislation.

Long-Standing Committee Concerns and Priorities

The attacks of September 11 and subsequent events have focused

the Nation’s attention on the capabilities of our defense and intelligence agencies. The Committee has long expressed its concern

over the state of the Nation’s defenses as the national security community has wrestled with many difficult security challenges, such

as the end of the Cold War, the need to meet long-extant commitments overseas, and the emergence of new threats and missions.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the complex challenges confronting the three Administrations which have held office—and the

seven Congresses which have convened over that period—are wellknown. The most prominent include managing the post-Cold War

military build-down; a dramatically different and increasingly challenging threat environment; budgetary constraints; and, finally, the

need to reshape America’s defenses to meet global demands with

a vastly downsized force. These issues, along with many others,

have animated the defense debate for over a decade.

The Committee has not shirked from joining that debate. In

doing so, it has consistently advocated certain core principles:

5

—Providing for the welfare of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and those Federal employees involved in our defense and

intelligence effort;

—Likewise, strong support for the other ‘‘enablers’’ of an effective military, such as robust training, the provision of basic

combat equipment, and the central role of intelligence, strategic mobility, and the leveraging of U.S. technology in areas

such as surveillance, global reach, precision strike, and the effective networking of sensors and weapons;

—An insistence on strong program management and budgetary

controls;

—And finally, the belief that the Constitutional role of the

Congress, in particular ‘‘the power of the purse’’, makes it an

equal partner with the Executive Branch in shaping the Nation’s future security posture.

The Committee believes that broad Congressional support for

these priorities—and the need to provide the funding needed to

support them—have contributed in no small measure to what has

been a turnabout from the mid-1990’s consensus regarding defense.

Along with support and leadership from within the Executive

Branch, the Committee believes there has been much progress

made in recent years by both the Intelligence Community and the

Department of Defense in attempting to redefine their priorities to

cope with new threats.

The Fiscal Year 2002 Defense Budget Request

Against this backdrop the Committee commends the new Administration, which since assuming office has attempted to build on

this momentum. It did so first by elevating the level of debate

about these fundamental national security and defense issues. The

new senior leadership of the DoD conducted its early, extensive,

and admittedly controversial ‘‘strategic reviews’’; they raised these

issues in budget and policy presentations before the Congress; and

most recently, the DoD issued its Quadrennial Defense Review just

three weeks ago.

In his foreword to the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Secretary of Defense described this as ‘‘a crucial time of transition to

a new era.’’ Even before the events of September 11th, the outlines

of that ‘‘new era’’ were clear. The future security environment

would be marked by the existence of lingering, largely conventional

military threats—such as in the Persian Gulf region, and Northeast Asia—and the growing threat posed by other regional powers

such as China. And the future security environment would be increasingly marked by the reality of new threats such as terrorism;

weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, radiological, chemical, and

biological weapons); ballistic missiles; information operations (computer network exploitation and attack); and other unconventional,

‘‘asymmetric’’ threats to the United States.

The Committee concurs with this assessment, and acknowledges

the role of the senior leadership of the Department of Defense for

bringing these issues to the fore upon assuming office earlier this

year.

The President’s amended DoD budget, submitted to Congress in

late June, comprises the Administration’s initial effort to tangibly

address these problems. The Committee finds itself in broad agreeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
6

ment with the following priorities, as laid out by the Secretary of

Defense and proposed in the amended budget submission.

Those priorities begin with sustaining the force. The budget proposed the largest increase in military pay in 15 years, other increases in benefits, and more than a 50 percent increase in funding

for the defense health care system.

The budget also proposed significant increases for those accounts

directly supporting readiness—training, spare parts funding, depot

maintenance, facilities maintenance and base operations.

The budget contained a significant increase in funding for intelligence and intelligence-related activities, including the accelerated

development and fielding of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and

so-called ‘‘ISR’’ assets (intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance). It also proposed sizable increases in support of certain key

mission areas and new technologies—such as Ballistic Missile Defense. The budget also called for increases over current levels of

over half-a-billion dollars apiece in the essential areas of force protection and information assurance/operations.

The Committee also notes several initiatives by the Department,

announced following the submission of the amended budget, in

which it also finds merit. Chief among them are efforts to streamline and rationalize Departmental operations, most importantly a

concerted effort to reduce bureaucracy—especially at the headquarters level. The Committee has long called for ‘‘more tooth, and

less tail’’, and believes steps in this regard are long overdue.

Nonetheless, the budget submission still falls short in many

areas, notably by failing to address the persistent shortfall in

weapons procurement funding. The fiscal year 2002 budget also

lacked the outyear details of a long-term, coherent investment

strategy for the Department. The Committee has maintained for

some time such a strategy is badly needed, and long overdue. This

is more important now than ever, given the onset of new priorities—including those advocated by the Administration in its budget, and those brought on with the initiation of Operations NOBLE

EAGLE and ENDURING FREEDOM—and the need to address

other lingering questions, such as the correct course for weapons

modernization and other investment needs.

Other Issues Impacting Committee Consideration

As indicated above, the Committee has found much to support in

the President’s budget proposal. However, the recommendations

brought forward by the Committee are of necessity shaped by both

the amount of funds available at this point, as well as the need for

additional resources targeted at terrorism and other threats in the

wake of the September attacks.

The funding in this proposed Defese Appropriations bill, over

$317 billion, is a sizable increase over fiscal year 2001 levels. However, in the course of allocating funds among Appropriations subcommittees (pursuant to the agreement recently reached between

the President and the joint leadership of the Congress regarding

the overall level of discretionary appropriations for fiscal year

2002), the need to meet national defense requirements in other appropriations bills has resulted in the Defense Subcommittee being

allocated some $1.9 billion less in funding than proposed by the

7

President in his amended budget for the Defense Appropriations

bill.

More importantly, the Committee has re-assessed the DoD and

intelligence community requirements following the September 11th

attacks. The Committee recognizes that the vast majority of unanticipated costs from the war on terrorism over the next year will

have to be dealt with through supplemental appropriations. Nonetheless, the Committee believes it is imperative that, within the existing allocation for the Defense Appropriations bill, it also provide

funding well in excess of the President’s budget in certain areas— especially those with immediate and longer-term applicability to

counter-terrorism and other unconventional threats.

Major Recommendations in the Committee Bill

Accordingly, the Committee bill makes the following major recommendations.

New Appropriations Title.—The Committee bill establishes a new

appropriations title—Title IX, Counter-Terrorism and Defense

Against Weapons of Mass Destruction—and provides appropria- tions of $11,719,889,000 therein. The Committee takes this action

in order to consolidate funding for those programs devoted to the

protection of the United States homeland, deployed American military forces, overseas U.S. interests, and our allies from so-called

non-traditional threats. This new title, comprised of six appropriations accounts, includes all funding in the bill for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization; the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction); all Defense-Wide

procurement and research funding for defense against chemical

and biological weapons; and all funding for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. The Committee believes this will bring a greater

focus to the Department’s efforts to deal with these threats while

empowering the senior leadership of the Department of Defense

and the Congress to more closely scrutinize these important programs.

In addition, Title IX includes $1.67 billion, added over the budget

request, in a new appropriations account dedicated to counter-terrorism activities and other unconventional threats. By so doing, the

Committee has created a rapid response capability for the Secretary of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence to accelerate and augment efforts against terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, the chemical and biological threat, and so-called ‘‘cyberwar’’ capabilities (information operations and critical infrastructure

attacks).

Ballistic Missile Defense.—The Committee bill provides $7.85 billion for those programs managed by the Ballistic Missile Defense

Organization, an increase of $2.7 billion over fiscal year 2001 levels

and $50 million less than approved by the House during consideration of H.R. 2586, the National Defense Authorization bill for fiscal year 2002. The Committee approves the requested amounts for

the Ground-Based Midcourse Segment (formerly known as the National Missile Defense program), as well as the proposed Pacific

Test Bed. The Committee also recommends additions over the

budget of $155 million to enable the immediate and rapid fielding

of the PAC–3 theater missile defense system. In most instances

where the Committee reduced funding below that requested in the

8

budget, it was done consistent with the provisions of the Housepassed Defense Authorization bill. However, the Committee does

recommend reducing funds and restructuring the development program for the Space Based Infrared System-Low (SBIRS Low) program, due to significant concerns over technical maturity, system

performance, and cost growth.

Intelligence and Intelligence-Related Activities.—The Committee

bill includes sizable increases over the budgeted amounts in support of the classified programs within the National Foreign Intelligence Program. The Committee also provides funding to accelerate and enhance U.S. military intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, to include:

(a) Net increases over the budget for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (such as the Predator UAV), and increases in UAV funding

by nearly $200 million over fiscal year 2001 levels;

(b) For other ‘‘low-density, high-demand’’ ISR assets, the

Committee provides full funding for the 16th Joint STARS surveillance aircraft; funds two EP–3 Naval reconnaissance aircraft; and provides for the re-engining and upgrade of four

RIVET JOINT aircraft;

(c) The Committee’s recommendation for networking of ISR

assets exceeds the Administration’s request by nearly $50 million, or an approximate 60 percent increase, increasing funding

for ISR networking by $127 million over the fiscal year 2001

level; and

(d) The Committee provides $354 million over the budget request for the acquisition of two new testbed aircraft and development of advanced radar technology, in order to accelerate

the development of a potential JSTARS replacement platform

as well as a new airborne command and control aircraft.

Military Personnel and Defense Health Program.—The Committee bill fully funds the proposed pay raise of 4.6 percent and

targeted pay raises of at least 5 percent for every service member.

In addition, it fully funds the proposed increases for Basic Housing

Allowances in order to continue to reduce service members out of

pocket housing expenses from 15 percent to 11.3 percent. The Committee bill fully funds the requested 50 percent increase for the Defense Health Program, and also has increased military-related

medical research and other initiatives by nearly $700 million. The

Committee also has added $85 million over the request for procurement of a new C–40 aeromedical evacuation aircraft.

Readiness Accounts.—In Title II of the Committee bill (Operation

and Maintenance), the Committee fully funds the requested increases in spare parts and depot repair, base operations and other

readiness-related activities. The bill also fully funds the budgeted

increase of $537 million for force protection measures aimed at protecting U.S. forces, assets and facilities.

Strategic Mobility.—The Committee bill approves over $2.8 billion for the procurement of 15 C–17 airlifters, and provides $180

million over the budget to support a heretofore unbudgeted followon multiyear procurement of C–17’s. The bill also provides $150

million over the budget to procure a testbed aircraft and begin development of a new aerial refueling tanker aircraft, to accelerate

replacement of the aging and increasingly-limited KC–135.

9

Shipbuilding.—The Committee bill provides net additions to the

Navy shipbuilding account of over $790 million, including procurement of an additional DDG–51 destroyer over the budgeted level

(the bill provides for four DDG–51’s), and additions over the budget

of $463 million to begin conversion of four TRIDENT ballistic missile submarines into the ‘‘Tactical TRIDENT’’ cruise missile platform. The bill also reduces proposed funding for the next-generation DD–21 destroyer by $493 million, reflecting a pending program restructure and deferral of full scale engineering development.

Army Transformation and Acquisition Process Reform.—The

Committee bill fully funds the Army’s proposed equipment requirements for the Interim Brigade Combat Teams, establishes a new

‘‘venture capital fund’’ to leverage Army investment in cuttingedge technologies, and proposes targeted funding reductions and

restrictions in order to streamline Army acquisition organization

and procedures.

Defense Streamlining and Cost-Control Initiatives.—Consistent

with past Committee practice, and the DoD’s renewed effort to reduce unneeded bureaucracy, the Committee bill includes a variety

of actions to reduce spending for administrative and overhead

costs. The funds made available can be shifted to accounts that

more directly benefit the war fighters. These cost-cutting measures

include:

(a) Reductions of $242 million to headquarters staff, as a

first increment of the Secretary of Defense’s ‘‘Battle Against

Bureaucracy’’ to reduce these costs 15 percent below fiscal year

1999 levels;

(b) Similarly, the Committee bill recommends a 1.25 percent

reduction in contracted workyears, including contractor advisory and assistance services, rendering $955 million in savings;

and

(c) To institute proper controls and ensure fiscal discipline,

the Committee bill imposes a reduction of $330 million against

purchases made with the Government Purchase Card, in order

to correct past abuses as found by the GAO.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS BY MAJOR CATEGORY

ACTIVE MILITARY PERSONNEL

The Committee recommends a total of $70,039,322,000 for active

military personnel, a decrease of $710,900,000 below the budget request. The Committee supports the budget request which proposed

a 4.6 percent pay raise for military personnel effective January 1,

2002, and a targeted pay raise of at least 5 percent for every service member. The Committee also agrees with the authorized end

strength as requested in the President’s budget.

GUARD AND RESERVE PERSONNEL

The Committee recommends a total of $11,577,969,000, an increase of $20,910,000 above the budget request for Guard and Reserve personnel. The Committee has also included funds for the

proposed 4.6 percent pay raise and targeted pay increases for enlisted and mid-grade officers. The Committee agrees with the auVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
10

thorized end strength as requested in the President’s budget for the

Selected Reserve.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The Operation and Maintenance appropriation provides for the

readiness of U.S. forces as well as the maintenance of facilities and

equipment, the infrastructure that supports combat forces, and the

quality of life of service members and their families.

The Committee recommends $105,282,379,000, a net increase of

$8,392,605,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriated amount.

The Committee has supported improvements in funding for flying

hour programs, maintenance of real property, equipment depot

maintenance and base operations. The Committee has added to the

budget request a number of items critical to the welfare and training readiness of service members and also items contributing to the

management efficiency of the services. Finally, the Committee recommends reductions from the budget request as a result of fact of

life changes and management actions the Department of Defense

should undertake to streamline its operations.

PROCUREMENT

The Committee recommends $60,190,124 for programs funded in

title III of the Committee bill, Procurement, a net decrease of

$250,173,000 below the fiscal year 2002 budget request. Included

in these totals is $501,485,000 for procurement of National Guard

and Reserve equipment, for which the administration did not request funding.

Major programs funded in the bill include:

$305,691,000 for 20 UH–60 Blackhawk helicopters.

$281,460,000 for CH–47 Chinook modifications.

$898,561,000 for AH–64 Apache Longbow recapitalization.

$241,811,000 for 2,200 Hellfire missiles.

$389,755,000 for 3,890 Javelin missiles.

$138,044,000 for 35 MLRS launcher systems.

$460,779,000 for Bradley Fighting Vehicle industrial base

sustainment.

$100,000,000 for M1 Abrams modifications.

$102,152,000 for M1 Abrams System Enhancement Program

(SEP).

$395,802,000 for M1 Abrams upgrades.

$3,067,552,000 for 48 F/A–18E/F fighter aircraft.

$790,881,000 for 9 Marine Corps V–22 aircraft.

$208,202,000 for 2 Special Operations CV–22 aircraft.

$299,047,000 for 4 KC–130J aircraft.

$534,042,000 for 12 Trident II ballistic missiles.

$1,578,914,000 for 1 New Attack Submarine.

$3,786,036,000 for 4 DDG–51 Destroyers.

$370,818,000 for 1 ADC(X) ship.

$2,655,553,000 for 13 F–22 fighter aircraft.

$2,808,425,000 for 15 C–17 airlift aircraft.

$2,571,058,000 for ammunition for all services.

$794,557,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense Organization programs

(funded in Title IX).

11

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

The Committee recommends $40,090,256,000 for programs funded in Title IV of the Committee bill, Research, Development, Test

and Evaluation, a decrease of $7,339,177,000 from the fiscal year

2002 budget request. Major programs funded in the bill include:

$111,560,000 for the Future Combat System (FCS).

$447,949,000 for the Crusader artillery program.

$816,366,000 for the Comanche helicopter.

$446,735,000 for V–22 Develoment

$1,436,770,000 for the Joint Strike Fighter program.

$881,556,000 for F–22 development.

$222,004,000 for B–2 development

$7,053,721,000 for Ballistic Missile Defense programs (funded in

Title IX).

FORCES TO BE SUPPORTED

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

The fiscal year 2002 budget is designed to support active Army

forces of 10 divisions, 3 armored cavalry regiments, and reserve

forces of 8 divisions, 3 separate brigades, and 15 enhanced National Guard brigades (6 enhanced brigades will be aligned under

2 AC/ARNG integrated division headquarters). These forces provide

the minimum force necessary to meet enduring defense needs and

execute the National Military Strategy.

A summary of the major forces follows:

Fiscal year—

2000 2001 2002

Divisions: 1

Airborne .............................................................................................. 1 1 1

Air Assault ......................................................................................... 1 1 1

Light ................................................................................................... 1 2 2 1 2

Infantry ............................................................................................... 0 0 0

Mechanized ........................................................................................ 4 4 4

Armored .............................................................................................. 2 2 2

Total ............................................................................................... 10 10 10

Non-division Combat units:

Armored Cavalry Regiments .............................................................. 3 3 3

Separate Brigades ............................................................................. 2 1 1 3 1

Total ............................................................................................... 3 3 3

Active duty military personnel, end strength (Thousands) ........................ 480 480 480

1 Separate brigade is aligned to one of the light divisions.

2 Selected Divisions will have the Interim Brigade Combat Teams (2 brigades undergoing transformation at Ft. Lewis, WA) within them. 3 Selected Divisions will have the Interim Brigade Combat Teams (2 brigades undergoing transformation at a location TBD) within them.

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

The fiscal year 2002 budget supports battle forces totaling 314

ships at the end of fiscal year 2002, two less than at the end of fiscal year 2001. Forces in fiscal year 2002 include 18 strategic submarines, 12 aircraft carriers, 244 other battle force ships, 1,563

Navy/Marine Corps tactical/ASW aircraft, 692 Undergraduate

Training aircraft, 475 Fleet Air Training aircraft, 328 Fleet Air

Support aircraft, 405 Reserve aircraft, and 518 in the pipeline.

12

A summary of the major forces follows:

Fiscal year—

2000 2001 2002

Strategic Forces .......................................................................................... 18 18 18

Submarines ........................................................................................ 18 18 18

Other .................................................................................................. 0 0 0

SLBM Launchers ......................................................................................... 432 432 432

General Purpose .......................................................................................... 259 258 256

Aircraft Carriers ................................................................................. 12 12 12

Surface Combatants .......................................................................... 116 116 116

Submarines (Attack) .......................................................................... 56 55 54

Amphibious Warfare Ships ................................................................ 39 39 39

Combat Logistics Ships ..................................................................... 34 34 33

Other .................................................................................................. 11 11 11

Support Forces ............................................................................................ 25 25 25

Mobile Logistics Ships ....................................................................... 2 2 2

Support Ships .................................................................................... 23 23 23

Mobilization Category A .............................................................................. 16 15 15

Aircraft Carriers ................................................................................. 1 0 0

Surface Combatants .......................................................................... 8 8 8

Amphibious Warfare Ships ................................................................ 2 1 1

Mine Warfare ...................................................................................... 5 6 6

Total Ships, Battle Force ............................................................... 318 316 314

Total Local Defense/Misc Force ..................................................... 177 166 165

Auxiliaries/Sea Lift Forces .......................................................................... 143 132 131

Coastal Defense .......................................................................................... 14 14 14

Mobilization Category B .............................................................................. 10 10 10

Surface Combatants .......................................................................... 0 0 0

Mine Warfare Ships ........................................................................... 10 10 10

Support Ships .................................................................................... 0 0 0

Naval Aircraft:

Primary Authorized (Plus Pipe) .......................................................... 4,100 4,115 4,101

Authorized Pipeline ............................................................................ 477 362 518

Tactical/ASW Aircraft ......................................................................... 1,685 1,699 1,563

Fleet Air Training ............................................................................... 468 480 475

Fleet Air Support ................................................................................ 328 331 328

Training (Undergraduate) .................................................................. 689 701 692

Reserve ............................................................................................... 418 407 405

Naval Personnel:

Active:

Navy .......................................................................................... 373,193 375,917 376,000

Marine Corps ............................................................................. 173,321 172,600 172,600

Reserve:

Navy .......................................................................................... 86,535 86,592 87,000

SELRES ...................................................................................... 71,546 71,943 72,189

TARS .......................................................................................... 14,989 14,649 14,811

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

The fiscal year 2002 Air Force budget is designed to support a

total active inventory force structure of 78 fighter and attack

squadrons and 45 in the guard and reserve, 4 guard air defense interceptor squadrons and 11 bomber squadrons including B–2s, B–

52s, and B–1s. This year a new line has been added to reflect the

addition of 6 flight test units. The Minuteman, Peacekeeper and

ICBM forces remain constant at 605 active launchers and 550 missile boosters.

A summary of the major forces follows:

Fiscal year—

2000 2001 2002

USAF Fighter and Attack (Active) Squadrons ............................................. 81 78 68

13

Fiscal year—

2000 2001 2002

USAF Fighter and Attack (ANG and AFRC) ................................................. 45 45 47

Air Defense Interceptor ............................................................................... 6 4 4

Strategic Bomber (Active) ........................................................................... 11 12 11

Strategic Bomber (ANG and AFRC) ............................................................ 3 3 1

Flight Test Units (NEW LINE) ...................................................................... ........................ ........................ 6

ICBM Operational Launch Facilities/Control Centers ................................. 605 605 605

ICBM Operational Missile Boosters ............................................................ 550 550 550

USAF Airlift Squadrons (Active):

Strategic Airlift .................................................................................. 15 12 13

Tactical Airlift .................................................................................... 11 11 11

Total Airlift ................................................................................ 26 23 24

Total Active Inventory ............................................................... 6,143 6,114 5,910

End Strength FY 2000 Col/FY

2001 PB FY 2001 PB FY 2002 PB

Active Duty .................................................................................................. 357,900 357,000 358,800

Reserve Component .................................................................................... 180,386 182,300 183,100

Air National Guard ...................................................................................... 106,678 108,000 108,400

Air Force Reserve ........................................................................................ 73,708 74,300 74,700

(15)

TITLE I

MILITARY PERSONNEL

PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FUNDED BY MILITARY PERSONNEL

APPROPRIATIONS

The President’s fiscal year 2002 budget request continues to

make military personnel its first priority through increased funding

for military pay, housing allowances and overall quality of life programs. The budget request proposed a 4.6 percent pay raise, effective January 1, 2002 for all military personnel. The budget also

proposed a targeted pay raise of at least five percent for every service member and up to 10 percent for enlisted grades E–4 to E–9

and for mid-grade officers. Fiscal year 2002 will be the third year

the pay structure for military personnel is being fundamentally

changed. In addition, the budget request increases the Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) in order to continue to reduce the service

members’ out-of-pocket housing expenses from 15 percent to 11.3

percent in fiscal year 2002.

The Committee supports the enhancements to military pay and

increased housing benefits for fiscal year 2002.

SUMMARY OF MILITARY PERSONNEL RECOMMENDATIONS

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

Fiscal year 2001 .................................................................................. $75,847,740,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 82,307,281,000

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... 81,617,291,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥689,990,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $81,617,291,000

for the Military Personnel accounts. The recommendation is an increase of $5,769,551,000 above the $75,847,740,000 appropriated in

fiscal year 2001. These military personnel budget total comparisons

include appropriations for the active, reserve, and National Guard

accounts. The following tables include a summary of the recommendations by appropriation account. Explanations of changes

from the budget request appear later in this section.

[In thousands of dollars]

Account Budget Recommendation Change from

request

Military Personnel:

Army ............................................................................................. $23,626,684 $23,336,884 ¥289,800

Navy ............................................................................................. 19,606,984 19,574,184 ¥32,800

Marine Corps ................................................................................ 7,365,040 7,343,640 ¥21,400

Air Force ....................................................................................... 20,151,514 19,784,614 ¥366,900

Subtotal, Active ....................................................................... 70,750,222 70,039,322 ¥710,900

16

[In thousands of dollars]

Account Budget Recommendation Change from

request

Reserve Personnel:

Army ............................................................................................. 2,604,197 2,629,197 +25,000

Navy ............................................................................................. 1,643,523 1,644,823 +1,300

Marine Corps ................................................................................ 463,300 466,800 +3,500

Air Force ....................................................................................... 1,055,160 1,055,160 ..........................

National Guard Personnel:

Army ............................................................................................. 4,014,135 4,004,335 ¥9,800

Air Force ....................................................................................... 1,776,744 1,777,654 +910

Subtotal, Guard and Reserve .................................................. 11,557,059 11,577,969 +20,910

Total, Title I ............................................................................. 82,307,281 81,617,291 ¥689,990

The fiscal year 2002 budget request includes an increase of approximately 5,000 end strength for the active forces and a slight increase of 300 end strength for the selected reserve over fiscal year

2001 authorized levels.

The Committee recommends the following levels highlighted in

the tables below.

OVERALL ACTIVE END STRENGTH

Fiscal year 2001 estimate .................................................................. 1,382,417

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 1,387,400

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... 1,387,400

Compared with Fiscal year 2001 ....................................................... +4,983

Compared with Fiscal year 2002 budget request ..................... 0

OVERALL SELECTED RESERVE END STRENGTH

Fiscal year 2001 estimate .................................................................. 864,356

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 864,658

Fiscal year 2002 recommendation ..................................................... 864,658

Compared with Fiscal year 2001 ............................................... +302

Compared with Fiscal year 2002 budget request ..................... 0

FY 2001 estimate

Fiscal year 2002—

Budget request Recommendation Change from

request

Active Forces (end strength):

Army .............................................................. 481,000 480,000 480,000 ..........................

Navy .............................................................. 375,917 376,000 376,000 ..........................

Marine Corps ................................................. 172,600 172,600 172,600 ..........................

Air Force ........................................................ 352,900 358,800 358,800 ..........................

Total, Active Force .................................... 1,382,417 1,387,400 1,387,400 ..........................

Guard and Reserve (end strength):

Army Reserve ................................................ 205,300 205,000 205,000 ..........................

Navy Reserve ................................................. 86,592 87,000 87,000 ..........................

Marine Corps Reserve ................................... 39,558 39,558 39,558 ..........................

Air Force Reserve .......................................... 74,358 74,700 74,700 ..........................

Army National Guard .................................... 350,526 350,000 350,000 ..........................

Air National Guard. ....................................... 108,022 108,400 108,400 ..........................

Total, Guard and Reserve ........................ 864,356 864,658 864,658

17

ADJUSTMENTS TO MILITARY PERSONNEL ACCOUNT

OVERVIEW

END STRENGTH ADJUSTMENTS

The Committee recommends a personnel understrength reduction of $324,200,000 to the budget request, as a result of a General

Accounting Office review of the fiscal year 2001 military personnel

end strength levels. The General Accounting Office has been examining the costs for military pay and allowances to determine if the

fiscal year 2002 requirements are correct. It has concluded, based

on current end strength projections, that the active and Reserve

components will begin fiscal year 2002 with fewer military personnel on-board than budgeted. In addition, actual data shows active military personnel on-board, by grade mix, is different than

what was requested in last year’s budget request. This means the

fiscal year 2002 pay and allowances requirements for personnel are

incorrect and the budgets are overstated. The Committee will continue to monitor the Services’ end strength levels as more current

data becomes available.

PROGRAM GROWTH

The Committee recommends a decrease of $160,100,000 to the

budget request for the following programs due to excessive program

growth. These reductions would maintain these programs at last

year’s level of funding.

[Dollars in thousands]

Unemployment Compensation .............................................................. ¥$8,400

Selective Reenlistment Bonus ............................................................... ¥51,100

$30,000 Lump Sum Bonus .................................................................... ¥62,500

Critical Skills Accession Bonus ............................................................ ¥13,100

Critical Skills Retention Bonus ............................................................ ¥19,000

Loan Repayment Program .................................................................... ¥6,000

Total ................................................................................................. ¥160,100

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REDUCTIONS

The Committee recommends a reduction of $240,500,000 to the

budget request as a result of a General Accounting Office review

of the military personnel appropriations, as follows:

Variation between reported end strength and military personnel

paid. The Committee recommends a reduction of $195,500,000 to

the budget request due to an average monthly variance between

the number of personnel being reported on end strength and the

number of personnel actually being paid for the active Army and

Air Force. GAO’s analysis has raised concerns about the accuracy

of the end strengths reported for budgeting purposes. The end

strengths are significantly inflated, resulting in the Services’ requesting more appropriations funding than they actually need.

Individuals in Appellate Review. The Committee recommends a

reduction of $28,000,000 to the budget request due to individuals

who are on appellate leave review. These individuals are not being

paid and are unlikely to return to duty, but are being counted in

the services’ end strength figures used to base their budget requests.

18

Personnel who retire on September 30. The Committee recommends a reduction of $17,000,000 to the budget request for personnel who will retire on September 30, 2001, but will be included

in the fiscal year 2002 beginning personnel strength. GAO also

found that one¥half a month’s salary is also included for these individuals in the fiscal year 2002 personnel appropriations.

GUARD AND RESERVE FORCES

The Committee recognizes that Guard and Reserve forces are an

essential part of the total force and contribute significantly to a variety of active missions. The Committee’s recommendation for fiscal

year 2002 continues its support of the Guard and Reserve and recommends an increase of $187,310,000 over the budget request for

the personnel and operation and maintenance accounts as shown

below.

[Dollars in thousands]

Military Personnel ................................................................................. +$34,810

Operation and Maintenance ................................................................. +152,500

Total ............................................................................................. +187,310

FULL-TIME SUPPORT STRENGTHS

There are four categories of full-time support in the Guard and

Reserve components: civilian technicians, active Guard and Reserve

(AGR), non-technician civilians, and active component personnel.

Full-time support personnel organize, recruit, train, maintain

and administer the Reserve components. Civilian (Military) technicians directly support units, and are very important to help units

maintain readiness and meet the wartime mission of the Army and

Air Force.

Full-time support end strength in all categories totaled 150,313

in fiscal year 2001. The fiscal year 2002 budget request is 147,237

end strength. The following table summarizes Guard and Reserve

full-time support end strengths:

FY 2001 estimate Budget request Recommendation Change from

request

Army Reserve:

AGR ............................................................... 13,106 13,108 13,108 ..........................

Technicians ................................................... 7,094 7,094 7,094 ..........................

Navy Reserve: TAR ................................................. 14,649 14,811 14,811 ..........................

Marine Corps Reserve: AR ..................................... 2,261 2,261 2,261 ..........................

Air Force Reserve:

AGR ............................................................... 1,336 1,437 1,437 ..........................

Technicians ................................................... 9,730 9,818 9,818 ..........................

Army National Guard:

AGR ............................................................... 22,974 22,974 22,974 ..........................

Technicians ................................................... 24,728 23,957 23,957 ..........................

Air National Guard:

AGR ............................................................... 11,170 11,591 11,591 ..........................

Technicians ................................................... 22,547 22,772 22,772 ..........................

Total:

AGR/TAR ........................................................ 65,496 66,182 66,182 ..........................

Technicians ................................................... 64,099 63,641 63,641 ..........................

19

MILITARY PERSONNEL, ARMY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $22,175,357,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 23,626,684,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 23,336,884,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥289,800,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,336,884,000

for Military Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase

of $1,161,527,000 above the $22,175,357,000 appropriated for fiscal

year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

20

21

The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel,

Army are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:

1100 Special Pays/Loan Repayment Program ..................................... ¥6,000

Other Adjustments:

2720 Personnel Underexecution ........................................................... ¥104,300

2800 Variances in Personnel Strength Totals ..................................... ¥145,600

2805 Individuals in Appellate Review .................................................. ¥8,000

2810 End of Year Retirements .............................................................. ¥5,000

2815 $30,000 Lump Sum Bonus ........................................................... ¥20,900

MILITARY PERSONNEL, NAVY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $17,772,297,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 19,606,984,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 19,574,184,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥32,800,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,574,184,000

for Military Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase

of $1,801,887,000 above the $17,772,297,000 appropriated for fiscal

year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

22

23

The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel,

Navy are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:

5250 Unemployment Benefits ................................................................. ¥1,200

Other Adjustments:

5615 Individuals in Appellate Review .................................................. ¥8,000

5620 End of Year Retirements .............................................................. ¥5,000

5625 $30,000 Lump Sum Bonus ........................................................... ¥18,600

MILITARY PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $6,833,100,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 7,365,040,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 7,343,640,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥21,400,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,343,640,000

for Military Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an

increase of $510,540,000 above the $6,833,100,000 appropriated for

fiscal year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

24

25

The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel,

Marine Corps are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:

6700 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses ............................ ¥8,600

Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:

7900 Unemployment Benefits ............................................................... ¥2,500

Other Adjustments:

8245 Individuals in Appellate Review .................................................. ¥4,000

8250 End of Year Retirements .............................................................. ¥2,000

8255 $30,000 Lump Sum Bonus ........................................................... ¥4,300

MILITARY PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $18,174,284,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 20,151,514,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 19,784,614,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥366,900,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $19,784,614,000

for Military Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $1,610,330,000 above the $18,174,284,000 appropriated

for fiscal year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

26

27

The adjustments to the budget activities for Military Personnel,

Air Force are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Pay and Allowances of Officers:

8750 Special Pays/Critical Skills Accession Bonus ............................. ¥13,100

8750 Special Pays/Critical Skills Retention Bonus ............................. ¥19,000

Budget Activity 2: Pay and Allowances of Enlisted Personnel:

9350 Special Pays/Selective Reenlistment Bonuses ............................ ¥42,500

Budget Activity 6: Other Military Personnel Costs:

10700 Unemployment Benefits ............................................................... ¥4,700

Other Adjustments:

10965 Personnel Underexecution ......................................................... ¥206,000

11020 Variances in Personnel Strength Totals ................................... ¥49,900

11030 Individuals in Appellate Review ................................................ ¥8,000

11040 End of Year Retirements ............................................................ ¥5,000

11045 $30,000 Lump Sum Bonus ......................................................... ¥18,700

RESERVE PERSONNEL, ARMY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $2,473,001,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 2,604,197,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,629,197,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +25,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,629,197,000

for Reserve Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase

of $156,196,000 above the $2,473,001,000 appropriated for fiscal

year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

28

29

The adjustment to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel,

Army is shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:

12020 Inactive Duty Training Shortfall ............................................... 25,000

RESERVE PERSONNEL, NAVY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $1,576,174,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 1,643,523,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,644,823,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +1,300,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,644,823,000

for Reserve Personnel, Navy. The recommendation is an increase of

$68,649,000 above the $1,576,174,000 appropriated for fiscal year

2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

30

31

The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel,

Navy are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:

12860 Personnel Underexecution ......................................................... ¥2,700

12870 ADT Fleet Support ...................................................................... 4,000

RESERVE PERSONNEL, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $448,886,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 463,300,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 466,800,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +3,500,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $466,800,000 for

Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $17,914,000 above the $448,886,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

32

33

The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel,

Marine Corps are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:

13740 Personnel Underexecution ......................................................... ¥1,400

13750 Active Duty for Special Work .................................................... 4,900

RESERVE PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $971,024,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 1,055,160,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,055,160,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,055,160,000

for Reserve Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is an increase of $84,136,000 above the $971,024,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

34

35

The adjustments to the budget activities for Reserve Personnel,

Air Force are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Unit and Individual Training:

13950 Pay Group A Training/Realignment of Funds .......................... 12,500

Budget Activity 2: Other Training and Support:

14400 Administration and Support/Realignment of Funds ................ ¥8,500

14550 Health Profession Scholarship/Realignment of Funds ............. ¥4,000

REALIGNMENT OF FUNDS

The Committee recommends that $12,500,000 of Budget Activity

two funds for ‘‘Reserve Personnel, Air Force’’ be realigned to Budget Activity one programs based on a General Accounting Office review of previous years unexpended fund balances and transfers between these budget activities.

NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, ARMY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $3,782,536,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 4,014,135,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 4,004,335,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥9,800,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,004,335,000

for National Guard Personnel, Army. The recommendation is an increase of $221,799,000 above the $3,782,536,000 appropriated for

fiscal year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

36

37

The adjustment to the budget activities for National Guard Personnel, Army is shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:

15355 Personnel Underexecution ......................................................... ¥9,800

NATIONAL GUARD PERSONNEL, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $1,641,081,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 1,776,744,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,777,654,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +910,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,777,654,000

for National Guard Personnel, Air Force. The recommendation is

an increase of $136,573,000 above the $1,641,081,000 appropriated

for fiscal year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

38

39

The adjustment to the budget activities for National Guard Personnel, Air Force is shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:

16175 Ballistic Missile Range Safety Technology Project .................. 910

BALLISTIC MISSILE RANGE SAFETY TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM

The Committee recommends an increase of $910,000 to the budget request for the Ballistic Missile Range Safety Technology

(BMRST) program. The funds provided are for Active Guard and

Reserve (AGR) personnel assigned to the Air National Guard Space

Launch Execution Flight at the Eastern Test Range, who support

launch operations for continued range safety certification.

(41)

TITLE II

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

The fiscal year 2002 budget request for programs funded in Title

II of the Committee bill, Operation and Maintenance, is

$106,788,645,000 in new budget authority, which is an increase of

$9,898,871,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2001.

The accompanying bill recommends $105,282,379,000 for fiscal

year 2002, which is an increase of $8,392,605,000 above the

amount appropriated for fiscal year 2001. As described elsewhere

in this report, these amounts reflect the amounts provided in Title

II of the Committee bill, after the movement of $708,393,000 of

funds budgeted in this Title to a new appropriations title, Title IX.

These appropriations finance the costs of operating and maintaining the Armed Forces, including the reserve components and

related support activities of the Department of Defense (DoD), except military personnel costs. Included are pay for civilians, services for maintenance of equipment and facilities, fuel, supplies, and

spare parts for weapons and equipment. Financial requirements

are influenced by many factors, including force levels such as the

number of aircraft squadrons, Army and Marine Corps divisions,

installations, military personnel strength and deployments, rates of

operational activity, and the quantity and complexity of equipment

such as aircraft, ships, missiles and tanks in operation.

The table below summarizes the Committee’s recommendations.

42

43

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OVERVIEW

The Committee is heartened by the increased operation and

maintenance funding requested by the administration in the fiscal

year 2002 budget request. Substantial increases have been requested for flying hours, depot maintenance, repair and maintenance of real property, and base operations. The Committee recommends an overall increase of $8,392,605,000 above the amount

appropriated for fiscal year 2001. The services’ flying hour requirements to meet readiness training goals are fully funded. Land

forces readiness training funding increased only slightly in the

Army, and in fact the Army has taken a calculated risk by decreasing operating tempo for home station M1 Abrams Tank training

from 800 to 730 miles. Marine Corps funding requested for land

forces reflects a slight decrease as the Marine Corps chose not to

sustain a fiscal year 2001 congressional increase.

The budget request supports a much improved funding situation

for the real property maintenance accounts. The Committee fully

supports the Department’s request, providing an increase of more

than $700,000,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level,

largely arresting the decline in facilities readiness. Additionally,

the Committee is concerned with the lack of an overall Department

of Defense standard in this area. Many of the functions of the Department present serious challenges to the application of standard

commercial practices or benchmarks. Facilities maintenance, however, should be an area where the promulgation of a single standard is a reasonable goal, and it is a goal that the Committee believes should be pursued vigorously. The Committee understands

that the Department of Defense has implemented the Facilities

Sustainment Model (FSM), and that FSM data will support the fiscal year 2003 budget request, providing the needed common benchmark for assessing facilities maintenance across the Department.

In Title II of the bill, the Committee has fully supported the Department of Defense’s requested increases in the flying hour program, ship and aircraft depot maintenance, real property maintenance, and base operations. These key accounts have increased a

total of nearly $6.8 billion above the fiscal year 2001 appropriated

level. The Committee supports the requested increases, and has

provided approximately $50,000,000 above the Department’s request in depot maintenance and base operations. The OPTEMPO

training request for Army units is fully supported. The Committee

has provided each of the services increased funding to support a

number of critical items that are key to training, operational readiness, operational efficiency, and troop welfare. And the Committee

has recommended reductions from the budget request to reflect fact

of life changes, to curb growth in administrative areas, to encourage streamlining, and to support the management actions the Department of Defense should take to improve its overall efficiency.

CIVILIAN PAY

The Committee has fully funded the budget request for a 3.6 percent pay increase for civilian employees of the Department of Defense. The Committee understands that the Department of Defense

may implement an increase in pay that is greater than 3.6 percent,

44

and directs that any increase above 3.6 percent will be paid from

within funds available to the DoD.

JUNIOR ROTC

The Committee recommends an increase of $5,000,000 above the

budget request for the Junior ROTC program, to be provided in the

Operation and Maintenance accounts. The services are slowly increasing the number of Junior ROTC units. In order to accelerate

the growth in Junior ROTC units, the Committee recommends additional funding over the budget request to be distributed as follows.

Army .................................................................................................... $2,500,000

Navy .................................................................................................... 930,000

Marine Corps ...................................................................................... 370,000

Air Force .............................................................................................. 1,200,000

GOVERNMENT PURCHASE CARD

The Committee understands that the Department of Defense

purchase card program was designed to reduce the bureaucratic

processes and paperwork involved with making small purchases.

Cardholders can be authorized single-transaction limits of $2,500,

$25,000, or $100,000. In fiscal year 2000, the services and defense

agencies spent just over $5.5 billion using purchase cards. Fiscal

year 2001 data indicate that the rate of spending using purchase

cards is on the rise. However, the simplified and streamlined procedures of the purchase card program require close supervision and

review by supervisors to ensure that funds are expended for proper

purposes.

In July of 2001, the General Accounting Office testified before

Congress on its review of the Government Purchase Card Program.

The GAO reviewed purchase card use in two Navy organizations in

San Diego, California. The GAO found weak internal controls, including: (1) policies governing the issuance of purchase cards were

ineffective, leading to proliferation of card holders; (2) employees

were not sufficiently trained on the use of the purchase card, and

employees did not follow established procedures; (3) approximately

2,600 account numbers were compromised, a partial list was found

at a college library, and at least 30 accounts received fraudulent

charges; (4) internal reviews and audits were ineffective; (5) efforts

to maximize rebates were ineffective; (6) easily pilferable items

that were acquired using purchase cards were often missing from

organizational property records; and (7) many items were purchased for personal use, including laptop computers, clothing, an

air conditioner and jewelry.

The Committee is most concerned that supervisors who were responsible to review and certify that purchases made with the card

were for proper purposes in many cases failed to fulfill their responsibilities, thus allowing unnecessary and fraudulent purchases

to continue.

The accompanying bill includes a general provision that reduces

the total amount available in Operation and Maintenance by

$330,000,000 to reflect savings due to improved scrutiny and supervision in determining appropriate purchases.

45

HEADQUARTERS STAFF

The Committee commends the Secretary of Defense for his announced intentions to significantly reduce all headquarters staff by

15 percent below fiscal year 1999 levels. The Secretary’s ‘‘Battle

Against Bureaucracy’’ will further the Committee’s longstanding

and continuing efforts to shift Department of Defense resources

from the bureaucracy to the battlefield. As the Department of Defense undertakes an assault against terrorism and initiates other

activities to protect our homeland, this restructuring will ensure

that manpower and resources are available for the task at hand.

In support of the Secretary’s efforts to complete this reduction by

2003, the Committee has reduced funding for management headquarters civilian personnel as follows.

Army .................................................................................................... $82,200,000

Navy .................................................................................................... 51,100,000

Marine Corps ...................................................................................... 4,000,000

Air Force .............................................................................................. 50,400,000

Defense Wide ...................................................................................... 54,300,000

ADVISORY AND ASSISTANCE SERVICES AND CONTRACT WORKFORCE

The fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense budget request would provide an increase of approximately $17,000,000 in advisory

and assistance (consultant) services. The Committee is concerned

by any action in the Department that devotes more funding to administrative functions at the expense of critical combat and combat

support activities. In addition, the Department of Defense Commercial Activities Report of August 2001 estimates that the fiscal year

2000 commercial and industrial workforce totaled 1,203,000 civilian

manpower authorizations and contractor work-year equivalents.

This workforce was estimated to be 39 percent in-house Defense

Department civilians, and 61 percent contracted workforce. The

contractor workforce is expected to remain constant for fiscal year

2001, at 732,000 work-year equivalents, whereas the DoD civilian

workforce is expected to decline by two percent. This would seem

to indicate a situation where the DoD is not streamlining its administrative practices or eliminating unnecessary and outdated

functions, but merely transferring the same functions from federal

workers to contractors who arguably have less loyalty and accountability to the organization, and whose use can cause more disruption due to personnel turnover than the federal workers they replaced.

The Committee believes that inadequate scrutiny is given to requests for contract workyears, and that significant savings can be

achieved by making a thorough review of services provided and the

number of work years devoted to such services. The Committee recognizes that contracting for certain functions has worked well for

the Department of Defense, enabling the Department to obtain key

services, such as equipment technical support, engineering and automation services, and certain unique capabilities. Many contractor

services have proven to be responsive when needed, and the contractor workforce is more easily sized than the federal workforce.

However, contractor work-years, once established, tend to grow

over time with inadequate discipline in challenging requested supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
46

port. The Committee concludes that sufficient advisory and assistance support is provided by sustaining the fiscal year 2001 level,

and that a 1.25 percent reduction in contractor work-years is

achievable without diminishing essential commercial and industrial

capabilities.

The accompanying bill includes a general provision that reduces

the total amount appropriated for contracted workyears, including

advisory and assistance services, by $955,000,000 of which

$898,000,000 is to be derived from Operation and Maintenance.

The Committee directs that none of the reduction in contractor

support shall be applied to activities that directly support anti-terrorism, force protection, consequence management or other similar

counter terrorism efforts in response to the attack of September 11,

2001.

The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than June

30, 2002, which details by service and defense agency, and further

divided by service and agency major suborganization, Federal Service Code Group, and appropriation account through which contracted, the reductions in contractor workyear equivalents made in

order to achieve the efficiencies specified in the general provision.

HEADQUARTERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

The Committee recommends reductions of $54,000,000 below the

budget request for headquarters and administrative activities as

shown below. The Committee supports the effort of the House

Armed Services Committee to reduce administrative expenses in

favor of supporting war-fighting-unit training and operations.

Army .................................................................................................... $10,000,000

Navy .................................................................................................... 30,000,000

Air Force .............................................................................................. 14,000,000

INTERNATIONAL MILITARY HEADQUARTERS AND SUPPORT OF OTHER

NATIONS

The Committee recommends reductions of $44,000,000 below the

budget request as shown below, sustaining only slight growth in

this activity. The Committee supports the House Armed Services

Committee’s actions in this regard. The amount of growth included

in the budget request seems unwarranted considering remaining

readiness and modernization shortfalls.

Army .................................................................................................... $39,000,000

Air Force .............................................................................................. 5,000,000

A–76 STUDIES

The Committee recommends reductions of $76,500,000 in funding

requested for A–76 studies as shown below. The Committee shares

the concerns of the House Armed Services Committee regarding the

cost of the studies, and the number of studies planned to be accomplished. Additionally, the Committee cautions against overly optimistic savings assumptions considering the time required to accomplish the studies and the frequently lengthy appeals process.

47

Army .................................................................................................... $8,360,000

Navy .................................................................................................... 53,560,000

Marine Corps ...................................................................................... 1,000,000

Air Force .............................................................................................. 8,320,000

Defense-Wide ...................................................................................... 5,260,000

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE BUDGET EXECUTION DATA

The Committee directs the Department of Defense to continue to

provide the congressional defense committees with quarterly budget execution data. Such data should be provided not later than

forty-five days past the close of each quarter for the fiscal year, and

should be provided for each O–1 budget activity, activity group,

and subactivity group for each of the active, defense-wide, reserve

and National Guard components. For each O–1 budget activity, activity group, and subactivity group, these reports should include

the budget request and actual obligations; the DoD distribution of

unallocated congressional adjustments to the budget request; all

adjustments made by DoD during the process of rebaselining the

O&M accounts; all adjustments resulting from below threshold

reprogrammings; and all adjustments resulting from prior approval

reprogramming requests.

In addition, the Committee requires that the Department of Defense provide semiannual written notifications to the congressional

defense committees which summarize Operation and Maintenance

budget execution to include the effect of rebaselining procedures,

other below threshold reprogrammings, and prior approval

reprogrammings. The Committee further directs that the Department of Defense provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations written notification 30 days prior to executing procedures to rebaseline Operation and Maintenance accounts.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE REPROGRAMMINGS

The Committee directs that proposed transfers of funds between

O–1 budget activities in excess of $15,000,000 be subject to normal

prior approval reprogramming procedures. Items for which funds

have been specifically provided in any appropriation in the report

using phrases ‘‘only for’’ and ‘‘only to’’ are Congressional interest

items for the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD form

1414). Each of these items must be carried on the DD1414 at the

stated amount, or revised amount if changed during conference or

if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. In addition, due to continuing concerns about force readiness and the diversion of Operation and Maintenance funds, the Committee directs the Department of Defense to provide written notification to

the congressional defense committees for the cumulative value of

any and all transfers in excess of $15,000,000 from the following

budget activities and subactivity group categories:

Operation and maintenance, Army

Land Forces: Divisions, Corps combat forces, Corps support

forces, Echelon above Corps forces, Land forces operation support;

Land Forces Readiness: Land forces depot maintenance.

48

Operation and maintenance, Navy

Air Operations: Mission and other flight operations, Fleet air

training, Aircraft depot maintenance; Ship Operations: Mission and

other ship operations, Ship operational support and training, Intermediate maintenance, Ship depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps

Expeditionary Forces: Operational forces, Depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Air Force

Air Operations: Primary combat forces, Primary combat weapons,

Air operations training, Depot maintenance; Mobility Operations:

Airlift operations, Depot maintenance, Payments to the transportation business area; Basic Skill and Advance Training: Depot

maintenance; Logistics Operations: Depot maintenance.

Further, the Department should follow prior approval reprogramming procedures for transfers in excess of $15,000,000 out of the

following budget subactivities.

Operation and maintenance, Army

Depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Navy

Aircraft depot maintenance,

Ship depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps

Depot maintenance.

Operation and maintenance, Air Force

Air Operations, Depot maintenance,

Mobility Operations, Depot maintenance,

Basic Skills and Advanced Training, Depot maintenance, and Logistics Operations, Depot maintenance.

0–1 REPROGRAMMING APPROVAL REQUIREMENT

The Committee is concerned about the Department’s efforts to

undermine Congressional intent with regard to specific program reductions taken in the Committee’s report. While the Committee

does not object to the Department’s common practice of below

threshold reprogramming to address pricing increases (such as fuel,

inflation, foreign currency, etc.) and emerging requirements, the

Committee does object when the Department restores funding to

programs that have been specifically reduced by Congress as shown

in annual Committee reports. The Committee directs that all funding reductions to programs and activities in Operation and Maintenance appropriations, other than those related to pricing, are made

with prejudice and shall be so shown on DD Form 1414 for fiscal

year 2002 and subsequent fiscal years for Operation and Maintenance appropriations. Increases to such programs and activities

may be requested from the congressional defense committees subject to normal prior approval reprogramming procedures.

49

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $19,144,431,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 21,191,680,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 21,021,944,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥169,736,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $21,021,944,000

for Operation and Maintenance, Army. The recommendation is an

increase of $1,877,513,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal

year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

50

51

52

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Army are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

250 M-Gator ........................................................................................... 3,500

250 CAMS ............................................................................................... 10,000

250 Blister Guard Socks ........................................................................ 1,000

250 10th Mountain Division ASL Containers ..................................... 1,000

250 Hydration on the Move (Camelbak) .............................................. 1,500

650 Mobile Kitchen Trailers .................................................................. 5,000

650 Communications and Electronics .................................................. 10,000

650 Anniston Army Depot Apprenticeship Program ........................... 3,000

750 NTC Airhead ................................................................................... 1,500

750 Training Facilities Support ............................................................ 9,200

750 Salute Our Services Pilot Program ............................................... 3,000

Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:

1850 DLI Dormitory Furnishings and Equipment .............................. 1,280

1850 Military Police MCTFT Joint Training ....................................... 1,000

2050 Fort Bliss Desalination Plant Study ........................................... 1,600

2400 Junior ROTC ................................................................................. 2,500

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

2750 Servicewide Transportation ......................................................... ¥10,000

2750 MTMC DRMEC Demo Project including RAPID ....................... 4,000

2800 Pulse Technology—Battery Management ................................... 5,000

2800 Pulse Technology—BATTCAVE .................................................. 3,000

2850 Electronic Maintenance System Interactive Electronic Maintenance Manual ........................................................................................ 4,000

2850 LOGTECH Center of Excellence in Logistics ............................. 1,000

3000 Administration .............................................................................. ¥10,000

3050 Servicewide Communication (JCALS) ......................................... ¥12,000

3100 Manpower Management (DCPS) ................................................. ¥6,400

3200 Other Servicewide Support .......................................................... ¥9,000

3350 A–76 Process Aberdeen Proving Ground .................................... ¥2,000

3600 International Military Headquarters .......................................... ¥39,000

Undistributed:

3710 Classified Programs ...................................................................... 10,794

3740 Memorial Events ........................................................................... 350

3835 Repairs at Fort Baker .................................................................. 1,000

3845 Defense Joint Accounting System ............................................... ¥12,500

3950 A–76 Studies ................................................................................. ¥8,360

3970 Information Technology System, Army ....................................... ¥20,000

3990 Headquarters Staff Reduction ..................................................... ¥82,200

4000 Travel of Persons .......................................................................... ¥19,000

4010 Civilian Personnel Underexecution ............................................. ¥16,000

4020 Mobility Enhancement Study ...................................................... 500

4040 WMD—Response Element Adv Lab Training ............................ 2,000

4060 Camouflage Nets (for inefficient buying practices) .................... ¥10,000

ELECTRONIC MAINTENANCE SYSTEM

Electronic Maintenance System (EMS) Interactive Electronic

Technical Manuals (IETM), and associated vehicle computer displays with Point-to-Point Wiring & Signal Tracing significantly improves operational readiness and reduces the total cost of ownership of U.S. Army tactical and combat war fighting vehicles. In an

effort to exploit the capabilities of these systems the Committee

recommends an increase of $4,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army.

CAMERA ASSISTED MONITORING SYSTEM—CAMS

The Committee recommends an additional $10,000,000 for Operation and Maintenance, Army, only for a demonstration of the capability and effectiveness of the Camera Assisted Monitoring SysVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
53

tem (CAMS) baseline system. The Committee believes that the application of CAMS technology will enhance the capabilities of

peacekeeping forces to conduct observation missions.

MOBILE KITCHEN TRAILERS DEPOT MAINTENANCE

The Committee recommends an additional $5,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army, only for a rebuild program which includes upgrade to the MKT–I configuration.

COMMUNICATIONS ELECTRONICS

The Committee recommends an additional $10,000,000 only for

depot maintenance of critical communications and electronics systems that were not funded in the budget request, or communications and electronics systems in the Army’s recapitalization program that were not funded in the budget request. These communications and electronics systems include: AN/TPQ–36/37

Firefinder Radar; AN/ASM–146/147 Electronic Maintenance Shelters/Vans; AN/TSC–85/93 Tactical Satellite Terminals; AN/PRC–

126 Radio Sets; AN/TRC–170 Microwave Terminals; AN/TLQ–17

Trafficjam systems; and AN/PPX–3 Interrogator Sets.

SALUTE OUR SERVICES PILOT PROGRAM

The Committee recommends an additional $3,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army only for a privately run United

States Army pilot program to improve family support services for

deployed personnel. This program should include an interactive

web based management system for deployed service members and

their loved ones, a mentoring program enlisting the aid of spouses

who have experienced a deployment, outreach efforts to engage the

business and corporate community in partnerships with the military, and a mechanism for the various service branches to share information regarding existing, successful quality of life programs for

possible implementation.

MOBILITY ENHANCEMENT STUDY

The Committee recommends an additional $500,000 in Operation

and Maintenance, Army only for the conduct of a study of potential

improvements to railroad transportation support for the National

Training Center.

OPTEMPO TRAINING RESOURCE METRICS

The Committee is troubled by the Army’s fiscal year 2002 budget

proposal to reduce the OPTEMPO training budget by $300,000,000

compared to the established funding requirement. This comes despite an overall increase of $2,047,249,000 in the Army Operation

and Maintenance budget request. For fiscal year 2002, the Army

budgeted for 730 home-station tank training miles (versus the established standard of 800 miles), and 14.0 helicopter flying hours

per-crew-per-month (versus the established standard of 14.5 hours),

plus additional tank miles for training at the National Training

Center. The explanation provided by the Army is that it has elected

to ‘‘assume risk’’ in training and apply the resources to infrastructure shortfalls that were incurred during the 1990s. The Army

54

leadership testified it plans to reevaluate the status of training at

mid-year and, if required, internally shift Army funds from other

O&M accounts to address any critical shortfall.

The Committee views this proposal as another indication of what

now appears to be a dysfunctional OPTEMPO training resource

management process that no longer can be relied upon to accurately justify budgetary requirements to Congress. There has been

a continuing disparity between the training resources the Army

claims it needs according to its ‘‘tank mile’’ and ‘‘helicopter flying

hour’’ standards, and the training resources it actually expends. In

many years, the Army has under-executed its 800-mile tank mile

standard by more than 20 percent, while still reporting no great

diminution in C–1 and C–2 unit readiness status. Over the last

several years, the Army has spent literally billions of appropriated

dollars for non-OPTEMPO Operation and Maintenance activities

that had been originally justified to Congress (and appropriated)

for OPTEMPO training.

The Committee views the Army OPTEMPO training budget as a

top priority and is unwilling to tolerate this situation in future

years. At this point, the Committee is simply not confident that it

is being furnished with valid measures against which to judge the

adequacy of the Army OPTEMPO budget. For fiscal year 2002, the

Committee sees that it has little choice but to rely upon the promise of the Army leadership to make an ad hoc, subjective review of

this situation halfway through the fiscal year. The Secretary of the

Army is directed to provide a written report to the congressional

defense committees on the results of this review and the actions

taken by the Army to address any perceived shortfalls.

For the future, the Committee puts the Army on notice that it

will be expected to completely overhaul its OPTEMPO training

budget metrics to construct more precise and accurate indicators of

what a given level of budgetary investment will achieve. Better

OPTEMPO variables and standards must be developed based on

21st Century training practices to accurately estimate and project

the cost of Army training (both direct and indirect) to achieve a desired level of readiness. Such revised standards should be workable, quantifiable, and understandable. The Committee therefore

directs the Army to undertake a thorough review of the current

training resource metrics and directs the Secretary of the Army to

submit a report to the congressional defense committees by no later

than July 31, 2002 explaining how the Army plans to reform this

process. The Committee expects the Army to include in this report

a rebasing of its fiscal year 2003 OPTEMPO budget request against

its new OPTEMPO metrics, and to base all future budget submissions on these new metrics.

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND A–76 COMPETITION

The Committee recommends a reduction of $2,000,000 from the

amount requested for Operation and Maintenance, Army in the

Base Operations Support Account. In February 2000 the Comptroller General upheld an appeal to an Army A–76 competition decision. The Army has failed to fully and promptly implement the

recommendations of the Comptroller General.

55

TRAINING FACILITIES

The Committee has provided $9,200,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Army only for repair of the Fort Irwin—Goldstone Road,

installation of ‘‘Deep Strike’’ fiber optic cable to China Lake and

range/targetry upgrades to improve training at the National Training Center.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS CENTER

The Committee is aware of the challenges posed by the various

threats to the critical domestic transportation infrastructure and

the potential impact to the national warfighting capability. The

Army is directed to study the possible establishment of a Transportation Infrastructure Analysis Center (TIAC) at Letterkenny Army

Depot in Pennsylvania. The TIAC would be dual missioned, to analyze the United States critical transportation infrastructure, and to

prepare National Guardsmen for their warfighting mission of identifying critical infrastructures for either protection or interdiction.

CAMOUFLAGE NETS

The Committee recommends a reduction of $10,000,000 from the

amount requested for Operation and Maintenance, Army to recapture the savings the Army has failed to realize over several years

due to illogical purchasing procedures for lightweight camouflage

nets. The Committee understands that due to defective buying procedures, the Army believes it must continue to purchase replacement nets designed in the 1970’s that are technically inferior to

multi-spectral threat sensors, less durable, weigh twice as much,

and cost nearly twice as much as other nets that are available to

the Army. The Committee is puzzled why the Army cannot rectify

this situation that not only wastes money, but also raises concerns

about force protection. The Committee expects the Army to take

prompt action to establish the preferred, more effective camouflage

nets on the appropriate supply schedules so that units can purchase the new nets (to complete unit sets or as replacement items

for nets that become unserviceable), using unit operation and maintenance funds. The accompanying bill includes a general provision

(Sec. 8141) to clarify any legal ambiguity for the Army on this matter.

ARMY CORROSION PREVENTION AND CONTROL PROGRAM

The Committee is aware of new technologies in the prevention of

corrosion which can significantly reduce corrosion costs and improve readiness. Of the funds made available in Operation and

Maintenance, Army the Committee directs that $2,000,000 be made

available only for the Army Corrosion Prevention and Control Program.

CONTROLLED HUMIDITY PRESERVATION PROGRAM

The Committee understands that the Controlled Humidity Preservation (CHP) Program enhances the long-term condition of forward based equipment by protecting it from moisture induced corrosion and electronic system degradation. New portable CHP storage facilities offer greater flexibility through the redeployment of

56

the soft storage tunnel systems as experienced by the US Army

Materiel Command in Qatar and Italy, increased operational efficiencies, and enhanced relocation possibilities for CHP storage

shelters as required to support the rapidly changing needs of operational and regional commanders. The Committee directs that of

the funds available for Operation and Maintenance, Army,

$1,000,000 shall be available only for the Controlled Humidity

Preservation Program for the implementation of portable CHP tunnel systems for forward based equipment, vehicles, spare parts and

weapons systems.

MILITARY POLICE SCHOOL/MCTFT JOINT TRAINING

The Committee recommends an additional $1,000,000 above the

budget request for use by the Military Police School to provide for

training by the Multijurisdictional Counterdrug Task Force Training in support of Multijurisdictional Task Force activities. The

Committee commends the Army Military Police School for the valuable training it provides to law enforcement personnel in support

of the counter-drug effort. However, the Committee is aware that

the capacity for training by the Military Police School at Fort Leonard Wood is limited and unable to meet the total demands of law

enforcement. The Multijurisdictional Counterdrug Task Force

Training is ideally suited to expand the course offerings provide by

the Military Police School.

RECRUITING AND ADVERTISING

The Committee continues to support the Army’s recruiting and

advertising campaign to ensure the Army achieves its recruiting

goals. The Committee directs that no less than $6,600,000 of funds

provided for Operation and Maintenance, Army be used to maintain existing production efforts directed toward certain audiences,

including Hispanic recruits.

MILITARY ENTRANCE PROCESSING STATION (MEPS)

The Committee directs that of the funds provided for Examining

in Operation and Maintenance, Army that $20,000 be used only for

replacement of computers and computer upgrades at the MEPS facility in Kansas City, Missouri.

BIOCONTAINMENT RESEARCH FACILITY

The Committee is aware of the need of the United States Department of Agriculture to establish a new high security biocontainment laboratory on the East Coast to aid in its vital clinical research to combat new biological threats such as the West Nile virus

that are spread by invasive species. The Committee directs the

Army Surgeon General to conduct a coordinated review with the

USDA and other Army commands that have responsibility for biological warfare defense to determine the benefits and research opportunities of establishing a shared USDA-Army state-of-the-art,

security level 3 (BL–3) biocontainment facility. This review shall:

(1) assess the need to upgrade the biological research laboratory facilities for both the USDA and the Army and how a BL–3 facility

could benefit the missions of both organizations; (2) assess the opVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
57

portunities and benefits of expanding the scientific research relationships between the Army, the USDA, and the academic community in the area of combating biological threats to the United

States populace and its food supply; and (3) define the need, cost,

critical design features, and possible construction timetable to establish a new high security biocontainment research facility at an

academic institution. The Surgeon General shall submit a report to

the congressional defense committees by no later than 180 days

after enactment of this Act on the results of this review.

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Expert Radar

Signature Solutions (ERADS) project.

The Committee recommends an additional $5,000,000 for the Defense Language Program. The Committee directs these funds be

used to meet critical advanced language training requirements for

the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community.

Further discussion of the Committee’s recommendations is contained in the Classified Annex.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $23,419,360,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 26,961,382,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 26,628,075,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥333,307,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $26,628,075,000

for Operation and Maintenance, Navy. The recommendation is an

increase of $3,208,715,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal

year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

58

59

60

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Navy are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

4500 DSM–156 Missile Test Set Upgrade ........................................... 2,000

4600 NAVAIR CAT and RADCOM test system .................................. 10,000

5050 NUWC Torpedo Depot Apprentice .............................................. 2,000

5050 Improved Engineering Design Process ........................................ 6,000

5550 Manual Reverse Osmosis Desalinators ....................................... 1,500

5550 Naval Coastal Warfare Training Improvements ........................ 5,000

5950 Mark 45 Gun System Overhaul ................................................... 2,000

5950 Phalanx CIWS Units Overhaul ................................................... 3,000

6220 Innovative Safety Management ................................................... 5,000

6220 Northwest Environmental Resource Center ............................... 7,000

6220 NWS Seal Beach Detachment, Concord, Joint Use Feasibility

Analysis ................................................................................................. 1,500

6620 Excess Administrative Overhead ................................................. ¥1,500

Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:

7000 ROTC Programs ............................................................................ 2,200

7200 Naval Aviation Apprenticeship Program .................................... 2,000

7300 NPS CDTEMS .............................................................................. 4,000

7350 Distance Learning CNET ............................................................. 4,000

7350 Navy Learning Network Program CNET ................................... 4,000

7350 Maintenance and Training Process CNET ................................. 3,000

7700 Junior ROTC ................................................................................. 930

7700 Naval Sea Cadet Corps ................................................................ 1,000

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

8000 Administration .............................................................................. ¥30,000

8000 Advanced Technology Information Support ................................ 2,000

8550 Naval Facilities Engineering Command ..................................... ¥35,000

8550 Planning, Engineering and Design .............................................. ¥6,000

8550 NSW Carderock All Weather Cargo Transfer System ............... 500

8550 Stainless Steel Sanitary Space System ....................................... 5,000

8600 Acquisition and Program Management ...................................... ¥53,000

8600 SPAWAR ITC Operations ............................................................ 9,000

8650 Configuration Management Information System ....................... 3,000

Undistributed:

9280 Classified Programs ...................................................................... 3,223

9415 Defense Joint Accounting System ............................................... ¥7,000

9490 A–76 Studies ................................................................................. ¥53,560

9520 Enterprise Resource Planning ..................................................... ¥33,000

9540 Information Technology System, Navy ....................................... ¥20,000

9570 Navy Marine Corps Intranet ....................................................... ¥120,000

9580 Headquarters Staff Reduction ..................................................... ¥51,100

9590 Travel of Persons .......................................................................... ¥12,000

NUWC TORPEDO DEPOT APPRENTICE PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $2,000,000 only to establish a Torpedo Depot Maintenance Apprentice Program at the Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC).

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL—CDTEMS

The Committee recommends $4,000,000 only for the Office of

Naval Research to provide to the Naval Postgraduate School Center for Defense Technology and Education for the Military Services.

NAVY LEARNING NETWORK PROGRAM CNET

The Committee recommends $4,000,000 only for the Center for

Navy Education and Training for the continuation of the Navy

Learning Network Program.

61

MANUAL REVERSE OSMOSIS DESALINATORS

The Committee has provided an additional $1,500,000 for the refurbishment of Manual Reverse Osmosis Desalinators (MROD). Of

the additional funds provided, $1,000,000 is to be used for Navy

surface fleet MROD refurbishment, and $500,000 is to be used for

Navy Aviation MROD refurbishment.

INNOVATIVE SAFETY MANAGEMENT PILOT

The Committee recognizes that there are initiatives underway in

the private sector that dramatically reduce the incidence of workplace injuries and their related costs. The Committee also recognizes that the Department of the Navy has experienced high costs

in the area of civilian workplace injuries. The Committee therefore

directs the Secretary of the Navy to adopt for use in the workplace

of civilian employees of the Department of the Navy such work

safety models used by employers in the private sector that the Secretary considers as being representative of the best work safety

practices in use by private sector employers. The Committee recommends an additional $5,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance,

Navy to begin this initiative in fiscal year 2002.

NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND

The Committee is concerned that the budget justification for the

Naval Facilities Engineering Command has assumed funding in its

fiscal year 2001 adjusted baseline and its fiscal year 2002 budget

request that under traditional budget justifications would not be

included. The Committee has reduced funding for the Naval Facilities Engineering Command accordingly.

SHIP DEPOT MAINTENANCE

The Committee is aware that the ship depot maintenance account has been underfunded in recent years. This underfunding

was caused by several factors, including a deficient calculation that

understated the requirement, underfunding of the requirement

that was identified, and the added costs associated with high deployment levels. The Committee applauds the Navy’s recent effort

to revise the maintenance calculation to more adequately reflect

the real requirement, and to fully fund maintenance in the future.

The Committee recognizes, however, that the fiscal year 2002 budget may again lack the necessary funds to fully implement them.

The Committee expects that the fiscal year 2003 budget and future

year budgets will include the funding necessary to support 100 percent of the ship maintenance requirement. The Committee also directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide with the fiscal year 2003

budget submission a plan to eliminate the maintenance backlog

that has accumulated as a result of previous underfunding, and to

incorporate necessary funds in future budgets to execute that plan.

COMPUTER PROGRAM TRAINING

The Committee directs that of the funds provided for recruiting

and advertising in Operation and Maintenance, Navy that $15,000

be used only for a training plan to enhance computer literacy and

management skills for civilian employees and naval recruiters at

62

the Naval Recruiting District Headquarters in Kansas City, Missouri.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $2,778,758,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 2,892,314,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,939,434,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +47,120,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,939,434,000

for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps. The recommendation is an increase of $160,676,000 above the amount appropriated

for fiscal year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

63

64

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

10050 Extreme Cold Weather Clothing System .................................. 1,500

10050 Modular General Purpose Tent System .................................... 5,000

10050 Blister Guard Socks .................................................................... 1,000

10050 Hydration on the Move (Camelbak) .......................................... 1,500

10050 MOLLE ........................................................................................ 7,500

10100 Log Improvement Initiative (Ground Supply Chain Management) ...................................................................................................... 3,000

10100 Syst Integration Environment Spt for VII MEF ...................... 2,000

10150 Depot Maintenance—Radar Systems ........................................ 5,000

10200 Waste Water Treatment Study .................................................. 250

10200 Joint Service NBC Eqpt Assessment/Consolidation ................ 4,000

10200 Twentynine Palms MAGTF MOUT Facility Planning and

Design .................................................................................................... 1,500

10200 Training and Support Facilities ................................................ 16,900

10250 MAGTFTC Twentynine Palms .................................................. 2,600

Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:

11300 Junior ROTC ............................................................................... 370

Undistributed:

12060 Headquarters staff reduction ..................................................... ¥4,000

12070 A–76 Studies ............................................................................... ¥1,000

MARINE CORPS AIR-GROUND COMBAT CENTER TWENTYNINE PALMS

The Committee has provided an additional $2,600,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps only for the repair of facilities that were damaged by severe wind, rain, and flooding.

WASTE WATER TREATMENT STUDY

The Committee recommends an additional $250,000 in Operation

and Maintenance, Marine Corps only for a study of waste-water

collection and treatment, including the option of a joint system to

serve both Marine Corps Base Twentynine Palms, and the City of

Twentynine Palms.

JOINT SERVICE NBC DEFENSE EQUIPMENT ASSESSMENT AND

CONSOLIDATION PROGRAM

The Committee recommends an additional $4,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps for the Joint Service NBC

Defense Equipment Assessment and Consolidation Program, including expansion of the Consolidated Storage and Issue Facility

program.

DEPOT MAINTENANCE—RADARS

The Committee is aware that the Marine Corps has a backlog of

executable but unfunded depot maintenance requirements for critical radar systems. The Committee recommends an additional

$5,000,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps only for

depot level maintenance of radar systems.

TWENTYNINE PALMS MAGTF MOUT TRAINING FACILITY

The Committee recommends an additional $1,500,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps only for the planning and

design for construction of a Military Operations on Urban Terrain

65

(MOUT) training facility at the MAGTF Training Center at

Twentynine Palms, California.

TRAINING AND SUPPORT FACILITIES

The Committee recommends $7,400,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps for electrical distribution system improvements at Marine Corps Logistics Base, Barstow, California and

$9,500,000 in Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps for electrical system, communications infrastructure and other mission

critical improvements at the MAGTF Training Center, Twentynine

Palms, California.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $22,383,521,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 26,146,770,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 25,842,968,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥303,802,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,842,968,000

for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force. The recommendation is

an increase of $3,459,447,000 above the amount appropriated for

fiscal year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

66

67

68

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Air Force are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

12850 Battle Lab Engineering and Tech Support ............................... 5,500

12850 Air Force Server Consolidation .................................................. 5,000

13200 Excessive management overhead .............................................. ¥10,000

Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:

14600 IT Workforce Re-Skilling ............................................................ 1,000

15150 Junior ROTC ............................................................................... 1,200

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

15350 CKU–5 Rocket Catapult PPI ..................................................... 2,000

15350 Aging Propulsion System Life Extension .................................. 3,000

15350 L–SMART Information System Logistics Opns. ....................... 5,000

15350 Acquisition Efficiencies ............................................................... ¥25,000

15450 Servicewide Transportation ....................................................... ¥20,000

15650 Administration ............................................................................ ¥14,000

15700 Servicewide Communications .................................................... ¥8,000

15950 Other Servicewide Activities ...................................................... ¥19,000

15950 Manufacturing Technology Assistance Pilot ............................. 2,000

16100 William Lehman Aviation Center ............................................. 750

16350 International Support ................................................................. ¥5,000

Undistributed:

16450 Classified Programs .................................................................... ¥24,532

16660 Defense Joint Accounting System ............................................. ¥7,000

16720 Travel of Persons ........................................................................ ¥43,000

16750 Active Duty Military Personnel Underexecution Support ....... ¥75,000

16760 A–76 Studies ............................................................................... ¥8,320

16810 Information Technology System, Air Force .............................. ¥20,000

16830 Headquarters Staff Reduction ................................................... ¥50,400

ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY PERSONNEL UNDEREXECUTION

The Committee recommends a reduction of $75,000,000 below

the amount requested in Operation and Maintenance, Air Force for

operation and maintenance support to military personnel based on

continued military personnel underexecution.

CKU–5 ROCKET CATAPULT PPI

The Committee is concerned about the safety of pilots flying with

CKU–5 equipped ejection seats. In addition to funds provided elsewhere the Committee recommends $2,000,000 in Operation and

Maintenance, Air Force only for subsystem and system testing on

the CKU–5 and ACES II ejection seat.

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends a reduction of $3,000,000 in U–2 operations due to the availability of fiscal year 2001 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force funds which should be

transferred to Operation and Maintenance, Air Force to offset this

recommended reduction.

The Committee recommends an increase of $1,000,000 for the

Threat Representation and Validation project.

The Committee recommends an increase of $5,000,000 for the

continued support of the Eagle Vision systems for the Air National

Guard.

Further discussion of the Committee’s recommendations is contained in the Classified Annex.

69

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $11,844,480,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 12,518,631,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 12,122,590,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥396,041,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,122,590,000

for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is an increase of $278,110,000 from the amount appropriated

in fiscal year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

70

71

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 3: Training and Recruiting:

17460 DAU—Distance Learning Travel Savings ................................ ¥4,000

17460 DAU—Electronic Education for the Reserve Component in

both Classroom and Distributed Environments ................................. 2,000

17460 DAU—National Defense University XXI .................................. 2,000

17460 DAU—Distance Learning ........................................................... 3,000

17460 DAU—IT Organizational Composition Research ..................... 1,500

17480 DHRA—DLAMP ......................................................................... ¥30,000

17510 DTRA—Transfer to Title IX ....................................................... ¥1,246

Budget Activity 4: Administration and Servicewide Activities:

17750 AFIS—Pay Calculation and Utilities ........................................ ¥300

17775 Civil Military Programs—Youth Development and Leadership Program ......................................................................................... 750

17800 Classified Programs .................................................................... ¥988

17900 DCAA—Program Growth ........................................................... ¥7,400

17900 DCAA—Execution ....................................................................... ¥5,000

17910 DCMA—Pay Calculation, Program Growth ............................. ¥11,400

17910 DCMA—SPS Office Efficiencies ................................................. ¥1,000

18050 DISA ............................................................................................ ¥10,000

18150 DLA—Unemployment Compensation ........................................ ¥1,900

18150 DLA—Security Locks .................................................................. 10,000

18150 DLA—Obsolete NSNs ................................................................. ¥7,000

18300 DODEA—Utilities ....................................................................... ¥3,600

18310 Defense POW/Missing Persons Office—Personnel Recovery

Needs Assessment ................................................................................. 1,500

18320 DSCA—Budget Justifications .................................................... ¥4,900

18475 DSS—Improper Budget Adjustments ....................................... ¥1,500

18500 DTRA—Transfer to Title IX ....................................................... ¥258,597

18600 OEA—Philadelphia Naval Business Center (Improvements) 5,000

18600 OEA—City of St. Louis SLAAP/ATCOM Redevelopment ........ 2,000

18600 OEA—Norton AFB ...................................................................... 3,000

18600 OEA—Cecil Field ........................................................................ 4,000

18650 OSD—Program Growth .............................................................. ¥19,400

18650 OSD—CTMA ............................................................................... 12,000

18650 OSD—ADUSD (MPP&R) Wearable Computers ....................... 2,000

18650 OSD—CISA ................................................................................. 5,000

18650 OSD—Energy Sustainability Audits ......................................... 3,000

18820 JCS—Program Growth ............................................................... ¥12,000

18860 WHS—Program Growth ............................................................. ¥15,500

Undistributed:

19000 Legacy—CSS Alabama ............................................................... 1,000

19000 Legacy—CSS Hunley .................................................................. 900

19020 Impact Aid ................................................................................... 30,000

19070 Headquarters Staff Reduction ................................................... ¥54,300

19160 Defense Joint Accounting System ............................................. ¥13,000

19240 A–76 Studies ............................................................................... ¥5,260

19260 Information Technology System, Defense-Wide ....................... ¥20,000

19300 Reserve Component Joint Professional Military Education .... 3,600

DEFENSE-WIDE ENERGY SUSTAINABILITY AUDITS

The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the Secretary of Defense to implement an aggressive energy conservation program

that performs energy and sustainability audits of facilities throughout the services. The Committee provided funding in the fiscal year

2001 supplemental appropriations act (Public Law 107–20) to perform these activities in areas of the Western power grid and recommends funding in this legislation to expand this designated effort to installations nation-wide.

72

DLAMP

The Committee is concerned about the significant growth and

costs of the Defense Leadership and Management Program

(DLAMP). The fiscal year 2002 budget of $60,600,000 is

$15,200,000, or 33 percent higher than the fiscal year 2001 funding

level, and $39,100,000, or 200 percent, higher than the fiscal year

1999 funding level. Costs per student for participation in this program are significantly higher than corresponding graduate level

courses offered in both public and private academia. In addition,

costs per participant for the rotational assignments and the professional military education pillars of the program have become prohibitive. The Committee notes that DLAMP has not been audited

by oversight groups, including DHRA’s Chancellor for Education

and Professional Development, and a review is needed of the program’s mandatory provisions, structure, curriculum, and delivery

systems including the leasing of facilities. Until the new administration seeks alternatives for a more cost-effective program, the

Committee has eliminated funding for the rotational assignments

and professional military education pillars. In addition, the Committee directs that the Department conduct a review to address

these concerns and report back to the congressional defense committees prior to March 31, 2002.

DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY

The Committee directs the Defense Logistics Agency to suspend

any shipments of mercury to the Defense National Stockpile Center

Somerville Depot, until the completion of the ongoing environmental impact study.

LEGACY

The Committee encourages the Department to consider the University of California’s Western Center Museum at Diamond Valley

Lake, California, for funding under the Legacy program.

PERSONNEL RECOVERY STUDY

The Committee recommends an increase of $1,500,000 to the

budget request for the Defense POW/Missing Persons Office to conduct a government wide interagency needs assessment in order to

define the components of a fully integrated national personnel recovery architecture. The assessment should include a consideration

of service personnel, civilians and contract personnel, and examine

the possible consolidation of training programs. The study should

recommend a coordinated national goal for personnel recovery,

roles and responsibilities of each department, agency or office, and

present a detailed timeline and cost analysis for reaching that goal.

The Committee expects the Defense POW/Missing Persons Office

(DPMO) be the lead for the assessment and to initiate the study

using the Defense personnel recovery program as the baseline, and

directs that a report be submitted by December 1, 2002.

PERSONNEL AND FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

The Committee supports the wide variety of personnel and family support programs funded in this bill, but is concerned that inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
73

sufficient attention by the Department and services to the family

need assessment process may be diminishing the effectiveness of

the programs. Family need assessments are regularly used in resource allocation decisions by private sector organizations and

allow limited funds to be most efficiently distributed to areas with

the greatest need. Current Department regulations and service

practices are inconsistent in the application of this valuable tool

which could enhance the delivery of needed programs to service

members and their families. The Committee concurs with a recent

GAO report on this issue and directs the Secretary of Defense to

include the following requirements in Departmental regulations

and guidance pertaining to the services’ family need assessments:

(1) the use of benchmarks to define when needs have increased or

decreased; (2) the use of a plan to determine how need assessment

results will be prioritized; (3) the use and integration of information on the type and capacity of off base family support services;

and (4) a consistent and defined role for the results of family need

assessment process in supporting family programs’ budget development and resource allocation. The Committee further directs the

Secretary to report to the Committee on Appropriations by March

1, 2002, on the adoption of appropriate regulations and the use of

family need assessments in formulating the fiscal year 2003 budget.

DEFENSE ACQUISITION UNIVERSITY DISTANCE LEARNING

The Committee has included $3,000,000 for education and expert

consulting support to the Department of Defense acquisition community on a continuous basis based on the model Acquisition Center of Excellence established by the National Reconnaissance Office. It should include elements of computer based training, consulting support, and acquisition best practices, and the use of

Internet technology to provide these services to the widest possible

audience.

DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY

Funding for the Operation and Maintenance activities of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency have been transferred to Title IX

of the bill.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY RESERVE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $1,562,118,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 1,787,246,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,788,546,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +1,300,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,788,546,000

for Operation and maintenance, Army Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $226,428,000 above the $1,562,118,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

74

75

The adjustment to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Army Reserve is shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:

20160 Food Sanitation Centers ............................................................. 1,300

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY RESERVE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $978,946,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 1,003,690,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,003,690,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,003,690,000

for Operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $24,744,000 above the $978,946,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

76

77

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, MARINE CORPS RESERVE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $145,959,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 144,023,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 144,023,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $144,023,000 for

Operation and maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve. The recommendation is a decrease of $1,936,000 below the $145,959,000

appropriated for fiscal year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

78

79

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE RESERVE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $1,903,659,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 2,029,866,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,029,866,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,029,866,000

for Operation and maintenance, Air Force Reserve. The recommendation is an increase of $126,207,000 above the

$1,903,659,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

80

81

AIR FORCE RESERVE AIRLIFT FORCE MANAGEMENT

The Committee recognizes the reliance the Air Force is placing

on reserve units, and joint reserve-active duty units, for accomplishing many important airlift missions. As many reserve units

are scheduled to begin retiring C–141 aircraft in fiscal year 2003,

with no follow-on mission yet designated, the Committee is concerned the Secretary of the Air Force has yet to decide upon a follow-on mission for C–141 reserve units. The Secretary is strongly

urged to immediately designate a mission for all Air Force Reserve

units affected by the retirement of the C–141, especially those

units with a joint-service mission requirement. The Committee further believes the Secretary should consider the designation of active-associate (also known as a reserve-associate) C–17 units, similar to the successful MC–130E active-associate unit at Duke Field,

Florida.

The Committee is further concerned that the Secretary has yet

to designate an Air Reserve Station or Stations for C–17s. The C–

17 is the most reliable, effective and efficient airlift aircraft in the

Air Force’s fleet, and the Committee strongly supports the acquisition of additional C–17s to fulfill current and projected Air Force

airlift mobility requirements. Elsewhere in this report the Committee recommends substantial funding for continued C–17 production, as well as initial funding for a sizable follow-on purchase of

C–17s beyond those programmed.

The Committee believes March Air Reserve Base and WrightPatterson Air Force Base each clearly merit consideration for the

C–17 mission. In the House-passed fiscal year 2002 Military Construction Appropriations bill, the Committee provided funding for

planning and site assessment of these two facilities to provide the

necessary preparation to support C–17 operations within the Air

Force Reserve Command. The Committee restates its support for

transitioning these units to the C–17, and strongly encourages the

Air Force to designate these installations for the C–17 follow-on

mission.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $3,333,835,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 3,677,359,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 3,723,759,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +46,400,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,723,759,000

for Operation and maintenance, Army National Guard. The recommendation is an increase of $389,924,000 above the

$3,333,835,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

82

83

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Army National Guard are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Other Adjustments:

26810 Military Technicians Costing Model ............................................ 6,300

26900 Angel Gate Academy ..................................................................... 3,000

26945 National Emergency and Disaster Information Center ............. 2,000

26990 GAS Leased Vehicle Program ...................................................... 2,500

27000 Modular General Purpose Tents .................................................. 5,000

27010 Joint Training and Experimentation Program ........................... 4,100

27020 Camp Gruber Regional Training Center ..................................... 3,500

27030 Domestic Emergency and Terrorist Response Info Center ........ 3,000

27040 Information Technology Management Training ......................... 1,000

27060 Early Responders Distance Learning Training Center .............. 4,000

27070 Rural Access to Broadband Technology ....................................... 4,000

27080 WMD/Counter-Drug Demonstration ............................................ 8,000

RURAL ACCESS TO BROADBAND TECHNOLOGY

The Committee recommends an increase of $4,000,000 to the

budget request only for the National Guard to demonstrate one or

more methods whereby a cooperative effort may accelerate the deployment of broadband telecommunications in rural areas and simultaneously reduce the costs of providing such telecommunications to National Guard armories in the affected region.

WMD/COUNTER-DRUG DEMONSTRATION

The Committee recommends an increase of $8,000,000 to the

budget request only for the National Guard Bureau. These funds

are only for an in-service evaluation by the Northeast Counter

Drug Training Center of the CL–415 aircraft, an amphibious, fixedwing, multi-mission aircraft for emergency response missions,

counter-drug activities, search and rescue, utility transport of

equipment and personnel, large scale urban and rural firefighting,

and response to acts of domestic terrorism.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT TRAINING

The Committee recommends an increase of $1,000,000 only for

development and delivery of courses of instruction in both theory

and application to educate defense technology managers in collaborative work groups using an advanced technology distance learning

system with high-end computer workstations at a rural education

institution linked to supercomputing capability.

JOINT TRAINING AND EXPERIMENTATION PROJECT

The Committee recommends an increase of $4,100,000 above the

budget request only for the Joint Training and Experimentation

Project between the National Guard Bureau and the California National Guard.

EARLY RESPONDERS DISTANCE LEARNING CENTER

The Committee recommends an increase of $4,000,000 over the

budget request to Operation and Maintenance, Army National

Guard for the Early Responders Distance Learning Center in

Philadelphia at Saint Joseph’s University for the ongoing program

in order to identify appropriate medical and community response

84

strategies to a chemical or biological event, and to engage in the

training of emergency medical, public and hospital personnel for

such an event.

CONSEQUENCE MANAGEMENT TRAINING

The Committee recommends an increase of $3,500,000 over the

budget request to Operation and Maintenance, Army National

Guard to develop plans for implementing Consequence Management sustainment training at Camp Gruber, Oklahoma. The National Guard has existing training centers with infrastructure that

can be converted to joint collective training of Weapons of Mass Destruction consequence management forces. The Committee believes

that research and evaluation is needed to determine the curriculum, facility requirements, and customer base for these National Guard training sites.

FORT BILLY F. ROBERTS, ALABAMA

The Committee directs that of the funds provided for Operation

and Maintenance, Army National Guard for facilities sustainment,

restoration and modernization (SRM), $100,000 be used only for

roof repairs at the Fort Billy F. Roberts armory in Haleyville, Alabama.

MISSOURI NATIONAL GUARD

The Committee directs that of the funds provided for Operation

and Maintenance, Army National Guard $400,000 be used only to

replace or upgrade computers, and for technology enhancements to

improve voice, data and video capabilities at National Guard facilities located in Northwest Missouri.

CAMP MCCAIN, MISSISSIPPI

The Committee directs that of the funds provided for Operation

and Maintenance, Army National Guard for facilities sustainment,

restoration and modernization (SRM), $3,800,000 be used only for

improvements of Camp McCain Road and Greensboro Road located

inside and adjacent to the training site boundaries, and $2,200,000

of the funds provided are for unspecified minor construction

projects at Camp McCain.

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $3,474,375,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 3,867,361,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 3,972,161,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +104,800,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,972,161,000

for Operation and maintenance, Air National Guard. The recommendation is an increase of $497,786,000 above the

$3,474,375,000 appropriated for fiscal year 2001.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002:

85

86

The adjustments to the budget activities for Operation and maintenance, Air National Guard are shown below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget Activity 1: Operating Forces:

27650 Aircraft Operations/B–1B Operations ......................................... 100,000

Other Adjustments:

28240 National Guard State Partnership Program ............................... 1,000

28250 Project Alert ................................................................................... 3,800

ROSECRANS MEMORIAL AIRPORT

The Committee directs that of the funds provided for Operation

and Maintenance, Air National Guard for facilities sustainment,

restoration and modernization (SRM), $435,000 be used only for replacement of existing gas lines, mains, valves and fittings which

are deteriorating throughout the facility, and for roof repairs of the

Aerial Port Facility located at Rosecrans Memorial Airport in St.

Joseph, Missouri.

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $3,938,777,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 2,844,226,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,744,226,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥100,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,744,226,000

for the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund. The recommendation is a decrease of $1,194,551,000 from the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2001, reflecting primarily the transfer of

funds for the ongoing DoD operations in Southwest Asia to the

Services’ accounts. The operations in Southwest Asia are no longer

considered to be contingency activities. The funding in this paragraph provides for ongoing DoD operations in Bosnia and Kosovo.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED

FORCES

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $8,574,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 9,096,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 9,096,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,096,000 for

the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The recommendation is an increase of $522,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, ARMY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $389,932,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 389,800,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 389,800,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $389,800,000 for

Environmental Restoration, Army. The recommendation is a decrease of $132,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year

2001.

87

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, NAVY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $294,038,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 257,517,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 257,517,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $257,517,000 for

Environmental Restoration, Navy. The recommendation is a decrease of $36,521,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year

2001.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $376,300,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 385,437,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 385,437,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $385,437,000 for

Environmental Restoration, Air Force. The recommendation is an

increase of $9,137,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year

2001.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $21,412,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 23,492,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 23,492,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $23,492,000 for

Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide. The recommendation is

an increase of $2,080,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal

year 2001.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, FORMERLY USED

DEFENSE SITES

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $231,499,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 190,255,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 190,255,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $190,255,000 for

Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites. The recommendation is a decrease of $41,244,000 from the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001.

ROUND POND MARSH

The Committee is concerned about environmental contamination

around the area of Round Pond marsh adjacent to Air Force Plant

51 in Rochester, New York. The Committee directs that the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers take appropriate action to ensure that

there is no human health threat in the pond.

OVERSEAS HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $55,900,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 49,700,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 49,700,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

88

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $49,700,000 for

Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid. The recommendation is a decrease of $6,200,000 from the amount appropriated in

fiscal year 2001.

FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $443,400,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 403,000,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. ............................

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥403,000,000

Funding for the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction activities

of the Department of Defense has been moved to title IX.

QUALITY OF LIFE ENHANCEMENTS, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriations ........................................................ $160,500,000

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

Committee recommendation .............................................................. ............................

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Department of Defense has requested substantial increases

in accounts supporting the sustainment, renovation and modernization of real property assets. The Committee applauds this long

overdue attention to the maintenance of real property, which contributes directly to the mission readiness of military bases and the

quality of life of service members. Given the funding requested by

the DoD and supported by the Committee for real property maintenance, the Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense Account is not

required.

SUPPORT FOR INTERNATIONAL SPORTING COMPETITIONS,

DEFENSE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... ............................

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... $15,800,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 15,800,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

This appropriation funds the Support for International Sporting

Competitions, Defense for logistical and security support for international sporting competitions (including pay and non-travel related allowances only for members of the Reserve Components of

the Armed Forces called or ordered to active duty in connection

with providing such support). These funds, to remain available

until expended, are provided in support of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games and Paralympics.

(89)

TITLE III

PROCUREMENT

ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY

The fiscal year 2002 budget request for programs funded in Title

III of the Committee bill, Procurement, totals $60,440,297,000. The

accompanying bill recommends $60,190,124,000. The total amount

recommended is a decrease of $250,173,000 below the fiscal year

2002 budget estimate and is $957,278,000 above the total provided

in fiscal year 2001. The table below summarizes the budget estimates and the Committee’s recommendations.

90

91

SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS

Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in

the project level tables or in paragraphs using the phrase ‘‘only for’’

or ‘‘only to’’ in this report are congressional interest items for the

purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD 1414). Each of these

items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated amount,

or a revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise

specifically addressed in the conference report. These items remain

special interest items whether or not they are repeated in a subsequent conference report.

CLASSIFIED ANNEX

Adjustments to classified programs are addressed in a classified

annex accompanying this report.

ARMY TRANSFORMATION

In its deliberations on the fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense Appropriations bill, the Committee strongly supported the vision outlined by the Army leadership to transform the capabilities

of the Army. Last year, the Congress appropriated $1,800,000,000

above the budget request in order to jump start Army transformation divided between Army procurement and Army research

and development programs. For example, $637,007,000 was added

above the budget request for the Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) to

provide the IBCTs with immediately required capabilities,

$200,000,000 was added above the budget request to provide support equipment needed to field a second IBCT, $614,041,000 was

provided to continue development of the Comanche Helicopter, and

$105,000,000 was provided for the Future Combat System.

This year, the Committee received testimony from the Army

leadership which reinforces the importance of continuing the initiative begun last year. According to the Army leadership, fielding the

interim force fills the strategic gap between Army heavy and light

forces thereby ensuring that the Army is responsive to the entire

spectrum of operations. Similarly, in the September 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), the Secretary of Defense commits the

Department to a course of transformation involving three main

parts: exploiting research and development to ensure that U.S.

forces maintain a decisive lead in technologies critical to transformation; advancing key transformation initiatives that will enable the U.S. to both deter conflict and conduct military operations;

and recapitalizing legacy forces to meet near-term challenges and

provide near-term readiness.

The Committee supports the vision expressed both by the Army

and the Secretary of Defense in the QDR. Accordingly, the Committee fully supports those programs that the Army has identified

as critical to continuing transformation. For example, the Committee has fully funded the Future Combat System (FCS), which

the Army has identified as its top science and technology initiative,

at $111,560,000. The Committee recommends fully funding the

Crusader program at $447,949,000, and also provides $163,141,000

for the Abrams-Crusader Common Engine (ACCE) program. The

Committee continues to support the Comanche program providing

92

$816,366,000 for this purpose. The Committee continues to support

fielding of the Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) and has funded this

program at the requested amount of $662,600,000. The Committee

also recommends increased funding for the AH–64 Apache Longbow recapitalization program providing $898,561,000 for this

purpose, and has provided an additional $131,176,000 above the

budget to increase the fiscal year 2002 acquisition of Blackhawk

helicopters from 12 to 20.

In the Committee’s view, the primary risks for this initiative

stem from the aggressive timetable that the Army has set for itself.

In this regard, the Committee is particularly concerned that the

Army’s science and technology community may not be able to identify, develop, and field new technologies as rapidly as needed to

support transformation. To address this concern, the Committee

has added a general provision, discussed elsewhere in this report,

which provides $50,000,000 to establish a venture capital fund

which will allow the Army to leverage science and technology advances found the private sector. In addition, the Committee has

recommended measures to streamline acquisition and program

management based on the review conducted by the Center for

Naval Analyses.

ARMY ACQUISITION PROGRAM REFORMS

The system used by the Army to select, develop and procure

major weapons systems is not capable of delivering the new systems required for Army transformation on the established timetable. It is widely recognized that the Army must significantly reform and streamline its requirements generation, acquisition management, and resource allocation processes to improve Army flexibility to fast-changing circumstances. Acting on this long recognized need, the Committee, in its report accompanying the fiscal

year 2001 DoD appropriations bill, required a thorough review of

Army acquisition practices to be conducted by the Center for Naval

Analyses. That report highlights numerous concerns, and made

thoughtful and far-reaching recommendations for improvements.

The issues raised can be grouped into three broad categories.

First, the report cites an unrealistic requirements determination

process to which there are too many contributors and which does

not facilitate the orderly prioritization of requirements. As a result,

too many requirements are approved without adequate consideration of resource availability or technical feasibility. The report

concludes, ‘‘As long as the requirement stays on the books, there

is a chance someone will resource it, with or without the leadership’s knowledge. This is apparently the reason [the Army is unable] to actually ‘kill’ a program.’’ The report is particularly critical

of the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) System Managers (TSMs) associated with the 16 branch schools in this regard.

The report is also highly critical of the number of personnel that

the Army assigns to this task. On this point, the report states: ‘‘Despite significant personnel reductions over the past 10 years, the

Army still requires nearly 2,200 people to do a job that the Department of the Navy does with about 550, and the Air Force does with

about 1,600. The disparity does not appear to be related to the

number of systems each Department manages.’’

93

Second, the report underscores difficulties faced by the Army in

its program budgeting practices. The report indicates that the main

characteristic of Army financial management—instability—is

brought about in large measure because of the Army’s inability to

say ‘‘no’’ in the face of competing demands. Consequently, the Army

struggles to find and maintain sufficient funding for those programs that are critical to the Army’s future. In addition to citing

the Army’s lack of analytical resources for proper financial/budget

analysis, the CNA report finds that ‘‘the Army and the Army staff

are currently fractionalized along branch lines with each branch

fighting to ensure that its program (or programs) is included in the

funding.’’ The report concludes that ‘‘If acquisition programs, such

as the Interim Armored Vehicle and the Future Combat System,

are deemed to be priority interests of the Department of the Army,

sustained stable funding, perhaps to the detriment of other lower

priority expenditures, will be required for success.’’ Third, the Army acquisition structure is essentially composed of

two competing organizations, the Assistant Secretary of the Army

(Acquisition Logistics and Technology) (ASA(ALT)) and the Army

Materiel Command (AMC), each with their own separate chains of

command. The CNA report indicates that AMC ‘‘is seen as having

a negative impact on acquisition efficiency because its four-star

commanding general is in direct competition with the four-star civilian equivalent * * * for resources and influence. As one Army

official stated, ‘resources and acquisition are on both the AMC and

PEO side—we spend too much time arguing over turf.’ ’’ In response, the CNA report recommends substantially reducing, if not

eliminating altogether, the role of AMC in major systems acquisition.

The Committee recognizes that the Army is in the midst of a serious effort to improve its requirements determination, acquisition

management, and resource allocation processes. The Committee is

particularly encouraged by the Army’s internal efforts to take the

first step, which is to better integrate responsibilities of the Army

Secretariat and Army staff. However, it appears that this effort

may not pay sufficient attention to the deeper issues pertaining to

organization and management within the major commands. Accordingly, the Commission includes a new general provision, discussed

elsewhere in this report, which reduces funding for the Army acquisition organizations by $37,200,000, prohibits TRADOC from

performing system management activities, and prohibits AMC from

performing acquisition program management functions.

DOD INVESTMENTS IN AIR SUPERIORITY

Countering the air-to-air threat is an important element of the

air superiority problem. In addition, the US must be able to effectively counter the surface-to-air missile (SAM) threat. Increasingly,

potential adversaries are turning to SAM systems to counter US

air dominance. SAM systems appeal to foreign militaries not only

based on their effectiveness, but also based on their cost relative

to standing up and maintaining a modern air force. A modern air

force requires heavy investment in aircraft, weapons, and spare

parts. In addition, an air force requires highly trained pilots, sustained aircraft maintenance, and ample fuel. The infrastructure to

94

support aircraft, in terms of air bases, depot facilities, and fuel

storage are costly to construct and operate and present ready fixed

targets to US bombers and cruise missiles. Modern SAM systems

avoid many of these issues.

The Committee also notes that SAM systems have proven extremely difficult for the US to destroy as demonstrated by our experience in Kosovo. In every conflict since Viet Nam, US aircraft

have sustained more losses from the ground than the air. It is no

wonder that ground based air defenses have become the ‘‘poor

man’s air force’’ now and will likely remain that way for the foreseeable future. Yet, there does not seem to be a coordinated programmatic response to this threat, let alone the kind of multi-billion dollar investment currently in place to counter the threat from

enemy aircraft. Given this investment imbalance, the Committee

directs the Secretary of Defense to initiate a comprehensive study

of the threat to US aircraft and the programmatic response to

counter this threat. The Committee further directs that the Secretary of Defense report the results of this study, including a specific comparison of the programmatic investments (including funding in then year dollars) to counter the air and the SAM threat.

The Committee directs that this report be provided to the congressional defense committees no later than April 15, 2002.

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $1,571,812,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 1,925,491,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,974,241,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +48,750,000

This appropriation finances acquisition of tactical and utility airplanes and helicopters, including associated electronics, electric

warfare of in-service aircraft, ground support equipment, components and parts such as spare engines, transmission gear boxes,

and sensor equipment. It also funds related training devices such

as combat flight simulators and production base support.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committee recommended

Change from request

HELICOPTER NEW TRAINING .................................................................. 0 25,000 25,000

TH–67 Creek Training Helicopter ................................................. .......................... .......................... 25,000

GUARDRAIL MODS (TIARA) .................................................................... 8,827 13,827 5,000

Guardrail-Transfer from Distributed Common Ground System ... .......................... .......................... 5,000

CH–47 CARGO HELICOPTER MODS (MYP) ............................................ 277,460 281,460 4,000

CH–47 Chinook Crashworthy Crew Chief Seats .......................... .......................... .......................... 4,000

LONGBOW .............................................................................................. 888,561 898,561 10,000

Apache Recapitalization .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 10,000

UH–60 MODS ........................................................................................ 52,269 58,269 6,000

UH–60 Crashworthy External Fuel System .................................. .......................... .......................... 6,000

SPARE PARTS (AIR) ............................................................................... 5,331 9,331 4,000

Aircraft Survivability Equipment Trainer (ASET IV) ..................... .......................... .......................... 4,000

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL .......................................................................... 68,887 63,637 ¥5,250

Cold Cathode Portable Landing Lights ....................................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

National Airspace System ............................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥8,250

95

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2002:

96

97

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $1,320,681,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 1,859,634,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,057,409,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥802,225,000

This appropriation finances the acquisition of surface-to-air, surface-to-surface, and anti-tank/assault missile systems. Also included are major components, modifications, targets, test equipment and production base support.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committee recommended

Change from request

PATRIOT PAC–3 ..................................................................................... 676,574 0 ¥676,574

Transfer to Title IX Procurement, BMDO ..................................... .......................... .......................... ¥676,574

STINGER SYSTEM SUMMARY ................................................................. 45,890 23,390 ¥22,500

Program Reduction ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥22,500

JAVELIN (AAWS-M) SYSTEM SUMMARY ................................................. 414,632 389,755 ¥24,877

Quantity Reduction ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥24,877

LINE OF SIGHT ANTI-TANK (LOSAT) (AP-CY) ......................................... 11,427 9,427 ¥2,000

Program Reduction ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,000

MLRS LAUNCHER SYSTEMS ................................................................... 148,294 138,044 ¥10,250

Program Reduction ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥10,250

ARMY TACTICAL MSL SYS (ATACMS)—SYS SUM ................................. 34,263 25,263 ¥9,000

Program Reduction ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥9,000

PATRIOT MODS ...................................................................................... 37,617 25,107 ¥12,510

Program Reduction ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥12,510

AVENGER MODS .................................................................................... 17,991 11,877 ¥6,114

Program Reduction ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥6,114

ITAS/TOW MODS .................................................................................... 96,204 60,804 ¥35,400

Program Reduction ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥35,400

MLRS MODS .......................................................................................... 23,599 20,599 ¥3,000

Program Reduction ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥3,000

PATRIOT ADVANCED CAPABILITY–3 (PAC–3)

Procurement funding for the PAC–3 program has been moved to ‘‘Procurement, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization’’ in title IX.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2002:

98

99

PROCUREMENT OF WEAPONS AND TRACKED COMBAT

VEHICLES, ARMY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $2,472,524,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 2,276,746,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,252,669,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥24,077,000

This appropriation finances the acquisition of tanks; personnel

and cargo carriers; fighting vehicles; tracked recovery vehicles; selfpropelled and towed howitzers; machine guns; mortars; modification of in-service equipment, initial spares; and production base

support.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from request

HEAVY ASSAULT BRIDGE (HAB) SYS (MOD) .......................................... 45,592 17,000 ¥31,592

ACAT III Reclassification .............................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥7,000

Quantity Reduction (Wolverine) ................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥24,592

M1 ABRAMS TANK (MOD) ...................................................................... 113,485 100,000 ¥13,485

Quantity Reduction ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥13,485

GRENADE LAUNCHER, AUTO, 40MM, MK19–3 ...................................... 28,826 34,826 6,000

MK–19 Grenade Launcher Machine Gun ..................................... .......................... .......................... 6,000

INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ................................................................. 4,270 19,270 15,000

Arsenal Support Initiative ............................................................ .......................... .......................... 15,000

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2002:

100

101

WOLVERINE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

The Army requested $48,592,000 to procure five additional Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge (HAB) systems. The Committee recommends $17,000,000, a net reduction of $31,592,000 to reflect

both a reduction of $24,592,000 for the quantity of systems purchased and $7,000,000 to reflect a change to the management of

the acquisition of this system as discussed below.

The Army presently categorizes the Wolverine (HAB) program as

an ACAT II major acquisition program under the provisions of DoD

Regulation 5000.2. The Committee is concerned that this ACAT II

categorization is resulting in substantially inflated costs due to the

significant additional administrative overhead charges that the

Army requires for ACAT II programs versus ACAT III programs

(program management staff, STS charges, and more extensive/costly system testing requirements). These added administrative costs

make the program less cost competitive compared to the unit costs

of other acquisition programs, and may turn out to be the deciding

factor as to whether this program is supported by the Committee

in the future. The Committee believes this classification may be a

case where the momentum of a bureaucratic decision made in the

past under different circumstances has been allowed to stand even

though this program has been substantially changed. For instance,

while the Army indicates that the ACAT II regulation dictates that

extensive and costly testing be performed, the Committee notes

that over $326,000,000 has already been appropriated for 46 of

these systems, that the milestone for the first unit equipped was

passed in February of 2001, that an additional $48,600,000 is included in the fiscal year 2002 budget for five more of these systems, and that the system has 80 percent commonality with the

Abrams SEP tank which has successfully completed an exhaustive

test regimen. The number of Wolverine HAB systems to be acquired has also been reduced substantially. It would appear that

the requirements for additional ACAT II-level testing for the HAB

are incongruous with the fact that the Army has proceeded well

past the point of deciding whether or not to acquire this system.

Accordingly, the Committee directs that the Secretary of Defense

and the Secretary of the Army review the need to continue administering this program at the ACAT II level under the provisions of

DoD Regulation 5000.2. The Committee recommends reducing the

funding available for this system by $7,000,000 to account for reclassifying this system.

MEDICAL EVACUATION CAPABILITY FOR HEAVY FORCES

The Committee is concerned that, as the Army’s remaining heavy

combat units are upgraded with Abrams SEP tanks and Bradley

A–3 fighting vehicles, the medical evacuation and en route treatment capability remains inadequate. The current ground evacuation platform appears incapable of keeping up with this modernized force and lacks the protection necessary to evacuate casualties

from the close combat fight. The current platform also lacks the capability of providing essential en route medical treatment. The

Committee directs the Army to provide a report to the congressional defense committees by no later than March 31, 2002 outVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
102

lining how it plans to provide survivable medical evacuation and

improved medical treatment capability to the soldiers of heavy

combat units.

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, ARMY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $1,220,516,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 1,193,365,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,211,615,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +18,250,000

This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, modification of in-service stock, and related production base support including the maintenance, expansion, and modernization of industrial facilities and equipment.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from request

CTG. 25MM, ALL TYPES ........................................................................ 46,231 70,231 24,000

M919 ............................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 24,000

81MM MORTAR, ALL TYPES .................................................................. 0 4,000 4,000

M816 81mm Infared Illumination Cartridge ............................... .......................... .......................... 4,000

REMOTE AREA DENIAL ARTILLERY MUNITION (RADAM) ........................ 48,218 27,218 ¥21,000

Quantity reduction ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥21,000

PROJ ARTY 155MM HE M107 ................................................................ 41,400 46,400 5,000

M795 155mm HE, HF .................................................................. .......................... .......................... 5,000

BUNKER DEFEATING MUNITION (BDM) .................................................. 0 5,000 5,000

Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon-Disposable

(SMAW–D) Bunker Defeat Munition ........................................ .......................... .......................... 5,000

DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES .................................................... 18,168 20,168 2,000

Modernization Demolition Initiators (MDI) ................................... .......................... .......................... 2,000

MAINTENANCE OF INACTIVE FACILITIES ................................................ 10,802 13,552 2,750

Production Base Support at Pine Bluff Arsenal .......................... .......................... .......................... 2,750

ARMS INITIATIVE .................................................................................... 4,701 9,701 5,000

ARMS Initiative ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 5,000

UNDISTRIBUTED:

MLRS/DPICM ................................................................................. .......................... ¥8,500 ¥8,500

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2002:

103

104

RIVERBANK ARMY AMMUNITION PLANT

In the conference report accompanying the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001, the conferees included $3,000,000 only for the Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant

(AAP). The Committee is aware that the Army has not acted to

carry out the intent of this language. Recognizing both the importance of this facility as well as emerging Army requirements, the

Committee directs that the Army allocate the fiscal year 2001 funding of $3,000,000 only to prove-out the deep-drawn cartridge case

production line at Riverbank AAP.

OTHER PROCUREMENT, ARMY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $4,497,009,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 3,961,737,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 4,103,036,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +141,299,000

This appropriation finances the acquisition of: (a) tactical and

commercial vehicles, including trucks, semi-trailers, and trailers of

all types to provide mobility and utility support to field forces and

the worldwide logistical systems; (b) communications and electronics equipment of all types to provide fixed, semi-fixed, and mobile strategic and tactical communication equipment; (c) other support equipment, generators and power units, material handling

equipment, medical support equipment, special equipment for user

testing, and non-system training devices. In each of these activities,

funds are also included for the modification of in-service equipment, investment spares and repair parts, and production base

support.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from request

TACTICAL TRAILERS/DOLLY SETS .......................................................... 3,723 4,723 1,000

Self Load/Offload Trailer (SLOT) .................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,000

FAMILY OF HEAVY TACTICAL VEHICLES (FHTV) ..................................... 157,633 165,633 8,000

Movement Tracking System (MTS) for Family of Heavy Tactical

Vehicles ................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 8,000

SHF TERM .............................................................................................. 16,951 0 ¥16,951

STAR–T Program Termination ...................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥16,951

ARMY GLOBAL CMD & CONTROL SYS (AGCCS) .................................... 8,622 13,622 5,000

AN/PSC–5 Spitfire, Radio P3I ...................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,000

ACUS MOD PROGRAM ........................................................................... 113,137 123,137 10,000

AN/UXC–10 TS–21 Blackjack Digital Facsimile .......................... .......................... .......................... 10,000

COMMS-ELEC EQUIP FIELDING .............................................................. 3,412 8,412 5,000

Improved High Frequency Radio (Army Reserve) ........................ .......................... .......................... 5,000

INFORMATION SYSTEM SECURITY PROGRAM–ISSP ............................... 42,244 45,244 3,000

Secure Terminal Equipment ......................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS SYS (ASAS) (TIARA) ......................................... 46,931 48,931 2,000

All Source Analysis System (ASAS) (Note: only for procurement

of the Intelligence Analysis Advanced Tool Sets (IAATS)

Communications Control Sets for ASAS.) ............................... .......................... .......................... 2,000

JTT/CIBS–M (TIARA) .............................................................................. 10,345 20,345 10,000

Joint Tactical Terminals (Note: only for procurement of Joint

Tactical Terminals.) ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 10,000

TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (TUAV) .................................... 84,300 63,300 ¥21,000

105

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from request

Advanced procurement of TUAV .................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥21,000

TACTICAL EXPLOITATION SYSTEM/DCGS–A (TIARA) .............................. 26,168 33,668 7,500

Tactical Surveillance Systems (Transfer from Distributed Common Ground System.) .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 7,500

CI HUMINT AUTOMATED TOOL SET (CHATS) (TIARA) ............................ 1,492 2,492 1,000

CI HUMINT Automated Tool Set (CHATS) additional CHATS units .......................... .......................... 1,000

SHORTSTOP ........................................................................................... 5 2,005 2,000

Shortstop Integrated Logistics Support ....................................... .......................... .......................... 2,000

NIGHT VISION, THERMAL WPN SIGHT .................................................... 35,134 38,134 3,000

AN/PVS–6 (MELIOS) ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

MORTAR FIRE CONTROL SYSTEM .......................................................... 16,785 20,785 4,000

Lightweight Laser Designation Rangefinder ............................... .......................... .......................... 4,000

MANEUVER CONTROL SYSTEM (MCS) ................................................... 6,839 5,439 ¥1,400

MCS Schedule Delay .................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,400

AUTOMATED DATA PROCESSING EQUIP ................................................. 146,885 156,335 9,450

Ammunition Automatic Identification Technology ....................... .......................... .......................... 4,000

NG Distance Learning Courseware .............................................. .......................... .......................... 3,000

Automated Manifest System ........................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,000

LAN Installation for Gauntlet FTX Site and Skidgell Hall (Ft.

Knox) ........................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 450

Regional Medical Distributive Learning Center ........................... .......................... .......................... 1,000

LAUNDRIES, SHOWERS AND LATRINES .................................................. 23,232 28,232 5,000

Laundry Advanced System (LADS) ............................................... .......................... .......................... 5,000

LIGHTWEIGHT MAINTENANCE ENCLOSURE (LME) .................................. 3,636 6,636 3,000

Lightweight Maintenance Enclosures .......................................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

COMBAT SUPPORT MEDICAL ................................................................. 16,731 21,731 5,000

Life Support for Trauma and Transport (LSTAT) ......................... .......................... .......................... 3,500

Portable Low-Power Blood Cooling and Storage Device ............. .......................... .......................... 1,500

SCRAPER, EARTHMOVING, 7 1/2 CU YD ............................................... 7,230 17,230 10,000

Scraper ......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 10,000

DEPLOYABLE UNIVERSAL COMBAT EARTH MOVERS ............................. 5,301 21,301 16,000

DEUCE .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 16,000

FLOATING CRANE, 100–250 TON .......................................................... 0 15,000 15,000

Floating Crane 100–250 ton capacity ........................................ .......................... .......................... 15,000

GENERATORS AND ASSOCIATED EQUIP ................................................. 59,768 63,268 3,500

2kW Military Tactical Generator .................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,500

CTC INSTRUMENTATION SUPPORT ......................................................... 10,307 16,307 6,000

Deployable Force-on-Force Instrumented Range System ............ .......................... .......................... 6,000

TRAINING DEVICES, NONSYSTEM .......................................................... 74,481 92,681 18,200

Advanced Aviation Institutional Training Simulator (AAITS) ....... .......................... .......................... 5,000

COTS Mobile/Reconfigurable Target System ................................ .......................... .......................... 1,000

Deployable Range Training and Safety System (DTRSS) at Ft.

Bliss (ARNG) ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 2,700

Deployable Range Training and Safety System (DTRSS) at Ft.

Hood (ARNG) ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... 2,000

Fire Fighting Training System ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,500

Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT) InstrumentationFt. Wainwright ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,000

INTEGRATED FAMILY OF TEST EQUIPMENT (IFTE) ................................. 52,397 65,397 13,000

Integrated Family of Test Equipment .......................................... .......................... .......................... 13,000

SPECIAL EQUIPMENT FOR USER TESTING ............................................. 16,400 31,400 15,000

Additional Target Acquisition Radar—Agile Multi Beam

(TARAMB) (Note: only to procure one additional TARAMB air

defense training system with required spares.) ..................... .......................... .......................... 12,000

Special Equipment for User Testing (Note: only for testing of

high fidelity EW and SIGINT battlefield assets during training exercises) .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2002:

106

107

108

109

FAMILY OF MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLES

The Committee fully supports the FMTV–A1 Competitive Rebuy

(CR) program which should produce a truck that is more capable

and less costly compared to the truck currently in production and

will also be in compliance with new EPA standards for truck engines. The Committee understands that production of the FMTV–

A1 (CR) truck variant is scheduled to commence in March 2004, a

full seven months before the end of the production schedule for the

current A–1 variant. Given the substantial benefits to the Army

and the taxpayer presented under this program, the Committee

does not provide the required legislative authority to extend the

current multi-year contract authority for the A–1 truck variant.

TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE

The Army requested $84,300,000 for procurement of the Tactical

Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (TUAV). The Committee has provided

$63,300,000, a reduction of $21,000,000 associated with procurement of three air vehicles.

Subsequent to the budget submission, the Army revised its plans

with respect to the timeframes for significant decisions associated

with testing and procurement of the TUAV. The Army’s revised

plan is to continue user testing in the Fall of 2001 and conduct initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) in the Spring of 2002.

The Milestone III procurement decision has been moved to August

of 2002. Prior to the Milestone III decision, the Army plans to request authority for a low-rate initial production (LRIP) III for six

vehicles and a Production I decision for three air vehicles is

planned for the end of the fiscal year.

The Committee has eliminated funding for the procurement of

the three air vehicles currently planned for the end of fiscal year

2002. The Committee believes funds for procurement should be requested after a Milestone III decision.

The Committee is supportive of the TUAV but believes the

Army’s revised plan reflects an overly aggressive fielding schedule

based on a desire to get the TUAV in to the hands of the

warfighter. While the Committee does not oppose the Army’s approach, following such an aggressive schedule that includes fielding

multiple systems prior to completion of IOTE may lead to increased

costs due to potential re-design based on a post-IOT&E review.

Therefore, the Committee directs that funds provided for the LRIP

III of the TUAV may not be obligated or expended until the TUAV

successfully completes the planned AEC assessment scheduled for

2001. Furthermore, the funds provided for LRIP III of the TUAV

may not be obligated or expended until the Secretary of the Army

certifies that the TUAV has been adequately tested and justifies

the initiation of the LRIP III prior to completion of the IOT&E.

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $8,477,138,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 8,252,543,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 8,084,543,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥168,000,000

110

This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of aircraft

and related support equipment and programs; flight simulators;

equipment to modify in-service aircraft to extend their service life,

eliminate safety hazards, and improve their operational effectiveness; and spare parts and ground support equipment for all end

items procured by this appropriation.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

Request

Committee

Recommended

Change from

request

V–22 (MEDIUM LIFT) ............................................................................. 1,009,881 790,881 ¥219,000

Reduce 3 aircraft ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥219,000

SH–60R ................................................................................................. 25,064 10,064 ¥15,000

Non Recurring—Schedule Slip .................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥15,000

E–2C (EARLY WARNING) HAWKEYE (MYP) ............................................ 242,746 239,746 ¥3,000

Production Support Cost Growth ................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥3,000

UC–35 ................................................................................................... 0 7,500 +7,500

Additional Aircraft ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... +7,500

EA–6 SERIES ......................................................................................... 137,645 145,645 +8,000

Additional Band 9/10 Transmitters ............................................. .......................... .......................... +8,000

VA–8 SERIES ......................................................................................... 49,541 64,541 +15,000

Additional Litening II Pods .......................................................... .......................... .......................... +15,000

F–18 SERIES ......................................................................................... 193,206 185,206 ¥8,000

Delayed prior year obligations ..................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥10,000

PRISM (Note: only for procurement, integration and test of

photo reconnaissance strike module for F/A–18C/D and F/

A–18E/F ................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

AH–1W SERIES ...................................................................................... 10,821 17,821 +7,000

Night Targeting System (NTS) ..................................................... .......................... .......................... +7,000

H–53 SERIES ......................................................................................... 16,541 21,541 +5,000

AN/APR–39A RWR and ‘‘A’’ installation kits .............................. .......................... .......................... +5,000

SH–60 SERIES ....................................................................................... 1,735 4,735 +3,000

AQS–13F Airborne Dipping sonar ................................................ .......................... .......................... +3,000

H–1 SERIES ........................................................................................... 1,149 4,149 +3,000

AN/AQQ–22 NTIS Upgrade ........................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

EP–3 SERIES ......................................................................................... 123,747 133,747 +10,000

Hyper Wide/Delta Wing SIGINT equipment (Note: only for NRE,

procurement, integration, installation, and testing of Hyper

Wide/Delta Wing SIGINT equipment) ....................................... .......................... .......................... +10,000

P–3 SERIES ........................................................................................... 113,191 160,191 +47,000

Multi-mode receivers (MMRs) ...................................................... .......................... .......................... +5,000

SLAM–ER/Harpoon II Intergration ................................................ .......................... .......................... +5,000

CNS/ATM ....................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +5,000

BMUP SEI Upgrade ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... +10,000

COTS Aircraft Health Monitoring System ..................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

Digital Autopilot Upgrade ............................................................ .......................... .......................... +4,000

ALR–95 ESM System Upgrade ..................................................... .......................... .......................... +7,000

Digital Instantaneous Frequency Measurement DIFM Upgrade .. .......................... .......................... +9,000

E–2 SERIES ........................................................................................... 14,636 46,636 +32,000

Hawkeye 2000/CEC Upgrades ...................................................... .......................... .......................... +25,000

AN/USC–42 Mini–DAMA UHF SATCOM Terminals ........................ .......................... .......................... +7,000

C–2A ..................................................................................................... 27,369 25,369 ¥2,000

Authorization Reduction ............................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,000

COMMON ECM EQUIPMENT ................................................................... 33,315 34,315 +1,000

Authorization Reduction ............................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,000

AN/ARR–47 Optical Sensor Program ........................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................. 1,420,252 1,353,252 ¥67,000

Program Growth Reduction .......................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥67,000

AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ......................................................... 18,219 22,719 +4,500

Navy Calibration Standards Support ........................................... .......................... .......................... +4,500

OTHER PRODUCTION CHARGES ............................................................. 27,637 30,637 +3,000

111

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

Request

Committee

Recommended

Change from

request

TARPS–CD (Note: Only for maintenance, spare parts, training

and other TARPS–CD costs associated with additional battle group deployments) ........................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

V–22

The Navy requested $1,009,881,000 for the procurement of 12 V–

22 aircraft. The Committee recommends $790,881,000 for 9 aircraft, a reduction of $219,000,000 and 3 aircraft. Earlier this year

the Marine Corps was provided with an additional two MV–22 aircraft in the Fiscal Year 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (Public Law 107–20).

In all, for fiscal year 2002 the Defense Department requested a

total of $2,100,918,000 in all appropriations accounts for twelve

MV–22 aircraft. The Committee recommends $1,815,418,000 for

eleven aircraft, a reduction of $285,500,000. Of the amount recommended by the Committee, $790,881,000 is for the procurement

of nine MV–22 aircraft for the Marine Corps, and $208,202,000 is

for procurement and modifications for two CV–22 aircraft for the

U.S. Special Operations Forces. This transfer of budgetary resources to the CV–22 program will enable the Department to commence initial operational testing on an accelerated basis as recommended jointly by the Marine Corps and the Special Operations

Command. It is also the Committee’s recommendation that until

such a time that the V–22 program has completed its program restructure, and returned to flight status, the overall production rate

should be held to no more than 11 aircraft per year.

MH–60R HELICOPTER

The Committee is concerned about the future direction of the

MH–60R multi-mission helicopter given recent schedule delays and

a significant program restructure. As the cornerstone of the Navy’s

Helicopter masterplan to replace aging SH–60B and SH–60F helicopters it is vital that the MH–60R begin production as soon as

practicable. It is the Committee’s sense that all opportunities

should be taken to incorporate COTS technology into the MH–60R

program whenever possible for all mission functions.

The Committee also directs the Department of the Navy to submit a report to the House Appropriations Committee no later than

March 15, 2002, detailing the acquisition strategy for the MH–

60R’s Advanced Low Frequency (ALFS) dipping sonar to include:

(1) a life cycle field support plan, (2) a pre-planned product improvement plan, and (3) technology development plans for a followon to the ALFS system.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002.

112

113

WEAPONS PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $1,461,600,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 1,433,475,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,429,492,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥3,983,000

This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of strategic and tactical missiles, target drones, torpedoes, guns, associated support equipment, and modification on in-service missiles,

torpedoes, and guns.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from request

TRIDENT II ............................................................................................. 559,042 534,042 ¥25,000

D–5 Service Life Extension Program ........................................... .......................... .......................... ¥25,000

NAVY AREA MISSILE DEFENSE .............................................................. 6,983 0 ¥6,983

Transfer to Title IX—Procurement, BMDO .................................. .......................... .......................... ¥6,983

TOMAHAWK ............................................................................................ 50,101 65,101 +15,000

Additional Tooling and Test equipment ...................................... .......................... .......................... +15,000

ESSM ..................................................................................................... 45,017 42,017 ¥3,000

Support Cost Growth Reduction .................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥3,000

AMRAAM ................................................................................................ 40,028 37,028 ¥3,000

Support Cost Growth Reduction .................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥3,000

ORDINANCE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................ 4,210 9,210 +5,000

Increased Mk-54 torpedo procurement ........................................ .......................... .......................... +5,000

ASW RANGE SUPPORT ........................................................................... 14,861 20,861 +6,000

Northwest Undersea Test Range Upgrades ................................. .......................... .......................... +5,000

Next Generation RIDC .................................................................. .......................... .......................... +1,000

CIWS MODS ........................................................................................... 40,503 48,503 +8,000

CIWS Block 1B Upgrade kits and spares .................................... .......................... .......................... +8,000

TRIDENT II D–5 MISSILE

The Navy requested $559,042,000 for the procurement of 12 Trident II D–5 missiles. The Committee recommends $534,042,000, a

reduction of $25,000,000. The Committee is concerned that the request for funds for the D–5 life extension program has been made

without the benefit of a rigorous requirement review or systems engineering analysis to ensure that the proper components are being

acquired to extend the life of the D–5 missile inventory. The Committee therefore directs the Department of the Navy to undertake

these efforts using all available design tools to efficiently structure

a life extension program to include the Naval Supply System Command’s Rapid Retargeting Technology program.

TORPEDO INDUSTRIAL BASE

The Committee directs the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to Congress by January 15, 2002 on the Navy’s plan for maintaining and improving the nation’s torpedo development and production industrial base for both heavyweight and lightweight weapons. The report shall discuss both the public and private sector

components of the torpedo industrial base including infrastructure

capacity, cumulative investment and planned workload with specific budget and/or technical recommendations for consideration.

114

The report shall also discuss options for increasing the production

of lightweight torpedoes used by its surface and air Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) capable forces to economic production levels. This aspect of the report should identify the required inventory

levels of a capable ASW weapon to provide the Navy (surface and

air assets) with an ASW combat capability against small diesel

submarines in littoral waters. In addition, the report should discuss the potential for international sales of the MK 54.

NAVY AREA BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE PROGRAM

Procurement funding for the Navy Area ballistic missile defense

program has been moved to ‘‘Procurement, Ballistic Missile Defense

Organization’’ in title IX.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002.

115

116

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, NAVY AND MARINE

CORPS

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $498,349,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 457,099,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 492,599,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +35,500,000

This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, ammunition modernization, and ammunition related material for the

Navy and Marine Corps.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from request

PRACTICE BOMBS ................................................................................. 35,019 40,019 +5,000

Laser Guided Training Rounds .................................................... .......................... .......................... +5,000

AIR EXPENDABLE COUNTERMEASURES ................................................. 36,403 42,403 +5,000

MJU-52/B IR Expendable Countermeasures ................................ .......................... .......................... +5,000

5 INCH/54 GUN AMMUNITION ............................................................... 12,009 16,009 +4,000

Continuous Processing Scale-Up Facility Outfitting ................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

120MM, ALL TYPES ............................................................................... 7,639 17,639 +10,000

M830A1 Ammunition .................................................................... .......................... .......................... +10,000

GRENADES, ALL TYPES .......................................................................... 10,533 12,533 +2,000

M67A1 Fragmentation Hand Grenade Electro/Mechnical Fuze ... .......................... .......................... +2,000

DEMOLITION MUNITIONS, ALL TYPES .................................................... 2,925 10,925 +8,000

SMAW, High Explosive Dual Purpose Ammunition ...................... .......................... .......................... +8,000

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002.

117

118

SHIPBUILDING AND CONVERSION, NAVY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $11,614,633,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 9,344,121,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 10,134,883,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +790,762,000

This appropriation provides funds for the construction of new

ships and the purchase and conversion of existing ships, including

hull, mechanical, and electrical equipment, electronics, guns, torpedo and missile launching systems, and communication systems.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from

request

SSGN (AP–CY) ....................................................................................... 86,440 549,440 +463,000

(Note: of the additional funds made available, $112,000,000

is only for the procurement of an additional reactor core to

support a four boat SSGN program.) ...................................... .......................... .......................... +463,000

VIRGINIA CLASS SUBMARINE ................................................................ 1,608,914 1,578,914 ¥30,000

Cost Growth Reduction ................................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥30,000

CVN REFUELING OVERHAULS ................................................................ 1,118,124 1,175,124 +57,000

CVN–69 RCOH .............................................................................. 0 .......................... +57,000

DDG–51 ................................................................................................. 2,966,036 3,786,036 +820,000

1 Additional Destroyer ................................................................. .......................... .......................... +820,000

LHD–1 AMPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHIP ...................................................... 267,238 0 ¥267,238

Slow prior year obligation ............................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥267,238

LPD–17 (AP–CY) ................................................................................... 421,330 286,330 ¥135,000

Premature long-lead for LPDs 23/24 .......................................... .......................... .......................... ¥135,000

OUTFITTING ............................................................................................ 307,230 297,230 ¥10,000

Authorization Reduction ............................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥10,000

LCAC SLEP ............................................................................................ 41,091 46,091 5,000

COMPLETION OF PY SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMS .................................... 800,000 680,000 ¥120,000

(Note: LPD–17, ¥$75,000,000; SSN–774, ¥$25,000,000;

CVN–76, ¥$20,000,000) ....................................................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

MINE HUNTER SWATH ........................................................................... 0 2,000 +2,000

YARD OILERS ......................................................................................... 0 6,000 +6,000

SHIPBUILDING PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

The Committee is increasingly concerned about what it views as

a serious lack of programmatic and fiscal discipline with respect to

Naval shipbuilding programs. Specifically, it appears that significant cost increases and schedule delays have virtually become

standard and accepted business practices with regard to almost

every shipbuilding program under the Navy’s management.

Morever, recent poor cost and schedule performance, as typified by

the LPD–17 and New Attack Submarine programs, seem to be tolerated by senior Navy leadership as a norm. The Committee believes that the Navy has actually compounded this problem by the

establishment of the ‘‘Prior Year Shipbuilding Cost Account’’ which

requests new appropriations to fund cost increases on previously

appropriated ships. While acknowledging the need to meet valid

cost growth demands, the Committee is concerned that this could

encourage a more aggressive claims posture on the part of shipbuilders, while reducing the incentive for Navy program managers

to complete their programs within budgeted amounts.

119

The Committee is also dismayed that the Navy continues to advocate the use of alternative financing mechanisms to artificially

increase shipbuilding rates, such as advanced appropriations, or incremental funding of ships, which only serve to decrease cost visibility and accountability on these important programs. In attempting to establish advanced appropriations as a legitimate budgeting

technique, those Navy advocates of such practices would actually

decrease the flexibility of future Administrations and Congresses to

make rational capital budgeting decisions with regard to shipbuilding programs. Accordingly, the Committee bill includes a new

general provision (section 8150) which prohibits the Defense Department from budgeting for shipbuilding programs on the basis of

advanced appropriations.

It is argued by some, including many in the Navy and the shipbuilding industry, that the best way to improve the cost performance of shipbuilding programs is simply to increase the number of

ships being built in any given year in order to enjoy the benefits

of economies of scale. However, the Committee believes this is only

part of the equation. Investment is also needed in better cost estimating techniques, innovative design and manufacturing technologies and competitive sub-vendor strategies in a low rate production environment, all areas that have not traditionally received

strong attention or support from the Navy. It should be noted that

these lessons were learned years ago by the aerospace industry,

which remains highly competitive internationally despite producing

at vastly reduced rates for the Defense Department.

The Committee will continue to work in partnership with the

Navy and the shipbuilding industry to provide adequate resources

to maintain the size of the fleet and keep the industrial base economically sound. Towards that end, the Committee has provided an

additional $790,792,000 above the fiscal year 2002 budget request

for shipbuilding programs. These funds will enable the Navy to exceed those production rates requested in its fiscal year 2002 budget

by procuring an additional DDG–51 destroyer, accelerating the conversion and overhaul of the CVN–69, and initiating a four submarine Tactical Trident program instead of two as proposed by the

Navy. The Committee will also exercise its oversight responsibilities to ensure that the continued recapitalization of the fleet is accomplished in an efficient and cost-effective manner.

SSGN TACTICAL TRIDENT

The Navy requested $86,440,000 for the SSGN Tactical Trident

Program. The Committee recommends $549,440,000, an increase of

$463,000,000. The additional funds provided by the Committee are

for all the necessary expenses to initiate a four submarine SSGN

program to include an additional reactor core, design, conversion

planning, and long lead materials.

The Committee strongly endorses this effort to convert and equip

otherwise retiring Trident submarines as cruise missile carriers.

The Committee also believes that there exists a substantial business and operational case for converting four submarines to the

SSGN configuration, instead of two as proposed by the Navy. A two

submarine SSGN program yields deployment patterns that provide

forward presence in only one theater worldwide, and calls into

120

question the cost-effectiveness of the investment required which

would provide half the capability of a four submarine program for

two-thirds of the cost due to one time non-recurring design and

fixed costs. On the other hand, a four submarine SSGN program

would provide continuous presence in two theaters worldwide while

freeing up Navy assets for other missions such as theater ballistic

missile defense, intelligence and surveillance, and homeland defense. It would also provide more opportunities for experimentation

and demonstration of alternative payloads. The Committee therefore urges the Navy to complete the proper program planning and

budgeting to ensure that a four submarine SSGN program is supported in the fiscal year 2003 budget request.

DDG–51 DESTROYER

The Navy requested $2,966,036,000 for three DDG–51 destroyers. The Committee recommends $3,786,036,000 for four destroyers, an increase of $820,000,000 and one destroyer. Recognizing the

necessity of maintaining the size of the surface combatant fleet in

light of the pending DD–21 program restructure and delay, the

Committee recommends the continued acquisition of DDG–51 destroyers.

LPD–17 ACQUISITION STRATEGY

The LPD–17 amphibious ship acquisition strategy needs to aggressively incorporate life-cycle cost reduction as a major program

objective. In general, the use of composite materials can be a major

contributor to achieving this goal. Specifically, composite fairwater

components offer a much lower life-cycle cost compared to metallic

fairwaters, including the ability to inspect shaft bearings and

change out fairwaters without dry-docking the ship. In order to ensure that this cost reduction can be achieved in a timely manner

the Committee directs that the Department of the Navy use up to

$5,000,000 of fiscal year 2002 funds requested for Ship Outfitting

in the ‘‘Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy’’ appropriation account

for the design tooling and procurement of main propulsion shaft rotating and non-rotating composite fairwaters for the LPD–17 lead

ship.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002.

121

122

OTHER PROCUREMENT, NAVY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $3,557,380,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 4,097,576,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 4,290,776,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +193,200,000

This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of major

equipment and weapons other than ships, aircraft, missiles, and

torpedoes. Such equipment ranges from the latest electronic sensors for updating naval forces to trucks, training equipment, and

spare parts.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from

request

OTHER NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT ........................................................... 45,946 60,446 +14,500

MSC Force Protection Thermal Imaging Systems ........................ .......................... .......................... +7,500

Computer Aided Dead Reckoning Tracer (Note: funds are only

to procure and install AN/UYQ–70 computer aided dead

reckoning tracers on surface combatants.) ............................ .......................... .......................... +7,000

STRATEGIC PLATFORM SUPPORT EQUIP ................................................ 11,276 24,276 +13,000

Submarine Common Electronics Equipment Replacement (Note:

Funds are only for the procurement of AN/UYQ–70 family

equipment to modernize submarine combat systems.) ......... .......................... .......................... +13,000

ITEMS LESS THAN $5 million ................................................................ 79,285 74,285 ¥5,000

CVN Smartship—Unjustified program growth ............................ .......................... .......................... ¥5,000

STANDARD BOATS ................................................................................. 32,151 36,151 +4,000

25 Person Life Rafts .................................................................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

OPERATING FORCES IPE ........................................................................ 27,522 24,822 ¥2,700

N88 Other Equipment .................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥2,700

NUCLEAR ALTERATIONS ......................................................................... 121,105 121,105 0

RADAR SUPPORT ................................................................................... 0 29,000 +29,000

MK–92 Radar Fire Control Upgrade ............................................ .......................... .......................... +5,000

SPS–73 Surface Search Radar .................................................... .......................... .......................... +14,000

AN/SYS–2 Track Management System for FFG–7s ..................... .......................... .......................... +10,000

SSN ACOUSTICS .................................................................................... 113,016 122,016 +9,000

Non-propulsion Electronic system Modernization ........................ .......................... .......................... +9,000

UNDERSEA WARFARE SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ......................................... 4,263 9,263 +5,000

Carrier Tactical Surveillance Center (CV–TSC) ........................... .......................... .......................... +1,000

Surface Ship Torpedo Defense (Note: Funds include $2,000,000

only for procurement of improved littoral winch and tow

cable capability.) ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

NAVY TACTICAL DATA SYSTEM .............................................................. 0 10,000 +10,000

Shore based AN/UYQ–70 display modernization ......................... .......................... .......................... +10,000

COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT CAPABILITY .............................................. 77,133 87,133 +10,000

Low Cost Planar Array Antenna Production Transition ............... .......................... .......................... +10,000

MINESWEEPING SYSTEM REPLACEMENT ............................................... 8,903 11,903 +3,000

MCM Sea Bottom Mapping and Change Detection ..................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

ID SYSTEMS ........................................................................................... 18,310 17,310 ¥1,000

Authorization Reduction ............................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,000

SURFACE IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS ..................................................... .......................... 2,000 +2,000

Shipboard Advanced Radar Target ID (SARTIS) .......................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

TADIX–B ................................................................................................ 0 14,300 +14,300

(Note: Only for procurement of additional JTTs) ......................... .......................... .......................... +14,300

NAVAL SPACE SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM ................................................. 4,898 3,498 ¥1,400

Excessive Program Growth ........................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,400

ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................. 6,332 9,332 +3,000

123

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from

request

Integrated Condition Assessment system Wireless Sensors

(ICAS) (Note: Only to procure the network capable application processors demonstrated during the total ship monitoring project to integrate with and enhance the capabilities of current and future (ICAS installations.) ..................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

SHIP COMMUNICATIONS AUTOMATION .................................................. 121,242 127,242 +6,000

NAWCAD MSTIC Equipment Upgrades ......................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

Programmable Integrated Computer Terminal (Note: funds are

only for engineering modifications for expansion of Programmable Integrated Communications Terminals integration using SPAWAR initiatives and procurement of terminals

for the integrated Voice network Communication project.) ... .......................... .......................... +4,000

COMMUNICATIONS ITEMS LESS THAN $5 million ................................. 24,278 47,278 +23,000

Enhanced COTS ON–201 Secure Voice System Technology

(Note: only for procurement and installation of enhanced

COTS secure voice system technology production systems in

lead ships in the CG modernization program.) ...................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

IT–21 Block 1 Upgrade C41SR Computing Equipment Procurement (Note: Only for procurement of AN/UYQ–70 advanced

tactical servers to support the IT–21 block 1 upgrade program.) ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +9,000

Network-Based Shipboard Interior Secure Voice Communications (Note: Only for AN/UYQ–70 secure voice technology

equipment for land based evaluation, ILS, training, maintenance development and integration.) ..................................... .......................... .......................... +10,00

SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ............................................... 198,143 210,143 +12,000

Digital Modular Radio .................................................................. .......................... .......................... +12,000

JEDMICS ................................................................................................ 0 8,000 +8,000

JEDMICS Security Infrastructure (Note: Only for the continued

procurement and integration of the same security solution

implemented in 2000 and 2001, and its extension into

other logistics processes.) ...................................................... .......................... .......................... +8,000

NAVAL SHORE COMMUNICATIONS ......................................................... 66,772 83,772 +17,000

Mini-DAMA Teminals (Submarines/Ships) ................................... .......................... .......................... +10,000

Definity G3 Network Upgrade (Note: Only to complete the telecommunications switch upgrades at the San Diego Naval

Complex and the Bremerton, WA Naval Hospital.) ................. .......................... .......................... +7,000

INFO SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM (ISSP) ......................................... 78,170 84,170 +6,000

Intelligent Agent Security Module (Note: Only for SBIR Phase

III.) ........................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

Secure Terminal Equipment ......................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

AEGIS SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................................. 155,113 158,113 +3,000

COTS Emulators for NSWC Laboratories ...................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

STRATEGIC MISSILE SYSTEMS EQUIP .................................................... 205,094 205,094 0

Authorization Reduction ............................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,000

Smartship Upgrades .................................................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

OTHER SUPPLY SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .................................................. 7,534 9,534 +2,000

Serial Number Tracking System (Note: Only to begin integrating this technology into Navy supply and maintenance

applications.) ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

TRAINING SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ........................................................... 1,101 6,101 +5,000

Trident sonar Manuals-Data Management and Conversion ....... .......................... .......................... +5,000

COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .......................................................... 28,787 41,787 +13,000

Authorization Reduction ............................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,000

Advanced Technical Information System (ATIS) .......................... .......................... .......................... +1,500

SPAWAR Information Technology Center ...................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

Man Over Board Indicator (MOBI) ............................................... .......................... .......................... +10,500

ENVIRONMENTAL SUPPORT EQUIPMENT ................................................ 25,205 25,205 +32,705

(Note: Only for the planned collaborative Naval Observatory/

University Doppler Spectrometry Telescope Program.) ........... .......................... .......................... 7,500

124

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002.

125

126

127

128

PROCUREMENT, MARINE CORPS

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $1,233,268,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 981,724,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,028,662,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +46,938,000

This appropriation funds the procurement, delivery, and modification of missiles, armaments, communication equipment, tracked

and wheeled vehicles, and various support equipment.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committee recommended

Change from

request

AAAV ...................................................................................................... 1,512 0 ¥1,512

AAAV ............................................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥1,512

MARINE ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM ....................................................... 2,243 6,493 4,250

Bayonnet 2000 ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 4,250

MODULAR WEAPON SYSTEM .................................................................. 7,501 4,401 ¥3,100

Modular Weapon System .............................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥3,100

MODIFICATION KITS ............................................................................... 6,612 3,612 ¥3,000

Modification Kits .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥3,000

NIGHT VISION EQUIPMENT ..................................................................... 22,374 32,374 10,000

AN/PVS–17 Night Vision Sight .................................................... .......................... .......................... 10,000

RADIO SYSTEMS .................................................................................... 50,911 49,411 ¥1,500

STAR–T Contract Termination ...................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,500

COMMS SWITCHING & CONTROL SYSTEMS ........................................... 0 1,000 1,000

AN/UXC–10 TS–21 Blackjack Digital Facsimile .......................... .......................... .......................... 1,000

COMM & ELEC INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT ......................................... 7,546 11,548 4,000

DPRIS Database (Note: Only for procurement of a second

USMC DPRIS Database) .......................................................... .......................... .......................... 4,000

AIR OPERATIONS C2 SYSTEMS .............................................................. 5,210 3,110 ¥2,100

Legacy Agencies ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,100

5/4T TRUCK HMMWV (MYP) .................................................................. 109,201 119,201 10,000

HMMWV (Note: Only for the procurement of Up-Armored

HMMWV variants) .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 10,000

MEDIUM TACTICAL VEHICLE REPLACEMENT ......................................... 312,199 309,699 ¥2,500

Truck Training Simulators ........................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,500

POWER EQUIPMENT ASSORTED ............................................................. 7,622 7,622 0

Laser Leveling .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 1,000

Portable Floodlights and Generators ........................................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,000

COMMAND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .......................................................... 0 2,000 2,000

MIC–240 Ultimate Building Machines for Marine Corps engineering units ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,000

MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIP .................................................................. 27,453 38,353 10,900

Extendable Boom Forklift ............................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,500

TRAM ............................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 7,400

FAMILY OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ............................................... 8,281 25,281 17,000

D–7 Bulldozers ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 17,000

ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................. 7,684 9,184 1,500

Aluminum Mesh Liners/Propane Tanks ....................................... .......................... .......................... 1,500

INNOVATIVE STAND-OFF DOOR BREACHING MUNITIONS

Last year, Congress provided funds to the Marine Corps for the

Innovative Stand-Off Door Breaching Munition (ISOD). The Committee recognizes that the Marine Corps will require non-explosive

fire from enclosure capability in order to operate effectively in Military Operations on Urbanized Terrain (MOUT) engagements. ISOD

technology will enable forces engaged in the urban battleground to

129

breach doors and other similar structures from a stand-off distance

of up to 100 meters without exposing Marines to direct hostile fire.

The Committee is encouraged by the Marine Corps’ pursuit of this

technology and supports the Marine Corps’ efforts to examine the

broad application of ISOD to both regular and special operations

forces. The Committee requests that the Marine Corps keep the

Committee informed of the progress of this initiative.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2002:

130

131

132

AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriations ........................................................ 7,583,345,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 10,744,458,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 10,549,798,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥194,660,000

This appropriation provides for the procurement of aircraft, and

for modification of in-service aircraft to improve safety and enhance

operational effectiveness. It also provides for initial spares and

other support equipment to include aerospace ground equipment

and industrial facilities. In addition, funds are provided for the procurement of flight training simulators to increase combat readiness

and to provide for more economical training.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committee recommendation

Change from

request

F–22 RAPTOR (AP–CY) ......................................................................... 379,159 234,759 ¥144,400

Transfer funding for DMS ............................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥111,400

Reduced requirement for AP based on DAB reduction of 3 aircraft in FY 2003 ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥33,000

C–17A (MYP) ......................................................................................... 2,875,775 2,808,425 ¥67,350

Transfer whole engine spares to C–17 ICS ................................ .......................... .......................... ¥18,600

TEPATS simulator ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... +9,750

Transfer funds to AP for rate impact ......................................... .......................... .......................... ¥36,000

AF requested realignment from C–17 ICS .................................. .......................... .......................... ¥22,500

C–17A (MYP) (AP–CY) .......................................................................... 228,100 431,000 +202,900

Rate impact funds ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... +36,000

AF identified reduction in AP requirements ................................ .......................... .......................... ¥14,000

EOQ for second C–17 MYP .......................................................... .......................... .......................... +180,900

C–17 ICS ............................................................................................... 441,163 482,263 +41,100

Transfer whole engine spares to ICS .......................................... .......................... .......................... +18,600

AF requested realignment to C–17 MYP line-item ..................... .......................... .......................... +22,500

C–130J .................................................................................................. 221,809 0 ¥221,809

Transfer to Procurement, NGRE account ..................................... .......................... .......................... ¥221,809

JPATS ..................................................................................................... 228,409 270,409 +42,000

Additional aircraft ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... +42,000

CIVIL AIR PATROL A/C ........................................................................... 2,629 9,629 +7,000

Additional aircraft ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... +7,000

C–40 Aeromedical Evacuation Aircraft ................................................ .......................... 85,000 +85,000

EC–130H ............................................................................................... 19,000 0 ¥19,000

Transfer Project Suter .................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥19,000

E–8C ..................................................................................................... 283,202 273,202 ¥10,000

Prior year pricing ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥10,000

HAEUAV (AP–CY) ................................................................................... 33,500 0 ¥33,500

Advance procurement of Global Hawk HAE UAV ......................... .......................... .......................... ¥33,500

PREDATOR UAV ..................................................................................... 19,632 39,632 +20,000

Predator B—only for acquisition of two Predator B turboprop

and one Predabor B jet aircraft with spare parts, to conduct of an evaluation of vehicle operation in conjuncton

with current Predator systems ................................................ .......................... .......................... +20,000

B–2A ..................................................................................................... 11,858 25,358 +13,500

SATCOM ........................................................................................ .......................... .......................... +13,500

B–1B ..................................................................................................... 95,493 37,693 ¥57,800

Transfer to ANG O&M .................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥57,800

F–117 .................................................................................................... .......................... 27,620 +27,620

AF requested realignment of funds from classified line ............ .......................... .......................... +27,620

F–15 ...................................................................................................... 212,160 237,160 +25,,000

F–15 engine E-kits ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... +6,000

BOL IR .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +5,000

133

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committee recommendation

Change from

request

ALQ-135 Band 1.5 ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... +10,000

F–15 IFF for ANG NORAD alert mission aircraft ......................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

F–16 ...................................................................................................... 231,962 236,962 +5,000

OBOGS .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

ACES II upgrade ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

T–38 ...................................................................................................... 144,726 159,726 +15,000

Ejection seats .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... +15,000

C–130 ................................................................................................... 57,936 59,936 +2,000

Modular Airborne Firefighting System for ANG ........................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

C–135 ................................................................................................... 231,066 175,066 ¥56,000

KC–135 reengine ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥56,000

DARP ..................................................................................................... 195,045 199,045 +4,000

Procurement and installation of Theater Airborne Warning System aircraft modification kits ................................................. .......................... .......................... +4,000

E–8 ........................................................................................................ 82,996 64,296 ¥18,700

Disapprove Spiral Development Modification based on unclear

program content ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥7,200

Reduce funding for Vanguard mod based on lack of justification .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,000

SATCOM transfer to R&D ............................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥5,700

RVSM transfer to R&D ................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥5,800

Joint Services Workstation (JSWS) and initial support for Air

Operations Center .................................................................... .......................... .......................... +5,000

PREDATOR MODS .................................................................................. 10,384 16,384 +6,000

Structured reliability and maintainability program and to complete the conversion of Predator GCS to PC-based architecture .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +6,000

CLASSIFIED PROJECTS ........................................................................... 23,227 42,227 +19,000

Transfer Project Suter .................................................................. .......................... .......................... +19,000

WAR CONSUMABLES .............................................................................. 44,369 49,369 +5,000

MALD ............................................................................................ .......................... .......................... +5,000

Note: Committee designates MALD program as special interest,

including funds requested in budget.

MISC PRODUCTION CHARGES ............................................................... 324,986 329,986 +5,000

Air Combat Training Range Security ........................................... .......................... .......................... +5,000

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS ......................................................................... 27,620 0 ¥27,620

AF requested realignment of funds ............................................. .......................... .......................... ¥27,620

F–22

The Air Force requested $2,658,153,000 to procure 13 F–22 aircraft. The Committee recommends $2,655,553,000, a net reduction

of $2,600,000. This adjustment includes a decrease of $100,000,000

for tooling, a decrease of $14,000,000 for ancillary equipment, and

an increase of $111,400,000 for redesign of obsolete parts.

The F–22 has recently received approval from the Office of the

Secretary of Defense to enter into low rate initial production. However, based on continued growth in cost estimates for the aircraft

as well as continued delays in testing, the Defense Acquisition

Board (DAB) agreed to slow down the planned production ramp.

The fiscal year 2002 budget, prepared before the DAB decision, includes a request for $135,500,000 for tooling. The Air Force concedes that the new production plan results in a reduced requirement for tooling, though to date the Air Force does not have a revised tooling estimate. Given the change in the production ramp,

and the availability of nearly $160,000,000 provided last year for

tooling, the Committee recommends a reduction of $100,000,000.

The Committee further recommends a reduction of $14,000,000

out of $61,900,000 requested for ancillary equipment. Ancillary

134

equipment includes items such as bomb racks, drop tanks, and missile rails. These items are not necessarily procured on a one for one

basis with each aircraft, and they typically have shorter lead times

than a full-up F–22 aircraft. Ancillary equipment should be budgeted lead time from need and the committee accordingly recommends a reduction of $14,000,000.

The Committee is also concerned with a number of peculiar

budgeting practices in the F–22 program. For example, the Air

Force has budgeted cost reduction initiatives for future aircraft as

part of the cost of current year aircraft and engines. Last year, this

practice allowed cost reduction initiatives to be ‘‘traded away’’ to

pay for airframe cost increases without budget displays showing

the full change in unit cost. Other issues involve ancillary equipment budgeted in multiple line-items and DMS redesign efforts

budgeted in advanced procurement. The Committee has moved the

DMS funding from advanced procurement to the regular F–22

funding line. The Committee directs the Air Force to carefully review the F–22 and other aircraft budget displays to resolve these

and similar issues in future submissions. The Committee encourages the OSD and Air Force Comptroller organizations to more aggressively review the details behind these budget displays to ensure they conform with normal budgeting practices.

C–17 MULTIYEAR PROCUREMENT CONTRACT

The Committee has provided an additional $180,900,000 for procurement of economic order quantity (EOQ) parts associated with

initiation of a second C–17 multiyear contract (or extension of the

current contract). Recent mobility requirements analyses have consistently established the need for additional strategic airlift. The

current C–17 multiyear contract ends in fiscal year 2003, and the

EOQ to initiate a second contract would otherwise be required in

fiscal year 2002. The Committee is disappointed that the Air Force

did not include these EOQ funds in its fiscal year 2002 request.

The Air Force has indicated that delaying a decision on a second

multiyear contract could add as much as $1,000,000,000 to the cost

of the program. The Committee strongly supports the need for additional C–17 aircraft and has provided the requisite EOQ funding.

However, the Committee still insists that DoD provide the customary multiyear budget documentation prior to contract award.

Accordingly, the Committee has included a new general provision

(Sec. 8151), which requires the submission of this budget documentation at least 30 days prior to award of a C–17 contract. The

provision also requires the Secretary of Defense to certify that all

other Title 10 requirements with regard to a proposed multiyear

procurement have been satisfied. The Committee expects that a

savings of up to 15 percent relative to annual contracts will be

achieved through the use of multiyear contracting on this important program.

C–40 AEROMEDIVAC AIRCRAFT

In light of the recent terrorist attacks, the Committee believes it

is imperative to ensure the military has a modern medical response

capability. The Committee recommendation includes an additional

$85,000,000, over the amounts in the budget request, only for a

135

737–700 aircraft to initiate replacement of the aging fleet of C–9

AEROMEDIVAC aircraft.

GLOBAL HAWK HIGH ALTITUDE ENDURANCE (HAE) UNMANNED AERIAL

VEHICLE (UAV)

The fiscal year 2002 budget included a total request of $309,367,000 for the Global Hawk HAE UAV, an increase of

$142,616,000 over the fiscal year 2001 appropriation, not including

a supplemental appropriation. The Committee recommends a total

of $259,367,000 for the Global Hawk HAE UAV, a reduction of

$50,000,000 from the budget request and $92,616,000 over the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level.

In addition, the Committee has provided a total increase of $40,000,000 over the President’s budget request for projects in support of the current and future Global Hawk mission. The Committee recommends a $10,000,000 increase for the Navy to pursue

the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS) concept in support

of the Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance (MPR) mission and a

$30,000,000 increase for the Air Force to pursue a modern ELINT

system, including the High Band Sub System (HBSS) alternative

from the terminated Joint SIGINT Avionics Family (JSAF) program. The Air Force requested $33,500,000 for advanced procurement

of the Global Hawk HAE UAV. The Committee recommends no

funding, a reduction of $33,500,000. The $33,500,000 request was based on the Air Force plan to purchase long lead items for two air vehicles scheduled for delivery in

fiscal year 2004. Prior to the 2004 delivery, significant decisions

must be made in 2002 and 2003. It is unclear to the Committee if

the planned advances in the program will be sufficient to request

or approve these decisions and therefore the long lead request in

fiscal year 2002 appears premature.

The Committee supports Air Force plans to accelerate production

of the Block 10 variant Global Hawk aircraft. The planned enhanced engine performance and sensor enhancements in that aircraft offer significant increases in reconnaissance capability. The

Committee remains concerned, however, about the lack of detailed

information on the accelerated production plan, and withholds its

commitment to full scale production of Block 10 aircraft prior to

completion of initial operational test and evaluation. The Committee directs the Air Force to provide for the Committee a detailed

plan for Block 10 production by December 1, 2001. Should the Air

Force determine that it is in the best interest of the government

to order long lead items prior to the completion of the initial operational test and evaluation, the Committee would consider a reprogramming request.

C–17 MODIFICATIONS

The Air Force requested $139,278,000 for C–17 Modifications.

The Committee recommends $98,878,000, a reduction of

$40,400,000. This amount includes a reduction of $33,400,000 for

Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) and

$7,000,000 for cost savings in GATM modifications. With regard to

LAIRCM, the Committee notes that initiation of the development

136

program has been delayed until fiscal year 2002. Though the Committee supports the LAIRCM program, the Committee has deferred

production in recognition of the delays in the development program.

C–5 MODIFICATIONS

The Air Force requested $103,214,000 for C–5 modifications. The

Committee recommends $12,714,000, a reduction of $90,500,000.

As conceived last year, the C–5 Avionics Modernization Program

(AMP) was based on a ‘‘fly-before-buy’’ acquisition strategy. Delays

in the development program have deferred the projected completion

of flight testing until the third quarter of fiscal year 2003. In keeping with the original acquisition strategy, the Committee recommendation defers initial production of the C–5 AMP modification by one year. The Committee supports the need for C–5 avionics modernization. However, it has been the Committee’s experience that the complexity of this type of modification has been consistently underestimated by the government and contractors in the

past (the Air Force experience with the T–38 is a recent example).

Accordingly, the Committee believes that the Air Force’s original

‘‘fly-before-buy’’ acquisition strategy is prudent and should be preserved.

ALL TERRAIN LOADER

The Committee directs the Air Force, in full consultation with

the Army, to review the capability of current material handling

equipment to meet mission requirements for C–130 deployability,

high volume, unimproved surface mobility, austere airfield operations, and off-road transport. As the Army moves toward a transformation force, it is critical that sufficient material handling

equipment be available to support operations at austere airfields.

The review should identify any requirement gaps, anticipated

equipment shortfalls, or other limitations of current material handling equipment, and be submitted to the Committee on Appropriations by March 31, 2002.

COMBAT SEARCH AND RESCUE

The Committee is aware of the increased expense and decreased

operational readiness associated with maintaining our aging helicopter fleet. Last year the conferees noted Air Force intentions to

replace aging Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR) helicopters with

a new medium-lift aircraft with greater range and speed. The Committee believes that the operational fielding of replacement CSAR

helicopters should be accelerated and recommends the Air Force

consider available ‘‘fly-before-buy’’ alternatives.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2002:

137

138

139

MISSILE PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriations ........................................................ $2,863,778,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 3,233,536,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 2,918,118,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥315,418,000

This appropriation provides for procurement, installation, and

checkout of strategic ballistic and other missiles, modification of inservice missiles, and initial spares for missile systems. It also provides for operational space systems, boosters, payloads, drones, associated ground equipment, non-recurring maintenance of industrial facilities, machine tool modernization, and special program

support.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from

request

JOINT STANDOFF WEAPON ..................................................................... 54,641 20,101 ¥34,540

GAO recommended reduction ....................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥34,540

MM III MODIFICATIONS .......................................................................... 552,678 542,678 ¥10,000

Pricing for GRP ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥10,000

PEACEKEEPER (M–X) ............................................................................ 5,146 10,046 +4,900

Peacekeeper support equipment .................................................. .......................... .......................... +4,900

SPARES AND REPAIR PARTS ................................................................. 61,844 56,944 ¥4,900

Peacekeeper support equipment .................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥4,900

WIDEBAND GAPFILLER SATELLITES ....................................................... 377,509 348,509 ¥29,000

Program reduction ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥29,000

GLOBAL POSITIONING (SPACE) .............................................................. 177,719 152,719 ¥25,000

Reduce funding for GPS IIF launch and on-orbit support. GPS

IIF will not be launched in FY 2002 ....................................... .......................... .......................... ¥15,000

Reduce excessive program office support ................................... .......................... .......................... ¥10,000

NUDET DETECTION SYSTEM .................................................................. 0 22,700 +22,700

Transfer from NRO ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... +22,700

DEF METEOROLOGICAL SAT PROG ........................................................ 47,580 44,580 ¥3,000

Launch delays .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥3,000

DEFENSE SUPPORT PROGRAM (SPACE) ................................................ 112,456 107,456 ¥5,000

Launch delays .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥5,000

TITAN SPACE BOOSTERS (SPACE) ......................................................... 385,298 365,298 ¥20,000

Chronic underexecution ................................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥20,000

EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE ............................................. 98,007 88,007 ¥10,000

Pricing .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥10,000

MEDIUM LAUNCH VEHICLE (SPACE) ...................................................... 42,355 37,355 ¥5,000

Unjustified growth in Delta launch services ............................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,000

GPS ADVANCE PROCUREMENT

The Air Force requested $23,760,000 for advance procurement for

modifications to GPS satellites. The Committee denies the request.

The use of advance procurement authority is a special exception to

the full funding policy reserved almost exclusively for procurement

of new production items. Such authority is typically not extended

to modifications. The Committee is further dismayed with this particular request in that many of the parts appear to be budgeted

ahead of need. Most of the requested parts have extremely short

lead times (6 months) and would deliver well within fiscal year

2002. These parts would ostensibly sit on the shelf until needed by

a modification that is not funded until fiscal year 2003. AccordVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00149 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
140

ingly, the Committee recommends deferring purchase of these

parts until fiscal year 2003, in keeping with normal full funding

budgeting practices.

SBIRS HIGH

The Air Force requested $93,752,000 for advance procurement for

the entire production run of the Space Based Infrared System

(SBIRS) High satellite program. The Committee denies the request.

The Committee notes that the SBIRS High development program

is currently facing serious hardware and software design problems.

These problems are driving significant program shortfalls in all

years, reportedly totaling more than $500 million. A recent GAO

report notes that sensor jitter and inadequate infrared sensitivity

as well as an issue of stray sunlight have plagued the program and

are driving cost increases and schedule delays. Program officials

have indicated that there are currently unbudgeted payload redesign activities and that schedule variances experienced to date portend serious schedule impacts ahead. The program office also reports ‘‘inconceivable software code growth’’ with an ‘‘overwhelming’’

number of discrepancy reports in ground mission software. The

program is achieving ‘‘at best 1⁄2 of the estimated software development productivity’’ required to meet its schedule. Given these

issues, the Committee believes it is prudent to defer satellite hardware procurement to provide additional time for development. The

Committee notes that this action in itself will have no impact on

projected launch dates given that these satellites were being procured ahead of need under the existing acquisition strategy. Likely

slips in the development program will also provide additional margin for the production program. To address fiscal year 2002 development shortfalls, the Committee has added $30,000,000 in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force appropriations account for SBIRS High.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2002:

141

142

PROCUREMENT OF AMMUNITION, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriations ........................................................ $647,808,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 865,344,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 866,844,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +1,500,000

This appropriation finances the acquisition of ammunition, modifications, spares, weapons, and other ammunition-related items for

the Air Force.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommendation

Change from request

GENERAL PURPOSE BOMBS .................................................................. 110,522 112,022 +1,500

Cast Ductile Iron bombs (BDU–56) ............................................. .......................... .......................... +1,500

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2002:

143

144

OTHER PROCUREMENT, AIR FORCE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriations ........................................................ $7,763,747,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 8,159,521,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 7,856,671,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥302,850,000

This appropriation provides for the procurement of weapon systems and equipment other than aircraft and missiles. Included are

vehicles, electronic and telecommunications systems for command

and control of operational forces, and ground support equipment for

weapon systems and supporting structure.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committee

recommendation

Change from

request

INTELLIGENCE COMM EQUIP ................................................................. 1,955 13,775 +11,820

Secure Terminal Equipment ......................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

RC–135 Senior Scout ANG: Update mission management processor ........................................................................................ .......................... .......................... +820

RC–135 Senior Scout ANG: Procurement, installation, and delivery of JTIDS capability ......................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,600

RC–135 Senior Scout ANG: Procurement of third shelter configuration ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... +2,800

RC–135 Senior ANG: Ground station modernization ................... .......................... .......................... +1,600

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM ................................................................ 71,930 51,930 ¥20,000

DASR test failures ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥20,000

THEATER AIR CONTROL SYS IMPRO ...................................................... 15,057 22,376 +7,319

Delay of Joint Mission Planning System ..................................... .......................... .......................... ¥7,681

AN/TYQ–23 modular control equipment (MCE) operations modules for ANG ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... +15,000

GENERAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY .................................................. 56,817 60,817 +4,000

REMIS ........................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

COMBAT TRAINING RANGES .................................................................. 67,585 74,085 +6,500

AN/MSQ–T–43 Modular Threat Emitter ....................................... .......................... .......................... +1,500

Mini-MUTES .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... +5,000

MILSTATCOM SPACE .............................................................................. 21,367 15,967 ¥5,400

Transfer CCS–C ‘‘Development Lab’’ Equipment to R&D ........... .......................... .......................... ¥5,400

COMBAT SURVIVOR EVADER LOCATE .................................................... 2,222 0 ¥2,222

Availability of prior year funds pending resolution of problems .......................... .......................... ¥2,222

COMM ELECT MODS .............................................................................. 66,386 53,386 ¥13,000

Unjustified level of procurement of NCMC–TW/AA hardware ..... .......................... .......................... ¥13,000

ITEMS LESS THAN $5 MILLION .............................................................. 7,680 14,980 +7,300

SCOT Life Support and Communications Tester ......................... .......................... .......................... +6,000

LESPA ........................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +1,300

MECHANIZED MATERIAL HANDLING ....................................................... 14,361 19,361 +5,000

Supply Asset Tracking System (Note: Only to continue installation at Air Force Reserve and Air National Guard Facilities.) .......................... .......................... +5,000

FIRST DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION .................................................. 11,822 9,322 ¥2,500

History of underexecution ............................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥2,500

SPACE BASED IR SENSOR PROGRAM

The Air Force requested $54,347,000 for hardware for a backup

SBIRS mission control system. The Committee denies the request.

Software development for the SBIRS system has suffered significant delays resulting in a 2 year slip in the initial implementation

(Increment 1). As noted in the SBIRS High satellite discussion elsewhere in this report, according to the GAO, the program continues

to experience ‘‘inconceivable software code growth’’ with an ‘‘overVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
145

whelming’’ number of discrepancy reports in ground mission software. The program is achieving ‘‘at best 1⁄2 of the estimated software development productivity’’ required to meet its schedule.

Given these software delays and the availability of an existing interim backup ground station, the Committee recommendation defers hardware procurement for the permanent backup ground system.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2002:

146

147

148

PROCUREMENT, DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $2,346,258,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 1,603,927,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,387,283,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥216,644,000

This appropriation funds the Procurement, Defense-Wide activities of the Department of Defense.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request Recommended Change from request

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, OSD ....................................................................... 87,189 112,189 25,000

High Performance Computing Modernization Program (Note:

Only for the AHPCRC, for the priority procurement of HPC

systems with low CPU-memory latency and high bandwidth.) ..................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 25,000

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, WHS ...................................................................... 18,836 14,836 ¥4,000

Information Technology Underexecution ...................................... .......................... .......................... ¥4,000

DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY.

VEHICLES ............................................................................................... 145 0 ¥145

Transfer to Title IX ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥145

OTHER MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 24,480 0 ¥24,480

Transfer to Title IX ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥24,480

MAJOR EQUIPMENT, DCMA.

MAJOR EQUIPMENT ................................................................................ 31,413 27,013 ¥4,400

SPS Schedule Slip ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥4,400

SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND.

SOF ROTARY WING UPGRADES .............................................................. 79,084 84,084 5,000

160th SOAR Aircraft Modifications .............................................. .......................... .......................... 5,000

ADVANCED SEAL DELIVERY SYS ........................................................... 33,439 14,238 ¥19,201

Advanced Seal Delivery System ................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥19,201

ADVANCED SEAL DELIVERY SYS (AP–CY) ............................................. 13,697 0 ¥13,697

Advanced Seal Delivery System ................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥13,697

SOF ORDNANCE ACQUISITION ............................................................... 5,635 9,635 4,000

Gunshot/Sniper Detection System ................................................ .......................... .......................... 4,000

COMM EQUIPMENT & ELECTRONICS ..................................................... 41,404 47,404 6,000

AN/PRC-148 Multi-band Intra/Inter Team Radio ........................ .......................... .......................... 6,000

SOF INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS ................................................................ 8,133 10,633 2,500

Portable Intelligence Collection and Relay Capability ................ .......................... .......................... 2,500

SOF SMALL ARMS & WEAPONS ............................................................. 6,936 12,936 6,000

Advanced Lightweight Grenade Launcher (Striker) ..................... .......................... .......................... 6,000

CHEMICAL/BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE.

INDIVIDUAL PROTECTION ....................................................................... 114,327 0 ¥114,327

Transfer to Title IX ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥114,327

DECONTAMINATION ................................................................................ 15,196 0 ¥15,196

Transfer to Title IX ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥15,196

JOINT BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ................................................ 155,916 0 ¥155,916

Transfer to Title IX ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥155,916

COLLECTIVE PROTECTION ...................................................................... 38,940 0 ¥38,940

Transfer to Title IX ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥38,940

CONTAMINATION AVOIDANCE ................................................................. 24,330 0 ¥24,330

Transfer to Title IX ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥24,330

TRANSFERS TO TITLE IX

Procurement funding for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and for the DefenseWide chemical and biological defense programs has been moved to

title IX.

149

ADVANCED SEAL DELIVERY SYSTEM

The Special Operations Command requested $33,439,000 for procurement of Advanced Sea, Air, Land (SEAL) Delivery Systems

(ASDS) and $13,697,000 for Advanced Procurement for ASDS. The

Committee recommends $14,238,000 for procurement and no funds

for advance procurement.

The ASDS is a manned combatant mini-submarine used for the

clandestine delivery of Special Operations Forces personnel and

weapons. Once the ASDS is available it will provide a significant

improvement to the current capabilities of the SEAL force but the

first system has been plagued by excessive cost overruns and

schedule delays. Congress has needed to approve reprogrammings

to cover the increasing development cost in each of the last four

years and faces the same predicament in fiscal year 2002. The first

system has been delivered, but it still does not meet noise requirements and its battery has not met the endurance requirements for

all missions. The Committee supports the ASDS program, but believes it is premature to procure additional ASDS systems prior to

resolving the outstanding issues and has deferred funding for the

second system. The Committee has also added $5,000,000 to the

fiscal year 2002 Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide budget to enable the Special Operations Command to

resolve the battery and noise issues.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002.

150

151

152

NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE EQUIPMENT

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $100,000,000

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

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 501,485,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. 501,485,000

This appropriation provides funds for the procurement of tactical

aircraft and other equipment for the National Guard and Reserve.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The President requested $1,897,100,000 for National Guard and

Reserve Equipment throughout the Services’ procurement appropriations, for programs that the Committee has addressed elsewhere in this report. In this appropriation, the Committee recommends an increase of $501,485,000 for the procurement of crucial aircraft, ground transportation, communications, and training

systems for the National Guard and Reserve. The Committee is

aware of the valuable contributions which are made by National

Guard and Reserve forces to the defense of our Nation and realizes

they are indispensable in the day-to-day conduct of military operations both within the United States and in every theater where

U.S. troops are deployed. The Committee is particularly proud and

grateful to the thousands of National Guardsmen and Reservists

who have been activated to participate in operations NOBLE

EAGLE and ENDURING FREEDOM, our nation’s reponse to the

tragic attack against our country which occurred on September 11,

2001.

UH-60 BLACKHAWK HELICOPTERS

The Army requested $174,515,000 for UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopters for the Army National Guard in the Aircraft Procurement,

Army account. The Committee recommends the requested amount

elsewhere in this report, and further recommends an additional

$131,176,000 for the procurement of eight UH-60L Blackhawk helicopters only for the A and D Companies of the 158th Aviation Battalion, Army Reserve. The Committee provided funding in fiscal

year 2001 to establish two Army Reserve Blackhawk Companies

and is aware that eight additional helicopters would fill out the required aircraft for those units.

BRADLEY FIGHTING VEHICLE ODS

The Committee recommends $60,000,000 only for Bradley Fighting Vehicle Base Sustainment to upgrade National Guard Bradley

fighting vehicles to the ODS (Operation Desert Storm) configuration. This effort to improve survivability and remedy operational

deficiencies will significantly improve the combat effectiveness of

National Guard units.

RESERVE COMPONENT AUTOMATION SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $18,000,000 for the Reserve Component Automation System, only to extend and improve information

technology infrastructure by upgrading to current technologies and

leveraging these improvements to support traditional and emerging

missions of the Reserve Components.

153

C–130J

The Committee recommends $226,909,000 for two C–130J aircraft and associated support only for the Air National Guard to be

used solely for western states firefighting. The Committee continues to be concerned about the numerous forest fires, which have

ravaged the western United States, and is aware that National

Guard units have played a key role in fighting those fires.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following in the fiscal year 2002:

154

155

DEFENSE PRODUCTION ACT PURCHASES

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $3,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 50,000,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 50,000,000

Change from request .......................................................................... 0

The Defense Production Act (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.) authorizes the use of federal funds to correct industrial resource shortfalls

and promote critical technology items which are essential to the

national defense. The Department requested $50,000,000 for Defense Production Act purchases in fiscal year 2002. The Committee

recommends $50,000,000, the amount of the budget request.

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

The Department requested $15,723,424,000 for Information

Technology. The Committee recommends $15,890,024,000, an increase of $166,600,000 as explained below:

[In thousands of dollars]

Operation and Maintenance, Army:

JCALS ............................................................................................. ¥12,000

Defense Joint Accounting System ................................................. ¥12,500

Information Technology Systems, Army ....................................... ¥20,000

Operation and Maintenance, Navy:

SPAWAR ITC Operations .............................................................. 9,000

Configuration Management Information System ........................ 3,000

Defense Joint Accounting System ................................................. ¥7,000

Enterprise Resource Planning ....................................................... ¥33,000

Information Technology Systems, Navy ....................................... ¥20,000

Navy Marine Corps Intranet ......................................................... ¥120,000

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force:

Air Force Server Consolidation ..................................................... 5,000

L-SMART Information System Logistics Operation .................... 5,000

Defense Joint Accounting System ................................................. ¥7,000

Information Technology Systems, Air Force ................................ ¥20,000

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide:

Defense Joint Accounting System ................................................. ¥13,000

Information Technology Systems, Defense-Wide ......................... ¥20,000

ADUSD(MPP&R)—Wearable Computers ..................................... 2,000

DISA ................................................................................................ ¥10,000

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard:

Information Technology Management Training .......................... 1,000

Early Responders Distance Learning Training Center ............... 4,000

Rural Access to Broadband Technology ........................................ 4,000

Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard:

Project Alert .................................................................................... 3,800

Other Procurement, Army:

Secure Terminal Equipment .......................................................... 3,000

Automated Manifest System ......................................................... 1,000

LAN Installation for Gauntlet FTX Site and Skidgell Hall

(Fort Knox) .................................................................................. 450

Ammunition Automated Identification Technology ..................... 4,000

NG Distance Learning Courseware .............................................. 3,000

Regional Medical Distributive Learning Center .......................... 1,000

Other Procurement, Navy:

JEDMICS Security Infrastructure ................................................ 8,000

DEFINITY G3 Network Upgrade .................................................. 7,000

Intelligent Agent Security Module ................................................ 3,000

Secure Terminal Equipment .......................................................... 3,000

Serial Number Tracking System ................................................... 2,000

SPAWAR Information Technology Center .................................... 2,000

Procurement, Marine Corps:

DPRIS Database ............................................................................. 4,000

156

Other Procurement, Air Force:

Secure Terminal Equipment .......................................................... 3,000

REMIS ............................................................................................. 4,000

Supply Asset Tracking System ...................................................... 5,000

Procurement, Defense-Wide:

High Performance Computing Modernization Program .............. 25,000

Information Technology Underexecution ...................................... ¥4,000

SPS Schedule Slip .......................................................................... ¥4,400

National Guard and Reserve Equipment:

Reserve Component Automation System ...................................... 18,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army:

PASIS: Perpetually Assailable and Secure Information Systems, Research, Training and Education .................................. 7,500

On—Line Contract Document Management ................................ 1,000

Applied Communications and Information Networking .............. 10,000

Army High Performance Computing Research Center ............... 15,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy:

Distance Learning IT Center ......................................................... 15,000

Document Automation of ICAS maintenance and other Navy

procedures in an XML format .................................................... 3,000

JEDMICS Enhancements .............................................................. 7,000

JEDMICS Security ......................................................................... 2,000

SPAWAR ITC Enterprise Management ........................................ 6,000

Intelligent Agent Security Module ................................................ 5,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force:

Information Assurance for Enabling Technologies ...................... 1,500

Worldwide Information Security Environment (WISE) .............. 13,000

GCSS (Enterprise Data Warehouse) ............................................. 6,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide:

Waterside/Landside Force Protection Planner ............................. 2,000

Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative ................................... 10,000

Financial Management Modernization Program—Transfer to

DWCF .......................................................................................... ¥60,000

Information Technology Superiority Study .................................. 1,000

Global Infrastructure Data Capture ............................................. 7,000

Protection of Vital Data ................................................................. 7,000

Computer Science and Internet Degree Program ........................ 750

Integrated Command and Control System (IC2S) ....................... 1,500

Counter-Terrorism and Operation Response Transfer Fund:

Information Assurance, Critical Infrastructure Protection and

Information Operations .............................................................. 275,000

Total ............................................................................................. 166,600

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM

The Committee supports the Department’s effort to modernize its

financial management system. A key part of that process is ensuring that the Department has adequate oversight of all its Financial

Management Information Technology Systems. The Committee has

included a general provision to reinforce that oversight.

The President’s budget requested $100,000,000 in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide to support the Financial Management Modernization Program. Although the majority of this work would be done in the Defense Working Capital

Fund, the Department decided to request all the funding in this account. The Committee appreciates the intent, but recommends

funding $40,000,000 in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, and the balance in the Defense Working Capital Fund to reflect the way the program will be executed. Given

the enormity of the task the Committee would support expenses

within the Working Capital Fund in excess of the $60,000,000.

157

CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

The failure of software that controls our critical infrastructure

(power, transportation, financial etc.) would produce a crippling

blow to our nation’s security. The Committee encourages the President to establish a Critical Infrastructure Protection Program that

addresses this threat.

DEFENSE JOINT ACCOUNTING SYSTEM

The President’s Budget requested $39,500,000 in the Defense

Working Capital Fund for the Defense Joint Accounting System

(DJAS). The Committee remains concerned that this may not be

the most effective solution for the Department’s financial management requirements. Section 391 of the Floyd D. Spence National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 required the Department to analyze the alternatives and to report back to Congress on whether DJAS merits deployment. This has not been

done. The Committee therefore recommends terminating the program, unless the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) determines that DJAS is an essential part of the Department’s Financial

Management Modernization Strategy.

SPAWAR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CENTER

The Committee directs the Department of the Navy to implement

all DIMHRS development and integration efforts using the enterprise concept of operations at the SPAWAR Information Technology

Center (SITC), and to continue enterprise level reengineering and

web-enabling of legacy systems, and portal integration efforts, at

the SITC.

DEFENSE TRAVEL SERVICE

The Defense Travel Service program has an unfortunate track

record of requesting more funding than it can execute. The Committee has therefore reduced the budget request in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation by $20,000,000. Should this year

be different and the Department be able to fully execute this program, the Committee expects the Department to submit a reprogramming request subject to normal, prior approval reprogramming procedures.

NAVY MARINE CORPS INTRANET

The Navy Marine Corps Intranet is a promising idea. However,

to date the program’s management and implementation have proceeded in a manner that does not inspire confidence. It remains to

be seen whether the Department of the Navy can overcome the program’s inauspicious start and implement a solution it can rely

upon.

When the Navy decided to pursue the idea of outsourcing the entire Navy information technology network, it did so without conducting an analysis of the alternatives. In fact, in response to congressional inquiries about the basis for the decision, the Navy

maintained that prior to the decision to proceed with this initiative,

no study was done and no briefing paper prepared that recommended this option.

158

To avoid any delay or outside oversight, no business case analysis was to be prepared, no new start notification was to be provided to Congress and as new concerns were raised, the Navy

would argue that they did not apply in this case. This approach

reached its conclusion in the summer of 2000, when Navy lawyers

were forced to argue that the NMCI contract was both a ‘new start’

and ‘not a new start’ depending on which requirement the Department was trying to avoid. It was at this point that the combined

objections of Congress, OSD and OMB led to a moderation of the

Navy’s position and a belated effort by the Navy to comply with the

Clinger-Cohen Act. An agreement was reached between the Navy

and OSD, and made law in the fiscal year 2001 National Defense

Authorization Act, to allow for an initial fielding of 15 percent of

the ‘‘seats’’ required followed by a strategic pause. The Department

was to conduct a revised business case analysis, perform operational testing and evaluation, comply with the Department’s information assurance architecture and gather user satisfaction data to

determine if the program should continue.

Despite the Memorandum of Agreement with OSD and the legal

requirements of the Authorization Act, the Navy then signed a contract that did not incorporate these requirements. According to the

Navy, the contract was designed to implement NMCI as quickly as

possible and assumed no disruption in schedule. Over the last year,

however, the program has had several delays unrelated to the oversight requirements. As a result, in one year, NMCI has had a six

month slip in its schedule for fielding and testing the system.

The Committee observes new OSD and Navy leadership thus

find themselves in a situation where they cannot comply with both

the law and the contract as written. In addition, it is still not clear

that the NMCI proposal can obtain the information assurance certification it would need to be fully implemented. Under the Department’s most recent proposal under consideration, the key decision

to proceed would occur in January 2003 without the benefit of a

completed business case, without user satisfaction data, with contractor testing in lieu of operational testing and with a much smaller test population than originally expected. Although this may be

the best solution the Navy and OSD can design under these circumstances, it is clearly not the best way to be making multibillion

dollar contract decisions. The Committee expects that the House

and Senate Armed Services Committees, as the authors of the

original law specifying the criteria for NMCI acquisition, will re-examine the rules for continuing this program as part of the National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. At this point in

time, consistent with the actions of the House Armed Services

Committee, this Committee recommends a reduction of

$120,000,000 to the NMCI program.

The Committee believes that regardless of the outcome of the review process, there is much to be learned by this experience, and

from the hard work of numerous individuals involved in the dayto-day oversight, management and implementation of the NMCI

program. Nor should the difficulty with implementing this particular program discourage others from considering innovative options for managing information technology networks.

159

Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force

to conduct a study comparing different solutions to managing an

information technology network and to provide recommendations

on how a service or agency might implement those solutions, including any lessons to be learned from the NMCI effort.

(161)

TITLE IV

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

ESTIMATES AND APPROPRIATION SUMMARY

The fiscal year 2002 budget request for programs funded in Title

IV of the Committee bill, Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, totals $47,429,433,000. The accompanying bill recommends

$40,090,256,000. The total amount recommended is a decrease of

$7,339,177,000 below the fiscal year 2002 budget estimate and is

$1,269,349,000 below the total provided in fiscal year 2001. (As described elsewhere in this report, these amounts reflect the amounts

provided in Title IV of the Committee bill, after the movement of

$8,236,705,000 of funds previously appropriated in this Title to a

new appropriations title, Title IX.) The table below summarizes the

budget estimate and the Committee’s recommendations.

162

163

SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS

Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in

the project level tables or in paragraphs using the phrase ‘‘only for’’ or ‘‘only to’’ in this report are congressional interest items for the

purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD 1414). Each of these

items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated amount,

or a revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise

specifically addressed in the conference report. These items remain

special interest items whether or not they are repeated in a subsequent conference report.

INFORMATION ASSURANCE TESTING

The Committee continues to be concerned about the security of

military systems with regard to information attack and exploitation. The Committee has directed, in prior years, that information assurance testing be included in the operational tests of all

newly acquired DoD systems. The Committee notes that the changing tide of technology means that a system that passes all tests

today could be vulnerable to the newly developed attacks of tomorrow. Therefore, it is vitally important to conduct periodic testing of

all DoD systems, both old and new, to help ensure these systems

are adequately protected. Accordingly, the Committee directs that

all DoD systems receive periodic information assurance testing.

The Committee directs that the Director of Operational Test &

Evaluation develop a policy to implement the Committee’s direction

and report on this policy and its implementation to the congressional defense committees no later than February 1, 2002.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY RESEARCH

The Committee is concerned with the practices of the Department of Energy when it does work for the Department of Defense.

The DoE, in entering into agreements with the DoD, adds a surcharge above its normal overhead costs in order to fund laboratory

directed research and development that is unrelated to the specific

purpose for which funds were appropriated in this Act. The Housepassed Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act, 2002

specifically prohibits DOE from applying this surcharge against

DoD funds. Consistent with this prohibition, the Committee recommends reducing the research and development funds provided to

the Department of Energy through DoD contracts by $20,000,000,

divided among the Services and Defense-Wide accounts. The Committee expects individuals in DoD who issue contracts to ensure

that the funds they send to other agencies are used only for the

purpose for which they were appropriated.

CLASSIFIED ANNEX

Adjustments of the classified programs are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.

AVIATION REQUIREMENT FOR JOINT TACTICAL TERMINAL (JTT)

The Committee understands that the Navy and the Air Force

have a requirement for an aviation-based radio that is Integrated

Broadcast Service (IBS) compliant. The Committee directs the

164

Navy and the Air Force to work together and by June 1, 2002, submit to the Committee a joint requirement and a development and

procurement strategy to meet the requirement.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, ARMY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $6,342,552,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 6,693,920,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 7,115,438,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. 421,518,000

This appropriation finances the research, development, test and

evaluation activities of the Department of the Army.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from

request

DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES .................................................................. 138,281 146,150 +7,869

Advanced Target Recognition using Nanotechnologies ..................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

PASIS: Perpetually Assailable and Secure Information Systems, Research, Training and Education .................................................... ........................ ........................ 7,500

Scientific Problems with Military Applications .................................. ........................ ........................ ¥1,631

UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY RESEARCH CENTERS ...................................... 69,147 77,347 +8,200

Center for Optics Manufacturing-Advanced Optics Program ............ ........................ ........................ 3,000

Global Information Portal .................................................................. ........................ ........................ 1,200

Thermal Fluid Design Tool ................................................................. ........................ ........................ 2,000

Virtual Parts Engineering Research Center (Note: only for expansion of Design Immersion System Environment) .......................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC SURVIVABILITY ............................................... 25,797 28,797 +3,000

Passive Millimeter Wave Camera (Note: only for the purpose of

providing additional flight worthy PMMW imagers to conduct

flight tests in adverse weather, nap-of-the-earth navigation

scenarios, including flight demonstrations of covert personnel

location under the DoD’s Personnel Recovery/Extraction Aided by

Smart Sensor (PRESS) ACTD program) ......................................... ........................ ........................ 3,000

AVIATION TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................... 49,265 40,029 ¥9,236

National Rotocraft Tech Center ......................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥9,236

MISSILE TECHNOLOGY ................................................................................. 40,112 57,612 +17,500

Acceleration of Development and Testing for tactical missile components .......................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 3,500

MEMS/GPS/IMU Integration (Note: only to accelerate and focus efforts to significantly lower the cost and improve the performance of guidance sets for precision/guided munitions. Activities

should focus on accelerated development of high-g one-degree

per hour IMU’s, and hardware/software development of ‘‘ultradeep GPS/INS coupling’’ to improve anti-jam performance at

low cost.) ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 10,000

Loitering Attack Munition for Aviation (LAM–A) ................................ ........................ ........................ 4,000

ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ............................................................ 19,043 27,982 +8,939

Cooperative Micro-Satellite Experiment (CMSE) ................................ ........................ ........................ 8,000

Microelectro Mechanical Systems ...................................................... ........................ ........................ 9,500

Miniature Detection Devices and Analysis Methods ......................... ........................ ........................ 1,850

Rapid Target Acquisition & Tracking System (RTATS) ...................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

Reduce programmed growth .............................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥12,411

MODELING AND SIMULATION TECHNOLOGY ................................................ 20,579 28,579 +8,000

On-Line Contract Document Management ........................................ ........................ ........................ 1,000

Modeling, Simulation and Training Infrastructure & Community

Development .................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 7,000

COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGY .................................... 82,441 86,441 +4,000

Combat Vehicle Transportation Technologies Program: Calstart/

WestStart Electric Hybrid Technology ............................................ ........................ ........................ 2,000

165

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from

request

Integration of Army Voice Interactive Device with an onboard central processing unit (Note: only to continue integration of AVID

into the Smart Truck’s voice activated central processing computer.) ............................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 2,000

CHEMICAL, SMOKE AND EQUIPMENT DEFEATING TECHNOLOGY ................. 3,561 11,561 +8,000

Thermobaric Warhead Development .................................................. ........................ ........................ 2,000

U.S. Army Center of Excellence in Biotechnology .............................. ........................ ........................ 6,000

WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS TECHNOLOGY ................................................... 35,549 65,549 +30,000

Cooperative Energetics Initiative ....................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

Corrosion Measurement and Control ................................................. ........................ ........................ 5,000

Future Combat System Propellant and Survivability ........................ ........................ ........................ 4,000

Green Armaments Technology (GAT) .................................................. ........................ ........................ 7,500

Liquidmetal Alloy-Tungsten (LA–T) Armor Piercing Ammunition ...... ........................ ........................ 4,000

Multiple Explosively-Formed Penetrators ........................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

Single Crystal Tungsten Alloy Penetrator .......................................... ........................ ........................ 4,000

Smart Coatings .................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 1,500

ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICES .................................................. 27,819 47,319 +19,500

Cylindrical Zinc Air Battery for Land Warrior System ....................... ........................ ........................ 1,500

Electronic Display Research .............................................................. ........................ ........................ 5,000

Fuel Cell Power Systems .................................................................... ........................ ........................ 5,000

Improved High Rate Alkaline Cell ..................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000

Logistics Fuel Reformer ..................................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,500

Low Cost Reusable Alkaline Manganese-Zinc ................................... ........................ ........................ 500

Polymer Extrusion/Multilaminate (Battery research) ......................... ........................ ........................ 3,000

Rechargeable Cylindrical Cell System ............................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000

NIGHT VISION TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................ 20,598 23,598 +3,000

Dual band detector imaging technology ........................................... ........................ ........................ 3,000

COUNTERMINE SYSTEMS ............................................................................. 16,689 22,689 +6,000

Acoustic Mine Detection .................................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,000

Integrated Countermine Testbed and Training Project ..................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

HUMAN FACTORS ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ........................................... 16,466 21,966 +5,500

MedTeams (Medical Error Reduction Research) ................................ ........................ ........................ 3,500

Soldier Centered Design Tools for the Army ..................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY .................................................... 16,150 21,150 +5,000

Transportable Detonation Chamber Validation ................................. ........................ ........................ 5,000

Rangesafe Demonstration Program ................................................... ........................ ........................ 5,000

Duplicative Technology Research ...................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥5,000

MILITARY ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY ........................................................ 42,850 60,850 +18,000

Climate Change Fuel Cell Program (Buydown) ................................. ........................ ........................ 7,000

DoD Fuel Cell Test and Evaluation Center ........................................ ........................ ........................ 6,000

Ft. George G. Meade Fuel Cell Demonstration .................................. ........................ ........................ 5,000

WARFIGHTER TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................... 27,061 34,561 +7,500

Airbeam Manufacturing Process (lightweight transportable military

shelter technology) ........................................................................ ........................ ........................ 1,000

Center for Reliable Wireless Communications Technology for Digital Battlefield (NDU) .................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000

Combat Feeding (Note: Only to continue research on food and

fielding technologies to improve food quality to the warfighter.) ........................ ........................ 2,500

Standoff Precision Aerial Delivery System (S/PADS) ......................... ........................ ........................ 3,000

MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................... 82,494 104,994 +22,500

Diabetes Project (Pittsburgh) ............................................................ ........................ ........................ 6,000

Emergency Hypothermia for Advanced Combat Casualty and delayed resuscitation ........................................................................ ........................ ........................ 3,000

Medical Area Network for Virtual Technologies ................................. ........................ ........................ 8,000

Osteoporosis Research ....................................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,000

Speech Capable Personal Digital Assistant ...................................... ........................ ........................ 1,500

DUAL USE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ...................................................... 10,045 15,045 +5,000

Manufacturing RDE Center for Nanotechnologies ............................. ........................ ........................ 5,000

WARFIGHTER ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ....................................................... 60,332 58,017 ¥2,315

Advanced Personal Navigation Technology MEMS INS/GPS precision

location information ...................................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,000

Metrology ............................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 1,500

Pneumatic Muscle Soft Landing Technology ..................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000

Force Projection Logistics .................................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥2,500

166

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from

request

Portable Cooling System Development (Note: only for heat actuated cooling for FCS apparel) ....................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000

Warfighter Advanced Technology ....................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥7,315

MEDICAL ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................. 17,541 212,541 +195,000

Advanced Diagnostics and Therapeutic Digital Technologies .......... ........................ ........................ +2,500

Artificial Hip (Volumetrically Controlled Manufacturing) .................. ........................ ........................ 5,000

Biology, Education, Screening, Chemoprevention and Treatment

(BESCT) Lung Cancer Research Program ..................................... ........................ ........................ 6,000

Biosensor Research ............................................................................ ........................ ........................ 3,500

Blood Safety (Note: only for the continuation of the current program to provide improved blood products and safety systems

compatible with military field use.) ............................................. ........................ ........................ 8,000

Brain Biology and Machine ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,000

Cancer Center of Excellence (Notre Dame) ....................................... ........................ ........................ 3,000

Center for Integration of Medicine and Innovative Technology—

Computer-assisted minimally invasive surgery ............................ ........................ ........................ 10,000

Center for Untethered Healthcare at Worcester Polytechnic Institute ........................ ........................ 2,000

Comprehensive Neuroscience Center (Note: only for a public/private comprehensive program in neurosciences for DoD medical

beneficiaries in the areas of brain injury, headache, seizures/

epilepsy, and other degenerative disorders. It shall be a coordinated effort among Walter Reed Army Medical Center, the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, an appropriate non-profit medical Foundation, and a primary health

care center, with funding management accomplished by the

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.) .............. ........................ ........................ 8,000

Continous Expert Care Network Telemedicine Program .................... ........................ ........................ 3,000

Controlling Mosquito and Tick Transmitted Disease ........................ ........................ ........................ 3,500

Disaster Relief and Emergency Medical Services (DREAMS) ............ ........................ ........................ 8,000

Fragile X (Note: only to support an intervention study aimed at

finding effective methods of treatment—both pharmacological

and nonpharmacological—for the symptoms and behavioral

problems associated with Fragile X Syndrome.) .......................... ........................ ........................ 1,000

Hemoglobin Based Oxygen Carrier .................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

Hepatitis C ......................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,000

Joint U.S.-Norwegian Telemedicine .................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

Joslin Diabetes Research—eye care ................................................. ........................ ........................ 6,000

Life Support for Trauma and Transport (LSTAT) ............................... ........................ ........................ 3,500

Secure Telemedicine Technology Program (Note: only for C Suite of

secure, Scalable, customizable and internet-based telemedicine

solutions able to be used with a variety of operating platforms) ........................ ........................ 4,000

Memorial Hermann Telemedicine Network ......................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000

Molecular Genetics and Musculoskeletal Research Program (Note:

only to continue the current Army program.) ............................... ........................ ........................ 9,000

Monoclonal Antibodies, Massachusetts Biological Lab ..................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

Emergency Telemedicine Response and Advanced Technology Program .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 3,000

National Medical Testbed (Note: the Committee provides

$4,000,000 only for for on-going programs, and $5,000,000

only for recipient Emergency/Trauma Care advanced technology

programs ....................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 9,000

Neurofibromatosis Research Program (NF) ....................................... ........................ ........................ 25,000

Neurology Gallo Center-alcoholism research ..................................... ........................ ........................ 8,000

Neurotoxin Exposure Treatment Research Program (NETRP) Parkinsons & neurological disorders ...................................................... ........................ ........................ 20,000

Polynitroxylated Hemoglobin .............................................................. ........................ ........................ 1,000

Retinal Scanning Display Technology ................................................ ........................ ........................ 3,000

Saccadic Fatigue Measurement ......................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000

SEAtreat cervical cancer visualization and treatment ...................... ........................ ........................ 3,500

Smart Aortic Arch Catheter ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,000

Synchrotron Based Scanning Research (Note: only to continue the

current Army Synchrotron-based scanning program, to begin

protocol testing for delivery to patients and to expand this

service into the arena of proton telemedicine.) ........................... ........................ ........................ 10,000

167

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from

request

U.S. Army Center of Excellence in Biotechnology .............................. ........................ ........................ 7,500

Veterans Collaborative Care Model Program ..................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

AVIATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ............................................................. 44,843 36,545 ¥8,298

Aviation Advanced Technology (Note: only for Airborne Manned/Unmanned System Technology (AMUST) Wideband RF Network) ...... ........................ ........................ 3,000

Aviation Advanced Technology (Note: only for design, development,

test and demonstration of a turbo shaft engine for use in

UAVs) ............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 5,000

Aviation Advanced Technology-Reduce programmed growth ............ ........................ ........................ ¥16,298

WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................. 29,684 39,684 +10,000

Low Cost Course Correction Technology ............................................ ........................ ........................ 5,000

SMAW–D Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon & Munitions Engineering Development .................................................. ........................ ........................ 5,000

COMBAT VEHICLE AND AUTOMOTIVE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................. 193,858 222,358 +28,500

Aluminum Reinforced Metal Matrix Composites for Track Shoes ..... ........................ ........................ 5,000

Combat Vehicle Research-Weight Reduction .................................... ........................ ........................ 7,000

Electrochromatic Glass for Combat Vehicles (Note: only to the National Automotive Center for research and development of inorganic electrochromatic materials and processing for combat

vehicle smart, switchable windows.) ............................................ ........................ ........................ 2,000

Fuel Catalyst Research Evaluation .................................................... ........................ ........................ 500

Mobile Parts Hospital ........................................................................ ........................ ........................ 7,000

Movement Tracking System (MTS) for Family of Heavy Tactical Vehicles ............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 2,000

NAC Standardized Exchange of Product Data (N–STEP) Combat

Vehicle Automotive Advanced Technology ..................................... ........................ ........................ 5,000

COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY .......... 31,865 35,865 +4,000

Battlefield Ordnance Awareness ........................................................ ........................ ........................ 4,000

EW TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 13,868 24,368 +10,500

Multi-functional Intelligence and Remote Sensor System ................ ........................ ........................ 5,500

Shortstop (SEPS) ................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 5,000

MISSILE AND ROCKET ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................................ 59,518 77,018 +17,500

Missile Recycling Program (Note: Only to transition the AMCOMdeveloped Missile Recycling Capabilities (MRC) technologies to

the Anniston Munitions Center to establish an organic MRC.) ... ........................ ........................ 5,000

Standoff NATO International Precision Enhanced Rocket (SNIPER)

Laser Guidance for 2.75 in. Rocket .............................................. ........................ ........................ 3,000

Volumetrically Controlled Manufacturing (VCM) Composites Technology ............................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 3,500

Wide Bandwith Technology ................................................................ ........................ ........................ 6,000

LINE-OF-SIGHT TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION .......................................... 57,384 70,456 +13,072

Transfer from Missile Procurement, Army ......................................... ........................ ........................ 13,072

NIGHT VISION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................................... 37,081 56,581 +19,500

BUSTER Backpack UAV (Note: only for continued development of

the backpack unmanned autonomous sensor for surveillance

and target acquisition to enhance reconnaissance (BUSTER)

UAV) ............................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 7,000

Helmut Mounted Infa-Red Sensor System ......................................... ........................ ........................ 2,500

Night Vision Advanced Technology-Digital Fusion ............................ ........................ ........................ 7,000

Soldier Vision 2000 (through wall surveillance radar) ..................... ........................ ........................ 3,000

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ...................... 4,826 9,826 +5,000

Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cell demonstration (Note:

only for the demonstration of domestically produced PEM fuel

cells on military facilities) ............................................................ ........................ ........................ 5,000

ARMY MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEMS INTEGRATION (DEM/VAL) ..................... 19,491 37,491 +18,000

Advanced Warfare Environment (AWarE) (Note: only for acquisition

of commercial technology solutions for the Advanced Warfare

Environment (AWarE) Deployed Access to imagery archives) ...... ........................ ........................ 1,000

Micropower Devices for Missile Defense Applications ...................... ........................ ........................ 1,000

Reduce programmed growth .............................................................. ........................ ........................ -1,000

Super Cluster Distributed Memory Technology .................................. ........................ ........................ 4,000

THEL ................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 10,000

Thermionic Technology ....................................................................... ........................ ........................ 3,000

TANK AND MEDIUM CALIBER AMMUNITION ................................................. 32,986 51,000 +18,014

168

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from

request

Conventional tank ammunition ......................................................... ........................ ........................ -2,986

Global Positioning System Interference Suppression (GPS ISU) ....... ........................ ........................ 1,000

TERM TM3 .......................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 5,000

XM 1007 Tank Extended Range Munition (TERM) ............................ ........................ ........................ 15,000

SOLDIER SUPPORT AND SURVIVABILITY ...................................................... 17,482 14,000 -3,482

Reduce programmed growth .............................................................. ........................ ........................ -3,482

NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ................................... 12,756 10,000 -2,756

Reduce programmed growth .............................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥2,756

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY TECHNOLOGY DEM/VAL ..................................... 7,536 37,036 +29,500

Plasma Energy Pyrolysis (Note: only for the installation and demonstration of an on-site operational Plasma Energy Pyrolysis

System at Anniston Army Depot at Anniston, Alabama, for the

demonstrated destruction of toxic and hazardous waste

streams generated on-site.) .......................................................... ........................ ........................ 6,000

Commercializing Dual Use Technologies ........................................... ........................ ........................ 8,000

Environmental Cleanup Demonstration (Note: only to demonstrate

and validate new environmental cleanup technology at Porta

Bella) ............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 5,000

Fort Ord Cleanup Demonstration Project ........................................... ........................ ........................ 4,000

Technology Development for unexploded ordnance in support of

military readiness (Note: only for the National Center for Environmental Excellence to demonstrate and validate technology to

efficiently identify, characterize, and neutralize unexploded ordnance to support military readiness, promote humanitarian assistance activities, and advance peacekeeping combat missions.) ............................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 4,000

Vanadium Technology Program ......................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,500

AVIATION—ADV DEV ................................................................................... 9,105 13,105 +4,000

Virtual Cockpit Optimization .............................................................. ........................ ........................ 4,000

WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS—ADV DEV ....................................................... 31,670 35,670 +4,000

Precision Guided Mortor Munition ..................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,000

LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT-ADV DEV ....................................... 7,456 8,456 +1,000

Man Tech-Cylindrical Zinc Batteries for Land Warrior System ......... ........................ ........................ 1,000

MEDICAL SYSTEMS—ADV DEV ................................................................... 15,506 16,506 +1,000

IMED Tools Rural Mobile Communications Platform ......................... ........................ ........................ 1,000

MEADS CONCEPTS–DEM/VAL ...................................................................... 73,645 0 ¥73,645

Transfer to Title IX—RDTE, BMDO .................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥73,645

AIRCRAFT AVIONICS .................................................................................... 57,474 58,974 +1,500

Airborne Separation Video System (ASVS) ......................................... ........................ ........................ 1,500

COMANCHE .................................................................................................. 787,866 816,366 +28,500

Transfer from Missile Procurement, Army ......................................... ........................ ........................ 28,500

EW DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................................... 57,010 61,010 +4,000

ATIRCM/CMWS-Installed Systems Test Facility at CECOM ................ ........................ ........................ 4,000

ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS SYSTEM ................................................................. 42,166 45,666 +3,500

All Source Analysis System (Note: only for the development of the

Intelligence Analysis Advanced Tool Sets (IAATS) Communications Control Sets for ASAS) ......................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

ASAS Light ......................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 1,500

COMMON MISSILE ....................................................................................... 16,731 10,927 ¥5,804

Reduce programmed growth .............................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥5,804

JAVELIN ........................................................................................................ 492 5,492 +5,000

Javelin Pre-Planned Product Improvements ...................................... ........................ ........................ 5,000

TACTICAL UNMANNED GROUND VEHICLE (TUGV) ........................................ 0 3,000 +3,000

Viking Mine Clearing System ............................................................. ........................ ........................ 3,000

NIGHT VISION SYSTEMS–ENG DEV .............................................................. 24,201 28,201 +4,000

Avenger Upgrade of First Generation FLIR (Only for the Navy Center of Excellence in ElectroOptics Manufacturing to finalize

technology transfer and fabricate a pilot quantity to validate

manufacturing technology.) .......................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,000

AIR DEFENSE COMMAND, CONTROL AND INTELLIGENCE–ENG DEV ........... 18,233 21,233 +3,000

Air Defense Alerting Device (ADAD) for Avenger ............................... ........................ ........................ 3,000

AUTOMATIC TEST EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT ............................................. 11,582 13,582 +2,000

Integrated Family of Test Equipment ................................................ ........................ ........................ 2,000

AVIATION—ENG DEV ................................................................................... 2,263 4,763 +2,500

169

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from

request

CH–47 Cockpit Airbag System .......................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,500

WEAPONS AND MUNITIONS—ENG DEV ....................................................... 7,046 21,046 +14,000

Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station (CROWS) .................... ........................ ........................ 4,000

M795E1 155mm Extended Range, High Explosive Base Burner Projectile ............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 3,000

Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon-Disposable Confined Space ................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 5,000

Small Arms Fire Control System II (MK–19 Grenade Launcher, M–

2, .50 Cal., .50 Cal. Sniper Rifle) ................................................ ........................ ........................ 2,000

LOGISTICS AND ENGINEER EQUIPMENT—ENG DEV .................................... 30,673 35,973 +5,300

Intelligent Power Management for Shelters and Vehicles ................ ........................ ........................ 5,300

COMMAND, CONTROL, COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS—ENG DEV ................ 122,644 132,644 +10,000

Applied Communications and Information Networking (Note: The

Committee commends CECOM for their aggressive implementation of ACIN and recommends the Army work with the ASD(C31)

to ensure the applicability of the ACIN to the overall DoD communications architecture.) ............................................................ ........................ ........................ 10,000

MEDICAL MATERIEL/MEDICAL BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE EQUIPMENT .............. 8,228 10,228 +2,000

Cartledge Infuser ............................................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

LANDMINE WARFARE/BARRIER—ENG DEV ................................................. 89,153 69,153 ¥20,000

Reduce programmed growth .............................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥20,000

ARTILLERY MUNITIONS—EMD ..................................................................... 67,258 63,322 ¥3,936

Trajectory Correctable Munitions (TCM) Sense and Destroy Armament Missile Engineering Development ........................................ ........................ ........................ 5,000

Reduce programmed growth .............................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥8,936

ARMY TACTICAL COMMAND & CONTROL HARDWARE & SOFTWARE ........... 50,887 58,887 +8,000

Next Generation Command and Control System (Note: only for Advanced Warfare Environment 3-dimension display technology to

support Army’s C2 modernization.) ............................................... ........................ ........................ 8,000

PATRIOT PAC–3 THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE ACQUISITION ........................ 107,100 0 ¥107,100

Transfer to Title IX—RDTE, BMDO .................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥107,100

THREAT SIMULATOR DEVELOPMENT ............................................................ 16,011 18,011 +2,000

Threat Simulator Development-Anti Tank Guided Missile Program .. ........................ ........................ 2,000

RAND ARROYO CENTER ............................................................................... 19,972 17,972 ¥2,000

Reduce FFRDC/CAAS .......................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥2,000

CONCEPTS EXPERIMENTATION PROGRAM ................................................... 33,067 35,067 +2,000

Battlelab Cooperative and Collaborative Research ........................... ........................ ........................ 4,000

Concepts Experimentation Program (Note: only for acquisition of

commercial licenses and integration support for commercial

geo-spatial distributed data visualization and management

network at Ft. Huachuca Army Battle Lab.) ................................. ........................ ........................ 6,000

MANPRINT Analysis ............................................................................ ........................ ........................ 2,000

Reduce programmed growth .............................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥10,000

ARMY TECHNICAL TEST INSTRUMENTATION AND TARGETS ........................ 34,259 35,009 +750

ACES ................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 750

SURVIVABILITY/LETHALITY ANALYSIS ........................................................... 27,794 37,794 +10,000

Information Operations/Vulnerability and Survivability Analysis

(IOVSA) ........................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 10,000

DOD HIGH ENERGY LASER TEST FACILITY .................................................. 14,570 19,570 +5,000

Manufacturing of solid state laser diode arrays for the Solid State

Heat Capacity Laser ...................................................................... ........................ ........................ 5,000

SUPPORT OF OPERATIONAL TESTING .......................................................... 89,047 94,047 +5,000

MATTRACKS ........................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 5,000

PROGRAMWIDE ACTIVITIES .......................................................................... 69,096 60,096 ¥9,000

Reduce programmed growth .............................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥9,000

TECHNICAL INFORMATION ACTIVITIES ......................................................... 33,749 43,749 +10,000

Army High Performance Computing Research Center ....................... ........................ ........................ 15,000

Reduce programmed growth .............................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥5,000

MUNITIONS STANDARDIZATION, EFFECTIVENESS AND SAFETY .................... 16,072 34,072 +18,000

Public Private Partnering Initiative ................................................... ........................ ........................ 15,000

Cryofracture Anti-personnel Mine Disposal System (Note: only to

continue current anti-personnel mine disposal program.) ........... ........................ ........................ 3,000

DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS AGAINST WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCT ........ 0 3,000 +3,000

170

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from

request

WMD First Responder Training at the National Terrorism Preparedness Institute ................................................................................ ........................ ........................ 3,000

COMBAT VEHICLE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ............................................ 195,602 168,141 ¥27,461

Combat Vehicle Improvement Programs ........................................... ........................ ........................ 5,000

Reduce programmed growth .............................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥32,461

AIRCRAFT MODIFICATIONS/PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ............... 143,631 132,431 ¥11,200

Guardrail/Aerial Common Sensor termination of JSAF/LBSS ............. ........................ ........................ ¥11,200

AIRCRAFT ENGINE COMPONENT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ........................ 13,017 17,017 +4,000

Universal Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) .................. ........................ ........................ 2,000

VDVP and LOLA Equipped Fuel Delivery Unit .................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

DIGITIZATION ............................................................................................... 29,302 36,302 +7,000

Digitization (Note: only to conduct battalion level testing of the

digital intelligence situation mapboard.) ..................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

University XXI Effort—Digitization at Ft. Hood ................................. ........................ ........................ 5,000

RAPID ACQ PROGRAM FOR TRANSFORMATION ........................................... 23,593 0 ¥23,593

Reduction ........................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥23,593

OTHER MISSILE PRODUCT IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS ............................... 84,935 78,935 ¥6,000

Reduce programmed growth .............................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥6,000

TRACTOR CARD ........................................................................................... 6,551 11,551 +5,000

Transfer from Missile Procurement, Army (IBCT Studies) ................. ........................ ........................ 5,000

SECURITY AND INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES .................................................. 452 2,452 +2,000

Security & Intelligence Activities (Note: only for continued development of information technology support at INSOCM’s Information Dominance Center.) ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 2,000

SATCOM GROUND ENVIRONMENT (SPACE) ................................................. 47,647 39,347 ¥8,300

STAR-T termination ............................................................................ ........................ ........................ ¥8,300

AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ..................................................... 6,862 12,862 ¥6,000

Hyperspectral long-wave imager ....................................................... ........................ ........................ 6,000

DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND SYSTEMS (JMIP) ..................................... 85,242 72,742 ¥12,500

Transfer to Tactical Surveillance System and Guardrail Modifications ............................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ¥12,500

END ITEM INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ACTIVITIES .................................... 45,697 66,697 +21,000

MANTECH for Munitions ..................................................................... ........................ ........................ 16,000

Totally Integrated Munitions Enterprise (TIME) ................................. ........................ ........................ 6,000

Laser Peening Technology for Aircraft and Ground Equipment ........ ........................ ........................ 2,000

Rechargeable Bipolar Wafer Cell NiMH Battery for SINCGARS ......... ........................ ........................ 1,000

Femtosecond Laser ............................................................................ ........................ ........................ 6,000

Reduced program growth .................................................................. ........................ ........................ ¥10,000

ARMY VENTURE CAPITAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION

The Committee believes the Army must do much more to improve its ability to exploit advanced technology in a timely and efficient manner if it is to meet the ambitious timelines it has established for transformation. The Army’s transformation plan is dependent on significant technological advances in weapons, armor,

communications and propulsion systems, many of which will originate in the commercial technology development sector. Private

companies have outspent the federal government in applied research for several years now and are spending a large and growing

share of the country’s basic research dollars. Unfortunately, while

the Army leadership has recognized the growing need to tap the

commercial technology sector, the Army R&D community appears

to be experiencing continuing difficulty in developing better collaborative ties with the young, small, growth-oriented companies that

take risks and push innovation. This appears to be due in part to

the rigidity of traditional contracting mechanisms as well as an acquisition culture that has little concern for the business needs and

methods of the commercial world. The Committee sees little hope

171

for the Army to deliver the technological advances it promises without a major change in the way it exploits commercial technology to

use the vitality, speed, and intellectual power of the U.S. commercial sector to its maximum advantage.

The Committee believes that the recent experience of the CIA,

which has similar technological challenges, can be instructive to

the Army. The CIA established the not-for-profit In-Q-Tel Corporation venture capital fund managed by personnel experienced in

venture capital, business and government who identify and invest

in early-stage companies that have a concept, a plausible market,

and a business plan to develop key technologies important to the

agency. This concept has yielded some very promising results for

the CIA and the Committee believes the Army could benefit similarly from a well-structured venture capital effort. The Committee,

therefore, has included a new general provision, Section 8145.

which provides $50,000,000 for the formation of a not-for-profit corporation to oversee an Army venture capital fund established under

authority of 10 U.S.C. 2371. The purpose of this corporation shall

be to make equity investments in early-stage companies developing

technologies that are important to the Army but also have potential to find commercial markets in the longer term. The Committee

will expect the Army to program sufficient resources to continue

this corporation at existing or greater funding levels for the next

six fiscal years. It is the intention of the Committee that the Army

model its venture capital fund corporation on the Central Intelligence Agency’s In-Q-Tel Corporation. Further, it is the intention

of the Committee that this corporation report directly to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition Logistics and Technology)

on its operations.

To provide information necessary for oversight of this fund, the

Committee directs the Secretary of the Army to submit the following reports to the congressional defense committees. Not later

than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit a report on the implementation of

this initiative. In addition to a list of actions the Army will take

to initiate the corporation, this report shall also list those technical

problems that can best be solved by quick identification of commercial-sector technologies and the rapid transition of these technologies to Army applications. Upon the formation of the corporation, the Secretary of the Army shall submit a report on the formation of the corporation, including a detailed description of the corporation’s members of the board, operating procedures, and investment strategies. This report shall also describe measures that the

Army will take to develop and implement streamlined acquisition

procedures enabling the Army to develop and field technologies

identified by the venture capital fund corporation. Not later than

March 31 of each year, the Secretary of the Army shall submit a

report on the operations of the corporation during the preceding fiscal year, including a detailed description of the corporation’s investments and financial performance during such fiscal year.

NEXT GENERATION GPS/INS NAVIGATION FOR MUNITIONS

The Army requested $40,112,000 for missile technology programs

including continuation of the effort to develop cheaper precision

172

guidance systems using micro electro-mechanical system (MEMS)

technology. The Committee recommends $57,612,000, for this program, a net increase of $17,500,000 of which $10,000,000 is to accelerate the MEMS program as discussed below.

The Committee is concerned that the Army has paid insufficient

attention to the projected cost of its precision guided indirect fire

munitions. The Committee cannot justify artillery rounds costing

$25,000 to $35,000 per round given the number of rounds the Army

needs for training and for the war fight. At these costs, the Army

will never be able to integrate precision guided munitions into its

warfighting doctrine and tactics for anything more than ‘‘silver bullet’’ extraordinary requirements. The Committee notes that the

Army has undertaken a promising ‘‘MEMS IMU’’ program aimed at

gretly reducing the cost of the high-g precision weapon guidance

sets, which are the biggest cost drivers for these weapons. The goal

of this program is to develop in the near term very inexpensive,

tactical-grade, high-g rugged, inertial measurement units using

micro electro-mechanical systems (MEMS) technology. In addition,

a companion effort to develop ultra-deep coupling between GPS– IMU hardware and software holds great promise for improving

anti-jam capability.

The MEMS IMU program has the potential to bring precision indirect fire munitions into a cost range that is affordable, and can

be readily transferred to the guidance sets of many other precision

weapons for all services as well. The Committee has provided an

additional $10,000,000 to accelerate and expand this effort for FY

2002. This program should be given high priority by the Army. The

Committee will be disinclined to appropriate large amounts for

Army precision guided munitions until this effort has concluded.

The Committee also directs that this program be fully coordinated

with similar, but smaller programs of the other services. The Committee expects the Army to take the lead to develop a fully coordinated MEMS–IMU/GPS development and manufacturing effort

with the other services in order to achieve the common goal of producing low cost guidance sets for the full range of precision weapons as soon as feasible.

DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND SYSTEM (DCGS)

The Army requested $85,242,000 for the Distributed Common Ground System (DCGS). The Committee recommends $72,742,000,

a reduction of $12,500,000. The Committee has transferred this

$12,500,000 to other related Army DCGS-related programs as follows: Tactical Surveillance System, $7,500,000 and Guardrail modifications, $5,000,000.

The Committee is very pleased with the Army’s commitment to

the DCGS program and is encouraged by the fiscal year 2002 request which is a $77,421,000 increase over the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level.

HEPATITIS C PROJECT

The Committee has provided $4,000,000 to initiate an effort at

Walter Reed Medical Center and the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences to better understand the mechanisms

behind high treatment failure rates for Hepatitis C viral infections.

173

This project should be conducted in coordination with an appropriate non-profit medical foundation, and should be focused on enhancing the health care of DoD medical beneficiaries. It is anticipated that the program will be a coordinated effort among all DoD

medical treatment facilities in the National Capital Region, with

funding management accomplished by the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2002:

174

175

176

177

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, NAVY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $9,494,374,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 11,123,389,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 10,896,307,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥227,082,000

This appropriation provides funds for the research, development,

test and evaluation activities of the Department of the Navy and

Marine Corps.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committee

recommended

Change from

request

DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ............................................................ 389,829 382,829 ¥7,000

Program Growth Reduction .......................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥7,000

(Note: Of the funds made available, $250,000 only to study

the feasibility of employing decommissioned USN nuclear

submarines to furnish electric power to military installations.) ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... (250)

POWER PROJECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................. 66,322 80,322 +14,000

Real World Based Immersive Imaging ........................................ .......................... .......................... +2,500

Hybrid Fiber Optic/Wireless System for Secure Communications .......................... .......................... 2,000

Hyperspectral SAR (Note: Only for hyperspectral SARs retroreflectometers for alternative UAV communications that includes an interrogator system with special tracking optics

and algorithms.) ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... +1,500

SAR for All Weather Targeting (Note: only for SAR all weather

precision targeting system to develop and demonstrate UAV

mounted high resolution SAR for all-weather precision targeting.) .................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

Integrated Biological Warfare Technology Platform .................... .......................... .......................... +5,000

FORCE PROTECTION APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................. 117,072 125,937 +8,865

Modular Advanced Hull Form ...................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

Center for Advanced Transportation Technology ......................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

3-Dimensional Printing Metal Working Technology ..................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

Battery Charging Technology ....................................................... .......................... .......................... +865

COMMON PICTURE APPLIED RESEARCH ............................................... 83,557 88,645 +5,088

Authorization Reduction ............................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,912

Battlespace Information Display Technology (Note: Only for optical scanning displays for man wearable portable wireless

tactical systems.) .................................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

Common Sensor Module (Note: Only for Common Sensor Module using multiple modalities and sensor fusion to track

vehicles for identification and force protection.) ................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ................................. 71,294 96,894 +25,600

Formable Aligned Carbon Thermosets (FACTS) ........................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

Virtual Company Distributed Manufacturing ............................... .......................... .......................... +1,500

Combinatorial Materials Synthesis .............................................. .......................... .......................... +3,000

Wood Composite Technology ........................................................ .......................... .......................... +3,000

Rhode Island Disaster Initiative .................................................. .......................... .......................... +3,000

Marine Mammal Research ........................................................... .......................... .......................... +2,100

Advanced Fuel Additive Pilot (Note: only a pilot demonstration

blending bio-derived alcohols and diesel fuel.) ..................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

Automated Diode Array Manufacturing (Note: only to develop

an automated capability to test large area diode arrays.) ... .......................... .......................... +3,000

Dominant Batatlespace Command Initiative .............................. .......................... .......................... +4,000

Printed Wiring Boards .................................................................. .......................... .......................... +2,000

OCEAN WARFIGHTING ENVIRONMENT APPLIED RESEARCH ................... 50,738 66,288 +15,550

Bioluminescence Truth Data Measurement and Signature Detection ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +1,800

South Florida Ocean Measurement Center .................................. .......................... .......................... +1,750

178

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committee

recommended

Change from

request

Multiple Intelligent Distributed Underwater Vehicle and Sensing Technology ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

Littoral Acoustic Demonstration Center ....................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

Oceanographic Sensors for Mine Countermeasures .................... .......................... .......................... +6,000

POWER PROJECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................... 76,410 133,510 +57,100

Aircraft Lightening Protection Applique System .......................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

Affordable Weapon Program ........................................................ .......................... .......................... +10,000

Variable Delivery Pump/Variable Engine Nozzle .......................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

DP–2 Thrust Vectoring System .................................................... .......................... .......................... +8,000

HEL—Low Aspect Target Tracking System ................................. .......................... .......................... +12,000

Thermobaric Warhead Development ............................................ .......................... .......................... +3,000

Magdalena Ridge Observatory ..................................................... .......................... .......................... +12,000

Integrated Hypersonic Aeromechanics Tool (IHAT) ...................... .......................... .......................... +3,100

Vectored Thrust Ducted Propellor ................................................ .......................... .......................... +3,000

FORCE PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ..................................... 85,297 140,297 +55,000

Littoral Support Craft .................................................................. .......................... .......................... +19,000

Curved Plate Technology .............................................................. .......................... .......................... +5,000

Advanced Waterjet—21 ............................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

Superconducting DC Homopolar Motor ........................................ .......................... .......................... +4,000

Project M (Note Of which not less than $2,000,000 shall be

for impact mitigation for MK V patrol craft) ......................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

Smartlink System ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

Real Time Fire and Smoke Prediction Tool ................................. .......................... .......................... +2,000

Wireless Sensors for Total Ship Monitoring ................................ .......................... .......................... +4,000

Knowledge Projection for Fleet Maintenance ............................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

Direct Ship Service Fuel Cell ....................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

AC Synchronous Propulsion Motor ............................................... .......................... .......................... +5,000

COMMON PICTURE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ....................................... 48,583 50,583 +2,000

National Cargo Tracking Program (Note: Funds are to be managed by a non-profit corporation.) ......................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

WARFIGHTER SUSTAINMENT ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ......................... 57,685 75,185 +17,500

Authorization Reduction ............................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,000

Low Volume Production Program ................................................. .......................... .......................... +3,500

National Center for Remanufacturing and Resource Recovery ... .......................... .......................... +2,000

COTS Carbon Fiber Qualification Program .................................. .......................... .......................... +2,000

Distance Learning IT Center (Note: Only to continue and expand the existing program) .................................................... .......................... .......................... +15,000

MARINE CORPS ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATION (ATD) ...... 51,310 61,810 +10,500

Mobile Counter-fire System ......................................................... .......................... .......................... +5,000

C3RP (Note: Only to continue the existing program.) ................. .......................... .......................... +1,500

Marine Corps Future Logistics (Note: Only for expansion of the

Future Naval Capability Expenditionary Logistics program) .. .......................... .......................... +2,000

Fast Refueling System (Note: Only for operational test and

evaluation, modifications, and procurement of the fast refueling system. The Committee directs that the Marine

Corps shall make this system available to other services

desiring to evaluate its potential.) ......................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 0 71,500 +71,500

Vectored Vaccine Research .......................................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

Medical Readiness Telemedicine Initiative Follow-on (Note:

Only for continued development of integrated medical data

transfer systems for operations in a joint environment.) ...... .......................... .......................... +9,000

Optical Sensing System: Robot Eyes for the Advancement of

Military Medicine ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

Rural Health ................................................................................. .......................... .......................... +8,000

Nursing Telehealth Applications .................................................. .......................... .......................... +3,000

National Bone Marrow Program ................................................... .......................... .......................... +34,000

Teleradiology Program (Note: The Committee encourages the

Department to fund the Teleradiology program in its fiscal

year 2003 and subsequent budget requests.) ....................... .......................... .......................... +1,500

Mobile Integrated Diagnostic and Data Analysis System

(MIDDAS) (Note: only to complete MIDDAS transition to a

fully integrated and functional field prototype for testing.) .. .......................... .......................... +2,000

Minimally Invasive Surgical Technology Institute ....................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

179

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committee

recommended

Change from

request

Biomedical Research Imaging Core -CoH National Medical

Center (Note: Only for the Biomedical Research Imaging

Core related to bone marrow transplantation, breast, and

prostate cancer.) ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... +5,000

Portable Production of Sterile Water for Intravenous Solutions

(Note: Only to conduct research and continued development

of a light-weight, hand-held, portable, disposable and rugged device for production of IV solutions.) ............................ .......................... .......................... +2,000

JOINT EXPERIMENTATION ....................................................................... 118,802 30,802 ¥88,000

Program Growth Reduction .......................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥88,000

WARFIGHTER PROTECTION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ........................... 17,678 28,178 +10,500

Damage Control Operational Concepts-Distributed Damage

Control Performance Evaluation .............................................. .......................... .......................... +2,000

Distributed Siimulation, Warfighting concepts to future Weapon

System Design (WARCON) ....................................................... .......................... .......................... +6,000

Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance Research

(Note: Only for research, training, education, and communication projects impacting emergency response and preparedness in Latin America and the Caribbean.) .................. .......................... .......................... +2,500

UNDERSEA WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY ................................... 56,303 58,803 +2,500

Multipulse Airgun System ............................................................ .......................... .......................... +2,500

MINE AND EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE ADVANCED TECHNOLGOY .......... 48,279 51,279 +3,000

Ocean Modeling Research for Mine and Submarine Warfare ..... .......................... .......................... +3,000

AVIATION SURVIVABILITY ....................................................................... 25,572 37,572 +12,000

Modular Helmet and Display Development ................................. .......................... .......................... +4,000

JPALS ............................................................................................ .......................... .......................... +3,000

Two color Focal Plane Array for Tactical Aircraft missile Warning (Note: Only for advanced development through the Navy

Center of Excellence in Electro-Optics Manufacturing of 2-

color focal plane arrays.) ........................................................ .......................... .......................... +5,000

STALL/SPIN INHIBITORS (h) ................................................................... 50,000 0 ¥50,000

Authorization Reduction ............................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥50,000

ASW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................... 12,922 16,922 +4,000

BEARTRAP .................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

SURFACE AND SHALLOW WATER MINE COUNTERMEASURES ................ 135,284 142,484 +7,200

Remote Mine Hunting System—Program Management Support

Cost Growth ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥1,500

UUV Center of Excellence at NUWC ............................................. .......................... .......................... +8,700

SURFACE SHIP TORPEDO DEFENSE ....................................................... 4,818 19,318 +14,500

Tripwire Torpedo Defense (Note: $9,000,000 is only to complete

development begun under SBIR N97–090 for onboard sensors and signal processing; $500,000 is only for the Distributed Engineering Center, $3,000,000 is only for the

anti-torpedo torpedo; and $2,000,000 is only for associated

components.) ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... ..........................

SHIPBOARD SYSTEM COMPONENT DEVELOPMENT ................................ 288,382 104,000 ¥184,382

DD–21 Program Restructure ........................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥188,382

Automated Maintenance Environment ......................................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

ADVANCED SUBMARINE SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT .................................. 110,766 131,766 +21,000

Conformal Acoustic Velocity Sonar (CAVES) ................................ .......................... .......................... +3,000

Advanced Composite Sail Phase II .............................................. .......................... .......................... +8,000

MK 48 ADCAP Torpedo Improvements (Note: $10,000,000 is

only for MPP/ARCI SBIR phase 3 follow-on to develop a torpedo APB). ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... +10,000

SHIP CONCEPT ADVANCED DESIGN ....................................................... 1,949 22,949 +21,000

Small Combatant Craft (Note: Only for acquisition, test and

evaluation of a high speed variable freeboard planing craft,

and related special warfare high speed support craft and

equipment.) ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... +12,000

Sealion Technology Demonstration—Situation Awareness Module ............................................................................................ .......................... .......................... +2,000

Metallic Materials Advanced Development and Certification

Program ................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

180

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committee

recommended

Change from

request

Document Automation of ICAS maintenance and other Navy

procedures in XML format ....................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

SHIP PRELIMINARY DESIGN & FEASIBILITY STUDIES ............................ 14,922 9,922 ¥5,000

Authorization Reduction ............................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,000

ADVANCED NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS ................................................ 175,176 173,076 ¥2,100

Authorization Reduction ............................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,100

COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION ............................................................ 42,915 66,915 +24,000

Wideband Optically Multiplexed Beamforming Architecture

(WOMBAT) ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... +4,000

Navy Common Command and Decision System (Note: Only for

SBIR Phase III follow-on efforts to develop common command and decision functions for theater air and missile

defense.) .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... +20,000

CONVENTIONAL MUNITIONS ................................................................... 22,299 24,299 +2,000

Insensitive Munitions/Green Energetics ....................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

MARINE CORPS GROUND COMBAT/SUPPORT SYSTEM .......................... 25,957 36,957 +11,000

Non-lethal and Urban Operations Weaponization Technology .... .......................... .......................... +1,000

Nanotechnology-based response to chemical/biological threats .......................... .......................... +3,000

Imaging System Upgrade Development (Note: Only for the AN/

TAS–4 night sight upgrade program through the Navy Center of Excellence in Electro-Optics Manufacturing to finalize

technology transfer and fabricate a pilot quantity to validate manufacturing technology.) ............................................ .......................... .......................... +7,000

COOPERATIVE ENGAGEMENT ................................................................. 74,231 112,331 +38,100

(Note; $15,000,000 is only for Enhanced Communications and

Network Capacity Expansion; $14,000,000 is only for Next

Generation/Reduced Size CEC equipment; $7,000,000 is only

for Baseline 2.1B Support; and $2,100,000 is only for

Multi-level security for CEC.) .................................................. .......................... .......................... ..........................

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION .............................................................. 46,117 50,117 +4,000

Naval Environmental Compliance Operations Monitoring ........... .......................... .......................... +4,000

NAVY ENERGY PROGRAM ...................................................................... 5,025 8,025 +3,000

Stationary PEM Fuel Cells ........................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

NAVY LOGISTIC PRODUCTIVITY .............................................................. 11,735 38,735 +27,000

Compatible Processor Upgrade (CPUP) ....................................... .......................... .......................... +5,000

JEDMICS Enhancements ............................................................... .......................... .......................... +7,000

JEDMICS Security (Note: Only for the continued procurement

and integration of the same security solution implemented

in 2000 and 2001, and its extension into other logistics

processes.) ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

Collaborative Logistics Productivity Virtual Systems Implementation Program ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... +8,000

Rapid Retargeting ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... +5,000

SHIP SELF DEFENSE—DEM/VAL ........................................................... 8,353 10,353 +2,000

Transportable Anti-intrusion Pontoon Barrier System ................. .......................... .......................... +2,000

LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY .................................................................. 130,993 173,193 +42,200

Naval Fires Network (Note: $25,200,000 is only for rapid and

evolutionary approaches to networking sensors by

transitioning the Naval Fires Network from an experimental

system to an afloat prototype; $10,000,000 is only for development and fielding of tactical dissemination module

(TDM) prototypes and integration of these prototypes with

the Naval Fires Network; and $4,000,000 is only for development of shipboard training software applications.) ........... .......................... .......................... +39,200

Advanced Medium Caliber Gun Demonstrator (Note: Only to

demonstrate an advanced gun design encompassing

modularity, scalability, compactness, and long-range.) ........ .......................... .......................... +3,000

SPACE AND ELECTRONIC WARFARE (SEW) ARCHITECTURE/ENGINE ..... 32,259 39,259 +7,000

IT–21 Block 1 C41SR Computing Equipment Upgrade (Note:

Only to develop a common AN/UYQ—70 based solution for

the IT–21 block upgrade.) ...................................................... .......................... .......................... +7,000

OTHER HELO DEVELOPMENT ................................................................. 64,392 79,892 +15,500

SH–60 Laser Aim Scoring System (LASS) ................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

High Tech Training in Support of DOD Legacy Parts Solutions .......................... .......................... +1,500

181

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committee

recommended

Change from

request

H–60 FLIR Mount (Note: Only for third party design of the FLIR

mount.) .................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

H–60 Helicopter Dynamic Component Life Cycle Engineering

Evaluation (Note: Only for an independent third party engineering analysis to assess dynamic component life cycle

criteria and development of component upgrades for life extension.) ................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

MH–60S Airborne Mine Countermeasure Carriage, Stream, Tow,

Recovery System (CSTARS) ...................................................... .......................... .......................... +6,000

STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT ................................................................... 120,552 127,052 +6,500

Joint Service Metrology ................................................................ .......................... .......................... +6,500

NAVY AREA MISSILE DEFENSE .............................................................. 388,496 0 ¥388,496

Transfer to Title IX—RDTE, BMDO .............................................. .......................... .......................... ¥388,496

V–22A .................................................................................................... 546,735 446,735 ¥100,000

Program Restructure .................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥100,000

AIR CREW SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ..................................................... 7,717 19,217 +11,500

Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System (JHMCS) .......................... .......................... .......................... +5,000

SIIS Ejection System .................................................................... .......................... .......................... +1,500

Intensifier Tube Advanced Development ..................................... .......................... .......................... +5,000

EW DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 112,473 121,473 +9,000

LOCO-GPSI .................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

IDECM ........................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +5,000

SC–21 TOTAL SHIP SYSTEM ENGINEERING ........................................... 355,093 56,500 ¥298,593

DD–21 Program Restructure ........................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥305,093

Power Node Control Program ....................................................... .......................... .......................... +2,500

Regional Electric Power Technology, Integration and Leveraging

Enterprises (REPTILE) .............................................................. .......................... .......................... +4,000

SURFACE COMBATANT COMBAT SYSTEM ENGINEERING ....................... 262,037 286,937 +24,900

Operational Readiness Testing System Network ......................... .......................... .......................... +6,000

Aegis Peripheral Consolidation .................................................... .......................... .......................... +8,900

Aegis Tactical Display Upgrade ................................................... .......................... .......................... +10,000

AIRBORNE MCM .................................................................................... 52,041 61,041 +9,000

Remote Technical Assistance Program (RTASS) ......................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

CH–60S Untethered Airborne Mine Neutralization System .......... .......................... .......................... +5,000

SSN–688 AND TRIDENT MODERNIZATION ............................................. 43,706 68,706 +25,000

MPP/SPB/A-RCI Model for Tactical Control Information Management and Net-centric Warfare (SSN–688 and Trident

Modernization) (Note: Only to continue SBIR Phase III follow-on efforts to extend APB/MPP technology insertion to

enable submarines to achieve Navy network-centric warfare

objectives and to accelerate development and extension of

common processing capabilities.) .......................................... .......................... .......................... +25,000

SHIPBOARD AVIATION SYSTEMS ............................................................ 16,375 19,875 +3,500

Aviation Shipboard Technology Initiative .................................... .......................... .......................... +3,500

NEW DESIGN SSN .................................................................................. 201,596 208,596 +7,000

Virgina Class SSN Combat System Technology Insertion/Refresh SBIR Phase III ................................................................ .......................... .......................... +7,000

SHIP CONTRACT DESIGN/LIVE FIRE T&E ............................................... 130,388 131,388 +1,000

Titanium Watertight Door and Hatch Cover ................................ .......................... .......................... +1,000

NAVY TACTICAL COMPUTER RESOURCES .............................................. 3,836 52,836 +49,000

AN/UYQ—70 submarine common electronic equipment replacement ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... +8,000

AN/UYQ—70 tactical computer resources (Note: Only to maintain, develop and implement technology refresh capabilities

to incorporate into the future AN/UYQ—70 workstation/server production across surface, submarine, and air platforms.) ..................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +30,000

Multi-level Security for Network-centric AN/UYQ–70 (Note: Only

to productize and integrate the COTS network security product that has previously received the NSA’s B2 rating into

the ultra thin client architecture onboard the USS Coronado.) ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

Complementary high energy laser/missile for ship self-defense .......................... .......................... +7,000

SHIP SELF DEFENSE—EMD .................................................................. 52,163 57,163 +5,000

182

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committee

recommended

Change from

request

AIEWS SBIR Phase III follow-on ................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

SEA RAM System Ordalt Upgrade ................................................ .......................... .......................... +2,000

MEDICAL DEVELOPMENT ....................................................................... 5,455 7,455 +2,000

Navy Voice Interactive Device follow-on ...................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

DISTRIBUTED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM .................................................. 34,711 42,711 +8,000

(Note: Only for acceleration of cable burial capability, larger

diameter cable, and surface ship deployment.) ..................... .......................... .......................... +8,000

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ......................................... 49,333 63,533 +14,200

SPAWAR ITC Enterprise Management .......................................... .......................... .......................... +6,000

Defense Software Productivity Initiative ...................................... .......................... .......................... +3,200

Secure Interactive Distributed Learing (SIDL) ............................. .......................... .......................... +2,000

Total Fleet Support System (Note: Only to reduce fleet support

costs by consolidating integrated call centers in the Distance Support Anchordesk and Web Portal.) .......................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ...................................................................... 41,804 43,804 +2,000

Navy Test and Evaluation Range and Airborne Telemetry System Moderization—Sub Column Array and Receiver Upgrade .......................... .......................... +2,000

STUDIES AND ANALYSIS SUPPORT—Navy ............................................ 6,679 4,679 ¥2,000

Authorization Reduction ............................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,000

TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICES .................................................... 951 11,951 +11,000

Supply Chain Practices ................................................................ .......................... .......................... +2,500

Commercialization of Advanced Technology (CAT) (Note: Only to

continue and expand the existing program.) ......................... .......................... .......................... +6,000

Lean Pathways Project Expansion and Distance Learning (Note:

Funds are for a distance learning component.) ..................... .......................... .......................... +2,500

MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL & INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT ...................... 21,628 18,628 ¥3,000

Program Growth Reduction .......................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥3,000

TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .......................................................... 277,414 274,500 ¥2,914

Authorization Reduction ............................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥7,414

Safety and Survivability Study of Protective Pumice Technology

(Note: Only for Pumice Protective Technology testing and

development.) .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... +2,500

Collaborative Virtual Interactive Design Environment ................ .......................... .......................... +2,000

SEW SURVEILLANCE/RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT ................................ 12,693 17,893 +5,200

(Note: Only for projects in support of Time Critical Strike.) ...... .......................... .......................... +1,200

(Note: Only for a limited demonstration of Radiant Argon on F/

A–18.) ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

MARINE CORPS PROGRAM WIDE SUPPORT ........................................... 9,614 24,614 +15,000

CBIRF ........................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +6,000

Chemical-Biological Multi-Sensor Analyzer/Detector ................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

Consequence Management Interoperability Services .................. .......................... .......................... +7,000

TACTICAL CRYPTOLOGIC ACTIVITIES ..................................................... 85,000 0 ¥85,000

Defense Cryptological Program Transfer ..................................... .......................... .......................... ¥85,000

STRATEGIC SUB & WEAPONS SYSTEM SUPPORT .................................. 43,322 46,822 +3,500

Radiation Hardened Electronics Application Program (RHEAP) .. .......................... .......................... +3,500

F/A–18 SQUADRONS .............................................................................. 253,257 233,257 ¥20,000

Authorization Reduction ............................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥20,000

FLEET TELECOMMUNICATIONS (TACTICAL) ............................................ 21,136 25,136 +4,000

Programmable Integrated Computer Terminal (Note: Funds are

only to combine the Integrated Voice Network and the Programmable Integrated Communications Terminal with the

Digital Modular Radio.) ........................................................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

INTEGRATED SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM ................................................... 20,041 36,041 +16,000

Web centric ASW Net (WeCan) (Note: Only for continued development of Web centric ASW (WeCan) for collaborating planning, execution and follow-on analysis for the common undersea picture, integration of additional tactical decision

aids, and expansion to multi-warfare areas and domains.) .......................... .......................... +8,000

IUSS (Note: Only for the IUSS Mission Planning System.) .......... .......................... .......................... +8,000

AMPHIBIOUS TACTICAL SUPPORT UNITS ............................................... 24,387 29,387 +5,000

Supporting Arms Technology Insertion ........................................ .......................... .......................... +5,000

CONSOLIDATED TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ............................. 22,407 25,607 +3,200

SEAT—Battle Force Tactical Training ......................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

183

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committee

recommended

Change from

request

Tactical Communications On-Board Trainer for Battle Force

Tactical Training ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... +1,200

ELECTRONIC WARFARE (EW) READINESS SUPPORT .............................. 7,659 12,659 +5,000

Common High Bandwidth Datalink—CHBDL .............................. .......................... .......................... +5,000

HARM IMPROVEMENT ............................................................................ 13,630 33,630 +21,000

AARGM .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +21,000

SURFACE ASW COMBAT SYSTEM INTEGRATION .................................... 28,119 24,219 ¥3,900

Authorization Reduction ............................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥3,900

AVIATION IMPROVEMENTS ..................................................................... 41,430 46,430 +5,000

Aircraft AGE Exploration Model Development .............................. .......................... .......................... +5,000

MARINE CORPS COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS ....................................... 104,835 126,835 +22,000

Surface Warfare Center—Ballon Upgrade for Sonobouys .......... .......................... .......................... +1,500

AN/TPS-59(v)3 SLEP Slotted Waveguide Antenna ....................... .......................... .......................... +10,000

Combined Arms Command and Control Training Upgrade System (CACTUS) .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... +6,000

Mobile Electronic Warfare Support System (MEWSS) specific

emitter identification upgrade ................................................ .......................... .......................... +4,500

INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ...................................... 20,942 25,942 +5,000

Intelligent Agent Security Module (Note: Only for SBIR Phase

III.) ........................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +5,000

NAVY METEOROLOGICAL AND OCEAN SENSORS-SPACE (METOC) ........ 23,492 21,592 ¥1,900

Authorization Reduction ............................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,900

TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES .............................................. 66,349 76,349 +10,000

(Note: Only for a prototype Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance (MPR) mission with advanced surveillance sensor

equipment on a Global Hawk HAE UAV, to conduct experimentation, and examine concept of operations for use in

conjunction with other MPR assets.) ...................................... .......................... .......................... +10,000

AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ............................................... 5,736 22,236 +16,500

EO Framing (Note: $3,000,000 only for precision strike;

$4,000,000 only for an integrated electronic shutter,

$2,500,000 only for zoom lens, $2,000,000 only for NRL

core R&D on sensors to restore EO/IR sensor research efforts to fiscal year 2001 levels as originally requested by

NRL. Secretary of the Navy is directed to continue to fully

support NRL core research funding requirements.) ............... .......................... .......................... +11,500

EP–3 (Note: $5,000,000 only for an EP–3 mission system

weight reduction initiative.) .................................................... .......................... .......................... +5,000

MANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS .................................................. 29,232 43,232 +14,000

(Note: $7,000,000 is only for Shared Reconnaissance Pod

(SHARP) test, deployment systems.) ....................................... .......................... .......................... +7,000

(Note: $7,000,000 only to accelerate the introduction of the

Advanced Multiband Optical Surveillance System (AMOSS)

on special project aircraft.) .................................................... .......................... .......................... +7,000

DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND SYSTEMS .......................................... 4,467 9,467 +5,000

(Note: $4,000,000 only for acceleration of the PC Digital Imagery Workstation Suite (DIWS) initial operating capability.) .......................... .......................... +4,000

(Note: $1,000,000 only for precision targeting) .......................... .......................... .......................... +1,000

NAVAL SPACE SURVEILLANCE SPACE ACTIVITIES ................................. 4,237 4,237 0

Excessive Program Growth ........................................................... 0 0 ¥2,500

SPAWAR Covert Communication and Information Transfer

(CCIT) ....................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +2,500

MODELING AND SIMULATION SUPPORT ................................................. 7,828 9,828 +2,000

Enhanced Modeling and Simulation Initiatives .......................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

MARITIME TECHNOLOGY (MARITECH) .................................................... 20,065 34,065 +14,000

High Speed Cargo Craft .............................................................. .......................... .......................... +4,000

Maritime Technology, Ship Design and Systems Development

Initiative .................................................................................. .......................... .......................... +10,000

DD–21 LAND ATTACK DESTROYER

The Navy requested $643,475,000 for continued development of

the DD–21 next generation destroyer. The Committee recommends

184

$150,000,000, a decrease of $493,474,000. The Committee further

recommends rescinding $40,000,000 of previously appropriated fiscal year 2001 funds for the DD–21 program.

The DD–21 program was to be the Navy’s attempt to develop and

field a multi-mission, land attack capable, next generation destroyer with a substantially reduced crew size and life cycle cost.

It was originally scheduled to begin engineering and manufacturing

development with one design team in May of 2001. The down-select

to one team has been suspended indefinitely pending a Defense Department program review, and what the Committee understands

will be a substantial program restructure. Given the many uncertainties facing the program, the Committee has recommended deferring the request to initiate full-scale development of the DD–21.

The $150,000,000 provided for the program in fiscal year 2002 will

enable the Navy to continue risk reduction efforts and pursue some

of the more promising technologies being developed for the program

such as advanced hull forms, the multi-function radar, and the advanced gun system.

In the report that accompanied the fiscal year 2001 Department

of Defense Appropriations bill, the Committee outlined its concerns

regarding the DD–21 program. They included: (1) the limited role

of the Navy’s science and technology community and ship designers

in program development; (2) an acquisition strategy that hampered

inclusion of small and innovative defense companies in the program and; (3) a logistics support plan that had profound implications for the Navy’s shore-based ship integrated logistics support

infrastructure.

These concerns remain, yet even more fundamental questions regarding the program have emerged such as: (1) Is the Navy’s goal

of a crew size no greater than 95 attainable or even desirable? (2)

Are procurement unit cost estimates realistic? And most importantly, (3) Does the DD–21 truly qualify as a ‘‘leap ahead’’ system

and to what degree does it contribute to the transformation of U.S.

naval forces in the twenty-first century? The Committee believes

that until such a time that these questions have been fully answered by the Navy and the Department of Defense, and a comprehensive program restructure has been presented to Congress, it

is prudent to defer the next phase of the DD–21 program. Recognizing that this action will ultimately delay construction of the

DD–21 or its successor, and the importance of maintaining the size

of the surface combatant fleet, the Committee has also recommended an increase of $820,000,000 to the Navy’s budget request for an additional DDG–51 destroyer, for a total of four in fiscal year 2002.

RAPID RETARGETING

The Committee is impressed with the Department of the Navy’s

Rapid Retargeting program (RRT), a process that addresses the obsolete designs of electronic systems. RRT has provided the technology to eliminate obsolete components in Navy systems and reduce multiple electronic modules into single programmable designs.

This process is also being employed to replace many standard electronic modules with programmable COTS components which reduces the requirement for shipboard sparing requirements. The

185

Committee believes that accelerated and expanded use of RRT for

all programs that are considering service life extension programs

could result in significant cost savings for the Navy. The Committee therefore directs the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition to establish a process by

which all Naval acquisition programs that propose to make use of

service life extension programs or ‘‘life of type’’ component buys for

electronic systems and components make use of the Naval Supply

System Command’s RRT design tool to structure their acquisition

and program planning. The Assistant Secretary of the Navy should

report to the Committee no later than February 15, 2002 on efforts

to implement the RRT process.

COMBAT CONTROL SYSTEM MK2

The Committee is concerned that the development of the CCS

MK2 combat control system for nuclear and attack submarines is

taking place in an uncompetitive and closed environment that endangers the optimal and rapid evolution of combat control capabilities for the nation’s submarine forces. The Committee therefore directs that none of the funds made available for the CCS–MK2 program in fiscal year 2002 be obligated until the Department of the

Navy submits a program acquisition plan to Congress which details: (1) the complete use of fully open system architectures in the

future development of CCS–MK2, and (2) a full and open competitive acquisition strategy for subsequent versions of CCS–MK2. The

Committee also directs that the Navy form an independent program architecture review group to perform a CCS–MK2

middleware migration study to determine the best methods for

modernizing and taking advantage of commercial technologies for

submarine combat control systems.

LAND ATTACK TECHNOLOGY

The Navy requested $130,993,000 for Land Attack Technology.

The Committee recommends $173,193,000, an increase of

$42,200,000 over the budget request.

Naval Fires Network (NFN).—The Committee recommends a

total of $39,200,000 for Naval Fires Network (NFN). The Committee directs that $25,200,000 is only for the rapid and evolutionary approach to networking of ISR and other assets by

transitioning NFN from an experimental system to an afloat prototype. This includes the installation of a prototype that is similar to/

same as NFN onboard the USS Lincoln and/or USS Stennis. This

funding will support the initiation of the rapid development, installation and deployment of the prototype. The Committee directs that

$10,000,000 is only for the development and fielding of the tactical

dissemination module (TDM) and the integration of TDM with the

NFN prototype effort. The Committee further directs that

$4,000,000 is only for a deployable end-to-end training system for

NFN. In addition, the Committee believes that the Navy must

work with the Air Force with respect to ongoing modeling and exercise support activities that will assist the Air Force and Navy in

modifying reconnaissance ground stations and targeting processes

to engage time critical targets.

186

TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE

The Navy requested $66,349,000 for the Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicle. The Committee recommends $76,349,000, an increase

of $10,000,000 above the budget request.

Broad-Area Maritime Surveillance (BAMS).—The Committee recommends $10,000,000 only for the development of a prototype Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance (MPR) mission with advanced

surveillance sensor equipment on a Global Hawk High Altitude Endurance (HAE) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) for experimentation and for examining concepts of operation for use in conjunction with other MPR assets. The Committee directs the Navy to review and analyze results of previous maritime surveillance experiments with the Global Hawk HAE UAV prior to initiating BAMS.

The Navy shall also submit a report no later than June 30, 2002

that includes its evaluation of the previous maritime surveillance

experiments, the validity of the BAMS approach for MPR, an initial concept of operations for use of an HAE UAV as an adjunct to

current MPR assets, and future year plans, including budget requirements, for continued development of the UAV approach to

MPR.

Navy Unmanned Aerial Vehicle program.—The Committee understands that the Navy has recently implemented a major restructuring of the management structure for its UAV program. The

Committee is pleased that through this change, the Navy has embraced the unique value of UAVs for intelligence, surveillance, and

reconnaissance missions. It is clear that this restructuring may

lead to further refinements of the U.S. Naval Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Roadmap and execution of the fiscal year 2001 and 2002

budgets. The Committee is supportive of the Navy’s efforts and is

willing to consider changes as necessary to implement a well-balanced UAV strategy. The budget as requested and appropriated in

this bill reflects the program of record. Should the Navy desire to

alter the program of record it must seek prior approval from Congress.

SURVEILLANCE AND RECONNAISSANCE SUPPORT

The Navy requested $12,693,000 for SEW Surveillance and Reconnaissance Support. The Committee recommends $17,893,000, an

increase of $5,200,000 above the budget request.

Tactical Exploitation of National Assets Program (TENCAP).—

The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for a limited demonstration of RADIANT ARGON on an F/A–18. In addition, the Committee recommends $1,200,000 for current and new projects in support of Time Critical Strike (TCS).

DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND SYSTEM

JOINT SERVICE IMAGERY PROCESSING SYSTEM—NAVY (JSIPS–N)

The Navy requested $4,467,000 for the Distributed Common

Ground System. The Committee recommends $9,467,000, an increase of $5,000,000 above the budget request.

The Navy has had under development two different systems for

the processing of imagery data from reconnaissance aircraft: the

187

Tactical Input Segment (TIS) and the Navy Input Station (NAVIS)

systems. Each of these systems uses a different method of data decompression for imagery and each system meets a set of requirements established by the Navy. However, each system cannot, at

this time, process data from both the SHARP and ‘‘legacy’’ reconnaissance systems which means both of these processing systems

are required to take full advantage of the Navy’s tactical reconnaissance investment. Unfortunately, the Navy does not have sufficient

information on which of these systems would provide the optimum

level of imagery processing for the F/A–18 SHARP and other ‘‘legacy’’ tactical reconnaissance systems and has insufficient time to

initiate a new development program to merge these capabilities

prior to the first deployment of SHARP.

The Committee believes that at this time the best option is for

the Navy to continue development of both the TIS and NAVIS systems for the processing of imagery from legacy tactical reconnaissance systems as well as deployed F/A–18 SHARP and directs the

Navy to continue the development of these systems. The Navy is

directed to report to the Committee by December 1, 2001, on its

plans to implement the Committee’s direction.

It is apparent that in the future, maintaining two separate systems to process imagery data is inefficient and expensive. The

Committee believes the Navy should initiate an effort to either

merge these two systems or cancel one of the development programs in order to deploy a single imagery processing system.

Precision Targeting.—The Committee recommends $1,000,000 to

address any requirements for processing commercial imagery to

support Time Critical Strike.

NURSING TELEHEALTH APPLICATIONS

The Committee recommends $3,000,000 only to initiate an international effort by a consortium of military medical technicians,

educators, researchers, and domestic rural healthcare providers to

design and deliver a nurse training curriculum to remote international locations with special emphasis on emergency medical

training and humanitarian relief. This effort shall use modern information technology including the Partnership for Peace Information Management System and be led by a non-profit educational organization with demonstrated expertise in delivering medical care

to remote and under-served areas.

BONE MARROW REGISTRY

The Committee provides $34,000,000 to be administered by the

C. W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program, also known, and referred to, within the Naval Medical Research Center, as the Bone Marrow Registry. This DoD donor center has recruited 278,000 DoD volunteers, and provides more marrow donors per week than any other donor center in the Nation.

Later this year, the 1,000th service member will donate marrow

through this donor center to save a life. The Committee is aware

of the continuing success of this national and international life saving program for military contingencies and civilian patients, which

now includes 4,500,000 potential volunteer donors, and encourages

agencies involved in contingency planning to include the C. W. Bill

188

Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program in the

development and testing of their contingency plans. DD Form 1414

shall show this as a special congressional interest item, and the

Committee directs that all of the funds appropriated for this purpose be released to the C. W. Bill Young Marrow Donor Recruitment and Research Program within 60 days of enactment of the fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act.

TELEMEDICINE

The Committee strongly endorses the Navy’s model program in

conjunction with the University of California at San Diego, for the

telemedicine treatment of burn victims.

JOINT DIRECTED ATTACK MUNITION

The Navy requested $56,285,000 for development efforts related

to the Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM). The Committee approves this amount including $12,200,000 requested by the Navy

for the JDAM Product Improvement Program (PIP). The Committee designates this $12,200,000 for JDAM PIP as an item of

special congressional interest. Further, the Committee directs that

$4,800,000 of the JDAM PIP funds may only be used for DAMASK.

LOWER COST PRECISION WEAPON GUIDANCE SYSTEMS

Thr Committee believes that all military services must put priority on research activities aimed at developing miniature electromechanical systems (MEMS) for use in precision weapon guidance

systems. This research holds much promise for significantly reducing the unit cost of precision-guided weapons through development

of low cost inertial measurement units. Given the substantial benefits to all military services, the Committee views it as crucial that

the services coordinate their efforts to develop MEMS technology

and related anti-jam software upgrades to accelerate systems development and to eliminate duplication of effort. The Committee

believes the Army MEMS–IMU/GPS program is the most mature

and robust of the various programs, and directs the Navy to ensure

that its MEMS guidance system development efforts are fully coordinated with and complement the Army program.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002.

189

190

191

192

193

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION, AIR

FORCE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriations ........................................................ $14,138,244,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 14,343,982,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 14,884,058,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +540,076,000

This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test and

Evaluation activities of the Department of the Air Force.

USING ‘‘CODE NAMES’’ FOR UNCLASSIFIED ACTIVITIES

The Committee believes that, in its budget presentations to the

Congress, the Air Force should avoid using nondescriptive code

names for unclassified programs. The Committee finds that program names like Pacer Crag (avionics upgrade for KC–135 aircraft), Seek Eagle (munitions separation testing), Chicken Little

(weapons effects testing), and Vanguard (Joint Surveillance Targeting and Reconnaissance aircraft upgrades) unnecessarily complicate Congressional review and oversight. A similar practice involves the Air Force’s use of numeric codes when referring to Air

Force appropriations in Congressional hearings, briefings, questions for the record, as well as meetings with Members of Congress.

For example, Air Force representatives refer to the Aircraft Procurement, Air Force appropriation as ‘‘3100 funding,’’ a meaningless term to most Members of Congress. Unfortunately, as long as

these terms are used extensively in internal Air Force deliberations, they will likely continue to creep into Air Force communications with Congress. The Committee encourages the Air Force to

take reasonable steps to reduce such sources of confusion.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committe recommendation

Change from

request

DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ............................................................ 220,869 227,119 +6,250

Center for Astronomical Adaptive Optics .................................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

Environmentally Sound Aircraft Coatings .................................... .......................... .......................... +1,000

Center for Solar Geophysical Interactions at Mt. Wilson Observatory ......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +750

Coal based jet fuels .................................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

Focused Ion Beam System ........................................................... .......................... .......................... +1,500

Reduce mathematical and computer sciences to prior year levels ............................................................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥3,000

Reduce electronics to prior year levels ....................................... .......................... .......................... ¥2,000

California Science Center ............................................................ .......................... .......................... +1,000

MATERIALS ............................................................................................ 77,164 88,664 +11,500

Metal Affordability Initiative ........................................................ .......................... .......................... +4,500

Advanced silicon carbide crystal device technology ................... .......................... .......................... +7,000

AEROSPACE VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES ................................................... 97,465 100,715 +3,250

AFRL Tyndall ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... +2,500

Advanced Comprehensive Engineering Simulator (ACES) ........... .......................... .......................... +750

HUMAN EFFECTIVENESS APPLIED RESEARCH ....................................... 69,080 70,930 +1,850

UCAV funding consolidation ........................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥1,400

Fatigue Countermeasure Research (Note: Only to conduct laboratory studies at Brooks AFB to complete research on the

efficacy and safety of fatigue countermeasure medications

during military operations; ...................................................... .......................... .......................... +1,250

194

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committe recommendation

Change from

request

Rapid Detection of Biological Weapons of Mass Destruction

(Note: Only to design and develop probe kits to identify Biological Weapons of Mass Destruction.) .................................. .......................... .......................... +2,000

AEROSPACE PROPULSION ...................................................................... 149,211 189,111 +39,900

Magnetic Bearing Cooling Turbine Technology (MBCT) .............. .......................... .......................... +1,500

Pulse Detonation Engine .............................................................. .......................... .......................... +6,000

Engineering Tool Improvement Program ...................................... .......................... .......................... +2,600

PBO Membrane Fuel Cell ............................................................. .......................... .......................... +2,000

Lithium ion battery aircraft, spacecraft, and handheld applications ......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

Lithium ion battery technology for solid state lasers ................ .......................... .......................... +1,000

IHPRPT .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +9,500

Jet Engine Test Cell Upgrade ...................................................... .......................... .......................... +2,700

AFRL test stands (1D and 2A modernization at Edwards AFB) .......................... .......................... +12,600

Note: Only to retrofit and upgrade existing space and aircraft

engine test facilities to support reusable launch vehicle

and new propellant development programs.

AEROSPACE SENSORS ........................................................................... 84,149 79,049 ¥5,100

HASC reduction ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥14,100

Adverse Weather Ballistic Imaging ............................................. .......................... .......................... +4,000

Advanced FT–IR Gas Analysis ..................................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

Integration of Flexible Substances .............................................. .......................... .......................... +3,000

SPACE TECHNOLOGY ............................................................................. 61,086 69,586 +8,500

Mixed Signal VLSI for Space Vehicle Comm Subsystems ........... .......................... .......................... +2,500

Composite Cryogenic Fuel Tank ................................................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

Terabit .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

DIRECTED ENERGY TECHNOLOGY ......................................................... 36,678 31,978 ¥4,700

HASC reduction ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥5,700

Tactical/Operations Systems Simulator ....................................... .......................... .......................... +1,000

COMMAND CONTROL AND COMMUNICATIONS ....................................... 61,659 70,959 +9,300

HASC reduction ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥5,200

Simulation Based Acquisition Initiative ...................................... .......................... .......................... +6,500

Information Hiding, Steganography & Digital Watermarking for

Information Protection and Authentications Systems ............ .......................... .......................... +3,000

Assured Communications ............................................................ .......................... .......................... +5,000

ADVANCED MATERIALS FOR WEAPON SYSTEMS ................................... 32,748 45,248 +12,500

Technology Development Investment for Aging Aircraft ............. .......................... .......................... +3,000

Handheld Holographic Radar Gun ............................................... .......................... .......................... +1,500

Vapor Growth Carbon Fiber (VGCF) ............................................. .......................... .......................... +1,000

Ceramic Matrix Composite for Engines ....................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

Metal Affordability Initiative ........................................................ .......................... .......................... +2,500

Plasma Enhanced Chemical Deposition Techniques ................... .......................... .......................... +2,500

ADVANCED AEROSPACE SENSORS ........................................................ 55,809 65,109 +9,300

UCAV funding consolidation ........................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥2,700

Advanced Physical Vapor Transport ............................................ .......................... .......................... +1,500

Radar Target Modeling Thrust ..................................................... .......................... .......................... +10,500

FLIGHT VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY .............................................................. 0 4,000 +4,000

AFRL Tyndall ................................................................................ .......................... .......................... +4,000

AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY DEV/DEMO .................................................. 26,269 27,869 +1,600

UCAV funding consolidation ........................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥11,900

Access to space systems project ................................................ .......................... .......................... +2,000

Aeronautical Systems Center ....................................................... .......................... .......................... +7,000

Affordable Combat Avionics Initiative ......................................... .......................... .......................... +2,500

3D Bias Woven Preforms ............................................................. .......................... .......................... +2,000

AEROSPACE PROPULSION AND POWER TECHNOLOGY .......................... 114,335 124,335 +10,000

Joint Expendable Turbine Engine (JETEC) ................................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

IHPRPT .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +6,000

CREW SYSTEMS AND PERSONNEL PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY ............. 32,356 36,856 +4,500

Combat Automation Requirements Testbed ................................ .......................... .......................... +1,500

Head Mounted Technology ........................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

ELECTRONIC COMBAT TECHNOLOGY ..................................................... 28,221 37,221 +9,000

IDAL C3NI ..................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +1,000

CLIRCM ......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +8,000

BALLISTIC MISSILE TECHNOLOGY .......................................................... 0 2,500 +2,500

195

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committe recommendation

Change from

request

GPS RANGE SAFETY ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... +2,500

ADVANCED SPACECRAFT TECHNOLOGY ................................................. 52,528 59,528 +5,000

Scorpius ....................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

Next Generation Hybrid Orbital Manuever Vehicle ...................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ............................................... 37,617 44,317 +6,700

UCAV funding consideration ........................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥1,300

LOCAAS ......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +8,000

ADVANCED WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY ............................................. 43,758 52,738 +9,000

HASC reduction ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥5,000

GLINT ............................................................................................ .......................... .......................... +10,000

Sodium wavelength laser ............................................................ .......................... .......................... +2,000

Manufacturing Analysis for the Advanced Tactical Laser .......... .......................... .......................... +2,000

C3I ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT .............................................................. 32,644 35,844 +3,200

Adaptive Information Protection Technologies ............................ .......................... .......................... +2,000

Note: For system protection philosophies through the exploration of the application of adaptive technology using and

modifying commercial off-the-shelf technology. .......................... .......................... ..........................

UCAV funding consolidation ........................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥3,800

Information Hiding, Steganography & Digital Watermaking for

Information Protection and Authentications Systems ............ .......................... .......................... +5,000

UCAV ..................................................................................................... .......................... 21,100 +21,000

UCAV funding consolidation ........................................................ .......................... .......................... +21,000

NAVSTAR GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM III .......................................... 78,358 66,358 ¥12,000

Poor execution. Large unobligated prior year balances carried

into current fiscal year. .......................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥12,000

ADVANCED EHF MILSATCOM (SPACE) ................................................... 549,659 459,659 ¥90,000

Delay in start of EMD .................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥90,000

POLAR MILSATCOM (SPACE) ................................................................. 18,724 13,724 ¥5,000

HASC reduction ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥5,000

NATIONAL POLAR-ORBITING OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ............... 157,394 103,394 ¥54,000

Slip of EMD contract award to end of fiscal year 2002 ............ .......................... .......................... ¥54,000

INTEGRATED BROADCAST SERVICE (DEM/VAL) ..................................... 20,529 17,529 ¥3,000

HASC Reduction ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥3,000

INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE-DEM/VAL ................................ 44,484 51,484 +7,000

Northern Edge .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... +7,000

WIDEBAND GAPFILLER SYSTEM (SPACE) ............................................... 96,670 99,370 +2,700

Transfer from OPAF for ‘‘Development Lab’’ Equipment. Reduction for incremental funding and lack of budget justification for 8 strings. .................................................................... .......................... .......................... +2,700

AIR FORCE/NATIONAL PROGRAM COOPERATION (AFNPC) ..................... 4,433 0 ¥4,433

HASC reduction ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥4,433

POLLUTION PREVENTION (DEM/VAL) ..................................................... 2,688 0 ¥2,688

HASC reduction ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥2,688

B–1B ..................................................................................................... 194,507 152,307 ¥42,200

Transfer to ANG O&M .................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥42,200

F–22 EMD ............................................................................................. 865,464 881,556 +16,092

Transfer from F–22 squadrons .................................................... .......................... .......................... +16,092

NEXT GENERATION TANKER ................................................................... .......................... 150,000 +150,000

767 Tanker Testbed Aircraft ........................................................ .......................... .......................... +120,000

Tanker mod development ............................................................. .......................... .......................... +30,000

B–2 ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY BOMBER ............................................... 155,004 222,004 +67,000

Link 16/Center Display/Inflight Replanner .................................. .......................... .......................... +47,000

EGBU–28 ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +20,000

MULTI-MISSION C2 AIRCRAFT ............................................................... .......................... 25,000 +25,000

Concept development ................................................................... .......................... .......................... +25,000

EW DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................. 41,267 44,567 +3,300

Poor execution .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥10,000

PLAID ............................................................................................ .......................... .......................... +13,300

EXTENDED RANGE CRUISE MISSILE (ERCM) ......................................... 40,235 0 ¥40,235

Air force delays in defining program .......................................... .......................... .......................... ¥40,235

SPACE BASED INFRARED SYSTEM (SBIRS) HIGH EMD ......................... 405,229 435,229 +30,000

Cost overruns ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... +30,000

MILSTAR LDR/MDR SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS (SPACE) .................. 232,084 229,584 ¥2,500

Unjustified growth in satellite engineering ................................. .......................... .......................... ¥9,000

196

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committe recommendation

Change from

request

Automated Comms Management System Satellite Planning ...... .......................... .......................... +6,500

UAV RADAR SYSTEM TESTBED (C–37A) ............................................... .......................... 50,000 +50,000

LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS ....................................................................... 4,586 11,286 +6,700

ACES II P3I ................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

Crash Resistant Wall Style Troop Seat ....................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

LESPA ........................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +700

INTEGRATED COMMAND &; CONTROL APPLICATIONS (IC2A) ................ 224 8,224 +8,000

NPLACE ......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

AF Center for Acquisition Reengineering and Enabling Technology ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

AF Production Line Engineering Activity ...................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

NEXT GENERATION JSTARS TESTED ...................................................... .......................... 190,000 +190,000

767 Testbed Aircraft .................................................................... .......................... .......................... +190,000

EVOLVED EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLE PROGRAM (SPACE) ............. 320,321 310,321 ¥10,000

Excessive SPO and FFRDC growth ............................................... .......................... .......................... ¥10,000

RDT&E FOR AGING AIRCRAFT ............................................................... 20,115 48,115 +28,000

Aging Wiring and Corrosion Treatment for Aging Aircraft .......... .......................... .......................... +10,000

Aging Landing Gear Life Extension ............................................. .......................... .......................... +15,000

Aging Propulsion Systems Life Extension .................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

MAJOR T&E INVESTMENT ...................................................................... 49,857 64,857 +15,000

Holloman High Speed Test Track Upgrade .................................. .......................... .......................... +4,000

Airborne Separation Video System (ASVS) ................................... .......................... .......................... +1,500

Laser Induced Surface Improvement (LISI) ................................. .......................... .......................... +2,000

Mariah II Hypersonic .................................................................... .......................... .......................... +7,500

INITIAL OPERATIONAL TEST & EVALUATION .......................................... 28,998 35,998 +7,000

AFOTECH ....................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +7,000

TEST AND EVALUATION SUPPORT .......................................................... 396,583 393,283 ¥3,300

Large unobligated carryforward into current fiscal year ............ .......................... .......................... ¥7,000

Generic Radar Target Generator (GRTG) ..................................... .......................... .......................... +1,700

Enhanced Flight Termination System .......................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

ROCKET SYSTEMS LAUNCH PROGRAM (SPACE) .................................... 8,538 32,538 +24,000

Missile Technology Demonstration (MTD)-3B .............................. .......................... .......................... +6,000

Ballistic Missile Range Safety Technology Program ................... .......................... .......................... +18,000

GENERAL SKILL TRAINING ..................................................................... 309 0 ¥309

Program reduction ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥309

WARFIGHTER RAPID ACQUISITION PROCESS (WRAP) RAPID TRAN ....... 30,247 30,247 ..........................

Note: Tech-SAT 21 shall be a candidate for WRAP.

JOINT EXPEDITIONARY FORCE EXPERIMENT .......................................... 64,005 22,605 ¥41,400

Reduced scope to accommodate planning and operational

needs of Enduring Freedom and Noble Eagle ........................ .......................... .......................... ¥41,000

A–10 SQUADRONS ................................................................................. 3,049 8,049 +5,000

A–10 Precision Engagement ........................................................ .......................... .......................... +5,000

F–16 SQUADRONS ................................................................................. 110,797 115,797 +5,000

Distributed Training Centers ....................................................... .......................... .......................... +5,000

F–22 SQUADRONS ................................................................................. 16,092 0 ¥16,092

Transfer to F–22 EMD ................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥16,092

AF TENCAP ............................................................................................ 10,811 10,811 ..........................

GPS jammer detection and location system for transition to an

operational capability under Phase III effort .......................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

JOINT SURVEILLANCE AND TARGET ATTACK RADAR SYSTEM ............... 147,859 243,359 +95,500

Poor prior year execution ............................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥5,000

SATCOM transfer from APAF ........................................................ .......................... .......................... +5,700

RVSM transfer from APAF ............................................................ .......................... .......................... +5,800

Accelerate MP–RTIP ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... +89,000

USAF MODELING AND SIMULATION ....................................................... 25,345 31,345 +6,000

STORM .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +1,000

Intelligent Flight Control System Simulation Research (including acquisition of advanced flight control research equipment and related laboratory/support equipment). ................. .......................... .......................... +5,000

WARGAMING AND SIMULATION CENTERS .............................................. 5,033 9,033 +4,000

TACCSF ......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +4,000

MISSION PLANNING SYSTEMS ............................................................... 16,904 19,904 +3,000

Powerscene ................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +3,000

INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ...................................... 7,936 22,436 +14,500

197

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Committe recommendation

Change from

request

Information Assurance for Enabling Technologies ...................... .......................... .......................... +1,500

Worldwide Information Security Environment (WISE) (Note: Only

to continue ongoing information assurance efforts using intelligent sensors/JAVA intelligent agents.) ............................. .......................... .......................... +13,000

GLOBAL COMBAT SUPPORT SYSTEM ..................................................... 48,911 54,911 +6,000

GCSS (Enterprise Data Warehouse) (Note: Only for GCSS–AF to

continue development of the EDW in support of the AF

maintenance data collection program.) .................................. .......................... .......................... +6,000

SPACELIFT RANGE SYSTEM (SPACE) ..................................................... 65,097 75,197 +10,100

Space Integration Master Planning ............................................. .......................... .......................... +2,100

Note: Only to analyze future space requirements in support of

homeland defense

RSA Core Crew ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... +8,000

DRAGON U–2 (JMIP) .............................................................................. 32,804 25,804 ¥7,000

Dual data link new start ............................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥7,000

ENDURANCE UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES .......................................... 190,237 172,737 ¥17,500

Demonstration at Berlin Air Show ............................................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,000

Program office growth ................................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥12,500

AIRBORNE RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS ............................................... 77,766 81,785 +4,019

Termination of JSAF ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥36,381

JSAF Program Office .................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥4,600

Modern ELINT system (HBSS) for Global Hawk HAE UAV ........... .......................... .......................... +30,000

Theater Airborne Reconnaissance System (TARS) ....................... .......................... .......................... +15,000

MANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS .................................................. 0 4,500 +4,500

Combat Sent Passive Airborne Ranging ..................................... .......................... .......................... +4,500

DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND SYSTEMS .......................................... 11,429 21,429 +10,000

NCCT ............................................................................................ .......................... .......................... +10,000

SPACETRACK (SPACE) ........................................................................... 32,591 23,691 ¥8,900

Space Based Surveilliance Concept Technology Development:

await results of AOA before development .............................. .......................... .......................... ¥2,900

Space Situational Awareness: excessive office standup ............ .......................... .......................... ¥6,000

C–130 AIRLIFT SQUADRON ................................................................... 80,533 60,533 ¥20,000

Late EMD contract award ............................................................ .......................... ¥20,000 ¥20,000

C–5 ....................................................................................................... 166,508 152,508 ¥14,000

1 year delay in RERP EMD, availability of prior year funds ...... .......................... .......................... ¥14,000

DEPOT MAINTENANCE (NON–IF) ............................................................ 1,542 4,042 +2,500

Metrology ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... +2,500

INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ................................................................. 53,782 61,782 +8,000

Advanced Low Observable Coatings ............................................ .......................... .......................... +6,000

Laser peening for F–16 engine ................................................... .......................... .......................... +2,000

PRODUCTIVITY, RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, MAINTAIN PRO ................. 20,689 32,189 +11,500

Automated Nondestructive Inspection for Turbine Engine

Sustainment ............................................................................ .......................... .......................... +6,500

Inspection Technology for Turbine Engines ................................. .......................... .......................... +5,000

JOINT LOGISTICS PROGRAM—AMMUNITION STANDARD SYSTEM ......... 106 0 ¥106

Program reduction ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥106

SUPPORT SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ....................................................... 24,221 30,221 +6,000

Center for aircraft and systems support .................................... .......................... .......................... +6,000

UNMANNED COMBAT AIR VEHICLE

The Air Force budget request for the Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) is currently distributed across a number of Air Force

science and technology line-items. The Committee believes that

UCAV technology represents an important new technology thrust.

To elevate the visibility of the Air Force UCAV program activities,

schedule, and budget, the Committee has consolidated all UCAV

funding into a new line-item. The Committee directs that future

Air Force budgets be submitted using this new line-item.

198

WARFIGHTER RAPID ACQUISITION PROCESS

The Committee commends the Air Force on its well-conceived

process for ensuring Congressional notification prior to initiation of

new start WRAP initiatives.

SPACE BASED RADAR EMD

The Air Force requested $50,000,000 for the Space Based Radar

(SBR) Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) program. The Committee recommends the full amount. Budget justification for SBR clearly indicates that the requested funds are not

for EMD, but rather requirements development, risk reduction, and

concept definition. The Committee does not approve the SBR program for EMD, and the Committee’s funding recommendation

should not be interpreted as such.

NEXT GENERATION TANKER

The Committee is growing increasingly concerned about the viability of the USAF tanker aircraft force. Tanker aircraft are extremely critical force multipliers for the spectrum of military operations. Currently, the tanker force structure includes 136 KC–135E

model aircraft with an average age of 43 years. The Committee

finds it alarming that the KC–135E aircraft spend an average of

428 days once admitted to depots for programmed maintenance.

Manufacturers are discontinuing production of parts leading to a

severely diminished supply of spare and replacement parts. Further, the KC–135E does not meet modern noise and navigation

standards constraining their use in optimum global airspace and

air bases.

Addressing this problem, the Committee recommendation includes an additional $30,000,000 to develop the necessary modifications to convert a commercial 767 aircraft to a new military tanker

aircraft. The Committee has provided an additional $120,000,000 to

procure a 767 aircraft to serve as a testbed for these efforts. The

Air Force has indicated that a 767 tanker aircraft would offer increased offload capability (the amount of fuel that can be provided

to other airborne aircraft), increased availability, increased reliability, and lower support costs. The aircraft could also provide personnel and cargo lift and serve as a potential host to sensors and

data links. To help finance this initiative, the Committee has reduced $56,000,000 budgeted for two KC–135E reengine modifications.

NEXT GENERATION ISR RADAR SENSOR DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommendation includes a number of initiatives

to accelerate and enhance US military intelligence, surveillance,

and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. In particular, the Committee

sees great promise in the Multi-Platform Radar Technology Improvement Program (MP–RTIP), which is developing a new radar

to support future incarnations of JSTARS and Global Hawk as well

as a potential NATO ground surveillance aircraft. In addition, the

Committee is supportive of the Multi-Mission Command and Control Aircraft (MC2A) concept advocated by the Chief of Staff of the

Air Force. Such an aircraft would combine the missions of multiple

199

aircraft such as JSTARS and AWACS, and serve as an airborne

network ‘‘server’’ for a large variety of battlefield information systems, initiatives fully consistent with US transformation to network centric warfare.

To facilitate these efforts, the Committee has provided an additional $89,000,000 to accelerate development of MP–RTIP. The

Committee has also provided an additional $190,000,000 to procure

a 767 testbed aircraft (with associated spares and support equipment) for the MP–RTIP JSTARS configuration and $50,000,000 to

procure a C–37A testbed aircraft (with associated spares and support equipment) to support a smaller UAV configuration. Finally,

the Committee has provided $25,000,000 for the MC2A program to

jumpstart concept development for a future multi-mission aircraft.

Given the potential complexity of such a multi-mission aircraft, the

Committee believes that a spiral development approach is appropriate. The Committee views the 767 MP–RTIP JSTARS as the

first ‘‘spiral’’ of the MC2A concept.

DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND SYSTEM (DCGS)

The Air Force requested $11,429,000 for the Distributed Common

Ground System (DCGS). The Committee recommends $21,429,000,

an increase of $10,000,000 over the request.

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 only for rapid development and deployment of ISR Battle Management and Network

Centric Collaborative Targeting (NCCT). Within this amount, up to

$4,000,000 is for ongoing modeling and exercise support activities

that will assist the Air Force and Navy in modifying reconnaissance ground stations and targeting processes to engage time critical targets.

INFORMATION HIDING, STEGANOGRAPHY AND DIGITAL WATERMARKING

The Committee has provided a total of $8,000,000 for Information Hiding, Steganography and Digital Watermarking technologies

to protect specialized encryption. The Committee directs the Air

Force to work with the National Security Agency as it pursues this

technology to ensure the most effective application to the twin dilemmas of protecting information and countering encryption.

LOWER COST PRECISION WEAPON GUIDANCE SYSTEMS

The Committee believes that all military services must put priority on research activities aimed at developing miniature electromechanical systems (MEMS) for use in precision weapon guidance

systems. This research holds much promise for significantly reducing the unit cost of precision-guided weapons through development

of low cost inertial measurement units. Given the substantial benefits to all military services, the Committee views it as crucial that

the services coordinate their efforts to develop MEMS technology

and related anti-jam software upgrades to accelerate systems development and to eliminate duplication of effort. The Committee

believes the Army MEMS–IMU/GPS program is the most mature

and robust of the various programs, and directs the Air Force to

ensure that its MEMS guidance system development efforts are

fully coordinated with and complement the Army program.

200

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total program recommended in the bill will provide the following in fiscal year 2002:

201

202

203

204

205

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION,

DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $11,157,375,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 15,050,787,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 6,949,098,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥8,101,689,000

This appropriation funds the Research, Development, Test and

Evaluation, Defense-Wide activities of the Department of Defense.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Recommended Change from

request

BASIC RESEARCH

DEFENSE RESEARCH SCIENCES ............................................................ 121,003 139,003 18,000

Ultra-Performance Nanotechnology Center .................................. .......................... .......................... 3,000

Spin Electronics (Note: Transfer from University Research Initiatives) ................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 15,000

UNIVERSITY RESEARCH INITIATIVES ...................................................... 240,374 248,374 8,000

Spin Electronics (Note: Transfer to Defense Research Sciences) .......................... .......................... ¥15,000

National Security Training for non-traditional and minority students (Note: Only to continue the program funded in 2001.) .......................... .......................... 1,500

Tropical Remote Sensing Applications and Resources ............... .......................... .......................... 3,000

Center of Excellence in Bioinformatics ....................................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

Advanced Power and Energy Program ......................................... .......................... .......................... 2,000

Desert Environmental Research (Only to continue the existing

University based GIS program to use sensor technology, line

distance sampling and spatial analysis techniques to monitor the desert tortoise population in support of expansion

of the Fort Irwin National Training Center.) ........................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

Defense Commercialization Research Initiative .......................... .......................... .......................... 4,000

Focused Manufacturing Technologies (Note: Only for advanced

research to develop distributed precision manufacturing

technology.) ............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 2,000

Advanced Films and Coatings ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,500

MEMS Sensors for Rolling Element Bearings (Note: Only for the

development of a one chip solution for the determination of

temperature, vibration, strain and angular rotation in a

rolling element bearing.) ......................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

GOVERNMENT/INDUSTRY COSPONSORSHIP OF UNIV RESEARCH .......... 3,421 11,421 8,000

Semi-Conductor Research (Focus Center Research Program) .... .......................... .......................... 8,000

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ................................ 39,066 0 ¥39,066

Transfer to Title IX ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥39,066

APPLIED RESEARCH

MEDICAL FREE ELECTRON LASER ......................................................... 14,660 24,660 10,000

Medical Free Electron Laser ........................................................ .......................... .......................... 10,000

HISPANIC SERVING INSTITUTIONS ......................................................... 0 5,000 5,000

Hispanic Serving Institutions—RDT&E Project Grants ............... .......................... .......................... 5,000

COMPUTING SYSTEMS AND COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY .............. 382,294 329,294 ¥53,000

Reuse Technology Adoption Program (Note: To include the application of dynamic system testing and for modeling systems architectures.) ................................................................ .......................... .......................... 4,000

Systems Engineering for Miniature Devices ................................ .......................... .......................... 3,000

DARPA Reduction ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥60,000

EMBEDDED SOFTWARE AND PERVASIVE COMPUTING ........................... 75,561 65,561 ¥10,000

DARPA Reduction ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥10,000

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE ........................................................... 140,080 0 ¥140,080

Transfer to Title IX ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥140,080

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ................................ 125,481 0 ¥125,481

Transfer to Title IX ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥125,481

TACTICAL TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................... 173,885 164,885 ¥9,000

206

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Recommended Change from

request

DARPA Reduction ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥9,000

MATERIALS AND ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGY ....................................... 358,254 342,754 ¥15,500

DARPA Reduction ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥24,000

Center for Integrated Technologies ............................................. .......................... .......................... 5,000

Center for Optoelectronics and Optical Communications ........... .......................... .......................... 3,500

NUCLEAR SUSTAINMENT & COUNTERPROLIFERATION TECHNOLOGY .... 295,132 0 ¥295,132

Transfer to Title IX ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥295,132

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT

EXPLOSIVES DEMILITARIZATION TECHNOLOGY ...................................... 8,815 11,815 3,000

Demilitarization and Destruction of Conventional Ammunition

and Chemical Warfare Agents (Note: Only to investigate the

use of photocatalysis to assist in the destruction of explosives.) ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

SOL/LIC ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT ....................................................... 8,799 10,799 2,000

Special Reconnaissance Capabilities .......................................... .......................... .......................... 2,000

COMBATING TERRORISM TECHNOLOGY SUPPORT ................................. 42,243 60,243 18,000

Chemical/Biological Electrostatic Decontamination System

(Note: Only to complete prototype testing and evaluation

through the TSWG.) ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 7,000

Historical Underground Exploitation (HUGE) (Note: Funds are to

be managed by a non-profit corporation.) ............................. .......................... .......................... 2,000

Facial Recognition Access Control and Surveillance (Note: Only

for the development of a surveillance prototype, utilizing facial recognition.) ..................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,000

Blast Mitigation Testing .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,000

Aerogel and Fiber Optic-Based Chem/Bio Detectors (Note: Only

to accelerate development of this technology) ...................... .......................... .......................... 4,000

COUNTERPROLIFERATION ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT TECHNOLOGIES .. 89,772 0 ¥89,772

Transfer to Title IX ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥89,772

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY .......................................... 132,890 0 ¥132,890

Transfer to Title IX, RDTE, BMDO ................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥132,890

ADVANCED AEROSPACE SYSTEMS ......................................................... 153,700 128,700 ¥25,000

DARPA Reduction ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥25,000

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—ADV DEV .............. 69,249 0 ¥69,249

Transfer to Title IX ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥69,249

SPECIAL TECHNICAL SUPPORT .............................................................. 11,019 13,019 2,000

Complex Systems Design ............................................................. .......................... .......................... 2,000

ARMS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY .............................................................. 52,474 0 ¥52,474

Transfer to Title IX ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥52,474

GENERIC LOGISTICS R&D TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ................. 30,373 78,473 48,100

Silicon—28 Program ................................................................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

Computer Assisted Technology Transfer (CATT) .......................... .......................... .......................... 4,000

Sub-Micron CMOS and CMOS/SOS Lithography (Note: Only for

the Defense Microelectronics Activity.) ................................... .......................... .......................... 4,850

Strategic Radiation Hardened Microelectronics (Note: Only for

the Defense Microelectronics Activity.) ................................... .......................... .......................... 4,750

Center for Nanosciences Innovation ............................................ .......................... .......................... 10,000

Digital Electronic Warfare (Note: Only to maintain the Product

Improvement Program.) ........................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,000

Diminishing Manufacturing Source Data Warehouse Solution

(Note: Only for the development and population of a centralized DMS and obsolete parts data warehousing system.) .......................... .......................... 1,500

Optimizing Electronics for Advanced Controlled Environment

Systems (Note: Only to support resolving thermal issues

concerning electronics densification and advanced electronics packaging.) ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 6,000

Spray Cooling Migration Program ................................................ .......................... .......................... 9,000

STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH PROGRAM ............................. 69,376 73,376 4,000

Toxic Chemical Clean-up Criteria ................................................ .......................... .......................... 1,000

National Environmental Education and Training Center ............ .......................... .......................... 3,000

ADVANCED ELECTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES ............................................ 177,264 194,264 17,000

DARPA Reduction ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥8,000

Advanced Lithography Demonstration ......................................... .......................... .......................... 5,000

Laser Plasma Point Source X-Ray Lithography ........................... .......................... .......................... 5,000

207

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Recommended Change from

request

Novel crystal components for imaging and communications ..... .......................... .......................... 7,000

MEMS at the Army Research Laboratory, Zahl Physical

Sciences Laboratory ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 8,000

ADVANCED CONCEPT TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS ........................ 148,917 124,917 ¥24,000

ACTD—Reduction in Growth ....................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥24,000

SENSOR AND GUIDANCE TECHNOLOGY ................................................. 203,095 202,095 ¥1,000

DARPA Reduction ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥4,000

Large Millimeter Wavelength Telescope ...................................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

MARINE TECHNOLOGY ........................................................................... 41,497 36,497 ¥5,000

DARPA Reduction ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,000

CLASSIFIED DARPA PROGRAMS ............................................................. 142,395 137,395 ¥5,000

DARPA Reduction ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,000

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE ..................................................... 21,091 23,091 2,000

Technical Insertion Demonstration and Evaluation Program

(TIDE) (Note: Only to be managed by the Defense Research

and Engineering Office of Science and Technology.) ............. .......................... .......................... 2,000

QUICK REACTION PROJECTS .................................................................. 25,000 35,000 10,000

Quick Reaction Projects ............................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥15,000

Challenge Program ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 25,000

JOINT WARGAMING SIMULATION MANAGEMENT OFFICE ........................ 45,065 48,065 3,000

WMD Attack-Effects-Response Assessment Capability at JFCOM .......................... .......................... 3,000

DEMONSTRATION & VALIDATION

PHYSICAL SECURITY EQUIPMENT .......................................................... 33,543 46,543 13,000

Waterside/Landside Force Protection Planner (Note: Only to develop a software package to provide a quantitative assessment of risk.) .......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,000

Backscatter Mobile Truck System (Note: Only to test and

evaluate existing COTS systems capable of using both

backscatter and standard transmission X-ray technology.) .. .......................... .......................... 11,000

JOINT ROBOTICS PROGRAM ................................................................... 11,302 14,302 3,000

Tactical Unmanned Ground Vehicle Part I .................................. .......................... .......................... 3,000

ADVANCED SENSOR APPLICATIONS PROGRAM ...................................... 15,780 26,780 11,000

Ocean Remote Sensing Program (Note: Only to complete the

Ocean Remote Sensing Program experiments to include

radar, lidar, passive optical imaging, and space-based

technologies to characterize and measure the ocean environmental conditions in Mamala Bay.) .................................. .......................... .......................... 4,000

Innovative Solid State Laser Technology Development (Note:

Only to continue the research initiative conducted by

OSD(C3I) to advance the use of continuously pumped solid

state lasers which operate in the mid-infrared region.) ....... .......................... .......................... 5,000

Component Development for Active Sensors (Note: Only to continue development of diode pumped laser materials technology.) .................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 2,000

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM SEGMENT .................................. 779,584 0 ¥779,584

Transfer to Title IX—RDTE, BMDO .............................................. .......................... .......................... ¥779,584

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT ............... 968,180 0 ¥968,180

Transfer to Title IX—RDTE, BMDO .............................................. .......................... .......................... ¥968,180

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT ............ 3,940,534 0 ¥3,940,534

Transfer to Title IX—RDTE, BMDO .............................................. .......................... .......................... ¥3,940,534

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE BOOST DEFENSE SEGMENT .................... 685,363 0 ¥685,363

Transfer to Title IX—RDTE, BMDO .............................................. .......................... .......................... ¥685,363

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—DEM/VAL .............. 82,636 0 ¥82,636

Transfer to Title IX ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥82,636

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSORS ................................................ 495,600 0 ¥495,600

Transfer to Title IX—RDTE, BMDO .............................................. .......................... .......................... ¥495,600

COALITION WARFARE ............................................................................. 12,943 6,943 ¥6,000

Reduction ..................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥6,000

JOINT SERVICE EDUCATION AND TRAINING SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT .. 0 13,000 13,000

Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative .................................... .......................... .......................... 10,000

ADL PROTOTYPE AT OSD Joint ADL Co-Laboratory ...................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

ENGINEERING & MANUFACTURING DEVELOPMENT

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM—EMD ..................... 159,943 0 ¥159,943

Transfer to Title IX ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥159,943

208

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Recommended Change from

request

JOINT ROBOTICS PROGRAM—EMD ....................................................... 13,197 17,197 4,000

Tactical Unmanned Ground Vehicle Part II ................................. .......................... .......................... 4,000

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT MODERNIZATION PROGRAM ......................... 100,000 40,000 ¥60,000

Transfer to DWCF ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥60,000

RDT&E MANAGEMENT SUPPORT

TECHNICAL STUDIES, SUPPORT AND ANALYSIS .................................... 33,805 20,805 ¥13,000

Information Technology Superiority Study (Note: Only to facilitate a joint industry-military dialog to be conducted under

the auspices of the National Defense University and to develop pilot programs for effective industry military interaction.) .................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,000

Reduction ..................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥14,000

GENERAL SUPPORT TO C3I ................................................................... 21,061 22,561 1,500

UAV Integration into Civil Air-Space (Note: Only to continue

and accelerate the existing OSD program.) ........................... .......................... .......................... 1,500

DEFENSE TRAVEL SYSTEM .................................................................... 29,955 9,955 ¥20,000

Reduction ..................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥20,000

CLASSIFIED PROGRAM USD(P) .............................................................. 0 20,000 20,000

Classified ..................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 20,000

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ................................ 31,276 0 ¥31,276

Transfer to Title IX ....................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥31,276

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS—C3I ............................................................... 56,653 28,653 ¥28,000

Intelligence Management ............................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥35,000

Global Infrastructure Data Capture ............................................. .......................... .......................... 7,000

PENTAGON RESERVATION ...................................................................... 6,571 0 ¥6,571

Transfer to Title IX—RDTE, BMDO .............................................. .......................... .......................... ¥6,571

MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS—BMDO ............................................... 27,758 0 ¥27,758

Transfer to Title IX—RDTE, BMDO .............................................. .......................... .......................... ¥27,758

OPERATIONAL SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT

COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT SAVINGS INITIATIVE ........... 10,805 27,805 17,000

Aircraft Affordability Initiative ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 17,000

INFORMATION SYSTEMS SECURITY PROGRAM ...................................... 414,844 422,594 7,750

Protection of Vital Data ............................................................... .......................... .......................... 7,000

Computer Science and Internet Security Degree Program .......... .......................... .......................... 750

DEFENSE IMAGERY AND MAPPING PROGRAM ....................................... 115,209 144,409 29,200

To meet imagery library requirements for NAVOCEANO (SURF

EAGLE) ..................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,000

Commercial Joint Mapping Toolkit .............................................. .......................... .......................... 15,000

Geographic SAR Airborne Mapping System (GEOSAR)—(Note:

Only to complete GEOSAR program, to conduct demonstration tests of the GEOSAR airborne mapping system and to

validate its products for priority military use and civilian

applications.) ........................................................................... .......................... .......................... 9,200

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ................................................................ 40,000 0 ¥40,000

JET ................................................................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥5,000

Special Access Program .............................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥35,000

MANNED RECONNAISSANCE SYSTEMS .................................................. 4,556 13,056 8,500

Combat Sent (Note: Only for Ultra Wideband Collector) ............ .......................... .......................... 4,000

Distributed Common Ground System only for Octagon 10 ......... .......................... .......................... 500

Combat Sent (Note: Only for Automated COMINT Search and

Collection.) ............................................................................... .......................... .......................... 4,000

INDUSTRIAL PREPAREDNESS ................................................................. 17,544 37,044 19,500

DLA Competitive Sustainment Initiative ...................................... .......................... .......................... 4,500

Defense Supply Chain Management Program ............................. .......................... .......................... 15,000

SPECIAL OPERATIONS INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT ........... 0 6,000 6,000

Solid state synthetic aperture radar ........................................... .......................... .......................... 6,000

SOF OPERATIONAL ENHANCEMENTS ...................................................... 85,109 86,609 1,500

Integrated Command and Control System (IC2S) ....................... .......................... .......................... 1,500

SOF ACQUISITION .................................................................................. 252,334 299,684 47,350

Advanced Seal Delivery System ................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,000

Wireless Video Links for SOMROV ............................................... .......................... .......................... 3,200

209

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Recommended Change from

request

Surface Planning Wet Submersible (SPWS) (Note: For the completion of the FY 01 initiated demonstration of the SPWS

and to procure additional SPWS for Special Operations

Forces and other military users in the Department of Defense.) ...................................................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,250

Electronic Digital Compass System ............................................. .......................... .......................... 2,000

Spike Urban Warfare System ....................................................... .......................... .......................... 8,000

Lightweight Counter Mortar Radar Program ............................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

Counterproliferation Analysis and Planning System ................... .......................... .......................... 6,000

Mark V Computer Upgrade .......................................................... .......................... .......................... 1,000

SOCOM Rotary Wing UAV (Note: Only for Maverick and Hummingbird systems, ground stations and spares to SOCOM

for testing and evaluation of rotary UAV system.) ................ .......................... .......................... 7,900

Dual Band Detector Imaging Technology .................................... .......................... .......................... 5,000

Rebreather (Note: To develop state of the art military closedcircuit rebreather applications.) ............................................. .......................... .......................... 1,000

TRANSFERS TO TITLE IX

Research, development, test and evaluation funding for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, the Defense Threat Reduction

Agency, and all funding for the chemical and biological defense programs requested under ‘‘Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide’’ has been moved to title IX.

ADVANCED CONCEPT TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATIONS

The bill repeats language included in the Department of Defense

Appropriations Act, 2001 which prohibits the Department from beginning any advanced concepts technology demonstrations until 30

days after it has described those projects in a report to the congressional defense committees. In order to avoid delaying important

projects, however, the Department may submit its list of technology

demonstrations prior to the beginning of the new fiscal year.

ADVANCED LITHOGRAPHY DEMONSTRATION

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only to use laser plasma

point-source x-ray lithography to build high performance compound

semiconductor processors and components for on-going technology

demonstrations in advanced military radar, communications, and

electronic warfare systems.

COMMERCIAL JOINT MAPPING TOOLKIT

The Administration requested $115,200,000 for the Defense Imagery and Mapping Program (DIMAP), the Committee recommends

$144,409,000, an increase of $29,200,000 above the request.

Included in the $29,200,000 increase provided by the Committee

is $15,000,000 for the development of a common, commercial technology-based joint mapping toolkit interface to enhance and customize intelligence, navigation, and mission planning functions.

The Committee encourages NIMA to acquire the Commercial Joint

Mapping Toolkit based upon fair and open competition and best

value to the government.

210

CENTER FOR THE COMMERCIAL DEPLOYMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

TECHNOLOGIES

Of the funds provided for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, $7,500,000 is available only for the Center

for the Commercial Deployment of Transportation Technologies.

LASER PLASMA POINT SOURCE X-RAY LITHOGRAPHY

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 only to continue the development of laser plasma point source x-ray lithography technology for economic production of advanced missile seekers, digital

battlefield systems, electronic warfare arrays and radar modules.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING CENTER

The Committee recommends $3,000,000 only to continue the research, development and demonstration program devoted to health

and safety issues as they relate to the development and introduction of environmental remediation technologies and to the scrapping of obsolete U.S. Naval vessels in a manner properly protective

of environmental cleanup and shipyard workers. The program shall

continue to develop and evaluate protection and safety methods

and techniques necessary for the safe conduct of ship scraping and

the use and application of environmental remediation technology

and to transfer them to field use.

ULTRA LIGHT WEIGHT PORTABLE POWER SOURCE

The Committee is aware of the development of an ultra light

weight portable power source. These small prototype power devices

weigh less than 100 grams per square meter and their flexible nature allows soldiers to carry them in rolled or folded shapes. Rapid

deployment of the power source can be achieved by simply unfolding, unrolling or inflating the power material. By using an adhesive

backing these power devices can be integrated into a soldier’s apparel and could provide a portable power supply for night vision

systems, satellite communications, and other soldier functions that

require power. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Department

to consider the desirability, utility, and cost-effectiveness of funding

further research into these light weight portable power devices.

CENTER FOR NANOSCIENCES INNOVATION

The Committee recognizes that to realize the full potential of

nanoscience and technology, major and fundamental scientific advances need to be made to isolate, detect, communicate and manipulate individual atoms and molecules. Such advances will lead to

the ultimate level of performance in electronic, chemical, biological

and material systems. Accordingly, the Committee has provided

$10,000,000 to be executed by the Defense Microelectronics Agency

for the establishment of a Center for Nanosciences Innovation to

pursue defense applications.

SPIN ELECTRONICS PROGRAM

The Committee is aware that DARPA’s spin electronics program

has the potential to produce a whole new generation of electronic

211

devices with performance far greater than what is achievable with

conventional electronics today. The Committee is also aware that

because spin electronics design and manufacturing are compatible

with existing semiconductor infrastructures, it promises to reach

maturation well ahead of other known nanoelectronics technology

approaches. Accordingly, the Committee has transferred

$15,000,000 from University Research Initiatives to Defense Research Sciences to augment existing planned spin electronics programs and to accelerate development of this important new generation of electronics technology.

NEXT GENERATION SUPERCOMPUTER CAPABILITY

The Committee is concerned that several critical national security technologies suffer from inadequate Department of Defense

(DoD) high-end supercomputing resources. These technologies include cryptanalysis, operational weather forecasting, dispersion of

airborne contaminants, armor design, design of large aircraft or

ship structures, and studies of weapons effects.

Over the last decade, declining markets, inequitable trade practices, and limited DoD support, have severely weakened the United

States industrial base for high-end supercomputing. Several reports conducted at the request of the DoD, have clearly identified

a number of issues that counsel immediate attention and action to

avoid an unacceptable prospect: offshore reliance for critical supercomputing capability vital to our national security.

The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit by

July 1, 2002, a development and acquisition plan, including budgetary requirements, for a comprehensive, long-range, integrated

high-end supercomputing program. The Secretary shall direct the

National Security Agency (NSA) to take the lead in developing this

plan in cooperation with DARPA, DoD’s HPC Modernization Program, NIMA, NRO, NNSA/ASCI, and NASA.

STRATEGY FOR ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL IMAGERY

The Committee requests that the Director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) submit, by March 1, 2002, a

plan describing how NIMA intends to use commercial imagery to

meet validated non-high resolution imagery requests that have

been generated by the Services, Commanders-in-Chief of the Unified and Specified Commands, and other DoD agencies.

UNEXPLODED ORDNANCE DETECTION AND CLEANUP

The Committee continues to be greatly concerned about the research effort into technologies which can better detect and remove

unexploded ordnance. Recent reports by the General Accounting

Office have estimated that cleanup costs of closed, transferred, and

transferring training ranges and other formerly used defense sites

could exceed $100 billion. In addition to the significant financial obligation this poses to the Department of Defense, unexploded ordnance on formerly used defense sites poses an even greater danger

to the public at large. The budget request included $17,300,000 for

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide supVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00221 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
212

porting unexploded ordnance detection and cleanup. The Committee has fully funded this request.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002.

213

214

215

216

OPERATIONAL TEST AND EVALUATION, DEFENSE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $227,060,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 217,355,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 245,355,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +28,000,000

This appropriation funds the Operational Test and Evaluation

activities of the Department of Defense.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANTION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request Recommended Change from request

CENTRAL TEST AND EVALUATION INVESTMENT DEVELOPMENT ............ 113,642 132,642 19,000

Digital Video System Development .............................................. .......................... .......................... 6,000

Roadway Simulator ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 10,000

Digital Video Laboratory .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,000

LIVE FIRE TESTING ................................................................................ 9,887 15,887 6,000

Live Fire Testing and Training Initiative ..................................... .......................... .......................... 6,000

DEVELOPMENT TEST AND EVALUATION ................................................. 59,447 62,447 3,000

Target and Threat Systems Interoperability Testing ................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

RADIO FREQUENCY VULNERABILITY ANALYSIS

Of the funds provided for Operational Test and Evaluation activi- ties, the Committee directs that $4,000,000 be provided to the office

of Live Fire Test and Evaluation to fund the continuation of a demonstration of technical devices constituting a radio-frequency (RF)

weapon that could be built using commercial-off-the-shelf technology. Such a weapon would be representative of an unconventional threat to civilian electronic infrastructure, and shall be tested against a set of infrastructure targets to determine

vulnerabilities of such targets to radio-frequency damage.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total recommended in the bill will provide the following program in fiscal year 2002.

217

(219)

TITLE V

REVOLVING AND MANAGEMENT FUNDS

DEFENSE WORKING CAPITAL FUNDS

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $916,276,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 1,951,986,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 1,524,986,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥427,000,000

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,524,986,000

for the Defense Working Capital Funds. The recommendation is an

increase of $608,710,000 above the amount appropriated for fiscal

year 2001.

NATIONAL DEFENSE SEALIFT FUND

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $400,658,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 506,408,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 412,708,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥93,700,000

This appropriation provides funds for the lease, operation, and

supply of prepositioning ships; operation of the Ready Reserve

Force; and acquisition of ships for the Military Sealift Command,

the Ready Reserve Force, and the Marine Corps.

READY RESERVE FORCE

The Defense Department requested $506,408,000 for the Ready

Reserve Force. The Committee recommends $412,708,000, a decrease of $93,700,000. A reduction of $98,700,000 is recommended

due to the funding of MARAD program management in the Committee’s fiscal year 2002 Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary

appropriations bill. The Committee also recommends $5,000,000

only for the FASTSHIP initiative.

(221)

TITLE VI

OTHER DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS

DEFENSE HEALTH PROGRAM

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $12,117,779,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 17,898,969,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 18,277,403,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +378,434,000

This appropriation funds the Defense Health Program of the Department of Defense.

SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS AND REPROGRAMMING

The Committee notes that the operation and maintenance portion of the Defense Health Program budget request is built around

seven budget activities including: in-house care, private sector care,

consolidated health support, information management, management activities, education and training, and base operations/communications. The Committee also notes with concern that the typical pattern of budget execution for the Defense Health Program

has been to divert funding from the DoD military medical treatment facilities (MTFs) to pay for the increasing costs of contractor

provided medical care. The impact of this financial migration has

seriously degraded the ability of the DoD MTFs, which have inherent cost advantages, to care for military personnel and their dependents. The Committee also notes that the main reason for this

migration, unrealistic budget assumptions, has been addressed in

the fiscal year 2002 budget request which allows for realistic cost

growth for contractor provided care and pharmaceuticals.

To improve oversight of this account, the Committee directs that

the cumulative value of proposed transfers of funds in excess of

$15,000,000 between the activity groups noted above be subject to

normal, prior approval reprogramming procedures. In addition,

items for which funds have been specifically provided using phrases

‘‘only for’’ and ‘‘only to’’ are Congressional interest items for the

purpose of the base for Reprogramming (DD Form 1414). Each of

these items must be carried on the DD 1414 at the stated amount.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

Request Recommended Change from request

Operation and Maintenance ................................................................. 17,565,750 17,574,750 9,000

In-House Care .............................................................................. 4,502,140 4,592,140 90,000

Optimization (transfer in) ................................................... .......................... 90,000 ..........................

222

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

Request Recommended Change from request

Private Sector Care ...................................................................... 10,130,687 10,040,687 ¥90,000

Optimization (transfer out) ................................................. .......................... ¥90,000 ..........................

Consolidated Health Support ....................................................... 766,516 768,516 2,000

Examining Activities Centralized Credentials Quality Assurance ........................................................................... .......................... 2,000 ..........................

Information Management ............................................................. 602,824 602,824 ..........................

Management Activiites ................................................................ 232,965 239,965 7,000

DoD–VA Health Care Consolidation Study .......................... .......................... 5,000 ..........................

Health Care Centers of Excellence ..................................... .......................... 2,000 ..........................

Education and Training ............................................................... 309,193 309,193 ..........................

Base Operations/Communications/Environmental ....................... 1,023,425 1,023,425 ..........................

Procurement .......................................................................................... 267,915 267,915 0

Research and Development .................................................................. 65,304 434,738 369,434

ACP–215, Blood Cell Washer ....................................................... .......................... 4,000 4,000

Advanced Cancer Detection—National Functional Genomics

Project (Note: only to determine the genetic changes that

cause cancer and to perfect the means of rapidly moving

these discoveries into the active duty military personnel,

dependents and veterans populations.) ................................. .......................... 5,000 5,000

Breast Cancer Research Program (BCRP) (Note: Of this

amount, $5,000,000 shall be available only for the procurement and installation of additional breast care research

equipment for the Comprehensive Breast Care Center at

Walter Reed Army Medical Center.) ........................................ .......................... 175,000 175,000

Comprehensive Breast Care Center ............................................. .......................... 14,000 14,000

Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia Research ................................... .......................... 5,000 5,000

Computer Based Patient Records ................................................ .......................... 3,000 3,000

Coronary and Prostate Disease Reversal (Note: only to continue

an on-going effort among Walter Reed Army Medical Center,

and appropriate non-profit medical foundation, and a rural

primary health care center, with funding management accomplished by the Uniformed Services University of the

Health Services.) ..................................................................... .......................... 7,000 7,000

Defense and Veterans Head Injury Program (DVHIP) .................. .......................... 4,000 4,000

HIV/AIDS Prevention Program ...................................................... .......................... 20,000 20,000

Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy for Cerebral Palsy at WPAFB Hospital ......................................................................................... .......................... 1,500 1,500

International Medical Program Global Satellite System

(IMPGSS) .................................................................................. .......................... 4,000 4,000

National Center for Collaboration in Medical Modeling and

Simulation (Note: Only to establish a National Center for

Collaboration in Medical Modeling and Simulation in collaboration with the Virginia Modeling, Analysis and Simulation Center.) ............................................................................ .......................... 200 200

National Naval Medical Center Hematology Lab mods ............... .......................... 1,734 1,734

Ovarian Cancer Research ............................................................ 12,000 .......................... ..........................

Periscopic Surgery for the Spine (Note: only to continue research into the development of minimally invasive surgical

procedures for the brain, spinal cord, and spine under cooperative agreement 17–99–1–9022) .................................... .......................... 3,000 3,000

Prostate Cancer research program at Walter Reed .................... .......................... 100,000 100,000

Post-Polio Syndrome .................................................................... .......................... 3,000 3,000

TRIES–AFIERA Environmental/border Health Demonstration

project PE DHP 87724F ........................................................... .......................... 3,000 3,000

Tuberous Sclerosis Complex (TSC) Research (Note: only for Tuberous Sclerosis Complex research to better understand the

role and function of proteins produced by the TSC1 and

TSC2 tumor suppressor genes.) .............................................. .......................... 1,000 1,000

U.S. Military Cancer Institute at USUHS ..................................... .......................... 3,000 3,000

223

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

Request Recommended Change from request

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ............................................................ 17,565,750 17,574,750 9,000

PROCUREMENT ...................................................................................... 267,915 267,915 ..........................

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................................ 65,304 434,738 369,434

Total ......................................................................................... 17,898,969 18,277,403 378,434

MILITARY MEDICAL TREATMENT FACILITY OPTIMIZATION

‘‘The Committee bill provides $90,000,000 above the budget request only to continue the initiative begun by the Committee in the

Fiscal Year 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act

(Public Law 107–20) to finance service and facility upgrades at

military medical treatment facilities that can be shown to both

save money and improve medical care. Of these funds, $30,000,000

shall be available to each military Surgeon General for this purpose. The Committee expects the Surgeons General of each service

to select and administer these optimization projects according to

the standards and guidelines specified in the House report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act.

ASSESSMENT OF DOD AND VA HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS

Section 8140 of the Committee bill appropriates $5,000,000 to

support a joint assessment by the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs that identifies and evaluates changes to Department

of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs health care delivery

policies, methods, practices and procedures in order to provide improved health care services at lower costs to the taxpayers. This assessment shall include a detailed independent review of options to

collocate or share facilities and care providers in areas where duplication and excess capacity may exist, optimize economies of scale

through joint procurement of supplies and services, and partially or

fully integrate DoD and VA systems providing telehealth services,

computerized patient records, provider credentialing, surgical quality assessment, rehabilitation services, administrative services, and

centers of excellence for specialized health care services. The general provision requires that the statement of work for this effort be

authored jointly by each secretary and that a comprehensive report

to Congress be made on the conclusions and recommendations of

this effort no later than March 1, 2002.

NURSING PAY AUTHORITY

The Committee recognizes that the Department of Defense faces

both a serious shortage of civilian registered nurses as well as a

high rate of turnover among these critical personnel. Further, the

Committee is aware that DoD often defaults into a costly solution

to this problem by hiring contractor nurses. The lack of an adequate nursing staff reduces both the responsiveness and effectiveness of the DoD military medical treatment facilities. To address

these problems, the Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to

delegate title 38 U.S.C. pay and promotion authorities to the Surgeons General of the Army, Navy and Air Force to enable the miliVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00233 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
224

tary departments to fill nursing vacancies and retain required

strength. In addition, the Committee recommends a new general

provision (Sec. 8148) which extends title 38 U.S.C. authorities to

the hiring of personnel credentialed in certain medical or medical

related skills, but who do not otherwise have tenure in competitive

civil service.

PRE-DISCHARGE ONE EXAM INITIATIVE

The Committee is aware of software that allows one examining

physician to generate required service member discharge forms to

meet both Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs’ requirements. The Committee encourages the Department to

examine such innovative ways to reduce the requirement for departing service members to take two separate discharge medical

physicals.

MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE TRANSITION

The Committee is aware of the outstanding success of MacDill

65, a demonstration program to deliver medical care to military retirees age 65 and older. The Committee directs the Department of

Defense to ensure the smooth transition of the participants from

the MacDill 65 program into TRICARE for Life. This transition

should ensure no loss of coverage during this transition period.

Furthermore, the Committee expects the Department of Defense to

communicate fully with program participants so that they understand how to register, and the new benefits available to them

under the TRICARE for Life program.

CREDENTIALING

As a result of questions raised in recent press accounts about the

quality of military healthcare, together with the findings in the

subsequent report of the DoD Healthcare Quality Initiatives Review Panel, the Committee believes that action must be taken to

improve oversight of the military healthcare system. Therefore, the

Committee directs that $2,000,000 of the funds available under this

heading be available only for a pilot study to evaluate the merits

of integrating the Department of Defense Centralized Credentials

Quality Assurance System (CCQAS) with the Veterans Administration Professional Review Program (VETPRO) credentials system.

HEALTH CARE CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE

The Report of the DoD Healthcare Quality Initiatives Review

Panel concludes that the Department of Defense should aggressively pursue a program to designate Centers of Excellence in order

to improve the quality of medical care for individuals requiring specialized, complex treatments. The Committee directs that

$2,000,000 of the funds available under this heading be used only

to design, test and evaluate models for expanding health care Centers of Excellence.

225

NORTH CHICAGO VETERANS ADMINISTRATION MEDICAL CENTER AND

NAVAL HOSPITAL

The Committee applauds the current resource sharing agreement

between the North Chicago VA Medical Center (NCVAMC) and the

Naval Hospital, Great Lakes, Illinois (NHGL). These two institutions are within one mile of each other and offer significant opportunities to share additional services and facilities. The Navy is engaged in conducting an economic analysis of the requirement for a

modern facility to replace the aging NHGL. The Veterans Administration has an underused inpatient facility at the NCVAMC. The

Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Veterans Administration are directed to develop a plan to make the maximum use

of the NCVAMC during the interim period until the Navy constructs a facility to replace the NHGL. The Secretary of the Navy

shall consult with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs when designing

the replacement facility. The Committee expects the replacement

facility to be designed and operated as a joint facility serving the

health care needs of the Navy and Veterans Affairs populations in

the North Chicago area.

CERVICAL CANCER RESEARCH PROGRAM

The Committee notes that the report accompanying the House

version of the fiscal year 1995 Department of Defense Appropriations bill (House Report 103–562) and the report accompanying the

House version of the fiscal year 2001 Department of Defense Appropriations bill (House Report 106–644) both provided clear direction to the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) to established a systematic program, in coordination with the National

Cancer Institute, to foster the early detection and prevention of cervical cancer including research into a vaccine for the Human

Papillomavirus (HPV) found in 50 percent of cervical cancers.

Given the accomplishments of the Department of Defense in its

medical research and development efforts, the Committee strongly

urges DoD to move forward in fiscal year 2002 with its efforts to

implement past congressional directives. The Assistant Secretary of

Defense (Health Affairs) shall report to the House Committee on

Appropriations not later than March 31, 2002 detailing the

progress made in establishing this research program.

OVARIAN CANCER

The Committee believes that increased emphasis on ovarian cancer research is urgently needed as 13,900 women die from this disease annually. The disease is curable if detected early, unfortunately little is known about the disease and only 25 percent of

cases are diagnosed in the early stages. Recognizing the superior

nature of the grants that have been funded by the Defense Health

Program, the Committee strongly urges DoD to use the additional

$12,000,000 provided for this program to continue the DoD Ovarian

Cancer Research Program under the auspices of the Peer Reviewed

Medical Research Program. The Committee believes that this program should operate in coordination with the National Cancer Institute’s Specialized Programs of Research Excellence in ovarian

cancer.

226

INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL PROGRAM GLOBAL SATELLITE SYSTEM

The committee recommends $4,000,000 in the Defense Security

Cooperation Agency to prove the International Medical Program

Global Satellite System (IMPGSS) integrated development and delivery concept in at least two countries. The Committee further recommends that the Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center at Fort Detrick, Maryland manage the program.

DOD MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS

The Committee strongly encourages the Department of Defense

to consult with the National Institute of Mental Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs to take concrete steps to strengthen

its mental health programs. Such efforts should include a program

that would collect epidemiological data on new onset psychosis in

the military, including the creation of a system to link DoD and VA

data. This effort should also seek to determine predictors of vulnerability to psychosis given the stress of basic training. This effort

should seek to create a linkage (termed critical intervention) that

would prevent patients from ‘‘falling between the cracks’’ in between discharge from DoD and entry into the VA. To accomplish

this objective, DoD should adopt case management psychology-education oriented intervention to ensure continuity of treatment, reduce duration of untreated psychosis, and reduce the proportion of

these people who have a second episode. This effort should also determine the possibility of assessing the impact of the intervention

and reduction in duration of untreated psychosis on the medium to

long-term illness outcome.

GOVERNMENT COMPUTER BASED PATIENT RECORDS

The Committee is disappointed in the inability of the Department of Defense to work with the Department of Veterans Affairs

in developing information technology that would be used to transfer and share medical records of military health beneficiaries, as

detailed in a recent, critical report by the General Accounting Office. The Committee has increased funding for the Government

Computer-based Patient Record program for the last two years because it believes the sharing of medical data between DoD and VA

will improve patient care and reduce administrative expense. Unfortunately, the Department of Defense has consistently failed to

follow congressional directives and to adequately support this

promising new technology. The Committee has once again added

funds to the budget for GCPR, and expects the Assistant Secretary

of Defense for Health Affairs to actively manage the program. The

Committee expects the additional funds to be utilized by the Department of Defense in a manner that carries out stated congressional intent, and not diverted into efforts tangential to the primary goal of the GCPR program of sharing medical data among

DoD, VA, and their respective commercial contractors.

SINGLE NATIONAL PHARMACY MANAGER

The Committee is aware that the Department of Defense is in

the preliminary stages of seeking a single national contractor for

pharmacy benefits to provide retail and mail order pharmacy servVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00236 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
227

ices for the 8.5 million beneficiaries enrolled in the DoD health care

programs. While the Committee strongly supports and encourages

the Department of Defense to improve the efficiency of services for

its beneficiaries, the Committee is also concerned that this measure

could have a negative impact on the overall level of competition in

the pharmacy industry. Accordingly, the Committee directs that

the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs) provide a report

to the House Committee on Appropriations 60 days prior to a solicitation of bids for a single national pharmacy benefits manager

which presents the business case for this approach, the estimated

effect that this program will have on the competitive environment

in the pharmacy industry, and the effect that this proposal will

have on mid- and small-sized pharmacies.

CHEMICAL AGENTS AND MUNITIONS DESTRUCTION, ARMY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $980,100,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... $1,153,557,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. $1,093,057,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥60,500,000

This appropriation funds the Chemical Agents and Munitions

Destruction activities of the Department of the Army.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following in the fiscal year 2002:

228

229

DRUG INTERDICTION AND COUNTER-DRUG ACTIVITIES,

DEFENSE

Fiscal year 2001 .................................................................................. $869,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 request .................................................................... 820,381,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 827,381,000

Change from the budget request ....................................................... +7,000,000

This appropriation provides funds for Military Personnel; Operation and Maintenance; Procurement; and Research, Development,

Test and Evaluation for drug interdiction and counter-drug activities of the Department of Defense.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Department of Defense requested $820,381,000 for Drug

Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities. The Committee recommends $827,381,000, an increase of $7,000,000.

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Young Marines ................................................................................................. +2,000

National Counter-narcotics Training Center Hammer ................................. +2,000

Caper Focus ..................................................................................................... +5,000

Southwest Anti-Drug Border States Initiative .............................................. +5,000

National Interagency Civil-Military Institute ............................................... +4,000

Multi-jurisdictional Counter-drug Task Force Training ............................... +4,000

Southwest Border Fence ................................................................................. +6,700

Indiana National Guard Counter-drug Activities ......................................... +2,000

Kentucky National Guard Counter-drug Activities ...................................... +3,400

Tennessee National Guard Counter-drug Activities ..................................... +1,000

Nevada National Guard Counter-drug Activities ......................................... +2,000

New York National Guard Counter-drug Port Initiative ............................. +1,000

Peru Support .................................................................................................... ¥7,200

Counter-drug Tanker Operations ................................................................... ¥1,000

Colombia Airborne Surveillance ..................................................................... ¥3,500

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation .............................................. ¥4,000

LEA OCONUS Support ................................................................................... ¥3,000

Tethered Aerostat Radar Program ................................................................. ¥12,400

DOD NON-TRADITIONAL ACTIVITIES ASSESSMENT

The Committee is aware that the Department of Defense is considering a significant change in its approach to Drug Interdiction

and Counter-drug missions in conjunction with its assessment of

‘‘non-traditional’’ activities. The Committee has been strongly supportive of the contributions the Department has made to the national and international effort to curtail the production, transportation, and use of illegal drugs and is aware that many of the Department’s missions could not be conducted by any other Agency.

The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a report

to the congressional defense committees advising them of any plans

to alter its current counter-drug and drug interdiction programs 30

days in advance of any reorganization initiative in the area proposed to be implemented during the fiscal year 2002.

TETHERED AEROSTAT RADAR SYSTEMS

The budget request included $42,941,000 for Tethered Aerostat

Radar Systems. The Committee recommends $33,641,000, a reduction of $12,400,000 in this account and an addition of $3,000,000

230

provided to the Air Force in Section 8136 of the General Provisions.

The Committee is concerned that the reporting requirement and

the obligation restrictions in House Report 106–644 have not been

followed and that the Administration has yet to determine the

management responsibility and corresponding funding allocations

for these important systems. The Committee has deferred fiscal

year 2002 procurement funding for the Aerostat modernization program except for the purchase of replacement Aerostats until such

a determination has been made. The Committee directs that the

Secretary of the Air Force reestablish the Morgan City, Louisiana

Aerostat site using the funding provided in Section 8136.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $147,545,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 152,021,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 152,021,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $152,021,000 for

the Office of the Inspector General, the amount proposed in the

budget. The recommendation is an increase of $4,476,000 above the

amount appropriated for fiscal year 2001.

(231)

TITLE VII

RELATED AGENCIES

NATIONAL FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION

The National Foreign Intelligence Program consists of those intelligence activities of the government, which provide the President, other officers of the Executive Branch, and the Congress with

national foreign intelligence on broad strategic concerns bearing on

U.S. national security. These concerns are stated by the National

Security Council in the form of long-range and short-range requirements for the principal users of intelligence.

The National Foreign Intelligence Program budget funded in the

Department of Defense Appropriations Act consists primarily of resources for the Central Intelligence Agency, Defense Intelligence

Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, National Security Agency,

National Imagery and Mapping Agency, intelligence services of the

Departments of the Army, Navy and Air Force, Intelligence Community Management Staff, and the CIA Retirement and Disability

System Fund.

CLASSIFIED ANNEX

Because of the highly sensitive nature of intelligence programs,

the results of the Committee’s budget review are published in a

separate, detailed and comprehensive classified annex. The intelligence community, Department of Defense and other organizations

are expected to fully comply with the recommendations and directions in the classified annex accompanying the fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations bill.

CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY RETIREMENT AND

DISABILITY SYSTEM FUND

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $216,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 212,000,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 212,000,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

This appropriation provides payments of benefits to qualified

beneficiaries in accordance with the Central Intelligence Agency

Retirement Act of 1965 for Certain Employees (P.L. 88–643). This

statute authorized the establishment of a CIA Retirement and Disability System (CIARDS) for a limited number of CIA employees

and authorized the establishment and maintenance of a fund from

which benefits would be paid to those beneficiaries.

232

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $212,000,000 for the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability Systems Fund (CIARDS).

The recommendation is the same as the budget request and is

$4,000,000 below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001.

INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT ACCOUNT

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $148,631,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 152,776,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 144,929,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ¥7,847,000

This appropriation provides funds for the activities that support

the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) and the Intelligence Community.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Administration requested $152,776,000 for the Intelligence

Community Management Account. The Committee recommends

$144,929,000, a decrease of $7,847,000 from the amount requested

and $3,702,000 below the amount appropriated under this heading

in fiscal year 2001. Of the amount appropriated under this heading, $34,100,000 is for transfer to the Department of Justice for operations at the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC). Details

of adjustments to this account are included in the classified annex

accompanying this report.

PAYMENT TO KAHO’OLAWE ISLAND CONVEYANCE, REMEDIATION, AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FUND

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $60,000,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 25,000,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 25,000,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000 for

the Payment to Kaho’olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and

Environmental Restoration Fund, the amount proposed in the

budget. The recommendation is $35,000,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2001.

NATIONAL SECURITY EDUCATION TRUST FUND

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... $6,950,000

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... 8,000,000

Committee recommendation .............................................................. 8,000,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. ............................

The National Security Education Trust Fund was established to

provide scholarships and fellowships to U.S. students to pursue

higher education studies abroad and grants to U.S. institutions for

programs of study in foreign areas and languages.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee recommends $8,000,000 for the National Security

Education Trust Fund. The recommendation is the same as the reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00242 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
233

quest and $1,050,000 more than the amount appropriated in fiscal

year 2001.

(235)

TITLE VIII

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Title VIII of the accompanying bill includes 155 general provisions. Most of these provisions were included in the Department of

Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001 and many have

been included in the Defense Appropriations Act for a number of

years.

Actions taken by the Committee to amend last year’s provisions

or new provisions recommended by the Committee are discussed

below or in the applicable section of the report.

DEFINITION OF PROGRAM, PROJECT AND ACTIVITY

For purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit

Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177) as amended by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Reaffirmation Act of

1987 (Public Law 100–119) and by the Budget Enforcement Act of

1990 (Public Law 101–508, the following information provides the

definitions of the term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ for appropriations contained in the Department of Defense Appropriations

Act. The term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ shall include the

most specific level of budget items, identified in the Department of

Defense Appropriations Act, 2002, the accompanying House and

Senate Committee reports, the conference report and the accompanying joint explanatory statement of the managers of the Committee in Conference, the related classified reports, and the P–1

and R–1 budget justification documents as subsequently modified

by Congressional action.

In carrying out any Presidential sequestration, the Department

of Defense and agencies shall conform to the definition for ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ set forth above with the following exceptions:

For Military Personnel and Operation and Maintenance accounts

the term ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ is defined as the appropriations accounts contained in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act.

The Department and agencies should carry forth the Presidential

sequestration order in a manner that would not adversely affect or

alter Congressional policies and priorities established for the Department of Defense and the related agencies and no program,

project, and activity should be eliminated or be reduced to a level

of funding which would adversely affect the Department’s ability to

effectively continue any program, project and activity.

236

PENTAGON RESERVATION EMERGENCY RESPONSE ENHANCEMENTS

A new General Provision (Sec. 8147) has been included which

provides $10,000,000 to support facility improvements and equipment purchases to augment the capabilities of local government

emergency response units responsible for the protection of the Pentagon Reservation and surrounding military and federal facilities.

The Committee wishes to commend the tireless and skillful efforts

exhibited by all federal, state and local personnel who responded

to the unprecedented attack on the Pentagon on September 11,

2001. This incident highlighted certain areas identified by emergency responders where capabilities should be upgraded to further

strengthen their ability to respond to any future attack or disaster.

The Committee expects these funds to support equipment purchases for bomb disposal and chemical containment, personal

chem/bio protection, emergency communications, emergency power

systems, medical equipment, and high priority security systems.

These funds are also available to provide the federal share for facility improvements as determined by the Secretary of Defense.

WAGE CREDITS

The budget submission proposed amending language carried in

the Military Personnel appropriations paragraphs, as well as a new

general provision (section 8125 of the Committee bill), in order to

end payments of Social Security wage credits by the Department

of Defense. The past two Administrations have maintained that actuarial data regarding military retirees make it feasible to end

DoD’s payment of these service wage credits.

The Committee notes that legislation similar to that proposed in

the budget was taken up and approved by the Committee on Ways

and Means last year (H.R. 4857). The Committee also notes, and

restates, the direction of the Committee on Ways and Means regarding reconciliation of any amounts due the Social Security and

Hospital Insurance trust funds by the Department of Defense. The

Secretary of Defense is directed to report to the Congress on this

issue not later than 90 days following enactment of the fiscal year

2002 Defense Appropriations Act. The report shall include the Administration’s position on the issue of reconciling payments, if

needed; and its intention to comply with this direction, to include

proposing an amended budget submission, request for supplemental appropriations, or funding as needed in the fiscal year 2003

Defense Appropriations budget submission.

(237)

TITLE IX

COUNTER-TERRORISM AND DEFENSE AGAINST

WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

The Committee bill establishes a new appropriations title—Title

IX, Counter-Terrorism and Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction. In this title the Committee recommends appropriations

of $11,719,889.000, an increase of $1,309,325,000 over the budget

request for similar programs, and consolidates these funds into six

new appropriations accounts, as described below.

In his foreword to the recently released Quadrennial Defense Review, the Secretary of Defense described this as ‘‘a crucial time of

transition to a new era.’’ A new era—marked by the reality of new

threats such as terrorism; weapons of mass destruction (nuclear,

chemical, and biological weapons) and ballistic missiles; information operations (computer network exploitation and attack); and

other unconventional and so-called ‘‘asymmetric’’ threats to the

United States.

The Committee has expressed similar concerns over the last several years and is gratified that the Department now appears prepared to make a sustained and major commitment to address these

new threats. The test will come over the next several years to see

if the Department will actually shift the required resources to

counter these threats in a way that does not shortchange other necessary conventional capabilities that will still be required in the

21st Century.

The Committee has therefore consolidated the funding of the

major Defense-wide programs specifically designed to meet these

new threats into a new Title IX to give them the visibility and attention they require, and to aid in the future tracking of resources

for these activities. Programs and activities included in this title

are those which are centrally managed under the Office of the Secretary of Defense or other Defense-Wide activities. This includes all

funding for the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization; the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program (Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction); all Defense-Wide procurement and research funding for

defense against chemical and biological weapons; and all funding

for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

In addition, the Committee also proposes adding $1,670,000,000

over the budget request for a new appropriations account—the

Counter-Terrorism and Operational Response Transfer Fund.

Through this initiative, the Committee has created a rapid response capability for the Secretary of Defense and the Director of

Central Intelligence to accelerate and augment efforts against terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, the chemical and biological

threat, and so-called ‘‘cyber-war’’ capabilities (information operations and critical infrastructure attacks).

238

In keeping with the Administration’s stated emphasis on countering these 21st century threats, the Committee believes that its

proposal to consolidate funding to meet these challenges in Title IX

can only buttress the growing need for, and importance of, these

programs in U.S. defense planning, policy, and budgeting. The

Committee also expects this to bring a greater focus to the Department’s efforts to deal with these threats; simplify program management and budgeting; and empower the senior leadership of the Department of Defense and the Congress to more closely scrutinize

these important programs. The Committee directs that all future

budget proposals and supporting exhibits be submitted to Congress

in this new format.

PROGRAM RECOMMENDED

The total amount recommended in the bill will provide the following in the fiscal year 2002:

239

240

241

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAMS

The President’s budget requested $996,440,000 for chemical and

biological defense programs in Procurement, Defense-Wide and Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide. The

Committee recommends $1,539,940,000, in two accounts in title IX

(Counter-Terrorism and Operational Response Transfer Fund and

Defense against Chemical and Biological Weapons, Defense-Wide.)

This is an increase of $543,500,000 over the budget request.

Although the Department of Defense’s Chemical and Biological

Defense Program is focused primarily on defending US troops in a

theater conflict, recent events have made abundantly clear that the

difference between ‘national’ and ‘theater’ defense is as irrelevant

in chemical and biolgical warfare as it is in missile defense. The

Committee therefore recommends a series of increases over the

budget request, in recognition of the fact that the research, equipment and training conducted by DoD is as important to the protection of American citizens as it is for the protection of our troops

and our worldwide interests.

The Committee notes that proposed funding will directly address

the threat posed by the use of anthrax against civilian targets. In

addition, the Committee recognizes this is just one of the many

threats we may face over the next few years and thus has funded

programs that are intended to address the broad spectrum of chemical and biological threats that an adversary may choose to use in

the future (such as smallpox, sarin, plague, or ebola).

Of the additional funds provided over the budget request,

$213,500,000 is for additional research to find vaccines, antidotes

and antibiotics to treat a broad spectrum of threats, as well as

funding for the next generation of detectors and protective equipment. The largest increase is to accelerate promising research into

finding post-exposure treatment for diseases for which there is currently no known cure. Another $85,000,000 over the budget request

is provided to immediately increase the Department’s stockpile of

vaccines, antidotes and antibiotics required to respond to a chemical or biological attack.

The Committee also includes $145,000,000 over the budget request for additional chemical and biological training for our troops,

for domestic response exercises involving both military and civilian

authorities, and to provide additional training to DoD medical personnel to assist them in the rapid diagnosis and treatment of the

full range of potential biological and chemical threats. Additionally,

the Committee provides increases over the budget request totaling

$100,000,000 for chemical and biological defense equipment, such

as masks, protective shelters, detectors and decontamination equipment to ensure that our military is adequately equipped to meet

the growing challenge. With any biological attack the key to saving

lives is discovering the event as quickly as possible. With this distinction in mind, the Committee has provided increased funding for

biological pathogen detectors, both fixed and mobile, to provide the

early warning that is critical to effective mitigation and treatment.

242

SPECIAL INTEREST ITEMS

Items for which additional funds have been provided as shown in

the project level tables or in paragraphs using the phrases ‘‘only

for’’ or ‘‘only to’’ in this report are congressional interest items for

the purpose of the Base for Reprogramming (DD Form 1414). Each

of these items must be carried on the DD Form 1414 at the stated

amount, or a revised amount if changed during conference or if otherwise specifically addressed in the conference report. These items

remain special interest items whether or not they are repeated in

a subsequent conference report.

COUNTER-TERRORISM AND OPERATIONAL RESPONSE

TRANSFER FUND

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... ............................

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

Committee recommendation .............................................................. $1,670,000,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +1,670,000,000

This appropriation funds additional counter-terrorism and operational response activities of the Department of Defense.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee proposes additions to the budget request totaling $1,670,000,000 for a new appropriations account—the Counter-Terrorism and Operational Response Transfer Fund.

With the onset of Operations NOBLE EAGLE and ENDURING

FREEDOM—and the persistence of real and credible threats to

Americans and our national interests, both at home and abroad— the Committee believes it is imperative to rapidly accelerate efforts

on the part of the Intelligence Community and the Department of

Defense in the war against terrorism and other 21st century

threats. Accordingly, the Committee proposes $1,670,000,000 over

the amounts requested in the budget, in this new appropriations

account.

Citing the bill language proposed by the Committee, these funds

are provided:

‘‘For urgent enhancements to intelligence and military capabilities

in order to prosecute Operation ENDURING FREEDOM; to discover, infiltrate, and deter terrorist groups; to protect against terrorist attacks that might employ either conventional means or weapons of mass destruction, and to prepare against the consequences of

such attacks; to deny unauthorized users the opportunity to modify,

steal, inappropriately disclose, or destroy sensitive military intelligence data or networks, and to accelerate improvements in information networks and operations.’’

The Committee bill expressly provides that of the amounts provided in this new appropriation, $451,000,000 is made available to

the Director of Central Intelligence for classified programs funded

under the National Foreign Intelligence Program. The Committee

bill also provides for the transfer of $10,000,000 to the Department

of Justice, only for enhanced terrorism-related financial and money

laundering investigative operations to be carried out by the National Drug Intelligence Center. The Committee notes that, in providing this additional funding for the National Foreign Intelligence

243

Program, it is providing the resources needed to implement many

of the new recommendations approved in the House-passed Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (H.R. 2883). Similarly, $1,219,000,000 is made available to the Secretary of

Defense for a variety of high priority initiatives, including classified

programs. From within this amount, $474,000,000 is for the acceleration of critically needed response, training, procurement, and research programs for defense against chemical and biological agents.

Another $275,000,000 of DoD funds are designated specifically for

so-called ‘‘cyber-war’’ enhancements—to strengthen Defense and intelligence community efforts in the areas of computer system and

information network operations, by funding for information assurance, information operations, and critical infrastructure protection

programs. (Details regarding these programs are cited later in this

section.)

Details regarding other programs funded under this appropriation are addressed in the classified annex to this report.

The bill language proposed by the Committee will enable the Director of Central Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense to flexibly manage these funds from a central transfer account, similar to

the Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund. The Committee also directs that within 90 days of enactment, the Secretary

of Defense and the Director of Central Intelligence shall each provide to the Congress a classified report specifying the projects and

accounts to which funds provided in this Act are to be transferred.

The table below shows details regarding the additional

$474,000,000 provided for Department of Defense chemical and biological response, training, procurement and research programs.

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAMS

Recommended

($ thousands)

Military Nuclear, Biological, Chemical (NBC) Training and Equipment .................................................................................................... $156,000

(Operation and Maintenance, Army ............................................. 25,000)

(Operation and Maintenance, Navy .............................................. 25,000)

(Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps ................................ 10,000)

(Operation and Maintenance, Air Force ....................................... 25,000)

(Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide ................................ 20,000)

(Procurement, Defense-Wide ......................................................... 51,000)

Biological Warfare Pathogen Detection (fixed and mobile) ................ 34,000

(Procurement, Defense-Wide ......................................................... 34,000)

Chemical-Biological Defense Equipment R&D .................................... 10,000

(Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide ... 10,000)

Antibiotics (Stockpile/Research, Development, Test and Evaluation) 75,000

(Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide ... 40,000)

(Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide ................................ 35,000)

Vaccines (Stockpile/Research, Development, Test and Evaluation) .. 100,000

(Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide ... 50,000)

(Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide ................................ 50,000)

Domestic Response Exercises ............................................................... 30,000

(Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide ................................ 30,000)

DARPA—Biological Post-Exposure Treatment ................................... 59,000

(Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide ... 59,000)

Chemical-Biological Medical Training ................................................. 10,000

(Defense Health Program .............................................................. 10,000)

TOTAL ......................................................................................... 474,000

The table below shows details regarding the additional

$275,000,000 provided for Department of Defense information asVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00253 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
244

surance, information operations and critical infrastructure protection programs.

INFORMATION ASSURANCE PROGRAMS

($ thousands)

Attack Sensing, Warning and Response—DoD Network Protection $70,000

(Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide ................................ 5,000)

(Procurement, Defense-Wide ......................................................... 26,000)

(Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide ... 39,000)

Information Assurance/Computer Network Defense .......................... 37,500

(Other Procurement, Army ............................................................ 10,000)

(Other Procurement, Navy ............................................................. 10,000)

(Procurement, Marine Corps ......................................................... 3,500)

(Other Procurement, Air Force ...................................................... 10,000)

(Procurement, Defense-Wide ......................................................... 4,000)

Cyber Warning Information Network .................................................. 11,300

(Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide ................................ 9,800)

(Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide ... 1,500)

Global Information Grid Enterprise Sensor Grid ............................... 12,800

(Procurement, Defense-Wide ......................................................... 9,000)

(Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide ... 3,800)

Theater C4I Coordination Centers ....................................................... 16,400

(Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide ................................ 16,400)

IAVA Vulnerability Management ......................................................... 16,000

(Procurement, Defense-Wide ......................................................... 16,000)

Secure Wired and Wireless ................................................................... 19,600

(Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide ... 19,600)

Joint Reserve Virtual Information Operations .................................... 5,700

(Operation and Maintenance, Army ............................................. 1,400)

(Operation and Maintenance, Navy .............................................. 1,000)

(Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps ................................ 400)

(Operation and Maintenance, Air Force ....................................... 1,400)

(Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide ................................ 1,500)

Coalition Interoperability and Operations ........................................... 26,000

(Procurement, Defense-Wide ......................................................... 20,000)

(Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide ... 6,000)

Information Assurance/Information Technology Training ................. 8,900

(Operation and Maintenance, Army ............................................. 2,000)

(Operation and Maintenance, Navy .............................................. 1,700)

(Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps ................................ 600)

(Operation and Maintenance, Air Force ....................................... 1,400)

(Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide ................................ 3,200)

Public Key Infrastructure ..................................................................... 30,800

(Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army ................. 7,500)

(Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy ................. 7,500)

(Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force .......... 7,500)

(Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide ... 8,300)

Armament Systems Networks—Information Assurance Center ....... 4,000

(Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army ................. 4,000)

Networking Monitoring for Insider Threat .......................................... 16,000

(Procurement, Defense-Wide ......................................................... 16,000)

TOTAL ......................................................................................... 275,000

FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... —

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... —

Committee recommendation .............................................................. $403,000,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +403,000,000

This appropriation funds the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction activities of the Department of Defense.

The President’s budget requested $403,000,000 for this activity

in title II, Operation and Maintenance, a decrease of $40,400,000

245

from last year. The Committee has moved this program to title IX

and recommends fully funding the President’s request.

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

The President’s budget requested $8,289,278,000 for programs

managed by the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in fiscal

year 2002, an increase of $3,102,122,000 over the amount provided

in fiscal year 2001. This request was divided among several accounts including Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide; Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army;

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy; Missile Procurement, Army and Weapons Procurement, Navy.

To reflect the importance of the ballistic missile defense programs, the Committee has consolidated the request into two new

appropriation accounts: Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and Procurement, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

For all Ballistic Missile Defense Organization activities, funded

in these two new accounts, the Committee recommends

$7,848,278,000, an increase of $2,661,122,000 over the fiscal year

2001 level, and a net decrease of $441,000,000 from the budget request.

The Committee also recommends rescinding from funds appropriated in fiscal year 2001 $73,800,000 for long lead items for a

ground-based radar, which are no longer required under the Administration’s proposal.

PROCUREMENT, BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE

ORGANIZATION

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... —

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... —

Committee recommendation .............................................................. $794,557,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +794,557,000

This appropriation funds the procurement activities of the Department of Defense Ballistic Missile Defense Organization.

The President’s budget requested $676,574,000 for this activity

in Missile Procurement, Army and $6,983,000 in Missile Procurement, Navy, an overall increase of $321,456,000 over last year. The

Committee has transferred these programs to title IX and recommends $794,557,000, an increase of $111,000,000 over the President’s request.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request Recommended Change from request

PATRIOT PAC–3 ..................................................................................... 0 787,574 787,574

Transfer from MP, A .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 676,574

PAC–3 Acceleration ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... 111,000

NAVY AREA TBMD PROGRAM ................................................................ 0 6,983 6,983

Transfer from WP, N .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 6,983

246

PROPOSED TRANSFER OF NAVY AREA, MEADS AND PAC–3

The President’s budget proposed transferring the Navy Area, Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) and PATRIOT

(PAC–3) ballistic missile defense programs to the Navy and Army

respectively. The Committee is concerned that these programs

would be transferred to their respective Services with significant

near-term funding shortfalls that the Services would have to somehow address. In addition, neither MEADS nor Navy Area is a mature program. MEADS has just begun its risk reduction effort and

the Navy area program is experiencing significant schedule delays

and cost overrun problems. While the Committee supports the Department’s objective of eventually migrating mature programs from

the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization to the Services for programming and budgeting, it does not support transferring these

programs this year. The Committee agrees with the House Armed

Services Committee direction that the Department should develop

a set of criteria to use to determine when a program is ready to

transfer to the Services.

PATRIOT ADVANCED CAPABILITY—3 (PAC–3)

The President’s budget proposed $676,574,000 in Missile Procurement, Army for 72 PAC–3 missiles. The PAC–3 is designed to

defeat short and medium range ballistic missiles, the type of missiles that potential adversaries have already deployed in large

numbers. The PAC–3’s hit to kill technology makes it particularly

suitable for destroying missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction, which will be vital to protecting the ports and airfields essential to the Nation’s force projection strategy. It is also effective

against cruise missiles, fixed wing aircraft and helicopters. During

developmental testing the PAC–3 proved very effective, destroying

its target nine times in ten attempts. It is also the only ‘‘next-generation’’ ballistic missile defense program ready for production and,

equally important, it may be the only system ready for production

for several years.

Therefore, the Committee recommends $787,574,000 in Procurement, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, an increase of

$110,000,000. Of this amount $95,000,000 is only to purchase additional missiles in fiscal year 2002 and to increase the production

capability to 30 missiles per month. In addition, $15,000,000 is to

purchase critical components for future PAC–3 missiles where the

long-term availability of that component is in doubt. Complementing this acceleration in PAC–3 procurement, the Committee

has also recommended an increase of $44,000,000 in PAC–3 research and development funding, discussed elsewhere in this report.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION,

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE ORGANIZATION

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... —

Fiscal year 2002 budget request ....................................................... —

Committee recommendation .............................................................. $7,053,721,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +7,053,721,000

247

This appropriation funds the research, development, test and

evaluation activities of the Department of Defense Ballistic Missile

Defense Organization.

The President’s budget requested $7,605,721,000 for this activity

in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army; Research,

Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy and Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, an increase of

$2,780,666,000 over last year. The Committee has moved these programs to title IX and recommends $7,053,721,000, a decrease of

$552,000,000 from the President’s request.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request Recommended Change from request

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY .......................................... 0 119,890 119,890

Transfer from RDTE, DW .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 132,890

Transfer to ARROW (Error in budget submission) ...................... .......................... .......................... ¥20,000

Wafer-Scale Planarization Technology ......................................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

Silicon Brain Architecture ............................................................ .......................... .......................... 2,500

Wide Bandgap Semiconductor Research ..................................... .......................... .......................... 1,500

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM SEGMENT .................................. 0 765,584 765,584

Transfer from RDTE, DW .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 779,584

Center for Missile Defense, Optical Data/Sensor Fusion (Note:

Only for university research on missile detection and defense using imaging processing capabilities and optical

discrimination algorithms and architectures.) ....................... .......................... .......................... 1,000

BMDO Systems Integration .......................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥15,000

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE TERMINAL DEFENSE SEGMENT ............... 0 118,344 118,344

Transfer from RDTE, DW .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 968,180

Transfer of MEADS from Army ..................................................... .......................... .......................... 73,645

MEADS Reduction ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥21,000

Transfer to ARROW (Error in budget submission) ...................... .......................... .......................... 20,000

Transfer of THAAD ........................................................................ .......................... .......................... ¥922,481

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT ............ 0 3,844,534 3,844,534

Transfer from RDTE, DW .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 3,940,534

NTW—Sea Based Mid-course Study ........................................... .......................... .......................... ¥30,000

NTW—Additional Test Missiles ................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥66,000

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE BOOST DEFENSE SEGMENT .................... 0 530,363 530,363

Transfer from RDTE, DW .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 685,363

Space Based Kinetic Energy Study .............................................. .......................... .......................... ¥10,000

Sea Based Boost Study ............................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥25,000

Space Based Laser ...................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥120,000

BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SENSORS ................................................ 0 395,600 395,600

Transfer from RDTE, DW .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 495,600

RAMOS .......................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥40,000

SBIRS–Low ................................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥385,000

Satellite Sensors Technology Program ......................................... .......................... .......................... 250,000

Ground Based Sensors ................................................................. .......................... .......................... 75,000

THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE ............................................. 0 744,481 744,481

Transfer from Ballistic Missile Defense Terminal Defense Segment ........................................................................................ .......................... .......................... 922,481

THAAD—Acceleration ................................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥210,000

THAAD—Four additional test missiles ........................................ .......................... .......................... 32,000

PATRIOT PAC–3 ..................................................................................... 0 151,100 151,000

Transfer from RDTE, Army ........................................................... .......................... .......................... 107,100

Additional research to stay ahead of evolving threats .............. .......................... .......................... 44,000

NAVY AREA MISSILE DEFENSE .............................................................. 0 388,496 388,496

Transfer from RDTE, Navy ........................................................... .......................... .......................... 388,496

PENTAGON RESERVATION ...................................................................... 0 6,571 6,571

Transfer from RDTE, DW .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 6,571

248

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget

request Recommended Change from request

MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS–BMDO ................................................. 0 27,758 27,758

Transfer from RDTE, DW .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 27,758

OTHER BMDO ........................................................................................ .......................... .......................... ..........................

Shemya Ground-Based Radar—Long Lead Items FY01 Rescission .......................................................................................... .......................... ¥73,800 ¥73,800

Waiver of PL 102–564 ................................................................. .......................... ¥39,000 ¥39,000

GROUND BASED MIDCOURSE DEFENSE SEGMENT

The most significant shift in the President’s budget has been in

the Ground Based Midcourse Defense Segment (formerly known as

National Missile Defense). The plan under the previous administration was to begin construction this year of a radar in Shemya, Alaska and silos to hold 20 interceptors (to be expanded later to 100

silos) as soon as the program had two successful intercepts. This

was a high-risk endeavor because it depended on fielding a missile

that was only in its earliest stage of testing. In addition, the realism of the testing program was questioned in both the Coyle and

Welch Panel studies. The proposal in this year’s budget properly

shifts the focus from fielding to testing and the proposed funding

increases directly address the problems identified in those reports.

The President’s budget requested $3,230,725,000 for the Ground

Based Midcourse Defense Segment (an increase of $1,377,198,000

over last year’s funding level), of which $786,485,000 is for the construction of a Pacific Test Bed. While current tests only include

launching from Vandenberg AFB and intercepting from Kwajalein,

the new test bed would provide multiple launch and intercept sites

and would permit multiple simultaneous engagements, longer

range intercepts and more realistic engagement geometries. The

Committee fully supports the President’s budget request for this

program and provides $3,230,725,000 for the Ground Based Midcourse Defense Segment, fully funding the system and test bed.

THEATER HIGH ALTITUDE AREA DEFENSE

The President’s budget proposed $922,481,000 for the Theater

High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) program. The Committee

recommends $744,481,000, which is a decrease of $178,000,000

from the President’s request and an increase of $203,483,000 from

fiscal year 2001. This program has only recently reestablished itself

after a series of delays and test failures caused primarily by poor

quality control and a rush to accelerate the program. The Committee believes that the original schedule the Department built in

response to those lessons was a prudent approach for this program.

Undue acceleration of this program runs the risk of returning to

what the previous Secretary of Defense referred to as a ‘‘rush to

failure’’. The budget also proposes buying 10 missiles, whose design

has not been tested, to be available for additional testing or as a

contingency capability. While the Committee supports robust testing, the Committee believes that a commitment this year to a

THAAD ‘‘contingency capability’’ is premature. Meanwhile, the

same amount of money would acquire many more proven PAC–3

missiles. The Committee therefore defers providing the

249

$210,000,000 for a THAAD contingency capability, but provides

$32,000,000 over the budgeted amounts for four additional THAAD

missiles to be available to support additional testing. As discussed

earlier in this report, the Committee has provided an increase of

$155,000,000 to accelerate fielding of the more mature PAC–3 theater defense system.

NAVY THEATER WIDE

The President’s budget proposed $596,000,000 for the Navy Theater Wide program. The Committee recommends $500,000,000,

which is a decrease of $96,000,000 from the President’s request and

an increase of $43,628,000 from fiscal year 2001. The Navy Theater

Wide program is scheduled to begin intercept testing in 2002. The

Department has not decided whether to continue this program beyond testing or to pursue one of several alternative missile designs

instead. Therefore, the Committee believes it is inappropriate to

buy five contingency missiles before the missile has been tested

and before the Department has committed to this solution.

ARROW

The President’s budget originally proposed $45,699,000 for the

ARROW program but revised its recommendation to $65,699,000

after the budget was submitted. The Committee recommends

$65,699,000, and increase of $20,000,000 over the budget submission, to accommodate the revised request.

NAVY AREA

The President’s budget proposed $388,496,000 for the Navy Area

program. The Committee supports the President’s request which is

an increase of $118,944,000 over fiscal year 2001.

SPACE BASED LASER

The President’s budget requested $170,000,000 for the Space Based Laser. The Committee recommends $50,000,000, a reduction

of $120,000,000 similar to reductions in the House passed National

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002.

SBIRS LOW

The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization requested

$385,000,000 for the Space Based Infrared System (SBIRS) Low

satellite program. The Committee denies this request.

SBIRS Low, as currently envisioned, will consist of approximately 30 satellites cross-linked and cross-cued to provide fuzed

sensor support for ballistic missile defense. The program represents

an enormous technical challenge and is, according to one DoD official, the highest risk satellite program in DoD. This risk is compounded by a desire to field the full constellation as soon as possible to support ambitious missile defense fielding goals.

The Committee is concerned by markedly negative trends in cost,

schedule, and performance estimates for the final SBIRS Low configuration. For example, in just this past year, the government estimate for the amount of software needed to support the program

has grown from 900 thousand lines of code to over 3 million. In adVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00259 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
250

dition, projections of spacecraft weight have gone ‘‘through the roof’’ (actual numbers are contract sensitive). Finally, in just one year,

the total program life cycle cost estimate has grown from $10 billion (estimated last year) to over $23 billion (current estimate). The

Committee is concerned that given the immaturity of the SBIRS

Low concept, this most recent cost estimate does not capture the

full breadth of risks to be faced by the program. The true program

cost could be significantly higher.

Last year, officials within DoD recognized the potential problems

in the program and directed the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization to conduct a study on the cost effectiveness of SBIRS Low compared to a series of ground and sea based alternatives. Though the

study was due last March and preliminary findings were briefed

throughout DoD this summer, the study has not yet been officially

released. The Committee understands that the study indicates that

ground based radars not only provide a viable alternative to a

space based system, but also provide this capability at significantly

lower cost and risk. In addition, the prospect of building more

ground based radars provide a graceful expansion of capability, if

needed, based on changes in the threat or an evolving US strategy.

Reliance on SBIRS Low, on the other hand, requires deployment of

the full 30 satellite constellation, with all the risks and upfront investment this entails, regardless of threat or strategy. Finally, the

Committee is concerned with the effectiveness of SBIRS Low with

respect to target discrimination, a key sensor requrement for missile defense.

The Committee believes that current plans for SBIRS Low represent a potential ‘‘rush to failure’’ which could take the country

down a path of maximum cost and risk with marginal payoff relative to ground based alternatives. A premature reliance on such

a high risk approach puts our missile defense plans at risk. The

Committee believes a more prudent missile defense sensor strategy

is to place near- and mid-term emphasis on ground based radars.

Because of high cost and low technical maturity, a space based system appears to be more appropriate as a far-term option.

Consequently, the Committee recommends taking SBIRS Low off

an acquisition track, and returning these efforts to a sustained and

deliberate technology development track. The Committee denies

funding for SBIRS Low, and instead provides $250,000,000 in a

new line item entitled ‘‘Satellite Sensor Technology’’, only to reduce

risk and mature technologies for future space sensor applications

for missile defense. In addition, the Committee recommendation

provides $75,000,000 in a new line-item entitled, ‘‘Ground Sensor

Technology’’, only for algorithm development and radar risk reduction. Given the limited resources available for large space constellations, the Committee further recommends that the Department

consider making a long term choice between a space based infrared

system and a space based radar. Both represent enormous national

investments, and it is highly questionable whether DoD can afford

both systems.

PROGRAM STRUCTURE AND SYSTEM ACQUISITION

The President’s budget proposes moving all ballistic missile defense programs into Research, Development, Test and Evaluation

251

Defense-Wide, grouping them primarily into 5 large program elements and eventually buying and fielding these systems using

RDT&E appropriations. The Department’s intent is to be able to

explore new technologies without an official requirements document and without committing to buy a specific number of systems,

as would be required with a major defense acquisition program.

This approach is currently used by the Department for technology

demonstrations where prototypes are developed in limited quantity

as a proof of concept. However, to acquire entire systems under

RDT&E would violate fiscal policy, undermine basic program management principles and ignore the distinction between appropriations. Therefore, the Committee retains the Department’s proposed

structure for those technologies that have not yet demonstrated a

suitable prototype. However, the Committee directs that funding

for a program’s EMD activities, and beyond, be budgeted in a separate program element; the program be designated a major defense

acquisition program and be subject to the requirements of Milestone II and III or their equivalents. As the law requires, the actual acquisition of the hardware would be done with procurement

funding. Consistent with this guidance the Committee has moved

the Theater High Altitude Area Defense program into its own program element.

SPECIAL INTEREST PROJECTS

Within each program element, the Committee has identified several special interest projects for purposes of reprogrammings and

budget justification material. They are as follows:

Terminal Defense Segment: MEADS and ARROW;

Midcourse Defense Segment: Ground-based Midcourse, Pacific

Test Bed and Navy Theater Wide;

Boost Defense Segment: Sea-based Boost, Airborne Laser,

Space Based Laser and Space Based Interceptor;

Sensors Segment: Satellite Sensor Technology, Ground based

Sensors and RAMOS.

The Committee directs that funding for each of these special interest projects be identified separately and used as the basis for

any reprogramming and in the presentation of the budget justification books.

The Committee directs the Cost Analysis Improvement Group

and the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation to continue to

report on these programs.

REPROGRAMMINGS

The President’s budget proposes grouping the major missile defense systems into five large program elements, in part to provide

more flexibility in the movement of funding between programs.

This structure has the awkward effect of permitting an unlimited

movement of funds between programs, but only in very limited circumstances and combinations. For example, under the President’s

budget proposal a cost overrun in the Theater High Altitude Area

Defense program could be covered quickly, without notifying Congress or requesting a reprogramming, but only if the funding was

taken from the ARROW program. Instead of this approach, the

Committee recommend a distinct set of reprogramming guidelines

252

for ‘‘Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Ballistic Missile

Defense Organization’’ that provides a greater level of flexibility

than for other RDT&E accounts, but without the artificial constraints imbedded in the budget proposal. The Committee directs

that the Director, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization may, during the course of fiscal year 2002, transfer up to $10,000,000 between any program elements or special interest projects. Any realignment of funds beyond that level requires a prior approval reprogramming. All other financial management rules, such as those

regarding new starts and congressional interest items still apply.

The Committee directs the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) to amend the Financial Management Regulations accordingly and to report back to the Committee when this has been

done.

BMDO BUDGET JUSTIFICATION MATERIAL

The Committee is concerned about the level of information provided in this year’s budget justification material. In addition to the

material currently provided, the Committee directs the Department

to submit the following information as part of its future budget requests.

For each program element and project: the funding appropriated

in the previous year and the expected requirement for the next six

years, by year.

For special interest projects and new starts: a detailed schedule

(including contract awards, decision points, test events and hardware/software deliveries) at least through the stage of testing the

prototype whose performance will form the basis for deciding

whether or not to begin developing the system as a major defense

acquisition program.

For those programs that are already major defense acquisition

programs: a detailed schedule (including contract awards, decision

points, test events and hardware/software deliveries), the number

of systems to be acquired, the expected performance, the unit cost,

and the cost to completion for the program.

In addition, the Department should present an overall timeline

for its future architecture highlighting when each system in that

architecture will go into production as well as a comparable threat

timeline indicating which threat systems are expected to be deployed and in what quantities.

DEFENSE AGAINST CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS,

DEFENSE-WIDE

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... ............................

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

Committee recommendation .............................................................. $1,065,940,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +1,065,940,000

This appropriation funds the Defense Against Chemical and Biological Weapons activities of the Department of Defense.

The President’s budget requested $647,731,000 for this activity

in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, and

$348,709,000 in Procurement, Defense-Wide. The Committee has

moved these programs to title IX and recommends $1,065,940,000,

an increase of $69,500,000 over the President’s overall request.

253

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Recommended Change from request

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION.

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ................................ 0 44,066 44,066

Transfer from RDTE, DW .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 39,066

900 MHz Magnetic Resonance Spectrometer (Note: Only for the

NY Structural Biology Center) ................................................. .......................... .......................... 5,000

BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE ........................................................... 0 153,080 153,080

Transfer from RDTE, DW .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 140,080

Hydrate Fractionation Desalination Technology ........................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

Center for Water Security ............................................................ .......................... .......................... 2,000

Asymmetrical Protocols for Biological Defense ........................... .......................... .......................... 8,000

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ................................ 0 143,981 143,981

Transfer from RDTE, DW .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 125,481

Integrated Detection of Energetic and Hazardous Materials ...... .......................... .......................... 2,000

Continuation of Joint Biological and Chemical Terrorism Response Project ......................................................................... .......................... .......................... 9,000

National Center for Countermeasures to Chemical and Biological Threats .............................................................................. .......................... .......................... 5,000

Common Asset for Biological Security ........................................ .......................... .......................... 2,500

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM-ADV DEV ................. 0 76,249 76,249

Transfer from RDTE, DW .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 69,249

Advanced Development for Chem/Bio Prepardness at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey .................... .......................... .......................... 5,000

Miniaturized Chemical/Biological Detectors (Note: Only for an

industry based product application program for fieldable

sensors using MEMS technology.) ........................................... .......................... .......................... 2,000

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM-DEM/VAL ................. 0 93,636 93,636

Transfer from RDTE, DW .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 82,636

M93A1 FOX Simulation Training Suites ...................................... .......................... .......................... 2,000

Mobile Chemical Agent Detector ................................................. .......................... .......................... 9,000

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM-EMD ........................ 0 159,943 159,943

Transfer from RDTE, DW .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 159,943

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ................................ 0 31,276 31,276

Transfer from RDTE, DW .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 31,276

PROCUREMENT.

INDIVIDUAL PROTECTION ....................................................................... 0 116,327 116,327

Transfer from P, DW .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 114,327

Domestic Production of C2A1 Canisters ..................................... .......................... .......................... 2,000

DECONTAMINATION ................................................................................ 0 15,196 15,196

Transfer from P, DW .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 15,196

JOINT BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE PROGRAM ................................................ 0 155,916 155,916

Transfer from P, DW .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 155,916

COLLECTIVE PROTECTION ...................................................................... 0 51,940 51,940

Transfer from P, DW .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 38,940

28 Chemical Biological Protective Shelters (CBPS) .................... .......................... .......................... 13,000

CONTAMINATION AVOIDANCE ................................................................. 0 24,330 24,330

Transfer from P, DW .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 24,330

ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL

DEFENSE PROGRAM

The Committee believes the current management structure of

the Department of Defense Chemical and Biological Defense Program is deeply flawed. The multitude of bureaucratic layers and ad

hoc organizations that were created for this program have led to

bureaucratic infighting among the Services and chronic inaction on

important questions pertaining to requirements generation, funding allocations, program execution, and funds management. Given

254

the growing importance of this activity, the Committee believes the

Department must make it a priority to redesign and streamline the

organizations managing Chemical and Biological Defense in line

with proven and established DoD management processes. The

Committee strongly recommends at a minimum the following steps

for the CB Defense Program:

Materiel Management.—Establish a Joint Program Executive Office (JPEO) under Army executive agency reporting to the Army

Acqusition Executive and the Defense Acquisition Executive for

materiel management and acquisition.

Direct the services to provide acquisition qualified officers and

government civilians to manage programs within the JPEO, including reserve component officers.

Designate the Army as the executive agent for funds management.

Requirements Generation.—Direct use of the Joint Requirements

Oversight Council (JROC) and JROC process for establishing, validating and prioritizing joint CB Defense Program requirements.

The Secretary of Defense shall report to the congressional defense committee no later than 60 days after enactment on its plan

to reorganize, streamline, and elevate the priority of the Chemical

and Biological Defense Program.

CHEMICAL/BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE STUDY

The Committee recommends $1,000,000 over the budget request

for the purpose of conducting a study of the chemical and biological

warfare defense programs. The Committee directs that in its evaluation of these programs, the Department use an existing tool to

assess the relative merit of competing chemical/biological warfare

defense programs and submit a report on the results of this study

to the congressional defense committees no later than July 30,

2002.

DARPA BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE PROGRAM

The Committee directs that the DARPA biological warfare defense program shall not be included in the program guidance and

program evaluation directives of the preceding two paragraphs.

DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY

Fiscal year 2001 appropriation .......................................................... ............................

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

Committee recommendation .............................................................. $806,471,000

Change from budget request ............................................................. +806,471,000

This appropriation funds the activities of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.

The President’s budget requested $437,378,000 for this activity

in Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide,

$24,625,000 in Procurement, Defense-Wide and $259,843,000 in

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide. The Committee has

moved these programs to title IX and recommends $806,471,000,

an increase of $84,625,000 over the President’s request.

255

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

EXPLANATION OF PROJECT LEVEL CHANGES

[In thousands of dollars]

Budget request Recommended Change from

request

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY ................................................ 0 1,246 1,246

Transfer from O&M, DW Budget Activity 3 ................................. .......................... .......................... 1,246

DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION AGENCY ................................................ 0 304,147 304,147

Transfer from O&M DW Budget Activity 4 .................................. .......................... .......................... 258,597

Headquarters Program Growth .................................................... .......................... .......................... ¥5,450

Unconventional Nuclear Detection ............................................... .......................... .......................... 50,000

Chem-Bio Warfare Defense Study ............................................... .......................... .......................... 1,000

PROCUREMENT

VEHICLES ............................................................................................... 0 145 145

Transfer from P, DW .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 145

OTHER MAJOR EQUIPMENT .................................................................... 0 20,180 20,180

Transfer from P, DW .................................................................... .......................... .......................... 24,480

BLU–116B Schedule Slip ............................................................. .......................... .......................... ¥3,000

Hard Target Smart Fuze Schedule Slip ....................................... .......................... .......................... ¥1,300

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

NUCLEAR SUSTAINMENT & COUNTERPROLIFERATION

TECHNOLOGY ......................................................................................... 0 329,632 329,632

Transfer from RDTE, DW .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 295,132

Discrete Particle Method .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 2,500

Thermobaric Warhead Development ............................................ .......................... .......................... 4,000

Radiation Hardened Microelectronics .......................................... .......................... .......................... 3,000

Unconventional Nuclear Detection ............................................... .......................... .......................... 25,000

COUNTERPROLIFERATION ADVANCED DEVELOPMENT

TECHNOLOGIES ...................................................................................... 0 89,772 89,772

Transfer from RDTE, DW .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 89,772

ARMS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY .............................................................. 0 61,349 61,349

Transfer from RDTE, DW .............................................................. .......................... .......................... 52,474

Arms Control Technology ............................................................. .......................... .......................... 4,875

Center for Monitoring Research ................................................... .......................... .......................... 4,000

UNCONVENTIONAL NUCLEAR WARFARE DEFENSE

The recent attacks on September 11, 2001 vividly demonstrate

the need to greatly expand governmental efforts to develop and

field systems that can defend against threats posed by weapons of

mass destruction. One of the most unsettling and dangerous

threats to the homeland is the possibility of nuclear terrorism

using unconventional delivery methods, e.g., delivery other than by

missile or military aircraft. The Committee believes that a substantial base of capabilities exists within the Department of Defense

and the Department of Energy for dealing with the unconventional

nuclear threat (UNT), but these resources are not effectively organized and optimized.

The Committee commends the recent work of the Defense

Science Board Task Force on Unconventional Nuclear Warfare Defense that analyzed these capabilities and devised a strategy to materially improve the DoD’s ability to detect, identify, respond, and

prevent unconventional nuclear attacks by national, sub-national,

or terrorist entities. To implement this initiative, the DSB Task

Force recommended that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and

the National Nuclear Security Administration jointly pool their

technology and resources to develop a program to deploy, test, and

256

demonstrate nuclear protection systems at four different U.S. military installations around the world.

The Committee concurs with this recommendation, and has pro- vided $50,000,000 to implement such an initiative at one installation operated by each military service. The Committee expects

these installations to be varied in nature and geography (e.g. a

port, an airbase, an installation with high security assets and high

ground traffic) to develop and demonstrate applications and techniques to meet a wide variety of circumstances. The Committee

would expect that these installations turn into permanent technology integration test-beds with the goal that vetted technology

would be deployed to critical military and civilian installations.

These projects shall be managed similar to the Department’s advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD) procedure to (1)

provide an integrated sensor text-bed network for base/force protection; (2) leverage law enforcement, DoD force protection, and DOE

technology; and (3) integrate if/where possible, other types of chemical/biological/explosives sensors into the network. Emphasis shall

be on demonstrating existing technology that can be deployed

quickly. In addition, the Committee has provided $25,000,000 to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency only to develop and execute a nuclear threat R&D response program. Funds shall be used to improve such items as:

—Active neutron and gamma interrogation systems;

—Gamma imaging;

—Unattended remote monitoring systems;

—Better and more affordable radiation detectors;

—Portable forensics;

—Perimeter networks of sensors with remote processing capability

—Render safe R&D.

The Committee believes that this new initiative can only be successful if all relevant agencies actively and vigorously participate.

The Committee expects the Secretary of Defense to immediately

initiate high-level efforts to oversee the execution of Memoranda of

Understanding between DTRA, NNSA, and other agencies such as

FBI, DoJ, and CIA where appropriate. The Committee expects that

this program will be programmed and adequately financed in the

FY 2003–2008 POM process.

The Committee directs the Secretary of Defense to submit a classified report to the congressional defense committees within 180

days of enactment of this Act, explaining the sites selected, the

roles and missions of the different non-DoD agencies, the technology test-bed deployment schedules, the plan for deploying vetted

technology, the RDT&E project plan, and future fiscal year funding

requirements.

RADIATION HARDENED ELECTRONICS

The Committee strongly supports the Department of Defense’s

initiatives to advance strategic radiation hardened digital CMOS

microelectronics technology and production capability at the two remaining domestic suppliers of upper radiation hardened microelectronics. Of the funds provided, the Committee directs that not less

257

than $17,000,000 in program element 602715BR and $50,000,000

requested for ‘‘Domestic Radiation Hardened Electronics’’ in the

Defense Production Act be used to advance technology and fabrication capability only for established suppliers currently manufacturing upper radiation hardened microelectronic components in

their own domestic fabrication facilities who have a demonstrated

history and capability of supplying these components to the Department of Defense in support of strategic programs. The Committee

also supports the USD(A&T) strategy and funding requirements,

stated July 18, 2001, to preserve this competitive supplier base and

directs the military services and defense agencies to align their investment strategies to support this critical strategic capability.

ARMS CONTROL TECHNOLOGY

The Committee recommends an increase of $4,875,000 in Arms

Control Technology only for innovative technologies and equipment,

as part of the effort to ensure compliance with arms control, which

is to be used only for the continuation of an industry-based research program for developing systems using advances in solid

state nuclear detectors, processing electronics, analysis software,

chemical detection and identification technology, and combination

nuclear/chemical/biological technology.

NUCLEAR TEST MONITORING

The Committee understands that the Defense Threat Reduction

Agency intends to spend $6,500,000 in PE0603711BR for basic seismic research and applied seismic research to address only Air

Force operational nuclear test monitoring requirements; and in addition $9,800,000 in operation and maintenance for nuclear test

monitoring operation and maintenance. The Committee supports

this action and directs that within this total $2,500,000 shall be

available only for peer reviewed applied seismic research and

$4,000,000 shall be available only for peer reviewed basic seismic

research.

(259)

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORTING

REQUIREMENTS

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives:

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following statements are submitted describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which directly

or indirectly change the application of existing law.

Language is included in various parts of the bill to continue ongoing activities which require annual authorization or additional

legislation, which to date has not been enacted.

The bill includes a number of provisions which place limitations

on the use of funds in the bill or change existing limitations and

which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing

the application of existing law.

The bill includes a number of provisions, which have been virtually unchanged for many years, that are technically considered

legislation.

The bill provides that appropriations shall remain available for

more than one year for some programs for which the basic authorizing legislation does not presently authorize each extended availability.

In various places in the bill, the Committee has earmarked funds

within appropriation accounts in order to fund specific programs

and has adjusted some existing earmarking.

Those additional changes in the fiscal year 2002 bill, which

might be interpreted as changing existing law, are as follows:

APPROPRIATIONS LANGUAGE

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Military Personnel, Army’’, ‘‘Military Personnel, Navy’’, ‘‘Military Personnel, Marine Corps’’, and

‘‘Military Personnel, Air Force’’ which would eliminate the payment

of the Social Security Military Wage Credit for service members.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance,

Army’’ which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses, and the amount for transfer to the National

Park Service for infrastructure repair and improvements at Fort

Baker. Language has been deleted which provided funds by transfer from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance,

Navy’’ which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses; and deletes language which provided funds

by transfer from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund.

260

Language has been amended in‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Air

Force’’ which changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses and the amount of the grant to Florida Memorial College for minority aviation training. Language has been

deleted which provided funds by transfer from the National Defense Stockpile Transaction Fund.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance,

Defense-Wide’’ which provides $750,000 for a grant for the Youth

Development and Leadership program and the STARBASE program; earmarks $1,500,000 only for continuation of the Middle

East Regional Security Issues program; changes the amount provided for emergency and extraordinary expenses; deletes the

amount provided for expenses relating to certain classified activities; and prohibits the consolidation of appropriations liaison offices

with OSD and services’ legislative liaison offices.

The appropriations paragraph ‘‘Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction’’ was moved to title IX of this bill, and the proviso on disposal of nuclear submarines has been deleted.

The appropriations account ‘‘Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense’’ has been deleted.

A new appropriations paragraph has been included, ‘‘Support for

International Sporting Competitions, Defense’’ which provides $15,800,000 in support of the 2002 Winter Olympics.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Other Procurement, Army’’ which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles required for

physical security of personnel and the number of vehicles for replacement only.

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Shipbuilding and Conversion,

Navy’’, concerning incremental funding authority for the LHD–1

Amphibious Assault Ship, and language concerning the LPD–17

program.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Other Procurement, Navy’’ which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles required for

physical security of personnel, the number of vehicles for replacement only, and changes the price limitation applicable to passenger

vehicles.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Procurement, Marine Corps’’

which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement.

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Aircraft Procurement, Air Force’’

which provided the authority to lease aircraft and equipment.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Other Procurement, Air Force’’

which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles for replacement only, the number of vehicles purchased for physical security

of personnel, and changes the price limitation applicable to passenger vehicles.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Procurement, Defense-Wide’’

which changes the number of passenger motor vehicles required for

replacement only, the number of vehicles required for physical security of personnel and changes the price limitation applicable to

passenger vehicles.

Language has been amended in ‘‘National Guard and Reserve

Equipment’’ that provides funds only for the procurement of eight

UH–60 helicopters for the Army Reserve, and provides funds for

261

the procurement of C–130J aircraft to be used solely for western

states firefighting.

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Defense Production Act Purchases’’ which specified that the funds provided were only for

microwave power tubes and the wireless vibration sensor supplier

initiative.

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Research, Development, Test and

Evaluation, Navy’’ concerning Special Operation Forces requirements for the V–22 aircraft.

Language has been included in ‘‘National Defense Sealift Fund’’

which provides funds for necessary expenses to maintain and preserve a U.S.-flag merchant fleet.

The appropriations paragraph for ‘‘National Defense Airlift

Fund’’ has been deleted which provided funds for transfer to the C–

17 program.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Defense Health Program’’, earmarking $20,000,000 only for HIV/AIDS prevention programs.

Language has been deleted in ‘‘Chemical Agents and Munitions

Destruction, Army’’ concerning the conveyance of a Cyclone II Custom Pumper truck to the Umatilla Indian Tribe.

Language has been amended in ‘‘Intelligence Community Management Account’’ which earmarks $28,003,000 for the Advanced

Research and Development Committee.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 8005 has been amended which increases the level of general transfer authority for the Department of Defense.

Section 8008 has been amended to delete language providing

multiyear procurement authority for Javelin missile; Bradley

Fighting Vehicle; DDG–51 Destroyer; and UH–60 aircraft; and

adds multiyear authority for C–17 aircraft.

Section 8009 has been amended with regard to reporting requirements for Humanitarian and Civic Assistance costs.

Section 8013 has been amended to delete language which prohibited the use of appropriated funds for supplemental education assistance for Army enlistments of less than three years, except for

combat arms.

Section 8032 has been amended to change the number of staff

years that may be funded for defense studies and analysis by Federally Funded Research and Development Centers.

Section 8043 has been amended to include language that waives

the $100,000 limitation on investment item unit costs for expenses

related to certain classified activities.

Section 8045 has been amended to include language which extends the availability of funds available for covert actions and

agent operations until September 30, 2003.

Section 8055 has been amended to include language which rescinds $441,578,000 from the following programs:

(Rescissions)

2000 Appropriations:

Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction: Fossil Fuel Energy

Plants ........................................................................................... $32,000,000

Other Procurement, Navy:

Joint Tactical Terminals ......................................................... 14,300,000

Submarine Support Equipment ............................................. 2,000,000

262

(Rescissions)

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force: JTCTS ...................................... 8,500,000

Other Procurement, Air Force: Joint Tactical Terminals ........... 20,000,000

2001 Appropriations:

Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction: Fossil Fuel Energy

Plants ........................................................................................... 32,000,000

Aircraft Procurement, Army:

CH–47 Mods ............................................................................ 16,000,000

Guardrail .................................................................................. 6,000,000

Procurement of Ammunition, Army: RADAM .............................. 27,400,000

Other Procurement, Army:

STAR–T Termination .............................................................. 9,900,000

Teleoperating Kits ................................................................... 5,945,000

Joint Tactical Terminals ......................................................... 10,000,000

PEPS ........................................................................................ 2,900,000

Aircraft Procurement, Navy: JTCTS ............................................. 8,600,000

Weapons Procurement, Navy: JSOW ............................................ 35,000,000

Other Procurement, Navy:

Joint Tactical Terminals ......................................................... 6,000,000

Shipboard IW Exploit .............................................................. 3,000,000

Naval Space Surveillance ....................................................... 1,000,000

Submarine Support Equipment ............................................. 3,000,000

JTCTS ...................................................................................... 1,600,000

Procurement, Marine Corps: STAR–T Termination .................... 1,000,000

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force:

JTCTS ...................................................................................... 1,300,000

F–15 .......................................................................................... 18,000,000

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force: JDAM .......................... 5,800,000

Other Procurement, Air Force:

MILSATCOM (GBS TIP) ........................................................ 13,100,000

JTCTS ...................................................................................... 3,700,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army:

STAR–T Termination .............................................................. 3,300,000

MPIM ....................................................................................... 3,000,000

STARSTREAK ......................................................................... 10,000,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy:

Naval Space Surveillance ....................................................... 1,000,000

Fixed Surveillance System ..................................................... 4,000,000

SURTASS ................................................................................. 5,000,000

JTCTS ...................................................................................... 8,800,000

DD–21 ....................................................................................... 40,000,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force: ...........

JSAF Termination ................................................................... 18,100,000

Integrated Broadcast Service ................................................. 3,000,000

ERCM ....................................................................................... 39,633,000

Joint Ejection Seat .................................................................. 7,500,000

JTCTS ...................................................................................... 6,200,000

Defense Health Program: Integrated Cancer Research Program 4,000,000

Note: Section 1306 of the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year

2002 prohibits the Department from spending any funds appropriated in any year for the refurbishment of fossil fuel energy plants in the Former Soviet Union. According to the Department

there is $32,000,000 in both fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 that is solely for this purpose

and would be available for rescission should this language stand in conference. Consistent with

the actions of the House, the Committee recommends rescinding these funds.

Section 8061 has been amended to include language which permits the Secretary of Defense to adjust the Pentagon Reservation

Maintenance Revolving Fund limitation due to changes in economic

assumptions.

Section 8064 has been amended to restrict domestic source requirements to only ball and roller bearings.

Section 8069 has been included prohibiting the transfer of programs from the Department of Defense without Congressional authorization.

Section 8070 has been amended to include an exemption from

prior notification requirements, and a requirement for quarterly reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00272 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
263

porting, for any covered activities, operation or operations initiated

as a result of the national emergency proclaimed by the President

as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

Section 8071 has been amended to include language concerning

exposure fees with respect to loan guarantees.

Section 8074 has been amended concerning the ‘‘Former Soviet

Union Threat Reduction’’ which has been moved to title IX of this

bill.

Section 8084 has been amended which reduces funds available in

‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Navy’’ by $245,000,000 to reflect a

Navy Working Capital Fund cash balance and rate stabilization adjustment.

Section 8085 has been amended which reduces funds available in

several operation and maintenance accounts by a total of

$527,000,000, to reflect fuel pricing re-estimates and rate stabilization adjustments.

Section 8093 has been amended which reduces funds available

for military personnel and operation and maintenance accounts by

a total of $200,000,000 due to favorable foreign currency fluctuations.

Section 8094 has been amended which prohibits funds for the

Department of the Navy to be used to develop, lease or procure the

T–AKE class of ships unless the main propulsion diesel engine and

propulsors are manufactured in the United States.

Section 8099 has been amended to include language concerning

refunds from the use of the Government travel card and the Government Purchase Card.

Section 8100 has been amended to improve oversight of financial

management information technology systems.

Section 8107 has been amended which provides $10,000,000 for

‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide’’ only for a grant to the

United Service Organizations Incorporated.

Section 8108 has been amended to change the amount available

for adjusting the cost-sharing agreement between the Department

of Defense and the Israeli Department of Defence.

Section 8111 has been amended to reflect the name change of the

Ground Based Midcourse Defense Segment (formerly National Missile Defense).

Section 8113 has been amended to provide authority for the Department of Defense to participate in the opening celebration of the

Pacific Wing of the National D-Day Museum.

Section 8116 has been amended which requires the transfer of

funds to the Department of Energy for Fossil Energy Research and

Development within 30 days after enactment of this Act.

Section 8117 has been amended which reduces funds available in

operation and maintenance accounts by $955,000,000 for efficiencies in the contractor work force.

Section 8118 has been included which allows funds appropriated

in operation and maintenance for depot maintenance and repair

available to complete projects begun with funds appropriated in

prior year Defense Acts.

Section 8119 has been included to provide for a negotiated settlement for a request for equitable adjustment for the C–17 program.

264

Section 8120 has been included to allow modifications for correct

operation of satellites procured in fiscal year 1997 and 1998.

Section 8121 has been included which allows for the transfer of

$680,000,000 to fund increases in the cost of prior year shipbuilding programs.

Section 8122 has been included which provides the Secretary of

Defense with authority to transfer appropriated funds within the

‘‘Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy’’ appropriations account.

Section 8123 has been included which earmarks $56,000,000 of

‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Navy’’ funds for costs associated with

the refitting, necessary force protection upgrades, and repair of the

U.S.S. Cole.

Section 8124 has been included which allows the Secretary of the

Navy to pay any and all claims arising out of the collision involving

the U.S.S. Greeneville and the Ehime Maru from funds available in

‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Navy’’.

Section 8125 has been included which allows that the additional

Social Security wage credit for uniformed service members shall

not be granted after fiscal year 2001.

Section 8126 has been included which reduces funds available in

operation and maintenance accounts by $230,000,000 to reflect

face-of-life changes in utilities costs.

Section 8127 has been included which reduces funds available to

several Operation and Maintenance accounts by $797,919,000 in

order to reduce excess funded carryover.

Section 8128 has been included which earmarks $2,500,000 from

‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Air Force’’ only for a grant for the repair, restoration, and preservation of the Lafayette Escadrille Memorial.

Section 8129 has been included which prohibits funds provided

in this or any other Act be used by the Secretary of the Interior

to remove a World War I memorial from the Mojave National Preserve.

Section 8130 has been included which provides $6,000,000 for

‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Navy’’ only for a grant for the preservation of the U.S.S. Alabama as a museum and memorial.

Section 8131 has been included which provides $5,000,000 for

‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Navy’’ only for a grant for the preservation of the U.S.S. Intrepid as a museum and memorial.

Section 8132 has been included which provides $6,000,000 for

‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Air Force’’ only for a grant for the relocation of the Fairchild Air Force Base Elementary School within

the boundary of Fairchild Air Force Base.

Section 8133 has been included which provides $5,000,000 for

‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Navy’’ only for a grant to the Central

Kitsap School District in Washington State for a special needs

learning center.

Section 8134 has been included which provides $10,000,000 for

‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide’’ only for a grant to the

City of San Bernardino, California.

Section 8135 has been included which provides authority under

the Formerly Utilized Sites Remediation Action Program for the

cleanup of radioactive contamination and waste at the Shpack

265

Landfill site located in Massachusetts, and the Shallow Land Disposal Area located in Pennsylvania. Section 8136 has been included which provides $3,000,000 to reestablish the Tethered Aerostat Radar System at Morgan City,

Louisiana.

Section 8137 has been included which prohibits the establishment of an independent operation test bed system and/or the transfer of certain UAV’s from the Navy to the Joint Forces Command.

Section 8138 has been included which waives the O&M investment limitation for certain classified activities funded in fiscal year

2001.

Section 8139 has been included which reduces $330,000,000 of

funds available for Operation and Maintenance accounts to reflect

a savings attributable to improved scrutiny and supervision in determining purchases to be made using Government purchase cards. Section 8140 has been included which earmarks $5,000,000 for a

joint Department of Defense and Veterans Affairs study to assess

possibilities for reduced duplication of effort, and increased joint

use of facilities and equipment.

Section 8141 has been included which clarifies the use of funds

provided in Operation and Maintenance accounts for the purchase

of ultralightweight camouflage net systems.

Section 8142 has been included which enacts into law provisions

of title XXIX of H.R. 2586, the Fort Irwin Military Land Withdrawal Act of 2001.

Section 8143 has been included which reduces by $333,000,000

Operation and Maintenance, and Research, Development, Test and

Evaluation accounts for service obligations to the Pentagon Reservation Maintenance Revolving Fund.

Section 8144 has been included which reduces funds available in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Army’’ by $37,200,000 to reflect efficiencies in Army acquisition management practices. Section 8145 has been included which earmarks $50,000,000 of ‘‘Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army’’ funds only

for the purpose of establishing a venture capital fund for Army

Science and Technology projects.

Section 8146 has been included which provides $10,000,000 to

‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide’’ only for facility improvements at the 910th Airlift Wing at the Youngstown-Warren

Regional Airport.

Section 8147 has been included which provides $10,000,000 to

support facility improvements and equipment purchases to augment the capabilities of local government emergency response units

responsible for the protection of the Pentagon Reservation and surrounding military and federal facilities.

Section 8148 has been included which extends title 38 U.S.C. pay

and promotion authority for new hire civil service nursing personnel.

Section 8149 has been included which waives certain fiscal year

2001 financial reporting requirements for the Departments of the

Army and Navy.

Section 8150 has been included which prohibits the Department

to acquire ships for the Navy through the use of incremental funding amounts or advanced appropriations.

266

Sec. 8151 has been included which provides $20,000,000 to ‘‘Aircraft Procurement, Air Force’’ only for the C–5 avionics modernization program. Sec. 8152 has been included which provides $10,000,000 to ‘‘Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force’’ only to develop an Integrated Medical Information Technology System Initiative. Recent reports of the National Academy of Sciences and the

President’s Information Technology Advisor Committee highlight

the importance of Information Technology to the transformation of

health care. The Committee is pleased that the Air Force Medical

Service (AFMS) has recognized the need to adapt recent developments in Information Technology to its system and directs that the

AFMS, in partnership with the University of Pittsburgh Medical

Center, develop an Integrated Medical Information Technology System Initiative. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for this

initiative to demonstrate the application of advanced health information technology through the National Medical Teleconsultation

Project (NMTP) and the Enterprise Health Information Management Project (EHIMP)—two distinct medical integration challenges

identified by the AFMS. The NMTP will validate the system’s ability to handle transmissions of detailed individual patient data and

the EHIMP will validate its ability to standardize and integrate

disparate data. These projects will serve as ‘models’ for subsequent

deployment throughout broader DoD helath care delivery networks. Sec. 8153 has been included which provides $6,000,000 to ‘‘Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army’’ only for laser vision correction devices for the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

Section 8154 has been included which allows the Secretary of the

Air Force to enter into a multiyear procurement contract for C–17

aircraft.

Sec. 8155 has been included which provides that any reference

in a provision of titles I through IX to ‘‘this Act’’, shall be treated

as referring only to the provision of this division.

A new title IX ‘‘Counter-Terrorism and Defense Against Weapons

of Mass Destruction’’ has been added which includes several new

appropriations accounts.

Language has been added to create a new appropriations transfer account titled ‘‘Counter-Terrorism and Operational Response

Transfer Fund’’.

Language has been added to create a new appropriations account

titled ‘‘Procurement, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization’’. A proviso has been included which waives the ‘‘Bona Fide Need’’ rule for

components of the PAC–3 missile.

Language has been added to create a new appropriations account

titled ‘‘Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization’’. A proviso has been included which

waives provisions of 15 USC 638(f)(1)(C). A second proviso has been

included which rescinds $73,800,000 from fiscal year 2001 procurement funds.

Language has been added to create a new appropriations account

titled ‘‘Defense Against Chemical and Biological Weapons, DefenseWide’’.

Language has been added to create a new appropriations account

titled ‘‘Defense Threat Reduction Agency’’. A proviso has been inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00276 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
267

cluded which earmarks funds to field and demonstrate counterweapons of mass destruction technology at US military facilities.

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in

the accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:

[In thousands of dollars]

Agency/program Last year of

authorization Authorization level

Appropriations in

last year of authorization

Appropriations in

this bill

Military Personnel, Army ..................................................... 2001 (1) 22,175,357 23,336,884

Military Personnel, Navy ..................................................... 2001 (1) 17,772,297 19,574,184

Military Personnel, Marine Corps ....................................... 2001 (1) 6,833,100 7,343,640

Military Personnel, Air Force ............................................... 2001 (1) 18,174,284 19,784,614

Reserve Personnel, Army .................................................... 2001 (1) 2,473,001 2,629,197

Reserve Personnel, Navy ..................................................... 2001 (1) 1,576,174 1,644,823

Reserve Personnel, Marine Corps ....................................... 2001 (1) 448,886 466,800

Reserve Personnel, Air Force .............................................. 2001 (1) 971,024 1,055,160

National Guard Personnel, Army ........................................ 2001 (1) 3,782,536 4,004,335

National Guard Personnel, Air Force .................................. 2001 (1) 1,641,081 1,777,654

Operation and Maintenance, Army ..................................... 2001 19,280,381 19,144,431 21,021,944

(By transfer—National Defense Stockpile) ............... 2001 (50,000) (50,000) 0

Operation and Maintenance, Navy ..................................... 2001 23,766,610 23,419,360 26,628,075

(By transfer—National Defense Stockpile) ............... 2001 (50,000) (50,000) 0

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps ....................... 2001 2,826,291 2,778,758 2,939,434

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force ............................... 2001 22,395,221 22,383,521 25,842,968

(By transfer—National Defense Stockpile) ............... 2001 (50,000) (50,000) 0

Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide ....................... 2001 11,740,569 11,844,480 12,122,590

Operation and Maintenance, Army Reserve ....................... 2001 1,561,418 1,562,118 1,788,546

Operation and Maintenance, Navy Reserve ....................... 2001 978,946 978,946 1,003,690

Operation and Maintenance, Marine Corps Reserve .......... 2001 144,159 145,959 144,023

Operation and Maintenance, Air Force Reserve ................. 2001 1,903,859 1,903,659 2,029,866

Operation and Maintenance, Army National Guard ........... 2001 3,182,335 3,333,835 3,723,759

Operation and Maintenance, Air National Guard ............... 2001 3,468,375 3,474,375 3,972,161

Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund .............. 2001 4,100,577 3,938,777 2,744,226

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ...... 2001 8,574 8,574 9,096

Environmental Restoration, Army ....................................... 2001 389,932 389,932 389,800

Environmental Restoration, Navy ....................................... 2001 294,038 294,038 257,517

Environmental Restoration, Air Force ................................. 2001 376,300 376,300 385,437

Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide ......................... 2001 21,412 21,412 23,492

Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites 2001 231,499 231,499 190,255

Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid .............. 2001 55,900 55,900 49,700

Quality of Life Enhancements, Defense ............................. 2001 10,500 160,500 0

Support for International Sporting Competition, Defense .. 2001 0 0 15,800

Aircraft Procurement, Army ................................................ 2001 1,550,012 1,571,812 1,974,241

Missile Procurement, Army ................................................. 2001 1,320,681 1,320,681 1,057,409

Procurement of Weapons & Tracked Combat Vehicles,

Army ............................................................................... 2001 2,436,324 2,472,524 2,252,669

Procurement of Ammunition, Army ..................................... 2001 1,179,916 1,220,516 1,211,615

Other Procurement, Army .................................................... 2001 4,235,719 4,497,009 4,103,036

Aircraft Procurement, Navy ................................................. 2001 8,394,338 8,477,138 8,084,543

Weapons Procurement, Navy .............................................. 2001 1,443,600 1,461,600 1,429,492

Procurement of Ammunition, Navy and Marine Corps ....... 2001 487,749 498,349 492,599

Shipbuilding and Conversion, Navy ................................... 2001 12,826,919 11,614,633 10,134,883

Other Procurement, Navy .................................................... 2001 3,380,680 3,557,380 4,290,776

Procurement, Marine Corps ................................................ 2001 1,212,768 1,233,268 1,028,662

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force .......................................... 2001 9,923,868 7,583,345 10,549,798

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force .............................. 2001 646,808 647,808 866,844

Missile Procurement, Air Force ........................................... 2001 2,863,778 2,863,778 2,918,118

Other Procurement, Air Force ............................................. 2001 7,711,647 7,763,747 7,856,671

Procurement, Defense-Wide ................................................ 2001 2,278,408 2,346,258 1,387,283

National Guard and Reserve Equipment ............................ 2001 0 100,000 501,485

Defense Production Act Purchases ..................................... 2001 0 3,000 50,000

268

[In thousands of dollars]

Agency/program Last year of

authorization Authorization level

Appropriations in

last year of authorization

Appropriations in

this bill

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army ......... 2001 5,568,482 6,342,552 7,115,438

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy .......... 2001 8,715,335 9,494,374 10,896,307

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force ... 2001 13,779,144 14,138,244 14,884,058

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, DefenseWide ................................................................................ 2001 10,681,652 11,157,375 6,949,098

Operational Test and Evaluation, Defense ......................... 2001 192,060 227,060 245,355

Defense Working Capital Funds ......................................... 2001 916,276 916,276 1,524,986

National Defense Sealift Fund ........................................... 2001 388,158 400,658 412,708

Defense Health Program ..................................................... 2001 11,480,123 12,117,779 18,277,403

Chemical Agents & Munitions Destruction, Army:

Operation and maintenance ...................................... 2001 600,000 600,000 728,520

Procurement ............................................................... 2001 105,700 105,700 164,158

Research, development, test, and evaluation ........... 2001 274,400 274,400 200,379

Drug Interdiction and Counter-Drug Activities, Defense ... 2001 869,000 869,000 827,381

Office of the Inspector General .......................................... 2001 147,545 147,545 152,021

CIA Retirement & Disability System Fund ......................... 2001 216,000 216,000 212,000

Intelligence Community Management Account .................. 2001 137,631 148,631 144,929

Transfer to Dept of Justice ........................................ 2001 (27,000) (34,100) (34,100)

Payment to Kaho’olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation,

and Environmental Restoration Fund ............................ 2001 25,000 60,000 25,000

National Security Education Trust Fund ............................ 2001 6,950 6,950 8,000

Sec. 8005 ............................................................................ 2001 (2,000,000) (2,000,000) (2,500,000)

Sec. 8022 ............................................................................ 2001 0 8,000 8,000

Sec. 8038 ............................................................................ 2001 24,000 24,000 19,000

Sec. 8041 ............................................................................ 2001 3,000 3,000 3,362

Sec. 8055 ............................................................................ 2001 0 ¥546,980 ¥441,578

Sec. 8084 ............................................................................ 2001 0 ¥800,000 ¥245,000

Sec. 8085 ............................................................................ 2001 0 ¥705,000 ¥527,000

Sec. 8093 ............................................................................ 2001 0 ¥856,900 ¥200,000

Sec. 8099 ............................................................................ 2001 0 5,000 8,000

Sec. 8107 ............................................................................ 2001 0 7,500 10,000

Sec. 8139 ............................................................................ 2001 0 0 ¥330,000

Sec. 8134 ............................................................................ 2001 0 10,000 10,000

Sec. 8115 ............................................................................ 2001 0 2,000 2,000

Sec. 8116 ............................................................................ 2001 0 2,000 2,000

Sec. 8117 ............................................................................ 2001 0 ¥71,367 ¥955,000

Sec. 8127 ............................................................................ 2001 0 ¥92,700 ¥797,919

Sec. 8126 ............................................................................ 2001 0 0 ¥230,000

Sec. 8136 ............................................................................ 2001 0 0 3,000

Sec. 8132 ............................................................................ 2001 0 0 6,000

Sec. 8144 ............................................................................ 2001 0 0 ¥37,200

Sec. 8130 ............................................................................ 2001 0 0 6,000

Sec. 8131 ............................................................................ 2001 0 0 5,000

Sec. 8133 ............................................................................ 2001 0 0 5,000

Sec. 8143 ............................................................................ 2001 0 0 ¥333,000

Sec. 8146 ............................................................................ 2001 0 0 10,000

Sec. 8147 ............................................................................ 2001 0 0 10,000

Sec. 8151 ............................................................................ 2001 0 0 20,000

Sec. 8152 ............................................................................ 2001 0 0 10,000

Sec. 8153 ............................................................................ 2001 0 0 6,000

Counter-Terrorism and Operational Response Transfer

Fund ................................................................................ 2001 (2) (2) 1,670,000

Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction ............................... 2001 (2) (2) 403,000

Ballistic Missile Defense Organization—Procurement ...... 2001 (2) (2) 794,557

Ballistic Missile Defense Organization—RDT&E ............... 2001 (2) (2) 7,053,721

Ballistic Missile Defense Organization—FY2001 Rescission ................................................................................. 2001 (2) (2) ¥73,800

Defense Against Chemical & Biological Weapons, DefWide ................................................................................ 2001 (2) (2) 1,065,940

Defense Threat Reduction Agency ...................................... 2001 (2) (2) 806,471

1 The FY2001 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 106–398) authorizes $75,801,666,000 for military personnel. 2 Funds for these programs were authorized in other accounts.

269

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer of funds provided in the accompanying bill.

TRANSFERS

Language has been included in ‘‘Operation and Maintenance,

Army’’ which provides for the transfer of $1,000,000 to the ‘‘National Park Service’’ for improvements at Fort Baker.

Language has been included in ‘‘Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund’’, which provides for the transfer of funds out

of this account to other appropriation accounts.

Language has been included in ‘‘Environmental Restoration,

Army’’ which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this

account.

Language has been included in ‘‘Environmental Restoration,

Navy’’ which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this

account.

Language has been included in ‘‘Environmental Restoration, Air

Force’’ which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this

account.

Language has been included in ‘‘Environmental Restoration, Defense-Wide’’ which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into

this account.

Language has been included in ‘‘Environmental Restoration, Formerly Used Defense Sites’’ which provides for the transfer of funds

out of and into this account.

Language has been included in ‘‘Drug Interdiction and CounterDrug Activities, Defense’’ which transfers funds to other appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense.

Language has been included in ‘‘Intelligence Community Management Account’’ which provides for the transfer of funds to the

Department of Justice for the National Drug Intelligence Center.

Twelve provisions (Sections 8005, 8006, 8015, 8038, 8041, 8063,

8075, 8110, 8116, 8121, 8122, 8123) and title IX contain language

which allows transfers of funds between accounts.

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the

rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill:

Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction 2000/2002 ............................ $32,000,000

Other Procurement, Navy 2000/2002 ................................................... 16,300,000

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 2000/2002 ......................................... 8,500,000

Other Procurement, Air Force 2000/2002 ............................................ 20,000,000

Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction 2001/2003 ............................ 32,000,000

Aircraft Procurement, Army 2001/2003 ............................................... 22,000,000

Procurement of Ammunition, Army 2001/2003 ................................... 27,400,000

Other Procurement, Army 2001/2003 .................................................. 28,745,000

Aircraft Procurement, Navy 2001/2003 ............................................... 8,600,000

Weapons Procurement, Navy 2001/2003 .............................................. 35,000,000

Other Procurement, Navy 2001/2003 ................................................... 14,600,000

Procurement, Marine Corps 2001/2003 ................................................ 1,000,000

Aircraft Procurement, Air Force 2001/2003 ......................................... 19,300,000

Procurement of Ammunition, Air Force 2001/2003 ............................ 5,800,000

270

Other Procurement, Air Force 2001/2003 ............................................ 16,800,000

Procurement, Defense-Wide 2001/2003 ................................................ 73,800,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army 2001/2002 ....... 16,300,000

Research Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy 2001/2002 ........ 58,800,000

Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force 2001/2002 74,433,000

Defense Health Program 2001/2002 ..................................................... 4,000,000

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding:

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations.

COMPLIANCE WITH CLAUSE 3 OF RULE XIII (RAMSEYER RULE)

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill,

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic,

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

SECTION 8156 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

SEC. 8156. In addition to the amounts provided elsewhere in this

Act, the amount of $10,000,000 is hereby appropriated for ‘‘Operation and Maintenance, Army’’ and shall be available to the Secretary of the Army, notwithstanding any other provision of law,

only to be provided as a grant to the City of San Bernardino,

Californiaø, contingent on the resolution of the case ‘‘City of San

Bernardino v. United States’’, pending as of July 1, 2000, in the

United States District Court for the Central District of California

(C.D. Cal. Case No. CV 96–8867)¿.

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that:

Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution

of a public character, shall include a statement citing the

specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution

to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report

this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law***

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this

specific power granted by the Constitution.

271

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section

308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that

the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the

reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal

year from the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation. This information for Division A of the accompanying bill follows:

[In millions of dollars]

302(b) allocation— This bill—

Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays

Discretionary ................................................................... $299,860 $293,941 $317,207 $308,873

Mandatory ....................................................................... 282 282 282 282

Note.—The table above shows the bill being technically in excess of its current 302(b) suballocation. The excess occurs because the Com- mittee has not been allocated an additional 302(a) allocation, as described in section 218 of H. Con. Res. 83 (the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2002), to accommodate the President’s $18.5 billion Defense budget amendment. This bill is within planning suballocations that have been developed to implement the overall discretionary spending levels of the bipartisan budget agreement for fiscal year 2002.

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–

344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projects associated with the budget authority provided in Division A of the accompanying bill.

(Millions)

Budget Authority ................................................................................... 317,489

Outlays:

2002 ................................................................................................. 212,791

2003 ................................................................................................. 65,984

2004 ................................................................................................. 20,286

2005 ................................................................................................. 7,550

2006 and beyond ............................................................................. 6,083

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–

344), as amended, no new budget or outlays are provided by Division A of the accompanying bill for financial assistance to State

and local governments.

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

(285)

DIVISION B—FISCAL YEAR 2002 SUPPLEMENTAL

APPROPRIATIONS

DIVISION HIGHLIGHTS

This Division includes a total of $20 billion in supplemental appropriations, to be allocated from amounts made available in Public

Law 107–38, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for

Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United

States, FY 2001. This Act provided a total of $40 billion in response

to the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Of the $40 billion, $10

billion was available for obligation immediately, another $10 billion

was available for obligation 15 days after the Director of the Office

of Management and Budget submitted to the House and Senate

Committees on Appropriations a proposed allocation and plan for

the use of the funds, and $20 billion was available only after a subsequent appropriations Act allocated those funds in law. This Division allocates this final $20 billion of emergency funding.

Included in this Division is $7.3 billion for Department of Defense programs for national security operations. The remaining

funds address high priority needs relating to recovery efforts,

homeland security, and public health. The Department of Justice

is appropriated $1.5 billion, including $538.5 million for the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its investigation into the attacks

and $409.6 million for the Immigration and Naturalization Service

for border security. The Department of Health and Human Services

is appropriated nearly $2 billion for public health activities.

The Committee also recommends that the Department of Labor

receive $1.5 billion to assist workers who were dislocated by the attacks. A total of $1.5 billion is recommended for airline security, including $1 billion, financed by user fees, for the screening of passengers and property on passenger aircraft. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is provided $4.9 billion to help victims

of the attacks, remove debris from the World Trade Center site,

and assist with rebuilding critical infrastructure.

The remaining funds provide for additional security at Federal

facilities, increased transportation security, improved protections

against bioterrorism, and other activities directly related to the attacks of September 11th and their aftermath.

CHAPTER 1

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

The Committee recommends $4,582,000 for the Office of the Secretary for the following purposes:

286

• $3,425,000 for increased costs for security guards and for

other one-time security requirements at the following locations:

• $30,000 for the George Washington Carver Center,

Beltsville, MD.

• $1,143,750 for the National Information Technical Center, Kansas City, MO.

• $957,500 for the National Finance Center, Information

Technology Building, New Orleans, LA.

• $846,250 for the National Finance Center, TANO

Building, New Orleans, LA.

• $447,500 for the Office of the Chief Information Officer,

Natural Resources Research Center, Ft. Collins, CO.

• $461,000 for the Office of Procurement and Property Management to perform security assessments for the Department,

and for on-site security oversight and support during the

Olympic ceremonies.

• $115,000 for security requirements of the Kansas City Management Office of the Farm Service Agency.

• $581,000 for security requirements of the rural development offices in St. Louis, MO.

AGRICULTURE BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES AND RENTAL PAYMENTS

The Committee recommends $2,875,000 for security measures at

headquarters facilities in the Washington, D.C. area, including increased guard services, design and first phase of installation of

public address system, and design and first phase of installation of

window blast protection covering.

AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $5,635,000 for security measures at

the following locations: $98,000 for Newark, DE; $3,227,000 for

Plum Island, NY; $1,650,000 for Ames, IA; $100,000 for East Lansing, MI; $150,000 for Ft. Detrick, MD; $260,000 for Laramie, WY;

and $150,000 for security assessments at foreign locations.

ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommends a total of $8,175,000. For security

measures, the Committee recommends $3,175,000 in the specified

amounts for the following locations: $315,000 for Riverdale, MD;

$1,788,000 for Mission, TX; $461,000 for Phoenix, AZ; and $611,000

for Otis, MA. The Committee also recommends $5,000,000 to establish an APHIS biosecurity staff.

BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

The Committee recommends $14,081,000 for the National Veterinary Services Laboratories (NVSL) in Ames, IA. NVSL is the main

diagnostic laboratory for national animal disease control and eradication programs. Facilities currently occupied by NVSL are grossly

inadequate. Currently, diagnostic testing for animal diseases such

287

as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), anthrax, e. coli, and

salmonella are conducted in a location that creates a potential public health risk should security procedures fail.

The Committee’s recommendation would finance the relocation of

laboratories to the main NVSL campus where a higher level of

safety and security can be provided. In addition, the recommended

funding would complete the physical security countermeasure installation, and would enhance security guard service.

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE

The Committee recommends a total of $9,800,000 as follows:

$900,000 for security measures at St. Louis, MO and Alameda, CA;

and $8,900,000 to finance a bioterrorism initiative in order to expand the agency’s capability to detect and respond to bacterial and

chemical agents contaminating the food supply.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $104,350,000 for activities of the

Food and Drug Administration.

The Committee recognizes the important role that FDA plays in

protecting the public health by ensuring the availability of safe and

effective drugs, vaccines, blood products, medical devices, and animal health products, and by ensuring a safe food supply. The Committee believes that a combination of public health and law enforcement responsibilities requires agency involvement in a number

of aspects of the preparedness for and response to a terrorist act

and that both civilian and military sectors of the population are

served by FDA’s mandate, thus broadening further the scope of its

antiterrorism activities.

The Committee recognizes FDA’s need for special assistance in

order to hire quickly a large number of personnel and expects the

Office of Personnel Management to be fully supportive of this effort. Also, the Committee directs the FDA to use delegated hiring

authority, quick hire, and any contracting services available to

bring people on board quickly and with the proper security clearance.

The Committee believes these funds will enable FDA to greatly

accelerate its efforts to deal with any potential bioterrorism incident and expects these funds will be used for three major efforts.

First, $34,600,000 to speed the development of new bioterrorism

tools by accelerating the availability of medical products (drugs,

vaccines, and devices) necessary to public health preparedness for

the intentional use of biological, chemical, or nuclear agents. This

amount provides for 152 new hires for this effort. Second,

$61,000,000 to increase safety of our imported foods by providing

for increased inspections of imported food products. The additional

resources will allow the FDA to hire 410 more inspectors, lab specialists and other compliance experts, in addition to allowing the

FDA to invest in new technology and scientific equipment to detect

select agents. Third, $8,750,000 and 3 FTE, to increase physical seVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00297 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
288

curity and provide for increased guard services, improved security

systems, and physical barriers at the entrances to buildings and

parking lots.

Recommendations by activity: The Committee recommends that

of the total amount provided for new bioterrorism tools: (1)

$11,100,000 and 25 FTE shall be for the Center for Drug, Evaluation and Research and related field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (2) $16,800,000 and 102 FTE shall be for the Center

for Biologics, Evaluation and Research and related field activities

in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (3) $1,500,000 and 13 FTE shall

be for the Center for Devices and Radiological Health and related

field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; (4) $4,800,000

and 8 FTE shall be for the National Center for Toxicological Research; and, $400,000 and 8 FTE shall be for the Office of Chief

Counsel within the Office of the Commissioner. Of the total

amounts provided for the safety of imported foods: (1) $44,500,000

and 395 FTE shall be for the Center for Food Safety and Applied

Nutrition and related field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs; and, (2) $1,500,000 and 15 FTE shall be for the Center for

Animal Drugs and Feeds and related field activities in the Office

of Regulatory Affairs. The amount for physical security totals

$8,750,000 and 3 FTE: $300,000 and 3 FTE shall be for the Office

of Facilities within the Office of Management and Systems and

$8,450,000 shall be for the Other Rent and Rent-Related Activities.

Further, the Committee recognizes the importance of acting

quickly in cases of emergency. Up to $3,000,000 may be reallocated

to respond to a public health emergency, with after the fact notification of the Committee.

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

The Committee recommends $6,495,000 for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). These resources are required to

ensure that CFTC has adequate resources on-hand to address basic

disaster recovery needs for the Commission’s New York regional office, which was formerly located in the World Trade Center. Efforts

will focus on requirements for re-establishing a working office, including space, information technology, equipment, and additional

staff reassigned from the District of Columbia to New York to ensure continued market oversight.

CHAPTER 2

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND APPEALS

The Committee recommendation includes $3,500,000 to cover additional adjudication expenses of the Executive Office for Immigration Review resulting from the enforcement of immigration laws in

response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

289

LEGAL ACTIVITIES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES, GENERAL LEGAL ACTIVITIES

The Committee recommendation includes $12,500,000 for General Legal Activities for the coordination of international legal activities, the provision of expert legal advice on issues related to terrorism prosecution, and for the Office of the Special Master to administer compensation to the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES, UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS

The Committee recommendation includes a total of $68,450,000

for the United States Attorneys to establish anti-terrorism task

forces, investigate and prosecute those involved in the recent terrorist attacks, and renovate offices and equipment damaged in the

southern district of New York.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE

The Committee recommendation includes $11,100,000 for the

United States Marshals Service for expansion of the witness protection safe sites to accommodate the influx of witnesses associated

with the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; for emergency

equipment, travel, vehicles, and overtime to produce, protect and

secure witnesses; and for protective details for members of the Federal judiciary.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommendation includes $538,500,000 to cover

the extraordinary expenses incurred by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the investigation of the September 11, 2001 terrorist

attacks, and in the detection, prevention and investigation of future

terrorist incidents. The Committee recommendation includes

$105,000,000 for continued implementation of Trilogy; $63,966,000

for information assurance needs; $7,404,000 to hire additional language translators; $35,289,000 for the National Infrastructure Protection Center; $74,543,000 for surveillance and counterterrorism

needs and wireless intercepts; $13,372,000 for computer analysis

response teams; and $11,278,000 for DNA analysis and systems.

The FBI is also encouraged to review the Legal Attache program

and establish additional Legal Attache offices as necessary.

IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommendation includes a total of $409,600,000,

including $165,857,000 to increase the number of inspectors and

Border Patrol agents across the United States northern border;

$23,454,000 to enhance intelligence capabilities and upgrade information technology capabilities, including the student visa tracking

system; $17,069,000 for investigations and detention and removal

290

needs; and $10,200,000 to fund joint terrorism task forces above

the request.

OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

JUSTICE ASSISTANCE

The Committee recommendation includes a total of $400,000,000

for counterterrorism assistance to State and local governments.

This includes $45,000,000 for emergency response communications

technologies and equipment for Northern Virginia; $20,000,000 for

the Capitol Wireless Integrated Network in the Washington Metropolitan Area; $15,000,000 for a chemical sensor program within the

Washington, D.C. subway system; and $9,800,000 for an aircraft

for counterterrorism and other required activities for the City of

New York. The amounts provided for counterterrorism general

equipment grants shall be made available only in accordance with

an appropriate State plan.

STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE

The Committee recommendation includes $17,100,000 for a grant

to the Utah Olympic Public Safety Command for security equipment, infrastructure, personnel, and other related costs for the

2002 Winter Olympics, including the Paralympics and related

events. Funding would be provided under the Department of Justice’s Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement

Program.

CRIME VICTIMS FUND

The Committee recommendation includes $68,100,000 for the

Crime Victims Fund to provide grants for counseling and other programs for the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,

as well as their families and crisis responders. Grants will go to

government and private organizations providing services to victims

residing in New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts, and

other States as needed.

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION

OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION

The Committee recommendation includes $750,000 for necessary

security upgrades of the United States Foreign Commercial Service

overseas offices.

EXPORT ADMINISTRATION

OPERATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION

The Committee recommendation includes $1,756,000 for the Critical Infrastructure Assurance office project matrix, and for additional resources to monitor dual use efforts.

291

NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION

ADMINISTRATION

PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES, PLANNING AND

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee recommendation includes $8,250,000 to restore

public broadcast facilities destroyed with the World Trade Center.

In addition, language is included providing a waiver for matching

requirements.

NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

OPERATIONS, RESEARCH, AND FACILITIES

The Committee recommendation includes $750,000 for licensing

and enforcement of commercial satellite remote sensing.

DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommendation includes $8,636,000 for the Department of Commerce’s domestic security upgrades. The Committee recommendation consolidates funding for specific Commerce

bureaus under this account.

THE JUDICIARY

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

CARE OF THE BUILDING AND GROUNDS

The Committee recommendation includes a total of $10,000,000

to enhance security at the Supreme Court building.

COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS, AND OTHER JUDICIAL

SERVICES

COURT SECURITY

The Committee recommendation includes a total of $21,500,000

to enhance security at federal court facilities. The recommendation

provides $4,000,000 to reimburse the United States Marshals Service for 106 supervisory deputy marshals responsible for coordinating security in each of the 94 judicial districts and the 12 judicial circuits. A full-time supervisor for court security is needed at

the local level to coordinate protection of judges both on- and offsite, oversee the courthouse security program, and ensure that

emergency response procedures for chemical/biological, terrorist or

other attacks are in place. The recommendation also provides

$17,500,000 million for increased Court Security Officer hours required to maintain the current level of security at federal court facilities for the remainder of the fiscal year.

292

DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND RELATED AGENCY

RELATED AGENCY

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING OPERATIONS

The Committee recommendation includes $9,200,000 for operational costs of surrogate radio broadcasting by Radio Free Europe/

Radio Liberty to the people of Afghanistan in languages spoken in

Afghanistan, including transmission costs.

BROADCASTING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for capital

requirements associated with the establishment of surrogate broadcasting by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to the people of Afghanistan in languages spoken in Afghanistan.

RELATED AGENCIES

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommendation includes $1,301,000 for response

and recovery activities to reconstruct the office and files that were

destroyed as a result of the attack and to provide technology and

telecommunications in both the temporary and permanent locations.

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommendation includes $20,705,000 for disaster recovery needs for the Commission’s New York regional office.

This amount will support the acquisition of new office space, equipment and information technology; the detailing of additional staff

to New York to monitor securities markets; implementation of security upgrades; and other recovery needs.

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

DISASTER LOANS PROGRAM ACCOUNT

The Committee recommendation includes $140,000,000 for additional disaster loans in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. These funds will support an estimated additional

$600,000,000 in low interest loans for affected entities.

GENERAL PROVISIONS—THIS CHAPTER

The Committee recommendation includes section 201, allowing

non-profit organizations and non-depository financial institutions to

receive economic injury loans from the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to enable the SBA to adjust the definition of a

small business to reflect business profiles in affected areas.

293

The Committee recommendation includes section 202, enabling

the SBA to raise the aggregate cap on loans to a single borrower

for businesses directly impacted by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The Committee recommendation includes section 203, waiving

provisions of existing legislation that require authorizations to be

in place for the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of

Governors prior to the expenditure of any appropriated funds.

CHAPTER 3

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—MILITARY

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

DEFENSE EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND

The fiscal year 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations

Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the

United States (Public Law 107–38) provided $40,000,000,000 in

emergency appropriations. Pursuant to the provisions of that Act,

the President has proposed, in formal messages to the Congress received as of November 9, 2001, that activities of the Department

of Defense (and related intelligence activities) be allocated a total

of $20,516,000,000. Documents provided to the Committee by the

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) indicate that the President intends to allocate another $345,000,000 of funds not yet formally designated, yet still available from Public Law 107–38, to defense and intelligence activities. Therefore, in all, the Administration has indicated its intent to allocate $20,861,000,000 in emergency appropriations to defense and intelligence activities from

funds made available in Public Law 107–38.

Pursuant to the terms of Public Law 107–38, the President has

proposed the Congress formally approve in a supplemental appropriations act the allocation of $20,000,000,000 from Public Law

107–38. For programs funded in this chapter, the President’s supplemental request included a total of $7,323,969,000 to support the

Department of Defense’s crisis and recovery operations and national security responsibilities. This amount is to support activities

as follows: $1,735,000,000 for increased situational awareness;

$855,969,000 for enhanced force protection; $219,000,000 for improved command and control; $2,938,000,000 for increased worldwide posture; $545,000,000 for offensive counter-terrorism;

$106,000,000 for initial crisis response; and $925,000,000 for repair

and upgrade of the Pentagon.

The Committee recommends $7,242,911,000, a net decrease of

$81,058,000 from the request. The Committee notes this largely reflects a reallocation of funds from Defense Department programs

funded in this chapter to other Department of Defense activities

(emergency military construction projects) funded in Chapter 9 of

the Committee supplemental appropriations bill.

Many of the proposed adjustments in this chapter to the supplemental request reflect the fact that, in its version of the fiscal year

2002 Defense Appropriations Act, the Committee has already provided funding for many of the initiatives requested by the PresiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00303 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
294

dent in the supplemental. In addition, the Committee recommends

other adjustments in light of the pressing need to accelerate a

number of counter-terrorism programs not contained in the request, or in order to augment funding already allocated by the

President in a variety of areas.

A summary of the Committee’s recommendations, versus the

supplemental request, is shown in the table below.

SUMMARY

[In millions of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended

Change from

request

Increased Situational Awareness ................................................................ 1,735 1,735 0

Enhanced Force Protection ......................................................................... 856 743 ¥113

Improved Command & Control ................................................................... 219 162 ¥57

Increased Worldwide Posture ...................................................................... 2,938 2,801 ¥137

Offensive Counter Terrorism ....................................................................... 545 769 224

Initial Crisis Response ................................................................................ 106 108 2

Pentagon Repairs/Upgrade ......................................................................... 925 925 0

Grand Total, Chapter 3 ................................................................. 7,324 7,243 ¥81

CLASSIFIED PROGRAMS

Recommended adjustments to classified programs are addressed

in a classified annex accompanying this report.

DEFENSE AND INTELLIGENCE FUNDING FROM PUBLIC LAW 107–38

The Committee observes that in this supplemental request—as

well as in the transfer of already available funds contained in Public Law 107–38—the Administration has chosen to request funds

for defense and intelligence activities in a manner that departs

from all previous norms. In nearly all communications to the Congress regarding the emergency funding needed for defense and intelligence activities in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it has submitted both its formal requests and supporting data—which normally would include the appropriations accounts ultimately required for obligation and fiscal management of

funds, as well as program and budget documentation—in a format

radically different than that traditionally used in budget requests.

For example, the Administration has requested that all Department of Defense funds be appropriated to the ‘‘Defense Emergency

Response Fund’’—an account created by Congress in response to

natural disasters in 1989, and which has not been included in any

budget request by any subsequent Administration—for obligation,

as opposed to the appropriations accounts typically used in defense

appropriations acts. Compounding these difficulties, the Committee

believes the Administration’s communication with the Committee

and Congress regarding planned allocation and obligation of funds

has been, at best, intermittent and scattershot (a notable exception

being in the area of intelligence and DoD classified activities).

The Committee is well aware of the difficulty, less than two

months following the attacks on our Nation, of preparing any budget to respond to the myriad of requirements confronting the U.S.

military and intelligence community. And it understands full well

295

the need at this time to provide funds to the executive branch, and

ultimately to the ‘‘user in the field’’, in a manner that combines

timeliness with flexibility; as well as the difficulties associated with

generating precise budget estimates in the midst of so much activity.

Accordingly, the Committee has recommended appropriating

funds for the Department of Defense and the intelligence community in this supplemental measure in a manner basically consistent

with the Administration’s approach, and specific appropriations

language requests. However, the Committee does not believe this

should be viewed as setting a new precedent. Rather, it believes— and directs—that all subsequent supplemental appropriations requests for defense and intelligence activities in response to the attacks of September 11, 2001 be, to the extent possible, submitted

using the traditional appropriations account format and with similarly configured, detailed supporting materials. This must be done

in order to reinstate a more ‘‘regular order’’ approach—to ensure

proper program review, fiscal discipline and controls, and oversight

by both the executive and legislative branches.

REPORTING, REPROGRAMMING, AND NEW START REQUIREMENTS

In keeping with the concerns expressed above, and in order to

maintain the needed level of program funding fidelity and budget

discipline, the Committee expects that funds provided in this chapter be used only for the activities identified in the tables and paragraphs contained in this report (and, as necessary, as amended in

conference with the Senate), subject to the traditional reprogramming procedures including notification of new starts. This direction

also applies to the allocation of all other funds from Public Law

107–38 that have, or will be, provided to the Department of Defense and those activities of the National Foreign Intelligence Program (NFIP) funded in defense appropriations acts. (The other

funds referred to include the Administration’s announced allocation

of $13.5 billion in funds for defense and intelligence activities from

Public Law 107–38 which were not requested in the President’s

supplemental request.) The Committee directs the Department, in

consultation with OMB, within 30 days of enactment of this supplemental measure, to provide an allocation plan for these first two

increments of funding (referred to by OMB as ‘‘cash’’ and ‘‘15-day

release’’ funds, in internal working documents), consistent with the

guidance in this report. Additional discussion regarding the socalled ‘‘15-day release’’ funds is found later in this report.

The Committee directs that, within 30 days of enactment of this

supplemental measure, the Undersecretary of Defense (Comptroller) submit a Base for Reprogramming (DD 1414) for all funds

provided in the supplemental, as well as using the project level of

detail provided in the Committee report. The Committee directs

that, thereafter, a report be submitted on a quarterly basis starting

January 1, 2002 to the congressional defense committees detailing:

the funds available; the funds transferred; the appropriations account to which transferred; the amount obligated; and the amount

expended. This report shall generally be at the level of detail identified in the Base for Reprogramming. For military personnel and

operation and maintenance accounts, the level of detail shall be

296

similar to the monthly reports provided to the Appropriations Committees for ongoing operations in Bosnia and Kosovo. Each report

shall, for military personnel and operation and maintenance accounts, identify savings due to cancellation or downsizing of normal

peacetime education, training, professional development, or other

activities due to individual and unit activations or deployments in

the war on terrorism.

The Committee directs that the threshold for below threshold

reprogrammings for defense appropriations activities funded

through appropriations provided in Public Law 107–38 be set at

$10,000,000. All reprogrammings among projects in the Base for

Reprogrammings at or above $10,000,000 are subject to prior approval by the congressional defense committees per the traditional

reprogramming process. The Committee also directs that new start

notification procedures apply to the funds provided in the supplemental. Notification of new starts, regardless of dollar value, may

be made by letter to the congressional defense committees. The

Committee encourages, after submission of new start notification

letters, immediate follow-up with the congressional defense committees to ensure expedited consideration and approval, as appropriate.

OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS TRANSFER FUND

Included within operation and maintenance appropriations provided in title II of the Committee’s version of the fiscal year 2002

Defense Appropriations bill is funding for ongoing DoD operations

in Bosnia and Kosovo. These funds are provided in the Overseas

Contingency Operations Transfer Fund (OCOTF). As a central

transfer appropriations account, funds appropriated to the OCOTF

are provided to the Secretary of Defense in a manner which provides considerable flexibility in the allocation of funds provided

therein. The Committee notes that the basis for its actions in the

fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations bill were intended to fund

U.S. military activities in the Balkans, and not to provide a source

of funds for activities resulting as a consequence of the September

11, 2001 attacks. In keeping with the rationale behind the OCOTF,

the Committee therefore directs that funds provided in the OCOTF

may be used for other deployment and operational activities than

those specifically identified in the fiscal year 2002 budget submission, but only 30 days after prior written notification by the Secretary of Defense to the congressional defense committees as to the

specific purposes for which the funds will be used.

INCREASED SITUATIONAL AWARENESS

The President requested $1,735,000,000 for Increased Situational

Awareness. These funds will support on going military operations

and enhance U.S. intelligence, reconnaissance, surveillance, and

targeting capabilities against terrorist organizations.

The Committee recommends $1,735,000,000, as detailed in the

following table:

297

INCREASED SITUATIONAL AWARENESS

[In millions of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended Change

CLASSIFIED .................................................................................................. 1,735 1,735 0

Total: Increased Situational Awareness ........................................ 1,735 1,735 0

Recommended adjustments to the programs in the supplemental

request are addressed in a classified annex accompanying this report.

ENHANCED FORCE PROTECTION

The President requested $855,969,000 for Enhanced Force Protection. These resources are to fund actions taken to better protect

military personnel and facilities against terrorist attacks based on

vulnerability assessments. These force protection activities include

improved security, access control, training, chemical-biological detection and consequence management, and antiterrorism countermeasures.

The Committee recommends $742,911,000, as detailed in the following table:

ENHANCED FORCE PROTECTION

[In millions of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended Change

ANTI-TERRORISM/FORCE PROTECTION .................................................................. 324 200 ¥124

SSBN SECURITY (14 SHIPS) PORT SECURITY IMPROVEMENTS ............................ 27 27 0

MEDICAL REQUIREMENTS (VACCINES, ANTIBIOTICS) ............................................ 56 0 ¥56

(Requirement funded in fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations bill ...... .................... .................... ¥56)

CHEMICAL BIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCE MANAGEMENT ......................................... 55 33 ¥22

(Requirement funded in fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations bill ...... .................... .................... ¥22)

ARMY CHEMICAL STOCKPILE PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM ..................................... 0 40 40

SECURITY CLEARANCES ........................................................................................ 25 25 0

TRAINING, TRAINING EQUIPMENT, AND RANGES ................................................... 19 19 0

INDIVIDUAL PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS ....................................................................... 111 85 ¥26

(Requirement funded in fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations bill ...... .................... .................... ¥26)

FIGHTER/BOMBER/AFSOC/MAF SELF PROTECTION ................................................ 139 139 0

ANTI-ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS .............................................................................. 100 70 ¥30

OTHER PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS: ........................................................................ 0 105 105

(FSUTR Biological Weapons Proliferation Prevention .................................. .................... .................... 40)

(COTS—Visualization and Blast Modeling .................................................. .................... .................... 5)

(DTRA—Terrorist Device Defeat .................................................................. .................... .................... 15)

(Physical Security—Force Protection/Anti-terrorism RDT&E ....................... .................... .................... 20)

(DARPA Asymmetric Threat .......................................................................... .................... .................... 25)

Total: Enhanced Force Protection ............................................................ 856 743 ¥113

BASE OPERATIONS FOR ANTI-TERRORISM/FORCE PROTECTION/FORCE

PROTECTION MODERNIZATION

The Committee recommends supplemental appropriations of

$200,000,000 to fund ‘‘Base Operations for Anti-Terrorism/Force

Protection/Force Protection Modernization’’. The Committee notes

that the DoD has already been allocated $582,000,000 of funds

from Public Law 107–38 for these programs, and that the AdminisVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00307 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
298

tration has provided notification of an additional $234,000,000 from

funds from Public Law 107–38 which are to be devoted to this effort. Combined with the recommended funding in this bill, supplemental appropriations have increased funding for ‘‘Base Operations

Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection/Force Protection Modernization’’ by

a total of $1,016,000,000.

CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE DEFENSE

The President requested $222,000,000 for programs related to

chemical and biological warfare defense, including $56,000,000 for

medical requirements, $55,000,000 for chemical and biological consequence management, and $111,000,000 for individual protective

systems. This is in addition to $69,000,000 that the Department of

Defense has allocated from previously appropriated supplemental

funding to acquire biological warfare detection equipment.

In title IX of the Committee’s proposed fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations bill, the Committee has recommended $474,000,000 in additional funding for chemical and biological warfare defense, including $175,000,000 for medical requirements (vaccines and antibiotics). The Committee therefore

recommends reducing the supplemental request by a total of

$104,000,000, as outlined in the table, to eliminate duplication and

to address other critical counter-terrorism shortfalls. For example,

in this chapter the Committee recommends an increase over the

supplemental request of $40,000,000 for the Army’s Chemical

Stockpile Preparedness Program, to ensure that the existing U.S.

stockpile of chemical agents is safely protected until it is destroyed.

Another $40,000,000, over the supplemental request, is provided

for the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction Program to reduce

the threat of biological weapons proliferation. These funds, combined with $28,000,000 which the Administration has notified the

Committee it intends to allocate to purchasing additional detectors,

brings the total increase for Chemical and Biological Warfare Defense recommended by the Committee (in this bill, and the fiscal

year 2002 Defense Appropriations bill) to $769,000,000.

FORMER SOVIET UNION THREAT REDUCTION

The Committee recommends an increase of $40,000,000 over the

supplemental request, only for the Former Soviet Union Threat Reduction program. Of this amount, the bill requires that $30,000,000

be transferred to the Department of State in support of the Biological Weapons Redirect and Science and Technology Centers programs. These programs have been reasonably effective in promoting the reconfiguration of former Soviet biological weapons production facilities for peaceful uses and preventing former Soviet biological weapons experts from emigrating to proliferant states. The

Committee expects these funds to be used to redirect to veterinary

vaccine production the Russian biological production facilities in

Pokrov and Berdsk that are now capable of producing large quantities of anthrax and smallpox biological agents. Funds should also

be used to engage former Soviet biological weapons scientists in

collaborative research with U.S. corporations to develop new vaccine and drug therapies for highly infectious diseases.

299

ANTI-ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS

The Committee recommends a total of $70,000,000 for DoD requirements to improve anti-access barriers and equipment across

the services and defense agencies, a reduction of $30,000,000 to the

request done without prejudice. The Committee makes this reduction only in order to meet other, similarly pressing requirements,

and in its belief that the funds provided for this purpose, combined

with Base Operations Anti-Terrorism/ Force Protection supplemental funding, will support accomplishment of most critical requirements.

COTS VISUALIZATION AND BLAST MODELING

The Committee recommends an increase of $5,000,000 over the

supplemental request, only for the conversion of current CIA/OTI

technology for use by the USAF Force Protection Battlelab. This is

done in order to accelerate efforts to quickly produce accurate blast

models for specific or unique structures to assist in choosing specific deployment and billeting locations.

TERRORIST DEVICE DEFEAT

The Committee recommends an increase of $15,000,000 over the

supplemental request, only for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency’s Terrorist Device Defeat Program. These funds are to be used

to develop a nuclear forensics database, and to conduct applied research and development with operational and technical support, in

order to enhance the capability of DoD to detect, diagnose and defeat improvised nuclear devices and radiological dispersal devices.

PHYSICAL SECURITY—FORCE PROTECTION/ANTI-TERRORISM

RESEARCH

The Committee recommends an increase of $20,000,000 over the

supplemental request, only for the Department’s Force Protection/

Anti-Terrorism research, development, test and evaluation program, funded through the Office of the Secretary of Defense

(through the ‘‘Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide’’ appropriation). This program evaluates and tests commercial-off-the-shelf products to identify those that will meet critical Department of Defense physical security requirements.

DARPA ASYMMETRIC THREAT

The Committee recommends an increase of $25,000,000 over the

supplemental request, only for DARPA’s Asymmetric Threat Program. The new challenges of terrorism and biological warfare require new technologies and techniques to counter them. The

projects in this program have the potential to make significant contributions to this effort.

IMPROVED COMMAND AND CONTROL

The President requested $219,000,000 for Improved Command

and Control. These funds would support, upgrade, and enhance

U.S. communications capabilities to provide for more robust comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00309 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
300

mand and control. Such efforts include replacing communications

equipment lost in the attacks, increasing network security, procuring additional communications gear, and enhancing overall network reliability and connectivity. The Committee recommends $162,000,000, as detailed in the following table:

IMPROVED COMMAND AND CONTROL

[In millions of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended Change

SITE R/WASHINGTON ALTERNATE OPERATIONS COMMAND CENTER ..................... 72 72 0

PENTAGON IT BACKBONE ...................................................................................... 31 31 0

INFORMATION ASSURANCE (IA)/CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION (CIP) 57 0 ¥57

(Requirement funded in fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations bill ...... .................... .................... ¥57)

RADIOS/PORTABLE COMMUNICATIONS .................................................................. 59 59 0

Total: Improved Command & Control ..................................................... 219 162 ¥57

INFORMATION ASSURANCE/CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

The President requested $57,000,000 for information assurance

and critical infrastructure protection. This is in addition to the

$168,000,000 which the Department has already allocated from

previously appropriated supplemental funding. The Committee,

however, has already included an increase of $275,000,000 in title

IX of the proposed fiscal year 2002 Department of Defense Appropriations bill for the same purposes, and thus recommends no additional funds in this supplemental measure. Given the Committee’s

recommendation in the Defense Appropriations bill, and the additional $184,000,000 which the Administration has notified the

Committee it intends to allocate to this purpose, the total proposed

increases for information assurance and critical infrastructure protection will be $627,000,000.

INCREASED WORLDWIDE POSTURE

The President requested $2,938,000,000 for Increased Worldwide

Posture. These resources would fund necessary preparations for,

and conduct of, the military response to the September 11, 2001 attacks and the heightened threat environment. Costs include mobilization of reserve forces, movement of pre-positioned stocks, purchase of high-priority spare parts and medical stocks that are in

short supply, rebuild of major combat systems to fill current Active

and Reserve unit shortages, and purchase of critical ammunition to

bring stocks to required levels. Costs identified cover initial, limited

contingency and humanitarian operations.

The Committee recommends $2,801,000,000, as detailed in the

following table:

INCREASED WORLDWIDE POSTURE

[In millions of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended Change

CONTINGENCY RESPONSE FUND—DEPLOYMENTS ................................................ 1,495 1,195 ¥300

301

INCREASED WORLDWIDE POSTURE—Continued

[In millions of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended Change

(Incremental OPTEMPO ................................................................................ .................... .................... ¥300)

HUMANITARIAN ASSISTANCE ................................................................................. 5 5 0

ADDITIONAL SPARES .............................................................................................. 0 75 75

(Add funds for increased readiness spares ................................................ .................... .................... 75)

DEPOT MAINTENANCE ............................................................................................ 0 75 75

(Add funds for unfunded, executable backlog ............................................ .................... .................... 75)

MOBILIZE GUARD AND RESERVES ........................................................................ 1,036 1,036 0

INCREASED ACTIVE MILPERS COSTS/SPECIAL PAYS AND ALLOWANCES .............. 352 352 0

LOGISTICS SUPPORT (SECOND DESTINATION TRANSPORTATION &

PREPOSITIONED STOCKS REPOSITIONING & BARE BASE) ................................ 50 50 0

MEDICAL STOCKS AND AMMUNITION .................................................................... 0 13 13

(Medical Stocks: procure consumable medical supplies and NBC defense

stocks ...................................................................................................... .................... .................... 13)

Total: Increased Worldwide Posture ........................................................ 2,938 2,801 ¥137

INCREMENTAL OPTEMPO REQUIREMENTS

The Committee recognizes the difficulty (especially considering

the ongoing shaping of force packages and changing operational requirements) in making funding estimates to support increased operations, including deployments in support of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, combat operations in the region in and around Afghanistan, and Operation NOBLE EAGLE. The Committee notes

that the Administration, on November 9, 2001, formally proposed

an allocation of funds from Public Law 107–38 to devote resources

to fund an additional three months of such operating requirements,

above the three months of funding support contained in the supplemental request. Furthermore, the Committee notes that, in addition to these funds, the Administration allocated $100,000,000 of

previously appropriated supplemental funding to this requirement.

In this bill, the Committee recommends additional appropriations

of $1,195,000,000. These funds, combined with $1,269,000,000

which the DoD has notified the Committee it intends to allocate to

incremental OPTEMPO requirements, brings the total for increased OPTEMPO resulting from the September 11, 2001 attacks

to $2,464,000,000.

READINESS SPARES

The Administration has already allocated $320,000,000 of supplemental funds from Public Law 107–38 to provide increased readiness spares, in support of deployments and combat operations.

While actual expenditure data is only beginning to be reported, the

Committee notes that the DoD estimates that significant shortfalls

remain in this area. Accordingly, the Committee has added an additional $75,000,000 over the supplemental request, for readiness

spares to improve the overall readiness posture of the Services.

DEPOT MAINTENANCE

The increased operating tempo of United States forces in Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and NOBLE EAGLE has resulted

in a related increase in depot maintenance. The Administration alVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00311 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
302

located $31,000,000 of its initial release of supplemental funding to

depot maintenance in anticipation of increasing executable work.

In order to support and enhance equipment readiness, the Committee recommends an additional $75,000,000 over the supplemental request, to be allocated to executable depot maintenance requirements.

MEDICAL STOCKS AND NUCLEAR, BIOLOGICAL, AND CHEMICAL

DEFENSE SUPPLIES

The Committee recommends an increase of $13,000,000 over the

supplemental request, only for consumable medical stocks and

pharmaceuticals related to nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC)

defense. The Committee is aware that the Army has requirements

for additional consumable medical supplies to support early deploying medical units, and to provide for pre-treatment and treatment

of soldiers who may be injured due to NBC attacks.

OFFENSIVE COUNTER TERRORISM

The President requested $545,000,000 for Offensive Counter Terrorism. These funds would be used primarily to procure munitions

in order to increase production rates. Funds in this category will

position U.S. military forces to sustain counter terrorism efforts

into the future.

The Committee recommends $769,000,000, as detailed in the following table:

OFFENSIVE COUNTER TERRORISM

[In millions of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended Change

TACTICAL TOMAHAWK ............................................................................................ 50 50 0

TOMAHAWK BLOCK 3 CONVERSIONS ..................................................................... 150 150 0

JOINT DIRECT ATTACK MUNITION (JDAM) .............................................................. 133 133 0

JOINT AIR-TO-SURFACE STANDOFF MISSILE (JASSM) ............................................ 0 9 9

(Adds funds to procure 19 additional weapons ......................................... 0 .................... 9)

STANDOFF LAND-ATTACK MISSILE EXPANDED RESPONSE (SLAM ER) .................. 25 25 0

LASER GUIDED BOMB (LGB) KITS ......................................................................... 60 100 40

(Add funds to meet existing Navy requirement .......................................... .................... .................... 40)

HELLFIRE ............................................................................................................... 35 35 0

OTHER MUNITIONS ................................................................................................ 0 30 30

(Army small arms and artillery ammunition and transportation ............... 0 .................... 20)

(USMC night vision devices, munitions and support equipment ............... 0 .................... 10)

SOCOM COUNTER TERRORISM REQUIREMENTS .................................................... 92 237 145

(Additional identified Counter Terrorism requirements ............................... .................... .................... 145)

Total: Offensive Counter Terrorism ......................................................... 545 769 224

PRECISION-GUIDED MUNITIONS

The Administration has notified the Committee of its intent to

allocate $929,000,000 from funds previously made available for obligation from Public Law 107–38 for a variety of precision-guided munitions, such as JDAM ($57,000,000), Tomahawk sea-launched

cruise missiles ($400,000,000), Conventional Air-Launched Cruise

Missile conversions ($138,000,000), and Laser-Guided Bomb Kits

($256,000,000), among others. In addition, the President requested

303

$453,000,000 in the supplemental request for similar items. The

Committee bill fully funds this request.

In addition, the Committee recommends an increase of

$49,000,000 over the supplemental request, of which $9,000,000 is

only for additional JASSM weapons, and $40,000,000 only for additional laser guided bomb kits for the Navy. The funds for the

stealthy JASSM cruise missile allow procurement of 19 additional

weapons, using extremely favorable pricing under an existing contract option. The funds for Navy Laser Guided Bombs (LGBs) allow

the Navy to replenish large expenditures to date as well as provide

an inventory for future expenditures.

AMMUNITION, SUPPORT EQUIPMENT, AND LOGISTICAL SUPPORT

The Committee recommends an increase of $30,000,000 over the

supplemental request, only for other munitions and related

logistical support. Of this amount, $20,000,000 is for Army requirements for small arms ammunition, mortar rounds, artillery rounds,

other munitions, fuzes, and associated logistical and transportation

costs. The remaining $10,000,000 is to address Marine Corps requirements for munitions, night vision equipment, sights and related support equipment.

SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND COUNTER-TERRORISM

REQUIREMENTS

The Committee provides a total of $237,000,000—the $92,000,000

requested in the supplemental request, and an additional increase

over the request of $145,000,000—for the United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), to meet requirements resulting

from Operations NOBLE EAGLE and ENDURING FREEDOM.

Special Operations forces possess skills uniquely suited for the

counter-terrorism mission. Though these forces are superbly

trained and equipped, transforming those capabilities into a sustained effort to combat world wide terrorism requires additional

training, equipment and other readiness enhancements beyond

that which has been made available to date. The Committee directs

the Commander in Chief, USSOCOM, to provide to the congressional defense committees not later than 30 days after enactment

of this supplemental measure, a report (in both classified and unclassified forms) on the proposed uses of all funds provided

USSOCOM under this chapter, as well as other funding made

available from Public Law 107–38.

INITIAL CRISIS RESPONSE

The President requested $106,000,000 for Initial Crisis Response.

These funds are required to respond to the initial crises in New

York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania and to manage the immediate

consequences of these events. This includes the cost of flying air

patrols and deploying aircraft carriers to protect New York City

and Washington, D.C. In addition, this response funds military

support for disaster relief, including increasing security at the Pentagon, mortuary services, and support to the Federal Emergency

Management Agency.

304

The Committee recommends $108,000,000, as detailed in the following table:

INITIAL CRISIS RESPONSE

[In millions of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended Change

MOBILE INSHORE BOAT SECURITY ........................................................................ 0 10 10

SELF CONTAINED BREATHING APPARATUS ............................................................ 0 5 5

USS COMFORT/MERCY MODERNIZATION ............................................................... 0 10 10

MEDICAL MOBILIZATION PLAN (Includes TRICARE Contracts Adjustment) .......... 34 34 0

CONSEQUENCE MANAGEMENT (INCLUDES JOINT TASK FORCE—CIVIL SUPPORT

(JTF–CS) FOR JFCOM) ....................................................................................... 43 20 ¥23

(Requirement funded in fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations bill ...... .................... .................... ¥23)

UH60 FUEL TANKS ................................................................................................. 29 29 0

Total: Initial Crisis Response .................................................................. 106 108 2

PENTAGON REPAIR/UPGRADE

The President requested $925,000,000 for Pentagon Repair and

Upgrades. These resources would be used to repair the damage

that resulted from the September 11th attack on the Pentagon.

This includes structural repairs required to make the building safe,

exterior repairs, and repairs to interior fire and water damage.

Also funded are the costs of replacing equipment damaged in the

attack, relocation and lease costs for displaced employees, and additional antiterrorism enhancements to the Pentagon.

The Committee recommends $925,000,000, as detailed in the following table:

PENTAGON REPAIRS/UPGRADES

[In millions of dollars]

Budget

request

Committee

recommended Change

RECOVERY/CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................... 794 794 0

OFFICE EQUIPMENT ............................................................................................... 131 131 0

Total: Pentagon Repairs/Upgrade ........................................................... 925 925 0

ADDITIONAL FUNDING ALLOCATED FROM PUBLIC LAW

107–38

The Committee notes that pursuant to the provisions of Public

Law 107–38 the President has submitted proposed allocations of

funds which are not available for release until 15 days after notification to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

Two such proposed allocations containing funds for the Department

of Defense have been formally transmitted by the President to the

Congress (one on October 22, 2001, the other on November 9,

2001).

Those proposed allocations involving funding and programs involving the Department of Defense are shown in the tables below.

305

PROPOSED 15 DAY RELEASES—DoD

[In millions of dollars]

15 day release proposed (Oct

22)

15 day release proposed (Nov 9)

Total

SUMMARY TABLE

Increased Situational Awareness ............................................................................ 438 1,909 2,347

Enhanced Force Protection ..................................................................................... 20 714 734

Improved Command & Control ............................................................................... 210 527 737

Increased Worldwide Posture .................................................................................. 70 2,643 2,713

Offensive Counter Terrorism ................................................................................... 140 1,067 1,207

Initial Crisis Response ............................................................................................ 4 52 56

Pentagon Repair/Upgrade ....................................................................................... 41 50 91

Subtotal, Defense .................................................................................................... 923 6,962 7,885

Subtotal, Military Construction ............................................................................... 0 20 20

Grand Total ................................................................................................ 923 6,982 7,905

ACTIVITIES FUNDED WITHIN CATEGORIES

Increased Situational Awareness ............................................................................ 438 1,909 2,347

Enhanced Force Protection:

Complete Anti-terrorism (AT)/Force Protection (FP) Task Force Findings ..... 0 339 339

Fund Base Operations to C1 for AT/FP.

Force Protection Modernization ...................................................................... 0 234 234

Biological Warfare Detection Systems ........................................................... 0 28 28

Security Clearances ....................................................................................... 0 10 10

MSC Ships Protection .................................................................................... 0 93 93

Winter Olympics ............................................................................................. 20 10 30

Subtotal: Enhanced Force Protection ........................................................ 20 714 734

Improved Command & Control:

White House Communications—upgrades to Air Force One, other executive aircraft, and Ground communication systems that support the

President .................................................................................................... 191 0 191

NCS Cellular Priority Service ......................................................................... 0 57 57

National Airborne Command Post improvements .......................................... 0 20 20

Global Command and Control System (GCCS)—accelerate acquisition ...... 0 14 14

Deployable Command Post (for CENTCOM)—accelerate acquisition [also

includes intelligence capabilities for other CINCs] .................................. 19 0 19

Collaborative Planning Tool for Command and Control—simultaneous

planning tool for both forward deployed and rear units ......................... 0 16 16

Link 16 (Pass target information between platforms)—allows for better

communication between different units ................................................... 0 214 214

Information Operations (IO)/Information Assurance (IA) and Critical Infrastructure Program ..................................................................................... 0 184 184

JTF Battlespace Connectivity ......................................................................... 0 22 22

Subtotal: Improved Command & Control .................................................. 210 527 737

Increased Worldwide Posture:

Contingency Response fund—15% Incremental Increase in OPTEMPO ...... 0 1,169 1,169

Humanitarian assistance ............................................................................... 0 75 75

Mobilize Guard and Reserves ........................................................................ 70 923 993

Special Pays ................................................................................................... 0 352 352

Second destination transportation ................................................................ 0 74 74

Family support ............................................................................................... 0 50 50

Subtotal: Increased Worldwide Posture ..................................................... 70 2,643 2,713

Offensive Counter Terrorism:

Tomahawk Upgrades ...................................................................................... 0 400 400

Laser Guided Bomb (LGB) Kits ...................................................................... 0 246 246

306

PROPOSED 15 DAY RELEASES—DoD—Continued

[In millions of dollars]

15 day release proposed (Oct

22)

15 day release proposed (Nov 9)

Total

ATACMS—A surface-to-surface guided missile capable of targeting other

missile sites, defense systems, logistics and command, control, and

communications complexes. ...................................................................... 0 78 78

Other Munitions ............................................................................................. 0 16 16

Munitions Swap Out/Cargo Movement .......................................................... 0 127 127

F–15C JHMCS/APG 83 (Va) modify remaining 20 aircraft ........................... 0 42 42

SOCOM Counter Terrorism ............................................................................. 140 158 298

Subtotal: Offensive Counter Terrorism ...................................................... 140 1,067 1,207

Initial Crisis Response:

Pentagon Building Security ........................................................................... 4 0 4

Mortuary (Mil Con), transportation (20 million is Mil Con) ......................... 0 20 20

Active Duty: Adjustments to TRICARE Contracts .......................................... 0 32 32

Subtotal: Initial Crisis Response .............................................................. 4 52 56

Pentagon Repair/Upgrade: Other Recovery Efforts ................................................. 41 50 91

Subtotal: Pentagon Repair/Upgrade .......................................................... 41 50 91

Subtotal, Defense Appropriations .............................................................. 923 6,962 7,885

Subtotal, Military Construction ................................................................. 0 20 20

Total DoD ................................................................................................... 923 6,982 7,905

The Committee has reviewed these proposed allocations, and

interposes no objections. Additional comments regarding a number

of classified activities, to include program guidance, may be found

in the classified annex accompanying this report. As addressed earlier in this report, the Committee directs that all ‘‘15-day release’’

funds delineated in the table above be subjected to the same reporting and other requirements described earlier in this report.

GENERAL PROVISIONS—THIS CHAPTER

Section 301 of the Committee bill amends a general provision requested in the supplemental request, which establishes the terms

and conditions under which funds appropriated under the heading

‘‘Defense Emergency Response Fund’’ may be used, provides transfer authority for these funds, and includes a number of reporting

requirements.

Section 302 of the Committee bill amends a general provision requested in the supplemental request, which provides authority for

current and future funds in the ‘‘Defense Cooperation Account’’ to

be transferred, following prior notification to the congressional defense committees, to other appropriations accounts.

Section 303 of the Committee bill amends a general provision requested in the supplemental request, which allows funds in the appropriations account ‘‘Support for International Sporting Competitions, Defense’’ to be used to reimburse members of the National

Guard while performing State active duty or full-time National

Guard duty, and temporarily waives the requirement to obtain certification from the Attorney General for the Department’s assistVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00316 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
307

ance to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in order to meet safety

and security needs.

Section 304 of the Committee bill includes a general provision requested in the supplemental request, which provides that funds appropriated by this Act, or made available by the transfer of funds

in this Act, for intelligence activities are deemed to be specifically

authorized by the Congress for purposes of section 504 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 414).

Section 305 of the Committee bill includes a new general provision, which defines for purposes of this act the term ‘‘congressional

defense committees’’.

CHAPTER 4

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The Committee recommends $25,630,966 for Emergency Preparedness in the District of Columbia. These funds are made available from the 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act

for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United

States (Public Law 107–38, approved September 18, 2001). The

Committee recognizes the responsibility of the District government

in supporting the Nation’s Capital and has provided funding for increased preparedness for chemical and biological events.

CHAPTER 5

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE—CIVIL

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

CORPS OF ENGINEERS—CIVIL

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, GENERAL

The Committee has recommended $139,000,000, the same as the

amount requested by the Administration, to support increased security at over 300 critical Army Corps of Engineers owned and operated infrastructure facilities, including enhanced physical security, and facility vulnerability assessments to determine additional

facility security needs. The funds would also support increased personnel and overtime compensation to maintain additional guards at

these facilities, including Corps district offices, engineering centers,

and laboratories.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

WATER AND RELATED RESOURCES

The Committee has recommended $30,259,000, the same as the

amount requested by the Administration, for the Bureau of Reclamation to enhance security at its dams, power plants, and other

critical facilities. Funds will be used for increased surveillance, and

for equipment and other immediate improvements.

308

The funds provided will also be used for vulnerability assessments to determine future security needs.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

WEAPONS ACTIVITIES

The Committee recommendation for Weapons Activities is

$88,000,000, a reduction of $18,000,000 from the Administration’s

request. Of these funds, $66,000,000 is to address safeguards and

security configuration vulnerabilities throughout the nuclear weapons complex; $7,000,000 is to accelerate deployment of near-term

cyber security measures at all nuclear weapons complex sites; and

$15,000,000 is to provide additional resources for transportation

safeguards system operations.

DEFENSE NUCLEAR NONPROLIFERATION

The Committee recommendation for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation is $18,000,000. These funds will be used to increase

the effectiveness of the prototype Biological Aerosol Sentry and Information System (BASIS), a demonstration of a prototype biological detection system to provide civilian public health systems with

early warning of airborne biological agents. This funding is needed

for the next round of development to automate more of the processes and increase the number of agents that can be detected. The

Administration’s request included no additional funds for this activity.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION AND WASTE MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommendation for Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management is $8,200,000, the same as the

Administration’s request. These funds will be used to increase the

protective forces at the Hanford site in Washington and the Savannah River Site in South Carolina where nuclear materials are

stored.

OTHER DEFENSE ACTIVITIES

The Committee recommendation for Other Defense Activities is

$3,500,000, the same as the Administration’s request. Of these

funds, $2,500,000 is to expand protective forces, replace outdated

alarm and radio systems, and install public address systems at the

Department of Energy’s Washington, DC, facilities. Funding of

$1,000,000 will be used to purchase and accelerate deployment of

distributed air sampling units for the detection of biological agents

using the prototype Biological Aerosol Sentry and Information System.

309

CHAPTER 6

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

OPERATION OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $10,098,000 for Operation of the

National Park System to respond to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. Of this amount, $6,098,000, as

requested, is for increased security patrols and communications requirements at high profile locations and $4,000,000 is to reimburse

the National Park Service for relocation of employees to accommodate National security requirements. These latter funds were requested by the Administration as part of the General Services Administration account. The Committee has recommended a direct

appropriation to the National Park Service in lieu of channeling

the funds through GSA.

UNITED STATES PARK POLICE

The Committee recommends $25,295,000 for the United States

Park Police, as requested, to respond to the September 11, 2001

terrorist attacks on the United States. These funds are for increased security patrols in Washington, DC and New York and for

equipment upgrades.

CONSTRUCTION

The Committee recommends $21,624,000 for Construction to respond to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United

States. This amount is for repairs at Federal Hall on Wall Street

in New York City and for increased security, including security

equipment and expanding the security perimeter around the Statue

of Liberty.

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $2,205,000 for Salaries and Expenses, as requested, to respond to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. These funds are provided for

the working capital fund of the Department of the Interior to increase guard services and upgrade security equipment at the Department of the Interior buildings near the White House.

OTHER RELATED AGENCIES

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $21,707,000 for Salaries and Expenses, as requested, to respond to the terrorist attacks on the

310

United States. These funds are for clean up at the Heye Center in

New York City and for increased security at Smithsonian facilities.

NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $2,148,000 for Salaries and Expenses, as requested, to respond to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. These funds are for increased

security at the National Gallery of Art buildings in Washington,

DC.

JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER FOR THE PERFORMING ARTS

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

The Committee recommends $4,310,000 for Operations and

Maintenance, as requested, to respond to the September 11, 2001

terrorist attacks on the United States. These funds are for increased security at the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing

Arts in Washington, DC.

NATIONAL CAPITAL PLANNING COMMISSION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $758,000 for Salaries and Expenses,

as requested, to respond to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States. These funds are for the preparation of

an Urban Design and Security Plan, which provides a comprehensive framework for architectural, landscape, and streetscape elements to address security needs in Washington, DC.

CHAPTER 7

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION

TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT SERVICES

The Committee provides $1,500,000,000 for National Emergency

Grants, authorized under section 173 of the Workforce Investment

Act, to States to assist workers who were dislocated by the attacks

of September 11, 2001. This is $500,000,000 less than the request.

The Administration has stated that an additional $1,000,000,000

would be requested for the National Emergency Grants with the

fiscal year 2003 budget submission. The Committee notes that the

Economic Stimulus and Recovery Act, H.R. 3090, which was approved by the House of Representatives on October 24, 2001, provides an additional $12,200,000,000 to assist unemployed individuals with their health benefit costs and States with costs related

to unemployment benefits.

Under the National Emergency Grants States may provide a variety of employment and training assistance and support services,

including temporary health care coverage of premium costs, to dislocated workers if the Governor certifies in the grant application to

311

the Secretary of Labor that the attacks of September 11th contributed importantly to closures or layoffs. These funds are available

for obligation for the period beginning on the date of enactment of

the appropriation and ending 18 months after such date. The Committee has included language that authorizes States to assist participants and their dependents in retaining health coverage that

had been provided as a result of the participant’s previous employment by paying up to 75 percent of the full amount of the premium. Such payments could be made for a period up to 10 months.

STATE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND EMPLOYMENT SERVICE

OPERATIONS

The Committee provides $4,100,000 for State Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service Operations to help New York recover from damages incurred as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001. This is the same as the request. A major component of New York’s telephone claims capability for processing unemployment insurance claims was lost, resulting in the need to deploy staff to take claims in person. In addition, New York suffered

a total loss of an Unemployment Insurance field office for tax and

quality assurance, requiring replacement of space, equipment, and

furniture.

PENSION AND WELFARE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee provides $1,600,000 for the Pension and Welfare

Benefits Administration (PWBA), to relocate employees and re-establish an office. This is the same as the request. The PWBA New

York regional office was located at 6 World Trade Center; that

building is now uninhabitable.

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee provides $1,000,000 for the Occupational Safety

and Health Administration (OSHA). This is the same as the request. This includes funding for reconstitution of OSHA’s Manhattan office, which was completely destroyed in the attacks of September 11, 2001, and continued on-site monitoring to ensure the

safety and health of recovery workers.

DEPARTMENTAL MANAGEMENT

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee provides $5,880,000 for the Department of Labor,

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management to address immediate security needs and recover offices that

were destroyed in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. This is

the same as the request.

312

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

PUBLIC HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES EMERGENCY FUND

The Committee provides $1,990,600,000 for emergency expenses

to respond to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the

United States, and for other expenses necessary to support activities related to countering potential biological, disease, and chemical

threats to civilian populations. This is $500,000,000 above the request. The additional $1,990,600,000 provided by the Committee for bioterrorism preparedness and response, combined with the

$393,319,000 provided in H.R. 3061 for these activities, brings the

total to $2,383,919,000 for fiscal year 2002. This is $2,151,400,000

above last year’s level and $550,000,000 above the request. Within the total provided, $1,131,600,000 is for activities of the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is

$308,000,000 above the request and $950,681,000 above last year’s

level. Of this amount, the Committee provides $593,600,000 for the

National Pharmaceutical Stockpile. This is $50,000,000 less than

the request due to the savings negotiated over the purchase of antibiotics to treat persons exposed to anthrax and other bacterial infections.

The Committee provides $423,000,000 for upgrading State and

local capacity, which is $358,000,000 above the request. Included in

this amount is $90,000,000 for early detection surveillance, including a secured web-based disease notification and surveillance system and the Health Alert Network; and $100,000,000 for State and

local preparedness planning. The remaining $233,000,000 is for ongoing State and local capacity building, including augmenting laboratory capacity, and activities authorized in sections 319B, 319C,

and 319F of the Public Health Service Act, as amended. The Committee believes that a portion of this funding should be available

immediately to meet the needs of State and local health departments as a result of the September 11, 2001 attacks and other subsequent events related to bioterrorism. The Committee also believes that a portion of this funding should be granted under the

authority of the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act, which

calls for assessments of public health needs, provides grants to

State and local public health agencies to address core public health

capacity needs, and provides assistance to State and local health

agencies to enable them to respond effectively to bioterrorist attacks. The Secretary is requested to provide the Committee with a

plan to distribute this funding within 15 days of enactment of this

Act.

The Committee provides $50,000,000 for upgrading capacity at

CDC, which is the same as the request. Included in this amount

is $20,000,000 for internal laboratory capacity to update and enhance existing laboratory protocols for use by State and local

health laboratories and to increase CDC’s capacity to handle additional lab samples from States; $20,000,000 for epidemic intelligence service/disaster response teams; and $10,000,000 for rapid

toxic screening.

The Committee provides $30,000,000 to enhance security at CDC

laboratory facilities, and $15,000,000 for environmental hazard conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00322 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
313

trol activities identified in the request. The Committee also provides $20,000,000 to replenish public health grants that were heavily impacted by the attacks of September 11, 2001 and other subsequent events related to bioterrorism. Within the total provided, $537,000,000 is for the Office of the

Secretary and other Departmental agencies. This is the same as

the request. Of this amount, $509,000,000 is to purchase 300 million doses of smallpox vaccine and $28,000,000 is for other activities identified in the request. Within the total provided, $50,000,000 is for next-generation vaccine research at the National Institutes of Health. The request did

not include funding for NIH. The Committee believes, however,

that part of the Nation’s preparedness must include an expansion

of biomedical research in bioterrorism prevention and treatment. Within the total provided, $82,000,000 is for the Office of Emer- gency Preparedness, which is $12,000,000 above the request. Of

this amount, $50,000,000 is to increase the number of large cities

that are able to fully develop Metropolitan Medical Response Systems and $32,000,000 is for disaster medical assistance teams, national disaster medical system readiness, and special events. Within the total provided, $170,000,000 is for the Health Resources and Services Administration to assist hospitals and emergency departments in preparing for, and responding to, incidents

requiring mass immunization and treatment. This is $120,000,000

above the request. This funding would allow State and regional

planning with local hospitals, including community health centers.

It would also allow some communities to move beyond the planning

phase and begin implementation of its plan. The Committee urges

the Secretary to ensure that plans and activities supported with

these funds are integrated and coordinated with State and local

plans. Within the total provided, $10,000,000 is for the Substance

Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration for grants pursuant to section 582 of the Public Health Service Act to develop

programs focusing on the behavioral and biological aspects of psychological trauma response and for developing knowledge with regard to evidence-based practices for treating psychiatric disorders

of children and youth resulting from witnessing or experiencing a

traumatic event. The request did not include funding for this activity.

Within the total provided, $10,000,000 is for the Administration

for Children and Families and the Administration on Aging for expanded social services to New York and New Jersey. This is the

same as the request.

The Committee recognizes that additional funds may be necessary to ensure that Federal, State, and local personnel are

trained, equipped, and prepared to respond to all chemical, biological, disease, and nuclear incidents. The Committee encourages the

Department to continue to develop the Nation’s ability to respond

to the public health and medical consequences of a bioterrorist attack and the funding provided includes a substantial new investment to achieve improvements across the country. It is clear, however, that the task is greater than was envisioned and much more

needs to be done. The Committee directs the Secretary to provide

314

a report on the state of the Nation’s public health and medical preparedness for bioterrorism no later than February 15, 2002. The report should delineate how the investments made to our public

health and medical systems have improved our State and local capacity and our readiness for potential acts of terrorism. It also

should make recommendations on possible further actions that

could be taken to strengthen key components of these systems.

These recommendations should also address additional resources

needed and focus on needs at the Federal, State, and local levels

with specific strategies for meeting those needs. The report should

provide specific objectives for preparedness, response, hospital

readiness, and applied biomedical research along with time-lines

and benchmarks for achieving those objectives. In addition, the report should provide a detail fiscal analysis, including plans for obligating and expending these funds by the Federal government and

the States and localities.

The Committee intends to work closely with the Secretary to ensure that the funds provided are appropriately allocated, are expended on a timely basis, and are not used for duplicative or unnecessary activities. The Committee notes that the Secretary has

both reprogramming and transfer authority that could be used to

supplement available funds. These are important fiscal management tools in a time of national emergency and should be exercised

if necessary to respond to increased need or changes in the allocation of funds among activities. In either case, the Committee expects the Department to comply with the established guidelines

governing the reprogramming or transfer of funds.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS

The Committee provides $10,000,000 to enable the Department

of Education to provide crisis recovery services in New York and

other jurisdictions for students, educators, and their families under

the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities National Programs Project SERV (School Emergency Response to Violence).

This is the same as the request. The $10,000,000 will support activities such as counseling and mental health assessments, referrals, and other activities that are essential to restore the teaching

and learning environment in schools.

RELATED AGENCIES

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee provides $180,000 for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for one-time security infrastructure costs to

upgrade the ten NLRB offices located in facilities not controlled by

the General Services Administration. This is the same as the request.

315

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATION EXPENSES

The Committee provides $7,500,000 for the Social Security Administration (SSA) to cover additional costs incurred as a result of

the attacks of September 11, 2001. This is the same as the request.

The attacks on New York City resulted in some temporary SSA office closings as well as a longer-term impact on disability claims

processing. The New York regional office, a local field office and a

hearings and appeals office were closed temporarily until the Federal Building in lower Manhattan reopened. Of the funds provided,

$2,500,000 is included for increased security at SSA facilities required by government security procedures. Additional funds will be

used to pay for infrastructure costs, including space, furniture, and

supplies for employees relocated from damaged offices.

CHAPTER 8

LEGISLATIVE BRANCH EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUND

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

The Legislative Branch is provided $256,081,000 to ensure the

continuance of government, and to enhance the safety and security

of legislative branch offices, systems, and employees. Of this

amount, $34,500,000 is transferred to the Senate, $40,712,000 to

the House, $1,000,000 to the United States Capitol Historical Society, and the remaining $179,869,000 is transferred to the Capitol

Police Board for transfer to other affected entities of the Legislative

Branch. These amounts are intended to cover additional expenses

resulting from terrorists attacks on the United States, such as the

costs of increased security measures, and the development and execution of contingency plans to relocate members and congressional

staff and other employees of the legislative branch in response to

imminent threats.

The Committee anticipates that the remaining balance of $179,869,000 be allocated as follows: Capitol Police Board

$59,396,000, Architect of the Capitol, $105,700,000, and the Library of Congress $14,773,000. The Committee recognizes that unanticipated future events may require adjustments to these estimates.

In addition, funds provided the Legislative Branch, except for funds provided to the House and Senate, from the first $20 billion

provided by P. L. 107–38, that are not yet obligated are transferred

to the Capitol Police Board. The Board is directed to transfer such

funds consistent with the objectives of P. L. 107–38 and the needs

of the Legislative Branch.

In response to the biological incident, occurring in October 2001,

on the Capitol Complex and the emergency response required to

protect life and property in the congressional community, the

United States Capitol Police, the United States Senate, the House

of Representatives, the Library of Congress, the Architect of the

Capitol, and the General Accounting Office have incurred certain

costs to protect life and property and provide for continuity of operations of the Congress of the United States. As of November 9,

316

2001, a total cost of $36,346,000 has been incurred, for which funds

are provided. The Committee notes these costs are continually

being assembled and will ensure adequate funding is provided to

properly respond to this unfortunate incident. In addition,

$12,000,000 is provided for the Chief Administrative Officer of the

House of Representatives to implement additional mail handling

protocols, and $21,712,000 to secure off site computer storage. It is

recognized that the United States Senate has similar needs and

due to comity between the two bodies, the Committee anticipates

these matters will be addressed by the Senate.

CAPITOL POLICE BOARD

CAPITOL POLICE

SALARIES AND GENERAL EXPENSES

As a result of the incidents occurring on September 11, 2001, and

the subsequent biological incident, it has become apparent the

United States Capitol Police is evolving into a police force which

will be very different than the past. The Committee is committed

to providing all resources necessary to enable the United States

Capitol Police to be the best force in this country. The Committee

recognizes the officers have been working twelve-hour shifts, six

days a week since September 11th and notes $32,000,000 is provided within the total $40 billion emergency supplemental to cover

overtime costs. Funding is included in this bill to reimburse the

National Guard for providing assistance to the Capitol Police to relieve officers from the tedious hours they have been working and

to allow them to receive proper training. In addition, funding for

a new USCP Command Center and headquarters facility is provided to the Architect of the Capitol.

The Chief of Police is directed to establish an Office of Emergency Planning, Preparedness, and Operations, and to report to the

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by December 15,

2001 on the plans for the establishment of said office. The office

shall be responsible for mitigation and preparedness operations,

crisis management and response, resource services, and recovery

operations.

The recent incidents of biological exposure and contamination in

the United States Capitol facilities have illustrated the need for an

enhanced response capability dedicated to the specific requirements

of chemical and biological attacks. Response time could be reduced

and the degree of exposure to people and places reduced by increasing the internal capability available in Congressional agencies. The

Chief of Police is directed to initiate a study on the best organizational structure and mission to provide this enhanced capability.

The United States Capitol Police is authorized an increase of up to

72 FTE’s to provide this capability, based upon the results of this

study.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS—THIS CHAPTER

Several administrative provisions are included. One provision extends the policing jurisdiction of the United States Capitol Police

to include the property and facilities of the United States Botanic

317

Garden. There are two provisions which authorize the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives to acquire

buildings and facilities by lease, purchase, or such other arrangement in order to respond to an emergency situation and to enter

into memoranda of understanding between the House and executive branch agencies to provide facilities, equipment, supplies, personnel, and other support services as required. There is a provision

which establishes an office within the House of Representatives.

The Committee has included a provision which authorizes salary

adjustments for the Chief and Assistant Chief of the Capitol Police.

There is a provision that authorizes assistance for the Capitol Police from executive departments and agencies. There is a provision

that authorizes the United States Capitol Preservation Commission

to transfer funds to the Architect of the Capitol for planning, engineering, design or construction of the Capitol Visitors Center. The

Committee has included a provision which sets maximum salary

limits for project directors for the Architect of the Capitol. There

is a provision which amends the authority of the Architect of the

Capitol to acquire property or space. Another provision authorizes

the Capitol Police to accept contributions of recreational, comfort,

and other incidental items and services while on duty in response

to emergencies. A provision has been included to remove a limitation in the fiscal year 2002 Capitol Visitor Center appropriation regarding the scope of the use for the funds provided. The funds may

be used for any authorized component of the project. There is a

provision that adds a short title to the enacted Legislative Branch

Appropriations Act for 2002.

CHAPTER 9

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY

The Committee recommends $55,700,000 for Military Construction, Army. The President requested $4,600,000 for a classified

overseas project. In addition to the request, the Committee has appropriated $51,100,000 for three other homeland security projects,

including $35,000,000 to secure four sites where stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction are located, $7,000,000 for a classified

project at Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, and $9,100,000 for

three anti-terrorism/force protection projects at Fort Detrick, Maryland. The Committee urges the Army to begin these projects as

soon as possible.

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY

The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for Military Construction, Navy, for a perimeter road at Thurmont Naval Support Facility (NSF) in Maryland. The President did not include funds for this

project.

318

MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE

The Committee recommends $47,700,000 for Military Construction, Air Force. The President requested $21,000,000 for planning

and design of a classified project. The additional $26,700,000 is for

construction of two classified overseas projects. The Committee

urges the Air Force to execute these projects, which support Operation Enduring Freedom, as quickly as possible.

GENERAL PROVISIONS—THIS CHAPTER

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Section 901 authorizes the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds

from current and prior Military Construction Appropriations Acts

only if insufficient funds are available in the Defense Emergency

Response Fund. The appropriate congressional defense committees

must be notified at least 10 days prior to the transfer, must receive

a form 1391, and must be apprised of the source of funds from

which the transfer is derived.

Section 902 provides the Secretary of Defense with authority to

carry out unauthorized military construction projects only if the

projects are needed to respond to acts or threatened acts of terrorism. At least 10 days before this authority can be exercised, the

Secretary must provide notice and a form 1391 to the appropriate

congressional defense committees.

DOVER MORTUARY

Pursuant to the 15-day notification procedures established in the Emergency Supplemental, $19,800,000 is included the Administration’s release dated November 9, 2001 to construct a mortuary facility at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. The Committee expects

construction of this facility to begin as soon as possible.

CHAPTER 10

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $458,000 for the Office of the Secretary, for intelligence equipment, communications and training

($158,000) and for consulting support and analysis ($300,000).

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Subject to authorization, the Committee recommends

$15,000,000 for start-up costs for the Transportation Security Administration, a new multi-modal DOT agency included in H.R.

3150, as passed the House on November 1, 2001. Although this bill

authorizes new user fees for passenger and baggage screening activities, the fees are not eligible to pay the costs of this new agency.

This appropriation allows the Administration to begin immediate

planning and implementation for this new, and critically important, mission of the department. With these funds, the new agency

319

can begin the hiring for critical staff immediately, allowing the

agency to hit the ground running once its legislative authorization

is enacted. Much like the Office of Homeland Security provides for

government-wide synthesis and coordination of security activities,

this DOT agency will provide a focal point for security policy and

enhancement in all modes of transportation, coordinating and overseeing the activities of private industry, state and local governments, and the Federal Government in a systematic manner.

AIRCRAFT PASSENGER AND BAGGAGE SCREENING ACTIVITIES

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,000,000,000

for the Secretary of Transportation to conduct passenger and baggage screening activities at our nation’s commercial service airports. H.R. 3150 authorizes the establishment of a Transportation

Security Administration, headed by a new Undersecretary for

Transportation Security. Among other things, the Undersecretary

is given the responsibility for the screening of passengers and property on aircraft in commercial air service. To offset these new federal costs, the bill authorizes collection of user fees from passengers

and airlines, to be used only for security purposes specified in the

bill. This bill establishes that such fees may not be collected until

an appropriation is made for screening activities. The Senatepassed version of this bill also contemplates additional federal

screening responsibilities, and likewise authorizes new user fees.

The bill assumes quick enactment of legislation authorizing these

activities and fees, and provides the appropriation necessary to finance a greatly enhanced screening program across the country.

The Committee understands that this appropriation, based on current travel projections, will not fund an entire year of screening operations. However, this appropriation provides the up-front costs

needed to get the new program underway as soon as possible. The

bill makes such funding contingent on enactment of authorizing

legislation for the conduct of such activities as well as collection of

the offsetting fees, and specifies that the appropriation shall be reduced, as fees are collected, to result in an anticipated final general

fund appropriation of zero. According to the Federal Aviation Administration, anticipated fee receipts from H.R. 3150 would be sufficient to fully offset the appropriation in this bill.

COAST GUARD

OPERATING EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $144,913,000 for ‘‘Operating expenses’’, to be distributed as shown below:

Activity Amount

Reserve activation ............................................................................................................................................ $110,000,000

Increased homeland security capability .......................................................................................................... 31,293,000

Chemical, biological, and radiological strike teams ....................................................................................... 3,620,000

Total .................................................................................................................................................... 144,913,000

The Committee does not include the $60,235,000 requested to increase the pace of operations to provide homeland security activiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00329 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
320

ties. Discussions with the Coast Guard indicate that the majority

of these funds are to restore funds which the Coast Guard deleted

from its fiscal year 2002 budget request. In this bill, the Committee

has placed a priority on those activities directly responding to the

terrorist attacks of September 11th.

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

OPERATIONS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

The Committee recommends $291,500,000 for various improvements in aviation and airport security. These funds shall be distributed as shown below:

Activity Amount

Security demonstration projects and activities ............................................................................................... $28,500,000

Sky marshals .................................................................................................................................................... 233,000,000

Security experts ................................................................................................................................................ 30,000,000

Total .................................................................................................................................................... 291,500,000

Security demonstration projects and activities.—The bill includes

$28,500,000 for the conduct of short-duration pilot projects and

demonstrations involving potential new security technologies and

concepts. The Committee is aware of several new technologies that

could significantly improve aviation security. However, given the

unproven nature of these systems and the need to integrate their

use into government, airline and airport operations, the prudent

course is to establish limited, short-duration operational demonstrations in select airports and involving select air carriers. Of

the amount provided, $2,000,000 is only for demonstration of 100

percent positive passenger bag match technology at Reagan Washington National Airport in Virginia.

Sky marshals.—The Committee believes the sky marshals program should be greatly expanded, beyond the level assumed in the

Administration request. Although significantly expanded, the number of sky marshals is still inadequate to fully address the threat.

DOT officials indicate that the main choke point in hiring additional marshals is not a lack of qualified and willing candidates,

but a lack of training facilities. For this reason, the Committee recommends a total of $258,000,000 for the sky marshal program, including $233,000,000 for the hiring of additional marshals under

‘‘Operating expenses’’ and $25,000,000 for additional aviation security training facilities and associated programs under ‘‘Facilities

and equipment’’.

Security experts.—The Committee believes the Department of

Transportation should investigate the hiring of a cadre of federal

officers to serve as security ‘‘experts’’ at commercial airports. Many

high-threat airports in Europe and around the world employ such

experts, which are used to carefully check the documentation of

travelers, conduct identity checks, and query a variety of government databases including criminal and immigration ‘‘watch lists’’ which are not often provided to private industry. The Committee

bill provides $30,000,000 for establishment of such expert teams at

321

a select group of ‘‘category X’’ airports around the country, to prove

the feasibility of this concept.

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

The Committee recommends $175,000,000 for ‘‘Facilities and

equipment’’, to be distributed as shown below:

Activity Amount

Explosive detection systems ............................................................................................................................. $100,000,000

Cockpit door and transponder modifications .................................................................................................. 50,000,000

Aviation security training facilities and programs .......................................................................................... 25,000,000

Total .................................................................................................................................................... 175,000,000

Cockpit door and transponder modifications.—Although the Committee is very supportive of hardening cockpit doors, the Committee’s understanding is that most of the administration’s requested

funding for this effort would not be obligated until permanent door

designs have been developed, which is currently estimated to take

eighteen months. Interim fixes, including deadbolts, locks, and door

strengthening, have been largely accomplished already by the air

carriers, and require little additional funding by the Federal Government. For this reason, the Committee believes much of the proposed funding would be put to better use in the sky marshal program and for other security activities which can have a near-term

impact. The Committee will consider additional appropriations for

door replacements when the design effort has matured.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

EMERGENCY RELIEF PROGRAM

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

The Committee recommends $75,000,000 for the Federal Highway Administration’s Emergency Relief program, to fund repairs

and reconstruction of Federal-aid highways which were damaged or

destroyed by the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. This

is consistent with the Administration’s request.

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Federal Railroad

Administration’s safety and operations program, to fund additional

expenses related to overtime and hiring of police and security officers related to the security and inspection of rail infrastructure; additional security personnel; costs associated with increased safety

inspector travel; and other security measures. This is consistent

with the Administration’s request.

322

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

FORMULA GRANTS

The Committee recommends $23,500,000 for the replacement of

buses and transit kiosks destroyed by the collapse of the World

Trade Center ($4,800,000); technical assistance for transit agencies

to refine and develop security and emergency response plans

($5,200,000); acceleration and expansion of the PROTECT program

aimed at detecting chemical and biological agents in transit stations ($4,000,000); emergency response drills with transit agencies

and local first response agencies ($4,500,000); and security training

for transit operators ($5,000,000).

Dulles corridor transit project.—To facilitate the extension of rail

service to Washington Dulles International Airport, the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration shall work with the

Commonwealth of Virginia, Northern Virginia municipalities, the

Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, and the Washington

Metropolitan Area Transit Authority to develop and implement a

financing plan for the Dulles Corridor rapid transit project.

Oversight activities.—The Committee requests that the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) task the Federal Transit

Administration (FTA) to provide, on a reimbursable basis, oversight activities as required under FEMA’s Public Assistance Program related to the rebuilding or enhancement of transit facilities

damaged by the September 11 terrorist attacks.

FTA may perform these services directly or procure them under

contract or other arrangement.

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends $2,500,000 for the crisis management center and related emergency facilities run by the Research

and Special Programs Administration. Funds are provided to finance improvements directly related to communication equipment

and software problems incurred during the September 11th attacks. This funding level will include upgrades including the secure

video conferencing system, dedicated communication lines, and

equipment and software that provide secure handling for classified

information. This will enable effective, continuous communication

with each modal administration during emergencies.

RELATED AGENCY

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $465,000 for additional expenses of

the National Transportation Safety Board arising from the September 11, 2001 attacks. The Board responded to each of the September 11th attack sites, and funds have been provided to cover

the costs of such response.

323

CHAPTER 11

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee does not provide $9,400,000 for the administrative expenses related to the Air Transportation Stabilization Board.

The Committee understands that the Department of the Treasury

has been given responsibilities for administering the recently enacted guaranteed loan program for the airline industry and believes other sources of funds should be sought for this purpose.

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee provides $2,032,000, as requested by the Administration, to replace equipment and offices in New York.

FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee provides $1,700,000, as requested by the Administration, to support critical investigative efforts.

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAINING CENTER

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee provides $13,846,000, as requested by the Administration, and an additional $9,385,000 for training costs associated with new hiring by law enforcement agencies.

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, IMPROVEMENTS AND RELATED

EXPENSES

The Committee provides $8,500,000 for critical facility improvements at the bureau’s training facility in Cheltenham, Maryland.

Because of the urgency associated with this project, and to expedite

the acquisition of architectural and engineering services, the Committee includes language authorizing the Federal Law Enforcement

Training Center to expedite normal procurement procedures,

waiving certain statutory provisions relating to competition, notice,

and fee limitations.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Due to budgetary constraints the Committee has not included

$600,000 as requested by the Administration for the Financial

Management Service.

324

BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee provides $31,431,000, as requested by the Administration. The Committee also includes bill language permitting

acquisition and other activities associated with expanding the bureau’s canine training facility in Front Royal, Virginia.

UNITED STATES CUSTOMS SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee provides $301,759,000 for Customs Salaries and

Expenses. Of this, $160,146,000 is provided as a direct appropriation for critical border and port security staffing and technology, including $80,073,000 for critical personnel, primarily inspectors,

agents, and canine enforcement officers at ports of entry, particularly for the northern border and $80,073,000 for similar increases

for the 20 most vulnerable seaports. The Committee is supportive

of additional resources for the Customs Service to meet new requirements and workload demands on the northern border and

critical seaports including technology.

The Committee has also provided $141,613,000 to include:

$107,500,000 as proposed by the Administration for response and

recovery efforts; $21,303,000 to support enhanced overseas antimoney-laundering investigations; and $12,810,000 for a commercial

backup facility for the Newington Data Center, which houses essential law enforcement, trade and other critical information and

communication resources. The total funding for this stand-alone

backup facility in fiscal year 2002 is $19,810,000, including

$7,000,000 that is funded in the Department-Wide Systems and

Capital Investments Programs account.

OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND PROCUREMENT, AIR AND MARINE

INTERDICTION PROGRAMS

The Committee provides $6,700,000, as requested by the Administration, to support the bureau’s enhanced air security mission.

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

PROCESSING, ASSISTANCE, AND MANAGEMENT

Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee has not included

$16,658,000 requested by the Administration, for Processing, Assistance and Management.

TAX LAW ENFORCEMENT

The Committee provides $4,544,000, as requested by the Administration, to replace equipment and offices in New York and to increase the bureau’s participation in investigative activities to combat terrorism.

325

INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee has not included

$15,991,000 as requested by the Administration for Information

Systems.

UNITED STATES SECRET SERVICE

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee provides $104,769,000, as requested by the Administration, for response, recovery and critical law enforcement efforts related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee has not included

$50,400,000 requested by the Administration for the Executive Office of the President.

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

REAL PROPERTY ACTIVITIES

FEDERAL BUILDINGS FUND

The Committee provides $87,360,000 for security, response and

recovery, and replacement space costs in New York.

NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

OPERATING EXPENSES

Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee has not included

$4,818,000 requested by the Administration for National Archives

Operating Expenses.

REPAIRS AND RESTORATION

Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee has not included

$2,180,000 requested by the Administration for National Archives

Repairs and Restoration.

CHAPTER 12

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION

GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $2,000,000 in General operating expenses for a comprehensive evaluation of all Veterans Affairs’ processes and facilities to determine what improvements should be

made to secure employees, veterans and continuity of services. The

326

evaluation recommendations should include and consider other security actions and recommendations implemented by other Federal,

State and local government agencies.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

The Committee recommends $1,000,000 in the Office of Inspector

General to replace office and investigative equipment, telephones,

furniture, computers, vehicles and supplies damaged in the World

Trade Center office due to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

The Committee recommends $10,000,000 in Science and technology to assess and improve building security at EPA laboratory

sites.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS AND MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $140,360,000 in Environmental pro- grams and management of which $30,000,000 is to assess and improve building security at EPA sites, $700,000 is to fund temporary

relocation costs of the Region 2 New York office and replacement

of computer and telecommunications equipment damaged due to

the September 11, 2001 attacks, and $109,660,000 is for drinking

water vulnerability assessments.

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE SUPERFUND

The Committee recommends $5,800,000 in Hazardous substance

superfund of which $5,500,000 is to establish a West Coast immediate response team to provide Federal, State, and local preparedness for attack mitigation and response, and $300,000 to fund temporary relocation costs of the Region 2 New York office and replacement of computer and telecommunications equipment damaged due

to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

STATE AND TRIBAL ASSSISTANCE GRANTS

The Committee recommends $5,000,000 in State and tribal assistance grants to provide grants to State counter-terrorism coordinators to work with EPA and drinking water utilities in assessing

drinking water safety.

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

DISASTER RELIEF

The Committee recommends $4,900,000,000 in Disaster relief to

fund additional disaster relief efforts in New Jersey, New York and

Virginia in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Funds are

to help individual victims, remove debris from the World Trade

327

Center site, and assist with rebuilding critical infrastructure. The

amount provided includes funding for expenses related to traffic

control and detours in New York City and for the repair and reconstruction of non-Federal-aid-eligible highways destroyed or damaged by the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.

The Committee recognizes that many ambulance service providers, at the request of local, state and Federal officials, responded

to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Many ambulance

providers traveled long distances to respond. Due to the sudden,

horrific and enormous nature of the events of September 11, 2001

many of these providers did not have contracts or other formal arrangements in place for services, but responded based on the direct

verbal requests of local, state or Federal government officials.

These ambulance providers incurred many costs, including personnel and overtime costs, fuel and travel expenses, and damaged

and destroyed emergency vehicles and life saving equipment. Ambulance providers are critical local health and safety community resources. These additional costs and the potential loss of revenue diminish the providers’ ability to serve their communities, hospitals

and other health care facilities and patients. The Committee urges

FEMA and state and local governments receiving Federal emergency assistance to reimburse fully and expeditiously these ambulance service providers.

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND ASSISTANCE

The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for Emergency manage- ment planning and assistance, of which not less than $10,000,000

is to be used for enhancement of FEMA’s ability to support the

2002 Winter Olympics. The Committee has not included the budget

request of $550,000,000 for a grant program for first responder

training and equipment within FEMA. The Committee notes that

a grant program for first responders already exists within the Department of Justice and does not feel it is appropriate to duplicate

that effort with a new FEMA program.

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for Salaries and expenses, of which not less than $10,000,000 is to be used to enhance

the capabilities of the National Security Division. The Committee

remains concerned that neither FEMA nor the Office of Management and Budget has been able or willing to provide information

regarding FEMA’s role in Homeland Security or the status of the

Office of National Preparedness and how this office will work with

the established National Domestic Preparedness Office. Until the

Committee is fully informed, it will continue to deny funding requests for the Office of National Preparedness.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

The Committee recommends $81,000,000 in Human space flight,

including $16,000,000 for information security, $60,000,000 for security and counterintelligence, and $5,000,000 for communications

capabilities. The funds will provide resources for the costs being inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00337 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
328

curred for: additional security personnel and overtime compensation; modifications to security perimeters; construction of additional

checkpoints; additional security monitoring and communications

equipment; relocation of critical functions and personnel; and increased air and sea patrols at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS AND TECHNOLOGY

The Committee recommends $36,500,000 in Science, aeronautics

and technology, including $16,000,000 for information security,

$15,000,000 for security and counterintelligence, and $5,500,000 for

communications capabilities. These funds will provide resources for

the costs being incurred for: additional security personnel and overtime compensation; modifications to security perimeters; construction of additional checkpoints; additional security monitoring and

communications equipment; relocation of critical functions and personnel.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the Office of Inspector General, for security and counterintelligence. These funds will

provide additional personnel, criminal investigations, related training, travel, and security/intelligence equipment.

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

RESEARCH AND RELATED ACTIVITIES

The Committee recommends $300,000 in Research and related

activities for additional security measures at NSF research and development facilities.

CHAPTER 13

GENERAL PROVISION—THIS DIVISION

Sec. 1301. The provision provides that no part of any appropriation contained in this Division shall remain available for obligation

beyond the current fiscal year unless expressly so provided.

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1), of rule XIII of the House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted describing the effect

of provisions in Division B of the accompanying bill which directly

or indirectly change the application of existing law.

The bill includes language providing that appropriations shall remain available for more than one year for programs for which the

basic authorizing legislation does not presently authorize such extended availability.

Language is included for Department of Commerce, National

Telecommunications and Information Administration, Public Telecommunications Facilities, Planning and Construction waiving

matching requirements for funds in this Act.

329

Language is included allowing certain organizations and financial institutions to receive Small Business Administration economic

injury disaster loans.

Language is included allowing the Small Business Administration to raise the aggregate cap on disaster loans to a single borrower in certain circumstances.

Language is included waiving prior authorization requirements

for the expenditure of funds by the Department of State or the

Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Language is included for Department of Defense—Military for

several appropriations that are not currently authorized by law,

and as such may be construed as legislative in nature.

Language is included for Department of Defense—Military in Operation and Maintenance for ‘‘Defense Emergency Response Fund’’

which provides funds for costs of the mobilization of Guard and Reserve forces, Increased Situational Awareness, Enhanced Force

Protection, Pentagon Repair and Upgrade, Offensive Counter Terrorism, and other activities.

Language is included for Department of Defense—Military which

clarifies and establishes the terms and conditions for obligation and

transfer of funds from ‘‘Defense Emergency Response Fund’’ may

be transferred to other appropriations accounts, and establishes

several reporting requirements.

Language is included for Department of Defense—Military concerning the availability of and transfer of funds in the ‘‘Defense Cooperation Account’’.

Language is included that makes an emergency appropriation

designation, which may be construed to be legislative in nature.

Language is included for Department of Defense—Military concerning the ‘‘Support for International Sporting Competitions, Defense’’ appropriations account.

Language is included for Department of Defense—Military concerning funds for intelligence related programs.

Language is included for Department of Labor, Employment and

Training Administration, Training and Employment Services allowing the use of funds for temporary health care coverage assistance.

Language is included for Department of Education, Higher Education allowing international education funds to be used to support

visits and study in foreign countries by individuals who are participating in advanced foreign language training and international

studies in areas vital to U.S. national security and who plan to

apply their language skills and knowledge of these countries in the

fields of government, the professions, or international development.

Language is included that allows up to one percent of international education funds provided in this Act to be used for program education, national outreach, and information dissemination

activities.

Language is included that provides for the policing of the United

States Botanic Garden.

Language is included that authorizes the House of Representatives’ Chief Administrative Officer, during emergency situations, to

acquire buildings and facilities and to enter into agreements with

legislative or executive branch agencies.

330

Language is included which establishes an office in the House of

Representatives.

Language is included to adjust the salaries of the Chief and Assistant Chief of the Capitol Police, subject to approval. Also, language is included that authorizes the Capitol Police to accept contributions when responding to emergencies.

Language is included that authorizes the transfer of funds to the

Architect of the Capitol from the United States Capitol Preservation Commission.

Language is included that authorizes the Architect of the Capitol

to set maximum salary limits for project directors.

Language is included that authorizes the Architect of the Capitol

to acquire property.

Language is included for the ’’Defense Emergency Response

Fund’’ that provides authority to the Secretary to transfer amounts

for the DERF into Military Construction Appropriations Acts under

specific circumstances.

Language is included for Department of Defense—Military Construction providing authority under specific circumstances to the

Secretary of Defense to carry out military construction projects not

currently authorized by law.

Language is included for Federal Law Enforcement Training

Center, Acquisition, Construction, Improvements and Related Expenses to facilitate and expedite critical facility improvements at

the bureau’s training facility in Cheltenham, Maryland. The language authorizes the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center to

expedite normal procurement procedures for architectural and engineering services, waiving certain statutory provisions relating to

competition, notice, and fee limitations.

Language is included for Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Salaries and Expenses permitting acquisition and other activities associated with expanding the bureau’s canine training facility in Front Royal, Virginia.

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in

Division B of the accompanying bill which are not authorized by

law:

[Dollars in millions]

Agency/program Last year of au- thorization Authorization level

Appropriation in

last year of authorization

Appropriation

in this bill

Department of Justice:

Office of Justice Programs: Byrne Grants .................... 1995 ................ 100.0 ............... 500.0 ............... 17.1

Department of Commerce:

International Trade Administration ..................... 1996 ................ Such sums ...... 248.7 ............... 0.8

Bureau of Export Administration ......................... 2001 ................ Such sums ...... 64.7 ................. 1.8

National Telecommunications and Information

Administration.

1993 ................ 59.9 ................. 71.8 ................. 8.3

Broadcasting Board of Governors ................................ 2001 ................ 467.2 ............... 467.2 ............... 19.2

Securities and Exchange Commission ......................... 1999 ................ 351.3 ............... 324.0 ............... 20.7

Department of Defense—Military: Defense emergency

response fund.

1990 ................ 100.0 ............... 100.0 ............... 7.242.9

331

[Dollars in millions]

Agency/program Last year of authorization Authorization level

Appropriation in

last year of authorization

Appropriation

in this bill

District of Columbia—Federal Funds

Federal payment for Protective Clothing and

Breathing Apparatus.

NA ................... NA ................... NA ................... 12.1

Federal payment for Specialized Hazardous Materials Equipment.NA ................... NA ................... NA ................... 1.0

Federal payment for Chemical and Biological

Weapons Preparedness.

NA ................... NA ................... NA ................... 10.4

Federal payment for Pharmaceuticals for Responders.NA ................... NA ................... NA ................... 2.1

Department of Energy:

Weapons Activities:

Safeguards and Security ............................ 2001 ................ 377.6 (1) .......... 377.6 ............... 73.0

Transportation Safeguards ......................... 2001 ................ 115.7 ............... 115.7 ............... 15.0

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation: Nonproliferation R&D.2001 ................ 245.9 ............... 235.9 ............... 18.0

Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management: Safeguards and security.

2001 ................ 203.7 (1) .......... 203.7 ............... 8.2

Other Defense Activities.

Nuclear safeguards and security ........................ 2001 ................ 124.4 ............... 116.4 ............... 3.5

Department of Labor:

Employment and Training Administration, Training and Employment Services: Health benefits.

NA ................... NA ................... NA ................... 1,500.0

Legislative Branch: Capitol Historic Society ................ NA ................... NA ................... NA ................... 1.0

Department of Transportation:

Office of the Secretary

Transportation Security Administration ...... NA ................... NA ................... NA ................... 15.0

Aircraft passenger and baggage screening

activities (user fees).

NA ................... NA ................... NA ................... 1,000.0

Coast Guard: Operating expenses ....................... 1999 ................ 3,006.2 ............ 3,013.5 ............ 144.9

Federal Railroad Administration: Safety and operations (3).1998 ................ 90.7 ................. 77.3 ................. 6

Department of the Treasury: .

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, Salaries and Expenses and Acquisition, Construction, Improvements and Related Expenses.

NA (4) ............... NA ................... NA ................... $31.7

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, except those activities related to the enforcement of tobacco smuggling and regulation of

explosives.

NA (5) ............... NA ................... NA ................... $31.4

U.S. Customs Service, Salaries and Expenses

and Operation, Maintenance and Procurement, Air and Marine Interdiction Programs.

1992 ................ Such sums ...... $1,484.1 .......... 6 $308.5

Environmental Protection Agency:

Science and Technology ....................................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 10.0

Clean Air Act .............................................. 1997 ................ Such sums ...... 177.2.

Clean Water Act .......................................... 1990 ................ 153.5 ............... 27.0.

Environmental programs and management ........ ......................... ......................... ......................... 190.7

Clean Air Act .............................................. 1997 ................ Such sums ...... 177.2.

Clean Water Act .......................................... 1990 ................ 153.5 ............... 27.0.

State and tribal assistance grants ..................... ......................... ......................... ......................... 5.0

Clean Air Act .............................................. 1997 ................ Such sums ...... 177.2.

Clean Water Act .......................................... 1990 ................ 153.5 ............... 27.0.

Hazardous substance superfund ......................... 1994 ................ 5,100.0 ............ 1,480.9 ............ 11.8

(1) Authorization for safeguards and security was spread throughout several program accounts.

(2) Authorization for this program was contained within the authorization provided for Arms Control activities.

(3) Past appropriations provided as two separate accounts, Office of the administrator and railroad safety. Authorized level is for railroad

safety. Office of the administrator had general authority under 49 USC, section 103, with no specific authorized amount.

(4) Established pursuant to Treasury Order 140–01.

(5) Established pursuant to Treasury Orders 120–1, 120–2, and 120–3.

(6) $80,073,000 proposed for northern border staffing is authorized as ‘‘such sums’’ in P.L. 107–56.

332

TRANSFER OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following is submitted describing the transfer of funds provided in Division B of the accompanying bill.

Language has been included in Department of Defense—Military,

Operation and Maintenance for ‘‘Defense Emergency Response

Fund’’ which provides for the transfer of funds out of and into this

account.

Language has been included in Department of Defense—Military,

Sections 301 and 302, which allows for the transfer of funds to

other appropriations accounts of the Department of Defense.

Section 901 authorizes the Secretary of Defense, under certain

circumstances, to transfer to the Defense Emergency Response

Fund (DERF) unobligated balances from previous Military Construction Appropriations Acts if the DERF is in sufficient to carry

out needed military construction projects.

Account to Amount Account from Amount

Senate—Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper

of the Senate.

$34,500,000 Legislative Branch Emergency Response

Fund.

$34,500,000

House of Representatives—Salaries and

Expenses.

40,712,000 Legislative Branch Emergency Response

Fund.

40,712,000

Capitol Police Board ..................................... 179,869,000 Legislative Branch Emergency Response

Fund.

179,869,000

United States Capitol Historical Society ...... 1,000,000 Legislative Branch Emergency Response

Fund.

1,000,000

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states that:

Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution

of a public character, shall include a statement citing the

specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution

to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report

this legislation from Clause 7 of Section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law * * *

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this

specific power granted by the Constitution.

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding:

The Committee on Appropriations considers program performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining

outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding recommendations.

333

COMPLIANCE WITH CLAUSE 3 OF RULE XIII (RAMSEYER RULE)

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by Division B of the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law

proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter

is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is

shown in roman):

SECTION 9 OF THE ACT OF JULY 31, 1946

AN ACT To define the area of the United States Capitol Grounds to regulate the

use thereof, and for other purposes.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 9. øThe Capitol Police¿ (a) The Capitol Police shall police

the United States Capitol Buildings and Grounds under the direction of the Capitol Police Board, consisting of the Sergeant at Arms

of the United States Senate, the Sergeant at Arms of the House of

Representatives, and the Architect of the Capitol, and shall have

the power to enforce the provisions of this Act and regulations promulgated under section 14 thereof, and to make arrests within the

United States Capitol Buildings and Grounds for any violations of

any law of the United States, of the District of Columbia, or of any

State, or any regulation promulgated pursuant thereto: Provided,

That for the fiscal year for which appropriations are made by this

Act the Capitol Police shall have the additional authority to make

arrests within the District of Columbia for crimes of violence, as

defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code, committed

within the Capitol Buildings and Grounds and shall have the additional authority to make arrests, without a warrant, for crimes of

violence, as defined in section 16 of title 18, United States Code,

committed in the presence of any member of the Capitol Police performing official duties: Provided further, That the Metropolitan Police force of the District of Columbia are authorized to make arrests

within the United States Capitol Buildings and Grounds for any

violation of any such laws or regulations, but such authority shall

not be construed as authorizing the Metropolitan Police force, except with the consent or upon the request of the Capitol Police

Board, to enter such buildings to make arrests in response to complaints or to serve warrants or to patrol the United States Capitol

Buildings and Grounds. For the purpose of this section, the word

‘‘grounds’’ shall include the House Office Buildings parking areas

and that part or parts of property which have been or hereafter are

acquired in the District of Columbia by the Architect of the Capitol,

or by an officer of the Senate or the House, by lease, purchase,

intergovernment transfer, or otherwise, for the use of the Senate,

the House, or the Architect of the Capitol.

(b) For purposes of this section, ‘‘the United States Capitol

Buildings and Grounds’’ shall include any building or facility acquired by the Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives for the use of the House of Representatives for which the

Chief Administrative Officer has entered into an agreement with the

334

United States Capitol Police for the policing of the building or facility.

(c)(1) For purposes of this section, ‘‘the United States Capitol

Buildings and Grounds’’ shall include all buildings and grounds of

the United States Botanic Garden, including the National Garden

and Bartholdi Park.

(2) For purposes of this section, the Joint Committee on the Library may suspend the application of section 4 of this Act to the

buildings and grounds described in paragraph (1) in order to promote the interests of the United States Botanic Garden.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 1 OF THE ACT OF DECEMBER 13, 1973

(Public Law 93–180)

AN ACT Authorizing the securing of storage space for the United States Senate, the

United States House of Representatives, and the Office of the Architect of the

Capitol.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Architect of the Capitol,

with the approval of the House Office Building Commission and

Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, is authorized to

øsecure, through rental, lease, or other appropriate agreement,

storage space¿ acquire, through purchase, lease, or other appropriate arrangement, property or space in areas within the District

of Columbia and its environs beyond the boundaries of the United

States Capitol Grounds for use of the United States Senate, the

United States House of Representatives, the United States Capitol

Police, and the Office of the Architect of the Capitol, under such

terms and conditions øas such Commission and committee may authorize¿ as the Architect deems reasonable and appropriate, and to

incur any necessary incidental expenses in connection therewith.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 1 OF THE ACT OF DECEMBER 20, 1979

(Public Law 96–152)

AN ACT To establish by law the position of Chief of the Capitol Police, and for other

purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the

United States of America in Congress assembled, That, (a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) The Chief of the Capitol Police shall receive compensation

at a rate determined by the Capitol Police Board, øbut not to exceed the rate of basic pay payable for level ES–4 of the Senior Executive Service, as established under subchapter VIII of chapter 53

of title 5, United States Code (taking into account any comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00344 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
335

parability payments made under section 5304(h) of such title).¿ but

not to exceed $2,500 less than the lesser of the annual salary for the

Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives or the annual salary for the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate.

* * * * * * *

SECTION 108 OF THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1991

ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

SEC. 108. (a) The Architect of the Capitol may fix the rate of

basic pay for not more than 12 positions at a rate not to exceed the

highest total rate of pay for the Senior Executive Service under

subchapter VIII of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code, for the

locality involved.

(b) Effective beginning with any pay period beginning on or

after the date of enactment of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1992, the rate of basic pay for up to 8 positions under

the jurisdiction of the Architect of the Capitol may be fixed at such

rate as the Architect considers appropriate for each, not to exceed

135 percent of the minimum rate payable for grade GS–15 of the

General Schedule.

(c) The Architect of the Capitol may fix the rate of basic pay for

not more than 4 positions for Executive Project Directors whose salary is payable from project funds, at a rate not to exceed 95 percent

of the highest total rate of pay for the Senior Executive Service

under subchapter VIII of chapter 53 of title 5, United States Code,

for the locality involved.

PUBLIC LAW 107–68

AN ACT Making appropriations for the Legislative Branch for the fiscal year ending

September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.

* * * * * * *

TITLE II—OTHER AGENCIES

* * * * * * *

ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL

CAPITOL VISITOR CENTER

For an additional amount for the øunassigned space in the¿

Capitol Visitor Center project, $70,000,000, to remain available

until expended: Provided, That section 3709 of the Revised Statutes

of the United States (41 U.S.C. 5) shall not apply to the funds

made available under this heading: Provided further, That the Architect of the Capitol may not obligate any of the funds which are

made available for the Capitol Visitor Center under this Act or any

other Act without an obligation plan approved by the chair and

336

ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations of

the House of Representatives øfor House space¿ and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate øfor Senate space¿.

* * * * * * *

TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS

* * * * * * *

SEC. 312. No funds appropriated or otherwise made available

under this Act shall be available to any person or entity that has

been convicted of violating any provision of the Buy American Act

(41 U.S.C. 10a–10c).

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2002.’’.

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section

308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that

the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the

reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal

year from the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation. This information for Division B of the accompanying bill follows:

[In millions of dollars]

302(b) allocation— This bill—

Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays

Discretionary .................................................................................. NA NA 20,001 9,347

Mandatory ...................................................................................... NA NA .................... ....................

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–

344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections

associated with the budget authority provided in Division B of the

accompanying bill:

(Millions)

Budget Authority ................................................................................... 20,001

Outlays:

2002 ................................................................................................. 9,347

2003 ................................................................................................. 5,862

2004 ................................................................................................. 2,506

2005 ................................................................................................. 1,457

2006 and beyond ............................................................................. 829

ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–

344), as amended, the financial assistance to State and local govVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00346 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
337

ernments provided in Division B of the accompanying bill is as follows:

(Millions)

Budget Authority ................................................................................... 5,789

Fiscal Year 2002 outlays resulting therefrom ..................................... 577

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

(347)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF DAVID R. OBEY

In less than 300 years, the United States has grown from a tiny

society in a remote corner of the world to the dominant power in

global affairs. There are many reasons for that ascendancy but it

is in no small measure tied to the fact that we have had two great

oceans to protect us during times of trouble in Europe, Asia and

Africa.

The security that those oceans gave the early settlers permitted

greater degree of social order and the evolution of a society in

which decisions were made by law rather than by force. The security provided a fertile ground for the growth of democratic institutions. It gave the American people the opportunity to pour their energies into generating wealth and building better lives for themselves and their families. It provided investors with a stable environment in which commercial activities would not be disrupted by

foreign armies. The absence of foreign threat created conditions

that allowed the potential for profit or loss to be gauged with greater accuracy and that contributed to the evolution of our complex financial system. The absence of foreign threats allowed us as a society to invest more in education, research and physical infrastructure.

But on September 11, the barriers that the oceans have provided

against foreign troubles seemed to all but disappear. We entered a

new era with not only an enormous loss of life and property but

with a profound loss of the feeling of security that we now realize

was one of our most unique and treasured national possessions.

The good news is that we have the wealth and technology to recover much of that lost security if we use it wisely. The first step

down that road is the investment in enhanced domestic security

made in this bill. Unfortunately, it does not go nearly as far as it

should.

The President’s budget staff has reported that federal agencies

have submitted proposals for responding to the attacks of September 11th that total more than $127 billion. That staff argues

that we should reject more than two thirds of those proposals. In

a great many instances, their recommendation is correct. Some proposals represent little more than an attempt by certain agencies to

use the present situation to repackage spending requests that have

been repeatedly rejected in the past and which have little true relevance to enhancing security. There are other proposals that could

significantly boost security but cannot be initiated in the near term

even if funds are provided. Deferring action on those proposals will

give both branches of government more time to evaluate our security needs and seek the most effective possible solutions. There are

still other proposals that solve particular security problems—but

they are problems that can be dealt with for at least a short period

348

of time in effective but less expensive ways, again providing more

time to evaluate and prioritize needs.

But there are other proposals that the White House budget staff

argues should be rejected where that conclusion seems not only

wrong but also foolish and in some instances even mindless. These

include such things as:

• Steps to insure the continuity of operations at intelligence

and law enforcement agencies in the event of an attack against

those organizations,

• Strengthening the capability of federal, state and local

public health agencies to detect and defend against an attack

using biological weapons.

• Reducing the vulnerability to attack of military installations where nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are

stored,

• Increasing the number of Customs Inspectors on the Canadian border and at ports of entry,

• Providing the FBI with the funds necessary to allow it to

convert to a badly needed new computer system this coming

spring rather than waiting until 2004.

• Helping Russia provide a greater degree of control and security over its nuclear and chemical weapons and its technology to build such weapons,

• Increasing FDA inspections of imported food so that 10%

of such imports are inspected rather than less than 1% as is

currently the case,

• Purchasing equipment that will protect our mail from dangerous biological agents.

I offered an amendment in the full Appropriations committee,

which would have added $6.5 billion to begin to fix these and other

security problems with resources that would be available immediately if the President chose to use them. (See table at end of

these views for details) That amendment posed the question:

‘‘Should we act now on a specific number of time sensitive security

enhancements or should we wait until next spring?’’ It is a question

in which the American people have an enormous stake and should

therefore be a matter of rigorous discussion.

The President’s budget staff and the House Republican Leadership have remained solidly on the side of waiting. Despite the fact

that my amendment was defeated by the committee by a vote of

34 to 31, it was clear, based on the public comments of a number

of members who voted in the negative, that the amendment would

have passed had it not been for instructions issued by House Republican leaders. Now it is up to the Full House to determine

whether this proposal should be debated and voted on by all members of the body.

Unfortunately for the purposes of public discussion, some of the

unmet needs are highly classified. Others while not formally classified could provide our adversaries with more information about our

vulnerabilities than I feel comfortable discussing in print or in public. Nonetheless, the American people deserve to know as much as

possible about how effectively the government is mobilizing available resources to protect them from further attacks and I hope the

349

following discussion is useful in framing some of the problems and

the need for addressing those problems sooner rather than later.

PROTECTING AGAINST BIOTERRORISM

Upgrading State and Local Health Departments and Hospitals

The amendment adds $277 million to the amount in the bill for

assistance to state and local health departments, bringing the total

to $700 million.

These agencies are the first line of defense against bioterrorism.

They have the lead role in detecting suspicious disease outbreaks

that may indicate a bioterrorist attack, in investigating outbreaks

to determine the cause and source, in doing the lab analysis needed

to identify pathogens and chemical poisons and to determine

whether suspicious substances are actually harmful, in organizing

distribution of preventive antibiotics and vaccines, and in communicating with health care providers and the public. Yet, many state

and local health departments report serious gaps in their preparedness and capacity to respond to terrorism and to major naturally

occurring disease outbreaks.

Several leading public health organizations are calling for at

least $835 million in increased federal funding for state and local

public health preparedness. The National Governors Association

says $2 billion is needed for these purposes. The latest annual report from the advisory panel on domestic preparedness for terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction, which is chaired by

Governor Gilmore of Virginia, recommends appropriation of sufficient resources to fully fund the CDC’s Strategic Plan for Preparedness and Response to Biological and Chemical Terrorism.

The Committee’s bill takes a good first step, by adding $358 million to the President’s proposal of just $65 million. But considerably more needs to be done.

Some of the additional funds in the Democratic amendment

would be used to upgrade the capacity of state and local public

health labs. This would include, for example bio-safety upgrades, so

that the labs can more safely handle dangerous pathogens like anthrax; equipment and training to perform rapid molecular analysis

to accurately identify the major potential bioterrorism agents far

more quickly than the 1–3 days often required for older techniques

(well under half the labs in the bioterrorism response network have

any capacity in this area, and many of those need enhancements);

and equipment and training to perform ‘‘rapid toxic screens’’ for

possible chemical terrorism agents in human samples (only five

state health labs have this capacity now).

The funds added by the Democratic amendment would also be

used for a number of other important purposes, including better epidemiological surveillance (so that more areas can undertake active

programs to watch for unusual disease events, rather than just collecting reports from doctors and hospitals after diagnoses have

been made); more capacity to investigate disease outbreaks; and

more training for public health and laboratory personnel.

The amendment also provides $15 million for public health and

laboratory training programs, to help upgrade skills and alleviate

shortages of trained personnel.

350

Expanded CDC Support of State and Local Health Departments

Although CDC is a major producer of ‘‘distance learning’’ and

other training materials for health professionals nationwide and

worldwide, CDC’s production facilities date to the 1950s, much of

its broadcast equipment is outmoded and in need of frequent repair, and studio space is cramped and inflexible. The amendment

therefore provides $85 million to start construction of CDC’s proposed new Scientific Communications Center (no such funds are included in the Committee bill). The new center would greatly improve CDC’s ability to provide distance learning and other public

health training, as well as to communicate with state and local

health departments, health care providers, and the public during

health emergencies. Some of the additional funds could also be

used to accelerate completion of infectious disease and environmental toxicology labs. The amendment also adds $40 million to the $50 million in the

Committee bill for other CDC needs, such as laboratory upgrades

and development and dissemination of new rapid testing methods

to detect biological and chemical terrorism agents.

Accelerating Research on Biohazards, Detection, and Treatment

Currently, no vaccines are available against some of the diseases

thought to pose significant bioterrorism risks (plague and most

viral hemorrhagic fevers, for example), and concerns about side effects limit the usefulness of other vaccines such as those against

smallpox and anthrax. There are also no known drug therapies for

some of the major bioterrorism threats, including smallpox. Clearly, more research is needed in these areas. The Democratic amendment would provide $115 million to NIH

to pursue an accelerated biomedical research agenda related to preventing and treating potential bioterrorism-related diseases. In

contrast, the Committee bill provides just $50 million and the

President proposes no additional funding at all. Research areas

that would be funded by the amendment include new ways of treating adverse reactions to smallpox vaccine, development of the next

generation of smallpox vaccine, development of a new and safer anthrax vaccine as well as improved means of treating anthrax, use

of antiviral drugs to treat diseases like smallpox and Ebola, and

development of vaccines for other diseases of concern, such as

Ebola, plague and Q-fever.

Bio-Safety Laboratories at NIH and Fort Detrick

Work with dangerous disease organisms like smallpox and its

relatives and Ebola fever requires very specialized facilities to protect the health of researchers and prevent organisms from escaping. Currently, there are only three labs in the country with the

highest-level bio-safety features (‘‘Level 4’’) needed to work with the

most dangerous pathogens. Researchers at NIH tell us that this is

an insufficient number, and that long waiting times for lab access

are hampering work needed to help us better understand these diseases and develop better vaccines and drugs to fight them. Therefore, the amendment provides $85 million for constructing and

equipping two new high-biosafety-level labs at NIH, including a

Level 4 lab.

351

Further, the Level 4 lab at the Army medical research institute

at Fort Detrick has been playing a major role in testing specimens

during the recent anthrax incidents, and its capacity has been

greatly strained as a result. Over the last six weeks it has tested

almost ten times the number of samples it usually handles in a

year. If we had another similar incident, the system could fail. The

amendment therefore includes $482 million for a large new Level

4 lab at Fort Detrick.

SECURING THE MAIL

The Postal Service is a critical component of $900 billion mailing

industry that employs nine million people and is responsible for

eight percent of the gross domestic product. It is also a daily presence in the lives of Americans in every community across the Nation. The Postal Service is now on the front lines fighting against

recent bioterrorist attacks. Tragically, this war has resulted in four

deaths, two of them Postal employees. Americans are afraid of the

mail now. Initial estimates of mail volumes for September 5

through October 8 declined by 6.6 percent compared to the same

period a year earlier. First-Class Mail volume declined 2 percent;

Priority Mail declined 15 percent; and Standard Mail fell 11 percent from their levels a year ago.

The Postal Service is working with private contractors and experts from across the Federal government to identify technology to

restore faith in the mail system, protect Postal employees, and ensure the safety of the American people in the aftermath of this unprecedented threat. The Postal Service has already initiated contracts to use electronic beam and x-ray technology to sterilize limited amounts of mail. It is continuing to assess the use of these

technologies, and others, to determine the best type of equipment

for mail sanitation. The initial results are expected in a matter of

weeks. The Postal Service is also exploring the use of detection

technology and improved cleaning and filtration systems to ensure

that the sanitization process works and that the employees and

Postal customers are safe.

This bill does not do anything to protect our mail system. The Obey amendment would have provided $500 million for immediate

Postal equipment needs. We know this will not cover the total

need. The Postal Service has indicated they may need as much as

$3 billion. The Obey amendment would make a down payment on

mail security though, and it would be done in a fiscally responsible

way by requiring a plan before the Postal Service could spend any

of these funds.

AIRPORT AND AIRLINE SAFETY

Since September 11th there have been two main priorities to ensure the security of our nation’s airplanes. One is to detect dangerous substances and people by enhancing the screening of bags

and passengers and increasing law enforcement at airports. The

second is to stop any terrorist who enters a plane by increasing the

number of federal air marshals and by securing cockpit doors. The

Obey amendment includes the additional funding for air marshals

included in the Committee bill and the full funding requested by

the President for cockpit doors. The President’s proposal includes

352

the cockpit door funding, but not the funding for additional air

marshals. The Committee bill includes the air marshal funding,

but only one-sixth of what the President requested for cockpit

doors.

September 11th happened because terrorists were able to enter

the cockpits of three airplanes. The Obey amendment provides an

additional $250 million to prevent this from ever happening again

and would fully fund the President’s request of $300 million.

Today, the airlines have made some improvements so that cockpit

doors cannot be as easily broken into, such as the strengthening of

bolts.

The President proposed $300 million so that modifications can be

made to secure the cockpit door in such a way as to permanently

prevent an intruder from entering the cockpit door. The funding requested by the President and included in the amendment would be

provided to airlines to ensure that all aircraft cockpit doors are

modified as quickly as possible. Shortly after September 11th, the

President said that he intended to provide $500 million in cockpit

door funding.

Since September 11th the Federal Aviation Administration has

imposed additional security requirements on our nation’s airports,

and rightly so. Increased patrols of ticket counters, baggage claim

and make-up areas, and screening checkpoints have been mandated, as has increased inspections of controlled access points and

the areas outside the airport. Airports have also been required to

re-issue all airport identification and verify such identification at

all access gates.

To meet these additional requirements, the airports have incurred additional costs, primarily for additional law enforcement officers and overtime. The American Association of Airport Executives estimates the cost of these additional requirements to be

about $500 million this year. These increased costs come at a time

when airports are losing money due to decreased air travel and

fewer people able to visit airport shops and eateries; the airports

estimate the total revenue decrease to be $2 billion in 2002, or 20%

of estimated revenue. The Obey amendment includes $200 million

to assist airports in meeting the costs of the increased security requirements mandated by the FAA.

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Since September 11, Federal and State law enforcement agents

have been overwhelmed. Most of our agents and officers were

trained to combat traditional threats, such as robbery and drug

trafficking; now they are being asked to address the most complex

and dangerous threat our Nation has faced in recent memory. Our

law enforcement agencies are dedicated to bringing the perpetrators of this attack to justice. However, they are overworked and

armed with outdated tools and equipment. To help address critical

investigative and infrastructure needs, the FBI requested $1.5 billion. The Administration only requested, and this bill only contains,

$539 million. They Obey amendment includes a total of $1.1 billion

for this critical agency to combat this new threat with 21st Century

tools.

353

The FBI has been the lead Federal agency for investigating terrorist activity. All 56 FBI field offices are involved in the investigation. Agents are following up on hundreds of thousands of leads

and tips. They need modern tools to address this staggering workload. Problems with document control and data processing encountered during the McVeigh investigation underscore these needs. According to the FBI, more than 13,000 of their desktop computers

are four to eight years old and unable to run today’s basic software.

Many smaller offices are connected to our internal network at

speeds less than most individual Internet users have at their

homes. Agents are unable to electronically store much investigative

information—such as photographs or graphics—into investigative

databases data.

The Obey amendment includes $409 million, $304 million above

the Administration’s request, to improve the FBI’s computer systems. These funds will provide upgraded desktop equipment for

FBI field offices, enabling the FBI to access to information more

quickly, allowing them to finish this spring instead of in 2004. This

funding will also allow the FBI to begin converting paper files to

electronic so that it can continue operating if paper files in any of

the field offices are destroyed, maintain better control over criminal

records, and perform more efficient investigations. Without these

computer tools, it will be virtually impossible for the FBI to efficiently manage a terrorist investigation of the size and scope that

we are facing now. The Obey amendment also provides additional

funds to hire more high-tech ‘‘cyber cops’’ and hazardous materials

personnel; improve DNA analysis and surveillance programs; and

make infrastructure and personnel improvements.

KEEPING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AWAY FROM TERRORISTS

One of the most fundamental steps in protecting U.S. citizens

from terrorist attacks is keeping dangerous weapons out of the

hands of those who would use them against us. This requires greater efforts for securing of federal, non-federal and even foreign

sources of materials for these weapons than is permitted within the

amounts requested by OMB.

Securing Biological Agents

The bill as reported by the Committee contains $156,700,000 as

requested by the Administration for improved security at the Center for Disease Control, National Institute of Health, Food and

Drug Administration, and the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and

Energy. The Democratic amendment would provide an additional

$1,008,000,000 to meet the needs of these and other agencies that

have been identified after the September 11 terrorist attack on our

nation.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that nuclear proliferation

‘‘is one of the foremost threats of contemporary times.’’ President

George Bush stated ‘‘Our highest priority is to keep terrorists from

acquiring weapons of mass destruction.’’ But the Administration’s

budget request and the bill reported by the Committee contain no

funds for nuclear non-proliferation activities in Russia, which is

354

perhaps the major deficiency of this bill, which provides only

$18,000,000 for non-proliferation technology activities. The Minority amendment instead provides $316,000,000 more to the Department of Energy for non-proliferation and intelligence activities:

• $131,000,000 for protection against the use of spent nuclear

fuel as ‘‘dirty bombs’’ by terrorists, consolidation of nuclear materials and weapons within Russia, accelerated physical security over

Russian Navy nuclear weapons, and increased nuclear monitoring

equipment at the Russian border to detect smuggling.

• $60,000,000 to assist Russia to improve physical security of Soviet-designed nuclear power plants and to assist the United Nations in detecting and inspecting undeclared nuclear activities in

countries that support terrorism.

• $77,000,000 for non-proliferation technology development.

Some of these funds are for global surveillance and monitoring of

illicit movement of nuclear materials overseas by terrorist. The rest

of the funds are to develop tools for law enforcement and military

applications; chemical-agent systems for use in subways and at

sporting or other highly populated events; helicopter-based biological agent detection systems; and an advanced airport baggage inspector for trace quantities of illicit chemicals or explosive residues.

• $30,000,000 for Russian nuclear and biological scientists, who

are susceptible to recruitment by terrorists. These funds are to convert Russian biological weapons facilities to civilian vaccine production, and to provide seed funds to Russian scientists to develop and

market new technologies.

• $18,000,000 for improved intelligence concerning illicit nuclear

materials.

Assured Security of U.S. Nuclear Weapons

The bill as reported by the Committee contains $99,700,000,

which is $18,000,000 less than requested by the Administration, for

the Department of Energy to improve the security of U.S. nuclear

weapons and materials. The Minority amendment provides an additional $503,000,000 to the Department of Energy to provide better protection against terrorist incidents at U.S. federal nuclear facilities:

• $84,000,000 for hardening of U.S. nuclear material and weapons storage to include construction projects, additional force protection, replacement of aging protective systems, and replacement of

alarm, detection, and assessment systems.

• $57,000,000 for increased security at Department of Energy environmental cleanup sites that contain radioactive and other toxic

materials.

• $35,000,000 for secure transportation of nuclear weapons, to

include enhancement of operations centers, transportation infrastructure upgrades, and improvements to special response force vehicles.

• $327,000,000 million for cybersecurity, bioterrorism, and classified activities at Pantex, Texas.

355

Chemicals and Chemical Weapons

The bill as reported by the Committee contains no funds to address security risks associated with chemicals and chemical weapons. The Minority amendment provides an additional $85,000,000:

• $50,000,000 for assessing vulnerability to and reducing risks

associated with the storage of dangerous chemicals within the

United States. Treatment plants store large quantities of chemicals, primarily chlorine, as a disinfectant for wastewater. About 60

percent of wastewater is treated by fewer than 300 facilities—

which, by their nature, are near population centers. This poses a

large risk to those population centers. In addition, there is concern

that the nation’s wastewater infrastructure could serve as a conduit for hazardous substances or other threats. Wastewater collection systems form an extensive network that runs near or beneath

key buildings and roads, and is contiguous to many communication

and transportation networks.

• $350,000,000 for improved security at four Department of Defense sites that store tons of chemical weapons.

Oversight of Labs Handling Dangerous Bacteria and Viruses

Numerous laboratories throughout the country handle and store

dangerous pathogens that are considered major bioterrorism risks.

While there are benefits to research work with these organisms,

they must be handled, stored, transferred and disposed of safely in

order to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands (or being

released accidentally into the environment).

CDC is required by law to regulate labs that transfer or receive

certain dangerous organisms (known as ‘‘select agents’’), to make

sure that proper procedures and safeguards are in place. However,

only 9 staff are currently assigned to this function. Of the roughly

250 labs registered under the program, CDC has been able to inspect only about 60. There is also a backlog in simply processing

applications for registration (which involve detailed documentation

regarding handling and safety procedures).

The Democratic amendment would provide $10,000,000 to CDC

for oversight and regulation of labs handling dangerous organisms.

Neither the President’s proposal nor the Committee bill expressly

provide any additional funds for this purpose.

It also provides $9,000,000 for improved security at Ft. Detrick

MD, which is one of the most important defenses against bioterrorism, and well as home for important classified activities. This

will fund some of the basics for force protection: fencing, gates, barricades and a remote inspection facility.

Other Federal Security Requirements

The bill as reported by the Committee contains $58,000,000 for

a number of federal agencies to secure dangerous materials. The

Minority amendment provides an additional $64,000,000 for improved security at the National Institutes of Health, the Food and

Drug Administration, and the Department of Agriculture.

356

IMMIGRATION AND BORDER SECURITY

Well before September 11, it became clear that we needed to

harden security along the Northern Border. There are 128 Northern Border ports and stations. There are 64 ports and stations

along the Northern Border that historically have not been open 24

hours per day. Some of these locations were secured by placing

traffic cones in the road and using signs to detour travelers to another processing center. The Congress recognized these deficiencies

when it passed the USA PATRIOT Act, which authorized tripling

the number of border personnel at the ports of entry along the

Northern Border. The public needs to understand, however, that

not one additional dime was provided to any federal agency to deal

with the problems with the passage of this act. That legislation

provides lawmakers who wish to do so with the opportunity to tell

their constituents that they voted for the authority to provide such

services without discussing whether or not they voted for the funds

required to implement that authority. That can only be provided in

actual appropriations and this is the only appropriation bill left in

this session that could contain such funding.

Despite the porous security on the Northern Border and the lessons learned from the Millennium bombing conspiracy, the Administration did not request any additional funds to expand the Customs Service Northern Border hiring initiative. This bill cut funds

needed to secure federal buildings and protect federal workers in

order to increase spending for Northern Border Customs agents by

$80 million over the request. That is still not enough. The Obey

amendment would have provided $145 million in line with the

Service’s request, to complete the hiring of 790 additional Customs

agents and the purchase of new inspection technology.

The bill provides a total of $409.6 million for critical personnel,

equipment and technology needs of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Obey amendment would have provided an

additional $128 million above the amount for the most critical construction and facility needs of the INS. While staffing levels for

INS inspectors and Border Patrol agents have increased dramatically over the past six years, including an additional 300 land point

of entry inspectors funded in this supplemental package, facility expansions have not kept pace. For the Border Patrol alone, facility

shortfalls exceed 60 percent of requirements. Use of trailers and

temporary facilities are common, and in many cases agents have no

adequate space in which to detain arrestees. The Obey amendment

addresses the highest priority construction needs for the INS, and

represents a down payment toward meeting INS’s detention and

other facility requirements.

PORT SECURITY

The Obey amendment includes a total of $915 million to improve

security at our nation’s ports. There are 361 public ports in the

United States and they conduct over 95 percent of United States

overseas trade.

The Interagency Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports reported in Fall 2000 that the state of security in U.S. seaports generally ranges from poor to fair and that control of access

357

to the seaport or sensitive areas within the seaports is often lacking. The Commission found that criminal organizations are exploiting weak security in ports to commit a wide range of cargo and

that the volunerability of American ports to potential terrorist attack is high. The Commission recommended minimum security

guidelines for U.S. seaports and the implementation of a five-year

crime and security technology deployment plan. The Obey amendment includes $200 million for grants to U.S.

seaports for security assessment and enhancements. The 14 deepwater seaports in Florida alone estimate that $80 million is needed

to fully implement critical security measures that have been identified. Many ports have not even begun the process of identifying

needed security measures. The funds provided in the amendment

can be used for such assessments and for implementation of such

measures once assessments are performed.

The Customs Service only inspects 2 percent of the 600,000 cargo

containers entering our seaports every day. The Administration requested no new funding for additional Customs agents at the Nation’s seaports. The Committee bill only contains approximately $80 million. The Obey amendment includes $147 million for 841

new Customs inspectors and to continue the purchase of new inspection equipment at our 20 most vulnerable seaports.

The Obey amendment also includes $368 million for the Coast

Guard, $223 million more than the Committee bill. The Coast

Guard has substantially increased operation since September 11th

and devoted the majority of its operations to ensuring that our nation’s ports are secure. Prior to September 11, Coast Guard operations were spread evenly to drug interdiction, search and rescue,

fisheries enforcement, port security and navigation aids. Today, almost 60% of Coast Guard operations are devoted to port security.

The amendment fully funds the President’s request of $203 million

for increased Coast Guard operations for six months of FY 2002.

The Committee bill funds only $145 million of the President’s request. The amendment also includes $165 million for increased

Coast Guard operations for the remainder of FY 2002. While it may

be necessary in the future to provide even additional Coast Guard

port security funding, at a minimum it is necessary to ensure that

Coast Guard active duty personnel do not decrease after March 31,

2001.

TRAIN AND BUS SECURITY

September 11th demonstrated how critical both rail and intercity

buses are to our transportation system. When our nation’s aviation

system was shut down, many people used intercity buses, Amtrak

and other passenger rail systems to reach their destinations.

Since September 11th, all of our transportation systems have reviewed their security posture. Our motor coach and passenger rail

systems have very limited security today. Buses and rail systems

are terrorist targets in other countries and the amendment includes $200 million to fund some limited security improvements.

Amtrak has identified over $500 million of security needs, including fencing, increased guards, and alarm systems. Motor coach

companies have identified some limited steps that they can take to

increase security, by establishing communications systems linked

358

to police, screening passengers and installing cameras and estimate

the costs of such improvements to be about $100 million.

FOOD AND WATER SAFETY

The issue of ensuring the safety of imported food was important

before September 11th, and it is even more important afterwards.

Most Americans would probably be astounded to know that the

FDA is only able to inspect seven-tenths of one percent of the imports under its jurisdiction.

FDA itself told the subcommittee this year, ‘‘FDA wants to assure the safety of the imported food supply, however, our resources

have not kept pace with the increase in trade.’’

The FY 2002 Agriculture Appropriations bill does provide full

funding of this year’s pay raise for FDA personnel, which will help

ease constraints on the agency’s budget.

But the events of September 11th require us to do more.

In its November 5th issue, Newsweek included the following

item:

‘‘Am I satisfied with the inspections we’re doing? No,’’

said [Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy]

Thompson. ‘‘I am more fearful about this than anything

else.’’ [Emphasis added.]

The FDA told the Agriculture Subcommittee this year that get- ting to a level of 10% inspection on imports would cost about $300

million.

This bill (like the Administration’s request) will add $46 million

for import inspection. The amendment offered by Rep. Obey would

have included all the funds in this bill for the FDA, but would have

provided an additional $239 million, for a total of $300 million, to

meet the full cost identified above to reach 10% inspection. In addition, it would have provided $20 million for investigative and emergency operations activities at FDA.

Water supply systems are vulnerable to many kinds of terrorist

attacks: physical attack, chemical and biological attack. Sabotaging

our drinking water system, through biological or chemical terrorism is, for good reason, a large concern to the general public.

Unfortunately, poisoning our drinking water is not difficult feat—

a fire hydrant could be used as the conduit for contaminating our

drinking water. Contaminating water supplies is rooted in history

and while the stories are difficult to document, we know that they

have occurred. There have been a few attempts to position a water

supply in the United States. One occurred in New York City in the

mid-1980s when low levels of plutonium were found in the drinking

water. In another instance, a cult contaminant a city water supply

tank with salmonella in Dalles, Oregon which resulted in more

than 750 cases of salmonellos is in a county that typically has

fewer than five cases a year. Given the lack of security of our water

supply system facilities, contamination of our drinking water supply is highly possible.

The physical security of our water supply system is also of great

concern. Our water systems are highly vulnerable to explosion or

disruptions in the pumping and electrical systems. Often, the water

plants are older facilities with pumps 60–80 years old and many

359

of these pumps have no spare parts meaning that they must be

sent out for repair. Some of the smaller water supply plants have

no one manning the water facility at all.

Finally, community water supplies are generally designed to deliver water through the use of pressure and usually supply most of

the water for fire-fighting purposes. Sabotaging pumps that maintain flow and pressure or disabling electric power sources could

cause long term disruption. Long term loss of the water supply or

water pressure could adversely affect our ability to fight a fire or

cause numerous other problems. This amendment would provide an additional $80 million to secure our drinking water systems—for vulnerability assessments,

remedial work, emergency operating plants and research for 750

large and medium-sized water systems as well as 600 small systems. These funds will help to secure our drinking water supplies

and to protect the American public.

SECURITY OF GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES

There are over 2.7 million U.S. Federal employees around the

world. In the aftermath of the September 11th, there is a renewed

sensitivity to the threat that is posed to Federal employees. To

many around the world, Federal employees are a symbol of America. Unfortunately, not all Federal employees enjoy the protection

that we have here in the Capitol. Federal employees are targets.

We learned that tragic lessons the hard way in Oklahoma. We

were reminded of this lesson on September 11. The President requested $201 million through the General Service Administration

to enhance security at Federal facilities and begin finding replacement space for dislocated Federal employees in New York. This bill

only provides $88 million to address these issues. The Obey amendment would fully fund the President’s request. The amendment offered by the Minority includes $29,300,000 to

design and construct perimeter security and a visitor screening facility to protect the Washington Monument. The Washington

Monument because of its symbolic value and its panoramic view of

the Washington Mall, the Pentagon and the Northern Virginia area

is classified as the number one potential terrorist target by the

U.S. Park Police. It has been the target of three significant attacks

since 1979 including hostage, sniper and truck bomb threats. New

security systems for the Monument were in development prior to

the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and provisions of funding in the Emergency Supplemental will allow construction of these

upgrades to begin immediately, An additional $5,346,000 is proposed by the minority for perimeter security upgrades at the Jefferson Memorial and $7,078,000 for similar upgrades at the Lincoln

Memorial.

The Obey amendment also provides a total of $186,500,000, an

increase of $155,000,000 over the base bill, for the security needs

of the Federal Judiciary. While the President’s request for the supplemental fully funded the security needs of the White House and

the Legislative Branch, only 7 percent of the Judiciary’s identified

immediate security needs were included in the request. The Obey

amendment would only provide only about one-third of the identified need, but would provide for: enhanced security systems and

360

equipment at courthouses nationwide; an emergency communications system to ensure that judges and court administrators can

maintain contact with the Administrative Office of the U.S.Courts;

specific security needs at the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary

Building, which is adjacent to the Capitol Complex; increased security requirements to address the biological/chemical threat posed in

the screening of mail to the Judiciary; and the installation of protective window film at certain court facilities nationwide.

NASA

NASA’s Kennedy Space Center is a symbol of American achievement and international cooperation. This Center and other NASA

facilities are potentially high-profile terrorist targets. In order to

prepare for and ensure a robust capability to mitigate terrorist attacks we must provide the necessary funds. This amendment, similar to the Majority’s proposal, includes additional funds for securing NASA facilities.

National Water Infrastructure

The bill as reported by the Committee contains $139,000,000 for the Army Corps of Engineers and $30,259,000 for the Department

of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation as requested by the Administration to partially meet the security requirements identified by

these agencies after the September 11 terrorist attack on our nation. Together, these agencies operate hydroelectric power facilities,

dams, locks, and commercial waterways in all 50 states. The Committee bill funds only 52 percent of what the Army Corps of Engineers and only 38 percent of that the Bureau of Reclamation identified as their counter-terrorism security requirements in fiscal

year 2002.

The amendment which the Majority offered unsuccessfully in

Committee and hopes to offer in the House would provide an additional $168 million over the Committee bill to fully fund that the

Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation have

identified to provide adequate physical security to their most critical facilities in fiscal year 2002. The additional funds are necessary to minimize the risk of terrorist disruption to shipment of

commercial goods over the nation’s waterways, and to reduce the

risk of a terrorist attack on a federal dam, which could result in

tremendous loss of life, economic disruption, and severe environmental damage.

After the terrorist attacks, the Army Corps of Engineers designated 372 facilities as ‘‘critical’’ that needed immediate increased

surveillance and protection against terrorist attack. These needs

include increased personnel and overtime compensation to maintain additional guards; restricting/controlling vehicular traffic over

dams; deploying barriers, barricades, bollards, and gates; increasing electronic surveillance of locks, dams, and powerhouses; and

conducting detailed vulnerability assessments.

The Bureau of Reclamation operates 362 ‘‘high-hazard’’ and ‘‘significant-hazard’’ dams and hydroelectric facilities in 17 western

states. Hazard ratings are based on the potential for loss of life and

property damage downstream. Three of the Bureau’s dams are listed as National Critical Infrastructure. The Administration’s budget

361

request and this bill provides only 78 percent of the guards, 24 percent of the equipment, and none of the funds for cyber-security that

the Bureau requested from the Office of Management and Budget

for counter-terrorism security.

Security Upgrades for U.S. Military Facilities

The Office of Management and Budget estimates that we have

over $2.4 billion in unmet security needs for our military installations, but none was requested by the Administration for this supplemental. Recognizing that the security of our bases, weapons, as

well as the men and women who serve us, the Committee included

$80,000,000, certainly needed by not even adequate to meet the

highest priority needs.

The Obey amendment included $355,000,000 to address this

problem. In the United States, many of our bases have been open

to the public, or traversed by major highways and other public

roads. In an open society, we want to keep these facilities as open

as possible, but at the same time we must increase their security.

The funds in the amendment are not for glamorous solutions, but

the basics: fencing and perimeter roads to provide a first line of defense, barriers, gates and guardhouses for traffic control, and remote facilities so that trucks and shipments could be inspected

without endangering nearby facilities.

SECURITY FOR SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

The Obey Amendment adds $100,000,000 to the Committee bill

to help schools, colleges and universities across the country to conduct essential emergency preparedness activities and to implement

security improvements. Because academics come first, schools and

institutions of higher education have not had adequate funds to

prepare for unanticipated, crisis events caused by bio-terrorism,

suspicious packages, bomb threats, and school shootings.

Many schools and colleges lack the emergency communications

equipment needed to get real-time information from emergency responders during a crisis. Schools report a need for funds to train

school security personnel, students and staff in evacuation and

emergency procedures. Moreover, they report a need to upgrade security equipment and technology, particularly electronic access control and intrusion detection systems, video surveillance equipment,

and emergency management systems and communications equipment.

For example, a New Jersey school district with over 4,000 students reports:

We have many parents who work in Manhattan. When

a disaster such as the WTC tragedy occurs, when a train

is ‘‘bombed’’ as it was several years ago, or when there is

a weather-related disaster, we improvise our own emergency relief plan with our staff, parents, and local law enforcement officers until parent returns home. This is particularly difficult as two of our eight schools are in ‘‘dead

areas’’ that will not allow for wireless communication.

Funding to improve communications is needed * * *. Our

funds are dedicated to provide as strong as possible eduVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00371 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
362

cational programs focused on each and every child becoming a life-long learner. Therefore, it should be no surprise

to any of our legislators that we’ve not budgeted for new

locks, extra security guards, new doors, state of the art

communications systems, remodeling of office space. All of

our efforts have been spent on instruction and learning.

The Obey Amendment includes the $10,000,000 requested by the

President for emergency assistance to school districts for mental

health and other services that are needed after a traumatic event

occurs.

However, we have an obligation to help safeguard our children,

teachers, faculty and education staff by helping schools, colleges,

and universities to be proactive in assessing their emergency response capabilities and security needs before another tragedy.

OTHER SECURITY

Foreign Language Training

The Obey Amendment adds $20,000,000 to the Committee bill for

a National Security Foreign Language Initiative to increase the

number of international experts, including those entering government service, with in-depth expertise and language proficiency in

the targeted world areas of Central and South Asia, the Middle

East, Russia, and the Independent states of the former Soviet

Union.

Our national security, stability and economic vitality depend, in

part, on American experts who have sophisticated language skills

and cultural knowledge about the various areas of the world. An

urgent need exists, in particular, to enhance the fluency of U.S.

citizens in languages relevant to understanding societies where Islamic and/or Muslim culture, politics, religion, and economy are a

significant factor. There was no better illustration of this critical

need than the FBI Director’s call on September 17th for U.S. citizens who are fluent in Arabic, Persian, or Pashto to enlist as contract linguists to help with the nation’s probe into the September

11th attacks.

The Obey Amendment will help correct our deficit in foreign language and international expertise. No American university, for example, currently offers foreign language training in Pashto, the

main language of the Taliban. Fewer than 1% of American college

students are studying in languages deemed by Department of Defense to be critical to national security. The additional $20 million

will provide financial assistance to colleges and universities to double our current level of effort to train experts in targeted languages, including Arabic, Azeri, Armenian, Dari, Hindi, Kazakh,

Persian, Pashto, Tajik, Turkish, Turkmen, Uzbek, and Urdu. The

funds also would be used to enhance the capacity of U.S. higher

education institutions to sustain these programs over time.

Domestic Preparedness Assistance Program for First Responders

The amendment offered at Full Committee would also have provided an increase of $150,000,000 over the $400,000,000 in the Majority’s package for Department of Justice state and local domestic

preparedness assistance for first responders, in accordance with

363

plans for this program developed by each State and approved by

the Department of Justice, rather than a duplicative program

under the Federal Emergency Management Agency as proposed by

the Administration. Funds provided would have been available for

additional domestic preparedness equipment grants, training exercises, technical assistance, and related research and development.

Grants for Firefighters

This amendment provides an additional $150 million for grants

to firefighters. Often, firefighters are our first responders to an

emergency and they certainly played a large role in the response

to the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on September 11.

The Urban and Search and Rescue teams that are used in terrorist

incidents such as this are primarily made up of firefighters and in

fact, eight tasks forces were deployed to New York City to support

the New York Fire Department at Ground Zero. Additional monies

for these grants could be used to train firefighter personnel, purchase vehicles and equipment, and protective equipment—all items

needed to support our firefighters.

CONCLUSION

This proposal was put together in a condensed time frame and

by a staff with limited resources to explore the needs and responsibilities of all of the agencies and activities of the federal government. Informed and thoughtful people may well differ with specific

recommendations contained in this package. In doing so they may

well improve its content. Such is the normal nature of the legislative process. What is not normal and should not be acceptable, particularly under the current circumstances, is to push such proposals aside without proper debate and based only on the argument

that nothing more can be done to protect the American people until

next spring because they do not fit within an arbitrary spending

ceiling that was neither debated nor agreed to by the Congress.

We have already suffered a remarkable level of damage at the

hands of terrorists. Few would have predicted that a single act by

a single terrorist organization could have resulted in a loss of life

or loss of property and loss of economic growth of the magnitude

that we have experienced. Every day that our ports and borders

are inadequately guarded is another day of opportunity for those

who wish us ill. Every day that nuclear and chemical stockpiles in

the former Soviet Union are kept in facilities without adequate security is also an opportunity for such individuals. Once they have

achieved control over these materials or succeeded in slipping them

across U.S. borders our only hope will be a larger and more effective law enforcement effort. Every day we delay in providing that

effort is another day that they have a better chance in making another successful attack.

If the House of Representatives is to decide that we should not

spend the amounts needed to further tighten domestic security, it

should not be on the basis of a vote in a single committee in which

a majority of those present and voting would have reversed the outcome, given the dictates of their own conscience and judgments.

364

MINORITY PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE COMMITTEE BILL FOR DOMESTIC SECURITY 1

[In millions of dollars]

Committee

Bill

Minority

Proposal

Minority

vs.

Committee

Protecting Against Bioterrorism:

Upgrading State & Local Health Departments & Hospitals ................................................. 593 915 +322

Expanding CDC Support of State and Local Health Departments ....................................... 50 175 +125

Accelerating Research on Biohazards, Detection and Treatment ......................................... 100 165 +65

Bio Safety Laboratories at NIH and Fort Detrick, MD ........................................................... 0 567 +567

Vaccine and Drug stockpiles ................................................................................................. 1103 1153 +50

Other Bioterrorism Requirements .......................................................................................... 110 110 +0

Total .............................................................................................................................. 1956 3085 +1129

Securing the Mail:

Procurement of Sanitation Equipment for Postal Service ..................................................... 0 500 +500

Airport and Airline Safety:

Federal Assistance for Mandated Security Upgrades at Airports ......................................... 0 200 +200

Increased Sky Marshals and Sky Marshal Training .............................................................. 288 288 +0

Cockpit Door Security & Explosive Detection Equipment ...................................................... 159 409 +250

Innovations in Airport Security .............................................................................................. 90 90 +0

Total .............................................................................................................................. 537 987 +450

Law Enforcement:

FBI Case Management Computer System (Trilogy) ............................................................... 105 212 +107

FBI Data Backup and Warehousing ...................................................................................... 0 197 +197

FBI Cybersecurity, Transportation and Other ........................................................................ 434 798 +364

Other Justice Department Law Enforcement ......................................................................... 106 112 +6

Law Enforcement Assistance (Olympics) ............................................................................... 17 17 +0

Law Enforcement Assistance (National Capital Area) .......................................................... 25 244 +219

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center ............................................................................ 14 32 +18

Secret Service, IRS ect. ......................................................................................................... 236 236 +0

Total .............................................................................................................................. 937 1848 +911

Keeping Weapons of Mass Destruction Away from Terrorists:

Improved Security at 4 DoD Sites Storing Tons of Chemical Weapons ............................... 35 35 +0

Improved Security for Nuclear Weapons Activities ................................................................ 88 534 +446

Nuclear Non Proliferation Assistance for Russia .................................................................. 0 191 +191

Security of Russian Nuclear and Biological Scientists ......................................................... 0 30 +30

Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Detection ......................................................................... 18 95 +77

Improved Security at Nuclear Cleanup Sites ........................................................................ 8 65 +57

Energy Intelligence ................................................................................................................. 4 22 +18

CDC Oversight and Training for Labs Handling Dangerous Pathogens ............................... 0 10 +10

Increased Security of Dangerous Chemical Storage Sites .................................................... 0 50 +50

Improved Security at Fort Detrick, MD .................................................................................. 9 9 +0

Improved Security at CDC, NIH, FDA and USDA Research Facilities ................................... 58 122 +64

Total .............................................................................................................................. 220 1163 +943

Immigration and Border Security:

790 Additional Customs Agents for Canadian Border .......................................................... 80 145 +65

Machine Readable Visa Machines at All U.S. Consulates .................................................... 0 30 +30

Immigration Inspectors, Border Patrol & Related Equipment .............................................. 410 410 +0

Adequate INS Detention & Admin. Facilities at U.S. Border Crossings ............................... 0 128 +128

Total .............................................................................................................................. 490 713 +223

Port Security:

Full Annual Cost of Expanding Coast Guard by 640 positions ............................................ 145 369 +224

Federal Grants for Port Security Assessments and Enhancements ..................................... 0 200 +200

800 Additional Customs Service Agents for Cargo Inspection ............................................. 80 147 +67

365

MINORITY PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE COMMITTEE BILL FOR DOMESTIC SECURITY 1—Continued

[In millions of dollars]

Committee

Bill

Minority

Proposal

Minority

vs.

Committee

Total .............................................................................................................................. 225 716 +491

Train and Bus Security:

Federal Grants for Enhancing Security of Rail and Bus Travel ........................................... 0 200 +200

Food and Water Safety:

Expand FDA Inspections to Cover 10% of All Food Imports ................................................ 61 300 +239

Increase in FDA Emergency Operations and Investigations Staff ........................................ 0 20 +20

Assessment and Enhancement of Security for Drinking Water ............................................ 115 195 +80

Total .............................................................................................................................. 176 515 +339

Security of Government Buildings and Facilities:

Security Upgrades for Supreme Court and Other Federal Courthouses ............................... 32 187 +155

Security Upgrades for Federal Buildings ............................................................................... 182 374 +192

Increased Security for Federal Museums, Parks and Monuments ........................................ 81 113 +32

Security Upgrades for National Water Infrastructure ............................................................ 169 337 +168

Security Measures for White House and Congress ............................................................... 306 306 +0

Security for U.S. Overseas Facilities ..................................................................................... 0 158 +158

Security Upgrades for U.S. Military Facilities ....................................................................... 80 355 +275

Total .............................................................................................................................. 850 1830 +980

Security for Schools and Colleges:

Grants for Assessment and Emergency Response Planning ................................................ 0 100 +100

Other Security:

Counterterrorism Assistance for State and Local First Responders ..................................... 400 550 +150

Grants for Firefighters ........................................................................................................... 0 150 +150

Foreign Language Training in Arabic, Farsi, Pashto, etc. .................................................... 0 20 +20

Miscellaneous Security Items ................................................................................................ 10 40 +30

Total .............................................................................................................................. 10 210 +200

Total Package ...................................................................................................... 5401 11867 +6466

1 On October 17th, the president requested $20 billion in discretionary appropriations in conformance with PL 107–38. Based on the analysis of the Minority Staff of the Appropriations Committee, $4.7 billion of that $20 billion request related to items involving ‘‘domestic security.’’ The remainder of the items involved oversees defense operations and recovery from the attack of September 11th in New York, Virginia

and Pennsylvania. The package being proposed by the Minority involves only the items dealing with ‘‘domestic security.’’

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. JAMES T. WALSH, HON. NITA

LOWEY, HON. MAURICE D. HINCHEY, AND HON. JOSE ́ E.

SERRANO

The bipartisan New York Congressional Appropriations delegation strongly opposes the Committee’s failure to include additional

contingent emergency spending for the critical recovery efforts in

New York City. The Committee’s actions directly contradict the

language of the 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act

for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United

States (P.L. 107–38). P.L. 107–38 explicitly states:

That not less than one-half of the $40,000,000,000 shall

be for disaster recovery activities and assistance related to

the terrorist acts in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania

on September 11, 2001

366

We expect that the Congress and the Bush Administration will

keep its commitment to provide $20 billion for these activities out

of the funding available in P.L. 107–38. We understand the pressing needs for national security and homeland defense created by

the September 11 attacks, which is why we drafted our amendment

as a contingent emergency to give the President money in the bank

to spend when needed. We believe this is the best way to deal with

the extraordinary expenses—detailed below—arising from the attack on New York. We appreciate the President’s willingness to ask

for more funding when he believes it is necessary. With Congress

heading into a long recess, we believe it would be better to have

this authority in hand immediately.

Nearly 5,000 people are dead or still missing as a result of the

terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. New York City, New

York State, and the entire metropolitan region have lost billions in

property and economic damages. In the days following September

11, Governor George Pataki and Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, with

input from business, industry, and labor, developed a comprehensive list of the most immediate needs and highest priorities for the

promised $20 billion in relief. This list was developed in full consultation with all interested parties and was endorsed by the entire

31-member New York Congressional delegation.

In the first days following the attack, 25,000 New York residents

were displaced from their homes; today, more than two months

after the attack, 5,000 people are still unable to go home. The attack completely destroyed more than 16 million square feet of hotel

and office space, while doing damage to millions more, resulting in

the dislocation of 838 major companies. In addition, 15,000 small

businesses were destroyed, disabled, or significantly disrupted. As

a direct result of the attacks, New York lost more than 108,500

jobs. This figure does not include the thousands more than have

been lost in the City, State, and metropolitan region during the

last two months as the effects of the attacks rippled through the

economy. The New York City Partnership and Chamber of Commerce estimate that New York will lose $83 billion in economic activity this year.

The City and State both sustained huge losses, not only through

the destruction of critical infrastructure, but also through the estimated loss of $12 billion in revenue over the next 18 months. In

addition, the City lost $1.4 billion in destroyed or damaged police,

fire, and sanitation equipment. The World Trade Center sat on top

of a major transit hub, and subway and commuter rail stations

were destroyed when the towers collapsed. As a result, the subway

system in lower Manhattan has lost 42 percent of its capacity. It

will cost at least $3 billion to remediate and repair these facilities.

The West Side Highway and other roads surrounding the World

Trade Center were severely damaged, and the estimated cost of repairs is at least $250 million.

The Borough of Manhattan Community College, part of the City

University of New York, sustained nearly $300 million in damages

to buildings and equipment at its campus when Seven World Trade

Center collapsed. New York City public school students lost thousands of hours of classroom time that will need to be made up beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:20 Nov 26, 2001 Jkt 010199 PO 00000 Frm 00376 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\TEMP\HR298.107 pfrm03 PsN: HR298
367

fore the end of the year, costing the Board of Education at least

$100 million.

Public utilities in and around Ground Zero also suffered major

losses. Electrical power to lower Manhattan was disrupted by the

complete destruction of two electricity substations located in the

World Trade Center complex. In addition, five transmission feeders

and associated equipment supplying the substations were severely

damaged. The 24-inch steam distribution main (approximately

1,500 feet of steam piping) that ran beneath the WTC complex and

approximately 500 feet of steam main adjacent to the WTC is presumed destroyed pending access and excavation of the site. Finally,

11,000 feet of natural gas distribution lines in and around the WTC

complex were damaged or destroyed.

Telecommunications systems were also severely damaged when

numerous switches that route telephone calls were damaged or destroyed. Several hundred cables transporting telephone service

from those switches to customers in the surrounding neighborhoods

were crushed and/or water damaged. Two million circuits were severely damaged at the New York Stock Exchange. By working 24

hours a day for almost a week, Verizon reconstructed the telephone

lines in order to get the New York Stock Exchange up and running

by September 17.

The most popular public radio station in New York, WNYC–FM,

and the nation’s largest public television station, Thirteen/WNET– TV, sustained at least $15 million in damages. WNYC’s FM transmitter and antenna, as well as its backup FM transmitter were destroyed in the collapse of the North Tower. Thirteen/WNET–TV

was knocked off the air for five days and lost an engineer, who was

working at the transmitters site atop Tower One. With the collapse

of the World Trade Center buildings, Thirteen lost both its analog

transmitters, a new digital transmitter, switching equipment and

other hardware.

New York metropolitan area hospitals responded generously to

the attacks, sending medicine, supplies, equipment, and staff down

to the site. Some of this equipment was lost when the Towers collapsed. Combined with tremendous overtime costs, the hospitals

sustained at least $140 million in direct operating losses.

These losses are real, and only scratch the surface of what is

likely to be needed in the coming months and years. We appreciate

the funding provided in division B of the bill, but strongly disagree

with the Committee’s reasons for voting down our amendment for

an additional $9.7 billion to support the recovery efforts in New

York.

JAMES T. WALSH.

MAURICE D. HINCHEY.

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO.

NITA LOWEY.

(368)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. CHET EDWARDS

While I voted for the Committee’s mark of the FY02 Department

of Defense Appropriations Act, I was very disappointed that the

Committee did not include an increase in funding for nonproliferation programs within the $20 billion supplemental appropriation

that was attached.

I find it irresponsible and dangerous that even in light of the

September 11th terrorist attacks, this House has said, in effect by

our votes, that it is less important to fund programs that protect

Americans from the threat of nuclear terrorists than it was a year

ago. Earlier this year, the Department of Energy Appropriations

bill included a smaller budget than last year’s for nuclear nonproliferation programs with Russia. These programs provide for increases in security for loosely guarded Russian nuclear materials

that could fall into the wrong hands. At the time, I was assured

that the supplemental appropriations bill would be the appropriate

place to increase this budget, as it would include programs funded

to respond to the attacks of September 11th. Unfortunately, this

bill did not include those funds, and the only amendment offered

during Committee consideration of the bill that would have increased our efforts in this area was struck down 34–31.

The President has made it clear that he believes this is a threat.

On November 13, he stated: ‘‘Our highest priority is to keep terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction * * * We agreed

that it is urgent that we improve the physical protection and accounting of nuclear materials and prevent illicit nuclear trafficking.’’ Earlier this year, a review led by former Senator Howard

Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler declared:

‘‘The national security benefits to U.S. citizens from securing and/

or neutralizing * * * nuclear weapons and potential nuclear weapons could constitute the highest return on investment in any current U.S. national security and defense program.’’ Let me review five facts that are not in dispute:

1. If the September 11th terrorists had used a nuclear bomb,

with a soda can sized lump of plutonium, and placed it in lower

Manhattan, millions of people would have died.

2. There are over 600 metric tons, enough for 41,000 nuclear devices, of weapons-usable material in Russia today that is in urgent

need of additional security improvements, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

3. We know of 14 separate seizures of highly enriched uranium

that had been stolen from Russian nuclear sites since 1992. In

eight of those cases, the uranium was seized outside of Russia, in

Germany, the Czech Republic, and Bulgaria.

4. We know that since 1993 Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda organization has made attempts to obtain nuclear material from Russia.

In fact, when Northern Alliance forces drove Taliban forces out of

369

Kabul, they found schematics and other background materials describing how to build a crude nuclear bomb.

5. Because of an agreement signed in September between the

United States and Russia, we have a window of opportunity to put

in place anti-terrorist safeguards at numerous Russian nuclear

sites. No one knows when that window of opportunity will close.

Based on those known facts and the devastating potential of nuclear terrorist attacks, Congress should act immediately to work

with Russia in providing adequate safeguards at their numerous

nuclear sites.

I know that every Member of this House would do almost anything to prevent a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States.

Sadly, though, our spending decisions are not consistent with that

commitment.

I will vote for this bill because of the good that it does, and because I know that the Chairman will continue to look for an opportunity to fund these critical programs. I believe we have a moral

obligation to the American people to do everything possible to prevent terrorists from using nuclear weapons against American families.

CHET EDWARDS.

Æ